U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

54–212 cc WASHINGTON : 2000

S. HRG. 106–381

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2605/S. 1186

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of the Interior

Nondepartmental witnesses

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0–16–060265–3
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

SLADE GORTON, Washington

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

JON KYL, Arizona

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES H. ENGLISH, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

SLADE GORTON, Washington

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)

HARRY REID, Nevada

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota

Professional Staff

ALEX W. FLINT

W. DAVID GWALTNEY

GREG DAINES (Minority)

Administrative Support

LASHAWNDA LEFTWICH
(III)

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1999

Page

Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation ............................................. 1

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

Civil ....................................................................................................................... 63

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999

Department of Energy: Atomic Energy Defense and Nonproliferation Programs ..................................................................................................................... 193

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999

Department of Energy: Environmental Management and Civilian Waste Management Program ................................................................................................. 269

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1999

Department of Energy:

Office of Science ................................................................................................ 383

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology ........................................ 383

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ....................................... 383

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

California water resource development projects ................................................... 525

Nationwide water resource organization ............................................................... 599

New York and New Jersey water resource projects ............................................. 612

Southeastern U.S. water resource development projects ..................................... 620

Ohio River Valley inland navigation projects ........................................................ 651

Mississippi and Louisiana water resource projects .............................................. 656

Midwest U.S. water resource development projects ............................................. 699

Upper Midwest water projects ................................................................................ 729

Southwest U.S. water resource development projects .......................................... 748

Pacific Northwest water resource projects ............................................................. 770

Department of Energy programs and activities .................................................... 790

California navigation and related projects ............................................................ 850
(1)

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1999

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen

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

Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Gorton, Bennett, Burns,

Craig, Stevens, Reid, Kohl, and Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

STATEMENTS OF:

PATRICIA BENEKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,

WATER AND SCIENCE

ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

OPENING STATEMENT

Senator DOMENICI. The committee will please come to order.

Patty, it’s good to see you again.

Today, we begin our hearings on the fiscal year 2000 budget for

agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the Energy and

Water Development Subcommittee. This morning we have representatives from the Department of the Interior to review the

funding requests of the Bureau of Reclamation. Following their testimony, we will hear from the Corps of Engineers. This continues

our tradition of alternating the order of the Corps’ and the Bureau’s testimony each year in an effort to be fair to agencies and

members who may be interested in one over the other.

First, it is a pleasure to welcome Patty Beneke, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science; and Eluid Martinez,

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and a resident of the

State of New Mexico. Eluid, it is nice to have you here.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Both of our witnesses appeared last year before the committee and are well known to both the staff and the

committee members.
2

BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $856,600,000, compared to the appropriation of $780.5

million, an increase of $76 million over the current year. This includes an increase of $30 million over the 1999 water and related

resources; a $20 million increase for the CALFED restoration program, which totals $95 million for the year 2000; and a $14 million

increase in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund in California, for a total of $47.3 million; and some smaller increases in

other programs and activities.

Our initial review indicates that there are no major changes or

proposals put forth in the budget request of the administration for

the Bureau of Reclamation for the year 2000.

Now, having said that, since we have much to do this morning,

I will say nothing further and yield to Senator Reid, our ranking

member, for any comments that he may have.

So, again, I welcome both of you. I welcome those in the audience, and clearly the Corps of Engineers will follow these witnesses.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your involvement, of course, as chair. I will follow your example and ask

unanimous consent that my full statement be made part of the

record.

I would just comment that I am also a member of the authorizing

committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we

are this morning having a hearing on something that we will have

to fund at a later time. We are having the Corps of Engineers on

the Water Resources Development Act. So, I am going to have to

be excused at a later time to whip over there and make an appearance.

The Bureau of Reclamation has had a significant history in the

State of Nevada. The first ever Bureau of Reclamation project in

the country was in Nevada, the Newlands Project, which for 70

years was fairly noncontroversial, but the last 20 years has been

very controversial. But the Bureau has always had a prominent

place in that project.

Also, of course, with the construction of Boulder, later to become

the Hoover Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation was and has been

heavily involved in that little city in the southern part of the State.

Flood control projects which are becoming so important in the

two metropolitan areas of Reno and Las Vegas, the Corps of Engineers is vitally involved. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being

spent in those two areas to stop the loss of life and property.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, I look forward to this hearing and to working with these two

agencies during the coming year.

[The information follows:]
3

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and

the Bureau of Reclamation. Both the Corps and Bureau have played a vital role in

the development of American water management infrastructure that is all too often

overlooked. And unfortunately, given the numbers that I see in the Budget Request,

the future role of the Bureau and Corps are now minimized in the perception of

some in the administration.

The need for water projects is not diminishing, indeed some may argue that the

need is increasing, and yet some at Office of Management and Budget and elsewhere would like to dictate the course of the program by tightening the budget for

surveys, studies and new construction. I think it is a perilous path to trod when

we underestimate the economic, societal, and hydrological impacts of these water

programs. This is why the communities at home so distinctly recognize these

projects. And while it is derisively called a congressional pork program, we need not

make any apologies for that because of the many benefits of these projects as water

is managed throughout the nation.

The Army Corps of Engineers has a history that dates back to the origins of the

nation and I appreciate the vast function that the Corps has in the management

of the nation’s navigational waters. For example, this last week, I learned that half

of New Orleans lives under sea level and without the maintenance of its levees and

canals that city, indeed, most of the state of Louisiana would be under water.

Around the nation, there are communities that rely on these flood control projects,

from Reno to Las Cruces, New Mexico.

There’s no doubt that the work on the harbors and ports of the nation is essential

to our trade and commerce. For instance, the ports of the nation move over 13.5

million tons of breakbulk cargo annually; which is an estimated $600 billion in

international cargo generating over $150 billion in tax revenue. There are critical

issues that we need to pursue further, and about which I will have specific questions, including the administration’s continuing concern about the endless need of

beach or shoreline erosion. Since Nevada is not on the shoreline, I do not have a

parochial interest but a concern that commitment made to these states and communities cannot be washed away, pun intended.

Additionally, the cooperative agreements that are being negotiated with non-federal sponsors are creating a mechanism that could create a very precarious financial

condition for the Corps. The Chairman and I are working through that issue. I have

discussed that issue with both the Assistant Secretary and General Fuhrman and

I appreciate your perspectives.

There are a number of projects that are now rectifying the mistakes of management of water resources and engineering approaches in such places as the Kissimmee River that feeds into the Florida Everglades and the Truckee River in Nevada. I think we need to assess the future commitment that rectifying these mistakes will require of us.

The Bureau of Reclamation has recently celebrated its 150th anniversary. I congratulate the Bureau on its many achievements and stellar record. Many of the

communities throughout the western United States were developed as a consequence of the Bureau of Reclamation’s water management.

As you are aware, there is some criticism that the bureau has been expanding

its mission and activities. I am interested in your vision, Assistant Secretary and

Commissioner, of the future of the Bureau and not just this fiscal year. I note that the Budget Request has $95 million for California Bay Delta Restoration which is bringing that request into line with the appropriations level, generally.

That still is a significant amount of money that could be funding many multiple

projects. I hope you will discuss the progress and measurable benchmarks of

CALFED effort.

Additionally, I would appreciate a discussion of the environmental restoration

mission and its relationship to the reclamation management of water.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA BENEKE

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Bennett, would you like to comment?

Senator BENNETT. No.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you for coming to the hearing this

morning.

Patty, you are first. Patty Beneke.

Ms. BENEKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of

the subcommittee. I am pleased to discuss the President’s fiscal
4

year 2000 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation. Eluid

Martinez, the Commissioner of the Bureau, is here today as well,

and he will provide further detail with respect to the budget.

I am going to be very brief this morning and summarize my testimony.

As you stated, Mr. Chairman, the request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $856.6 million. Of this amount, over $278 million

is requested for facility operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation. This is an increase of over $15 million from last fiscal year

and reflects the fact that the Commissioner and I place a high priority on these projects.

I also note that the budget request for the Department reflects

the Administration’s continued commitment to address natural resource issues by working in geographically based partnerships.

These partnerships cross not only jurisdictional boundaries within

the Federal Government, but also involve the States, tribes, local

communities, and affected stakeholders. An example of one such

partnership is the California Bay-Delta Program, and I would like

to take just a few minutes to talk a little bit about that very important program.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

This is a tremendously important effort under which CALFED,

comprised of 10 Federal agencies and 4 State agencies, is working

with all interested stakeholders to develop a long-term solution to

the many water resource issues presented in the San Francisco

Bay-Delta region in California. This solution will address water

supply reliability issues, levy stabilization which is key to flood protection, water quality, and restoring the health of the Bay-Delta region. The Bay-Delta itself provides drinking water to over twothirds of the State of California and irrigation water to three-quarters of the Nation’s fruit and vegetable crop. It is also a national

resource in that it is the largest wetland estuary in the West.

From our perspective at Interior, a key goal of the program is to

provide greater certainty and reliability of supply to our many Central Valley Project contractors, as well as to resolve issues relating

to the ecological health of the Bay-Delta region.

The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation requests $95 million for Federal cost sharing for the program. Of this amount, $75 million would be used pursuant to the

California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act passed by

Congress a couple of years ago. These funds would build upon the

restoration begun in fiscal year 1998 and continued in 1999 by

monitoring prior projects and initiating and implementing new

projects approved by CALFED and the Secretary. The remaining

$20 million is requested for non-ecosystem restoration activities,

such as groundwater storage, water use efficiency, water quality,

and watershed management.

This request signals that the Administration has a commitment

to funding all elements of the California Bay-Delta Program. We

believe it is important to get this work underway.
5

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

Finally, this morning I would like to note that responsibility for

overseeing the implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion Act rests with my office, and I would be pleased to answer any

questions you might have on this topic, as well as any others.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. It is an honor

and privilege to be here. With your permission, I would like to pass

the baton on to Commissioner of Reclamation, Eluid Martinez, who

will provide further details on the budget request.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA J. BENEKE

I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee again as Assistant Secretary for

Water & Science to testify in support of the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget for

the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project.

Eluid Martinez, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation is also appearing

today. His testimony will address details of the fiscal year 2000 budget request for

the Bureau of Reclamation. This morning I would like to highlight only one or two

key elements in Reclamation’s budget and also discuss the request for the Central

Utah Project, for which my office is responsible. Ron Johnston, Program Director for

the Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion Act Office is also with me today.

Reclamation’s fiscal year 2000 request will allow the timely and effective delivery

of project benefits; ensure the reliability and operational readiness of Reclamation’s

dams, reservoirs, power plants, and distribution systems; and identify, plan, and implement dam safety corrective actions and site security improvements. Providing

adequate funding for the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of its facilities

continues to be one of Reclamation’s highest priorities, and its staff works closely

with water users and other stakeholders to ensure that available funds are used effectively.

The budget request for the Department of the Interior reflects the Department’s

and the Administration’s continued commitment to address natural resource issues

by working in geographically-based partnerships that cross not only the jurisdictional boundaries within the Federal government but also involve the States, Tribes,

local communities and affected stakeholders. Solving natural resource problems is

vital to the successful operation of Reclamation Projects.

This approach is reflected in several initiatives in the Department’s fiscal year

2000 budget. In South Florida, several Federal agencies are working closely with

the State, Tribes, local communities and affected stakeholders to restore the Everglades. Because funding for another such vital effort, the multi-agency Bay-Delta

Restoration Program, is included in the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget request, I

will discuss it in more detail this morning.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes funding of $75 million for ecosystem restoration efforts that will build on the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 programs

by monitoring prior projects and initiating and implementing new projects approved

by CALFED and the Secretary. In addition, $20 million is requested for non-ecosystem restoration activities authorized under various current authorities, such as

water use efficiency, water quality, groundwater storage, levees, conveyance, and

watershed management that would be common to any version of the overall BayDelta Long-term Plan that is ultimately selected.

Ecosystem Restoration funds are requested in an account within the Bureau of

Reclamation and provided to participating agencies based upon the program recommended by CALFED and approved by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with participating agencies. Participating agencies will work directly with and

administer contracts with non-Federal entities. Federal funds would be available in

a manner consistent with the terms of the existing cost-sharing agreement and environmental review requirements. Also, CALFED is developing a comprehensive

framework to provide a more reliable water supply for all uses, stabilize levees, and
6

improve water quality. Restoring the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem is central

to meeting these objectives.

Fiscal year 1998 was the first year that Federal agencies had funds for the BayDelta Program. During the year, Federal agencies made considerable progress in developing a project selection/approval process to assure that funds are being used for

the highest priority ecosystem restoration projects and that all proposed and selected projects comply with Federal contract provisions. The process assures extensive public participation. By the end of the year, CALFED had recommended and

the Secretary of the Interior had approved programs and projects to use all of the

$85 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998. Reclamation had contracts or agreements with other agencies obligating $73 million.

CALFED is using the fiscal year 1999 funds expeditiously and on high priority

activities. The Secretary has approved ecosystem restoration projects that would use

$65 million of the $75 million appropriated in fiscal year 1999. CALFED currently

has a request for proposals out to the public to solicit other ecosystem restoration

projects that will be funded in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.

The Administration is submitting authorization language that would extend current spending authorization through 2003 to enable the ecosystem restoration program to be fully funded at the $430 million authorized by the California Bay-Delta

Environmental Enhancement Act.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Aside from the request for the Bay-Delta Restoration initiative, the budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $761.6 million, an increase of $30.2 million from the fiscal year 1999 level. The request includes adequate funding for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation, which continues to be a high priority for

both the Commissioner and me. The request includes $71 million for the dam safety

program, $27 million for the Central Arizona Project; $28.7 million for the Colorado

River Basin Salinity Control Program; $27 million for the Garrison Diversion Unit;

$31.5 million for Water Reclamation/Reuse projects; $125 million for the Central

Valley Project; $47.3 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund; $13

million for Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery and $15 million for Endangered

Species Recovery in other river basins.

Reclamation’s water management mission places a greater emphasis on water

conservation, recycling and reuse; developing partnerships with its customers,

States and Tribes; finding ways to bring various interests together to address their

water needs; good stewardship of Reclamation’s facilities; and transferring title and

operation of some facilities to local beneficiaries. All these changes have one goal—

to meet the increasing water demands of the West while protecting the environment

and the public’s investment.

The Reclamation budget request also includes the Annual Performance Plan required under the Government Performance and Results Act. This plan identifies the

annual goals for fiscal year 2000 that support Reclamation’s Strategic Plan.

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT

The Central Utah Project Completion Act provides for completion of the Central

Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also

authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Rights

Settlement.

The Secretary is prohibited from delegating his responsibilities under the Act to

the Bureau of Reclamation. As a result, responsibility for overseeing implementation

of the Act rests with the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. The Department has established a program coordination office in Provo, Utah, with a Program

Director to provide oversight, review, and liaison with the District, the Commission,

and the Ute Indian Tribe, and to assist in administering the responsibilities of the

Secretary under the Act.

The fiscal year 2000 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account provides $39.4 million for use by the District, the Commission, and the Department to

implement Titles II–IV of the Act, a decrease of $3.1 million from the fiscal year

1999 enacted level. The request includes $18.6 million for the District to initiate

construction on the remaining segments of the Diamond Fork System; to complete

construction of the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project; to implement approved water conservation and water management improvement projects; to implement the groundwater recharge and conjunctive use program; to initiate construction of the Duchesne/Strawberry diversion structures; and to continue development
7

of planning and NEPA documents on facilities to deliver water in the Utah Lake

drainage basin. No new funds are requested for the Uinta Basin facilities.

The request also provides $12.0 million for use by the Commission for mitigation

and conservation projects authorized in Title III of the Act, including fish hatchery

improvements, construction of the Daniels Creek Pipeline, and for acquisition of

habitat, access, and water rights along the Provo River and other key watersheds;

and for completing other mitigation measures identified in Reclamation planning

documents under Title II of the Act.

Finally, the request includes funds for the Federal contribution to the principal

of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account ($5.0 million); for

mitigation and conservation projects outside the State of Utah ($0.4 million); for

modifications to Syar Tunnel that are necessary to meet the minimum instream

flow requirements ($2.0 million); and for program administration ($1.3 million).

In addition to the request described above, the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ budget

includes $27.5 million for the Ute Indian Rights Settlement; and $5.0 million is included in the request for the Western Area Power Administration for its contribution to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account.

This completes my statement today. Again, thank you for providing me the opportunity to discuss with this subcommittee our fiscal year 2000 requests. The Commissioner and I will be pleased to respond to your questions.

STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ

Senator DOMENICI. Commissioner, we are glad to have you.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget with the subcommittee.

I am sure all of you are aware of the history of the Bureau of

Reclamation, and my written statement goes into that. I will summarize my statement and get to the issues as I view them.

Our budget request is for $856.6 million, of which approximately

$762 million is for ongoing Reclamation programs. Also included is

$95 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration account: $75

million for ecosystem restoration, and $20 million for our other activities.

The $652.8 million requested in the Water and Related Resources account basically deals with our water resource and energy

management programs, our wildlife and fish management programs, our land management programs, and our facility operation

and maintenance. Also included in our request is $47.3 million for

the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, and $12.4 million for

our loan program to continue five small loan projects, two of which

will be completed this year. The balance is reflected in $49 million

in our request for policy administration, which is a $2 million increase over the fiscal year enacted level.

SAFETY OF DAMS PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, our Safety of

Dams program basically addresses the continuing safety and analysis of our structures. We place high priority on the safety of our

dams. It funds adequately, I believe, the operation and maintenance of our facilities out West. It continues to move along some

of our construction projects specifically dealing with waste water

reuse and rural water distribution systems, probably not at the

level that the project sponsors would wish, and includes some monies for some Indian water systems, including initiation of construction of the Gila portion of the Central Arizona Project.
8

PREPARED STATEMENT

Generally, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary remarks.

I will be glad to answer any specific questions you might have.

Senator DOMENICI. Your statement will be made a part of the

record, and yours, Ms. Beneke, will also be made a part of the

record. I did not say that Senator Reid’s was, but it will be.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELUID L. MARTINEZ

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity

to appear before the Subcommittee this morning to discuss the Bureau of Reclamation’s fiscal year 2000 budget request.

The Bureau of Reclamation has been in existence for 97 years, developing and

managing water and related resources in the Western United States. Having constructed more than 600 dams and reservoirs, including such significant structures

as Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams, Reclamation today is the largest water wholesaler in the country, bringing water resources to more than 31 million people and

irrigating approximately 10 million acres of land. Reclamation is also the second

largest producer of hydroelectric power in the nation and the fifth largest electric

utility in the West. Reclamation’s 58 powerplants annually provide more than 40

billion kilowatt-hours, generate nearly a billion dollars in power revenues, and

produce enough electricity to serve six million homes.

Today, the main focus of the Bureau of Reclamation is to provide improved water

resources management. Reclamation programs include a broad range of water uses,

such as domestic water supply, irrigation, Indian self-sufficiency, fish and wildlife

protection, endangered species recovery, environmental restoration, and recreation.

Since water is a scarce resource in the West, the budget proposes innovative strategies for addressing water resource issues, including water reclamation and reuse.

For fiscal year 2000, the Bureau of Reclamation is requesting $856.6 million in

new budget authority. This request includes $761.6 million for Reclamation’s traditional programs, an increase of $30.2 million from the fiscal year 1999 level; and

$95.0 million for the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account, which is

administered by Reclamation but funds activities in several Federal agencies, an increase of $20.0 million.

Before moving into the more specific financial data, I’d like to discuss several programs and issues of interest.

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires annual

performance plans beginning with fiscal year 1999 and annual performance reports

beginning in March of 2000. Reclamation has made significant progress in implementing GPRA. Reclamation has begun submitting quarterly reports to the Department showing progress made in accomplishing the goals and indicators in the fiscal

year 1999 Performance Plan. Based on Reclamation’s Strategic Plan, the fiscal year

2000 Annual Performance Plan has been developed to address the direction of key

programmatic activities. This plan reflects the linkage between strategies and goals

of the Strategic Plan, the annual performance goals and indicators, and the programmatic budget. Each performance goal is linked to program and financing activities and accounts as indicated in the tables provided with the Annual Performance

Plan.

DAM SAFETY

Reclamation’s Dam Safety Program is critical to the management of risks associated with events, such as earthquakes, floods, etc., that could threaten the safety

of Reclamation dams, and the downstream public, property, and natural resources

near those structures. Ensuring the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams continues to be one of Reclamation’s highest priorities. Approximately 50 percent of

Reclamation’s dams were built between the years 1900 and 1950 and approximately

90 percent of the dams were built before current state-of-the-art design and construction practices. Aging dams, which lack state-of-the-art structural reliability features, place a greater reliance on ongoing risk management activities such as monitoring, examinations and, engineering analyses to assure safe performance of any

dam. A strong Dam Safety Program must be maintained to identify quickly any ad-
9

verse performance within Reclamation’s inventory of aging dams and to carry out

necessary corrective actions when unreasonable public risks are identified. Reclamation’s fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $60.9 million for the Safety

of Dams Evaluation and Modification Program that provides for a variety of risk

management activities pertaining to Reclamation’s 362 high and significant hazard

dams. Included in that amount are preconstruction and construction activities on up

to 26 dams which may require modifications for safety reasons. Most notable are

the activities at Yakima Project, Washington, and Casitas Dam, Ventura River

Project, California, which have critical Safety of Dams issues that require modifications of significant cost and scope. In addition, $8.8 million is being requested to complete modifications on Bradbury

Dam in California, Reservoir A Dam in Idaho, Pueblo Dam in Colorado, and for ongoing modifications at Horse Mesa Dam in Arizona. Modifications on Lost Creek

Dam in Utah and Twin Buttes Dam in Texas are scheduled to be completed in fiscal

year 1999 with no additional funding anticipated for fiscal year 2000. An additional

$1.6 million is included in the request for the Department of the Interior Dam Safety Program.

It should be noted that Reclamation’s fiscal year 1999 Dam Safety Program re- quest was reduced by $8,787,000. As a result, Reclamation had to re-prioritize its

Safety of Dams risk reduction activities in fiscal year 1999, and shift some activities

and costs into fiscal year 2000. The reduction impaired Reclamation’s ability to pursue more aggressively the necessary risk reduction actions at its dams. Current enacted funding and future requests will be managed to focus funding to the most critical Safety of Dams issues presently known to Reclamation. Funding the full fiscal

year 2000 Dam Safety Program request is necessary to avoid any delays in eliminating risk reduction efforts needed for public safety.

Now, I would like to focus on Reclamation’s fiscal year 2000 Budget request by

appropriation.

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

The amount requested for the Water and Related Resources appropriation for fiscal year 2000, $652.8 million, is an increase of $10 million from the fiscal year 1999

enacted level of $642.8 million. This appropriation funds five program activities:

Water and Energy Management and Development, Fish and Wildlife Management

and Development, Land Management and Development, Facility Operations, and

Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation.

The fiscal year 2000 Budget proposes $278.6 million for Facility Operations and

Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation, an increase of $15.6 million from the fiscal

year 1999 enacted level. Reclamation places high priority on these activities, which

ensure delivery of project benefits and protect the Federal investment and the public

through the dam safety program, discussed above, and other measures.

The request includes $27.3 million for the Central Arizona Project; $125.0 million

for the Central Valley Project in California; $29.4 million for the Mni Wiconi Project

and $5 million for the Mid-Dakota Project in South Dakota; $27 million for the Garrison Project in North Dakota; and $3 million for the Animas-La Plata Project in

Colorado and New Mexico.

The fiscal year 2000 request of $31.5 million for water recycling includes funding

for four projects that were authorized by the 104th Congress in 1996, plus continued

funding for ongoing projects. The request includes $6.0 million for the four new

starts: Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling, Long Beach Area Water Reclamation and Reuse, North San Diego County Water Reclamation and Reuse, and

Orange County Regional Water Reclamation Project. In addition, funds in the

amount of $23.2 million will be used for ongoing California projects in Los Angeles,

San Diego, San Gabriel and San Jose. The fiscal year 2000 request also includes

$2.2 million for feasibility studies and research.

The request also includes $7.3 million for Reclamation’s Science and Technology

Program. This funding is requested for development of new information and technologies that respond to and anticipate mission-related needs, and that provide for

innovative management, development, and protection of water and related resources

and associated values through cost-shared research and technology transfer.

LOAN PROGRAM

Funding of $12.4 million is requested to complete work on 2 loan projects: Chino

Basin Desalination and Temescal Valley. Work will continue on three loan projects:

Castroville Irrigation, Salinas Valley Water Reclamation, and San Sevaine Creek,

all of which are located in California. In addition, $425,000 is requested for program

administration.
10

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

The $49 million requested supports Reclamation’s centralized management functions. These functions include overall program and personnel policy management;

equal employment opportunity management; safety and health management; budgetary policy formulation and execution; information resources management, property, and general services policy; public affairs activities; and organizational and

management analysis.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

The Restoration Fund request for fiscal year 2000 is $47.3 million. These funds

are focused on four primary emphases: water acquisition for instream flows and refuges; refuge conveyance and refuge water wheeling; land retirement; and the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Efforts to provide for the doubling of the anadromous fish population are expected to be enhanced through increased emphasis on

partnerships with local, state, and stakeholder involvement.

The budget request includes a provision for the conversion of the CVP Restoration

Fund to a permanent appropriation. This action would ensure that collections from

project beneficiaries are available for their intended purpose and would improve

project planning by both beneficiaries and managers.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

The fiscal year 2000 budget includes a request for $95 million to continue Federal

cost-sharing in ecosystem restoration efforts in California’s Bay-Delta. Although requested in a single account under Reclamation, the funds will be distributed among

participating Federal agencies based upon the program recommended by CALFED,

a consortium of Federal and State agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request provides details on how Reclamation intends

to use the funds, including a summary of how the project selection process works.

Participating agencies and the CALFED staff developed in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 a program that covers habitat acquisition and restoration, improvements to fish screens and passage, and exotic species management. The fiscal year

2000 budget proposes $75 million to build upon the efforts begun in 1998 and continued in 1999 by monitoring prior projects, initiating, and implementing new

projects approved by CALFED and the Secretary. In addition, $20 million is requested for non-ecosystem restoration activities that are in accord with the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, such as water use efficiency, water quality, groundwater storage, and watershed management.

The Administration will submit authorization language that would extend current

spending authorization through 2003 to enable the ecosystem restoration program

to be fully funded at the $430 million authorized by the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to respond to any questions Members may have concerning

the Reclamation program and our fiscal year 2000 Budget request.

TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT

Senator DOMENICI. I am going to let you go first, Senator Reid,

and then you, Senator Bennett.

Senator REID. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Beneke, as you know the Truckee River Operating Agreement still has a few things that need to be done, and one item is

the final environmental impact statement. I have worked with Bill

Bettenberg for a number of years, who has been tremendously

helpful in his work on this project.

Because the environmental impact statement will be funded

through the Bureau of Reclamation, I am wondering if you can assure this subcommittee that it will be given priority in regards to

staff and funding so that we can get this done.

Ms. BENEKE. Senator, you certainly do have my assurances in

this regard. We consider this to be a very important undertaking.

We very much appreciate your leadership in helping us wend our
11

way through the difficult issues and the important issues presented

in that River basin.

Senator REID. I would hope also that rather than—I will not say

waste, but rather than utilize the time and money for reeducating

staff at your regional office in Denver, I would encourage you to

use as much of the local resources as you can. I think it would add

some continuity and I think in the long run save money. If you

would take a look at that, that would be good.

Ms. BENEKE. I would be happy to, Senator.

DESALINIZATION

Senator REID. In regards to desalinization, the Bureau of Reclamation has had some responsibility for desalinization in the past.

As you know, Senator Simon has even written a book on the problems of water in the world. It is called ‘‘Tapping Out’’, a very fine

book that Senator Simon has recently published. While the Desalinization Act of 1996 has authorized up to $5 million a year for research and studies, or $20 million, the Bureau

of Reclamation has requested less than $4 million since 1997. Why

is this?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, Senator, basically it is an economic issue. Given the priorities and the limited resources that we

have in our budget, we have come up with a request for these

amounts of money. I fully realize that Congress has added funding

which has increased those amounts over the last 2 years, but we

continue to try to put as much money as we possibly can into that

project.

Senator REID. As indicated in Secretary Beneke’s statement, the

direction of the Bureau of Reclamation has changed over the years.

There was a time when there was a construction of, I think, some

600 dams that the Bureau of Reclamation has been involved in,

and now the concern is more with water resource management.

That being the case, I believe the Bureau should look very

strongly at the Desalinization Act because it seems to me that that

is the wave of the future. We have to look at new places for water,

and I think one of the places that has some promise is brackish

and salty water that we have around the country. Would you agree

with that?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I would agree with that. I think the Bureau has

a long history of working in this area. We have a desalting plant

down in Yuma.

Senator REID. I understand that, Mr. Martinez. The problem

with that is we are doing nothing new. The technology there is

technology that was available 40 years ago.

RECLAMATION ROLE IN DESALINIZATION

What I would like you to do—and I will not take any more time

of the subcommittee—I would like you to present to me and to the

subcommittee your view as to what the future of the Bureau should

be if you had the money that you needed in regard to desalinization.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I will be glad to do that.

Senator REID. Keep in mind the words that I used.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Correct.
12

1 Emerging Desalting and Water Treatment Technologies for Water Resources Management,

Bureau of Reclamation Summary Report, October 17–19, Arizona, 1989. 2 Research Needs for Upgrading Sub-Standard Water Supplies, Bureau of Reclamation Seminar Summary Report with National Water Supply Improvement Association, International Desalination Association Conference, Washington, D.C., 1991. 3 Issues Associated with Large Scale Desalination Plants, Bureau of Reclamation Seminar

Summary Report, National Water Supply Improvement Association Biennial Conference, Newport Beach, California, 1992. 4 Bessler, M.B., National Desalting and Water Treatment Needs Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, Desalination Research and Development Program Report #2, 1993. 5 Buros, O.K., Desalting as an Environmentally Friendly Water Treatment Process, Bureau of

Reclamation and American Desalting Association Workshop, Desalination Research and Development Program Report #13, 1994. 6 Herbranson, L., S.H. Suemoto, Desalination Research—Current Needs and Approaches—A

U.S. Perspective, Desalination, vol. 96, no. 1–3, p 239–248, 1996. 7Martella, S., Water Reuse Research Needs Assessment Workshop, Desalination Research and

Development Program Report #19, 1996. 8 Buros, O.K., Research Opportunities at the Yuma Water Quality Improvement Center, sponsored with the American Desalting Association, Desalination Research and Development Program Report #25, 1997.

Senator REID. I have a number of other questions, Mr. Chairman. I will submit those in writing.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Senator.

[The information follows:]

DESALINATION—RECLAMATION’S FUTURE FOCUS

INTRODUCTION

Reclamation has a long tradition of commitment to desalination, and particularly

a tradition of being a leader in its development and application. Reclamation recognized early in the 1960’s and 1970’s the potential value of desalination to play a

significant role in developing and managing the water resources in the western

United States. Reclamation played a key role in testing the new desalination technologies as they were developed in the 1960’s by the DOI Office of Saline Water,

followed by the very early application on a large scale of membrane desalination at

the Yuma Desalting Plant. These early commitments to the development and application of the desalination technologies has continued through our support of reimbursed involvement in desalination R&D in the Middle East, and more recently, our

commitment through Title XVI legislation to demonstration of new membrane technologies in water recycling applications.

It is clear that future water resource management in the western United States

will be more heavily dependent on innovative sources of water. Although the population continues to grow, fresh water sources remain constant. Therefore, to continue to meet the future water demands, Reclamation must be pro-active. Water

conservation, water recycling, and desalination should all play roles in meeting future water demands, in addition to our existing conventional water resource capabilities.

In consideration of meeting these future water demands, in 1989 Reclamation

began investigating the desalination research needs to reduce the costs of the technologies.1 This effort was accomplished through sponsorship of various workshops,

seminars, and studies.23456 78 In 1992, Reclamation initiated a small desalination

R&D program, using cost- sharing and human resources from the private sector to

leverage the program. Reclamation also constructed a high-tech desalination laboratory, entitled the Water Quality Improvement Laboratory, on the grounds of the

Yuma Desalting Plant. The purpose of this facility is to provide a testing ground

for new desalination improvements as they develop.

When the Water Desalination and Research Act of 1996 (Act) was enacted, Reclamation developed an overall plan to meet the requisites of the Act based upon

input from the desalination community. This plan is presently being implemented,

albeit on a reduced scale as a result of existing budgetary demands within the agency and our need to stay within our budget allocations.

Initially, the most significant role for desalination will be providing water resources along coastal areas, where populations are growing most rapidly and disposal of concentrate is most environmentally-friendly. Costs for desalinating water

are continuing to drop significantly—the most recent contract for delivery of

desalinated seawater to the City of Tampa, Florida, is $1.71/1000 gallons ($557/acre

ft)—which is within the abilities for many large communities to afford. For example,
13

development of new water resources in the San Diego area from conventional means

is estimated to cost $600–$700/acre ft. Using more desalinated resources along

coastal areas will also provide less pressure on existing inland water resources.

As outlined in the 1996 Act, R&D will play a significant role in continuing to

lower the cost and acceptance of desalinated water in many communities. Our future efforts, if funding were available, would be largely based on the Research Program Plan developed for purposes of meeting the requisites of the Act. The following

narrative outlines the specifics of our future direction and focus.

OVERALL PROGRAM GOALS

—develop more cost-effective, technologically efficient, and implementable means

to desalinate water,

—increase supplies of water for environmental restoration, and other competing

needs for the limited and often overextended supplies,

—provide additional cost effective alternatives for water managers, regulators,

and decision makers,

—increase the ability of Native American, rural communities, and others to economically treat their only source of water to potable standards,

—increase the ability of the United States desalting industry to compete throughout the world, by fostering partnerships with them to develop new and innovative technologies (patent rights belong to the non-Federal partners for all nonFederal applications),

—develop methods to make desalting more efficient through promotion of dualuse facilities, in which waste energy could be applied to desalting water,

—develop methods to ensure desalting technologies are environmentally-friendly

and when possible sustainable,

—ensure regulations are appropriate for the application by working with regulators to fully evaluate effects of concentrate streams, capitalizing on the recovery of by-product streams, and

—maximize technology transfer to ensure full transfer of knowledge and commercialization of technology.

To meet these goals, Reclamation has outlined 10 technical/emphasis areas which

comprehensively should be addressed, in order to make desalination a more affordable tool for water resource development and management in the future.

TECHNICAL/EMPHASIS AREAS

The areas to be explored are listed and described below.

A. Membrane Process Research and Development Studies

Research focuses on development of improvements in membrane processes for

brackish and seawater desalting, and/or removal of specific contaminants. The research topics include: development of membranes with improved properties, development of membranes with increased resistance to chlorine, studies on adhesion of

foulant materials to membrane surfaces, studies on membrane cleaning, including

frequency and effectiveness, increase of rates of mass transfer at membrane surfaces, studies on pretreatment, and development of improved membrane-containing

elements or stacks.

B. Thermal Process Research and Development Studies

Research focuses on development of improvements in thermally driven desalting

processes. Thermal processes are generally applied to seawater desalting due to the

high energy investment. The research topics include: improvements and/or cost reductions in multi-stage flash distillation, multiple effect distillation, and vapor compression distillation; evaluation and development of methods to improve the heat

economy of thermally driven desalting processes; investigation of methods to resolve

pre- or post-treatment issues; and investigation of methods to reduce the formation

of scale and corrosion.

C. Non-Traditional, and Alternative Desalination Process Research and Studies

Research focuses on investigation of innovative, non-traditional, or alternative desalination techniques, including the evaluation of the economics and thermodynamic

efficiency of these processes. The ultimate goal being the development of technologies that are much more cost effective than conventional desalination processes.

For specific remote sites, research of alternative technologies will be considered that

significantly reduce the capital costs, and operations and maintenance of conventional technologies. The research topics include investigation of unique solar energy

methods and applications, and development of new, innovative alternative desalination processes.
14

D. Water Recycling and Reuse

Research and development studies support activities directed at innovative methods to treat municipal, industrial, or agricultural wastewaters. Projects also include

solving specific problems related to specific reuse facilities, in order to improve the

economics of overall operation and maintenance of existing or future facilities. Reclamation is presently co-funding the evaluation and construction of a number of

water recycling projects through authorization under Public Law 102–575, Title

XVI. Research efforts in support of these projects will be of particular interest. The

research topics include: investigate innovative methods to recycle and reuse municipal, agricultural, or industrial process water or waste waters; research studies to

remove toxic substances from waste water streams, i.e., pesticides, heavy metals, radioactive elements, etc.; enhanced membrane characteristics for waste water treatment applications; development of low-cost treatment methods for high nitrate well

waters from farm fertilization or livestock operations; development of tools to reduce

the public’s psychological stigmas associated with the reuse of water; developing online methods for detecting leakage of viruses in reuse facilities; and developing

‘‘leak-proof’’ recycling treatment technologies.

E. Ancillary and Economic Improvements (Dual-Use Facilities, By-Products Recovery, Cost Evaluations)

This research task area is three-fold in its direction. First, the evaluation of opportunities to promote desalination development in combination with new or existing power facilities, in order to create a dual-purpose facility. Second, the evaluation

of the economic and environmental benefits of recovering the byproducts of desalting

processes. Third, the evaluation of cost to determine which desalting process is the

most economically feasible for communities under different restrictions and localities, as well as economic sensitivity analyses of thermal and membrane systems.

The research topics include: development of more efficient pumps, and energy recovery systems; studies on instrumentation and control of desalination systems; development of a method to recover commercially marketable minerals from a desalination process concentrate stream; and evaluation of the effect of feedwater quality

and volume on a desalting plant design and concentrate disposal cost.

F. Concentrate Issues

Research focuses on the various problems related to concentrate disposal, and develops innovative techniques to reduce concentrate disposal costs and impacts on the

environment. The research topics include: concentrate disposal systems development; methods to recover by-products; salinity modeling and toxicity analysis of concentrate discharges to the environment; and wetlands and other non-conventional

disposal methods. Additional efforts are also directed towards the collection of concentrate disposal information that may assist in the future development of regulations.

G. Testing of Laboratory Scale and Pilot Systems

The work involves the design, construction, and testing of pilot-scale systems.

Testing of laboratory and pilot systems is generally done as a result of previous successful research studies conducted in Areas A through F, above.

H. Partnerships

This work involves collaborative research efforts between Reclamation’s program

and that of other water research organizations outside the government. This provides access to new funding partners, to organized groups that need desalination

technologies, to highly qualified research advisory boards, to the most recent research findings, and to new networks of highly qualified researchers. Past work has

included partnerships with the American Water Works Research Foundation, the

National Water Research Institute, and two of the National Science Foundation Engineering Research Centers.

I. Technology Transfer

Technology transfer is key to making the program a success. Reclamation has a

very ambitious technology transfer effort which exploits electronic access of information, as well as more traditional means of providing access to all information gained

in the research program. The Program continues to seek new innovative opportunities to provide technology transfer to assist other researchers, private industry, academia, municipalities, and small and Native American communities. The technology

transfer effort includes: an Internet website, electronic access to Requests for Proposals, newsletters, informational brochures and leaflets, free hard-copy publications

of all final research reports, videos, technical manuals, presentations at technical

conferences, yearly workshops, peer reviews, and electronic databases.
15

J. Design, Construction, and Testing of Plants and Modules (Demonstration and Development Projects)

This technical area has not been funded in the past. The Act envisioned funding

for demonstration and development to begin the third year following the first appropriations for research and studies. The Authorization Act requires a report to Congress in fiscal year 1999, with recommendations on which projects to further evaluate and implement based upon the most successful research findings from the Program’s research and studies, successful pilot plant research carried out by others,

and significant input from users and purveyors of desalination technology. The type

of work involved could include: preliminary design studies, detailed design, construction and testing, demonstration of by-products recovery, and economic surveys.

For future years, this area will require significant resources in order to meet the

intent of the Act.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Bennett.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take a minute to thank both the Assistant Secretary

and the Commissioner for their assistance to our State in the last

year. Water is the most precious commodity in the West. We used

to have a saying, ‘‘It’s better to be head of the ditch than head of

the Church.’’ [Laughter.]

Given the reputation we have for the power of the Church in

Utah, that is a pretty strong statement.

We have had a lot of cooperation from the Bureau of Reclamation, and we recognize this and we want to thank you for it. We

have good people in Utah from the Bureau. My only message to

you is leave them there. Do not keep transferring them in and out.

We have had a good experience.

RED BUTTE DAM

We have had to call on the Bureau for some input and assistance, and you have always been very helpful. Most specifically, we

had to have an appraisal of the old Army dam above Fort Douglas

called Red Butte Dam. The Army insisted it was not worth very

much, and they were a little surprised when they found out how

much you thought it was worth, or more importantly, how much

you thought it would take to bring it up to the level whereby the

Army could have safely disposed of it. We are having that fight

with the Army in another subcommittee as to where we get that

money. But these are over and above your normal activities and we

are very grateful to you for your assistance.

I am glad we were able to help OMB find religion on the issue

of Dutch John and work that out.

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

Now, I want to quickly reinforce—this will come as no surprise

to anyone—what some of my priorities are. I was glad to hear you,

Ms. Beneke, talk about the Central Utah Project. The legislative effort for that began some 40 plus years ago with my father. I hope

the project will be completed before one of my grandchildren is

elected to the Senate. [Laughter.]

SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM

If we can get that one moving along.
16

I want to put the Bureau on notice that I recognize that we will

eventually have to raise the funding level on the salinity control

program. When that time comes, I will introduce legislation to do

so, and I hope that the chairman and other members of this committee will join me.

TITLE XVI WATER REUSE PROGRAM

I remain committed to the title 16 water reuse program. I will

work with the committee to ensure that it is properly and adequately funded this year. I know we had a little disagreement last

year over the interpretations of the formula with respect to the

Tooele Project. I am glad we were able to work that out.

Now, I also look forward to providing some additional funding to

a very interesting project that is ongoing near St. George where the

Bureau, the USGS, and the Water Conservancy District are conducting a study on water recharge in the Navajo sandstone.

So, those are all of my parochial items, and I have to get them

on the record.

LAKE POWELL DRAINING

Now, I do want to make one other comment which affects not

only my State but those from neighboring States. I am sure Senator Reid of Nevada has a number of constituents who are involved

with Lake Powell. Senator Craig has indicated that he has vacationed at Lake Powell.

And I hope the administration will hold firm in its position that

the Sierra Club’s idea of draining Lake Powell is absurd. I almost

hesitated to raise it today lest I give the proposal validity. But I

understand that the Sierra Club and others in the environmental

community have now pegged this as their number one fund raising

activity. They have raised millions of dollars trying to tell us how

to handle Utah wilderness, and now they want to raise millions

more telling us to get rid of the dam at Lake Powell.

I will just share with you this experience that I had over the

weekend. I found myself in an airport, not an unusual situation for

Senators, and my flight was delayed, which is also not an unusual

situation for Senators. I picked up one of the free newspapers that

was sitting there called the Earth Times in order to have something to read while I waited for the equipment to show up.

There was a lead editorial that caught my eye, and it was attacking the Green Party in Germany. I thought this is a little unusual

for the Earth Times to be attacking the Green Party. The burden

of the editorial was that the Green Party was, in fact, going to add

to pollution and to upset the Kyoto Accords because they were demanding the dismantling of all of the nuclear plants in Europe.

And the editorial said that may be well and good because we all

hate nuclear plants, but if you dismantle all the nuclear plants,

you are going to have to replace the power somewhere and it will

be coal-fired plants that will upset the Kyoto Accords. Therefore,

we ought to swallow hard and leave the available source of power

in place.

You know, that applies to Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell,

because it currently supplies recreation to 3 million visitors and

power to half a million homes. I remember during the debate when
17

the dam was being built, the Sierra Club came in and opposed it.

Ultimately they made a deal to accept it, which they now say is one

of their biggest mistakes. But their argument was that that power

was not needed. They said, we have got plenty of energy in this

country. The time will never, ever come when we have an energy

shortage, and to build a dam to provide excess energy at a time

when we have too much is really foolish. But if the time should

ever come, if in fact we should ever need that energy, clearly we

do not need to build the dam because there at Kaparowitz there

is plenty of coal and we could burn all the coal in Kaparowitz to

provide the power and not have to worry about the dam. Now, everybody who knows anything about environmental issues in Utah

knows how enthusiastic the Sierra Club now is about burning coal

at Kaparowitz.

So, taking a cue from the lead editorial in the Earth Times, I tell

you leave the dam in place, provide the power, and let the 3 million

visitors continue to enjoy their experience in southern Utah.

I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.

Senator Craig?

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I had the privilege of visiting with these folks last week before

the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and it was at that

time, Mr. Chairman, that we discussed issues pertinent to their

budget and to my State of Idaho. So, with that, what I had said

last week I will just simply underline this week as being important

to our State, especially the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District exchange that is coming on board now as an opportunity, certainly

along with what we are doing and what the Bureau of Reclamation

is doing in cooperation with all the other agencies in the SnakeColumbia system to find additional waters for the purposes of fish

mitigation in the Snake and Columbia system.

All I can say is proceed with caution. Do not dewater the State

of Idaho. We spent the last 100 years cooperating with the Bureau

of Reclamation and others to build water facilities in our State to

make it bloom. We are not about to start dewatering the State and

return it to a desert environment.

And, yes, I enjoy Lake Powell. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator DOMENICI. Are you finished?

Senator CRAIG. I am.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Dorgan.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I also had an opportunity last week to visit briefly with the Commissioner and the Secretary on a number of issues.

Let me just ask a couple of brief questions, if I might.

I regret I was delayed. I had a group in my office that I could

not escape from. I have read your testimony and appreciate all that

you do.

DAKOTA RESOURCES ACT

As you know, one of the issues that we will deal with this year

is the change in the authorization of Dakota Water Resources Act.

You have included an amount of money in this year’s budget, I be-
18

lieve $27 million for the Garrison project, under the Dakota Water

Resources Act. We face the problem that many States out in our

region face, of water development needs that are quite critical.

Let me just show you a couple of samples of water that I thought

you would find interesting. This is from Keith and Ann Anderson’s

house in Scranton, North Dakota. This looks like the coffee that

Senator Domenici drinks in the morning. Maybe yours is stronger

than this.

Senator DOMENICI. Yes.

Senator DORGAN. And this is Leonard Jacobs’ farm water. This

is from Reeder, North Dakota, just south of where I grew up.

Senator REID. A lot of iron in that water.

Senator DORGAN. Well, there is a lot of something in that water.

Senator DOMENICI. That is potable water?

Senator DORGAN. That is the water they used to have on their

farm.

Now, that has changed, and here is what Leonard Jacobs has

now, and it comes, as the Secretary and Commissioner know, because the Southwest Pipeline, which came through the appropriation of these water projects, has transferred this kind of water to

these farmsteads in southwestern North Dakota.

Senator REID. You could not drink that, could you?

Senator DORGAN. Well, I could not.

Senator BENNETT. Maybe with a blindfold.

Senator DORGAN. But the fact is we have a lot of communities

with very unhealthy water, and that is one of the advantages of

being able to move water from the Missouri River behind the dam

through the State into areas that have terrible water quality, refreshing that opportunity with good quality water.

I just wanted to show you the results of what we are doing together and to ask you your assessment of our ability to work together on this reauthorization this year because that is the key to

future funding. Can you just give me a comment on that?

Ms. BENEKE. Well, Senator, as we have discussed in the past, we

are committed to working with you on this important project. I

have a real appreciation for what it means to your home State. I

actually hail from the central part of the country myself and am

familiar with rural communities. I also got to drink my share of

well water when growing up. So, I do have an appreciation for

what it means. And we very much want to work with you this year.

MR&I NEEDS OF INDIAN TRIBES

Senator DORGAN. One of the other issues that is a problem for

us is the funding priorities that were outlined in the 1986 Reformulation Act was meeting the MR&I needs of the Indian tribes. The

tribes have reached their funding ceilings which has been a problem, and we are trying to identify additional resources for them. I

mentioned some of these farmsteads and the critical water needs,

but you are well aware, I know, of the needs on the Indian reservations. And I hope that we could work with you, Madam Secretary,

and also the Commissioner on those issues.
19

RED RIVER VALLY WATER NEEDS STUDIES

One final question. The Bureau of Reclamation has been studying the water development and management needs of the Red

River Valley now for the past year. Can you give us the status of

those studies, tell us where you are, and what we might expect?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I do not have that information in front of me, but

I understand two of the studies are complete. The third study is

ongoing. One was a needs assessment study, and the other one is

on the particular projects that might deliver the water that is needed. I will get that answer for the record.

Senator DORGAN. I appreciate that, and I hope you can continue

to make that a top priority, because the results of those studies will

help us on this reformulation prospect and the timing is very important.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Mr. Dorgan.

Senator DORGAN. Let me again, Mr. Chairman, thank the Secretary and the Commissioner. You work in a tough area with unlimited wants and limited resources, and I appreciate the work you

do. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

[The information follows:]

RED RIVER VALLEY WATER NEED STUDIES

The Phase IA Needs Assessment has been completed and the Phase IB Instream

Flow report will be finalized by the end of March 1999. Reclamation has been working closely with State and local interests to obtain their views and recommendations.

Reclamation’s work is coordinated with a steering committee, which is comprised

of representatives of the North Dakota State Water Commission, North Dakota

State Health Department, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, Fargo,

Grand Forks, Moorehead, rural water systems, and the environmental community.

Initial alternatives to meet the municipal, rural, and industrial water needs of the

Red River Valley have been formulated. A working draft of the Phase 2 (Alternatives Analysis) report was forwarded to the Steering Committee prior to our

March 30 meeting. It is expected that more meetings may be needed to assure that

the views and interests of the State and local interests are fully considered prior

to distribution of the public review draft.

SAFETY OF DAMS

Senator DOMENICI. Let me ask a couple general questions first.

Commissioner, you indicated that one of your big responsibilities is

to see to it that the structures that you manage and supervise are

safe.

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is correct.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, if I were to say to you, give us proof

that they are safe, what would you give us?

Mr. MARTINEZ. When I became Commissioner of Reclamation, I

was concerned about our Dam Safety Program and the safety of

our structures, and I empaneled five experts from outside the Bureau of Reclamation to review our program and our facilities. The

report was quite favorable. I have implemented quite a few of their

recommendations.

Senator DOMENICI. So, since we would like very much never to

be shocked by having a dam failure—and we have you up here

every year to talk with us—what could you give us for the record

indicating that? Could you put some things in the record here with-
20

in the next couple of weeks indicating why the Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation says it has safe structures and is

doing what they ought to do?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, yes, I can, but I will not sit up here and

say that I do not guarantee that——

Senator DOMENICI. Oh, no, no.

Mr. MARTINEZ [continuing]. We might not lose a structure some

day because of an earthquake and so forth. But I think that we

have a very effective program and will continue to put our resources in that program with your assistance. And I will provide

that information to you.

Senator DOMENICI. Would you, please? I just mean that I think

we have a responsibility as an oversight entity to get this information in the record so that we are going along with you in that regard.

[The information follows:]

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

Reclamation cannot guarantee that there will be no dam failures. However, Reclamation diligently strives to have a strong Dam Safety Program to manage the

risks associated with dams in order to keep that chance of dam failure as low as

reasonably possible.

In 1997, the Commissioner tasked an independent team of dam safety professionals to review Reclamation’s dam safety practices to identify best practices already in place and to make recommendations for improvements. The peer review

concluded that Reclamation has a strong dam safety program and made recommendations for further improvements. Thirty-three peer review findings have already been addressed. The twelve remaining findings are under review and scheduled to be addressed during 1999.

Program improvements that have been implemented as a result of the peer review

findings and Reclamation’s own internal initiatives that received peer review endorsement include:

1. The appointment of a Dam Safety Officer to provide independent advisory and

guidance for achieving program vigilance.

2. The procurement of a standing review board of independent dam safety consultants to review program practices that have occurred on individual dams.

3. Annual dam safety meetings to review dam safety issues and actions on each

dam with Reclamation management.

4. The updating of Emergency Action Plans for each dam and exercising the plans

with downstream communities.

5. Enhancements to the facility review, performance monitoring, and engineering

analysis activities in order to more reliably identify and manage dam safety issues.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes these program improvements intended to continue a strong Dam Safety Program. The fiscal year 2000 budget request also includes funding for modifications to reduce the risk of dam failure on

dams having identified critical dam safety issues; such as Keechelus Dam, Yakima

Project, Washington; and Casitas Dam, Ventura River Project, California which require modifications of significant cost and scope.

In order to continue to fund Safety of Dams modifications in the future, additional

legislation will be needed to increase the authorization ceiling provided under the

1984 Safety of Dams Act Amendment. Current estimates indicate that sufficient

ceiling remains to fund necessary modifications and associated ongoing commitments represented by the fiscal year 2000 request. However, projections indicate

that the total cost for new modifications identified for fiscal year 2001 could begin

to exhaust the remaining ceiling.

DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

Senator DOMENICI. Now, let me change to a situation that is

evolving in the Southwest, but is almost upon us in New Mexico.

The dread word of ‘‘drought’’ is just—all you have to do is fly into

New Mexico and you think you are approaching the desert, al-
21

though we are not a desert State. Drought is the kind of disaster

that is very difficult for the people, because it does not occur overnight. It sort of creeps upon you, and it is creeping upon our State.

I do not know if it is on others too.

What are you doing with reference to the drought, for drought

for a State like ours which has very little water?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, if you recall in 1996, through your

assistance, we had some funding to work under our drought assistance program. Since then we have been working with the southwestern States to help in their water planning process. As a matter

of fact, we have given the State of New Mexico two grants. They

have put in place a planning process on how to respond to drought.

So, we have been working in that area.

You are correct that we expect droughts in the American Southwest this summer. Our budget will reflect a request for drought

money. This budget was put together before conditions that came

up this year. We have, I believe, about $100,000 left in our budget

from prior appropriations. I understand I have some reprogramming authority, but the requests that are being made today are

probably going to exceed our ability to respond if we do have a

drought situation in the American Southwest this year.

Senator DOMENICI. Before we mark up our bill, I wonder if it

would be possible for you to gather up the resources through your

information and some statements to us with reference to what kind

of authority you might need and what kind of changes that might

occur. Could you do that for us?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the authority is in

place. What we would need would be the financial resources.

Senator DOMENICI. All right, and can you give us some idea later

what that might be?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I will provide that for the record.

Senator DOMENICI. I appreciate it.

[The information follows:]

DROUGHT FUNDING

Reclamation is currently experiencing drought conditions in several of its Southwestern states mostly due to below normal rainfall. While some areas are less severe than others, there is a real need to provide emergency assistance and relief.

In the past, up to $30 million has been appropriated to the Bureau for drought

emergency assistance. In fiscal year 1999 carryover funds of $673,754 will be insufficient to provide the necessary drought relief to the Southwest. The fiscal year 2000

President’s budget includes $500,000 for the Drought Emergency Assistance program. However, we would like to work with the Committees to discuss funding levels that would be needed to address the drought emergency situations that now

exist and those that are developing.

DESALINIZATION

Senator DOMENICI. With reference to desalinization, I am fully

aware that Senator Simon got an authorization bill through and a

little bit of money, but I think what has happened to desalinization

is that it is spread all over, even though it is a very small program.

I am just wondering if it is not exclusively the Department of the

Interior’s mission. Is there some way to focus the money, and if the

Bureau of Reclamation is the right place to do that. Would you

have any thoughts on that, Patty?
22

1 Bagwell, T.H., M.K. Price, The Interagency Consortium for Desalination and Membrane Separation Research, Desalination, vol.99, no.2–3, p 195–199, 1994.

Ms. BENEKE. Senator, I think that we should take a look at the

program. We, of course, want to make sure that we are getting the

maximum benefit for every research dollar we put into it. Reclamation does have a lot of expertise in this area, and I guess my offthe-cuff reaction would be that it is an appropriate place for the

program to be lodged. But we would be happy to work with the

subcommittee and incorporate any ideas you might have regarding

how we can——

Senator REID. Would the chairman yield? Also, I have asked

Commissioner Martinez to submit to us his view as to what should

happen to the program. Also, if you would, give us an idea of what

is happening with desalinization any place else in Government. I

think it is something we need to take a look at. On a mini-level,

it is kind of like global warming. We have a lot of people doing a

little bit of nothing, and we need to gather them all together, and

maybe one organization can do more than spread out the way it

has been.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that. I think

the research in this particular area is very crucial, especially in

New Mexico. We have large groundwater aquifers that have impaired water quality. The issue is the economic cost of treating that

water, and I think that in the future that has great promise.

I would agree that there are probably programs across the Federal Government that could be consolidated and made more efficient.

Senator REID. You will let us know.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. So, now we understand, based on Senator

Reid’s inquiry, Madam Secretary, you are going to go through the

Government and break out for us where any desalinization research money is. Is that correct?

Ms. BENEKE. Yes. We will do our best to make a review of that.

Senator DOMENICI. And if you need our help, we would be glad

to ask the Director of OMB to do that with you if you want. You

can do it on your own. If you need our help, we will ask him.

Ms. BENEKE. Thank you very much.

Senator DOMENICI. I concur that with water shortages in the

Southwest, it is rather dismal that the research has still not made

a major breakthrough for our country. We have not funded it well

enough, and if we put some our talented people on it, we are going

to find some way to fix this, I am sure.

[The information follows:]

DESALINATION FUNDING IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Reclamation has a major role among the federal agencies in desalination research, development, and demonstration. Other agencies use and adapt the

technologies to meet their missions. Many years ago it was recognized that a potential existed within the federal government for duplication of this effort. As a result,

the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center created the Interagency Consortium for Desalination

and Membrane Separation Research in 1992.1 Since that time, the Consortium has
23

Price, M.K., The Various Programs in Membrane Water Treatment Research Provide and Insight to Areas Where Further Innovation is Needed, The 1996 Fourteenth Annual Membrane

Technology/Separations Planning Conference, Business Communications Co., Inc., Newton, MA,

1996.

met yearly to discuss individual projects being carried out by the agencies and the

future directions of their programs.

The Consortium members work together to establish a communications network

that has the following benefits:

—Prevent federal duplication of efforts,

—Pool limited federal research funding and other resources to obtain common

goals,

—Identify future research needs, and

—Allow for discussion of new technologies with other experts in the field.

Within the past year, the Army has worked with Reclamation and the Navy in

its’ procurement of new technologies. Reclamation has assisted National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) in the selection of proposals for their Advanced

Technology Program. NIST also designed their membrane research program not to

overlap with Reclamation and specifically excluded water treatment applications.

The other agencies have provided advice and information to Reclamation to assist

in the formulation and management of the Desalination Research and Development

Program.

DESALINATION FUNDING IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The table below indicates the level of funding for desalination technologies within

the federal government. The information in the table is based on a recent telephone

survey of agency program offices. Several themes became evident as this information was collected. First, the military is spending the most money. Second, the work

being done in the other agencies is very mission specific. For instance, the Army’s

mission is to provide safe drinking water for troops in the field. This is done by

using commercial desalting technologies and making them deployable, light weight,

mobile, self-powered, rugged, and able to treat all waters. The Navy is responsible

for providing shipboard water and wastewater treatment starting with commercially

available technologies. The EPA develops regulations and they generally test and

demonstrate technologies related to the enforcement of the regulations. This also involves testing commercial products. Currently, they are doing no desalination work.

The Department of Energy’s laboratories are looking at environmental remediation

and waste management technologies. Their work is related but not directly supportive of desalination technologies. The one agency that could have a large impact

on the sustainability of advanced water treatment, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, has no funding to combine desalination with renewable energy at this time.

A third theme came from several of the agencies. They look to Reclamation’s program for development of desalination innovations, since the other agencies’ work

consists of engineering modifications to commercially available desalination products. Fourth, the cost of developing new desalination technologies does not come

cheaply. For instance, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is funding

three projects to develop a handheld desalination device. Each of these contracts

cost $500,000.

SUMMARY

While many federal agencies outside the Defense Department apply desalting

technologies in carrying out their missions, they are dependent upon what is available commercially. Reclamation’s desalination research and development program is

the only federal program devoted to reducing the costs of desalination through research, studies, development, and demonstration. Reclamation’s program benefits

not only the federal agencies in carrying out their mission, but also the public who

need additional supplies of clean water.
24

DESALINATION FUNDING BY FEDERAL AGENCY IN FISCAL YEAR 1999

Agency Fiscal year 1999

desal funding Example projects

Defense:

Army 2 ..................................................... $370,000 SIBR contract for handheld desal device.

1,100,000 Lightweight tactical water purification system development

125 gallon per hour.

120,000 Parts/support for older desal systems.

1,800,000 Complete development of 1,200 gallon per hour tactical

water purification system.

900,000 Cost reduction studies of existing desal systems.

1,500,000 Work with Navy on new desal and wastewater treatment

and reuse systems.

Corps of Engineers 3 .............................. ........................

Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency 2.

1,500,000 Three contracts for handheld desal devices under

mesoscopic equipment.

Navy—Marine Corps 4 ........................... ........................ Do support work for Army.

Navy—ships 5 ........................................ 6 1,000,000 Application of current technologies to shipboard use.

Commerce:

Advanced Technology Program7 ............ ........................ Specifically excludes water research.

U.S./Israel Science and Technology

Commission 8.

( 6 ) Past work has included $3,000,000 for Enhanced Seawater

Desal, project complete.

EPA 9 ................................................................ ........................

Energy:

Argonne 10 .............................................. ........................

Livermore 11 ............................................ ........................ Past work has included capacitive deionization desal research.

Nat Renewable Energy Lab 12 ................ ........................

Interior:

USGS 13 ................................................... ........................ Use commercially available products.

National Park Service 14 ........................ ........................ Use commercially available products.

BOR ................................................................. 2,360,000

CDC and NIH 15 ............................................... ........................ Use commercially available products.

NASA 16 ............................................................ ........................

TOTAL ................................................. 10,650,000

2 Personal communication with Jay Dusenbury, TARDEC, Army, Michigan.

3 Personal communication with Steve Maloney, Corps of Engineers, Illinois.

4 Personal communication with Mark Silbernagel, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, California.

5 Personal communication with Ivan Caplan, Naval Surface Warfare Center.

6 Estimate.

7 Personal communication with John Pellegrino, NIST, Colorado.

8 Personal communication with Duane Lee, Parsons Engineering, working under contract to Commerce.

9 Personal communication with Steve Clark, EPA Washington; Jeff Adams EPA Drinking Water Research, Ohio; Tom Sorg, Marc Parrotta, and Bob Bartian. 10 Personal communication with James Frank, Argonne National Laboratory. 11 Personal communication with Jeff Richardson, Livermore National Laboratory. 12 Personal communication with John Anderson, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 13 Personal communication with Yousif Kharaka, USGS, California. 14 Personal communication with Craig Patterson, NPS, Colorado. 15 Personal communication with Anita Highsmith, consultant, previously with NIH, Georgia. 16Waiting for response from NASA.

SAN JUAN RIVER PROJECT

Senator DOMENICI. I’m going to go through five or six New Mexico projects quickly. The San Juan River-Gallup, Mount Taylor

pipelines which are trying to bring water to Navajo country and to

the City of Gallup. We have been funding the proposed San Juan

River project for quite some time, Commissioner.

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is correct.

Senator DOMENICI. They are back before us—the Navajo Nation

is and the City of Gallup—asking for some additional funding. I

guess they have a new idea. The new approach is different than

the one we funded 10 years ago and we did not get anywhere. I

am very concerned. I am wondering what your thoughts would be

about us having the Navajo Nation and the City of Gallup and the
25

Bureau of Reclamation enter into an agreement that would say

what we are doing and what the parties will do in the event it becomes feasible. I am kind of concerned that people change this plan

so much. It seems like all we are doing is funding planning, and

now we have yet another plan. So, could you comment on that?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My briefing also indicates

that this has been being planned since the 1970’s.

Senator DOMENICI. You got it.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I commit to you to personally get involved in this

issue and put together a proposal for you that will make some

sense as to where we head in the future.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I want you to know that I intend to

write a letter—and I will send a copy of it to you—to both the entities in New Mexico suggesting that I do not think we ought to fund

it anymore, unless we have an agreement up front as to what we

are trying to do.

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is correct.

Senator DOMENICI. And they would then agree to be bound by it.

I just cannot see some more money unless that is going to happen.

INDIAN WATER SETTLEMENTS

Let me talk a minute generally about Indian water settlements.

This is one of the potential jobs you have in the future that could

get very big to be an integral part of the Indian water settlements,

if they occur. Is that correct?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. We are engaged in providing technical support to the Federal negotiating committees, as well as building

some projects as a result of water rights settlement acts enacted

by Congress. And I see a role for the Bureau of Reclamation in this

area.

Senator DOMENICI. We have a Taos Indian settlement brewing.

Could you just give us a brief update on that?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. We are involved. We had a $2 million appropriation in this year’s budget under the Upper Rio Grande project

for the Bureau of Reclamation that will be used for drilling some

wells. I am advised that the project sponsors might be looking for

some additional resources to do some modeling studies that result

from the information gained from drilling these wells.

BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM FUNDING

Senator DOMENICI. It has been hinted that the role of the Bureau

of Reclamation is changing rather dramatically. I think that is the

understatement of the world. If the Bureau of Reclamation was

doing what it has always done, its budget would be a much smaller

this year. But you have been assigned some new responsibilities.

As a consequence, I believe we have some pretty serious oversight

responsibilities with reference to that new role. You are now doing

very large environmental projects and wetlands projects, which I

have no objection to at all, but I want to go through a few of these

very quickly, if I could.

What is the total level of funding being requested by the Bureau

for the ecosystem related activities in the Bay-Delta region? How

much is being requested for other agencies within the Department

of the Interior and Government-wide for these type of activities?
26

And could you provide us with a crosswalk for the record which

shows the 2000 funding requests for ecosystem related work in the

Bay-Delta by agency?

Ms. BENEKE. We can certainly provide the crosswalk for you, Mr.

Chairman. The total request for the ecosystem restoration program

in the Bay-Delta is $75 million, which is the same amount as was

actually appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

Senator DOMENICI. And you will tell us how much is elsewhere

in Government, if you can.

Ms. BENEKE. Yes. I can do that. The California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act that was passed by Congress—I think

it was late 1996—authorized the Secretary of the Interior to select

projects for this purpose. So, the program is lodged within the Interior Department at this time and the Bureau of Reclamation.

[The information follows:]

BAY-DELTA FUNDING BY AGENCY

Fiscal year 2000 funding for ecosystem related work in the Bay-Delta by agency

has not been determined by CALFED at this time. Funding provided to the Bureau

of Reclamation for activities in support of the CALFED/Bay-Delta program include

three accounts as follows:

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................. $117,192,000

California Bay-Delta Ecosystem .................................................... 75,000,000

Water and Related Resources ........................................................ 16,317,000

CVP Restoration Fund ................................................................... 32,246,000

The CALFED Bay-Delta programs builds on numerous Federal and State programs addressing water management, conservation and water quality, as well as

aquatic species and habitat conservation. Other Department of the Interior agencies

supporting the CALFED effort are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.

Geological Survey. In addition to their routine operation of refuges and habitat management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested $2.1 million in fiscal year

2000 to provide technical assistance for activities supporting the conservation and

recovery of migratory birds, sensitive, threatened and endangered species, and other

trust species in the Bay-Delta watershed. They also participate in the CALFED program for habitat restoration in areas such as planning, assistance, review, and permitting and implementation. The U.S. Geological Survey request includes an estimated $3.5 million for a variety of studies covering water resources, wetlands, contaminants and salinity, and biological research that will contribute to solutions to

the problems in the Bay-Delta.

Agencies outside of the Department of the Interior provide CALFED/Bay-Delta

support as follows: The Environmental Protection Agency anticipates that significant funding in Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act program grants provided to California could be used for the water quality portion of this program. They

are currently involved in the development of wetlands and drainage management

projects throughout the Delta and its tributaries. The Natural Resources Conservation Service plans to provide funds to Resource Conservation Districts for riparian,

watershed, agriculture water run-off, and other ecosystem restoration activities in

the Delta. The National Marine Fisheries Service requested $1.4 million in their appropriation to support a number of relatively small ecosystem related studies in the

Delta. And the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers anticipates funding approximately

$12.4 million in fiscal year 2000 for ecosystem restoration projects along the Sacramento River that include levee rehabilitation, flood control projects, and restoration of seasonal and permanent wetlands.

CALFED APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES

Senator DOMENICI. Now, let us move on to CALFED for a moment. Now, of the $160 million appropriated to date for CALFED,

how much has been obligated and expended?
27

Ms. BENEKE. Well, in fiscal year 1998, there was $85 million ap- propriated. Of the $85 million, all of it has been allocated to either

programs or projects. $73 million has been obligated.

Senator DOMENICI. How much?

Ms. BENEKE. $73 million.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Ms. BENEKE. By that I mean that it is either under contract with

a third party or under an agreement with another agency to implement a program or projects. For fiscal year 1999, $75 million was appropriated. $64 million

of this has been allocated to projects or programs. We go through

a fairly extensive project selection process, a public process. There

is stakeholder participation. There is an integration panel that reviews these projects to make certain that they are consistent and

coordinated with our other authorities and spending. There are

technical screens that are undertaken, and then the Secretary approves the projects. At any rate, $75 million was appropriated, and $64 million has

been allocated to projects or programs. None of this has yet been

obligated, but we are working on our interagency agreements and

on our contracts as we speak, and we feel fully confident that it

will be obligated by the end of the fiscal year.

The expenditure rate is much lower, but I would encourage the

subcommittee to focus on our obligation rate.

There are some reasons that our expenditures are lower, Mr.

Chairman. For one thing, most of these projects are done on a 3-

to 5-year contract basis and we do not prepay the contracts. So, we

do not expend the money as quickly as we otherwise might.

In addition, CALFED typically has the funding for the entire

project in place before the project starts. We have all the money up

front before we engage in our 3- to 5-year time horizon for these

projects.

At any rate, the current amount that has actually been expended to date is $6.4 million of our 1998 appropriations. But again, I

would hope that the subcommittee would be looking more closely

at our obligation rate.

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, if I could just interrupt, and I

apologize. I would like to apologize to Dr. Westphal and Lieutenant

General Ballard for not being able to be present during their testimony. I indicated to you earlier that I would like to submit my

questions in writing on the Corps of Engineers, and with your permission, I will do that.

Senator DOMENICI. It will be done.

CALFED EXPENDITURES

I am sorry to keep going, but some of these have to be asked.

Would you state the amount of expenditures out of this $160 million appropriated again please?

Ms. BENEKE. To date it is $6.4 million, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. $6.4 million.

And you suggest that we should not be concerned about that low

level of expenditure?

Ms. BENEKE. Well, I am suggesting that there are some good reasons for it. The first fiscal year that we received appropriated funds
28

for this project was 1998, and there was some start-up time associated with getting our project selection process in place. As a manager I think that taking some time to get this process in place and

do it right was the prudent thing to do. We are talking about large

sums of money. We want to be very responsible about how we administer them.

So, again, we do not prepay our contracts. There was start-up

time associated with getting this program underway. We have it up

and running now. We think it is running smoothly. Again, I would

encourage the subcommittee to focus more on our rate of obligation

rather than the actual dollars that have gone out the door.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I just want to give you my version.

Frankly, we have a very tight budget in every area. The chairman

of the Appropriations Committee has been greatly concerned—he is

sitting here—whether we have enough money to allocate among

the subcommittees to get our job done this year. When you have $160 million obligated to a program that was declared to be somewhat of an emergency, a very high priority and

you have spent $6.4 million, it seems to me we have picked out a

program in government to advance fund in a very different way

than we do many other things: just put $160 million out there and

say whenever you get ready to use it, you use it. I would almost

think that sooner or later we are going to ask you to give us a

schedule of what is it you are going to use this for. If we are just

out there fishing around for projects, then we have just opened a

door to projects that nobody else gets in this country. Other

projects do not get that opportunity.

Ms. BENEKE. Well, I appreciate the concern that you are raising,

sir, but I do want to assure you that the projects have been selected. We have 171 projects that have been funded either through

these funds or in cooperation with the State or other non-Federal

partners. There are specific projects selected, specific projects that

are underway, specific projects that have been contracted for, and

we think that they are very important to the overall progress that

we can make in this program.

Senator DOMENICI. Does the new Governor of California support

the ecosystem restoration activities as currently structured and the

non-ecosystem components proposed for the 2000 budget, including

water supply, storage, and conveyance?

Ms. BENEKE. We have been working very closely with Governor

Gray Davis and his new team. Last year, Secretary Babbitt made

a personal commitment to making progress on this program. We

had partnered very closely with Governor Wilson. We feel fully confident that Gray Davis and his team are supportive of this request,

and we will continue our good partnership with the State of California.

Senator DOMENICI. The answer, however, is they do not yet do

that. They are not yet supporting it.

Ms. BENEKE. Oh, no. I am confident that they do support it, sir.

BUREAUWIDE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Senator DOMENICI. I just have three more. The conference report

on the 1998 energy and water appropriations bill asked the Bureau

to prepare a report on the operation and maintenance costs of its
29

projects. The committee requested the report because of expressed

concerns related to how the O&M costs were being allocated by

these projects, the declining level of operation and maintenance

funding for traditional water supply and distribution related work,

concerns that Reclamation’s overhead expenses may be excessive,

and the lack of opportunity of stakeholders to have input into the

formulation of the budget recommendations. The report was completed and provided to the Committee last September, for which we

are grateful.

STAKEHOLDERS’ INPUT INTO BUDGET PRIORITIES

What has the Bureau done to afford the stakeholders an opportunity to have input into the budget needs and priorities since you

gave us that report? Can the Bureau benefit from this increased

openness? Do you expect to learn new ways and approaches that

could improve efficiency and thereby reduce O&M costs?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have put out a memorandum, a

letter, a directive to our regional directors and area managers to

engage our customers in the budget formulation process and how

we do our O&M. We have been doing some of that across the West,

but not in all places. I would expect that we would improve both

in how we do our work and how much it takes to do our work.

STAFFING LEVELS FOR O&M ACTIVITIES

Senator DOMENICI. Well, let me just have one last word in that

regard and give you an example. The O&M cost report indicates

that the Bureau of Reclamation is continuing efforts to control

costs by reducing staffing. However, the Family Farm Alliance has

provided information indicating that the San Luis and DeltaMendoto Water Authority was able to accomplish operation and

maintenance work with 85 regular full-time employees compared to

120 Reclamation employees.

Does Reclamation have procedures to periodically review and assess manpower being used to accomplish O&M activities, and have

you reviewed situations like this one that I have just talked about?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I have not personally reviewed any of those, but

given the constraints on our budget, we review our needs and our

resources. There are some places we could probably improve. In

particular, I draw to your attention the concerns raised by the irrigation district where we met with them on a one-to-one basis and

reduced costs.

I think there is room for improvement. We operate, I believe, 89

major projects across the West. Some of them are probably doing

a good job. Some places, I think, we could stand some improvement, and we are moving in that direction.

Senator DOMENICI. That is all the questions I had.

The two Senators who arrived, do you want to question the Bureau or were you here for the Corps? Go ahead, Senator Burns.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURNS

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much.

How are the kids? Are the kids all right?

Ms. BENEKE. Fine, thank you, sir.
30

Senator BURNS. I have to ask her that every time I see her.

I thank you for coming today and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

just have a couple of questions and I have a statement, if I may

be allowed to put it in the record.

Senator DOMENICI. The questions will be made part of the record.

Senator BURNS. I am concerned about the $161 million and you

have only allocated about $6.4 million. Yet, I understand we are experiencing some cost overruns in some of my State. You have shifted those costs to the water users, the farmers and ranchers in

those areas, and I am concerned about that.

YELLOWSTONE RIVER FLOODING CONDITIONS

This past weekend I was up in Yellowstone Park, and we were

up in the mountains. We have got a lot of snow this year. Now,

that only means one thing: It has all got to come down and it is

very fluid. Of course, the lower Yellowstone River is my concern

again. We went through this process before at Yellowtail Dam, and

I would just like to hear your comments on steps that should be

taken now on the inventory. I know it could all come at once or it

could come all summer. We cannot control the weather end of this

thing, but I am just wondering, are there any plans being made

right now to deal with the snowpack?

It is a wonderful problem. New Mexico is in a drought. I wish

I could ship some water to Senator Domenici.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, Senator, we have starkly varied

conditions across the West. On the Pecos River in New Mexico, we

have 18 percent of normal water flow projected for this year, while

in the Pacific Northwest and other places we have over 250 percent.

However, our flood operations are in full gear in those areas

where we expect a runoff to make sure that we do everything to

minimize a flooding potential. So, we have learned from past experiences and hopefully we will do a better job as we move along.

Senator BURNS. I am really concerned about this, because I will

tell you we went through that flood a few years ago, and it was just

the result of water management out of Yellowtail Dam. At the high

time when it was coming down to Yellowstone, you made a big release out of Yellowtail on the Big Horn River. That flows into the

Yellowstone River. I will tell you right now if it looks like that we

have not really managed that water and we have similar flooding

this year, there is going to be a bounty on you because it will be

a sorry situation.

RECLAMATION GRAZING PERMITS

Now, another question. I am getting a little confused about the

Bureau’s main purpose here. I see you are dealing with grazing

permits now?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, we have lands that were withdrawn from

Bureau of Reclamation projects across the West. On some of those

lands, we do have grazing leases and manage our lands.

Senator BURNS. Does that not traditionally fall into BLM? I do

not think you folks are range managers.

Mr. MARTINEZ. And I would agree with you.
31

Senator BURNS. Well, then do something about it. Give it back

to the BLM or something.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I will look into that.

Senator BURNS. Yes, just do that.

GLENDIVE, MONTANA

Mr. Commissioner, we have some projects in Montana that are

paid off and they have requested transfer. One of them in particular is the Intake Division Dam near Glendive, Montana. What

is the problem there? How come we are not making that transfer?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, I am not aware of that particular request.

Basically, what we do is when a project sponsor requests transfer,

we engage and hopefully move toward completion. But let me tell

you, in the last 3 years we have not had too much success, and

hopefully we will have some success with some of these issues.

Senator BURNS. What is the main problem?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, among the problems is occasional opposition

from even the local folks as to whether or not a project should be

transferred valuation, and NEPA studies that have to be completed. It is just not as easy as saying we can transfer overnight.

Then, of course, we have to bring each transfer before Congress because ultimately you have to make that decision. Those are Federal

properties and Congress has to act on them, but we will move forward, engage the project sponsors, and see if we can bring that proposal before Congress.

Senator BURNS. You do not own the land. You just own the

water. Now they want to take control of their own project. It is already paid out, so why are we not making the transfer?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Because by Federal law, the Federal Government

owns those facilities even though they have paid out their percentage of the costs. So, in order for those transfers to occur, it has to

be through an act of Congress.

Senator BURNS. Well, Congress will act.

Do you have to do a NEPA before you make that transfer?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.

Senator BURNS. Well, that is all I have. Thank you very much.

But now, on the CALFED expenditures, I am clearly concerned about the obligation of $161 million and expenditure of just $6 million.

Senator DOMENICI. $6 million.

Senator BURNS. Expended $6 million. Then we go around and we

look for little projects to do, and run into cost over-runs and won’t

transfer ownership of these projects when they should be transferred. You can understand my concern.

I would like to remind you, now is the time to start planning for

that lower yellowstone, though, because we got a lot of water.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

Did you have any further comments, either of you? Yes, Madam

Secretary.

STATUS OF SPENDING ON CALFED PROGRAM

Ms. BENEKE. I am hoping that the record is clear on the exact

status of the spending on the Bay-Delta ecosystem program. We
32

have $149 million of the $160 million allocated to specific projects

or programs. We have $73 million obligated of the $85 million fiscal

year 1998 funds. I would also like to note that we are a year and

a half into this program. We have the mechanism in place to go

ahead and expend these funds, and I am anticipating that our obligation rate and expenditure rate will pick up considerably for the

next several months.

Senator BURNS. Would you supply the committee with a list of

those projects?

Ms. BENEKE. Yes. I would be glad to do that.

Senator DOMENICI. I think we have them, but let us check and

see. I think we do.

[The information follows:]

BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION APPROPRIATION

Funding Category/Projects Agency

Funding Allocated in fiscal

year 1998

Funding Allocated in fiscal

year 1999

Woodbridge Fish Screen ................................................................................ USBR ........... 1,575

Richter Brothers Screen ................................................................................ USBR ........... 49 ........................

Boeger Brothers Screen ................................................................................ USBR ........... 15 ........................

Small Diversion Fish Screens Program1 ...................................................... NRCS ........... 900 ........................

Fish Screen Improvements .............................................................. ..................... $2,539 ........................

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) Screen ............................... USBR ........... 325 ........................

Fish Passage Program .................................................................................. USBR ........... 8,000 ........................

ACID Fish Passage & Fish Screen Improvement Project, Phase II ..... ..................... 860 ........................

Anadromous Fish Passage at Clough Dam on Mill Creek .................. ..................... 1,280 ........................

Fish Passage Improvement Project at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam ..................... 341 ........................

Steelhead & Chinook Salmon Fish Passage Barrier Remediation at

Guadalupe River .............................................................................. ..................... 178 ........................

Cosumnes River Salmonid Barrier Program ........................................ ..................... 188 ........................

Boeger Family Farms Fish Screen, Phase III (Construction) ............... ..................... 140 ........................

Hastings Tract Fish Screen, Phase II (Construction) .......................... ..................... 271 ........................

City of Sacramento Fish Screen Replacement Project, Phase II ........ ..................... 655 ........................

American Basin Fish Screen & Habitat Improvement Project ............ ..................... 200 ........................

Stanislaus River Channel Restoration ................................................. ..................... 1,038 ........................

Tuolumne River Setback Levees .......................................................... ..................... 655 ........................

Battle Creek ......................................................................................... ..................... 395 ........................

Fish Passage Program Remaining Balance 1 ...................................... ..................... 1,799 ........................

ACID Fish Passage Improvement Project, Phase III ..................................... USBR ........... ........................ 5,253

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project ............................. USBR ........... ........................ 28,000

Lower Butte Creek Project, Phase II ............................................................. USBR ........... ........................ 775

Fish Passage Improvements ........................................................... ..................... 8,325 34,028

San Joaquin Floodplain Acquisition and Riparian Restoration .................... USFWS ......... 10,647

Bear Creek Floodplain Restoration Demonstration Project .......................... USFWS ......... 334 ........................

Napa River Wetlands Acquisition ................................................................. USBR ........... 1,000 ........................

Cache Slough Habitat Enhancement ............................................................ USBR ........... 85 ........................

Regional Wetlands Goals Project .................................................................. USEPA .......... 76 ........................

Cosumnes River Floodplain Acquisition ....................................................... USBR ........... 3,500 ........................

Prospect Island ............................................................................................. USCOE ......... 2,000 ........................

McCormack-Williamson Tract Acquisition .................................................... USFWS ......... ........................ 5,250

McCormack-Williamson Tract’s Wildlife-friendly Levee Management

Project ....................................................................................................... USFWS ......... ........................ 860

Habitat Restoration/Flood Control Bypasses Program1 ............................... USCOE ......... 1,200 ........................

Floodplain Restoration/Habitat Restoration on Existing Conservation

Lands Program ......................................................................................... USFWS ......... 14,000 2,700

Butte Creek Acquisition ....................................................................... ..................... 125 ........................

Lower Mill Creek Riparian Restoration ................................................ ..................... 30 ........................

Grayson River Ranch Perpetual Easement and Restoration ............... ..................... 732 ........................

Hill Slough West Habitat Demonstration Project ................................ ..................... 200 ........................

Rhode Island Floodplain Management and Habitat Restoration ........ ..................... 25 ........................

Nelson Slough Wildlife Area Restoration Demonstration Project ........ ..................... 256 ........................

Merced River Salmon Habitat Enhancement, Phase III ...................... ..................... 2,433 ........................
33

BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION APPROPRIATION—Continued

Funding Category/Projects Agency

Funding Allocated in fiscal

year 1998

Funding Allocated in fiscal

year 1999

Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Land Acquisitions ................... ..................... 1,900 ........................

Petaluma Marsh Expansion Project—Marin County ........................... ..................... 352 ........................

South Napa River Wetlands Acquisition and Restoration ................... ..................... 431 ........................

Lower Clear Creek Floodway Restoration ............................................. ..................... 3,560 ........................

Fern-Headreach Tidal Perennial Aquatic and Shaded River Aquatic

Conservation .................................................................................... ..................... 425 ........................

Benicia Waterfront Marsh Restoration ................................................ ..................... 59 ........................

Floodplain Acquisition, Management, and Monitoring on the Sacramento River .................................................................................. ..................... 1,000 ........................

Cosumnes River Acquisition Restoration, Planning and Demonstration .................................................................................................. ..................... 750 ........................

Deer and Mill Creeks Acquisition and Enhancement .......................... ..................... 1,000 ........................

Lower San Joaquin River Floodplain Protection and Restoration

Project .............................................................................................. ..................... 722 396

Biological Restoration and Monitoring in the Suisun Marsh/North

San Francisco Bay Ecological Zone ................................................ ..................... ........................ 773

South Napa River Tidal Slough and Floodplain Restoration Project .. ..................... ........................ 1,455

Butte Creek Riparian Restoration Demonstration ............................... ..................... ........................ 76

Habitat Restoration In Floodplains and Marshes ........................... ..................... 32,842 8,810

Liberty Island Acquisition ............................................................................. USFWS ......... 8,577 ........................

Sedimentation Movement, and Availability and Monitoring in the Delta .... USGS ........... 1,047 ........................

Tuolumne River Mining Reach Restoration Project No. 2—MJ Ruddy Segment ......................................................................................................... USFWS ......... ........................ 3,332

Merced River Salmon Habitat Enhancement, Phase I: Robinson/Gallo

Project, Ratzlaff Reach Site ..................................................................... USBR ........... ........................ 1,633

Tuolumne River Special Run Pool (SRP) 10 Restoration ............................. USBR ........... ........................ 165

Preliminary Design and Engineering—Lower Western Stone Restoration

Site, Merced River .................................................................................... USBR ........... ........................ 130

River Channel Changes ................................................................... ..................... 9,624 5,260

Environmental Water Acquisition Program2 ................................................. USBR ........... 14,500 ........................

Improved Instream Flows ................................................................ ..................... 14,500 ........................

Assessment of Organic Matter in the Habitat and Its Relationship to the

Food Chain ............................................................................................... USGS ........... 1,400 ........................

Evaluation of Selenium Sources, Levels, and Consequences in the

Delta ......................................................................................................... USGS ........... 1,589 ........................

Bacterial Treatment of Selenium in the Panoche Drainage ........................ USBR ........... 1,149 ........................

Sand and Salt Creek Watershed Project ...................................................... USBR ........... 599 ........................

Integrated Pest Management in Suisun Bay Program ................................. USBR ........... 266 ........................

Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the

Bay-Delta Watershed ................................................................................ USBR ........... ........................ 3,800

Water Quality and Temperature Improvement ................................ ..................... 5,003 3,800

Exotic Species Control Program .................................................................... USFWS ......... 1,250 ........................

Introduced and Undesirable Species Control .................................. ..................... 1,250 ........................

Evaluation of Tagging Data ......................................................................... USBR ........... 625 ........................

Improved Fish Management and Hatchery Operations ................... ..................... 625 ........................

Watershed Improvement/Sediment Stabilization on Deer, Mill and Antelope Creeks ............................................................................................... USFS ............ 371 ........................

Watershed Restoration Planning Program .................................................... USEPA .......... 1,550 1,310

Petaluma River Watershed Restoration ............................................... ..................... 220 ........................

Cottonwood Creek Watershed Group Formation .................................. ..................... 161 ........................

Battle Creek Watershed Stewardship .................................................. ..................... 145 ........................

Local Watershed Stewardship Steelhead Trout Plan ........................... ..................... 48 ........................

Cold Water Fisheries and Water Quality Element ............................... ..................... 200 ........................

Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan .............................................. ..................... 300 ........................

South Yuba River Coordinated Watershed Management Plan ............ ..................... 264 ........................

Watershed Restoration Strategy for the Yolo Bypass ......................... ..................... 212 32

Proposal to Develop Local Watershed Stewardship Plan for the

Lower Mokelumne River ................................................................... ..................... ........................ 159

Union School Slough Watershed Improvement .................................... ..................... ........................ 636

American River Integrated Watershed Stewardship Strategy ............. ..................... ........................ 221

Sulphur Creek Coordinated Resource Management Planning Group .. ..................... ........................ 24
34

BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION APPROPRIATION—Continued

Funding Category/Projects Agency

Funding Allocated in fiscal

year 1998

Funding Allocated in fiscal

year 1999

Lower Putah Creek Watershed Stewardship ........................................ ..................... ........................ 100

Alhambra Creek Watershed CRMP ....................................................... ..................... ........................ 138

Butte Creek Watershed Road Survey ............................................................ USFWS ......... 294 ........................

Inventory of Forest Road Systems—Cat Creek Watershed .......................... USFS ............ 38 ........................

Floodplain Easement—Lower Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers ............... NRCS ........... ........................ 1,545

Watershed Management .................................................................. ..................... 2,253 2,855

EPA Contribution .................................................................... ..................... ........................ 910

Bay-Delta Account .................................................................. ..................... 2,253 1,945

Integrated Phasing Strategy (CALFED Program Staff) ................................. USBR ........... 1,647 3,200

Coordinated Permitting (CALFED Program Staff) ......................................... USBR ........... 282 ........................

Development of a Watershed Management Program (CALFED Program

Staff) ........................................................................................................ USBR ........... 184 ........................

Comprehensive and Coordinated Monitoring Assessment and Research

Program (CCMARP) ................................................................................... USBR ........... 1,157 ........................

Bay-Delta Education Program ...................................................................... USBR ........... 300 120

San Joaquin Valley’s ‘‘Salmonids in the Classroom’’ Program Enhancement ....................................................................................... ..................... 3 ........................

Traveling Film Festival/Heron Booth/Video Archive ............................. ..................... 54 ........................

Environmental Agriculture Conferences and Field Tours .................... ..................... 28 ........................

Sacramento River Headwaters to the Ocean, Public Information and

Education ......................................................................................... ..................... 50 ........................

Discover the Flyway ............................................................................. ..................... 49 ........................

The Butte Creek Watershed Educational Workshops and Field Tours

Series ............................................................................................... ..................... 33 ........................

Bay-Delta Environmental Restoration Education Program .................. ..................... 40 ........................

The Virtual Science Center and Hands-on Learning Programs .......... ..................... 42 ........................

Water Hyacinth Education Program ..................................................... ..................... 1 10

Water Challenge 2010 ......................................................................... ..................... ........................ 65

Tuolumne River Natural Resources Program ....................................... ..................... ........................ 45

Special Support Programs (CALFED Program Staff) .................................... USBR ........... ........................ 1,751

Prospect Island Monitoring Project ............................................................... USCOE ......... ........................ 915

Monitoring, Permit Coordination, and Other Special Support ........ ..................... 3,570 5,986

Restoration Reserve ...................................................................................... USBR ........... 3,319 3,750

Technical Review and Quality Control Program ........................................... USBR ........... 850 750

Administrative Support Program .................................................................. USBR ........... 850 750

Miscellaneous Expenses/Administration .......................................... ..................... 4,469 5,000

Pending April 16, 1999 due date of the Public Solicitation Process .......... ..................... ........................ 10,171

Less EPA Contribution (Watershed Management Category) ......................... ..................... ........................ ¥910

GRAND TOTAL ALLOCATED (Bay-Delta Account) ............................. ..................... 85,000 75,000

1 Program is included in the Public Solicitation Process issued on February 16, 1999 with a project submittal due date of April 16, 1999.

Project selection is expected to be complete by June 30, 1999. 2 CALFED is currently working the Stakeholder community to develop this program.

Ms. BENEKE. It is a very important program in California.

Senator DOMENICI. When I raised the issue, I just wonder if we

started too fast. That is all I am wondering about.

Ms. BENEKE. Sir, I would also say that Congress authorized

$143.3 million in annual appropriations for this program. We have

come in with a request this year of $75 million, which we think is

well tailored to what we can expend and what the need is. We are

going to be sending up a request to extend the authorization for

this program, and we will be working with the authorizing committees on that as well.

NEW MEXICO DROUGHT CONDITIONS

Senator DOMENICI. I would like to make one last observation directed to the Department and, in particular, the Commissioner. I

am pleased that I have six Senators here.
35

My State is on the verge of a drought. The Commissioner has

just expressed a concern about one river in our State. It is not as

drastic, but every river is having enormous problems in terms of

the source of water that normally flows down the rivers.

We have a budding problem with reference to the endangered

species law that is very, very serious. It has to do with a minnow

on our biggest river system. It has been declared an endangered

species, and it is entirely possible that we cannot maintain the flow

in the river for the minnow, which is a latecomer to the water

needs of that river basin, having just been adjudicated, whereas we

have had all kinds of other users lined up who are entitled to

water, including large cities like Albuquerque who bought much of

the water that is coming down the river.

We may very well be asked here in Congress to do something to

alleviate this situation unless the managers of the river system can

accommodate the traditional users who already have claims, the

cities who own the water, and a minnow that has just recently, as

I indicated, made claim to our waters.

We have a similar one in the second largest water system, another minnow, the same claim, in a drought era in a desert State.

I just leave that with you.

Senator BURNS. Do you want some grizzly bears?

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. Well, what we need is we need some common

sense, but that is the problem.

Thank you both very, very much.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DOMENICI

SAN JUAN RIVER-GALLUP, MOUNT TAYLOR PIPELINE

The Committee has been funding the San Juan-Gallup, Mount Taylor Pipeline

study effort for the past two years. Last year, the Bureau of Reclamation entered

into a Memorandum of Agreement to undertake a feasibility study of a water supply

pipeline from Mount Taylor mine for additional water supplies in the area. The

Committee understood that the Bureau had sufficient funding available in fiscal

year 1999 to complete the study, but provided additional funding to insure there

were no delays or funding constraints.

Question. What is the status of this study which will confirm the quantity and

quality of water that might be available from the Mount Taylor mine?

Answer. We have completed an appraisal study of the requirements for treatment

and delivery of water through a pipeline from Mt. Taylor to Gallup, Acoma Pueblo,

and Laguna Pueblo. A separate preliminary study has been done by John Shomaker

& Associates for the City of Gallup on the quantity of water available. Shomaker’s

preliminary estimate is that 4,000 acre feet of water could be produced from the Mt.

Taylor Mine for about 40 years. We estimate the pipeline and treatment plant

would cost $35–$40 million to build and a preliminary estimate of $2–$2.5 million

annually for operation and maintenance. No special environmental or cultural resource issues have been identified. However, disposal of selenium at the water treatment plant is a concern and a high cost for documentation and mitigation of archaeological sites should be anticipated due to high density of known sites in the area.

Question. Will the study be completed in fiscal year 1999 as planned? If not, why?

Has the Bureau established a firm schedule to complete the determination of quantity and quality?

Answer. No, at this point Reclamation has not initiated feasibility studies. None

of the local sponsors are able to provide cost-sharing contributions to take the studies to the feasibility stage. Reclamation has proposed entering into a Memorandum
36

of Agreement with the city of Gallup, and the Acoma and Laguna Pueblos, under

which Reclamation would contract with the Pueblos under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination Act of Public Law 93–638 to accomplish some of the needed

studies. These contracts would not require cost sharing. We have proposed two

major studies to be completed under these contracts. The first are detailed hydrologic studies including groundwater modeling to provide a firmer estimate of the

quantity of water available and to identify and quantify potential impacts on other

parts of the hydrologic system such as springs, streams, and other aquifers. The second is the development of a legal framework for cooperation of the sponsors to plan,

implement, and operate the project. Substantial questions related to water rights

and allocation of project water need to be addressed before the project could be built.

To date, the proposed agreement has not been accepted and signed by all the sponsors.

SAN JUAN GALLUP-NAVAJO WATER SUPPLY STUDY

The San Juan Gallup-Navajo Water Supply feasibility study has been on-going for

several years. The Committee provided $150,000 for the current year for the Bureau

of Reclamation to complete the feasibility study and initiate NEPA compliance activities.

Question. What is the status of this study?

Answer. Reclamation and the study partners will complete a planning status report and environmental analysis during fiscal year 1999. The report will present the

preferred plan and alternatives considered by the study partners and identify significant environmental issues that would be addressed during the National Environmental Policy Act process. Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act will be initiated with respect to the endangered fish in the San Juan River by

the Bureau of Indian Affairs during fiscal year 1999.

Question. How much funding is included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request

to continue the study effort?

Answer. No funding has been requested for fiscal year 2000.

Question. Is this level of funding sufficient to keep the study on schedule?

Answer. No. Additional funding of $300,000 would be needed in fiscal year 2000

to keep this project moving forward. These funds would allow the NEPA process to

move forward and allow data to be collected to refine the project plan. The additional capability shown was not included in the President’s budget. The Department

does not support the addition of funds for any project that would result in the reduction of funding for programs or projects included in the budget request.

Question. Has the Bureau established a firm schedule to complete the San Juan

Gallup-Navajo Water Supply study effort?

Answer. No. Due to the uncertainty of funding a firm schedule has not been completed. The planning status report and environmental assessment will be completed

during fiscal year 1999. If funding is available, necessary data could be collected and

a Feasibility Report/Environmental Statement could be completed by the end of

2001. In order for the project to move to implementation, additional construction authorization and funding would also be required.

TAOS INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT

The Committee provided $2 million in the current fiscal year for the Bureau of

Reclamation to initiate and complete a confirmatory well drilling program of the

deep aquifer which was a critical element of the Taos Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement.

Question. What is the current status of your efforts to undertake this important

work?

Answer. An environmental assessment, which typically takes 3–5 months, is in

progress and is scheduled to be completed late in April of this year. Depending upon

the results of the assessment, drilling could commence after the environmental assessment is done.

Question. Will the proposed work be completed in fiscal year 1999 as directed, if

not, why? Is additional funding needed in fiscal year 2000? If so, what is the Bureau’s funding capability?

Answer. No, the work cannot be completed in fiscal year 1999 because of the size

and depth of the seven wells. It will take about two months to complete each well

even with some 24-hour per day drilling. Completion of the drilling is anticipated

in late spring or summer of 2000.

The current funding capability estimate for fiscal year 2000 is $700,000. This includes all required NEPA activities, contact administration, modeling reports, and
37

consultant fees. This estimate is based on the assumption that the drilling has been

completed, and a recommendation to proceed has been made.

UTE RESERVOIR PIPELINE PROJECT, CURRY AND ROOSEVELT COUNTIES, NM

The Conference Agreement for fiscal year 1999 included $200,000 for the Bureau

of Reclamation to begin feasibility studies of the Curry and Roosevelt counties portion of the Ute Reservoir Pipeline project.

Question. How does the Bureau of Reclamation plan to proceed with this work in

fiscal year 1999?

Answer. The Ute Water Commission is working on a plan of study for this work

which will include feasibility planning and environmental compliance for the Curry

and Roosevelt Counties phased portions of the Ute Pipeline project. Reclamation

plans on modifying the existing Cooperative Agreement to include this work once

we receive and agree on the scope of work.

Question. How much funding is requested in your fiscal year 2000 budget to continue this work?

Answer. No funding was requested for this work in fiscal year 2000.

Question. Now, $300,000 was provided in fiscal year 1998 for the Quay County

portion of the project. What is the status of the Quay County studies?

Answer. On June 24, 1998, Reclamation entered into a Cooperative Agreement

with the Eastern Plains Council of Governments (COG). This obligated funds in the

amount of $285,000 to the COG, which includes $15,000 to administer the contract.

The additional $15,000 was set aside to pay Reclamation administrative costs.

In September of 1998, a contract was entered into between the COG and Smith

Engineering to prepare a Special Report (to be completed in June 1999) which would

provide enough information for the local sponsors to solicit financing for final design

and construction either from private or public entities. This effort differs from past

efforts as it provided for project phasing, which allows the Quay County portion to

be built first, and subsequent phasing would provide for final project completion.

UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT

The Upper Rio Grande Basin water operation model has been under development

for several years with funding that has been appropriated by this Committee.

Question. Am I correct that the development of the model is about to be completed? Is there any additional model development which will not be completed in

fiscal year 1999 for which funding will be required in fiscal year 2000? If so, does

the Bureau have sufficient funding requested in fiscal year 2000 to carry out any

additional development work that may be needed? How much funding over and

above the budget request is needed to complete the development work?

Answer. The first fully linked upper-basin model, operating from Colorado to Fort

Quitman, Texas is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2000. However, this

‘‘backbone water operations model’’ will lack necessary refinements required to satisfy planning and NEPA applications in some reaches of the river. These necessary

refinements are expected to continue into fiscal year 2004 as various water management and operational issues surface in the basin requiring the detail of a planning

model. Several water issues in the basin are currently showing a need for accelerated application of the planning model. Acceleration of the model refinement would

require enhanced funding from various partnership sources. Currently, the model is

being developed using funding from several sources and partners. Reclamation has

requested $345,000 for model development in fiscal year 2000 but could apply an

additional $250,000 toward accelerated model refinement. The additional capability

shown was not included in the President’s budget. The Department does not support

the addition of funds for any project that would result in the reduction of funding

for programs or projects included in the budget request.

Question. How do you envision using this operational model as a management

tool?

Answer. The model can be thought of in terms of three modular components:

First, a real-time hydrologic daily decision support system linked to a real time

monitoring network. Second, a water accounting and water operations model used

for analysis and documentation of daily flood control and project water delivery operations; and, third, a basin-wide hydrological planning model used for evaluating

impacts of long range water management and water development scenarios. There

is already a well defined need for all three model components.

Question. Now, funding is included in the budget to begin work with the Regional

Water Planning Assembly to undertake ‘‘grass-roots water planning efforts for the

Middle Rio Grande Valley’’. Can you explain what the Bureau has in mind, what
38

the total cost of the effort is expected to be, and how long you expect to fund this

effort? What is the make-up to the Regional Water Planning Assembly? Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $50,000 is requested for coordination with the Regional Water Planning Assembly and minor technical support. An additional

$78,000 is estimated to be needed for work through fiscal year 2002. The Regional

Planning Assembly is a grass roots organization which came into existence at the

request of the New Mexico Governor and State Engineer to address basin-wide

water resource issues. The mission of this group is to formulate a regional water

plan funded by the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. The group includes

representatives from every water interest sector in the Middle Rio Grande Valley.

This includes farming, municipal, environmental, rural organizations as well as

water management agencies at the local, state, and federal level.

RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM—TITLE XXVIII

Congress provided $2 million for the current fiscal year for the Bureau of Reclamation to more fully participate in a cost-shared program with the State of New

Mexico for recreation facility improvements under Title XXVIII of the Reclamation

Projects Authorization and Adjustments Act. The funding was provided because the

Committee understood that the State of New Mexico had been financing recreation

improvements unilaterally and that an imbalance existed in the allocation of funding through this program.

Question. Do you expect any problems in carrying out this program as authorized

and intended by the Committee? Specifically, how is the Bureau using the $2 million provided for improvements at recreation facilities in New Mexico?

Answer. We will have no problem in carrying out this program. Most of the funding will be used to rehabilitate recreation facilities at Elephant Butte and Navajo

State Parks. Funds will also be used for facilities at Caballo, Heron, El Vado, Sumner, Percha and Leasburg State Parks.

ANIMAS-LA PLATA

Congress has appropriated $3 million or more annually for the past several years

for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue data collection, analysis and other activities related to the Animas-La Plata project. The fiscal year 2000 budget again includes $3 million for similar activities.

Question. What has been the total level of funding appropriated for this project

over the past 5 years, and how much has actually been spent on the project?

Answer. The total amount appropriated for Animas-La Plata for the period fiscal

year 1995 through fiscal year 1999 was $34.8 million. Reclamation applied a total

of $4.8 million of underfinancing to this project during the period. Therefore, the net

allotments for the past 5 years totaled $30 million. The total amount spent on the

Project from fiscal year 1995 through February 1999 was about $20.2 million.

Question. How much funding is available for expenditure in fiscal year 1999 from

prior year balances? How much of the total funding available does the Bureau expect to spend in fiscal year 1999?

Answer. At the beginning of fiscal year 1999, $9.5 million was available to expend

from prior year balances. If the fiscal year 1999 allotment of $0.5 million is added,

then $10.0 million is available to expend in fiscal year 1999. The initial fiscal year

1999 estimate for expenditures was approximately $3.0 million. With the anticipated new environmental evaluations discussed below, additional expenditures are

expected. The magnitude of those expenditures is currently being evaluated.

Question. Now the budget justification seems to indicate that the Department has

selected a Proposal for Animas-La Plata. The justification uses terms such as ‘‘the

Department of the Interior’s Proposal’’, the ‘‘Administration Proposal’’, and ‘‘refining

the Proposal’’. Please explain what is meant by ‘‘Proposal’’. Has the Department of

the Interior selected a ‘‘project’’ alternative as directed by Congress? Specifically,

how will the funding requested for fiscal year 2000 be used?

Answer. On August 11, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior presented an Administration Proposal to build a down-sized version of Animas-La Plata to implement the

Colorado Ute water rights settlement, which would also include a nonstructural element as part of the settlement implementation. Then on January 4, 1999, a Notice

of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register announcing the intent to prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Animas-La

Plata Project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,

as amended. The Draft Statement would evaluate the environmental impacts of the

Administration Proposal and several other alternatives. Pending public input, Reclamation intends that the Administration Proposal and each of the alternatives described in the NOI undergo an environmental impact analysis beginning with a
39

threshold assessment of the alternative’s capability to accomplish the project’s purpose fiscal year 2000 funding would be used to conduct a major portion of the NEPA

process identified in the NOI. Current plans are to use contracts under the Indian

Self-Determination Act authority of Public Law 93–638 with both Colorado Ute Indian Tribes to conduct this work.

Question. Last year, you testified that the analysis of alternatives would be completed in 3–6 months. Has the analysis of alternatives been completed as you testified? If not, why?

Answer. Reclamation conducted an appraisal-level analysis on the two alternatives resulting from the Romer/Schoettler Process. Prior to its finalization, the

Secretary of the Interior announced an Administration Proposal incorporating portions of those two alternatives. All information and data developed as part of the

Romer/Schoettler Process, as well as previously completed environmental studies,

are being utilized and incorporated into the present Draft Supplemental EIS effort.

Question. Why should the Congress appropriate any further funding for this

project for fiscal year 2000?

Answer. The Administration is committed to implementing a water rights settlement for the Colorado Ute Tribes. We anticipate increased costs to accelerate NEPA

compliance work and will seek authority to immediately initiate activities to implement the selected alternatives.

SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA RESEARCH PROJECT

For the past several years, funding has been provided for the Salton Sea research

project in California to investigate increasing salinity, other water quality issues,

and rising surface levels which are flooding developed areas and wildlife habitat.

The Bureau of Reclamation, and other Federal and State agencies are engaged in

an effort to identify and evaluate possibilities for improving the conditions of the

sea, a program of additional planning, research, and environmental impact analysis.

Question. First, tell the Committee why the Bureau of Reclamation is involved in

this effort?

Answer. The Salton Sea as we know it today was created in 1905–07, when the

flooding Colorado River broke through a temporary diversion works and flowed into

the Salton Sink for nearly 15 months before it was diverted back to the river channel. Soon after, the Sea began to decrease as the flow of new water was discontinued

prior to the creation of irrigated agriculture. In 1942, the All-American Canal began

carrying Colorado River water to the Imperial and Coachella Valleys which flank

the Salton Sea and thus the Sea began to receive an annual inflow of water created

from the agricultural drainage. Reclamation was the Federal partner in the development of this diversion system.

The Bureau of Reclamation studies directed towards managing the salinity of the

Salton Sea date back to the 1960’s, when Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources performed a joint appraisal evaluation of possible alternatives. Title XI of Public Law 102–575, the Salton Sea Research Project Act, directed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through Reclamation, to conduct a research project. Most recently, Congress in 1998 passed the Salton Sea Reclamation

Project Act, Public Law 105–372, which directed the Secretary of the Interior, acting

through Reclamation, to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement/California

Environmental Impact Report feasibility study to reclaim the Sea, and specifically

named the Bureau of Reclamation as lead agency on these efforts.

Question. Setting aside the action of the Secretary of the Interior designating the

Bureau of Reclamation as the lead agency in the Department, is there a direct connection to your traditional missions and responsibilities?

Answer. There is a direct connection to Reclamation’s traditional mission and responsibilities in this project. The two irrigation districts that contribute agricultural

drainage to the Salton Sea are both Reclamation projects built through a partnership with the Federal government. As with most of our projects, if the operation of

the project adversely affects the local environment then Reclamation can be involved

in developing solutions to the problems.

Question. How much funding has been provided for this effort across all Federal

government agencies in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, and how much is requested for fiscal year 2000? How much funding are State and other non-Federal

agencies providing for fiscal year 1999 and 2000?

Answer. The following table presents the Federal funding being used to perform

the various activities associated with the Salton Sea.

Bureau of Reclamation

Fiscal year 1998—$2,000,000 (Includes $400,000 enacted and $1,600,000 fund

transfer and reprogramming).
40

Fiscal year 1999—$400,000 (Enacted).

Fiscal year 2000—$1,000,000 (Requested).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal year 1998—$5,875,000 (Enacted).

Fiscal year 1999—$13,400,000 (Enacted).

Fiscal year 2000—(None Requested).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Fiscal year 1998—$1,000,000 (Enacted).

Fiscal year 1999—$1,000,000 (Enacted).

Fiscal year 2000—$1,000,000 (Requested).

U.S. Geological Survey

Provides limited scientific expertise and personnel support.

The State and other local non-Federal agencies have made or will make available a total of $3,784,100 for work in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.

Question. What is the total estimated cost of the effort to complete the feasibility

design, and the technical and biological impact analysis work necessary for the

preparation of feasibility report and environmental compliance documents? Answer. The current estimated cost of the feasibility study is $4.85 million. Reclamation is providing 50 percent of the total costs of the study which is being

matched by a non-Federal cost sharing partner. The non-Federal cost sharing partner is the Salton Sea Authority, a Joint Power Authority established under the laws

of the State of California.

Question. Has a firm schedule, which establishes critical milestones, been established for this work? If so, could you provide it for the record?

Answer. The Department of the Interior and Reclamation understand that January 1, 2000, is a firm date for a report to Congress. The following schedule is being

followed to prepare the report and documents for this project.

November 12, 1998—Salton Sea Alternatives Final Pre-appraisal Report—Engineering information on Salinity and Water Surface Elevation.

February 15, 1999—Scoping Report on Public Meetings Held in July and October

1998.

March 15, 1999—Draft Report, Screening Analysis of Initial Restoration Alternatives.

April 30, 1999—Draft Appraisal Report on Proposed Alternatives.

May-June 1999—Initial Reports from Baseline Science work being performed with

submittal to the Science Subcommittee, Salton Sea Authority, and Reclamation.

September 1, 1999—Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Planning Report,

California Environmental Impact Report.

January 1, 2000—Final Environmental Impact Statement/Planning Report, California Environmental Impact Report to Congress.

Question. Is it realistic to believe that the Bureau of Reclamation can complete

the feasibility report and associated National Environmental Protection Act documentation by January 1, 2000 when this work is only 9 percent complete?

Answer. A report will be made available with proposed action alternatives for consideration by Congress by January 1, 2000. Reclamation will be able to provide an

analysis of the alternatives for feasibility economics and costs on phase one, but not

a complete feasibility-level engineering design for all phases. It is envisioned that

the preferred project may be proposed using a phased approach to addressing the

ecological issues of the Sea. The final Environmental Impact Statement/Planning

Report will then include at least feasibility-level designs and cost estimates of phase

one and appraisal-level designs and cost estimates for the other features.

Question. The fiscal year 2000 justification material indicates that a portion of the $2 million budget request is to ‘‘initiate specific design work on the preferred alternative course of action coming out of the feasibility report and supporting environmental compliance documents’’. How much of the budget request is for specific design work on the preferred alternative, and why is this work being proposed prior

to completion of the feasibility report and project authorization? Answer. Of the $2,000,000 total program in fiscal year 2000, $1,000,000 is nonFederal cost-sharing. When the fiscal year 2000 Budget Justification was prepared,

the funding proposed was based on an aggressive schedule that assumed that authorization by Congress would occur quickly and initiation of designs could occur

shortly after Congressional decision within the same fiscal year. However, since

then it is envisioned that the preferred project may be proposed using a phased approach to addressing the ecological issues of the Sea. The final Environmental Impact Statement/Planning Report will then include at least feasibility-level designs

and cost estimates of phase one and appraisal-level designs and cost estimates for
41

the other features. The funds originally identified in fiscal year 2000 to collect initial design data are now expected to be needed to complete feasibility designs for

other phases of the preferred plan.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (CALFED)

The budget request for fiscal year 2000 is $95 million, the last year appropriations

are authorized. However, the Administration has proposed legislative language to

extend the current spending authorization through 2003 in order that the full $430

million authorized currently will be funded. In addition to the funding provided

under the CALFED program, funding is provided for similar restoration work in the

Bay-Delta area through the Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, the Bureau’s Water and Related Resources funding account; and other

Federal agencies.

The programmatic environmental impact statement and a report describing the

preferred alternative to address the issues related to the restoration program, including the possibility of new water supply options, is long overdue. Yet, the budget

for fiscal year 2000 proposes expanding current activities by beginning the planning

and implementation additional activities without reaching agreement on critical

issues such as additional water supply, storage and conveyance, which are important to other water users principally those in the agricultural and development communities.

Question. When Secretary Babbitt released the revised CALFED Phase II Report

he indicated that additional issues remained to be worked out. What are these additional issues that need to be resolved? When will a final revised Phase II Report

be issued, and a preferred alternative selected?

Answer. The major issue referred to by the Secretary involved the water supply

reliability element of the CALFED program, more specifically, the treatment of new

storage facilities. CALFED agencies are continuing to refine the CALFED program,

including the water management strategy and how to finance the program.

CALFED has received the largest number of public comments on the use of water

conservation as a tool to reduce demand versus the support for construction of new

facilities, particularly surface storage. The schedule calls for CALFED to issue a

supplemental draft environmental impact statement containing a preferred alternative and a Phase II Report in June 1999, and the final EIS/EIR in the spring of

2000.

Question. Some have suggested that reoperation of existing non-Federal power facilities could provide significant additional water supplies needed to solve environmental and other water supply issues. What can you tell us about this idea? Is it

a creditable suggestion, and would the Department of the Interior support such an

approach?

Answer. The reoperation of existing non-Federal power facilities could provide additional water for water users and the environment at high priority times and

places. CALFED has proposed taking a comprehensive analysis of existing non-Federal hydropower projects in California as part of the proposed Integrated Storage

Investigation. Interior, other Federal agencies, and the State generally support undertaking the Integrated Storage Investigation analysis and are currently refining

the scope of work.

Question. Under the CALFED agreement, the State of California is to share the

costs of activities undertaken. Describe the cost-sharing arrangement with the State

of California. If you consider Reclamation’s appropriation of $160 million, what is

the corresponding required level of State and non-Federal cost-sharing, and how

much has actually been provided?

Answer. The cost-share agreement between the Federal and State governments

calls for equal sharing of ecosystem restoration costs over the period of ecosystem

restoration activities. With the passage of Proposition 204, California voters provided $60 million in 1997 and another $390 million will become available when the

State certifies the Final Programmatic Environmental Statement/EIS/EIR (similar

to the Federal Record of Decision). Based on Proposition 204 and the $430 million

authorized by the Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act, the Federal

and State governments have made approximately equal commitments to Bay-Delta

ecosystem restoration. As of September 30, 1998 CALFED reports that the State

had provided $55 million in Proposition 204 and other funds for approved Bay-Delta

ecosystem restoration projects. Funding the $75 million ecosystem restoration request and extending the Bay-Delta Act is important to maintaining the Federal

commitment.

Question. Now the budget request for fiscal year 2000 proposed $20 million to

begin work on Phase II, non-ecosystem components. Is Phase II work specifically au-
42

thorized? What is the justification for undertaking Phase II work in the absence of

a final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Preferred Alternative?

Is there wide spread agreement and support for proceeding with this work? Is the

State ready to cost-share in this work? What is the position of the new governor

on proceeding with this work? Answer. The non-ecosystem work under Phase II that is contemplated for the $20

million is authorized by a wide range of existing authorities applicable to the Federal CALFED agencies. For example, those authorities include the Flood Control Act

of 1950, Section 205; Reclamation Reform Act, Sections 210(1) and (c); Clean Water

Act of 1948, and additional authorities contained in Public Law 102–575, Central

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).

Undertaking work on non-ecosystem Phase II projects prior to completion of the

programmatic environmental statement is appropriate because these are certain actions that will be needed for any alternative selected, and those actions can be taken

consistent with the restrictions in the proposed fiscal year 2000 Bay-Delta appropriations language. CALFED anticipates completing its EIS/EIR during fiscal year

2000. We are requesting fiscal year 2000 funds to be ready to start these projects

in a timely manner. Significant support exists for resolution of issues in the BayDelta. State agencies and California stakeholders endorse the activities that will be

undertaken. Governor Gray Davis indicated strong support for the CALFED/BayDelta Program in his inaugural address. The draft EIS/EIR will describe the costshare obligations of Federal and State government, as well as others, to finance implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

MANAGING COMPETING WATER DEMANDS

Because of concerns of the Senate authorizing committee, language was included

in last years report directing the Bureau of Reclamation not to use funds to complete evaluations of current practices in each of the Area Offices to find ways to

more effectively manage competing demands for water.

Question. Have you complied with this directive? If not, explain why?

Answer. Yes. Reclamation has complied with this directive. Reclamation also removed two performance goals referring to this activity from the fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

The Conference Report on the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations

Bill asked the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare a report on the operation and

maintenance costs of it’s projects. The Committees requested the report because of

expressed concerns related to how O&M costs were being allocated by project purpose, the declining level of operation and maintenance funding for traditional water

supply and distribution related work, concerns that Reclamation’s overhead expenses may be excessive, and the lack of opportunity of stakeholders to have input

into the formulation of the Bureau’s budget recommendations. The report was completed and provided to the Committee last September.

Question. What has the Bureau done to afford stakeholders an opportunity to

have input into the budget needs and priorities?

Answer. Reclamation has been working for several years with many of our water

and power customers in the formulation of the operation and maintenance (O&M)

program, for our multipurpose projects. As an expansion of current efforts, and in

response to language contained in the statement of the Managers accompanying the

Conference Report for the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill,

the Commissioner issued a memorandum in September 1998 which directed the Regional Directors and Area Mangers to redouble their efforts to insure customers who

are interested are given the opportunity to provide input into the formulation of

project O&M programs. For Reclamation, this will continue to be an ongoing activity.

Question. Can the Bureau benefit from this increased openness?

Answer. Reclamation, our customers, and the general public have benefited and

learned from the increased openness. We encourage customer feedback and believe

the increased openness gives the customers the opportunity to realize how serious

and committed Reclamation is to Project O&M.

Question. Do you expect to learn new ways and approaches that could improve

efficiencies and, thereby reduce O&M costs?

Answer. Our efforts to benchmark the power program has been a worthwhile activity in that it has already identified areas where we compared very favorably with

the hydroelectric industry. Reclamation will use benchmarking in the future to identify new ways and approaches to improve efficiency and ultimately reduce costs.
43

Question. Now there is continuing concern that the Bureau of Reclamation is placing increasing emphasis and funding on non-traditional activities such as wetland

creation and wildlife habitat enhancement, to name a few, at the expense of traditional operation and maintenance activities necessary to meet contractual water

supply obligations. If you look just at the traditional O&M activities related to contractual water supply and distribution requirements, how does the fiscal year 2000

budget request of the Bureau compare to the fiscal year 1999 budget request?

Answer. Reclamation undertakes environmental mitigation and enhancement activities only to the extent, and in the manner, authorized by Congress. These efforts

are done in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, state game and fish

agencies our water users and the public. Furthermore, nearly all of the environmental work which we undertake is necessitated by the regulatory requirements of

such laws as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, which requirements must be met if we are to continue to deliver the water and power benefits

for which Reclamation projects have been authorized. We do not fund environmental

work at the expense of project operation and maintenance. To the contrary, we fund

such work so that we can continue to meet our contractual obligations to deliver

water and power to our customers.

Our environmental activities, including compliance with regulatory laws, are generally funded under different fund activities than are traditional project operation

and maintenance activities. Reclamation’s fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000

budgets in the Facility Operation and Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation,

show increases in funding for both activities of $8.0 million and $7.5 million respectively. We believe that the increase reflects Reclamation’s commitment to continue

to meet its traditional contractual obligations for water and power supply in an effective and efficient manner.

Question. The O&M Cost Report indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation is continuing efforts to control costs by reducing staffing. However, the Family Farm Alliance has provided information indicating that the San Luis and Delta-Mendota

Water Authority was able to accomplish certain operation and maintenance work

with 85 regular full time employees compared to 120 Reclamation employees.

Answer. The Family Farm Alliance number of 120 is incorrect. According to Reclamation records, 72 federal employees performed subject operation and maintenance work.

Question. Does Reclamation have procedures in place to periodically review and

assess the manpower being used to accomplish O&M activities?

Answer. Reclamation reviews and assesses staffing needs for O&M activities on

a regular basis and we consider this activity an important one.

Question. Have you reviewed situations like this with the objective of applying

new approaches and methods instituted by non-Federal entities at other Reclamation projects?

Answer. Reclamation always seeks ways to learn new approaches at one project

and apply it to other projects Reclamation-wide as appropriate. We would also welcome the opportunity to benchmark our water program with others having similar

facilities as we have in our power program.

Question. Turning to indirect costs related to O&M projects, your Report indicates

that 62 of 89 projects experienced overhead costs in excess of 20 percent in 1–2

years over 5 fiscal years of the analysis. How does this 20 percent level compare

to other Federal agencies and non-Federal entities operation and maintenance overhead costs?

Answer. As noted in the report at page 31, three of Reclamation’s 89 projects had

overhead rates in excess of 20 percent in one or more of the five fiscal years in question based upon the definition of ‘‘overhead costs’’ used in the report. As was further

noted on page 32, if Project General Expense costs were added to overhead costs,

the total of which is referred to in the report as ‘‘indirect costs,’’ then 62 projects

would have had ‘‘indirect cost rates’’ in excess of 20 percent in at least one of the

five years in question.

In our opinion, it is not possible to compare the overhead rates shown in our report to the ‘‘overhead rates’’ of other Federal agencies or non-Federal entities. This

is due to the fact, as the report notes at page 5, that: (1) the term ‘‘overhead’’ is

not used in budget documents submitted to Congress nor is it defined in the official

Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, and (2) the private sector

does not use a uniform, commonly accepted approach as to what is included in overhead. As a result, practices vary widely across federal agencies as well as the private sector as to what costs are accounted for and labeled as overhead costs and

as to how overhead rates are computed. Furthermore, what some federal agencies

call ‘‘overhead rates’’ are actually just estimated service charges that may bear little

direct relationship to actual costs incurred. Consequently, one cannot compare stat-
44

ed overhead rates between federal agencies, or between federal agencies and private

firms, without first ensuring that each entity involved has classified exactly the

same types of costs as overhead costs.

Question. In your judgement, what is an acceptable level of indirect costs for a

project?

Answer. The level of administrative services and support functions, the costs of

which are ‘‘indirect costs,’’ required to support the operation and maintenance of a

project will vary from project to project because each project is authorized in a different manner. Depending on contractual arrangements we have with the individual

authorized projects, these costs may vary, and do. Thus, what is acceptable for one

project may not be acceptable at another. Reclamation does its best to be equitable

in assessing indirect costs in a cost conscious, business-like manner.

Question. What is Reclamation doing to identify those programs and activities

that have indirect costs in excess of what would be expected?

Answer. As addressed in the O&M Cost Report (see Chapter 6), Reclamation has

taken a number of steps over the past few years to reduce the costs of its centralized

administrative services and of its regional administrative services. For example, in

the Management Services Office (MSO) in Denver, which provides the majority of

Reclamation’s centralized administrative services, the administrative staff has been

reduced from 434 to 286 from fiscal year 1994 to 1997, a reduction of approximately

35 percent. This was also accompanied by a reduction in office space, telephones,

and utilities. As a result, the MSO has reduced its own internal indirect costs by

35 percent.

Under the Chief Financial Officer, a council of Reclamation managers reviews all

indirect budgets for both consistency and reductions. Programs are discussed and

line managers make decisions on those indirect costs needed for effective operations.

Reclamation has also instituted standard processes for reviewing Reclamationwide business processes and systems. This process has resulted in cost savings

through common business practices, careful scrutiny of what administrative computer systems are essential for efficient operations, and bulk buying of software. For

example, Reclamation was able to save $5.3 million over three years by purchasing

one bureau-wide Oracle license instead of site licenses.

In another case, we were able to replace multiple timekeeping systems with one.

The report recites other cost reduction measures in the regional offices which have

been taken.

Reclamation also continues to review overhead costs charged to a project on a

project-by-project basis to ensure that these costs are properly accounted and

charged, and make corrections, as necessary. We are also taking a look at reimbursable O&M costs and assessments that impact the project.

Question. I believe that in the past, the Bureau of Reclamation has indicated that there was around $75 million of deferred maintenance work. What is your current

estimate of deferred maintenance work?

Answer. In our Financial Statement for fiscal year 1998 we reported about $12

million in deferred maintenance on our ‘‘reserved works’’ in accordance with the requirements of the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 6. The

reported number reflects the redefinition of deferred maintenance under the new

standard and is consistent with the reporting for reserved works, which is O&M’d

by Reclamation. ‘‘Reserved works’’ are project facilities which Reclamation operates

and maintains with its own personnel, as opposed to ‘‘transferred works’’ which are

project facilities operated and maintained by Reclamation’s water and power customers at their own expense pursuant to contracts with Reclamation.

Question. How much of the work is important to efficient and effective operation

of essential operational facilities and structures?

Answer. Reclamation does not defer any ‘‘critical’’ maintenance which is needed

to protect public safety and to ensure the delivery of water and power to its contractors. Furthermore, none of this deferred maintenance will have adverse impacts to

the efficient and effective operation of our facilities and structures at this time.

However, if these maintenance items are not eventually funded, this could result

in less than optimally efficient operations over time.

Question. How does the Bureau of Reclamation plan to address the backlog of deferred maintenance in future years?

Answer. Reclamation continues to prioritize its maintenance activities to ensure

that the highest priority work is completed in a timely manner. Should any deferred

maintenance item become, for some reason, critical maintenance, it will be given

priority and accomplished immediately. We also continue to look for direct funding

arrangements with our contractors so that there will be sufficient funding, when

coupled with appropriated dollars, to ensure that Reclamation does not accumulate

a ‘‘backlog’’ of ever growing deferred maintenance.
45

Question. Do future budget planning targets accommodate increased funding for

reducing the backlog?

Answer. Reclamation believes it has adequate funding to prevent deferred maintenance from significantly increasing in the future.

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

The fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, while reducing Reclamation’s budget request for the Dam Safety Program, provided a sizable increase

over the 1998 appropriation. The funding request for fiscal year 2000 again reflects

a significant increase over the previous year appropriation.

Question. Have you experienced or do you anticipate any major problems in carrying out the program with the funding provided for the current fiscal year, particularly in Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Actions activities?

Answer. Congress reduced the fiscal year 1999 Dam Safety Program request by $8,787,000. As a result, Reclamation rescheduled Safety of Dams activities and costs

into fiscal year 2000. At this time, we anticipate being able to carry out the restructured fiscal year 1999 program with the funding provided.

However, shifting activities from fiscal year 1999 into fiscal year 2000 impacts the

flexibility to aggressively pursue risk reduction actions at Reclamation dams in fiscal year 2000. Keechelus Dam, Yakima Project, Washington, and Casitas Dam, Ventura River Project, California have critical Safety of Dams issues that require modifications of significant cost and scope. Current enacted funding and requests will be

managed to focus funding to these dams and critical Safety of Dams issues at other

dams. Funding at the President’s Request level for the fiscal year 2000 Dam Safety

Program is needed to avoid delaying critical public risk reduction efforts.

SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS

Question. What accounts for the increase from $14.2 million in fiscal year 1999 to $17 million requested in fiscal year 2000 for the Safety Evaluation of Existing

Dams activities?

Answer. Ensuring the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams is one of the

agency’s highest priorities. In 1997, the Commissioner tasked an independent team

of dam safety professionals to review Reclamation’s dam safety practices to identify

best practices already in place and make recommendations for improvements. As a

result of recommendations from the peer review team and Reclamation’s own internal initiatives endorsed by the peer review team, more focus and vigilance has been

directed at key activities such as examinations of dams, dam performance monitoring, and engineering analyses of dams to reliably define and manage risks across

Reclamation’s inventory of 362 dams. These activities are conducted under the Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams and are primarily responsible for the requested increase from $14.2 million in fiscal year 1999 to $17 million in fiscal year 2000.

INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS

Question. Now the funding request for fiscal year 2000 for the Initiate Safety of

Dams Corrective Actions program is $42.7 million, an increase of $10.4 million over

the amount provided for the current fiscal year. What accounts for this large increase?

Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request of $42.7 million does not represent a large

increase when compared to the original fiscal year 1999 request. Reclamation’s request for fiscal year 1999 was $41.25 million, which Congress reduced by

$8,787,000. One of the reasons for a comparable request in fiscal year 2000, is that

modifications of significant cost and scope are required at Keechelus Dam, Yakima

Project, Washington, and Casitas Dam, Ventura River Project, California, which

have critical Safety of Dams issues. In addition, modifications activities are planned

to reduce risks for identified safety issues at six other dams.

Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Actions is a portfolio request for the planned

Safety of Dams modifications not currently underway. After these Safety of Dams

projects are formulated and submitted to Congress through the modification report

process required by the Safety of Dams Act, funds and future requests are transferred from ISCA to a specific project line item. As these transfers occur, ISCA is

lowered a corresponding amount which often creates the appearance that prior year

ISCA funding is lower than current requests.

As a result, a true comparison of Safety of Dams funding levels between fiscal

years is only achieved by combining the funding for ISCA with the funding for Safety of Dams modifications currently underway. Modifications are currently underway
46

at Bradbury, Horse Mesa, Lost Creek, Twin Buttes, Pueblo, and Reservoir A Dams

which total $10 million enacted in fiscal year 1999 and $8.8 million requested in

fiscal year 2000. When these ongoing projects are combined with ISCA, enacted fiscal year 1999 Reclamation Safety of Dams funding totals $42.46 million. Prior to

the Congressional reduction the fiscal year 1999 total was $51.25 million. The total

Safety of Dams request for fiscal year 2000 is $51.56 million which consist of the

$42.7 million in ISCA and the $8.8 million for the ongoing modifications.

The level of funding necessary to carry out an effective dam safety program to

reduce risk to the public varies from year to year, and depends on the specific dams

for which deficiencies have been identified as needing modification. The fiscal year

2000 request is substantially below the $87.8 million funding level provided in fiscal

year 1996. Large scale modifications were ongoing at Theodore Roosevelt Dam and

Bartlett Dam in Arizona and the initiation of the modification work at Twin Buttes

Dam in Texas began that year. While most projects are not of this magnitude, this

represents the wide variation in funding that may be needed from year to year.

PUEBLO DAM

Question. The Committee has received information from the Family Farm Alliance

which indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation’s administration and non-construction costs for the Pueblo Dam, Safety of Dams repair project (design, engineering,

oversight, construction management, etc.) adds around 50 percent to the cost of this

construction project. By comparison, the private sector standards use 15–20 percent

as a reasonable factor to administer a construction project of this type. Does a 50

percent factor to administer a Bureau construction project seem reasonable to you?

Answer. We believe that a 50 percent non-contract costs for a dam safety project

may be reasonable. We do not believe that it is appropriate for Reclamation’s performance on critical public safety issues to be measured on the basis of non-contract

to contract costs. Reclamation’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the

public downstream of the dam, and we believe that the public and the water users

are best served by obtaining the lowest total project cost which also provides the

necessary public risk reduction and the assurance of continued long term, verifiable

performance of the structure.

Reclamation’s experience has shown that total project costs can generally be reduced through rigorous project investigations, planning, and design, or ‘‘non-contract’’ costs. The Pueblo Dam Safety of Dams modification project provides an excellent example of this effort. Through extensive design effort, Reclamation reduced the

cost of the proposed repairs by $8 million or 36 percent. Since the cost of the contract for construction was appreciably reduced, the ratio of administration and nonconstruction costs to construction contractor costs has correspondingly increased.

During project formulation and design, Reclamation consulted extensively with an

Independent Consulting Panel of dam design experts. The Panel originally recommended a totally ‘‘active resistance’’ solution which had an estimated construction cost of $22 million. Through significant study and design efforts, Reclamation

formulated a more cost-effective alternative at $14 million that both met design requirements and was acceptable to the Panel. Also, during final design, a hydraulic

model study was completed on the design of the modified spillway. This study resulted in changes to the design of the spillway energy dissipation structure and resulted in contract savings estimated at $2 million. The cost of the model study was

less than $100,000.

These are two examples of reasonable non-contract expenditures resulting in significant cost savings. Although both efforts resulted in increased non-contract costs

and increased the calculated percentage of non-contract costs to contract costs, they

also resulted in far greater reductions in the total project costs. Public trust, safety

issues, and Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety require significant quality control

and designer oversight throughout the duration of the project, which cannot be compromised.

Question. Is it unreasonable to think that the Bureau of Reclamation should be

able to conform to the same 15–20 percent standard of the private sector?

Answer. Reclamation is not aware of any study or private sector standard that

establishes a 15 to 20 percent range for activities similar to the administration and

non-construction activities for the modification work at Pueblo Dam. Neither is Reclamation aware of any private sector entity that performs all of the functions included in the calculated 50 percent factor. Reclamation’s 50 percent non-contract figure cited in the Family Farm Alliance information includes all project costs from

early investigations through the completion of construction and refilling the modified facility, not simply the construction administration costs. The non-contract

costs—which are costs not directly paid to the construction contractor—for Safety
47

of Dams modifications include all costs for project activities related to Reclamation’s

roles as owner, operator, and regulatory agency for Pueblo Dam. These activities include planning and project formulation, field investigations and data collection, environmental compliance, securing Executive Branch and Congressional approval and

funding for the project, extensive coordination of project activities with the water

users associated with the facility, including an independent review of specifications

by the water user’s consultant, negotiation of appropriate repayment contracts, final

design, development of drawings and specifications, procurement, construction management, quality control, construction contract administration, design and construction documentation, and monitoring of the modified facility during first filling as

well as independent consultant review of all project activities. We believe that Reclamation’s activities and associated costs are appropriate in addressing the critical

public safety issues at Pueblo Dam.

Reclamation believes that the average private sector project management fee percentage cited in the Family Farm Alliance information does not include costs for

project management activities such as field investigations, planning level studies;

securing approval and funding for the project, the development of repayment studies

for project repayment, which are required by the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act;

quality control during construction; dam safety regulatory agency costs and fees;

dam owner contract administration, oversight and review activities; verification of

adequate performance during first filling of the modified dam; and the independent

consultant panel’s review of project activities.

Question. What factors would cause the Bureau’s construction management costs

to be so much above the private sector?

Answer. Reclamation believes that a comprehensive cost comparison that includes

costs for all activities on a similar project would indicate that private sector costs

would be comparable to Reclamation’s for similar activities. Reclamation attempts

to construct the most cost effective and reliable modification considering total

project costs. One factor that could make it ‘‘appear’’ that Reclamation’s construction

management costs are high, based on percentages, compared to the private sector,

is our decision to construct the least cost technically acceptable alternative to modify

a dam. The decision at Pueblo Dam was to use a ‘‘state of the art’’ construction material referred to as Roller Compacted Concrete in a technically challenging manner.

This decision resulted in the lowest ‘‘total’’ project costs. The use of RCC resulted

in extremely low construction costs. However, it required extraordinary construction

management activities to ensure flaws were not introduced during construction of

the modifications. Failure of Pueblo Dam would endanger more than 14,000 lives.

Reclamation views it as critical that we ensure the design intent is met by the modifications that are constructed.

Question. Is this common in other Safety of Dams work or other construction

projects Reclamation wide?

Answer. Reclamation has estimated the total non-contract costs for the activities

outlined above to be approximately $8.8 million or about 34 percent of the total

project cost and 52 percent of the contract cost. This is in line with the range of

non-contract costs for other Reclamation dam safety modifications as identified

through a 1995 audit by the Office of the Inspector General. The audit found that

Reclamation’s non-contract costs ranged from 41 percent to 60 percent of contract

costs for five projects of similar size to Pueblo Dam under construction at the time

of the audit.

Question. Does the Bureau of Reclamation have procedures in place to ensure

these types of indirect costs are held to a minimum, and that activities which exceed

a set standard are highlighted for management attention at the Area, Regional or

Headquarters level?

Answer. Reclamation utilizes a Project Management Team to administer and

oversee all activities related to the planning, design, and construction of dam safety

modifications. This includes development and monitoring of project schedules and

costs. All significant issues related to the project are communicated to the Area

Manager, Regional Director and the Chief of the Dam Safety Office for decision and

appropriate action. Reclamation believes that the Project Management Team provides a cost-effective means of ensuring an appropriate level of project oversight and

organizational review when addressing critical public safety issues under the Safety

of Dams program.

YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE

In testimony last year and in the budget justification for fiscal year 2000, you indicate an on-going effort to address the issue of embedded microchips in equipment

throughout the Bureau of Reclamation.
48

Question. What was the outcome of the inventory of embedded microchips, which

I believe was to be completed last summer? What types of equipment were found

deficient and were any of those mission sensitive? What is your schedule to have

all mission critical systems and devices with embedded microchips compliant?

Answer. We have conducted and essentially completed an inventory of all embedded microchip, or EMC, systems and devices, about half of which are considered

mission critical. Our most important systems are Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, or SCADA, controls which control automatic operations of power generation and water delivery. SCADA systems include software, EMC devices, and telecommunications equipment.

Reclamation is confirming completion and accuracy of the inventory of telecommunication components, EMC devices, computer applications, computer hardware and peripherals, commercial off-the-shelf software, and other types of computer applications. This inventory is estimated to be 98 percent complete. Mission

critical equipment and systems are being tested according to a standard checklist

that involves removing equipment from service, ensuring backup systems are in

place, setting dates, observing the equipment as the date rolls over, restoring the

present date and time, ensuring proper operation, and returning the equipment to

service. Testing has shown that most equipment and systems are Y2K compliant.

Over 80 percent of mission critical EMC’s are compliant. Non-compliant mission

critical equipment is being remediated. Most tests have been performed by Reclamation personnel and a few contractors. Independent verification has been performed

by Reclamation personnel who were not involved in original testing, often from

other facilities. Contractors have been used in the Pacific Northwest and Great

Plains Regions. No Y2K problems were experienced during the changeover from

1998 to 1999, and no problems are expected on other dates. However, Y2K testing

and planning efforts will address the following critical dates: April 9, 1999 (99th day

of 99); September 9, 1999 (9/9/99); December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000; and February 28 to February 29, 2000 (Leap Year). Although, we may find additional EMC

devices that require testing, our plan is to have all currently identified EMC devices

tested and remediated where necessary by June 30, 1999.

Question. Does the Bureau of Reclamation have a plan in place to correct the

problem? What is the estimated cost to correct the problem? Is sufficient funding

being requested in fiscal year 2000 to take care of the important work?

Answer. Beginning in March 1997, Reclamation undertook an aggressive effort to

identify and correct potential Y2K related system deficiencies. Many of these systems directly support Reclamation’s ability to generate power and regulate water.

Electrical Power Systems.—Reclamation is working closely with the Power Marketing Administrations (PMA’s) and the North American Electric Reliability Council

(NERC) to assure that potential failure of certain computer systems on January 1,

2000, does not result in the collapse of the electric grid. Reclamation is currently

verifying its inventory of embedded microchips in its power control and operating

systems and is taking steps to renovate any noncompliant devices, conduct independent validation and verification testing, certify all embedded chips as Y2K compliant, and prepare contingency plans to counter any unforseen circumstances. In

addition, Reclamation is working with the PMA’s, NERC, and the regional Western

Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC) in the Y2K system-wide exercises scheduled

for April and September. These exercises are to verify the integrity and the operational preparedness of the interconnected power system.

Utilities.—Letters have been sent and meetings held with partners, utilities, and

electric reliability councils, such as the Western Area Power Administration, the

Bonneville Power Administration, and the Western Systems Coordinating Council to

address Y2K power system vulnerability.

Coordination with External Partners and Clients.—Reclamation has contacted its

water and power partners and customers, i.e., water companies, irrigation districts,

water districts, and Native American tribes. Several entities have stated that they

have been aggressively working to ensure their equipment and systems function

properly for the upcoming critical dates. In many cases, we have received inventory

information and in others we were requested to assist in assessing and completing

Y2K readiness activities.

Contingency Planning.—Reclamation contingency planning includes equipmentspecific plans; facility-level plans; and power operation, water, and dam safety contingency plans. The plans reference continuity of operations, emergency action

plans, standing operation procedures, and use of additional staff. The plans also address critical disruption periods, and we are continuing to prepare for logistical support.
49

Estimated Cost Summary.—The total estimated cost (not including labor) for Y2K

related activities for fiscal year 1997 through completion is $10.4 million. We believe

that all major work will be completed with fiscal year 1999 funding.

Question. Now the Bureau of Reclamation had identified 63 computer systems

which were not Year 2000 compliant. How many of those systems are mission critical and what is the status of bringing them into compliance?

Answer. Reclamation identified 16 mission-critical applications from the original

63 applications inventoried. All 16 are complete and implemented. All but three of

the remaining 47 non-mission critical systems are complete, and they are scheduled

for completion by March 31, 1999. This includes testing and implementation. Newly

acquired/developed systems/applications are being tested prior to implementation.

Question. Are you on schedule to have all computers identified as non-Y2K compliant corrected prior to the year 2000?

Answer. Yes, Reclamation’s computer system infrastructure will be Y2K ready. It

consists of the following:

Mainframe Systems.—The only BOR mainframe is at the Denver Administrative

Service Center (DASC). The mainframe and its associated applications/systems are

specific to the administration (payroll, personnel, and financial areas of business)

of DOI’s bureaus and other DASC clients, and have no impact on power and energy

production. The systems have been tested and are Y2K compliant. (It should be

noted that the DASC will be transferred to the Department of the Interior’s National Business Center in April 1999).

Office Systems.—Normal replacement procedures will ensure that all essential

personal computers will be upgraded or replaced. All local area networks have been

tested; required upgrades to software and hardware will be completed by March 31,

1999. Reclamation’s Hewlett-Packard minicomputers have been successfully tested

and certified compliant. The wide area network has been tested and is Y2K compliant.

CVP, AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION

NIMBUS FISH HATCHERY INTERPRETIVE FACILITY

Question. The budget request for Facility Operations includes funds to begin efforts in support of the Nimbus Fish Hatchery Interpretative Facility. Why does the

Bureau consider this to be priority work which must be undertaken in fiscal year

2000?

Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for salmon and steelhead mitigation on the American River. The fish hatchery is located on the American River

directly downstream from Lake Natoma and Nimbus Dam, approximately 15 miles

from Sacramento. As part of the mitigation at the fish hatchery, which is operated

by the California Department of Fish and Game, Reclamation is supporting a visitor

facility to educate the public on the life cycle of the fish and the uses and benefits

of the Central Valley Project. It is important for the public to understand the link

between CVP project operations and measures to improve the anadromous fish

health. Currently the facility is being staffed with volunteers, however, the public

is coming to the hatchery in greater numbers every year and the workload has become too great to be adequately handled by volunteers.

Question. How much of the $10.1 million requested for Facility Operations is for

this work, and how, specifically, will the funds be used?

Answer. Approximately $65,000 of the $10.1 million requested is for this work.

The funds will be used by the California Department of Fish and Game to hire dedicated staff for the visitor facility. This project will consist of displays and interpretative specialists telling the story of the fish and the Central Valley Project. Information given out will consist of educational material on the salmon and steelhead, exhibits of their life cycle, enhanced viewing facilities, and guided tours of the hatchery.

CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT

Question. The budget request includes $2.8 million to construct remaining recreational enhancement activities at Lake Pleasant Regional Park in Arizona. Have

the Bureau of Reclamation and all interested parties agreed to the scope of the recreational development to be undertaken and to a cost sharing agreement as appropriate?

Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation and Maricopa County agreed to the scope of

recreational development under the Lake Pleasant Regional Park Master Plan, approved by Reclamation on March 10, 1995. Cost sharing with Maricopa County was

committed to under the Recreational Management Agreement dated June 29, 1990.
50

The Recreational Management Agreement delineates replacement and enhancement

obligations of Reclamation, as well as long-term management roles for Reclamation

and Maricopa County. The major replacement items will be completed in fiscal year

1999. The agreement contains an $8 million Federal enhancement ceiling which is

subject to indexing, of which $2.8 million remains. The enhancement obligation includes a 50 percent cost share obligation with Maricopa County. The remaining recreational development as identified in the Lake Pleasant Regional Park Master Plan

includes group and family campground areas, picnic sites, boat launching facilities,

improved public access, environmental education support, and public safety.

YUMA DESALTING PLANT

Question. The budget request includes $3 million to begin a long-term program

to replace deteriorated membrane elements or look at a water banking program

with the Basin states to offset the need to recover drainage water. Why is the Bureau exploring such options? Was a detailed analysis of a broad range of options undertaken? Why were these two approaches selected for possible funding in fiscal

year 2000? What is the total estimated cost of the two budgeted options and over

what period of time?

Answer. Under Title I of the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, during what is called the ‘‘interim period,’’ which is defined as that period of time when

all of California’s water contracts for Colorado River water can be met, savings from

lining of the Coachella Canal of 132,000 acre-feet per year are used to offset pumped

drainage return flows from Wellton-Mohawk that are diverted around Morelos Dam

via the Bypass Drain and thus are not delivered to Mexico as part of their annual

Colorado River water entitlement. Also, any time flood control releases are made

from Hoover Dam, any accrued obligation to replace drainage water from WelltonMohawk that has been bypassed around Morelos Dam is automatically terminated.

Once the interim period ends, which will occur when sufficient Colorado River system water is not available to meet all of California’s needs for Colorado River water,

California begins to get credit for the savings that resulted from lining the

Coachella Canal and the United States must provide an alternative source for replacing the drainage return flows from Wellton-Mohawk. The United States has two

ways in which it could meet this obligation: one is to operate the Yuma Desalting

Plant to improve the quality of drainage water from Wellton-Mohawk so it can be

delivered to Mexico as part of its annual Colorado River water entitlement; and another is to find a replacement source to offset the drainage water being bypassed

around Morelos Dam.

Reclamation has been actively looking at alternatives to operating the Yuma

Desalting Plant for a number of years. We have considered a range of alternatives

and after considering such factors as costs, ease of implementation and institutional

constraints, we have concluded that water banking is an approach warranting serious consideration at this time. Under this approach, we would divert surplus Colorado River water, since reservoirs are completely full and likely to spill, store the

water in underground aquifers in Arizona or California, and recover the water in

future years when it is needed to meet our obligation under the Salinity Control

Act. This would be done in close consultation with the Colorado River Basin States

and Tribes.

As a minimum, Reclamation would like to bank enough water to offset drainage

return flows from Wellton-Mohawk for a period of at least 2 years, or to offset the

reject stream from the Yuma Desalting Plant for several years should the plant be

operated.

We are reasonably certain that a water banking program can be implemented and

are planning to utilize all of the $3 million requested in fiscal year 2000 for this

program. However, if surplus water is not available, or we cannot successfully negotiate a banking agreement, we could alternatively use this funding for membrane

replacement.

We currently have enough membranes to operate the Yuma Desalting Plant at

full capacity for 1 year. After each year of operation we would have to replace approximately 20 percent of the membranes to maintain full plant capacity. As long

as we have at least 2 years advance notice that the Yuma Desalting Plant will have

to be operated, we can award a contract to allow manufacture for replacement of

20 percent of the membranes each year to maintain the plant’s ability to operate

at full capacity.

The total cost of replacement membranes for the entire plant is estimated to be

$15 million, which if spread out over a 5-year period, because 20 percent of the

membranes need replacement each year, the annual cost of membrane replacement

would amount to $3 million per year to keep the plant operating at full capacity.
51

Question. What does it cost annually to keep the Yuma Desalting Plant in a

standby status?

Answer. The total Title 1 budget submitted for fiscal year 2000 is $13,092,000.

Within this budget, the annual cost to keep the Yuma Desalting Plant in ready-reserve standby status (meaning the plant could be put into full operation with 1

year’s notice) is estimated to be approximately $1.5 million. The additional Title 1

funding is required for other activities such as operation and maintenance of the

242 wellfield; operation and maintenance of the Bypass Drain; water banking; research; and other Title 1 activities.

Question. Is shut down of the facility an option? If not, why?

Answer. Reclamation does not believe that shut down of the facility is a currently

viable option. First, a long-term replacement source for the Wellton-Mohawk drainage water has not been found to date, so the facility may have to be operated to

meet our obligation to replace Wellton-Mohawk drainage water. The facility may

also be needed for salinity control for water delivered to Mexico at the Northerly

International Boundary at some time in the future. The facility is being considered

as part of several options for a long-term solution to reducing the salinity of flows

delivered to Mexico at the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. Studies

to improve the salinity of flows at the southern boundary are ongoing in response

to a complaint from the Mexican government about the quality of water being delivered. Also, Reclamation is actively searching for potential non-Federal paying customers interested in product water from the facility.

LONG BEACH WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE

Question. The Long Beach Area Water Reclamation Project is a proposed Title

XVI new start for fiscal year 2000. It consists of two elements: the Alamitos Barrier

Reclaimed Water project and the City of Long Beach Recycled Water System Expansion project. The first element is a tertiary treatment and reinjection system, and

the second is expansion of an existing distribution system. Are these two projects

separable?

Answer. The expansion of the City of Long Beach Water Department Recycled

Water Program will increase the use of reclaimed water for greenbelt irrigation and

industrial purposes from the current 5,200 acre-feet per year to 12,000 acre-feet per

year. The Alamitos Barrier Project will further increase the use of reclaimed water

to 22,000 acre-feet per year.

As we understand it, these project components are closely related and probably

cannot be separated. In order for reclaimed water to be used for the sea water intrusion barrier, the City of Long Beach must first complete the expansion of the distribution system. These new pipelines must be sized to meet the needs of both the

City’s irrigation system and the sea water intrusion barrier injection system. This

will require close and continuous cooperation of both operating entities. In addition,

since both components are treated as a single project, the Federal share of total

funding cannot exceed $20.0 million.

Question. What is the importance in the Federal government participating in construction of a local distribution system?

Answer. The Long Beach area is heavily dependent on imported water, either

from the Colorado River or the San Francisco Bay/Delta in northern California.

Both water sources have significant Federal and Reclamation investment in numerous water supply facilities. For every acre-foot of water reclaimed by the Long Beach

project, a like amount will not have to be imported, thus helping California live

within its 4.4 million acre-foot allocation of Colorado River water and also reducing

the water demand on the environmentally sensitive San Francisco-Sacramento-San

Joaquin Bay/Delta.

Congress recognized the importance in the Federal government participation in

the construction of a local distribution system in Long Beach when it passed the

Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–266),

which amended Title XVI of Public Law 102–575, the Reclamation Wastewater and

Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992. This legislation authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide up to 25 percent of the total cost of the Long Beach

Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project. This project has numerous environmental enhancement, water supply, and economic benefits that are of National importance. In providing the authority to make financial assistance available to the

local project sponsors, Congress recognized that, without such Federal participation,

this Title XVI project would likely not be implemented due to its relatively high cost

and the current availability of cheaper imported water supplies.

Each project component will be reclaiming and reusing wastewater that is currently being discharged to the San Gabriel River just a few miles inland from the
52

Pacific Ocean. Reductions in wastewater discharges to the ocean have a positive impact on the environment. In addition, in keeping with the intent of Title XVI as

amended, these project components will:

(1)reduce, postpone, or eliminate development of new or expanded water supplies,

(2) reduce or eliminate the use of existing diversions from natural watercourses

or withdrawals from aquifers, and

(3) reduce the demand on existing Federal water supply facilities.

Because of the dependence on imported water, the project area is subject to water

shortages due to the occurrence of drought, both locally and in far distant river basins. In addition, water shortages could occur following a major earthquake which

could severely damage the two main aqueducts that convey water to the project

area. These project components will help to assure a local water supply that will

be reliable during droughts and earthquakes, thus helping to sustain a growing economic base that is of local, regional and National importance.

YUMA AREA PROJECTS

Question. The budget justification indicated that $22.1 million, an increase of $4.2

million over the amount appropriated for the current fiscal year will be allocated

for work. What has necessitated the allocation of these additional funds, and where

will this funding come from?

Answer. As a result of the 1993 Gila River flood, 10,000,000 cubic yards of sediment was deposited in a 15-mile reach of the lower Colorado River, near Yuma, Arizona. The sediment created both domestic and international problems; the domestic

problem being the high probability of flooding in and around the city of Yuma, and

the international problem being extreme sediment transportation into Mexico’s

canal system. The $22.1 million in the fiscal year 1999 Yuma Area Projects, Facility

Maintenance activity includes $4.2 million in carryover funding that was for sediment removal work originally scheduled in the fiscal year 1998 Yuma Area Projects

Facility Maintenance activity, but was delayed because sites to deposit the dredged

sediment could not be found.

Question. What accounts for the sizable reduction in program level from $26.9

million in fiscal year 1999 to a level of $15.6 million for fiscal year 2000?

Answer. The $26.9 million total fiscal year 1999 Yuma Area Projects program includes $4.6 million in fiscal year 1998 carryover funds, and an additional $7.1 million in the Facility Maintenance activity to finish the sediment removal in the riverbed. The $15.6 million total fiscal year 2000 request reflects the return to a normal ongoing Yuma Area Projects program, resulting in the sizable reduction in program level.

Question. What is the backlog of essential maintenance and rehabilitation for the

Yuma Area Projects?

Answer. None of the Yuma Area Projects list of maintenance and rehabilitation

work items is so essential that adverse effects to the efficient and effective operation

of critical facilities and structures would occur in fiscal year 2000. The Yuma Area

Projects list is prioritized so that under normal river conditions, adverse effects will

not occur over the short term. The Yuma Area Projects list includes the replacement

of heavy equipment, and repair of the Main Outlet Drain and the Main Outlet

Drain Extension channels that are connected to, and convey Wellton-Mohawk drainage system return flows to the Gulf of California. Both the Main Outlet Drain and

Main Outlet Drain Extension channels were damaged as a result of the 1993 Gila

River flood.

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM

Question. The budget for fiscal year 2000 proposed a new item called the Emergency Planning and Disaster Response program and includes a funding request of

$360,000. Why has a separate program been created for these activities?

Answer. While it is a new budget line item, it is not a new program. The title

‘‘Emergency Planning and Disaster Response Program’’ covers three distinct ongoing

program activities for Disaster Response and for Continuity of Operations. These ongoing activities were previously funded under the Dam Safety Program. Because of

increased emphasis on emergency preparedness, a separate Facilities Operation line

item has been identified in the request for fiscal year 2000.

Question. How have these activities been funded in the past?

Answer. To date, all three of these activities have been funded through the Dam

Safety Program.

Question. What does the Bureau expect the average annual funding requirement

to be in future years?
53

Answer. Since the funds requested for all three of these activities are for program

management, the expectation is that the funding level should remain about the

same.

Question. Please provide for the record the legislative language which authorized

appropriations for this program.

Answer. Public Law 93–288, ‘‘Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act’’, as amended, Section 101.(b) states that:

‘‘It is the intent of Congress, by this Act, to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal government to State and local

governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering

and damage which result from such [see Section 101.(a)] disasters by—(1)

revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief programs; (3)

achieving greater coordination and responsiveness of disaster preparedness

and relief programs; (6) providing Federal assistance programs for both

public and private losses sustained in disasters.’’

Section 201.(a) states that:

‘‘The President is authorized to establish a program of disaster preparedness that utilizes services of all appropriate agencies and includes—(1)

preparation of disaster preparedness plans for mitigation, warning, emergency operations, rehabilitation, and recovery;’’

Section 303 states that:

‘‘The President shall form emergency support teams of Federal personnel

to be deployed in an area affected by a major disaster or emergency. Such

emergency support teams shall assist the Federal coordinating officer in

carrying out his responsibilities pursuant to this Act. Upon request of the

President, the head of any Federal agency is directed to detail to temporary

duty with the emergency support teams on either a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, as is determined necessary by the President, such personnel within the administrative jurisdiction of the head of the Federal

agency as the President may need or believe to be useful for carrying out

the functions of the emergency support teams, each such detail to be without loss of seniority, pay, or other employee status’’.

See also Section 402, Public Law 84–99, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies,

which directs the Army Corps of Engineers in how it will conduct its response to

flood emergencies.

For Continuity of Operations, the authorization is found in the National Security

Act of 1947, Public Law 93–288, ‘‘Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act’’, as amended. Title VI of the Law is titled ‘‘Emergency Preparedness’’ and its purpose is,

‘‘to provide a system of emergency preparedness for the protection of life

and property in the United States from hazards and to vest responsibility

for emergency preparedness jointly in the Federal government and the

States and their political subdivisions. The Federal government shall provide necessary direction, coordination, and guidance, and shall provide necessary assistance, as authorized in this title so that a comprehensive emergency preparedness system exists for all hazards.’’

In October of last year President Clinton signed a major policy directive (PDD 67)

requiring all Federal departments and agencies to have ‘‘viable continuity of operations capability’’ by October 21, 1999. Presidential Decision Directive 67 states

that:

‘‘in the face of current and future dangers, it remains the policy of the

United States to have in place a comprehensive and effective program to

ensure survival of our constitutional form of government and continuity of

essential Federal functions under all circumstances.’’

It also states that,

‘‘As a baseline of preparedness and a foundation for the Continuity of

Government, all Federal departments and agencies, including the Executive

Office of the President, shall have in place viable Continuity of Operations

capability.’’

Question. What is the rationale for including the request under Bureauwide programs and not under Policy and Administration?
54

Answer. All three activities that make up the Emergency Planning and Disaster

Response Program are Bureau- wide in scope and impact. They are not particularly

policy-oriented or administrative in nature. They are directly associated with continued operation of our facilities. The activities are critical for Reclamation operations

during emergencies and incidents. As a result, the most appropriate request is considered to be a separate line item identified to the Congress under the Facilities Operation program activities.

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM

Question. The budget justification for the $2.2 million requested for the Title XVI

Water Reclamation and Reuse Program includes language which indicates that the

requested funds ‘‘may also fund initiation of construction for specific water reclamation and reuse projects that have been determined to be both feasible and of high

priority of Federal investment.’’ Is the intent of this language to allow the Bureau

to begin construction of a project when specific funding for initiation has not been

approved by the Congress?

Answer. The statement ‘‘ * * * may also fund initiation of construction for specific

water reclamation and reuse projects that have been determined to be both feasible

and of high priority of (for) Federal investment’’ is a general statement about the

overall program that would only apply if funds were specifically requested for construction and included in the section of the budget justification for the Title XVI

Water Reclamation and Reuse Program entitled ‘‘Work Proposed for fiscal year

2000’’. No funds under this line item will be used for construction activities in fiscal

year 2000. Funding requests for construction of water recycling projects in fiscal

year 2000 are described on a project-by-project basis elsewhere in the budget justification document.

Question. What is the rationale and authorization for such a provision?

Answer. There is no intent to expend funds for construction activities on projects

for which Congress has not provided funding. The President’s request for $2.214

million is intended to be used to conduct feasibility studies on authorized projects

and research on treatment technologies applicable to municipal, industrial and domestic wastewater and impaired ground and surface water as specified in the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURNS

MONTANA SAFETY OF DAMS PROJECTS

Question. Based upon your testimony to the Senate Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources on March 3, you stated that ensuring dam safety and reliability

of Reclamation dams continues to be a top priority. In your testimony you further

explain that half of Reclamation dams were built during the first half of this century with outdated practices. I am concerned about this situation given the number

of Reclamation dams in Montana and their deteriorating conditions. What are your

plans to address this growing problem in Montana?

Answer. The age of a dam does not necessarily mean the dam is unsafe or deteriorating. Continued safe performance is and remains a priority of the agency regardless of the age of the dam. Reclamation relies on a strong dam safety program to

provide ongoing monitoring, inspections, and evaluations to readily identify issues

and risks. Inspections range from at-least-monthly examinations by operating personnel, annual inspections performed by Area Office personnel, and periodic inspections performed by Regional Office engineering staff; to comprehensive examinations

of all features of the dam and engineering evaluation of the design and performance

of the dam in comparison to state-of-the-art criteria at least once every six years.

When issues or conditions are identified that represent unreasonable public safety

risks, the Safety of Dams program strives to implement cost-effective corrective actions in an expeditious manner.

Question. How much funding is needed in fiscal year 2000 to restore the deteriorating dams in Montana?

Answer. Reclamation’s inspection program provides for timely maintenance and

repair of dams to ensure that they are safe. The fiscal year 2000 Dam Safety Program request includes funding for ongoing activities for 15 Reclamation facilities in

the State of Montana. However, there is only dam in Montana proposed for repair

in fiscal year 2000. That is under the Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Actions

Program, where $1,500,000 is requested to start planned modifications to Willow

Creek Dam, Sun River Project. A modification report will be transmitted to Con-
55

gress for this project this year. Modifications will address issues related to internal

erosion due to seepage and structural stability during earthquakes.

In addition to the work being conducted in fiscal year 2000, let me note that modifications have been completed on the following dams in Montana: Como Dam, Bitterroot Project; Pishkun Dikes, Sun River Project; Clark Canyon Dam, East Bench

Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program; Lake Sherburne Dam, Milk River Project;

Gibson Dam, Sun River Project; Tiber Dam, Lower Marias Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program; Helena Valley Dam, Helena Valley Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri

Basin Program; and Phase I modifications to Willow Creek Dam to repair a large

void discovered in the dam in 1996. Additional issues are currently being evaluated

at Gibson Dam and Como Dam.

LOWER YELLOWSTONE TITLE TRANSFER—INTAKE DIVERSIONARY DAM

Question. As I mentioned in this hearing, I have some concerns about the Bureau’s progress to transfer completed water projects to local water districts, specifically the transfer of the Intake Diversionary Dam. I understand this transfer is not

complete even though it has been completed for a number of years. Why is it taking

so long to accomplish this transfer?

Answer. On February 2, 1999, Commissioner Eluid Martinez of the Bureau of

Reclamation testified to the House of Representatives Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power. He stated it is important to understand the legal

requirements involved with title transfer. Title does not automatically transfer

when the district repays its construction obligation. Operation and maintenance responsibilities can be transferred to water users of Reclamation projects under Reclamation law, but this does not give them title to the facilities. Section 6 of the Reclamation Act 1902 provides that title to the facilities ‘‘shall remain in the Government until otherwise provided by Congress,’’ under 32 Stat. 389; 43 U.S.C. section

491. Also, Commissioner Martinez testified that the process needs to be open and

inclusive of all stakeholders. There must also be compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The processes that are required under this Act ensure that

the public has ample opportunity to participate in the process and have their concerns identified and addressed. Reclamation has been working with the Lower Yellowstone Board of Control to address specific items in accordance with Reclamation’s

Title Transfer Framework. Work to date includes a cultural resource survey of the

entire Lower Yellowstone Project, a realty report for all Reclamation lands, and several seasons of fisheries data collection. Reclamation, in conjunction with the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the U.S. Geological Survey, has been studying fish passage and entrainment issues

associated with the Intake Diversion Dam and Lower Yellowstone Main Canal. Reclamation has provided funding for baseline data collection. The fourth and final year

of fisheries data collection will be completed by October 1999. Although this work

has taken several years to complete, the information is needed to fulfill policies in

Reclamation’s Title Transfer Framework and NEPA requirements, and will be used

to support future progress.

Question. What is left to be done to complete the transfer?

Answer. Under the Reclamation Title Transfer Framework document, an agreement between Lower Yellowstone Board of Control and Reclamation needs to be developed that outlines what is required to complete transfer. Examples of the items

that would be included under the agreement are the costs associated with completion of the realty work items, NEPA, and National Historic Preservation Act. The

agreement would include discussion of schedule and assignment of roles and responsibilities to accomplish the work items. After execution of the agreement, the Title

Transfer Framework document and NEPA require public scoping meetings to be

held in the project area to gain input from local stake holders and provide feedback

on issues.

Question. What are your plans to complete this transfer?

Answer. As previously stated, Reclamation is working with the LYBOC to develop

an agreement outlining specific tasks, a schedule, cost estimates, and assignment

of responsibilities. Reclamation and the LYBOC have developed a good working relationship and both parties are working toward completing the tasks necessary

under the Title Transfer Framework.

Question. What, if any, Congressional actions are needed to complete this transfer?

Answer. The enacting legislation for this project did not include a provision for

title transfer upon payout of the capital expenditures, therefore an act of Congress

would be required to transfer title. We would be happy to assist in congressional

efforts, if requested.
56

1Question was received with reference to farmers and rangers. We assume the reference

should be farmers and ranchers.

COST OVERRUNS

Question. I understand the Bureau is experiencing cost overruns and that these

added costs are adversely impacting farmers and rangers 1 since you have shifted

these costs onto them. Why is this happening and what measures are you doing to

minimize cost overruns in these projects?

Answer. Reclamation projects in Montana were constructed during the period of

about 1905 to 1970. In some cases, the costs to operate and maintain the facilities

have increased due to extraordinary maintenance work (maintenance work which is

of relatively high cost and of a specific duration and does not reoccur from year to

year) that we have had to perform in recent years to insure integrity of the facilities. The extraordinary maintenance work is required to ensure that the facilities

continue to provide authorized project benefits. In some cases, the estimates we provided to the irrigation districts (who are responsible for paying a percentage of the

multipurpose operation and maintenance costs) varied from the actual cost to perform the work. Previously, as additional work items were identified, we did not always update the estimates at appropriate intervals and provide this information to

the districts in sufficient time to allow them to budget for their share of the costs.

The additional work performed was necessary to provide an adequate level of maintenance. In the past year, we have taken steps to improve the accuracy of these estimates and have a process in place to exchange information with the Irrigation Districts on an ongoing basis and to inform them of any anticipated increases in costs

as soon as they are identified. Along this line, Reclamation is doing its best to provide more realistic cost estimates, find cheaper ways to do the work, and anticipate

all of the work that would be reimbursed by the users.

In conformance with the Commissioner’s memorandum dated September 18, 1998,

we are committed to involving the irrigation districts in program formulation. We

are and will continue to provide cost estimates and priorities for those parts of

projects where our customers share in the responsibility or pay a portion of the

costs. For Montana, these include the irrigation districts on the Milk River and irrigation districts benefiting from Pick-Sloan Canyon Ferry Unit. We meet annually

with irrigation districts on the Milk River project to receive input on budget formulation. We have begun annual meetings with irrigation districts on the Pick-Sloan

Canyon Ferry Unit to receive their input regarding budget formulation. In addition,

we have committed to providing semiannual reports on the status of our costs.

Question. Also, what alternatives have you considered to minimize adverse financial impacts on local irrigators?

Answer. We have reviewed the costs associated with operation and maintenance

program activities that we perform on an ongoing basis, which we refer to as our

base O&M program. We are working toward cost containment for the base O&M

program and attempting to limit increases for these activities to what would normally be expected to adjust for inflation. We have developed long-range O&M program plans that forecast major cost items for extraordinary maintenance. This information is provided to irrigation districts on an annual basis to provide as much lead

time as possible for them to make financial adjustments and create reserve funds

to pay their share of the costs before the work is performed and the costs incurred.

We have also provided the irrigation districts with information on how to obtain

State grants as a source of funding for their share of the reimbursable costs associated with the operation and maintenance of Reclamation projects.

MEMORANDUM FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU

OF RECLAMATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

In Reply Refer To: EC–100, SEP 24, 1998

To: Regional Director, PN, MP, LO, UC, GP, Attention: PN–1000, MP–100, LC–

1000, UC–100, GP–1000

Director, Program Analysis Attention: D–5000

All Area Managers and Program Managers

From: Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner

Subject: Directive for Customer Involvement in Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

Program Formulation

The House Report 105–190 on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Bill, 1998 states, in part
57

‘‘The Committee strongly encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to create

new opportunities for water and power contractors to participate in the review and development of O&M budget priorities for their respective Bureau

of Reclamation projects.’’

The Statement of the Managers accompanying the Fiscal Year 1998 Conference

Report for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill reiterated the

support of the Conference Committee for this provision.

Customer involvement assists in our effort to deliver quality services in the most

efficient and economic manner. We have been working closely with many of our customers and customer organizations (i.e. water and power contractors) for several

years in the formulation of the O&M program. We need to continue with activities

that are responsive and helpful.

In response to the Committees’ encouragement and as an expansion of current efforts, I am establishing this customer involvement directive for use by Regional Directors and their managers with program responsibilities. This directive is to be

used in working with customers who are interested in the development and implementation of the O&M program.

Managers will:

1. Contact customers to determine their level of interest and desired participation

in program formulation.

2. Provide interested customers with O&M programs, cost estimates and priorities

for those parts of projects in which the customers share in responsibility or pay a

portion of the cost. The focus will be on the budget being formulated in the Region

(Budget Year ∂2). However, additional information may also be provided to serve

as a bridge to Budget Year ∂2. The total package of information may cover four

years including the prior year actual expenditures, current year program, the President’s budget for the next fiscal year (Budget Year), and the Budget Year ∂2 projections. This information should be provided to the customers during the August to

September time frame. Using fiscal year 1998 as an example, the information would

cover fiscal year 1997 actual expenditures, fiscal year 1998 program, fiscal year

1999 President’s budget, and program projections for the fiscal year 2001 budget

year. The fiscal year 2000 budget would be in embargo status, therefore unavailable

(see table below as further reference). As part of the process, managers should be

prepared to explain shifts from projected expenditures to actual expenditures for the

prior year.

REFERENCE FOR AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1998 TIME FRAME

Fiscal year Time period Budget nomenclature and status reference

1997 ........................ 10–1–96/9–30–97 .................. Prior Year—Completed (Actuals).

1998 ........................ 10–1–97/9–3–98 .................... Current Year—Program being carried out.

1999 ........................ 10–1–98/9–30–99 .................. Budget Year—Pending in Congress.

2000 ........................ 10–1–99/9–30–00 .................. Budget Year ∂1—Under review within Department

and OMB (embargoed).

2001 ........................ 10–1–00/9–30–01 .................. Budget Year ∂2—Under development within Region.

3. Provide interested customers the opportunity within a reasonable time frame

(a minimum of 15 working days) to review and comment on work plans and cost

estimates. Managers will provide responses either written or oral, as appropriate,

to customers that address their comments.

4. Notify interested customers of any changes in the work plans or cost estimates

after the Regional budget deliberations (For example: the Regional deliberations on

the fiscal year 2001 budget normally take place between October 1998 and January

1999) and before the Budget Review Committee (BRC) Regional meetings (2001

BRC Regional meetings normally occur in March 1999).

5. Honor executive branch guidelines on non-disclosure of budget materials after

the Regional budget deliberations and until the Presidents Budget goes to the Congress (for the fiscal year 2001 budget this will be in February of 2000).

6. Review budget information with the customers, as requested, after the Congress receives the President’s budget so that there is an understanding of Reclamation’s proposed budget.

The Director of Program Analysis is directed to incorporate this memorandum

into the Reclamation Manual. In order to determine whether this directive is overly

burdensome for Reclamation managers and also to determine whether it is meeting
58

our customer’s needs it will be reviewed after a full cycle of implementation, presumably in the Spring of 2002. In the interim there may be a need to adapt schedules contained herein to meet local circumstances. Although requiring an additional

commitment of time for some managers, I believe this will provide our customers

with a meaningful opportunity to comment on O&M activities that affect them.

YELLOWTAIL DAM & BIGHORN LAKE OPERATIONS

As I mentioned at the hearing, the snowpack around Yellowtail Dam area is high

this winter. People downstream of Yellowtail experienced massive flooding two years

ago. They believe it was created by the Bureau’s release of water from Yellowtail

Dam.

Question. What are the Bureau’s plans to avoid flooding this year due to releases

from Yellowtail Dam?

Answer. As is the case with other Reclamation reservoirs with an authorized flood

control purpose, the Army Corps of Engineers has the ultimate responsibility for all

flood control operations of Bighorn Lake Yellowtail Dam. The amount of storage provided within the lake and the flood control afforded are determined by the Corps

of Engineers’ flood operating criteria for that particular reservoir. All flood control

operations are closely and jointly coordinated between the Corps of Engineers and

Reclamation.

Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn Lake, in conjunction with Boysen and Buffalo Bill

Reservoirs, played a major role in providing flood control along the Bighorn, Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers during the 1997 runoff. Storage within and releases from

these reservoirs were coordinated closely with instructions issued by the Corps of

Engineers’ in accordance with operating criteria for Bighorn Lake. Without the control provided by these reservoirs, the flooding along the Yellowstone River downstream of the mouth of the Bighorn River would have been much more severe. The

Bighorn River Basin comprises about one half of the Yellowstone River drainage

basin above the mouth of the Bighorn River. River flow of the Yellowstone River

above the mouth of the Bighorn River is unregulated. Therefore, Reclamation is unable to provide flood protection against this unregulated flow. During 1997, flows

in the Bighorn River were maintained within safe river channel capacity at all

times.

The Bureau of Reclamation is closely monitoring snowpack and is continually revising and updating monthly operating plans for Bighorn Lake. Snowpack in the

Bighorn Basin is currently 113 percent of normal on March 15, nearly 20 percent

lower than experienced in record water year 1997. Currently storage in Bighorn

Lake has been evacuated about 28.5 feet below the top of the joint-use pool. Plans

are to continue evacuating storage to about 32.0 feet below the top of the joint-use

pool by the end of March. As projected in the March plan and based on normal

spring precipitation, this will provide adequate storage to store the snowmelt runoff

without making large releases that may cause downstream flooding. Reclamation

will continue to work with the Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, and State and local constituents to provide information on operations plans

for Yellowtail Dam.

Question. What does the Bureau plan to do this spring to inform folks downstream from the mouth of the Bighorn River about water releases from Yellowtail

Dam?

Answer. Reclamation is responsible for monitoring the conditions of Yellowtail

Dam and Bighorn Reservoir, as well as monitoring weather conditions upstream of

the dam, that could result in the need to make large releases from the Dam. Reclamation is also responsible for providing notification of all significant incidents occurring at Yellowtail Dam to various Federal, State, and local authorities downstream of the Dam. This includes all affected downstream County Disaster & Emergency Services and law enforcement dispatch centers, Montana DES, and the National Weather Service, which is Federally mandated to issue flood watches and

warnings. Additionally, Reclamation is responsible for providing notification to the

National Park Service, Crow Tribe, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, as each of these

agencies are also integrally involved with the operations of the Dam. Local authorities are responsible for notifying the public at risk, advising the public on safe evacuation routes, and where to go for safe shelter. It is not within Reclamation’s authority or responsibility to directly carry out warning and evacuation of the impacted public from large operational releases.

The Bureau of Reclamation continues to closely monitor snowpack and continually

revise and update monthly operating plans for Bighorn Lake. These operating plans

include projected operations of Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn Lake and are distributed to key members of the Yellowstone River Task Force. The Task Force is en-
59

couraged to contact Reclamation about any concerns or questions they may have regarding these operating plans.

Daily information about the water levels in Bighorn Lake and streamflows in the

Yellowstone and Bighorn River Basins is also available on the Bureau of Reclamation’s Great Plains WEB site at address /www.gp.usbr.gov/.

Question. What sort of early warning system have been or will be set up?

Answer. All Reclamation dams are required to conform to agency policy established for emergency management. This policy and its implementation provides for

the safety of the public during potential emergency incidents, including high releases, at these dams. Each dam has an Emergency Action Plan that describes what

actions, including notification of local disaster and emergency management personnel, will take place during periods of emergency. These plans are exercised on

a regular basis. Local, state, and other Federal organizations who might be involved

in potential emergencies are encouraged to participate in the exercises and drills.

Reclamation’s Emergency Management Policy requires that Emergency Action

Plans be developed and implemented at all significant and high hazard dams, including Yellowtail Dam. The EAP must contain initiating conditions for hydrologic

(flooding) as well as nonhydrologic events, which trigger specific Reclamation response procedures and notifications to effected downstream agencies. Initiating conditions are typically established at levels that provide as much advance notification

of significant incidents to local officials as practicable. EAPs must also contain descriptions of available communication capabilities, descriptions of potentially affected areas in the flood plain, flood inundation maps where appropriate, and tables

showing floodwave travel times and other pertinent information that may be needed

by local emergency management officials.

On March 11, Reclamation met with County and State Disaster and Emergency

Service officials, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow Tribe, National Weather Service

and the National Park Service to plan an exercise to test the Emergency Action

Plans for Yellowtail Dam and Yellowtail Afterbay Dam. The exercise is scheduled

to be conducted on May 20, 1999. The DES staff is responsible for immediately contacting residents along the Bighorn and Yellowstone Rivers of any potential dangers

that may result from downstream flooding. Yellowtail Dam is monitored 24 hours

a day by the Casper Control Center to ensure downstream officials get advance notification, should a problem occur.

Reclamation will continue to monitor daily snowpack and snowmelt runoff in the

Bighorn River Basin and maintain close contact with the National Weather Service.

The NWS will provide Reclamation with daily river forecasts based upon current hydrologic and forecasted climatic conditions. In addition to monitoring the mountain

snowpack conditions, Reclamation will continue to utilize existing satellite telemetered gaging stations to monitor river conditions upstream and downstream of

Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn Lake. As hydrologic and climatic conditions change,

sudden changes may be required in reservoir and river operations. Reclamation will

issue press releases to inform citizens living along the Yellowstone River of these

operational changes.

Question. Why hasn’t the Bureau considered a stream flow monitoring device to

ensure the safety of the downstream citizens and private property?

Answer. On March 25, 1998, personnel from the Bureau of Reclamation attended

a meeting with several citizens who live along the Yellowstone River near Hysham,

Montana. Many people who attended the meeting believed installing another stream

gaging station equipped with satellite telemetry along the Yellowstone River near

Custer, Montana would improve the operations and management of Yellowtail Dam

and Bighorn Lake.

Reclamation currently utilizes data collected at 8 existing satellite telemetered

river gaging stations located along the Yellowstone River from Corwin Springs,

Montana to Sidney, Montana. Reclamation currently believes the data collected at

these sites are adequate for monitoring river flows under most conditions and installing an additional station near Custer, upstream of the mouth of the Bighorn

River, is not required to support the operations at Yellowtail Dam and Bighorn

Lake. However, after the record water year of 1997, Reclamation provided funds for

installing satellite telemetry at the stream gaging station located near Forsyth. Reclamation investigated the costs to install another satellite telemetered gaging station near Custer. It was determined costs to renovate and reactivate this site would

cost $24,000. In addition to this cost, annual maintenance costs were estimated to

vary from $6,000 for a seasonal station or $9,850 for an annual station.

Reclamation has informed the Task Force that we are willing to provide funds in

the amount of $7,500 for the installation of the satellite telemetry equipment. However no other resources have been identified to fund the remaining costs.
60

LAND MANAGEMENT AND FISH & WILDLIFE ACTIVITIES

Question. I am getting concerned about the Bureau’s growing activities into land

management and fish and wildlife activities such as issuing grazing permits and

conducting fish restoration projects. Have you considered shifting these responsibilities to more established Federal agencies who are more experienced and staffed to

work on these activities such as the Bureau of Land Management and Fish & Wildlife Service. Wouldn’t such a reinvention of governmental responsibilities allow you

to refocus your limited resource toward the more well-established missions of the

Bureau—to develop, manage, and protect water resources for power generation and

recreation.

Answer. The development of water projects by Reclamation required inclusion of

lands necessary for operation of the projects. These lands were either withdrawn

from settlement, sale, location of minerals, or entry under the general land laws or

acquired for project purposes by purchase, condemnation, or donation by private

landowners. Although these lands were withdrawn or acquired for Reclamation

project purposes, the Secretary of the Interior was granted broad authority to allow

use of the lands for incidental purposes, including grazing. Therefore, grazing is not

a new activity; Reclamation has had these land management responsibilities since

its inception and has a great deal of experience in implementing and managing

these lease agreements. Where it is more efficient and appropriate to do so, we

enter into agreements with other Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, or Forest Service to manage lands under our

jurisdiction. Withdrawn lands that are no longer needed for project purposes are

recommended for relinquishment and revocation to Bureau of Land Management or

Forest Service jurisdiction.

Reclamation’s fish restoration activities have been undertaken in response to specific Reclamation project authorizations as well as congressional legislation such as

the Endangered Species and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts. We coordinate

these activities with the Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife agencies and our

water and power users. We must meet the requirements of such legislation in order

to meet our contractual obligations to deliver the water and power benefits to authorized Reclamation We agree that our resources are limited, but solving fishery

problems is vital for Reclamation’s continuing mission to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound

manner.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CRAIG

SNAKE RIVER PLAIN AQUIFER

Question. The Snake River Plain Aquifer is the lifeblood of Southern Idaho. Its

health is important to everyone that lives there, from the farmer who irrigates the

food we eat to the mother who gives a glass of water to her child. It is also vital

to Idaho’s thriving aquaculture industry, which produces the vast majority of the

nation’s trout. Concerns have been raised about diminishing spring discharges.

What is the Bureau of Reclamation’s position on using excess flows in the Snake

River to recharge the aquifer?

Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is participating in a demonstration project

that will quantify and document the benefits and impacts of recharge projects in the

Snake River Plain Aquifer. This project is a cooperative venture with the State of

Idaho to investigate the feasibility of using managed aquifer recharge as an effective

tool for conjunctive (ground water/surface water) water resource management in the

Snake River Plain. Reclamation’s contribution to the effort is to allow use of a canal

for delivery of the water to the recharge site. This project should provide answers

to many questions about the feasibility of using managed recharge as a tool for

slowing, or stabilizing, the decline of the aquifer, thus providing more consistent

flows downstream near the Thousand Springs area. This is especially critical during

periods of drought.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DORGAN

GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT

The Garrison Diversion Project is the key to water development in North Dakota

and water development is the key to economic development in our semi-arid state.
61

Question. Can you tell the Committee how this year’s budget request will generally help North Dakota advance water development?

Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request will be used to continue development of Indian irrigation facilities on the Standing Rock Reservation; to provide grant funds

to continue State municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water supply system development; to provide minimum maintenance to assure reliability of completed facilities still in construction status and operate the supply system for freshening

flows; to continue mitigation activities associated with meeting refuge compatibility;

to continue planning activities associated with a water supply to the Red River Valley; to provide flood control at Jamestown Dam and continue to operate, maintain,

and replace facilities; and for construction and planning activities associated with

recreation facilities. Reclamation will continue working with three Indian reservations in Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) to operate, maintain, and replace existing

MR&I water treatment and distribution facilities, and provide technical assistance

and oversight for planning activities to meet reservation-wide needs.

Question. Would you agree that completing work on the Southwest Pipeline, doing

further work on the Northwest Area Waters Supply, and moving to Phase 2 on Indian MR&I mean that thousands of North Dakotans without reliable supplies of

clean water will finally have access to the kind of water most of us take for granted?

Answer. These types of projects have been successful in providing reliable, safe

drinking water to thousands of people throughout the state whose previous supplies

have been unreliable or have not met safe drinking water standards.

Question. One of the funding priorities in the 1986 Garrison Reformulation Act

was meeting the Municipal, Residential and Industrial water needs of Indian tribes

in North Dakota. The tribes again have reached their funding ceilings which

prompted the Congress to add funding to the last two appropriations bills. Can you

assure the Subcommittee that the Bureau is prepared to work with us in raising

the ceilings and identifying additional resources—in the range of $3 million—to

meet critical MR&I needs on the reservation?

Answer. Reclamation has allocated funding to continue Indian MR&I planning

and construction activities in each of the past two years in which the appropriation

ceiling has been raised, fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. If the ceiling is raised

again in fiscal year 2000, we anticipate that additional funds would be allocated to

continue these ongoing activities.

Question. Do you concur that Tribes in North Dakota have some of the poorest quality water in the nation and the Bureau has validated over $200 million in Indian MR&I needs?

Answer. Studies have documented that the Indian reservations in North Dakota

have significant domestic water supply problems. Studies commissioned for the

Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, and Spirit Lake Indian Reservations have estimated

that an additional $220,000,000 could be required to complete facilities to meet all

the reservation-wide needs. In addition, it is estimated that another $20,000,000

may be required to meet the domestic water supply needs on the Turtle Mountain

Chippewa Indian Reservation. Reclamation is initiating a needs assessment study

in fiscal year 1999 through the Native American Affairs Program to refine the needs

of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe.

Question. All but 11 of North Dakota’s counties are losing population as farm communities face unparalleled problems from low prices, Canadian grain imports, severe weather disasters, among other factors. The MR&I program has helped breathe

new economic life into communities across the state. Can you comment on the specific social and economic benefits of such projects as the Southwest Pipeline in

bringing clean, dependable water supplies to towns in our state?

Answer. The benefits associated with improved water quality can include better

tasting water, water that does not corrode pipes and appliances, improved health,

or some other improvement in lifestyle. Therefore, an improved water supply can

help a rural area remain economically viable.

Question. Several North Dakota communities have had been using tobacco-colored

water or been in violation of Clean Water standards—through no fault of their own.

Can you confirm how many ND communities have been able to comply with Clean

Drinking Water standards as a result of Garrison projects?

Answer. In preparing our response to this question, we consulted with the North

Dakota State Water Commission (SWC) who administers the GDU MR&I State

Grant Program. The SWC provided Reclamation with a spreadsheet, dated November 17, 1998, that summarizes the status of all projects that have submitted applications under this program. The SWC and the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District prioritize each of the projects that submit applications. One of the most important prioritization criteria is water quality, particularly documentation that existing

water supplies are violating Safe Drinking Water standards. Based on SWC infor-
62

mation, since the program began in 1986, the State has received 132 applications

for water supply funding assistance, and 32 highest priority projects have been completed. Another 43 projects are in various stages of planning, design, and construction.

Question. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation has been studying the water

development and management needs of the Red River Valley for the past year. Can

you apprise the Committee of the status of these studies?

Answer. The Phase IA Needs Assessment has been completed. Initial alternatives

to meet the municipal, rural, and industrial water needs of the Red River Valley

have been formulated. A working draft of the Phase 2 (alternatives Analysis) report

will be forwarded to the Steering committee prior to our March 30th meeting. Phase

IB Instream Flow report will be finalized by the end of March 1999, and the results

will be incorporated into the Alternatives Analysis.

Question. Has the Bureau worked closely with the ND State Water Commission,

local communities and other interested parties to obtain their views and recommendations?

Answer. The Bureau has been working closely with State and local interests to

obtain their views and recommendations. It is expected that more meetings may be

needed to assure that the views and interests of the State and local interests are

fully considered prior to distribution of the public review draft. The Bureau’s work

is coordinated with a steering committee which is comprised of representatives of

the ND State Water Commission, ND State Health Department, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, Fargo, Grand Forks, Moorehead, rural water systems,

and the environmental community.

Question. Can you please assure the Subcommittee that the Bureau will make

these studies a top priority and work closely with ND agencies and groups?

Answer. Completion of this study is a priority.
(63)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

ACCOMPANIED BY:

LT. GEN. JOE N. BALLARD, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

MAJ. GEN. RUSSELL L. FUHRMAN, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS

Senator DOMENICI. Would the Corps of Engineers witnesses,

General Ballard, Dr. Westphal, and any supporting witnesses come

forward please?

Thank you very much. Can we have order in the back of the

room? If you would like to carry on conversations, could you do it

in the hall please? Thank you very much.

Dr. Westphal, it is good to see you. General Ballard, General

Fuhrman its always a pleasure. And on the end——

General FUHRMAN. That is Fred Caver, sir. He is our budget and

programs person.

Senator DOMENICI. All right. Nice to have you with us. Yes, he

is the budget man?

General FUHRMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Dr. Westphal, we extend an especially warm

welcome to you since this is your first appearance before the committee.

The environment is certainly better this year than it was last

year when we faced a very difficult budget from the administration

where water projects were underfunded. Then we were expected to

meet the demands of water projects in the country, and through

the goodness of the chairman of the full committee, they gave us

money from some other subcommittee for the water projects that

the President did not fund.

The Administration have gotten the message this year and the

budget looks much better with reference to what you must do to

complete your projects and maintain schedules for ongoing work.

We hope to be able to meet those responsibilities within the President’s budget.

We have many Senators who want to be heard, so that is the extent of my statement. Unless somebody has an urgent, urgent

statement, I would like to proceed to have the witnesses——

STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. Could I just make one statement and ask a

question? I want to go to another hearing.

Senator DOMENICI. Absolutely.
64

Senator STEVENS. Good morning, General Ballard and Dr.

Westphal.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Good morning, sir.

General BALLARD. Good morning, sir.

Senator STEVENS. I am here to state to you that we do appreciate

the work that you do in Alaska. You are really involved in a number of important military projects. I discussed that with Colonel

John yesterday.

Our problem now is that we have, as you know, half the coastline

of the United States, 55,000 miles of coastline, and our future development really is dependent upon our being able to get modern

facilities there for the village areas in particular.

PROJECT COST SHARING PROBLEMS

As we face this period of higher and higher costs of construction,

one of the great problems that I face is how to deal with the local

cost sharing formula that is involved with the Corps. These are

areas that have no tax base at all, are primarily dependent upon

the Federal Government, and are not very well represented in the

State government because of the one man/one vote concept. We

have an area the size of Texas that has one State representative.

Now, when you look at it in terms of trying to get cost sharing

for those areas, for the facilities they need to develop—I hate to use

that word—the modern infrastructure for the next century, we just

cannot deal with this cost sharing formula that has been worked

out. I would like to know if you would be willing to sit down with

us and see if we can find some way to justify—I take it it would

take an Act of Congress to change your current formula. Is your

current formula not based in law rather than regulation?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I have got to find some way to relieve

some of these places of the burden of cost sharing where there is

no tax base.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to work

with you on developing some ability to pay mechanisms that might

help these communities. The Chief and I are committed to—in fact,

we have been talking about doing something about this issue nationwide, because there are communities all over the country that

really in some cases absolutely cannot make the local match, yet

they are in danger of flooding or they desperately need some infrastructure help. So, we are committed to finding ways in which we

can help those communities either by adapting ability to pay provisions or simply coming to Congress and looking at some other vehicles for doing that for those particular communities in need. We

will certainly be willing to work with you and members of your

staff.

Senator STEVENS. Well, we worked it out once. The City of

Buckland—I do not know if you are familiar with that little city.

It has a sewage lagoon. That lagoon just happens to be in the center of the village. Over the years the waste water has gone directly

into the lagoon in the middle of the village. Thanks to you, we now

have an infrastructure demonstration project. You have a lot of

flexibility on those demonstration projects.
65

I am thinking of looking to this committee or to some committee

to help us redefine what we can do in these areas where there is

no potential for a local match. Most of us here had something to

do with State government. I know I did in the State legislature.

They have very little chance of getting a bill through the State legislature to give them an increased percentage of their local

matched funds for projects that will enable them to compete with

another area of the State.

So, it is something that I would hope we would get some attention to, and I would look forward to working with you if you will

do that for me.

Dr. WESTPHAL. We will, yes, sir.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. Senator Stevens, we are aware of

your problem and of some rural counties in the continental United

States that actually have similar problems. We will try to work on

that with your staff.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. Would you please proceed, Dr. Westphal.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL

Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be

here to testify before this esteemed subcommittee, Mr. Chairman,

and to testify and present to you the President’s civil works budget

for the 21st century. I think it is a good budget, Mr. Chairman.

Accompanying me, as you mentioned earlier, is Lieutenant General Joe Ballard, who is the Chief of Engineers; and Major General

Russ Fuhrman, who is the Director of Civil Works; and Mr. Fred

Caver, who is the Chief, Programs Management Division for the

Directorate of Civil Works.

For just a second, Mr. Chairman, on a personal note, I just want

to say how delighted I am to be here, the first time testifying before you. I began my professional career in Washington working for

the House Budget Committee the year that you became chairman

of the Senate Budget Committee. Of course, I am delighted to be

here with my former boss and mentor, Senator Thad Cochran. It

is a great opportunity to defend and to support a very strong program for civil works this year.

Let me begin by noting that large differences between the administration’s budget proposal last year and what you appropriated in

both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are now reconciled in the

fiscal year 2000 budget I am about to discuss.

Mr. Chairman, I am just going to summarize a few points here

in the interest of time and ask that my full testimony be made part

of the record.

BUDGET THEMES

The President has consistently stressed two major themes that

I think are particularly important to the way we should formulate

and implement a civil works policy. First, policy must be based on

building strong partnerships with our States and local communities, as well as with other sister Federal agencies. And second,

we must strive to help our economy grow and prosper by combining

sound infrastructure management and development with environ-
66

mental protection and ecosystem restoration. I believe our program

excels in both of these mandates and that the budget we present

today reflects their importance and priority.

I am pleased to say that funding in the President’s fiscal year

2000 budget supports a strong civil works program. It is consistent

with levels enacted by Congress in recent years and with the President’s overall domestic priorities, his commitment to a balanced

budget, and his goal of protecting Social Security and meeting the

challenges of the 21st century.

BUDGET OVERVIEW

The President’s budget for the civil works program for the year

2000 includes $3.9 billion for the discretionary program, comparable to the amount appropriated for the program in fiscal year

1999 and significantly above last year’s budget. With cost-sharing

contributions by our partners, the non-Federal sponsors, plus other

funding, the fiscal year 2000 program will total about $4.2 billion.

In fiscal year 2000, we will be asking non-Federal sponsors to contribute over $251 million as their cost share of projects throughout

the Nation. They are our partners in this program and we are committed to a very responsive and timely allocation of resources to

meet their efforts. I look forward to working with both houses of

Congress to meet the challenges of this partnership.

I would like to point out that the fiscal year 2000 budget for the

civil works operation and maintenance general program is $1.84

billion. This level of funding is very strong, demonstrating the administration’s commitment to maintaining our existing infrastructure, much of which is aging and requires greater upkeep.

Funding for the construction general program is $1.24 billion, a

significant increase from last year’s request.

On new investments, the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Army

civil works program provides a strong program of new work, including 1 new survey, 19 new construction projects, 5 operation

and maintenance new starts, and 6 new plant replacement and improvement program major acquisitions, and the Challenge 21 program.

WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

I also want to emphasize our commitment to water resources development and the biennial authorization cycle. A strong water resources development program is a sound investment in our Nation’s economic future and environmental stability. Communities

across the country benefit from water resources projects to reduce

flood damages, compete more efficiently in world trade, provide

needed water and power, provide recreational opportunities, and

protect and restore our rich aquatic resources.

In this regard, we will work with Congress to complete a water

resources development act in 1999, building on the progress that

we made last fall on the proposed 1998 bill. Further, it would put

us in a better position to address new policy and project needs in

a WRDA 2000 bill that will include such important initiatives as

the restoration of the Everglades.
67

HARBOR SERVICES FUND

A key component of the President’s 2000 budget for the Army

civil works program is the proposal for a new harbor services user

fee. This proposal will provide a reliable source of funding for important navigation needs, including construction, operation, and

maintenance. It results in significantly greater funding for these

port and harbor activities. The President’s budget for fiscal year

2000 includes $951 million to be derived from the Harbor Services

Fund, an overall increase of $382 million over the President’s fiscal

year 1999 budget for harbor related activities. This level of funding

will allow us to proceed at an optimal rate on nearly all operation

and maintenance and construction activities related to ports and

harbors, using funds contributed by the users.

The user fees will generate funds sufficient to pay the Department of the Army’s annual cost of developing, operating, and maintaining the Nation’s ports. The legislative proposal will make the

total amount of user fees collected pursuant to this proposed legislation in one year, available the next fiscal year for appropriations.

We are coming to completion on the details of this proposal and

discussions with stakeholders and comments from interested

groups. A final proposal will come to you in the next few weeks,

Mr. Chairman.

The administration is also committed to the traditional mission

areas of improving our navigation and transportation system, protecting our local communities from flood damages and other disasters and maintaining and improving hydropower facilities across

the country.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

In addition, the protection and the restoration of the environment is an important and integral part of the civil works mission

portfolio. The President has strongly advocated linking economic

growth and protection of the environment. To help meet this objective, we will support projects that feature strong economic benefits,

as well as incorporate environmental restoration and enhancement.

Of course, individual environmental restoration projects are also an

important part of the civil works mission.

An example of a program that will integrate the environmental

concerns into more traditional civil works missions is our Challenge 21 program, the riverine ecosystem restoration and flood hazard mitigation initiative. Like last year, this year’s budget includes

$25 million to begin the Challenge 21 program. It is designed to

accomplish both flood hazard mitigation and ecosystem restoration

and emphasizes nonstructural measures as a means of accomplishing these objectives.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

The fiscal year 2000 budget for the civil works regulatory program is $117 million, an increase of $11 million over the enacted

level in fiscal year 1999 funding. In this program we are proud that

we not only protect our vital aquatic resources, but we try to help

people within the law to find environmentally sustainable solutions

to their problems. In fiscal year 1998, the regulatory program au-
68

thorized 90,000 activities in writing, the most of any year, and

nearly 95 percent of all actions were authorized in less than 60

days. This budget will ensure that this level of service is maintained and improved, even with an increasing volume of work.

In summary, the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget for the civil

works program is a good one. It demonstrates a commitment to

civil works missions with strong support for all programs, a plan

to solve the constitutional problem with the existing harbor maintenance tax, an especially strong program of new construction, a

firm commitment to maintaining existing water resources management infrastructure and increased application of civil works program expertise to environmental protection and restoration.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here with the Chief of Engineers. We have had an excellent working relationship since I took

over this job. We are true partners in this process, along with the

Director of Civil Works, in making sure that we address the interests of your constituents and the feasibility of moving this program

forward at a very good pace in the future.

PREPARED STATEMENT

With that, Mr. Chairman, I end my remarks and I thank the

committee for the opportunity to testify today.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL

INTRODUCTION

It is an honor and a pleasure to testify before this esteemed subcommittee of the

Appropriations Committee and to present to you, President Clinton’s first Civil

Works budget for the 21st Century. It is a good budget.

Accompanying me are Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard, Chief of Engineers;

Major General Russell L. Fuhrman, Director of Civil Works; and Mr. Thomas F.

Caver, Jr., Chief Programs Management Division, Directorate of Civil Works.

Let me begin by noting that the large differences between the Administration’s

budget proposal last year and what you appropriated in both fiscal year 1998 and

fiscal year 1999 are now reconciled in the fiscal year 2000 budget I am about to

outline.

The President has consistently stressed two major themes that I think are particularly important to the way we should formulate and implement Civil Works policy. First, it must be based on building strong partnerships with our states and local

communities as well as among our sister federal agencies. Second, we must strive

to help our economy grow and prosper by combining sound infrastructure management and development with environmental protection and ecosystem restoration. I

believe our program excels in both of these mandates and that the budget I will

present today reflects their importance and priority.

I am pleased to say that funding in the President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget supports a strong Civil Works Program. It is consistent with levels enacted by Congress

in recent years, and with the President’s overall domestic priorities, his commitment

to a balanced budget, and his goal of protecting Social Security and meeting the

challenges of the 21 Century.

My statement covers the following subjects:

—the fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Program Budget,

—Water Resources Development Acts of 1999 and 2000,

—GPRA and Civil Works Program Performance,

—the Harbor Services Fund Proposal,

—the Economy and Environment,

—New Investments, and

—Highlights of the fiscal year 2000 Continuing Program.
69

FISCAL YEAR 2000 CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM BUDGET

The President’s budget for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year 2000 includes

$3.9 billion for the discretionary program, comparable to the amount appropriated

for the program in fiscal year 1999, and significantly above last year’s budget request. Details are presented in Table A.

The Administration appreciates the significant commitments made by our partners, the non-federal sponsors who cost-share studies and projects of the Civil

Works Program. These commitments demonstrate the value of the program to the

sponsors. With cost- sharing contributions and other funding, total funding for the

fiscal year 2000 program is $4.2 billion. In fiscal year 2000, we will be asking nonFederal sponsors to contribute over $251 million as their cost share of projects

throughout the nation. They are our partners in this program and we are committed

to a very responsive and timely allocation of resources to meet their efforts. I look

forward to working with both Houses of Congress to meeting the challenges of this

partnership.

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACTS OF 1999 AND 2000

I also want to emphasize our commitment to water resources development and the

biennial authorization cycle. A strong water resources development program is a

sound investment in our Nation’s economic future and environmental stability.

Communities across the country benefit from water resource projects to reduce flood

damages, compete more efficiently in world trade, provide needed water and power,

and protect and restore our rich aquatic resources. In this regard, we will work with

the 3 Congress to complete a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) in 1999—

building on the progress that we made last fall on the proposed WRDA 98.

As you know, the Army, on behalf of the Administration, submitted to Congress

a WRDA proposal in 1998. This formed the basis for the Senate version of WRDA

98 that included important Administration policy initiatives such as our Challenge

21 program. We hope that, based on our bill, and the work of the authorizing Committees, we can come to closure on a responsible WRDA 99 early this year that includes important policy initiatives and vital projects, while recognizing the continuing budget constraints. Further, it would put us in a better position to address

new policy and project needs in a WRDA 2000 bill that will include such important

initiatives as the restoration of the Everglades.

CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires that the

Army Corps of Engineers show how improvements in its business processes impact

the quality and delivery of our products and services to the Nation.

The Corps is improving its business processes by streamlining decision document

review procedures, eliminating duplication of functions at different levels; intensively monitoring policy review to reduce review times; extending the use of standardized project cooperation agreements; continuing to strengthen partnerships with

local sponsors; and intensively managing program execution, for more efficient and

timely production and greater customer satisfaction. In particular, the Chief of Engineers has developed a process to streamline project planning and I look forward

to working with him on this.

The Corps is currently implementing the first annual performance plan required

by GPRA on its fiscal year 1999 program. The Corps is testing an initial set of results-oriented program performance measures to assess the benefits of process improvements made at the project level. The Corps will evaluate the initial set of results-oriented program performance measures during fiscal year 1999 program execution and will extend successful applications of the measures into the fiscal year

2000 program and continue to develop improved performance measures in the future.

HARBOR SERVICES FUND PROPOSAL

A key component of the President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Army Civil

Works program is the proposal for a new Harbor Services Fund and Harbor Services

User Fee. This proposal will provide a reliable source of funding for important navigation needs 4 including construction, operation, and maintenance. It results in significantly greater funding for these port and harbor activities. The President’s Budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $951 million to be derived from the Harbor Services

Fund, an overall increase of $382 million over the President’s fiscal year 1999 Budget for harbor related activities. This level of funding will allow us to proceed at an
70

optimal rate on nearly all operation and maintenance and construction activities related to ports and harbors, using funds contributed by the users.

In March 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the Harbor Maintenance Tax

(HMT) was unconstitutional, as applied to exports. In that ruling, the Court concluded that the HMT, which imposed a charge based on the value of the commercial

cargo being shipped, constituted a tax on goods in export transit and therefore violated the Export Clause of the Constitution. Because of this ruling, the HMT

stopped being collected on exports on April 25, 1998. The new Harbor Services User

Fee being proposed avoids the constitutional infirmities of the HMT. The assessment is a user fee, not a tax: it fairly approximates the harbor benefits and services

vessels in each vessel category receive through port use. It is not imposed based on

the cargo of a vessel.

The user fees will generate funds sufficient to pay the Department of the Army’s

annual costs of developing, operating, and maintaining the Nation’s ports. The legislative proposal will make the total amount of the user fees collected pursuant to this

proposed legislation in one year available the next fiscal year for appropriation to

fund the projected total annual expenditures of the Department of the Army for harbor development, operation, and maintenance.

Thus, this proposal will address all of the biggest problems associated with the

existing Harbor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund (HMTF). First, we will stop collections on imports, domestic shippers, and passengers collected under the existing

Harbor Maintenance Tax, eliminating the uncertainties involved with our foreign

trading partners.

Second, we would institute a new fee mechanism based on vessel type linking the

fee with the level of service provided to certain types of vessels, which will meet

the Supreme Court’s test for constitutionality. Those fees would be placed in the

new Harbor Services Fund, along with remaining balances from the old HMTF. A

portion of those balances will be used to fund the program in the first year, fiscal

year 2000.

And third, the proposal will directly link the amount of fees collected with the

funds appropriated, thus avoiding a build up balances in the Harbor Services Fund.

For budget purposes, the user fees will be treated as offsetting collections.

We are coming to completion on details of the proposal in light of discussions and

comments from interested groups. We plan to present a legislative proposal to 5

Congress in the near future. Our plan is to pursue the HSF legislative proposal separately from WRDA 99.

ECONOMY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The Administration is committed to the traditional mission areas of improving our

navigation and transportation system, protection of our local communities from flood

damages and other disasters, and maintaining and improving hydropower facilities

across the country. In addition, the protection and restoration of the environment

is an important and integral part of the Civil Works mission portfolio. The President

has strongly advocated linking economic growth with protection of the environment.

To help meet this objective, we will support projects that feature strong economic

benefits, as well as projects that incorporate environmental restoration and enhancement. Of course, individual environmental restoration projects are also an important part of the Civil Works mission.

An example of a program that will integrate environmental concerns into more

traditional Civil Works missions is our Challenge 21: Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Initiative. Like last year, this year’s budget includes $25 M to begin the Challenge 21 program. It is designed to accomplish both

flood hazard mitigation and ecosystem restoration and emphasizes nonstructural

measures as a means to accomplish these objectives. Challenge 21 was proposed for

authorization last year, and came close to becoming a reality in the proposed Water

Resources Development Act of 1998. In fact, the Senate version of WRDA 1998 included a Challenge 21 program. We will continue to work with Congress to pass this

much-needed legislation. The key to this program is that it will be implemented at

the request of local communities and not imposed as a solution by the Federal government. To date, over 50 communities have expressed interest in participating in

Challenge 21.

Environmental programs make up about 18 percent of the fiscal year 2000 Army

Civil Works budget, and are integrated into all of the major areas of work. Some

environmental programs of note are in the following areas. There is $100 million

in construction funding for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program in the Pacific Northwest. There is $129 million in overall funding for the ongoing effort in

south Florida to restore, preserve and protect the Everglades. We have also budg-
71

eted $14 million to fund our ongoing environmental restoration continuing authorities programs (Section 204, the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials program, Section 206, the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration program, and Section 1135 Project

Modifications for Improvements of the Environment). This funding will allow us to

implement projects to create and restore aquatic habitats and to modify Civil Works

projects to improve the environment.

The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP, is an environmental 6 cleanup program that was transferred by Congress from the Department

of Energy to the Army Civil Works program in the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations

Act. We are continuing the smooth implementation of needed clean-up of contaminated sites, with no slippage of the program during the transition from DOE to the

Civil Works program. In fact, we have exceeded the DOE schedules for the Middlesex, Maywood, and Wayne sites in New Jersey, and surpassed DOE’s planned

quantities of soil removed and disposed. This year’s budget includes $150 million for

this program, an increase of $10 million over the past two years. This will help improve the rate of cleanup for the sites.

NEW INVESTMENTS

The fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Army Civil Works program provides a strong

program of new work. Details are presented in Table B.

Our program of new work includes one new survey and 19 new construction

projects, 5 new operation and maintenance new starts, and 6 new Plant Replacement and Improvement Program (PRIP) major acquisitions, and the Challenge 21

program. The Budget includes $80 million in fiscal year 2000 for the new investments in the construction account, including $55 million for new construction starts and $25

million for Challenge 21. Capital costs for these new investments total $1.8 billion.

Of that, $1.3 billion will be provided by the federal government. The balance, covering costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations, will be financed directly by non-federal sponsors.

The 19 new construction projects include:

—5 for commercial navigation,

—3 for flood damage reduction,

—2 for environmental restoration,

—7 for major rehabilitation, and

—2 for dam safety assurance.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONTINUING PROGRAM

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

The fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Civil Works Operation and Maintenance, General (O&M) Program is $1.84 billion. This level of funding is very strong, demonstrating the Administration’s commitment to maintaining our existing infrastructure, much of which is aging and requires greater upkeep. Of the $1.84 billion, $693

million would be for port 7 and harbor activities, derived from the proposed HSF,

including $75 million to maintain small boat harbors, important to the economies

of local communities. In addition, operation and maintenance of hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest will be financed by a transfer of approximately $107

million from the Bonneville Power Administration, pursuant to an agreement signed

two years ago.

The budget also provides $226 million to continue the operation and maintenance

of recreation areas at Civil Works projects.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

The fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Civil Works Construction, General Program

is $1.24 billion, of which $1.16 billion is for the continuing program. Of the total,

$258 million would be for port and harbor construction projects derived from the

Harbor Services Fund, allowing port related projects to proceed at optimal rates.

This will enhance the competitiveness of our Nation’s ports and harbors.

Following are highlights of the Continuing Program.

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.—The Everglades is an ecosystem of international importance. It is also one that has dramatically deteriorated since the turn

of the century. It is very important that we aggressively continue the work that we

have underway to start the process of restoring this treasure that is so important

to the Nation. Construction funding for these projects is $110 million for restoration

of the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem, a major environmental activity to

which we are strongly committed. This amount includes $49 million for the Central
72

and Southern Florida project to continue construction work at West Palm Beach

Canal, South Dade County, and manatee pass-through gates, as well as planning,

engineering and design work on the Comprehensive Restoration Plan, also known

as the ‘‘Restudy’’; $40 million to continue construction on the Kissimmee River Restoration project; and $21 million for critical restoration projects authorized under

the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program.

Pacific Northwest Salmon.—The budget includes $100 million for Corps construction activities associated with the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project at 8 Corps

dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers and to continue the mitigation analysis

which evaluates additional measures to increase fish survival at those dams. This

includes $59 million for studies of surface bypass facilities, drawdown of Lower

Snake Reservoirs, John Day drawdown and hatchery mitigation, turbine passage,

gas abatement, adult passage, and Lower Columbia configuration.

Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.—The budget includes $20 million for the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System to continue construction of the lock and dam. The project is programmed to be financed entirely from the Construction account.

Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky.—The budget includes $7.75 million for the

Kentucky Lock and Dam project on the Tennessee River to continue detailed design

of the new lock and to relocate the Tennessee Valley Authority’s power transmission

towers at the project site. The addition of a new lock will greatly reduce delays at

the existing lock which is too small to handle modern 15 barge tows without 2

lockages.

Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky.—The budget includes $28.6 million to continue construction of 2 new locks on the Ohio River near Olmsted, Illinois

, to replace Locks 52 and 53 which are over 60 years old. Virtually all waterway

traffic moving between the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers passes through the project

area, and both of the existing locks have temporary lock chambers that are inefficient. Projected increases in waterway traffic demands in combination with the limited capacity of the existing locks will result in increased lockage delays without the

new locks.

New York and New Jersey Harbors, New York and New Jersey.—The budget includes $60 million for the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay, New York and New Jersey, project to continue construction of the deepening of 5 miles of Kill Van Kull

channels and 3 miles of Newark Bay channels from 40 to 45 feet. The deeper project

will accommodate larger, fully loaded, more modern containerships. The budget also

includes $2 million for the New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey

Channel, New Jersey, project. Deepening Port Jersey channel from 35 feet to 41 feet

will accommodate larger, deeper draft, cargo ships.

Los Angles County Drainage Area, California.—The budget includes $30 million

for up grading the existing system, raising channel walls and converting the trapezoidal channel to a rectangular channel, and bridge modifications. These improvements would protect residential, commercial, and industrial properties in Long

Beach by accommodating the increased runoff resulting from urbanization over the

past 40 years.

Southeast Louisiana.—The budget includes $47 million to continue construction

activities for the Southeast Louisiana project including Canal 3, Suburban Canal,

Elmwood Canal, Railroad Canal, Whitney Barataria Pumping Station in Jefferson

Parish, and Napoleon Avenue Canal, Dwyer Road Pumping Station, and Broad

Street Pumping Station in Orleans Parish.

Continuing Authorities Program.—The budget includes $57 million for a full program of continuing and new work under the 9 activities in the Continuing Authorities Program. This amount includes $2.5 million for beach erosion control projects

(Section 103), $8.5 million for emergency streambank and shoreline protection

projects (Section 14), $26.9 million for flood damage reduction projects (Section 205),

$0.5 million for navigation mitigation projects (Section 111), $4.5 million for navigation projects (Section 107), $0.1 million for snagging and clearing projects (Section

208), $4.5 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration (Section 206), $8.5 million for

project modifications for improvement of the environment (Section 1135), and $1

million for beneficial uses of dredged material (Section 204).

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Budget for the Civil Works General Investigations (GI) Program is $135 million. While this is a lower level than usual, it is a key element of our plan to stabilize the Civil Works budget in the future. The study program feeds the pipeline

of construction work. There is a large amount of construction work already waiting

for funding—far more than the funds we can reasonably expect in the future. This
73

budget cuts back on project study funding, in order to reduce the backlog of potential construction projects that are beyond our capacity to budget within a reasonable

time frame. Once the backlog of costly projects is reduced, then we would be able

to resume funding for studies at a higher level.

We believe that cutting back on study funding on a temporary basis is the right

thing to do for our local sponsors, who expect timely construction of projects, once

studies are completed and the projects are authorized.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

The fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Civil Works Regulatory Program is $117 million, an increase of $11 million over the enacted level of fiscal year 1999 funding.

This will ensure that we continue to provide for effective and equitable regulation

of the Nation’s waters, including wetlands. Through the Regulatory Program the

Corps is committed to serving the public in a fair and reasonable manner while protecting the aquatic environment, as required by laws and regulations. In fiscal year

1998, the Regulatory Program authorized 90,000 activities in writing, the most in

any year, and nearly 95 percent of all actions were authorized in less than 60 days.

One of the goals of the Corps is to help people find solutions to their problems.

In this program, we are proud that we not only protect our vital aquatic resources,

but we try to 10 help people, within the law, to find environmentally sustainable

solutions to their problems. This budget will ensure that this level of service is

maintained and improved, even with an increasing volume of work. The proposed

increase would also enable the Corps to broaden its partnerships with States and

local communities through watershed planning efforts.

We will also continue to pursue important initiatives as part of the Regulatory

Program. For example, under the Regulatory Program, we are also active in the

preparation of Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) to address development in

environmentally sensitive areas. With the amount included in the President’s Budget, we will establish a full administrative appeals process that will allow the public

to challenge permit decisions and jurisdiction determinations without costly, timeconsuming litigation.

Again this year, we are proposing a reasonable increase in the permit application

fees for commercial applicants as a means to offset a portion of the costs of the Regulatory Program. We are prepared to work closely with this Committee and the public to ensure that any revisions that we may adopt are reasonable.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget for the Army Civil Works

Program is a good one. It demonstrates a commitment to Civil Works missions, with

strong support for all programs, a plan to solve the constitutional problem with the

existing Harbor Maintenance Tax, an especially strong program of new construction,

a firm commitment to maintaining existing water resource management infrastructure, and increased application of Civil Works Program expertise to environmental

protection and restoration.

Thank you Mr. Chairman; Members of the Subcommittee. This concludes my

statement.
TABLE A—DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY—CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS—FISCAL YEAR 2000 DIRECT PROGRAM—PRESIDENT’S PROGRAM FUND

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fund

Special Trust General Transfer—

Bnnvll Power

Admnstrtn

Trust—

Rivers and

harbors

cntrbtns

Harbor services 1 Perma- nent apprprtns. Permit applctn. fees 2 Rcrtn. user fees Coastal wet- lands rstrtn 3 Harbor mntnnc Inland waterway Ultimate 4 Initial 5

COMBINED (discretionary and mandatory):

DEFENSE: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program .... .................. .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. .............. 150,000 150,000 .................. .................DOMESTIC:

General Investigations ...................................................... .................. .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. .............. 135,000 135,000 .................. 39,827 Construction, General ....................................................... 257,700 .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. 55,000 927,200 1,239,900 .................. 156,786 Operation and Maintenance, General .............................. 692,900 .............. ............ 35,700 .................. .................. .............. 1,107,300 1,835,900 107,000 8,055 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Project ............................................................................... .................. .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. .............. 280,000 280,000 .................. 45,673 

Regulatory Program .......................................................... .................. .............. 7,000 .................. .................. .................. .............. 117,000 117,000 .................. .................General Expenses ............................................................. .................. .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. .............. 148,000 148,000 .................. .................Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................... .................. .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. .............. .................. .................. .................. .................

Revolving Fund ................................................................. .................. .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. .............. .................. .................. .................. .................

Coastal Wetlands Restoration .......................................... .................. .............. ............ .................. 54,180 .................. .............. .................. .................. .................. 800 Permanent Appropriations ................................................ 18,576 .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. .............. .................. .................. .................. .................

ALL ............................................................................................. 950,600 18,576 7,000 35,700 54,180 .................. 55,000 2,864,500 3,905,800 107,000 251,141 

DISCRETIONARY .................................................................................. .................. .............. ............ .................. .................. .................. .............. 2,864,500 2,864,500 .................. .................

MANDATORY ........................................................................................ 950,600 18,576 7,000 35,700 54,180 .................. 55,000 .................. 1,041,300 107,000 251,141 

1 Proposed special fund to replace Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.2 Proposed fees for processing permit applications, to be paid to General Fund receipt account, not available to Corps.3 Total for interagency task force; Corps’ piece of $10 million is reflected under Total.4 Net direct Congressional appropriation after reimbursement from mandatory Special and Trust funds, as applicable.5 Direct Congressional appropriation. The total for all accounts comes from the General Fund, initially. Ultimately, it is reimbursed from mandatory accounts in the amount shown opposite Mandatory.
TABLE B—DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY—CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS—FISCAL YEAR 2000 DIRECT PROGRAM—PRESIDENT’S NEW STARTS AND OTH

WORK PROGRAM FUNDING

[Dollars in thousands]

ACCOUNT/CATEGORY Number

FUNDING

First cost Budget year

Total

Federa;

Nonfederal Total

Federa;

GF HSF IWTF GF HSF IWTF

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Surveys: Santa Inez River, CA ................................................................................................. 1 $100 $100 ...... .................. .................. $100 $100 ...... .................

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Projects:

Regular:

Environmental:

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, ND .................................... 1 108,000 108,000 ...... .................. .................. 2,000 2,000 ...... .................Willamette River Temperature Control, OR .................................................. 1 70,600 70,600 ...... .................. .................. 1,700 1,700 ...... .................

Flood Protection:

Arecibo River, PR .......................................................................................... 1 23,100 12,500 ...... .................. $10,600 8,742 2,500 ...... .................Grand Forks, ND—East Grand Forks, MN ................................................... 1 350,250 175,900 ...... .................. 174,350 30,600 10,000 ...... .................Napa River, CA ............................................................................................. 1 182,000 91,000 ...... .................. 91,000 42,528 4,500 ...... .................

Navigation:

Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD, Brewerton Channel .......................... 1 14,035 10,530 ...... .................. 3,505 13,083 9,578 ...... .................Kikiaola Small Boat Harbor, Kauai, HI ........................................................ 1 5,653 4,997 ...... .................. 656 185 75 ...... .................Neches River and Tributaries Saltwater Barrier, TX .................................... 1 55,860 41,895 ...... .................. 13,965 5,661 2,000 ...... .................Port Fourchon, LA ......................................................................................... 1 4,930 2,557 ...... .................. 2,373 4,557 2,184 ...... .................Santa Barbara Harbor, CA ........................................................................... 1 6,700 5,360 ...... .................. 1,340 6,300 4,960 ...... .................

All (Regular Projects) ............................................................................... 10 821,128 523,339 ...... .................. 297,789 115,356 39,497 ...... .................

Major Rehabilitation:

Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, MA .................................................................. 1 30,500 30,500 ...... .................. .................. 5,000 5,000 ...... .................John H. Kerr Powerhouse, VA & NC ...................................................................... 1 59,600 59,600 ...... .................. .................. 1,400 1,400 ...... .................Lock and Dam 12, Mississippi River, IA .............................................................. 1 15,500 7,750 ...... $7,750 .................. 2,600 1,300 ...... $1,300 Lock and Dam 24, Part 2, Mississippi River, IL & MO ........................................ 1 38,400 19,200 ...... 19,200 .................. 1,200 600 ...... 600 London Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, WV ....................................................... 1 20,300 10,150 ...... 10,150 .................. 600 .................. ...... 600 Patoka Lake, IN ..................................................................................................... 1 7,200 7,200 ...... .................. .................. 2,000 2,000 ...... .................
TABLE B—DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY—CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS—FISCAL YEAR 2000 DIRECT PROGRAM—PRESIDENT’S NEW STARTS AND OTH

WORK PROGRAM FUNDING—Continued

[Dollars in thousands]

ACCOUNT/CATEGORY Number

FUNDING

First cost Budget year

Total

Federa;

Nonfederal Total

Federa;

GF HSF IWTF GF HSF IWTF

Walter F. George Powerhouse and Dam, AL & GA ................................................ 1 37,000 37,000 ...... .................. .................. 750 750 ...... .................

All (Major Rehabilitation Projects) ................................................................... 7 208,500 171,400 ...... 37,100 .................. 13,550 11,050 ...... 2,500 

Dam Safety Assurance:

Bluestone Lake, WV ............................................................................................... 1 107,300 107,300 ...... .................. .................. 750 750 ...... .................Success Dam, CA .................................................................................................. 1 30,900 30,900 ...... .................. .................. 1,250 1,250 ...... .................

All (Dam Safety Assurance Projects) ................................................................ 2 138,200 138,200 ...... .................. .................. 2,000 2,000 ...... .................All (Projects) ..................................................................................................... 19 1,167,828 832,939 ...... 37,100 297,789 130,906 52,547 ...... 2,500 

Program: Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Program ....... 1 654,000 425,000 ...... .................. 229,000 35,000 25,000 ...... .................

All (Projects and Program) ........................................................................................ 20 1,821,828 1,257,939 ...... 37,100 526,789 165,906 77,547 ...... 2,500 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Dredge Wheeler Ready Reserve 1 ............................................................................................. 1 .................. .................. ...... .................. .................. 12,450 12,450 ...... .................

Management Tools for Operation and Management .............................................................. 1 2,265 2,265 ...... .................. .................. 975 975 ...... .................National Dam Security Program1 ........................................................................................... 1 .................. .................. ...... .................. .................. 20 20 ...... .................

Wetlands Functional Assessment Methodology ....................................................................... 1 7,398 7,398 ...... .................. .................. 1,000 1,000 ...... .................Zebra Mussel Research Program ............................................................................................ 1 13,378 13,378 ...... .................. .................. 1,500 1,500 ...... .................

All (Remaining Items) ................................................................................................ 5 23,041 23,041 ...... .................. .................. 15,945 15,945 ...... .................

REVOLVING FUND

Plant Replacement and Improvement Program (PRIP) Major Acquisitions 2

Towboat RAYMOND C. PECK Replacement ..................................................................... 1 5,500 5,500 ...... .................. .................. 5,160 5,160 ...... .................Fuel Oil Barge Replacement .......................................................................................... 1 1,495 1,495 ...... .................. .................. 1,390 1,390 ...... .................Survey Boat GRANADA Replacement .............................................................................. 1 1,533 1,533 ...... .................. .................. 1,285 1,285 ...... .................Derrickboat NO. 6 Replacement ..................................................................................... 1 775 775 ...... .................. .................. 660 660 ...... .................PANAMA CITY Crane Barge Replacement ...................................................................... 1 6,400 6,400 ...... .................. .................. 125 125 ...... .................
Survey Boat GATLIN Replacement .................................................................................. 1 1,800 1,800 ...... .................. .................. 1,550 1,550 ...... .................

All (PRIP Major Acquisitions) ..................................................................................... 6 17,503 17,503 ...... .................. .................. 10,170 10,170 ...... .................ALL ............................................................................................................................. 32 1,862,472 1,298,583 ...... 37,100 526,789 192,121 103,762 ...... 2,500 

1 Fiscal year 2000 funding reflects annual requirement.2 Funding is available from the Revolving Fund.

TABLE C—DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY—CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS—FISCAL YEAR 2000 TOTAL (DIRECT AND REIMBURSED) PROGRAM—PRESI

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM FUNDING

[In thousands of dollars]

Category

Fiscal year

Appropriation Budget 2000 account

1996 1997 1998 1999 All GI C,G O&M,G 

DIRECT PROGRAM:

DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM:

STUDY AND PROJECT SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES:

MITIGATION ............................................................................................................. 156,010 177,515 128,933 156,840 148,769 3,887 141,516 .................RESTORATION ......................................................................................................... 105,752 74,031 181,516 82,289 138,940 15,584 97,154 10,702 PROTECTION ........................................................................................................... 79,450 90,594 126,875 81,852 86,319 459 3,909 74,044 CLEANUP ................................................................................................................. 12,020 3,458 317 540 .................. .................. .................. .................COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................................... 9,864 360 395 2,480 1,327 304 468 .................

ALL (Study and Project Specific Activities) ....................................................... 363,096 345,958 438,036 324,001 375,355 20,234 243,047 84,746 

PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES:

1AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL .................................................................................... 4,000 2,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 .................. 3,000 .................AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SEC 206) .................................................... .................. .................. 6,000 11,200 4,500 .................. 4,500 .................BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SEC 204) .......................................... 2,500 1,500 2,000 350 1,000 .................. 1,000 .................DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) ...................... .................. 1,500 4,000 5,000 8,000 .................. .................. 8,000 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ............................................................................ .................. 100 100 100 100 100 .................. .................ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................... .................. .................. 5,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDE FOR OPERATIONS (ERGO) .................................. .................. .................. .................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................FORMERLY UTILIZED SIRTES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP) .................. .................. .................. 1 162,718 140,000 150,000 .................. .................. .................

GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (SEC 401) ........................................ 500 500 500 500 .................. .................. .................. .................HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE RESTORATION INITIATIVE ............................................... 3,500 .................. .................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................NATIONAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (NRMS) ...................................... .................. .................. .................... 1,000 .................. .................. .................. .................
TABLE C—DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY—CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS—FISCAL YEAR 2000 TOTAL (DIRECT AND REIMBURSED) PROGRAM—PRESI

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM FUNDING—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Category

Fiscal year

Appropriation Budget 2000 account

1996 1997 1998 1999 All GI C,G O&M,G 

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL SUPPORT (NRTS) ............................................. .................. .................. 700 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................OIL SPILL RESEARCH PROGRAM ............................................................................ 850 .................. .................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM ....................................................................... 5,000 .................. .................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................PROJECT MODIFICATION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (SEC 1135) 10,850 17,000 21,175 11,000 8,500 .................. 8,500 .................REGULATORY PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 101,000 101,000 106,000 106,000 117,000 .................. .................. .................RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 8,331 10,399 17,450 19,450 18,000 4,500 3,000 10,500 RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ............... .................. .................. .................... .................. 25,000 .................. 25,000 .................WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITAT CREATION .......................................................... 2,500 .................. .................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................WETLANDS FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .......................................... .................. .................. .................... .................. 1,000 .................. .................. 1,000 ZEBRA MUSSEL RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................... .................. .................. .................... 1,500 1,500 .................. .................. 1,500 

ALL (Programmatic Activities) ........................................................................... 135,031 131,999 325,643 296,100 334,600 4,600 42,000 21,000 ALL (Study and Project Specific and Programmatic Activities) ....................... 498,127 477,957 763,679 620,101 709,955 24,834 285,047 105,746 

MANDATORY PROGRAM: COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION, AND RESTORATION .. 35,000 43,000 44,000 10,000 10,000 .................. .................. .................

ALL (Discretionary and Mandatory Programs) ..................................................................... 533,127 520,957 807,679 630,101 719,955 24,834 285,047 105,746 

REIMBURSED PROGRAM (SUPPORT FOR OTHERS):

EPA SUPERFUND ....................................................................................................................... 250,000 250,000 300,000 250,000 250,000 .................. .................. .................DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ........................................................................................................ 31,000 20,000 22,000 2,000 .................. .................. .................. .................OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES .......................................................................................... 65,000 45,000 35,000 11,000 8,000 .................. .................. .................

ALL (Reimbursed Program) .................................................................................................. 346,000 315,000 357,000 263,000 258,000 .................. .................. .................ALL (Direct and Reimbursed Programs) .............................................................................. 879,127 835,957 1,164,679 893,101 977,955 24,834 285,047 105,746 

1 Includes $22,718 in unpaid balance transferred from Department of Energy.
79

STATEMENT OF JOE N. BALLARD

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

With the committee’s indulgence, we will have General Ballard

testify, and then we will inquire. General Ballard, it is nice to have

you here.

General BALLARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and

members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be testifying on the

President’s fiscal year 2000 budget for the civil works program. I

am again honored to be appearing before you again as Chief of Engineers.

Today the Corps’ civil works program is strong and highly productive, and I thank you for your great support for this critical program that is really an investment in our Nation’s future. This

budget request is, I believe, more constructive than the one presented a year ago, setting the stage for an effective dialogue with

the Congress on appropriate funding levels.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will now summarize my

complete statement and submit that statement for the record. My

summary covers four topics: transformation of the Corps, the civil

works program execution, the FUSRAP program, and some selected

civil works issues.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin with a short discussion of

what is happening inside of the Corps. We are very proud of what

we have accomplished, and there is still much more to come. Several years ago, we developed a vision and a strategic management

process. Our intent was to transform the Corps into an organization ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

In the last 2 years, we have——

Senator DOMENICI. General, could you excuse me just one moment?

General BALLARD. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. Would one of you take my place while I go

to the Commerce, Justice appropriations? Senator Bennett, would

you chair? I will be back shortly.

Senator BENNETT. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

Thank you, General.

General BALLARD. Yes, sir.

EFFICIENCY AND RESPONSIVE MEASURES

I will continue, sir. In the last 2 years, we have worked diligently

to become more client focused, dramatically changing our internal

processes to become more responsive and cost efficient, and to take

advantage of changes in technology. Now, a lot of time and energy

was invested up front, and we are now beginning to see the payoff.

Time does not permit me to get into very much depth, but I would

like to give you a few snapshots of our progress.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

In the area of project management, we have fully implemented

the project management concept providing our clients one point of

contact and responsibility for Corps projects and programs. This

has greatly enhanced our relationship with our clients, and at the
80

same time, it integrated the resources of the organization to focus

on quality projects delivered on time and within budget.

In the past, we forced our customers to understand our internal

organization and navigate the different stovepipes, doing their own

coordination. Now our customers will go to their supporting districts who have the responsibility to deliver whatever is needed, accomplishing all coordination and integration seamlessly and transparently.

We are relooking our entire planning process from the time a

project is identified until the project cost-sharing agreement is

signed. This area has been particularly frustrating for our clients

and for us. The process simply takes too long. It is too bureaucratic

and too costly. We have approved for implementation the recommendation of a process action team to streamline the process, to

minimize the burden on local sponsors, and delegate most of the

approval and execution authority to divisions and districts, thus expediting agreements. We have also made significant changes to our

continuing authorities program to simplify, expedite, and make it

more user friendly. And these efforts are only the beginning.

We are reevaluating our organization at every level. Over the

past few years, our General Expense staffing has declined from

1,368 in fiscal year 1996 to 1,181 in fiscal year 1999. Now, that is

a 14-percent reduction at the same time we have had an increase

in workload. As you know, we have reduced the number of divisions from 11 to 8 and continue our downsizing of division staffs.

We are also reducing headquarters staffing. By Washington standards, we were already a lean headquarters before we started this

process, at less than 2 percent of the total work force.

I could go on about changes inside of the Corps. I hope that this

will give you some insight into a much larger process that will continue to accelerate over the next few years.

Now, let me turn now to some ongoing execution of our civil

works program.

PROGRAM EXECUTION

Efficient and responsive execution continue to be a very important priority of the Secretary and mine. In fiscal year 1998, we increased our expenditure execution by $400 million over what has

been a flat execution of about $3.7 billion for each of the preceding

3 years. In fiscal year 1999, we have scheduled an additional $500

million in expenditures, meaning that we will have increased the

Corps’ capacity by $900 million in just 2 years, while maintaining

the quality and the professional standards that have marked our

work for many years.

But in spite of that record, I am not yet satisfied with our execution rate. We will continue to examine and evaluate ways to expedite our projects from start to finish.

FUSRAP PROGRAM

I would like to report on our progress in the FUSRAP program.

We have accomplished our first two priorities in the FUSRAP program, following transfer of execution from the Department of Energy. We have maintained the anticipated schedule during the
81

transition period and have put a number of cost saving measures

in place.

In fiscal year 1999, we expect to complete remedial action at 2

sites and to accomplish work on schedule for 19 other sites.

The highest priority actions are those to remove potential risks

to the health of the environment. Budget funding will enable completion of remedial action at 3 sites and continued work at 16 others. At the current rate of funding, we should complete all of our

sites by the year 2010. This program is a real success story. I am

very proud of our contribution to the Nation and our track record

on this program.

As in any large and complex program, there are a few areas that

need some attention, so let me highlight a few that may be of some

interest.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

In the regulatory funding and appeals, this is an area that we

are really struggling with. Our funding level to date has only been

enough to provide the most basic level of permit review and response to the public. Trying to meet your intent, we are implementing a limited appeals process this year. The proposed funding

level for next year will permit us to implement the complete regulatory appeals process.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

In the area of operation and maintenance, the O&M level of

funding proposed for this year is for the first time adequate to meet

our current O&M needs. However, we have a large backlog of

maintenance and repair for our infrastructure. During this year,

O&M will be an area of significant focus for us. We will look at

every single area for ways to reduce our operating costs, accomplish needed maintenance and repair and improve our services.

GENERAL EXPENSE ACCOUNT

On the subject of GE funding, earlier in my statement I extolled

our progress in reducing division and headquarters staff. We have

made great progress in this area, but I do not believe we can go

any lower. Since 1991, we have reduced GE staffing levels by almost 33 percent. I am convinced that we must hold at the current

staffing level to provide for program direction and oversight, for

which you and the public rely on us.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the President’s budget for the

Corps of Engineers is a good one. Using our strategic management

process, we will continue to find ways to reduce our costs and improve our level of responsiveness to the public and our clients.

Meanwhile, we will do our very best to execute the civil works program for maximum benefit to the Nation.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This

concludes our statement, and we are now ready to take your questions.

[The statement follows:]
82

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE N. BALLARD

INTRODUCTION

I am pleased to be testifying on the President’s fiscal year 2000 (fiscal year 2000)

Budget for the Civil Works Program, and am honored to be appearing before you

again as Chief of Engineers.

Today, the Civil Works Program is strong, balanced, and highly productive. I look

forward to your continued partnership in this fine program, so broadly beneficial to

our Nation.

My statement covers seven topics:

—Fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Program Budget,

—Program Execution and Outlook,

—Restructuring,

—Improvement of Business Operations,

—Corps of Engineers Financial Management System,

—Corps Vision, and

—Headquarters Relocation Planning.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM BUDGET

INTRODUCTION

This is a good budget. New fiscal year 2000 funding for the Civil Works Program,

including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach $5.10 billion.

The Direct Program is formulated by the federal government and funded through

appropriations of discretionary and mandatory amounts directly to the Corps. Funding for this program totals $4.29 billion. Discretionary amounts total $3.91 billion,

including defense and domestic program components of $150 million and $3.76 billion, respectively. The defense component is for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), transferred from the Department of Energy to the

Corps by Congress in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1998.

The Reimbursed Program is formulated, under provisions of law, by the Corps in

collaboration with other federal agencies, State and local governments, and other

nations. It is funded in either of two ways: from discretionary amounts of the Direct

Program, initially, and, ultimately, through reimbursement by the ordering agencies, governments, and nations; or by advance payments by the agencies, governments, and nations. Funding for this program is projected to be $800 million.

Direct Program

OVERVIEW

The proposed fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Direct Program budget reflects the Administration’s commitment to continued sound development and management of the

Nation’s water resources, to which the Corps has been dedicated for over 200 years.

It provides for continued efficient operation of the Nation’s navigation, flood protection, and other water resource management infrastructure, fair regulation of the

Nation’s wetlands, and restoration of the Nation’s important environmental resources, such as the Florida Everglades. It provides for initiation of a new program

to restore riverine ecosystems while mitigating flood hazards for communities. Additionally, it is supported by a proposal to establish a Harbor Services User Fee

(HSUF) and Harbor Services Fund (HSF) to fund the federal share of construction

cost, as well as operation and maintenance of our harbors and ports. Lastly, it is

consistent with the President’s overall domestic priorities and continued commitment to a balanced budget. The budget provides for continued funding of nearly all

studies and projects underway, including many started in fiscal year 1999. It also

provides for funding of new starts under the General Investigations (GI), Construction, General, (CG), and Operation and Maintenance, General (O&M) programs, and

the Plant Replacement and Improvement Program (PRIP) of the Revolving Fund.

The new start program includes 1 new reconnaissance study. Additionally, 27

preconstruction engineering and design studies, following cost-shared feasibility

studies, are being funded for the first time.

The new start program also includes new construction projects and one new program. The projects include 19 specifically authorized by Congress and an undetermined number generally authorized under the Continuing Authorities Program

(CAP). The specifically authorized projects include 10 regular construction projects,

7 major rehabilitation projects, and 2 dam safety assurance projects. The regular

construction projects include 5 for navigation, 3 for flood control, and 2 for environ-
83

mental improvement. The new program is the Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and

Flood Hazard Mitigation Program, also known as ‘‘Challenge 21.’’

Additionally, the new start program includes 5 new operation and maintenance

items and 6 new PRIP major acquisitions construction projects.

NEW FUNDING

As shown in the table at the end of this statement, the fiscal year 2000 budget

includes $3.91 billion in ‘‘Discretionary and Related Mandatory’’ funding being requested through the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. All amounts shown under this heading are appropriated from the General

Fund; however, amounts shown under the CG and O&M accounts opposite the

names of other funds are ultimately reimbursed from those other funds. Accordingly, $1.04 billion, or 27 percent, of the amount requested would be offset with

dedicated funding from the HSF ($951 million), Inland Waterway Trust Fund

(IWTF) ($55 million), and Special Recreation User Fees (SRUF) Fund ($36 million).

Funding for the GI, CG, and Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries (FC,

MR&T) Programs, in which new study and construction starts are common, totals

$1.65 billion. Of this, $80 million, or 5.0 percent, is provided to fund the new study

and construction starts mentioned above, including Challenge 21.

In addition, as shown in the table, the budget includes $387 million in ‘‘Mandatory, Only,’’ funding to be made available under existing law. This includes $251

million from the Rivers and Harbors Contributions Trust Fund (R&HCTF), representing nonfederal costsharing contributions paid under 5 programs (the GI; CG;

O&M; FC,MR&T Project; 4 and CWPPR Project programs). It also includes $107

million to be transferred from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for operation and maintenance of the Corps’ hydropower generation facilities in the Pacific

Northwest.

Comparison with Fiscal Year 1999 Funding

As shown in the table, new direct funding for the fiscal year 2000 budget is $83

million less than initial appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

Discretionary and related mandatory funding is $54 million less than, or 99 percent of, last year’s initial appropriations. It was increased for three accounts, unchanged for two, and decreased for three others. Accounts increased include

FUSRAP (107 percent), O&M (111 percent), and the Regulatory Program (110 percent); unchanged include GE and FC&CE; and decreased include GI (83 percent),

CG (87 percent), and FC,MR&T (87 percent).

New mandatory, only, funding is $28 million less than, or 93 percent of, last

year’s appropriations, largely because of decreased R&HCTF costsharing contributions.

Outlays of discretionary funding for fiscal year 2000 are expected to be about $218

million less than for fiscal year 1999, commensurate with the reduction in funding.

Net New Funding

Of the $4.29 billion in total new direct funding, $1.43 billion, or 33 percent, would

come from 9 sources other than Treasury’s General Fund, yielding net new funding

not specifically collected for the program of $2.96 billion. These sources—8 existing

and 1 proposed—include 5 special and 3 trust funds, and 1 transfer. The largest

amounts would come from the proposed HSF ($951 million, including $258 million

for the CG and $693 million for the O&M programs). Sizeable amounts would also

come from the IWTF ($55 million) and SRUF Fund ($36 million). The balance of

$387 million would come from the 6 mandatory, only, sources.

We are also proposing changes to the fees collected under the Regulatory Program. These fees would be transferred to a General Fund receipt account and would

be unavailable to the Corps. The collections are now projected to be $7 million in

fiscal year 2000 and, annually, thereafter. We have scaled back this initiative considerably, and anticipate collecting only about half as much as we had proposed previously. Although unavailable to the Corps for its use, the collections would reduce

net federal costs.

Highlights

The budget provides for essentially ‘‘flat’’ annual funding for the 5-year program

at the fiscal year 2000 level, which is 99 percent of fiscal year 1999 initial appropriations. Moreover, it provides essentially flat annual funding by individual program for the 5-year program. Generally, work completion schedules will be shortened somewhat from those presented last year. A notable exception is that schedules of the GI Program will be lengthened somewhat.
84

Proposed funding for the GI Program is 90 percent of fiscal year 1999 budgeted

funding. The rationale for this is that studies lead to construction projects of which

there is already a large backlog due to competing funding priorities. Given outyear

funding ceilings based on these priorities, reduction of this large backlog will be possible only over several years. In light of this, limiting the number of new start studies and setting priorities among ongoing ones appears advisable, for the time being.

However, in that programmatic activities such as floodplain management, planning

assistance, and international water studies provide important grass-roots support to

local communities in solving their water resource problems, they were funded at approximately fiscal year 1999 appropriation levels.

The proposed HSF will replace the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The

HMTF was funded with an ad valorem tax on freight shipped through the Nation’s

harbors and ports. This tax was determined to be unconstitutional, as applied to exports, by the U. S. Supreme Court. The HSF will be funded with fees collected from

commercial users of the harbors and ports, the rationale being that beneficiaries

should be responsible for costs. The fees will be based on the values of benefits that

users receive from services provided, and will be sufficient to cover federal costs of

harbor and port construction, operation, and maintenance. The rates of the fees will

vary based on types and carrying capacities of vessels involved. The proposal will

enable nearly all construction, operation, and maintenance of harbors and ports to

proceed on optimal schedules.

Proposed fiscal year 2000 funding for the CG Program is 154 percent of fiscal year

1999 budgeted funding. Much of the increase is due to dedicated funding from the

proposed new HSF. This dedicated funding covers 100 percent of costs of harbor and

port construction. Because of this, completion schedules for 28 harbor and port development projects have been optimized. This will enable accomplishing more work

sooner, thereby producing navigation benefits and resultant cost savings sooner. In

addition, completion schedules for 9 high priority projects for mitigation, ecosystem

restoration, and other purposes have been optimized. On the other hand, completion

schedules for flood damage reduction, inland waterway, and shore protection

projects are somewhat constrained.

Proposed fiscal year 2000 funding for the O&M Program is 115 percent of fiscal

year 1999 budgeted funding. All 6 of this increase is due to dedicated funding from

the HSF which will cover 100 percent of costs of harbor and port operation and

maintenance. The increase in funding will help improve current services.

REIMBURSED PROGRAM

Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Support Program we help other

agencies and governments with timely, cost-effective implementation of their programs, while maintaining and enhancing capabilities for execution of our Civil

Works Direct Program and Military Program missions. Other agencies look to us for

help with engineering and construction management because of our vast experience

and capabilities, enabling us to do the work better, faster, and cheaper.

We provide reimbursable support for about 60 other federal agencies and several

State and local governments through help with environmental, engineering, and

construction management work. Total reimbursement for such work in fiscal year

2000 is projected to be $800 million. The largest share—nearly $250 million—is expected from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleanup of wastes at

numerous sites under its Superfund program. 98 percent of Reimbursed Program

funding is provided by federal agencies.

STAFFING

Total staffing for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year 2000 is 24,734 FTEs.

This reflects a reduction of 462 FTEs from the fiscal year 1999 total. Of the total,

23,584 FTEs are for the Direct Program and 1,150 FTEs are for the Reimbursed

Program. Total staffing is allocated 90.6 percent to districts, 4.9 percent to laboratories and other separate field operating agencies, 2.7 percent to division offices, and

1.8 percent to headquarters.

PROGRAM EXECUTION AND OUTLOOK

INTRODUCTION

Efficient and responsive execution of the program that Congress made appropriations for continues to be a very important priority of mine as Chief of Engineers.

In fiscal year 1998, we increased our expenditure execution by $400 million over

what had been a flat execution of about $3.7 billion for each of the preceding three

years. In fiscal year 1999, we have 7 scheduled an additional $500 million in ex-
85

penditures, meaning we will have increased the Corps’ capacity by $900 million in

two years concurrent with maintaining the quality and professional standards that

have marked our work for years.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

As I testified last year, we accomplished our first two priorities in executing

FUSRAP following transfer of execution responsibilities from the Department of Energy. We kept the anticipated schedule during the transition period, and implemented numerous cost saving measures. We also completed our assessment of the

program and provided a report of our finding to you.

We are working to finalize a Memorandum of Understanding with DOE defining

our respective roles and responsibilities, as directed by Congress.

During fiscal year 1999, we expect to complete remedial action at 2 sites and to

accomplish work on schedule for 19 others.

The President’s Budget includes $150 million in new funding for FUSRAP, reflecting current priorities for remedial action. We are giving highest priority to proceeding in a way that will reduce potential risks to health and the environment. To

improve the overall efficiency of the program, we also have assigned a priority to

activities and sites that can be completed in the short-term—within the next fiscal

year or two. Budget funding will enable completion of remedial action at 3 sites and

continuing work at 16 others.

I am very proud of our contribution to the Nation as a result of our effort on this

program.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Scheduled report production for the program in fiscal year 1998 included 83 reconnaissance and 26 feasibility reports. We completed 78 and 28, respectively.

The National Research Council recently completed an independent assessment of

our Civil Works project development process. While concluding that the overall

length and cost of the planning process are reasonable in light of the many considerations involved, the preliminary report includes some recommendations in the interest of shortening it. These recommendations include that we seek conditional authorizations 8 and reduce gaps between work phases. Additional recommendations

include our using a watershed or estuarial region as the basic planning unit, studying a sample of flood control projects to evaluate whether non-structural alternatives have been adequately considered, and revising the Principles and Guidelines

to incorporate contemporary analytical techniques and public values. Presently, we

are evaluating these recommendations.

The President’s Budget includes $135 million in new funding for the GI Program,

including $100 thousand for one new start reconnaissance study. The outlook for

program workload is healthy. We are striving continually to enhance our performance during these times of limited resources.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

In fiscal year 1998, we scheduled CG Program expenditures totaling $1.3 billion,

and actually expended $1.24 billion.

In fiscal year 1999, $1.54 billion is scheduled for expenditure. Our districts and

divisions are aggressively seeking opportunities to accomplish work on funded

projects. At the end of January, expenditures were on schedule at $342 million.

Typically, once Spring arrives and construction operations come up to speed nationwide, the rate of expenditure will begin a steady climb that continues through the

end of the fiscal year.

The President’s Budget includes $1.24 billion in new funding for the CG Program.

Included in this amount is $80 million for initiation of 19 new start projects and

one new program initiative for Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard

Mitigation. The balance of $1.16 billion includes $1.04 billion for specifically authorized continuing projects and $125 million for remaining items, including projects

under several continuing authorities programs.

Over 25 percent of the budget request will be offset by $313 million in dedicated

funding from the proposed HSF ($258 million) and the IWTF ($55 million).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL:

The O&M Program covers operation and maintenance of the Corps’ water resource management infrastructure. More specifically, the program provides for operation, 9 including monitoring and study, and maintenance, including dredging and

repair, as applicable, of 25,000 miles of waterways, 238 navigation locks, 926 har-
86

bors, 383 dams and reservoir projects, 75 hydroelectric power projects, and recreation facilities for 380 million visits per year. This infrastructure, benefitting navigation, flood damage reduction, hydropower generation, recreation and the environment, contributes significantly to the economic and environmental health of the Nation.

Fiscal year 1998 funding for the program included $1.74 billion in initial appropriation, plus $105 million in an emergency supplemental appropriation for repair

of Corps projects impacted by storms primarily in California and along the Gulf

Coast. In fiscal year 1998, we completed consolidation of O&M fiscal management

activities into our Programs Management Division to simplify and streamline fiscal

operations.

The initial fiscal year 1999 O&M appropriation was $1.65 billion. Also, in fiscal

year 1999, for the first time, BPA began funding operation and maintenance of hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest directly, thereby eliminating need for

Corps appropriations for this work. BPA will transfer $106 million to the Corps for

the work in fiscal year 1999. Total funding for the O&M Program from these two

sources is $1.76 billion, or 1 percent more than the initial fiscal year 1998 amount.

In addition, the program received a $100 million emergency supplemental appropriation for repair of storm damage to navigation facilities in the Southeast and,

again, along the Gulf Coast, particularly from Hurricane Georges.

The President’s Budget includes $1.84 billion in new funding for the O&M Program. In addition, BPA will provide $107 million. Accordingly, total initial funding

is $1.94 billion, or 11 percent more than in fiscal year 1999. This increase will be

used to maintain and repair our aging infrastructure. For years, because of budget

constraints, we have deferred work not critical to project operation during the budget year, thereby building our backlog of desired maintenance work. Eventually, after

repeated deferrals, facilities become deteriorated to the extent that repair must be

done to avoid serious failure. We continue to search for and implement more costeffective ways to accomplish our stewardship with limited resources. We are determined keep this infrastructure in condition to provide the products and services so

essential to sustaining our national prosperity.

Nearly 40 percent of the budget request will be offset by $729 million in dedicated

funding from the proposed HSF ($693 million) and the SRUF Fund ($36 million).

GENERAL EXPENSES

The General Expenses (GE) Program provides for executive direction and management of the Civil Works program by the headquarters and 8 division offices. It also

provides for support of executive direction and management by 4 field operating activities. Funding for the program is allocated approximately 70 percent for labor; 24

percent for fixed costs such as rent, utilities, communications, and contractual services; and 6 percent for discretionary costs, such as travel, training, supplies and materials.

Together, headquarters and division offices provide executive direction and management for the Civil Works program. They are funded from appropriations for the

GE Program, for which the President’s Budget includes $148 million in new funding. This supports staffing of 1,142 FTEs, reduced from 1,177 FTEs in fiscal year

1999. This staffing represents only 4.6 percent of the total Civil Works Program

workforce. Headquarters staffing of 437 FTEs represents less than 2 percent of the

total workforce.

During the past 10 years, GE Program staffing has been reduced by one-third.

It will continue to decline through fiscal year 2002 to about 1,050 FTEs. Despite

inflation and cost increases in personnel compensation and benefits, we continue to

look at ways to streamline and economize, although we may have few opportunities

left. Personnel reductions, reorganizations, and other efficiency measures allow our

request to remain at $148 million for the third consecutive year.

I am keenly aware of expectations of the Committee and the American public that

the Corps get the job done right at least cost. Executive direction and management

under this program plays a key role in developing ways to meet these expectations.

We appreciate your strong support for this program, so important to continued high

performance of the Civil Works Program.

RESTRUCTURING

INTRODUCTION

We continue to restructure our organization with a view to achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness in the resourcing, planning, design, and execution of our

Civil Works and Military Programs. I would like to update you on continued
87

progress in the restructuring of our organization through consolidation, streamlining, and downsizing of 11 our headquarters, divisions, and the emergency operations organization.

HEADQUARTERS

Resource Management Consolidation

Last year I achieved my goal of establishing a full-service Deputy Chief of Staff,

Resource Management, at Corps headquarters. Before consolidation, resource management functions were fragmented throughout the headquarters. This was inefficient and diminished our ability to plan, program, budget and manage use of our

total resources. Now, our financial data collection and maintenance and oversight

of corporate resources are consolidated into the Resource Management Directorate.

All financial and staffing data are now generated in this Directorate. This enables

me to get integrated information on all resource matters of the Command.

Staffing

We have been reducing staffing of Corps headquarters as well as of the 4 field

support activities. We expect that headquarters staffing will be about 90 percent of

the fiscal year 1997 level in fiscal year 2000, and only 81.5 percent of the fiscal year

1997 level by fiscal year 2002. Staffing of the 4 support activities has already been

reduced to 83 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level, and is projected to be further

reduced to 78.5 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level by fiscal year 2002.

DIVISIONS

Regional Business Centers

In February 1998, I approved establishment of each division office as a Regional

Business Center (RBC) with a view to getting divisions and their districts to operate

as single business entities in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness. Implementation of this plan required dramatic changes in business style and organizational

cultures. Our efforts at this have been very productive. This year the division Regional Management Boards (RMBs) have all reviewed the same budgeting and accounting 12 practices for the purpose of achieving Corps-wide consistency and standardization. The RMBs also significantly improved vertical and horizontal communications within their regions and established a Corps-wide forum for sharing lessons learned and enhancing the RBC concept. This year, I expect that the RMBs

will identify optimal business practices for the region, most efficient organizations

for each district, and initiatives to maximize the use of regional resources.

Resource Management Consolidation

Management of corporate resources within one office at all levels is critical to efficient, effective, full-service operations. Accordingly, in November 1998, I directed divisions to consolidate all facets of operations regarding resources within their Resource Management Offices, much as we have done at headquarters. Consolidation

is now complete.

Staffing

As reported last year we have completed restructuring our divisions, from 11 to

8, to provide a more efficient and effective organization. We expect that staffing for

the 8 divisions will be about 84 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level in fiscal year

2000, and about 77 percent of the fiscal year 1997 level by fiscal year 2002.

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS ORGANIZATION

In July 1997, we began implementation of our ‘‘Readiness 2000 Initiative’’ to

transform our readiness group into a corporate team sharing planning responsibilities and response capabilities, and to organize and manage emergency operations

resources through a national strategy. The goal is to provide for rapid set-up of effective response organizations and immediate initiation of emergency contracting

and other critical services for impacted communities. The program provides for establishing and training teams in each of our 37 districts for 46 specific emergency

response missions, and supporting these teams with a ‘‘deployable tactical operations system’’ (DTOS), including 24 vehicles, 2 transportable systems, and 37 ‘‘fly

away’’ equipment packages.

To date, we have established all 46 teams and formally trained 24 of them. We

have 13 also purchased roughly 50 percent of the DTOS. Although not fully implemented, the program has already significantly improved our overall readiness and

response capability. This was evident following Hurricane Bonnie and Georges last
88

Fall. We spent substantially less time setting up for and commencing effective emergency operations in the disaster areas of these storms.

We plan to train another 18 teams in fiscal year 1999, and retrain the 24 already

trained based on lessons learned. The balance of the DTOS is scheduled for delivery

by June, in time for the upcoming hurricane season. Once the program is fully implemented, we will be able dispatch our nation-wide resource of highly-trained personnel and state-of-the-art DTOS to any area where our presence is required in support of emergency activities of federal, State and local agencies.

IMPROVEMENT IN BUSINESS OPERATIONS

INTRODUCTION

We continue to improve our business operations through implementation of better

regulations, systems, processes, and practices in the interest of more efficient and

effective execution of our Civil Works and Military Programs. I would like to update

you on continued progress at this in strategic planning, project management, and

our small business program.

STRATEGIC PLANNING

For the Corps to continue to fulfill its role in serving the Army and the Nation

we must continually look out beyond current initiatives and anticipate what changes

will be needed next. Working from our Corps-wide Vision we are developing the

strategic management processes that will guide the Corps of the future.

Our first initiatives were aimed at quickly identifying things we needed to improve right away. Headquarters and Division Campaign Plans, and District Operations Plans were the result of these initiatives. Next, we started the more deliberate work of identifying where the Corps needs to focus efforts for additional

change. We have now merged the quick-start initiatives and the deliberate analysis

into an integrated ongoing strategic management process led by the senior officers

and civilians in my Headquarters who compose our newly established Strategic

Management Board.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

New Regulation

A year ago, I issued a new Programs and Project Management Regulation which

revolutionizes the way we conduct our work. This regulation established a Project

Management Business Process for accomplishing our activities. This change is making the Corps far more customer focused than in the past, with an orientation toward project rather than process. Through a number of initiatives, I am continuing

this revolution by removing Corps headquarters from the business of managing

projects on a day-to-day basis, and delegating more execution responsibility and accountability to the field.

Planning Process

We are relooking our entire planning process from the time a project is identified

until the PCA is signed. I have approved, for implementation, the recommendations

of a Process Action Team to streamline the process, minimize burdens on local sponsors, and delegate much of the approval and execution authority to divisions and

districts, thus expediting agreements. We are undertaking immediate, near-term,

and long-term measures to address the recommendations. These steps should simplify and expedite project negotiations, strengthening our partnership with nonfederal sponsors in execution of our Civil Works Program, to the benefit of the Nation.

Continuing Authorities Program

Late last year, on recognizing that our Continuing Authorities Program (CAP)

was not performing at full potential, we established a Process Action Team to review the process and make recommendations for change to improve execution. Presently, we are working to implement the team’s recommendation that we effect a uniform and streamlined process for all 9 CAP authorities. The recommendation envisions changes in current regulations and guidance to: vest approval authority for all

CAP matters in 15 divisions; allocate most of appropriated funding for CAP to divisions, vesting authority for financial management in divisions; and develop and provide model PCAs especially for the CAP. These steps should breath new life into

the CAP, promoting maximum performance of this very important part of our Civil

Works Program, to the considerable benefit of the Nation. We are also recommended

statutory changes to standardize costsharing and project cost limits.
89

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

I am committed to ensuring that small businesses have the opportunity to participate in our procurements and that we provide the training and counseling to help

them succeed. I have put this program on the front burner for two reasons. First,

it’s the policy of our government to assist qualified small businesses in obtaining

and executing procurement contracts. But, beyond policy, it makes strategic business sense to promote competition and develop businesses to insure a broad base

of capable suppliers. I consider the Small Business Program mission vital to the Nation’s economic prosperity.

The Corps of Engineers exceeded all expectations in the Small Business Program

for fiscal year 1998. We led all other Army Commands in prime contract awards to

small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and woman-owned small businesses. The Corps of Engineers accounted for one third of Army’s prime contract

awards to small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and woman-owned

small businesses.

We maintain a strong outreach program to promote participation of small disadvantaged business in our procurements, and counsel them on how to do business

with us. We have made contracting with women and minorities a priority. This past

December we hosted our second Annual Small Business Conference. The conference

focused on engineering, construction, environmental, and research and development

activities of the Army Corps of Engineers. It provided a forum for direct exchange

of information and ideas between our commanders and small business leaders.

An example of our success in partnering with small businesses is the recent recovery effort in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Georges. Our commanders were committed to promoting small business participation in the recovery, and, in turn, the

small business involved gave outstanding support. I commend them both.

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires that we

show how improvements in our business processes, and efforts to balance scarce

budgetary resources between operation and maintenance and new investments, ultimately impact delivery of our products and services to the Nation.

The already effected and proposed improvements in our business processes and

practices, discussed elsewhere in this statement, have already resulted and in, and

will continue to result in, more efficient and timely production of our Civil Works

Program products, less burden on local sponsors who participate in the production

through financial support and otherwise, greater capability to be responsive to the

water resource management needs of the Nation, and greater customer satisfaction.

Until recently, benefits of these process improvements could be shown only at the

project level, and not the program level. Likewise, we could show the impacts of alternative funding on program services levels, and the timing of program results at

the project level; but not the program level. Now, we are testing an initial set of

results- oriented performance measures for demonstrating the contributions of internal process improvements and impacts of different levels of funding for programs.

Our goal is to comply with GPRA in development of a comprehensive set of resultsoriented program performance measures. We are discussing these measures with

OMB.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In March 1998 we completed the process of deploying the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) to all 61 locations (63 databases). Project

and program managers can now benefit from accurate/timely financial information.

We have begun to modernize CEFMS by moving it into a Graphical User Interface

(GUI) environment. This will take advantage of Internet browser technology to enable modern application processing, improve usability of the system, and reduce future operations and support costs. Deployment of the CEFMS GUI version is scheduled for fiscal year 2000.

In December 1998 CEFMS was certified in Army’s Y2K (year 2000) database as

compliant with requirements for operating in Y2K. The US Army Audit Agency has

completed an independent review of our test results and, based on a draft report,

will 17 confirm that CEFMS is Y2K compliant.

The rest of our systems will be Y2K compliant by the end of this month. As a

result, our business operations will continue into the new century without a hitch.

I am proud of this accomplishment.
90

CORPS VISION

Finally, Mr. Chairman, each year I brief you on the status of the Corps Vision.

It remains as I showed you last year:

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is:

—the world’s premier engineering organization, trained and ready to provide support any time, any place.

—a full-spectrum engineer force of high quality, dedicated soldiers and civilians:

—a vital part of the Army;

—the engineer team of choice—responding to our Nation’s needs in peace and

war; and

—a values-based organization—respected, responsive, and reliable

—changing today to meet tomorrow’s challenges!

This Vision is the foundation of all of our strategic planning, restructuring, and

process improvements already accomplished, or to be accomplished near- and longterm. Improvements discussed elsewhere in this statement are a direct result of this

Vision. As mentioned, we now have an integrated ongoing strategic management

process overseen by the newly formed Strategic Management Board, led by the senior officers and civilians in headquarters. Through this process and this board our

Vision will endure to the continued significant benefit to the Corps, Army, and Nation.

CONCLUSION

The President’s Budget for the Corps of Engineers is a good one. However, we

must continue to find ways to reduce our costs and shift more of those remaining

to direct 18 beneficiaries of our services. Meanwhile, we will do our very best to execute the Civil Works Program for maximum benefit to the Nation.

Our Vision commits us to dramatic improvement in performance and customer

satisfaction within available resources, with a goal of making revolutionary, not evolutionary, improvements in our processes and products—continually maximizing actual and potential values of our organization to the Civil Works Program, the Army,

and the Nation.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes my

statement.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY—CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS—FISCAL YEAR 2000 DIRECT

PROGRAM

[New obligation authority in thousands of dollars]

Source/program/account

Fiscal year

Initial appropriation Budget

1998 1999 2000

APPROPRIATION:

Discretionary and Related Mandatory:

Defense: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) ....................................................... 140,000 140,000 150,000

Domestic: General Investigations ................................ 156,804 161,747 135,000

Construction, General:

General Fund ...................................................... 1,394,167 1,353,372 927,200

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund ........................ .................... 3,255 ....................

Harbor Services Fund ......................................... .................... .................... 257,700

Inland Waterway Trust Fund .............................. 79,206 73,258 55,000

Total ............................................................... 1,473,373 1,429,885 1,239,900

Operation and Maintenance, General:

General Fund ...................................................... 1,209,137 1,617,551 1,107,300

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund ........................ 496,900 .................... ....................

Harbor Services Fund ......................................... .................... .................... 692,900

Special Recreation User Fees Fund ................... 33,988 35,701 35,700

Total ............................................................... 1,740,025 1,653,252 1,835,900

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ........ 296,212 321,149 280,000
91

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY—CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS—FISCAL YEAR 2000 DIRECT

PROGRAM—Continued

[New obligation authority in thousands of dollars]

Source/program/account

Fiscal year

Initial appropriation Budget

1998 1999 2000

Regulatory Program ..................................................... 106,000 106,000 117,000

General Expenses ........................................................ 148,000 148,000 148,000

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies ..................... 4,000 .................... ....................

Total (Domestic) ...................................................... 3,924,414 3,820,033 3,755,800

Total (Defense and Domestic) ................................ 4,064,414 3,960,033 3,905,800

Mandatory, Only:

Permanent Appropriations ........................................... 14,627 18,098 18,576

Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund:

Corps .................................................................. 10,000 10,000 10,000

Others (excluded) ............................................... 37,541 38,300 44,180

Total ............................................................... 47,541 48,300 54,180

Rivers and Harbors Contributions ............................... 262,274 280,896 251,141

Bonneville Power Administration ................................. .................... 106,000 107,000

Washington Aqueduct (borrowing authority, excluded) .................................................................... 24,000 22,000 ....................

Total .................................................................... 286,901 414,994 386,717

TOTAL (Discretionary and Mandatory) ................ 4,351,315 4,375,027 4,292,517

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT

Senator BENNETT [presiding]. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here.

There are some who think you should get hazard pay for the

times you appear before this committee. You have an unthankful

task in some of the responsibilities you assume, but we agree that

your work is of the utmost importance in protecting the water resources.

I would like to make the same comment to you gentlemen that

I made to the previous panel with respect to the Army Corps personnel in Utah. They are very capable and very thorough in their

duties and take their responsibilities very seriously. We have had

differences of opinion with them from time to time, but we have enjoyed working with them and recognize the seriousness with which

they approach their tasks.

Now, I want to reiterate my support for a few minor projects we

have worked on together, again as was the case with the last

panel, to get this in and on the record so that you understand how

seriously I take them.

UPPER JORDAN RIVER RESTORATION, SECTION 206, PROJECT

The progress on the restoration of the upper Jordan River is

going well. The environmental restoration project has been com-
92

pleted. Plans and specifications for the project have been initiated,

and we think we will be ready to proceed with construction in

2001.

Salt Lake County has worked closely with EPA and the Corps

and the Interior Department to properly manage water resources

on a watershed basis. Pollution from non-point sources is still, of

course, a matter of concern, and channel restoration of the upper

Jordan River is a critical factor in reducing non-point source pollution. We need about $1 million to complete the plans and specifications, as well as an exemption from the 800 cfs flow requirement

required for Federal participation in urban flood control. We hope

to discuss those things with you.

Now, the Belco dispute. Again, this is a parochial issue. It is

matter that concerns me. It is an ongoing contract dispute between

a contractor in Utah and the Corps office in Jackson, Wyoming. I

know that my staff has communicated with you on this issue. It

has resulted in a suit against the Corps being filed in Federal court

over an alleged breach of contract.

I am not taking a position one way or the other. That would not

be appropriate for a Senator with respect to something where there

is a legal action pending. I want to ensure, however, as every Senator does, that my constituents are treated fairly, and based on a

limited review, I have the feeling that that has not been the case

here. I would hope we could avoid litigation.

I have found in some other situations that sitting down in my office in the next couple of weeks with the contractor and your staff

to see if something cannot be worked out might be a worthwhile

activity. I am willing to do that. If nothing comes out of it, then

the lawsuit goes forward, but we will at least have tried.

General, would you be open to such a suggestion, or has the matter gone so far that you are not willing to talk about it in that kind

of a setting?

General BALLARD. Well, I am very much aware of this particular

lawsuit, Senator, and share your concern about doing what is fair

both for your constituent and the Federal Government. At the current time, as you know, we are reviewing the status of that case

in the office of my General Counsel. What I would like to do—and

I have not had a chance to discuss this case in detail with him. So,

prior to agreeing to come and meet with you, I would like some

time to review the case and then provide you an answer to your

question about our willingness to meet.

I think it is important that we do whatever it takes to make sure

that we seek a fair solution, and if the case has not gone so far

that it would not be inappropriate to meet, I would be willing to

do that.

Senator BENNETT. Unlike a super majority of the Senate, I am

not a lawyer.

General BALLARD. Yes, sir.

Senator BENNETT. So, I would try to act as the honest arbiter

here to see if the two sides can get together. I am not anxious to

see the legal bills go up either for the Federal Government or for

the contractor. So, I am available to perform that function if you

think it would be useful. If not, I understand that you must protect

your rights and I respect you for that.
93

General BALLARD. Well, I share your concerns, sir, and I promise

we will get back to you in the next day or so.

Senator BENNETT. Okay.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Now, I have some real concerns regarding the administrative appeals process related to your regulatory functions. Putting it directly, I am concerned that the Corps has not implemented the administrative appeals program despite the instruction of both the

President and the Congress. I will not go into it here, but I have

a rather strong statement that I will submit for the record, as well

as several questions that I will submit to you in the expectation

that the Corps will answer in detail.

Senator BENNETT. I will be working with my colleagues to raise

awareness of the need for a workable appeals process that is fair

to the landowners. We provided the Corps with resources and instructions in the past which unfortunately in my view have been

ignored, and I will be more than willing to provide the Corps with

some more explicit legislative direction as to how to implement

this. I would hope that Chairman Domenici would back me in this

effort, but all of that will become clear when I file my statement

and give you my questions.

Those are the only issues that I was ready to raise.

Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Generals, Dr. Westphal, thank you for being with us today.

Let me echo what the Senator from Utah has said about the

quality of staff and the working relationships we have. They are

good and we appreciate them in Idaho. That is always valuable dialogue for both me and my staff with all of you folks as we work

on some of these important issues.

SNAKE RIVER DAM REMOVAL

I have before me a press release from the Walla Walla district

office of the Army Corps on March 5 denouncing a release coming

out of the Sierra Club on March 4. The Sierra Club release tried

to depict preliminary findings in what is known as the DREW

study as supporting the notion that removing the four lower Snake

dams would be advantageous to the economy of the Pacific Northwest region.

Thank you for quickly correcting this inaccurate information. It

is critically important that we have accurate facts. We are watching with an eagle eye the EIS you are all involved in to make sure

that it is science and not politics. Let me very clearly admonish

you, though I do not think it is necessary. Please do not get involved in the politics of this issue or you will destroy your credibility. Stay with the science and stay with the engineering facts

that you deal with so well.

You can see the loaded nature of this issue by the silliness of the

Sierra Club release. Headlines: DREW Finds Huge Economic Benefits from Partial Removal of Four Lower Snake Dams. Wishful

thinking on their part to stymie and destroy the growth in the

economy of the region. No question about it. And yet, the science
94

is not even in to suggest that breaching dams will save these endangered species of salmonoids that we are talking about.

So, we are awaiting your studies. They will be important to the

overall character of how we develop a mitigation plan for those

fish, and it is going to be critical to the region. As you heard me

say—you were here when I was talking with the Bureau of Reclamation—we have spent the last 80 or 90 years taking an arid

State like Idaho and watering it and making it habitable not only

for species of plants and animals, but the human species, and I do

not want to see it dewatered in the name of a single species when

science would lead us to a different, and I hope, better course.

I noted there is an item in the Corps budget for engineering activities directed at the dams and fish passage on the Snake-Columbia Rivers. Could you supply for the record how much money is in

this budget for planning, design, or construction of such things as

dam modification, surface collectors, irrigation project changes, or

other activities for salmon recovery?

Dr. WESTPHAL. We will do that.

General BALLARD. Yes, sir.

Senator CRAIG. If you would please. And then please be specific

as to how the money is being requested for each of the activities.

I think that would be very helpful to us.

Is there anything being done through the fiscal year 2000 budget

to address the CASPIAN tern issue on Rice Island at the mouth

of the Columbia? I am recommending you go out and buy some

coyotes or foxes and put them on that island. [Laughter.]

[The information follows:]

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, IDAHO, OREGON & WASHINGTON

Subproject/item

Fiscal year 2000

Planning Engineering &

design Construction

Ice Harbor:

Auxiliary Water Supply .............................................. ........................ 350 ........................

Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program (AFEP) ......... ........................ 60 ........................

Lower Monumental:

Auxiliary Water Supply .............................................. ........................ 350 ........................

Adult Passive Integrated Transponder Facilities ..... ........................ 100 ........................

End Bay Deflectors ................................................... ........................ ........................ 10

Little Goose:

Auxiliary Water Supply .............................................. ........................ 350 ........................

Extended Screen Barrier Screen Mods ..................... ........................ 310 1,200

Trash Boom .............................................................. ........................ 550 3,460

Adult Passive Integrated Transponder Facilities ..... ........................ 110 ........................

Lower Granite:

Auxiliary Water Supply .............................................. ........................ 350 ........................

Juvenile Bypass Facility Improvements .................... ........................ 970 ........................

Extended Screens Barrier Screen Mods ................... ........................ 310 1,200

Barges Moorage Cells .............................................. ........................ 250 80

McNary:

Fish Ladder Exit Mods .............................................. ........................ ........................ 890

Cylindrical De-water Test ......................................... ........................ 110 1,190

Orifice Shelters ......................................................... ........................ 15 765

Extended Screens Barrier Screens Mods .................. ........................ 250 3,290

Replace Gates/Stoplogs ............................................ ........................ 180 2,770
95

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, IDAHO, OREGON & WASHINGTON—Continued

Subproject/item

Fiscal year 2000

Planning Engineering &

design Construction

Adult Passive Integrated Transponder Facilities ..... ........................ 110 ........................

John Day:

Extended Screen Barrier Screen ............................... ........................ 2,310 4,770

Smolt Monitoring facility .......................................... ........................ 100 1,080

End Bay Deflectors ................................................... ........................ 205 1,565

The Dalles:

Auxiliary Water Supply .............................................. ........................ 1,120 ........................

Adult Channel Dewatering ....................................... ........................ 730 ........................

Bonneville:

Bonneville 1st Downstream Migrant & Outfall Facilities .................................................................. ........................ 3,530 600

Bonneville 2nd Downstream Migrant & Outfall Facilities .................................................................. ........................ 570 3,210

Bonneville 2nd Gatewell Debris ............................... ........................ 380 800

Mitigation Analysis:

Walla Walla District Study Activities 1

Turbine Study .................................................. 1,450 ........................ ........................

Ice Harbor Separator Evaluation ..................... 890 ........................ ........................

Gas Abatement Study ...................................... 475 ........................ ........................

Snake River Feasibility Study .......................... 890 ........................ ........................

Fish Ladder Temp Evaluation ......................... 710 ........................ ........................

Fallback Study Ice Harbor/McNary .................. 710 ........................ ........................

Lower Granite Surface Bypass Collection ....... 8,260 ........................ ........................

Multiple Bypass (AFEP) ................................... 770 ........................ ........................

Estuary PIT Recovery (AFEP) ........................... 770 ........................ ........................

Gas Fastrack ................................................... 2,960 ........................ ........................

Portland District Study Activities 1

Lower Columbia Feasibility Study ................... 5,900 ........................ ........................

Gas Abatement Study ...................................... 950 ........................ ........................

Turbine Survival Program ................................ 2,900 ........................ ........................

Bonneville Surface Bypass .............................. 12,390 ........................ ........................

Bonneville 1st Fish Guidance Efficiency ......... 2,360 ........................ ........................

Bonneville Flat Plate Passive .......................... 60 ........................ ........................

Integrated Transponder Facilities Bonneville

Adult Fallback ............................................. 590 ........................ ........................

Bonneville 2nd Fish Guidance Efficiency ........ 1,770 ........................ ........................

The Dalles Surface Bypass ............................. 2,920 ........................ ........................

The Dalles Spillway Survival ........................... 2,720 ........................ ........................

Powerhouse Surface Bypass ............................ 590 ........................ ........................

Spillway Surface Bypass ................................. 1,770 ........................ ........................

John Day 24 Hour Spill Test ........................... 2,950 ........................ ........................

John Day Mitigation Relocation to Ringold

Hatchery ...................................................... 180 ........................ ........................

Lower Columbia Adult Measures ..................... 2,360 ........................ ........................

Gas Fastrack ................................................... 975 ........................ ........................

Adult Passive Integrated Transponder Facilities .............................................................. 180 ........................ ........................

Total Planning Activities ............................. 59,450 13,670 26,880

Note: Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request—$100,000,000.

1 Some of the study activities for the Mitigation Analysis subproject require engineering, design, and construction of

prototype facilities. If this is so, the cost for this engineering, design, and construction is included in the Planning column.
96

CASPIAN TERN

Senator CRAIG. Other than that, no.

Dr. WESTPHAL. I will let General Fuhrman answer this, but I

think we do have a project to move the Caspian——

General FUHRMAN. We are looking at that in conjunction with

other agencies as an——

Senator CRAIG. But you are a player in that, are you not, General?

General FUHRMAN. Yes, we are. We certainly are.

Senator GORTON. How about some cats?

Senator CRAIG. Let the record show that the Senator from Idaho

is not totally off base here. [Laughter.]

Senator BURNS. How about some wolves?

Senator CRAIG. Well, we could be a supplier there is no question.

But it is important that we see what you are doing there and

how much you are a player. That is important that we resolve that

issue, for the sake of the young salmon.

PORTS OF CLARKSTON AND LEWISTON

Is there sufficient O&M budget money for dredge work needed on

the ports of Clarkston and Lewiston in your current budget, do you

think? I am talking about the ongoing necessary works to keep

those channels open.

General FUHRMAN. Senator, yes, there is.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, if I could just mention one thing——

Senator CRAIG. Excuse me, Doctor.

Dr. WESTPHAL. I am sorry. I just wanted to mention to you that

I took a trip to the Northwest late last year. In fact, I think I spoke

with Senator Gorton while I was on that trip. I was at Bonneville

at the time. I went to the Lower Snake and viewed all the projects

there with the Corps. It was a very short trip and I did not have

a chance to really talk to local folks, so I just basically talked to

the Corps.

But we are definitely working this whole process, which is, as

you know, a very, very lengthy and difficult process in a way, as

carefully as we can, and we are trying to be as responsible as we

can in responding to the scientific information that is required to

make these decisions. But the release of that information is just a

very small piece of the overall EIS that is about to come out, hopefully by September of this year, and that is why we responded that

way. We think that in the end we will have a good study that we

can stand behind.

Senator CRAIG. Well, I certainly hope that is the case. You saw

with your tour out there what I think is a tremendously proud legacy and one that we ought to be trying to enhance and perfect. And

yes, it has problems and one of our problems is developing a mitigation plan to try to save these species of fish. But it should not

be one that we run from at all because it has afforded the Pacific

Northwest some tremendous assets that I am certainly proud of.

That is why I am as strident as I am with organizations that try
97

to recreate the region in their own image for political purposes and

ignore the science.

Thank you.

DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA

Senator BENNETT. Senator Dorgan.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I do want

to thank Dr. Westphal, General Ballard, General Fuhrman, and

Mr. Caver. I must confess that I used to think that dealing with

the Corps of Engineers was like dealing with pre-democratic Eastern European countries, except Romania’s Ceauescu was easier to

deal with. [Laughter.]

But I have changed my mind. We have gone through some significant disasters, the Grand Forks and Devils Lake flooding, and

the Corps of Engineers has been of invaluable assistance to us and

has spent a lot of time and a lot of effort trying to help us get

through these tough times. So, I deeply appreciate your commitment to help.

Dr. Westphal, you have worked with us closely on both Devils

Lake and Grand Forks. I want to just mention to you—members

of the subcommittee will be tired of hearing this but Devils Lake

is continuing to rise. The Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett,

once offered pumps that they bought apparently for the Great Salt

Lake and did not use. The problem is that if you use pumps, you

would have to find a place to pump the water. This is not a region

where there is an empty pail. So, we cannot transfer one region’s

problem to cause a problem in another region in our State. That

is the difficulty.

But we are working through a range of issues, including the design of an outlet and a series of other matters. I want to impress

upon you once again the urgency that I know you understand. That

lake is expected to rise again this summer. It is the most vexing

thing in the world to us. It is one of only two closed basins in

America. The other is the Great Salt Lake. It is a flood that comes

and stays unlike most other things that we deal with. Most floods

we deal with are river floods where we see a house floating down

a raging river someplace and then the flood is over and the river

subsides. That is not what is happening to us in this basin.

We had a meeting with the Governor and legislative leaders and

others in Bismarck last Friday talking about the time line and

other issues, but I would just ask again how you see the time line

on the Devil’s Lake outlet and if you have enough resources—I expect you do—committed to this in order to try to reach a conclusion

on it.

Dr. WESTPHAL. We have the resources, and the last update I had

is a little bit dated. It is the end of last year when I asked for an

update on where we were with the studies. The Corps at the District level was incorporating some new data into the analysis to try

to look at the regional impacts. But since then I have not had an

update, unless General Fuhrman has one. So, let me just say that

I will get you an update on when we expect to have a report on

that.

Senator DORGAN. I would appreciate that.
98

General FUHRMAN. Just to add to that, as you are well aware,

Senator, we are continuing to look at alternatives, along with the

local sponsors, and hope to have an update to Congress by the last

of April.

[The information follows:]

DEVILS LAKE OUTLET

The time line for completion of the Devils Lake outlet will be addressed in the

Interim Report to Congress and is dependent on the alternatives evaluated and

eventual direction provided. Once there is a recommended course of action, additional funding resources of at least $5M would be required to initiate and complete

plans and specifications for approved actions.

GRAND FORKS, ND

Senator DORGAN. One other question on the Grand Forks dike.

The President requested $10 million I believe in his 2000 budget

request. Does this adequately reflect the capability of the Corps for

the initial construction on the permanent levy in the coming fiscal

year?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, that does.

General FUHRMAN. Yes.

Senator DORGAN. If additional funds would become necessary, I

assume that the Corps would seek a reprogramming or some other

approach?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes.

General FUHRMAN. Yes, we would.

Senator DORGAN. Well, I am not usually so reasonable or so

agreeable, but I must say that my experience both with the previous panel, and also with the Corps of Engineers the last few

years, has been really quite a remarkable experience. They have

men and women in the field who work day and night and have put

a lot on the line for those of us in North Dakota who have been

threatened by these flooding crises, and I want to say thanks to a

lot of people who work down in the bowels of your agency and who

do some awfully good work.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Senator.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to submit a couple of additional questions for the record.

Senator BENNETT. Without objection.

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much.

YELLOWTAIL DAM, MT

Senator BENNETT. Senator Burns.

Senator BURNS. We can handle most of your problem up there.

We will just declare all North Dakota wilderness. We will ship our

wolves over there. I am just trying to get rid of some wolves.

Senator DORGAN. What is that fellow’s name? [Laughter.]

Senator BURNS. Up in our State, just so the people in this room

understand my previous comment, you cannot touch these protected wolves. There is a pack of 10 that is laying 200 yards off of

a guy’s barn. He is trying to calve and he estimates that he has

lost 30 calves and 25 cows, and he cannot do anything to stop the

wolves. All you can do is watch them wolves carry your calf crop

off, and you get pretty excited.
99

I think I want to raise one issue again, the Yellowtail Dam. I

think you have some joint responsibilities on the Yellowtail with

the Bureau of Reclamation on flood control and water release. I

would suggest that you start the dialogue now between the Bureau

of Reclamation, because we have a tremendous snowpack this year,

General, and I fear for that.

REGULATORY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS PROCESS

I am also concerned, General Ballard, in your appeals process,

that you have got the rules written for those permits that were denied, the denied permits, and you are sort of shying away from the

jurisdictional part of that language of the law. I will tell you we

have more problems with the jurisdictional end of this situation on

wetlands, that problem, than we do any other part. So, I would

suggest to take the language of the law and implement it where

you have the most problems, and I think most of it is in jurisdiction.

I can tell you that the Corps has really overstepped its bounds

in some areas in the wetlands. It is not contiguous to impaired waters or to navigable streams or anything like that.

So, those are the only things that I want to—other than that, we

have got a lot of work to do on the Missouri that is above the Yellowstone, and we want to do that. We are losing land every day

along the Missouri between Culbertson and Williston and we

should deal with that. Of course, there again that has to do with

Fort Peck.

I am also very interested in working with you as far as the Fort

Peck interpretive center and those kinds of things, and we will

work our way through that.

But you have done some good work up there and we appreciate

that, but those are the areas that concern me most. I would start

that dialogue with the Bureau of Reclamation, though, because we

have a tremendous snowpack this year.

And thank you for coming, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENNETT. Senator Kohl?

LAFARGE LAKE, WI

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Senator Bennett.

Gentlemen, good to see you here.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Senator.

Senator KOHL. I would like to ask a series of questions on the

La Farge Lake deauthorization project.

The Water Resource Development Act of 1996 deauthorized the

flood control project at La Farge. The Army Corps of Engineers was

instructed to transfer the 9,000 acres acquired during the 1960’s

and 1970’s to the State of Wisconsin and the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the Hochunk Nation.

Also, as part of the flood control project, the Corps of Engineers

was given jurisdiction over the relocation and maintenance of State

highway 131 and a few of the county highways.

Three questions. Number one, when will the land transfer project

deauthorization and completion of remaining project features be accomplished?
100

General FUHRMAN. I will take that one, Senator. Currently field

documentation of historic cultural resource protection, site safety,

environmental remediation of abandoned farm sites and wells and

real estate activities, all of which need to be accomplished prior to

the land transfer, are fully funded and are on track to be completed

by 30 September of this year.

Senator KOHL. Thank you.

Will the Corps be including a request for funding to implement

section 361 in future presidential budgets?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, while we cannot really commit today to

what we are going to include in the 2001 budget, since we have yet

to even begin developing that, I will tell you that we will proceed

on this project as expeditiously as we can, and if we need to, we

will make an effort to fund what is required. I will work with you

and your staff to do that.

Senator KOHL. I do appreciate that.

One last question. Does the Corps agree that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation is in the best position to conduct the

road relocation, and if so, when will the Corps be completing the

necessary contractual arrangements with the State of Wisconsin on

this issue?

General FUHRMAN. Senator, we believe that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation has the necessary expertise to do an

excellent job at accomplishing the highway work that is needed and

identified out there. We are currently reviewing that to determine

what types of authorities we have to allow us to work with the Department, and we will be working closely with you to resolve that

issue.

Senator KOHL. Did I get a clear answer on that? Not as clear as

I would like.

General FUHRMAN. Well, there is an authorities issue here in our

ability to grant money to the State, and we will need to work with

the Congress on that piece of it.

Senator KOHL. I thank you, and I thank you, Senator Bennett.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES BUDGET REQUEST

Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be

here today to welcome our witnesses. It is my first opportunity to

congratulate publicly my friend, Dr. Joe Westphal, on his service

as Assistant Secretary of the Army.

In looking at the budget request, I noticed that for the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, in which I am very interested, the President has requested a total of $280 million for this

next fiscal year. This is the same as the request for the current fiscal year.

Congress reviewed that request last year and found it to be woefully inadequate in terms of the capability of the Corps for that

project and also to protect lives and property in the region. So, the

amount for fiscal year 1999 was increased to $323.6 million, which

we hope will go a long way toward getting us back on schedule and

on track with many of the programs in the Mississippi River and

Tributaries project.
101

My question is—and General Ballard or whoever you suggest

should answer this—I understand that this is still short of the

Corps’ capability for these activities. I wonder if, for the record, you

could give us the figure, the dollar amount, that the Corps has

within its capability for projects within the Mississippi River and

Tributaries program.

General BALLARD. I think that figure, Senator, is about $350 million.

Dr. WESTPHAL. $350 million.

Senator COCHRAN. Which means that if the Congress appropriated that amount and the President would sign the bill, you

could use that money efficiently and effectively to carry out the authority that has already been granted to the Corps on those

projects. Is that correct?

General BALLARD. That is correct, Senator.

Senator COCHRAN. I know that some of these projects have controversies surrounding them, and I know you are trying to deal

with those and involve the public. I have been in Mississippi on occasions when meetings have been held. We have tried to encourage

those who have opinions on these to come forward. Sometimes they

overdo it, but the fact is we are trying to make sure that these

projects are sensitive to environmental concerns, to the needs of

production agriculture, the people who live in the area, and it is

a very, very big challenge.

This is a project that was authorized a long time ago. It continues to be short of funds and behind schedule, and a lot of people

are suffering because of that. We hope that the Corps will give

added impetus to the work being done in that region of the country.

I notice in the other parts of the budget there are some increases

being requested, and this is not one of them. I am disappointed in

that. I hope we can work with you in this committee to try to deal

with the challenge of meeting our responsibilities to the people in

that area of the country.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, sir.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BURNS [presiding]. I guess the chairman ran away.

Senator COCHRAN. You are it. [Laughter.]

Senator BURNS. The Senator from Washington.

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS

Senator GORTON. General Ballard, a year or so ago, we had a

meeting that was very unpleasant and unhappy for both of us in

my office about a recreation study carried out by the Walla Walla

office. Because I remember that and I suspect you do as well and

do not like unhappy meetings like that, I cannot do anything but

start my comments off by saying in how positive a way you responded. I am still not sure I like much about the new survey, but

it is much improved over the old one.

More important than that, however, were the comments that

Senator Craig made, that when some portions of its results were

leaked and were put out in a distorted fashion, that you stepped

forward and said that this was highly misleading and that you are

going to wait until you have finished with what you have done and
102

are going to try to come up with an as objective set of answers as

you possibly can. That is in the finest traditions of the Corps. Having started out unhappily, I wanted to tell you how very positively

I respond to that kind of work on your behalf. It was absolutely

first rate.

General BALLARD. Thank you very much, Senator. I do remember

our meeting and your words are very complimentary. I commit to

you my continued support as we try to work these issues together.

Senator GORTON. Good.

JOHN DAY DAM DRAWDOWN STUDY

Now, I do want to state, again following the same philosophy

that Senator Craig did, my unhappiness—my opposition to two elements in this budget. I have supported both the studies that are

taking place with respect to the Snake River dams and phase one

of the John Day studies. I have done so in spite of the fact that

many of my constituents and many on the other side of the river

have lobbied me not to allow you even to have undertaken those

initial studies because they feel that any draw-down on John Day

and any destruction of the Snake River dams would be so overwhelmingly damaging to them. My response has been that I did

not think that we could be against undertaking such studies and

that, in fact, that I thought they would end up showing the value

of those dams.

Nevertheless, I have to tell you that to ask for money, even on

a contingent basis, for a second phase of a study when you have

not completed phase one of the study, and when obviously there

has been no opportunity for the people of the area to respond to

phase one, seems to me to be highly premature. I am not telling

you that at this point that under any and all circumstances I would

oppose a phase two, although it is a lot of money over a considerable period of time, but I certainly do want to tell you that I will

oppose authorizing it or appropriating money even on a contingent

basis now before we have seen phase one, not only we have seen

phase one, but even more importantly the people of the area have

seen phase one.

And the McNary study falls in exactly the same category.

I think we need an opportunity for the people of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, for that matter, to respond to what we

are already doing before we take additional steps. So, I want to

make it clear that I am going to try to see to it that those appropriations are not made this year without necessarily saying that

there are not further studies that are appropriate at some time in

the future.

Having said that and having said that you have done so many

things so well, I do want to ask a question of you now on a different subject.

BONNEVILLE DAM AND THE DALLES DAM POWERHOUSE

REHABILITATION

Major rehabilitation efforts have been authorized on the Bonneville Dam and on the Dalles Dam, but the requests from the administration for powerhouse improvements seem to be significantly

less than what you could actually use in the year 2000 by a margin
103

of less than $11 million to more than $16 million. The Bonneville

work that sometime ago was slated to be completed in the year

2003 is likely not to be completed until the year 2008. Obviously,

that drives up costs with the contractors that you are working with

and power generation capability of the dams diminishes as the

houses age.

Why do we not have a request for the amount of money that you

can efficiently and effectively spend on the Dalles and Bonneville

for the year 2000?

General FUHRMAN. The amount that we can effectively use is

$3.3 million, sir.

Senator GORTON. That is for the Dalles.

General FUHRMAN. Yes.

Senator GORTON. And Bonneville?

General FUHRMAN. I will have to provide that for the record, sir.

[The information follows:]

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OREGON AND WASHINGTON (MAJOR

REHABILITATION)

The fiscal year 2000 amount that we can effectively use for Major Rehabilitation

at Bonneville is $16.3 million.

DRAWDOWN STUDIES

Senator GORTON. Okay, this is the kind of question that you are

probably better off answering in writing than directly to me in any

event.

I simply want to echo what Senator Craig said. You were asked

to undertake studies at a certain level, come up with engineering

feasibility, come up with a number of other answers. The determination as to what to do about the results of those studies, of

course, is a policy determination for Congress and recommendations by the President of the United States. I just echo what Senator Craig said. I have no reason to think that you are not doing

this objectively and without political considerations in mind, and I

simply encourage you to keep moving in that direction.

The Assistant Secretary, in his conversation with me, earlier emphasized that as well, and I include him so far in the compliments.

General FUHRMAN. Thank you.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you.

Senator, I am not 100 percent sure on this, but I believe that

perhaps one of the reasons that you see funding in there for the

phase two is that we start the budgeting process so early in the

previous year and we did not know when the phase one EIS feasibility study would be completed. We thought it would be completed

early, that the NEIMS part of the process would be done earlier.

In fact, we expected something at the beginning of the year. I believe probably that is the reason that we went into that

proposed——

Senator GORTON. One of you said September.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Now it is pushed back to September.

Senator GORTON. Now it is December.

General FUHRMAN. For that particular John Day phase one

study, it is due to Congress in December, Senator.

Senator GORTON. December, okay.
104

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. That is all I have.

CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS

Senator DOMENICI [presiding]. Thanks for your patience in waiting so long.

Let me talk with you a minute, General. At the last year’s hearing, I believe the Corps estimated that there was potential for

around $800 million of unfunded liabilities over the next several

years for potential reimbursements, credits, and other payments for

work that has been authorized to be undertaken.

Could you update the committee on this situation? Do you believe this is a big problem? Is it not possible that the types of financing arrangements could consume very large portions of the

construction budget if we are not careful? And what are the potential impacts or pitfalls with this kind of funding?

General BALLARD. Mr. Chairman, as a way of updating, we are

looking at credits and potential reimbursement in an amount that

is approaching roughly $950 million, so a growth of about $150 million from what we were forecasting for last year. That represents

some 46 projects that are both approved, pending or in the cue in

some fashion or other. Now, all of those that are not approved will

have to be coordinated with the Congress.

My concern is that as this amount continues to grow, there is

some potential that the Corps could end up becoming a grant agency in some of our districts. That possibility is there.

But I am more concerned about the potential loss of technical talent and capability within the districts as we migrate more toward

a grant or a pass-through organization. This moves us away from

the intent of Congress when the Corps of Engineers program was

first developed, and that was to have a trained cadre of engineers

and scientists available to respond to a national emergency. So,

that is where my concern is as this program continues to grow.

Senator DOMENICI. Dr. Westphal, you are aware that the committee in the conference report on the 1998 energy and water appropriations bill placed certain restrictions on the approval of reimbursement agreements, acceptance of advanced funds and other arrangements, because of our concerns related to the potential outyear budget impacts. Now, obviously, the General is concerned

about what that would do if it became very big.

Do you feel that the conditions we imposed were reasonable?

What suggestions do you have which would allow some of these financing mechanisms to be used, but still would have some reasonable limitation in terms of the overall effect?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I echo the Chief’s

concerns about this. I do believe that your concerns are justifiable

and I do think that there is a need for us to work together to come

to some understanding on how to deal with these demands in the

future. It is obvious that we want to try to help projects move faster and we want to help constituents get the work done in a more

rapid fashion perhaps, but it is turning out to be a system that in

large part is only used by those communities and sponsors that

have the cost share money available, and so other opportunities are

not available to other communities.
105

So, we hope to work with you on some resolution. I do not know

what that would be today. I think obviously it is the prerogative

of Congress to make that decision. It has an effect on the balance

between the appropriators and the authorizers. It has an effect on

the balance of power within the Congress and outside the Congress. I think it is an important decision that I would be willing

to work with you on, whether it is setting caps on the amount of

money that we are allowed to go through or simply making some

determination as to the type of project that can be allowed to go

forth under a reimbursement.

Senator DOMENICI. We look forward to working with you technically how we could word it and what would be a reasonable limitation. I think we ought to start thinking about it. Maybe we can

be ready in a couple of months when we are ready to mark up and

see what we could put in the appropriations bill.

NEW STUDY STARTS

While we praise the budget with reference to it having a higher

funding level requested over last year and not being so difficult to

try to implement up here on the Hill, I note that you only have one

new study start included in the 2000 budget. Why is this and what

makes that one study, the Santa Ynez River study in California,

so special that it was singled out over all others that the Corps has

requested to OMB? Did you not have about 100 with studies eligible to be initiated?

Dr. WESTPHAL. We originally recommended 90, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. All right. So, 90 that you recommended and

1 got funded. I wonder why it got funded. Does anybody know?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, the President’s budget was working under

also very significant caps as he tried to provide a balanced budget

to Congress, one that does not use the surplus, uses the surplus for

Social Security purposes. Under those caps, we had to make some

determinations about where we felt there was the greatest need to

move the program forward. In that regard, the O&M part of the

budget, taking care of the tremendous need that there is out there

for maintenance of our aged infrastructure, was a higher priority.

We also felt that we do have a backlog of projects that we need

to move——

Senator DOMENICI. Wait now. I understand all that. Frankly, I

would like you to provide for the record the 90 and tell us how

much you requested for each. A lot of them are very small.

Dr. WESTPHAL. We can do that.

[The information follows:]

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUESTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Study name

Prim. capability

State Fiscal year

2000

BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK—Shoreline protection for the

threatened public facilities at Barrow, AK ................................................................ AK ....... 80

CHANDALAR RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, AK—Environmental protection for the watershed in conjunction with navigation and flood protection measures ....................... AK ....... 80
106

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUESTS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Study name

Prim. capability

State Fiscal year

2000

CHESTER CREEK WATERSHED STUDY, AK—Environmental restoration measures for

Chester Creek ............................................................................................................. AK ....... 100

GASTINEAU CHANNEL, JUNEAU, AK—Channel accessibility for current vessel spectrum requirements ...................................................................................................... AK ....... 100

SKAGWAY HARBOR, AK—Harbor depth and size for current and projected vessel

needs .......................................................................................................................... AK ....... 100

THORNE BAY HARBOR, AK—Potential for new and expanded harbors at both North

and South Thorne Bay ................................................................................................ AK ....... 100

SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR—Environmental restoration of the Corps reservoirs

(Millwood, Dequeen, Dierks and Gillham Lakes) in Little River basin ...................... AR ....... 100

RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ—Restoration of riparian habitat and water

quality in the city of Phoenix, AZ .............................................................................. AZ ....... 100

SEDONA, AZ—Flood damage prevention for Coconino and Yavapi Counties and the

City of Sedona, AZ ...................................................................................................... AZ ....... 100

KERN RIVER VALLEY (ISABELLA LAKE), CA—Comprehensive review of project operations for environmental measures ........................................................................... CA ....... 100

KLAMATH RIVER, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA—Environmental restoration measures for anadromous fish and ripariam habitat ....................................................... CA ....... 100

PAJARO RIVER WATERSHED, CA—Flood damage prevention and environmental restoration for 1,300 sq. mi. of central California ........................................................ CA ....... 100

SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA—Flood damage prevention and environmental enhancement

opportunities in the San Jacinto Watershed .............................................................. CA ....... 100

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA—Flood damage prevention in low lying areas

of Santa Clara County ................................................................................................ CA ....... 100

WILLIAM G. STONE LOCK, CA (Feasibility)—Review justification of lock operations for

commercial navigation ............................................................................................... CA ....... 200

OAK CREEK, FLORENCE, CO—Flood damage prevention for the city of Florence, CO .. CO ....... 100

CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE CANAL, ENV REST, DE &—Environmental restoration including habitat restoration through the beneficial use of dredged material ........... DE ....... 100

MID DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY—Environmental restoration

and flood damage prevention including dredged material disposal ........................ DE ....... 100

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER BASIN, FL—Flood damage prevention and environmental restoration through Temple Terrace, Sulphur Springs and Tampa, FL .......................... FL ........ 100

MILE POINT, FLORIDA—Erosion along the north bank of the St. Johns river in Duval

County, Florida ............................................................................................................ FL ........ 100

LONG ISLAND, MARSH, AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA—Comprehensive watershed master

plan for parts of metropolitan Atlanta, GA ............................................................... GA ....... 100

SAVANNAH HARBOR TIDEGATE, GA—Tidegate Federal maintenance versus transfer to

non-Federal entity ....................................................................................................... GA ....... 100

UTOY, SANDY & PROCTOR CREEKS, GA—Environmental restoration and flood damage prevention for central Fulton Co., GA and metropolitan Atlanta ....................... GA ....... 100

HILO HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, HI—Modification or expansion of existing harbor ................................................................................................................... HI ........ 80

KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HI—Modifications to existing harbor ............................................................................................................................... HI ........ 80

NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, HONOLOLU DISTRICT—Harbor size and configurations

for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .......................................... HI ........ 120

SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS, IL—Ecosystem restoration in the area of two Corps constructed projects (Harrisburg Local Protection and Saline River Channelization) .... IL ........ 100

METROPOLITAN REGION OF INDIANAPOLIS, IN—Flood damage prevention including

the center of Marion County, Indiana and metropolitan Indianapolis ...................... IN ........ 100
107

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUESTS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Study name

Prim. capability

State Fiscal year

2000

ARKANSAS RIVER CHANNEL STUDY, KS—Environmental restoration and flood damage prevention of the Arkansas River and adjacent lands from the Colorado-Kansas state line to the vicinity of Great Bend, KS ....................................................... KS ....... 100

BANKLICK CREEK BASIN, KY—Flood damage prevention for Kenton county, KY .......... KY ....... 100

EAGLE CREEK RIVER BASIN, KY—Flood damage prevention for communities of Carroll county, KY ............................................................................................................ KY ....... 100

GREEN RIVER HEADWATERS WATERSHED, KY—Ecosystem restoration through the

modification to the operation of two existing Corps projects ................................... KY ....... 100

METROPOLITAN REGION OF LOUISVILLE, KY ECOS—Ecosystem restoration along the

Ohio River and tributaries including wetlands creation ........................................... KY ....... 100

TRADEWATER RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATIONS—Ecosystem restoration

of west central Kentucky including Christian, Hopkins, Caldwell, Webster

Crittenden and Union Counties .................................................................................. KY ....... 100

ST. BERNARD PARISH, LA—Flood damage prevention for the St. Bernard Parish,

LA ................................................................................................................................ LA ....... 100

CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA—Environmental restoration for the

watershed portions of Middlesex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Worcester counties, MA ..... MA ...... 100

COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA—Ecosystem restoration

including dredge material disposal and coastal wetlands ....................................... MA ...... 100

NANTICOKE RIVER BASIN, MD & DE—Environmental restoration including watershed

planning, wetland restoration, and beneficial uses of dredged material ................ MD ...... 100

REDWOOD RIVER BASIN, MN—Environmental restoration and flood damage prevention for Redwood county in the vicinity of Marshall, MN .......................................... MN ...... 100

BIG FIVE LEVEE SYSTEM, MO—Flood damage prevention for Union and Alexander

counties, Illinois ......................................................................................................... MO ...... 100

MONROE COUNTY, MO—Flood damage prevention for Monroe County, Illinois ............ MO ...... 100

PRAIRIE DU ROCHER (IFC), MO—Flood damage prevention for Randolph County, Illinois ............................................................................................................................. MO ...... 100

BROAD RIVER BASIN, NC & SC—Environmental restoration and flood damage prevention for portions of 18 counties in both North and South Carolina .................... NC ....... 100

CAPE FEAR RIVER LOCKS & DAMS, NC—Review operation of locks and dam for disposition and/or environmental restoration ................................................................. NC ....... 100

CURRITUCK SOUND, NC—Environmental restoration in Currituck and Dare counties

in the northeastern part of North Carolina ............................................................... NC ....... 100

VERDIGRE CREEK AT VERDIGRE, NE—Flood damage prevention for the Village of

Verdigre, NE ................................................................................................................ NE ....... 90

SHREWSBURY RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, NJ—Flood damage prevention and environmental restoration in Monmouth County, New Jersey ................................................ NJ ........ 100

CIMARRON RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NM, OK, CO, & KS—Ecosystem restoration and

flood damage prevention of the Cimarron River basin ............................................. NM ...... 100

RATON, NM—Flood damage prevention for city of Raton, NM ...................................... NM ...... 100

GREAT CHAZY RIVER BASIN & TRIBUTARIES, NY—Flood damage prevention and environmental restoration for the communities of Champlin, Mooers Forks,

Ellenburg, and Ellenburg Depot ................................................................................. NY ....... 100

HUDSON & MOHAWK RIVERS AT WATERFORD, NY—Flood damage prevention and environmental restoration for Waterford, New York ....................................................... NY ....... 100

MOHAWK RIVER BASIN, NY—Flood damage prevention for Oneida, Herkimer,

Schoharie, Greene, and Montgomery Counties, New York ......................................... NY ....... 100

SARANAC RIVER BASIN & TRIBUTARIES, NY—Flood damage prevention and environmental restoration for the communities of Plattsburgh and Morrisonville ............... NY ....... 100

BIG DARBY CREEK BASIN, OH—Environmental restoration in the central part of Ohio

within the counties of Pickway, Franklin, Madison, Union, Logan, Champaign, and

Clark counties ............................................................................................................. OH ....... 100
108

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUESTS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Study name

Prim. capability

State Fiscal year

2000

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, BUTLER CT—Flood damage prevention and

ecosystem restoration in southwestern Ohio ............................................................. OH ....... 100

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, OH & KY—Ecosystem restoration for Hamilton and Clermont Counties in Ohio and Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties

in Kentucky ................................................................................................................. OH ....... 100

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN, OK—Ecosystem restoration integrating the Tenkiller Ferry

Lake hydropower operations with overall basin plan, including land management OK ....... 100

OPTIMA LAKE, OK—Optimize lake usage ....................................................................... OK ....... 100

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER, OR & WA—Comprehensive long range approach to the

Ecosystem restoration for the Lower Columbia River ................................................ OR ....... 100

UMATILLA RIVER, OR—Environmental restoration on the Umatilla Indian reservation .............................................................................................................................. OR ....... 100

ALLEGHENY RIVER NAVIGATION, PA—Develop optimum future plan for river locks

and dams to include current operation, closure and disposition ............................. PA ....... 100

CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, MD, & DE—Environmental restoration and flood

damage prevention in Chester, Delaware, and Lancaster Counties, PA; New Castle

Co., DE; and Cecil Co., MD ........................................................................................ PA ....... 100

RIO BAYAMON AT BAYAMON, PR—Flood damage prevention at Rio Bayamon, Puerto

Rico, ten miles west of San Juan .............................................................................. PR ....... 100

RIO NIGUA AT ARROYO, PR—Flood damage prevention for the southeast part of

Puerto Rico, Arroyo ..................................................................................................... PR ....... 100

PENNINGTON COUNTY & VICINITY, SD—Flood damage prevention for Pennington

County, South Dakota, including Rapid City ............................................................. SD ....... 90

BUFFALO BAYOU & TRIBUTARIES, TX—Flood damage prevention and environmental

restoration for the Houston, TX channel extending from the Houston Ship Channel

upstream to Barker Dam ............................................................................................ TX ....... 100

GALVESTON BEACH EROSION, TX—Prevent or mitigate shore damages attributable

to the Federal navigation works ................................................................................ TX ....... 100

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—BRAZOS RIVER, TX—Modification of floodgate

configuration to reduce traffic accidents and delays ............................................... TX ....... 100

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—COLORADO RIVER, TX—Modification to the Colorado River Locks to reduce traffic accidents and delays ......................................... TX ....... 100

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—SABINE RIVER, TX—Review navigational needs

and environmental restoration (Sabine River to High Island, TX) ............................ TX ....... 100

LOWER BRAZOS RIVER, TX—Flood damage prevention for the Texas counties of;

Brazoria, Fort Bend, Austin and Waller ..................................................................... TX ....... 100

LOWER GUDALUPE & SAN ANTONIO RIVERS, TX—Flood damage prevention and environmental restoration for potions of Calhoun, Dewitt, Gonzales, and Victoria

counties ...................................................................................................................... TX ....... 100

UPPER GUADALUPE & SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX—Ecosystem restoration and

flood damage reduction within the south-central part of Texas .............................. TX ....... 100

CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED, VA—Environmental restoration and flood damage reduction in southwest Virginia and includes the communities of Raven, Richlands,

Doran, and Dante ....................................................................................................... VA ....... 100

JOHN H. KERR RESERVOIR, VA & NC—Flood damage prevention and environmental

restoration of north-central North Carolina and south-central Virginia ................... VA ....... 100

LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN, VA—Environmental restoration for a ten

county area east of Richmond and south of Washington, DC .................................. VA ....... 100

LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA—Environmental restoration including wetland restoration on the south shore of the Chesapeake Bay ....................................................... VA ....... 100

OMPOMPANOOSUC RIVER, VT—Environmental restoration in east central Vermont .... VT ....... 100
109

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUESTS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Study name

Prim. capability

State Fiscal year

2000

MOUNT ST. HELENS ENV RESTORATION, WA—Environmental restoration of wetlands,

riverine, riparian, and upland habitats lost or altered due to the Mt. St. Helens

eruption ....................................................................................................................... WA ...... 100

NEW CREEK WATERSHED, WV—Environmental restoration and flood damage prevention in Mineral and Grant Counties, West Virginia ................................................... WV ...... 100

SANTA YNEZ, CA STUDY

Senator DOMENICI. So, I understand budgeting and caps. I appreciate your reminding me, but do not worry about it.

What I want to know is why the only one to be chosen was this

Santa——

Dr. WESTPHAL. Santa Ynez?

Senator DOMENICI. Ynez. Yes, gee, I should know that. Ynez.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Santa Ynez, right.

Well, it was a model project that had elements of flood protection, good environmental restoration. It was a good study that was

well supported by its cost share sponsors. It was a good model

project and it was determined to be one that we could support.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, my guess is that it has some unusual

support within the administration. [Laughter.]

You know, you would be better off if you just said it.

In any event, would you please tell us in detail why it is so great

since you are here defending it. Give it to us in writing.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

SANTA YNEZ

The selection was based upon a combination of factors including: flood threat, potential economic viability of a recommended plan, environmental impacts, and the

support and likelihood of non-Federal participation for the implementation of a solution.

HARBOR SERVICES FUND

Senator DOMENICI. I have nothing against it. Obviously, I do not

know much about it. I could hardly pronounce its name. So, I have

no prejudices or bias.

Now, while we said the budget looked better, there is something

in it that is kind of difficult because, as the President has done in

a number of appropriations, he does not break the caps, because he

gets some receipts, some new taxes or new revenues, and he puts

that in the appropriations bill. Obviously that offsets the spending.

So, if you wondering what is the big magic about breaking the caps

but not breaking them, it is this kind of thing.

In this budget, you have a very large amount of money for a Harbor Services Trust Fund, almost $1 billion, $900 million. Probably

part of that is old taxes, old revenues, but what portion of it would

levy new burdens on somebody or some entity to pay taxes or fees?
110

Dr. WESTPHAL. It is a fee proposed on the vessel carriers. It is a user fee. It would collect about $1 billion, $951 million, and that

is the amount that we project to expend on the maintenance,

dredging, and construction side on the navigation projects. So, we

are attempting to collect only the amount that would be required

to spend every year to develop and maintain these ports.

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. Well, I guess what I need to know is—

maybe your budget man could tell me—in this new trust fund how

much of that is from residual old user fees or old taxes?

General FUHRMAN. About $600 million of that would be equivalent to what came out of the existing Harbor Maintenance Trust

Fund, and the new piece of that would be about $300 million,

which is designated toward the new construction.

Senator DOMENICI. If we did nothing and did not even create this Harbor Services Fund, there is about $600 million coming in. If the

appropriations process chose to put in the bill, it pays for $600 million of this $900 million, meaning somewhere between $250 million

and $300 million is new. Now, can somebody explain to me where

the $300 million new in fees come from? Not the old ones. Nobody

is complaining about those. They already exist. We do not want to

bother a sleeping dog.

I happen to be the first one to pass one of those, in case you are

wondering. The first tax for the user fees came up in a little committee I was on 26 years ago. I almost got thrown out of the Senate

for it. [Laughter.]

Everybody wondered what the hell a New Mexican had to do

with asking southern States to pay a little fee for the lock and

dam. But it passed eventually. So, it is in there, that diesel tax.

It has gone up since then.

Now, what is the new one? What is the new stuff? Does anybody

know?

Dr. WESTPHAL. If I understand your question—and maybe I am not understanding exactly, but there is about $1 billion in the existing fund. The proposal is to repeal that existing fund and transfer the balances over to the new fund and make those balances

available for appropriations.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, let me start over. There is $250 million

for construction that is currently not authorized. Does this budget

propose that we raise the money for that from new source of revenue?

Dr. WESTPHAL. From the harbor services user fee.

Senator DOMENICI. Is that new?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, it is a proposed fee that Congress would

have to approve.

Senator DOMENICI. I guess I would like to just know, how much

are we going to raise fees and on whom to make this trust fund

as solvent as you want it to fit your budget, $250 million worth.

Who is going to pay that?

General FUHRMAN. Currently we have the Harbor Maintenance

Trust Fund which is funded by a tax, and that is used for maintenance and repair. That is generating about $600 million a year for

operations and maintenance. That would be done away with and a

new fee structure established for a user fee that would generate

$950 million a year, of which about $300 million would be used for
111

new construction and the remainder would be used for the same

thing the old harbor maintenance trust fund was used for, which

was maintenance.

Senator DOMENICI. So, somebody has to be able to tell us of this

$950 million—I understand what you are saying—how much resembles, looks like, is very close to what we are currently doing,

what we are going to do under a new trust fund, and how much

would be new? Where would the new money come from that we are

getting? Can you do that for me? If you cannot do it today, you can

do it in a report to me, or how can you do that?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Typically we need about $900 million. We want

to be able to raise that amount of money with the use of the new

fee to not have any carryover balances, essentially be able for you

to appropriate what we collect in the fee annually and put in the

fund.

Senator DOMENICI. I understand.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Now, this first year, since you do not have the

proposal yet—the proposal is coming in a few weeks—if you approve the harbor services fee proposal, we will not have enough

money in the new fund to fund fully the $1 billion. We will have

to be able to transfer the monies from the existing fund to the new

fund to be able to do that.

Senator DOMENICI. The fund never paid for new construction, but

it is going to pay for new construction under the new proposal.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Right.

Senator DOMENICI. So, it is a bigger fund with a bigger purpose.

General FUHRMAN. Yes, sir. New construction up to this point in

time has been paid out of general revenues.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, obviously, when you increase the size of

the trust fund on the receipt side so that you will have more money

to spend, you have got to tax somebody that is not being taxed

now, and that is what I would like to get. Now, maybe it is not

ready yet.

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, no, the harbor maintenance tax was found

unconstitutional last year by the Supreme Court—the portion of

that tax at least that was levied on exports. That tax was being

levied on the commodities. So, with that, we had to basically only

collect the import side of that. On the import side, we have got

problems with GATT and some of our trading partners in Europe

who are challenging the import side of that fee.

So, our plan that we are going to submit to Congress is to repeal

the entire harbor maintenance tax and replace it with a harbor

services user fee, which essentially would shift from a tax on the

commodities to a fee on the vessel carrier, so on the carriers of

those commodities; in other words, relating the fee to the services

we provide to the ships as they enter the channels and enter the

ports and make that fee equivalent to the work we have to do to

maintain the ports and maintain their accessibility nationwide.

SUPPORT FOR THE HARBOR SERVICE FEE

Senator DOMENICI. There is an argument against this that will

be made obviously that the whole Nation benefits, not just those

from a system of harbors and inland waterways and the like. But
112

is there general agreement and support within the shipping community for this approach that the administration is talking about?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, Senator, when I first came on board, we

had a proposal ready to go, and I did some vetting of that proposal

with various stakeholders. There was very little, if any, support for

it at the time. We had some difficulty defending the proposal, to

be honest with you. So we sent that proposal back to our analysts

and our folks that had put it together to work up some of the recommendations and concerns of the stakeholders. We spent almost

6 to 7 months doing that.

Today, we have a proposal that is now currently being vetted

with the other Federal agencies that I think is a much more acceptable proposal. I think that it will get a fair assessment from

stakeholders. It may still be opposed by some, but essentially I

think we have addressed many of their concerns and it is a much

more defensible proposal. We hope to be able to bring it to you

within the next few weeks after we go through that interagency

process.

Senator DOMENICI. So, the acceptability of that and the ability of

us to count it in the budget is going to be very important as to

whether you have a good program or not a good program. So, we

are right back or we might be. If Congress says we are not going

to do this thing, then we are very short in terms of having enough

money to do this.

Dr. WESTPHAL. It will affect approximately about $300 million

roughly for the construction side on the navigation part of the

budget. Yes, sir.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS

Senator DOMENICI. Now, just two questions about the regulatory

program, administrative appeals. The conference report in 1998

stated, ‘‘The conferees expect that the increase provided over the

amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997 will be used to begin implementation of an administrative appeals process for the Corps of

Engineers Regulatory Program.’’ The Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House and Senate both stated their concern for

implementing this process again in 1999.

Have you complied with the directions of Congress, and if you

have not, why not?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have to be honest and say,

no, we have not complied with it in the sense that it has taken us

much longer to develop the rule and to put it together and get it

ready to go to the Federal Register. The rule on the denial part is

at the Federal Register today as we speak. But it has taken much

longer than you and the committee wanted us to take on that.

On the jurisdictional determination, the rule is also ready to go

forward, and we believe that with the added funds that we have

proposed in the budget this year, we will be able to implement that

part of the rule once it gets vetted through the Federal Register

process.

Senator DOMENICI. So, the expectation that we had was that the

Corps would implement both an administrative appeals process

and the jurisdiction determination appeals process. So, what is the

timetable for implementing those processes and procedures now?
113

Dr. WESTPHAL. I probably have to get back to you specifically on

the dates, but the rule is now in the Federal Register on the denial

part, and the other, the jurisdictional part, is getting ready to go

anytime now. So, I do not recall if it is a 30-day or 60-day period

for response to the rule, and then there is the final draft that has

to be submitted later in the summer. So, I am hoping that by the

end of this year we will be able to say we are implementing the

rule.

General FUHRMAN. With regard to the denial piece, Senator, that

is essentially in effect as soon as it hits the Federal Register. So,

any permit actions that take place out there after that are subject

to the appeals process for that.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, Congress has specifically earmarked or

provided $5 million for the Corps to implement the administrative

appeals process for 1998 and for 1999. In light of the fact that you

have not implemented the appeals process, how were these funds

used and why did you not take appropriate action to initiate and

fund the administrative appeals process pending the rules? How

was the money used? Was it used, that $5 million?

General FUHRMAN. Yes, sir. Last year you appropriated $106 million to us, which was $5 million over the previous year’s appropriation of $101 million. Our budget in the regulatory business is primarily personnel. Some 80 to 90 percent of that is personnel, some

900 people spread throughout the country, some 90,000 actions

each year.

And we have worked hard at moving forward in trying to satisfy

the report language of the Congress in implementing these rules.

We decided to do it in a phased fashion, given the resources that

we had to move forward with. From my perspective, our folks out

there are very dedicated. The folks out there have done a good job

of trying to reach that goal.

Senator DOMENICI. So, you used it to maintain the quality of

your staff.

General FUHRMAN. The quality of the program, sir.

General BALLARD. Not only the quality of the program, but Senator, as you know, we had a tremendous backlog and so we used

quite a bit of that money to work the backlog off and to maintain

the quality of the staff.

LEVEL DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Senator DOMENICI. I have only three remaining questions and

they will not take long. General Ballard and General Fuhrman,

what is the level of deferred critical maintenance work in the civil

works program, and does it concern you? Can you give the committee an example of the type of work which falls into this category

of critical deferred maintenance and what the impacts would be on

project operations or efficiencies if this failed to occur?

General BALLARD. Sir, we are looking at a backlog of deferred

maintenance of about $1.6 billion. It is a concern of ours if we are

to maintain those critical infrastructures that we have out there.

This particular budget is a good budget and will put a curb to some

of that growth, but it does not address the fact that we still have

back there some $1.6 billion.
114

I would ask General Fuhrman to read you some of those examples.

General FUHRMAN. I will submit a summary for the record, Senator, but just a couple of examples, for instance, to replace two

miter gates at the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway. It is a $3 million

cost. Concrete repairs at one of our upper Mississippi River locks,

about $600,000. Repair structural elements at several of our other

locks, another $4.4 million.

[The information follows:]

Operation and Maintenance—Backlog of Deferred Maintenance

[Dollars in Thousands]

Work Category Estimate

Additional Operations And Investigations To Optimize Project Effectiveness ........................................................................................... $109,781

Construction And Maintenance Of Dredged Material Disposal Facilities For Navigation ....................................................................... 26,952

Dredging ................................................................................................. 294,850

Environmental Compliance ................................................................... 13,073

Maintenance and Development Of Recreation Facilities, Visitor

Centers, Operating Equipment, Etc ................................................. 190,023

Maintenance Of Dams, Reservoirs, Structures, Service Facilities,

Equipment, Etc.—Flood Damage Reduction .................................... 132,046

Maintenance of Hydropower Projects .................................................. 96,960

Maintenance Of Locks, Dams, Reservoirs, Service Facilities, Equipment, Etc. For Navigation ................................................................. 714,029

Maintenance Of Natural Resources Facilities Including Fish And

Wildlife ................................................................................................ 12,983

Mitigation Of Archeological And Cultural Resources ......................... 14,110

Real Estate Activities, Including Claims, Audits, Encroachments,

Etc ....................................................................................................... 22,421

Remaining O&M Funded Major Rehabilitations For Navigation ...... 252

Water Management Equipment ........................................................... 1,537

Total ............................................................................................. 1,629,017

PROJECT CONDITIONS

Senator DOMENICI. What is the condition that we are talking

about here that makes these critical? What is wrong?

General FUHRMAN. Very close to failing in the next several years,

and we need to get in and fix it now. It is not a safety issue right

now, but has the potential to be a safety issue in the very near

term.

General BALLARD. And we have similar problems, Senator, in

powerplants and all of the infrastructure that we own. As you

know, we have some structures that are well over 100 years old,

and they are in a sad state of repair and we need to do something

about it.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, let me tell you, every year when we go

through the individual budgets up here, I bite my lip and get more

and more concerned. The President of the United States goes on

national television and tells America how great we are and says I

need 81 new programs, and we have got a backlog of projects that

may fail on us causing significant economic impact to the country.

It seems like it is better to announce that you have got something

new for everyone than to do what you are obligated to do.

I cannot find $1.6 billion. I cannot find $300 million or $400 million to get it started. They did not give us enough of a budget, and
115

the Congress is not going to invent this money. It all comes out of

the same pot.

So, I wish I could remember these when I have to go debate and

talk about all these new programs. We could probably add up

things that line agencies of the Federal Government submitted as

projects they need, and it probably exceeds all the new money for

new programs. But just to repeat myself, it is not very politically

sexy to get up there and say we need $1.6 billion in the State of

the Union for water projects to fix locks and dams that are going

to fall apart.

You do not have anything to do with that. That is above your pay

grade too, except you can fight for it. I hope you did. Did you submit these requests for these deferred maintenance stuff in your

budget process?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, I did.

DAM SAFETY

Senator DOMENICI. Now, the same question that I asked with reference to dam structure safety of the Bureau of Reclamation. Can

you submit for the record a summary of what processes and procedures you used to end up being able to tell this committee, as I assume you will, that the dams that you are in control of and manage, et cetera are in good shape and there is no imminent danger,

unless it is something untoward, of failures? Can you submit that

to us in writing?

General FUHRMAN. Yes, we can, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Is that a true statement that you would answer in some way similar to what I just stated?

General FUHRMAN. Yes, sir. We have a very effective dam safety

program and consider it one of our most important pieces of business.

[The information follows:]

CORPS OF ENGINEERS DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

The Corps of Engineers has a very effective dam safety program and consider it

one of our most important pieces of business. The Army Corps of Engineers actively

manages our dams to ensure that the risks to the public are minimized. We have

no dams which are known to present an imminent danger to the public.

Our dam safety program was established and has been maintained to be in compliance with the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. We are an active member of

the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS)—a group of Federal officials

who exchange information and ideas on dam safety and work to foster interstate

cooperation; and the National Dam Safety Review Board—which provides a forum

to elevate dam safety issues of National importance.

Each Corps District has a senior engineering official designated as the Dam Safety Officer. It is the Dam Safety Officer’s responsibility to ensure the proper operation, maintenance, and funding for all of the dams under his or her control. Each

Dam Safety Officer has the proper technical expertise available either on staff, by

contract, or from other Corps Districts, to safely operate, maintain and assess our

dams.

Our formal programs which help us to ensure dam safety include the following:

Operations and Maintenance Program.—Under this program, we fund our day-today work on our dams, including smaller repairs and some emergency repairs. The

staff who operate and maintain our dams, are our everyday eyes and ears who keep

an eye on the condition and performance of their project. This program also funds

our monitoring instrumentation, which allows us to monitor and evaluate the performance and safety of our dams under all loading conditions and provides data on

project behavior for application to future evaluation and designs.
116

Formal Periodic Inspection Program.—Our PI program requires a thorough inspection and continuing technical evaluation of each dam on a 5-year cycle (or more

often). This program allows us to uncover problems with our structures that are not

readily apparent during day-to-day surveillance.

Dam Safety Assurance Program.—Our DSAP provides us with a mechanism to

evaluate and remediate dam safety concerns related to earthquakes, flood capacity,

and changes in the state-of-the-art. design and construction criteria.

Major Rehabilitation Program.—Under this program, we fund larger, long-duration construction projects which improve the long-term reliability or functionality of

a dam.

And finally, each dam which, due to its location, could pose a potential risk to

life or of serious property damage, has an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) which provides procedures to ensure that proper actions are taken during a highly unlikely

event of a dam safety situation beyond our control. An EAP includes procedures for

identifying and evaluating emergency situations, guidance for emergency operations

and potential repairs, and notification of affected parties concerning existing and potential emergencies.

In summary, we continue to make dam safety a priority in the Corps of Engineers. Our aging inventory of dams will require our continued commitment to uphold our dam safety obligation to the American people.

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM

Senator DOMENICI. Back to two things in my State. The Acequias

irrigation system, which is a very special historic system being preserved for both utilization and historic purposes. We expressed concerns about the progress being made in this irrigation system rehabilitation in my State. In addition, the committee expressed the expectation that the Corps would strengthen its communication and

coordination efforts with the State and local interests. What can

you report to the committee in this regard?

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, I think I will let General Fuhrman give you

the details, but I think we have made some really good progress

in this area.

Senator DOMENICI. General Fuhrman.

General FUHRMAN. As you remember, Senator, before we were

going at these piecemeal with requiring an annual supplement to

project cooperation agreements [PCA’s] between the Corps and the

State of New Mexico. I am happy to report that now we have

moved beyond that and have established programmatic PCA’s with

the State and we are in the process of initiating the programmatic

NEPA so that these projects can move forward under those umbrella agreements.

Senator DOMENICI. So, if that reaches fruition, that means we

will not be doing one project at a time with all the delays, but will

be qualifying a system.

General FUHRMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATION MODEL

The Upper Rio Grande water operations model in New Mexico.

The committee requested a report, in consultation with the Bureau,

on the progress and plans to complete the Upper Rio Grande water

operations model. What is the status of this report?

General FUHRMAN. That is scheduled for completion in fiscal year

2000. We are happy to report that the testing to date has been very

successful in that model. It is looking good.
117

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, we have some additional questions that you can answer for the record.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DOMENICI

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Question. Does the increased budget request of the fiscal year 1999 request reflect

a change in the Administration’s attitude toward your entire program or just parts

of it?

Answer. This budget request reflects the Administration’s concern for the preservation of the Nation’s infrastructure and environmental values. Further, it recognizes the importance of the Nation’s ports and harbors to America’s place in the

global economy.

Question. As and example, how does your budget request treat flood control and

inland navigation waterway projects compared to last year? How much more would

these projects cost the taxpayer based on the budgeted completion schedules than

they would if funded at an efficient rate or schedule?

Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for flood control and inland navigation projects is substantially better than last year although it does not fund these

projects at optimum schedules. For fiscal year 1999, the budget request for flood

control and inland navigation projects was $497,000,000; for fiscal year 2000, the

budget request for these projects totals $785,000,000. It is not possible to conduct

a definitive analysis of the delay costs because so many assumptions about the future are required, and many of these decisions have not yet been made. Let it suffice to say there are costs associated with inflation and costs associated with inefficiencies.

Question. General Ballard, how are completion schedules impacted based on the

budget request compared to the Corps’ most efficient schedule?

Answer. Generally, 28 port development projects and activities are funded to meet

optimum completion schedules in accordance with the proposed Harbor Services

User Fee which will cover all construction costs. Amounts for 165 flood damage reduction, inland waterways, and shore protection projects and activities which rely

on general tax revenues to finance their construction costs are constrained to a level

that is about two-thirds of what is needed to maintain optimum completion schedules. In addition, 9 high priority projects for mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and

other purposes are funded to meet optimum completion schedules. Specifically, completion dates for 136 projects and activities would be unchanged from the fiscal year

2000 budget and completion dates for 66 projects and activities would be moved up

if projects and activities were funded on their most efficient schedules. The average

change in the completion dates for affected projects would be 5 months.

Question. What was your request to OMB for the construction program, and generally, how would completion schedules be impacted if projects were funded at the

level requested of OMB?

Answer. The Army recommended a fiscal year 2000 construction program to OMB

that totaled $1.815 billion. This program was based on completing projects on their

most efficient schedules and the impacts would be the same those noted previously.

This amount was later reduced to $1.725 billion after enactment of appropriations

for fiscal year 1999.

Question. Dr. Westphal, you have indicated that ‘‘ * * * the plan is to stabilize

the Civil Works budget in the future’’ by reducing the General Investigations program of the Corps of Engineers. You have also correctly noted that the study program is the pipeline that feeds the Corps’ construction effort. What do you mean

by ‘‘stabilize’’ the Corps’ budget? Given past history with substantially underfunded

budget requests, why isn’t this another effort to put the Corps of Engineers out of

business by turning off the ‘‘spigot’’ of work that feed the construction program?

Answer. There is a large buildup of ongoing work in this part of the Corps program. When you compare the eventual large, future construction requirements that

these projects will incur with the tight budgetary ceilings that we are subject to in

the outyears, it is prudent to slow down continuing projects and severely limit the

number of new starts in the General Investigations account, for the time being. The

nationwide activities such as the floodplain management, planning assistance and
118

international water study efforts, provide for important, grass roots level support for

helping local areas with their water resource problems and, therefore, were generally kept at the fiscal year 1999 appropriations level funding.

Question. Dr. Westphal, in a recent statement before the Water Resources Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee you said,

‘‘Once the backlog of costly projects is worked down somewhat, then we expect to

resume funding for studies at a higher level.’’ Now this sound strangely similar to

statements a few years back related to the Bureau of Reclamation’s program, when

the Secretary of the Interior indicated that new construction work would be suspended for a few years in order to work off some of their backlog and then resume

funding at higher levels. Yet, we never seemed to get back to some of the traditional

work of the Bureau, but have now gotten heavily involved in environmental enhancement and other work that is not part of the Reclamation mission. What can

you tell this subcommittee that will lessen our concerns about the future of the

Corps’ Civil Works program, realizing that you and the current Administration will

not be around if the Corps program is adversely impacted by this approach?

Answer. My plan is definitely not to go out of the design and construction business. The Corps Civil Works mission is very much in the business of addressing,

evaluating and solving the nations water resource infrastructure problems. But this

year is still a difficult one from the standpoint of the current budgetary situation

and choices must be made. Consequently, while the program presented is a good

one, particularly from the Operation & Maintenance and construction standpoint,

including 20 new construction starts, this is achieved by holding back on several

items, one of which is General Investigations and the outyear commitments that it

can create. We need a pause in the study program in order to put a sizeable dent

in the number of projects currently in the construction pipeline. I hope, if all goes

well with the Corps program in 2000 as well as with the economy and the budget

in general, that we can resume a higher new start program in the outyears.

HARBOR SERVICES FUND

Question. A key component of the President’s Budget is a legislative proposal to

replace the existing Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund with a New Harbor Services

Fund which would fund the annual maintenance and construction requirements for

deep draft harbors around the country. While maintenance has been accomplished

through this sort of financing for many years, expanding the program to include

construction is a step which creates some inequities and imbalances in the overall

water resources program nationwide.

For example, the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Corps of Engineers would ‘‘fully

fund’’ the annual needs for deepening deep draft harbors at the expense of other

activities which again are underfunded and have completion schedules that are

stretched out.

Dr. Westphal, what is the rationale for extending the availability of the Harbor

Services Fund to include construction of deeper navigation channels? Why wasn’t

construction authority provided as part of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?

What is wrong with the present way funding is provided through the general fund

of the Treasury for deepening projects? What would be the impact if this financing

mechanism was not approved?

Answer. The Harbor Services Fund would provide the funds necessary to pursue

improvements of deep draft ports and channels at the optimum level, that is, with

no delays due to funding constraints. This translates into more work accomplished

in less time. The revenue targets for the Harbor Services User Fee were calculated

to allow this to happen without the accrual of large surpluses. Who are the winners?

The ports, the shippers, the economy.

Extending the authority of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to include construction would not be productive. The Supreme Court ruled the Harbor Maintenance Tax unconstitutional on exports in March 1998. The tax is still being collected

on imports and domestic goods. However, a replacement needs to be addressed in

a timely manner since the tax on imports is under scrutiny as the European Union

claims that it violates articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT). While the Administration wants to abolish the tax, it also wants to offer

an alternative, equitable funding mechanism at the same time. That mechanism is

the proposed Harbor Services User Fee.

The realities of the Federal Budget process necessitate looking for innovative, equitable ways to ensure funds are available to produce the navigation benefits that

accrue to ports and shippers. It is good for the Nation’s business to get navigation

benefits on line as quickly as we can and at the least cost possible. To do this, a

funding source other than the General Fund is needed. The Harbor Services User
119

Fee will ensure the Army has the resources necessary to meet the growing demands

of the Nation’s ports.

Because the collection of the Harbor Services User Fee will be credited to the Operation and Maintenance, General, and Construction, General, accounts as offsetting

receipts, the lack of the fee would constrain obligation authority within the discretionary caps of the Budget Enforcement Act. Under such a constrained program,

project work likely would not be funded at capability levels, which is what the use

of the Harbor Services Fund would do. The greatest impacts would be in the construction program as project schedules would have to be stretched out over time in

order to keep total budget authority within the discretionary ceilings of the Budget

Enforcement Act.

Question. Since the Nation as a whole benefits from a sound system of ports and

channels, why should the cost of building and maintaining them be placed solely

on shippers?

Answer. While it is true that the Nation’s economy benefits from a healthy port

system, it is also true that our economy allows individuals to profit from their industries. User fees charged by the Federal Government, for whatever reason, are

based on the long-established principle that those who benefit from a governmentprovided service may be required to help pay for it. Vessel owners and operators

are the beneficiaries of the port improvement, operation and maintenance activities

of the Federal Government. They are good at what they do and profit from it. Therefore, it is only fitting that they contribute financially to a developed, reliable, safe

U.S. port system.

Another reason for a Harbor Services User Fee addresses an even more basic economic issue: the allocation of scarce resources. The realities of the Federal Budget

process necessitate looking for innovative, equitable ways to ensure funds are available to produce the navigation benefits that accrue to shippers. It is also good business practice to get benefits on line as quickly as we can and at the least cost possible. To do this, a funding source other than the General Fund is needed. The Harbor Services User Fee will ensure the Army has the resources necessary to meet

the growing demands of the Nation’s ports.

Question. Is there general agreement and support within the shipping community

with the approach of the Administration has put forth related to the Harbor Services Fund?

Answer. I believe they are still thinking very hard about the proposal. The shippers would pay the users fee and the ports are concerned about competitiveness.

Last year, I conducted several outreach sessions with port representatives and listened carefully to their concerns. We have been working the key issues very hard

to draft a proposal which reaps navigation benefits without placing an unreasonable

financial burden on the shippers.

Question. General Ballard, do you perceive any problems with financing the construction deepening of ports through this type of arrangement? Do you think that

this approach will adversely impact the construction program? How about the fiscal

year 2000 budget request, are there any impacts as a result of this proposal, in your

judgement?

Answer. I do not see a problem with financing port deepening construction

projects from the Harbor Services Fund if legislation is enacted to allow this arrangement. It will be similar to the manner in which port maintenance requirements have been met in prior years, and will provide a reliable funding source so

that port deepening projects could proceed on their most efficient construction

schedules. However, non-Federal sponsors of other types of projects will very likely

not be pleased with this proposal because most other projects which rely on general

tax revenues to finance their construction will proceed on constrained schedules.

This situation has created two groups projects that are treated differently from one

another in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. It may adversely impact the construction program as the groups compete for scarce resources.

Question. Have any projects had to be delayed or under-funded in order to accommodate the port deepening construction? What will these delays mean in terms of

increased costs and delayed benefits?

Answer. As I indicated previously, 28 port development projects and activities

that would be funded from the Harbor Services Fund are included in the fiscal year

2000 budget request to meet optimum completion schedules. Amounts for 165 flood

damage reduction, inland waterways, and shore protection projects and activities

which rely on general tax revenues to finance their construction costs are constrained to a level that is about two-thirds of what is needed to maintain optimum

completion schedules. In addition, 9 high priority projects for mitigation, ecosystem

restoration, and other purposes are funded to meet optimum completion schedules.

It is not possible to conduct a definitive analysis of the delay costs and delayed ben-
120

efits because so many assumptions about the future are required, and many of these

decisions have not yet been made. Let it suffice to say there are costs associated

with inflation, costs associated with inefficiencies, and costs associated with forgone

benefits.

FULLY FUNDED PROJECTS BUDGETED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

Question. General Ballard, could you provide for the record a list of all projects

that are included in the budget which are ‘‘fully funded’’ at or near the optimum

rate for fiscal year 2000?

Answer. Yes, I will provide such a list for the record.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 ‘‘FULLY FUNDED’’ CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL PROJECTS

[In thousands of dollars]

DIV ST PROJECT 2000

BUDGET

PO ........ AK ........ CHIGNIK AK .................................................................................................... 4,357

PO ........ AK ........ COOK INLET, AK ............................................................................................. 500

PO ........ AK ........ KAKE HARBOR, AK ......................................................................................... 2,568

PO ........ AK ........ ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK ................................................................................... 500

SA ........ AL ........ MOBILE HARBOR, AL ...................................................................................... 700

SP ........ CA ........ GUADALUPE RIVER, CA .................................................................................. 5,000

SP ........ CA ........ HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ................................................................ 3,200

SP ........ CA ........ LOS ANGELES HARBOR CA ............................................................................ 9,785

SP ........ CA ........ SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ....................................................................... 4,960

SA ........ FL ........ CANAVERAL HARBOR DEEPENING, FL ............................................................ 830

SA ........ FL ........ CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................... 2,750

SA ........ FL ........ CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ......................................................... 52,300

SA ........ FL ........ EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ............. 21,100

SA ........ FL ........ KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL .................................................................................... 39,800

SA ........ FL ........ MANATEE HARBOR, FL ................................................................................... 4,700

SA ........ FL ........ MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL ........................................................................ 15,000

PO ........ HI ......... KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ................................................... 75

PO ........ HI ......... MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI ......................................................................... 272

LR ........ IL ......... CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL ................................................................................ 7,629

MV ....... LA ........ PORT FOURCHON, LA ..................................................................................... 2,184

NA ........ MA ....... BOSTON HARBOR, MA .................................................................................... 1,000

NA ........ MD ....... BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (BREWERTON CHANNEL), MD ............ 9,578

SA ........ MS ....... PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ............................................................................ 7,792

SA ........ NC ....... WILMINGTON HARBOR NC .............................................................................. 18,300

MV ....... ND ....... DEVILS LAKE ND ............................................................................................ 10,000

NA ........ NJ ........ DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA & DE ........................................... 16,500

NA ........ NJ ........ NEW YORK HARBOR & ADJACENT CHNLS, PORT JERSEY CHNL, NJ .............. 2,000

NA ........ NY ........ KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY & NJ ................................ 60,000

NA ........ PA ........ WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) ........................................................ 20,000

SA ........ PR ........ SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR .................................................................................. 8,000

SA ........ SC ........ CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ............................................................................ 37,284

SW ....... TX ........ CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ............................................................................ 8,700

SW ....... TX ........ HOUSTON—GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS TX ..................................... 60,000

NA ........ VA ........ NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA ................................... 550

NW ....... WA ....... COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID ........................................ 100,000

XX ........ XX ........ DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM .................................. 20,000

XX ........ XX ........ RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ...... 25,000

FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONSTRUCTION CAPABILITIES

Question. Also, could you provide for the record a list which shows the Corp’s construction capability, how the funds would be used, and how much the schedule could

be advanced with the additional funding?

Answer. Yes, I will provide the requested list for the record.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

ALABAMA:

AL 1 BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, VICINITY OF

JACKSON, AL.

(N) 18,900 3,000 (C) 3,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

AL 1 MOBILE HARBOR, AL .......................................................... (N) 305,568 700 (C) 700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................AL 2GA 2

WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL & GA

(MAJOR REHAB).

(MP) 37,000 750 (MR) 750 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

AL 2GA 2

WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL & GA (MAJOR

REHAB).

(MP) 30,800 3,600 (MR) 3,600 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

ALASKA:

ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AK ............... (E) 25,000 (C) 13,911 (C) COMPLETE BUCKLAND CONSTRUCTION .................................

INITIATE NOME CONSTRUCTION ............................................NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC

AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

AK AL BETHEL BANK STABILIZATION, AK ...................................... (FC) 1 18,031 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK ........................................................ (N) 1 5,589 4,357 (C) 4,357 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

AK AL COOK INLET, AK ................................................................. (N) 1 9,450 500 (C) 2,178 (C) ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION BY 1 YEAR ..................................AK AL DILLINGHAM EMERGENCY BANK STABILIZATION, AK ......... (FC) 1 3,277 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC

AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

AK AL HOMER SPIT STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK ................. (FC) 1 6,600 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................AK AL KAKE HARBOR, AK ............................................................. (N) 1 18,000 2,568 (C) 2,568 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.

ST PAUL HARBOR, AK ........................................................ (N) 1 14,349 500 (C) 2,500 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT # 1 BY 6 MO AND

INITIATE CONTRACT # 2.

ARIZONA:

AZ 6 CLIFTON, AZ ....................................................................... (FC) 1 16,100 645 (C) 645 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ..............................................................AZ 2, 5 NOGALES WASH, AZ ........................................................... (FC) 1 523 (C) 180 (C) CONSTRUCT FLOODWARNING SYSTEM ..................................AZ 2, 5 RILLITO RIVER, AZ ............................................................. (FC) 1 28,600 (C) 2,643 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ..............................................................

ARKANSAS:

AR 2 ARKANSAS RIVER, TUCKER CREEK, AR ............................. (FC) 1 418 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................AR 2, 3 DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR

REHAB).

(MP) 1 29,700 11,964 (MR) 11,964 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

AR 1, 2, 3,4OK 2, 3

MCCLELLAN—KERR ...........................................................ARKANSAS RIVER ...............................................................NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR & OK .........................................

(N) 1 632,500 3,080 (C) 3,500 (C) CONTINUE EVALUATION STUDIES OF CUT-OFF STRUCTURE

EROSION.

AR 1, 4 MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR ........................ (N) 1 242,000 20,000 (C) 45,000 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF PROJECT ONE YEAR ...................AR 4LA 3, 4, 5

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA .......................... (N) 1 261,000 (C) (C) LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION .............................................

AR 3 OZARK (POWERHOUSE), AR (MAJOR REHAB) ..................... (MP) 44,700 (MR) 500 (MR) INITIATE REDESIGN OF EXISTING FIVE TURBINES .................AR 2, 4 PLUM BAYOU LEVEE SYSTEM, ARKANSAS ......................... (FC) 1,700 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT. .................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW RIVER LEVEES, AR

OF THIS PROJECT HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/ORPOLICY CONCERNS.

AR 3, 4,LA 4

RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR & LA ..... (N) 1 120,262 (C) 4,000 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FOR BLACK LAKE

PLEASANT VALLEY AND HUNTERS ISLAND.

INITIATE DESIGN BOIS D’ARC REVETMENT ...........................CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT REVETMENT ..........................NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

CALIFORNIA:

CA 3, 4, 511

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (NATOMAS), CA ................. (FC) 1 28,510 4,000 (C) 4,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

CA 3, 4, 511

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA .................................... (FC) 1 47,600 17,000 (C) 17,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

CA 3 CACHE CREEK SETTLING BASIN, CA .................................. (FC) 1 15,740 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................CA 6 CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA ............................................... (FC) 21,700 500 (C) 500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................CA 13,15,16 COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA ............................. (FC) 1 55,735 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............CA 1 CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA ............................................ (N) 1,446 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................CA 15,16 GUADALUPE RIVER, CA ...................................................... (FC) 1 78,500 5,000 (C) 5,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................CA 1 HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA .................................... (N) 12,300 3,200 (C) 3,200 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ..............................................................
123

CA 21, 22,23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28,29, 30, 31,32, 33, 34,37, 38, 39,42

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ..................... (FC) 1 150,000 30,000 (C) 50,000 (C) INITIATE RELOCATION OF UPRR-COMPTON CREEK BRIDGE ...

ADVANCE COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS ................................

20,000

1CA 32, 36,38, 42

LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA ............................................... (N) 1 116,200 9,785 (C) 9,785 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

CA 2, 3, 5,7, 11

LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION,

CA.

(FC) 1 4,660 2,317 (C) 2,317 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ............................................................... ................

CA 2, 3 MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA ..... (FC) 1 32,260 300 (C) 300 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ............................................................... ................CA 18, 19 MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ........................................ (FC) 1 91,800 500 (C) 500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................CA 2, 3, 5,7, 11

MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA .............. (FC) 1 14,900 4,000 (C) 4,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

CA 1 NAPA RIVER, CA ................................................................. (FC) 91,000 4,500 (C) 4,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................CA 4, 11,18

NEW MELONES LAKE, CA ................................................... (MP) 1 402,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

CA 43 NORCO BLUFFS, SANTA ANA RIVER, CA ............................ (FC) 5,580 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................CA 36, 38 PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING), CA .......................... (N) 1 19,800 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................CA 2, 3, 5,7, 11

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA ..... (FC) 1 179,900 7,000 (C) 7,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

CA 3 SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA ...... (N) 1 24,900 (C) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL INTERESTS ARE

UNAVAILABLE.

CA 2, 3, 5,7, 11

SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CA (DEF

CORR).

(FC) 1 76,322 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

CA 2, 3 SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA. (FC) 1 16,550 3,000 (C) 6,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 6 MONTHS ......................... ................CA 3, 5 SACRAMENTO URBAN AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION,

CA.

(FC) 1 28,215 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

CA 3, 7, 10,11

SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA ........................... (N) 1 172,250 (C) (C) LACK OF ADEQUATE LOCAL SUPPORT .................................... ................

CA 15, 17 SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA .................................................. (FC) 1 13,230 4,800 (C) 4,800 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................CA 48 SAN LUIS REY RIVER, CA .................................................. (FC) 1 61,100 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................CA 39, 40,41, 42, 43,44, 45, 46,47

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ..................................... (FC) 1 896,000 20,000 (C) 28,000 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION PRADO DAM ...................................

INITIATE K-RAT MITIGATION ....................................................

5,000

3,000

8,000
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

CA 22 SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ........................................... (N) 1 5,360 4,960 (C) 4,960 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................CA 29 SANTA MONICA BREAKWATER, CA ..................................... (N) 1 4,660 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................CA 23 ANTA PAULA CREEK, CA .................................................... (FC) 1 36,000 14,800 (C) 16,195 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ..............................................................CA 49 SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, IMPERIAL BEACH, CA .......... (BE) 15,300 (C) 351 (C) COMPLETE GRR .....................................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.

CA 20 SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) ............... (FC) 30,900 1,250 (DS) 1,250 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................CA 45, 47 SURFSIDE—SUNSET—NEWPORT BEACH, CA .................... (BE) 43,200 (C) 400 (C) INITIATE ENGINEERING & DESIGN FOR PERIODIC NOURISHMENT. CA 2, 3 UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION,

CA.

(FC) 5 5,640 3,055 (C) 3,055 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ..............................................................

CA 10 WALNUT CREEK, CA ........................................................... (FC) 1 71,930 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................CA 3 WEST SACRAMENTO, CA .................................................... (FC) 1 24,700 7,700 (C) 7,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................CA 7 WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO CREEKS, CA ............................. (FC) 1 20,200 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................CA 3 YOLO BASIN WETLANDS, SACRAMENTO RIVER, CA ........... (E) 1 12,145 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

COLORADO:

CO 3 ALAMOSA, CO ..................................................................... (FC) 1 5,552 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

CONNECTICUT:

CT 3 FAULKNERS ISLAND, CT ..................................................... (FC) 4,500 (C) 582 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ..............................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

DELAWARE:

DE AL DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE .................................. (BE) 1 11,800 259 (C) 259 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................DE AL DELAWARE COAST-REHOBOTH TO DEWEY BCH, DE .......... (BE) 46,090 (C) 325 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF

THIS PROJECT HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206 .......... 49,000 4,500 (C) 6,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .........................................................AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL .................................................. 32,000 3,000 (C) 5,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .........................................................BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 103 ....... 27,600 2,500 (C) 4,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .........................................................BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION

204).

10,200 1,000 (C) 2,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .........................................................

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM ...... 248,255 20,000 (C) 20,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................
125

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 14). 100,000 8,500 (C) 13,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .......................................................... ................EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION .............................................. 214,197 19,554 (C) 19,554 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) ...................... 295,500 26,900 (C) 35,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .......................................................... ................INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE .. 750 45 (C) 45 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ... 2,220 185 (C) 185 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES (SECTION 111) ............. 5,100 500 (C) 500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

(SECTION 1135).

126,475 8,500 (C) 12,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .......................................................... ................

NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) .............................. 52,509 4,500 (C) 7,000 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .......................................................... ................RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD

MITIGATION.

925,000 25,000 (C) 25,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS (SECTION 208) ....... 1,100 100 (C) 500 (C) FULLY FUND PROGRAM .......................................................... ................

FLORIDA:

FL 15 BREVARD COUNTY, FL ....................................................... (BE) 154,000 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE NOURISHMENT ..........................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.

................

FL 11, 15 CANAVERAL HARBOR DEEPENING, FL ................................ (N) 6,600 830 (C) 830 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................FL 11, 15 CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ................................................... (N) 124,470 2,750 (C) 2,750 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................FL 13 CEDAR HAMMOCK (WARES CREEK) ................................... (FC) 11,600 (C) 238 (C) INITIATE PROJECT ................................................................... ................FL 5, 6, 8,10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15,16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21,22, 23

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ............................. (FC) 2,586,300 52,300 (C) 52,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

FL 18, 22 DADE COUNTY, FL .............................................................. (BE) 163,300 2,000 (C) 4,000 (C) COMPLETE RENOURISHMENT OF BAL HARBOUR, AWARD

TEST BEACH FILL CONTRACT.

................

FL 7, 8, 12,14, 16, 17,18, 19, 20,21, 22

EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL. (E) 75,000 21,100 (C) 21,100 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT. ............................................. ................

FL 12 FORT PIERCE BEACH, FLO ................................................. (BE) 28,000 (C) 500 (C) CONTINU PROJECT ..................................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.

................

FL 11 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FL ................................................. (BE) .................... (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................FL 3, 4, 11,12, 14, 15,16, 17, 18,19, 22, 23

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL ..... (N) 1,085 (C) 400 (C) INITIATE PROJECT ................................................................... ................
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

AL 2FL 2GA 2

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL & GA

(MAJOR REHAB).

(MP) 35,600 6,000 (MR) 6,000 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

FL 5, 8, 10,11,12,15, 16

KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL ........................................................ (E) 243,500 39,800 (C) 39,800 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

FL 22 LAKE WORTH INLET SAND TRANSFER PLANT ..................... (N) 4,500 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE PROJECT ..................................................................FL 14 LEE COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSEMENT) ................................. (BE) 8,900 (C) 185 (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............FL 13 MANATEE HARBOR, FL ....................................................... (N) 19,885 4,700 (C) 4,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................FL 10, 12,16

MARTIN COUNTY, FL .......................................................... (BE) 25,600 (C) 213 (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

FL 18, 22 MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL ............................................ (N) 47,566 15,000 (C) 15,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................FL 4 PALM VALLEY BRIDGE, FL .................................................. (N) 18,700 3,000 (C) 5,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 1 YEAR .............................FL 1 PANAMA CITY BEACHES, FL ............................................... (BE) 22,905 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS.FL 8, 9 PINELLAS COUNTY, FL ........................................................ (BE) 144,600 2,000 (C) 3,476 (C) RENOURISH SAND KEY & TREASURE ISLAND .......................FL 4 ST. JOHNS COUNTY (ST. AUGUSTINE BEACHES), FL .......... (BE) 153,400 (C) 300 (C) COMPLETE DESIGN ................................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.

FL 11 TAMPA HARBOR—BIG BEND ............................................. (N) 6,932 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE PROJECT ..................................................................

GEORGIA:

GA 9 BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB) ..................... (MP) 32,900 3,650 (MR) 3,650 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................GA 11SC 3

HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA & SC (MAJOR

REHAB).

(MP) 1 20,800 1,500 (MR) 1,500 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

GA 1SC 2

LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA & SC ....................... (N) 1 3,196 (C) 200 (C) INITIATE PROJECT ..................................................................

GA 10SC 3

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ............... (MP) 1 618,100 8,500 (C) 8,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

GA 10SC 3

THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA & SC (MAJOR

REHAB).

(MP) 1 69,700 8,000 (MR) 8,000 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

GA 1 TYBEE ISLAND, GA ............................................................. (BE) 1 17,244 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

HAWAII:

HI 2 IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR) ...... (FC) 1 14,297 219 (C) 340 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

BY 6 MONTHS.

HI 2 KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ....................... (N) 1 4,997 75 (C) 75 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................
127

HI 2 MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI ............................................. (N) 1 11,329 272 (C) 272 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

ILLINOIS:

IL 12, 20MO 8

ALTON TO GALE ORGANIZED LEVEE DISTRICT, IL & MO

(DEF CORR).

(FC) 109,018 (C) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL INTERESTS ARE

UNLIKELY.

................

IL 12 CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF

CORR).

(N) 1 24,500 1,600 (C) 2,200 (C) COMPLETE PLACEMENT OF RIPRAP IN IN DRAINAGE DITCH

ADVANCES PROJECT COMPLETION BY THREE MONTHS.

600

IL 13 CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL. (E) 1 2,000 100 (C) 600 (C) COMPLETE DESIGN AND INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE II. 500IL 1, 2, 5,7, 9

CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL .................................................... (BE) 1 169,100 7,629 (C) 18,629 (C) ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION REACH 2 (IRVING TO BELMONT) ..

ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION REACH 4 (I–55 TO 30TH

ST).

ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION REACH 4 (33RD ST TO 37TH ST)INITIATE CONSTRUCTION REACH 4 (37TH ST TO 43RD ST) ..CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ...............................................

2,000

1,300

4,0003,000

700

11,000

IL 8, 10, 12 DES PLAINES WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, IL ... (FC) 1 2,200 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................IL 12 EAST ST LOUIS & VICINITY (INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL),

IL.

(FC) 1,369 (C) 488 (C) COMPLETE GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT .......................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

488

IL 12 EAST ST LOUIS, IL .............................................................. (FC) 1 32,335 2,000 (C) 2,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................IL 20MO 9

LOCK AND DAM 24 PART 1, MISS RIVER, IL & MO

(MAJOR REHAB).

(N) 1 25,000 3,844 (MR) 3,844 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

IL 20MO 9

LOCK AND DAM 24 PART 2, MISS RIVER, IL & MO

(MAJOR REHAB).

(N) 1 38,400 1,200 (MR) 1,200 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

IL 20MO 9

LOCK AND DAM 25, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL & MO (MAJOR

REHAB).

(N) 1 25,900 4,456 (MR) 4,456 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

IL 16 LOVES PARK, IL .................................................................. (FC) 1 22,500 3,888 (C) 3,888 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................IL 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10, 13

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ........................ (FC) 1 490,000 2,500 (C) 4,500 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

SYSTEM.

................

IL 12, 20MO 2

MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL &

MO.

(N) 1 740,700 2,900 (C) 4,000 (C) ADVANCE CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FACILITIES BY

36 MONTHS SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF 215 AGREEMENT.

1,100

IL 12, 20MO 2

MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, SECOND LOCK, IL & MO (N) 1 215,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

IL 9, 10, 11 NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER, IL ................................. (FC) 1 21,735 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................IL 3, 5, 6,8, 9,10, 13

O’HARE RESERVOIR, IL ...................................................... (FC) 1 31,377 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

IL 19KY 1

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY ............ (N) 1 1,020,000 28,634 (C) 51,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS ................

IA 1, 2, 3,4, 5IL 16, 17,18, 20MN 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6MO 1, 2, 4,6, 8, 9WI 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9

UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA,

MO, MN & WI.

(E) 1 242,862 18,955 (C) 18,955 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

INDIANA:

IN 4 FORT WAYNE METROPOLITAN AREA, IN ............................. (FC) 1 37,021 4,000 (C) 4,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................IN 1 INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, IN ..................................... (BE) 1 184,000 (C) 40 (C) CONTINUE MONITORING PROGRAM .......................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

IN 9, 10 INDIANAPOLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, WHITE RIVER, IN .. (FC) 1 39,975 (C) 10,991 (C) CONTINUE PROJECT ...............................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

IN 6, 7, 10 INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN ......................... (FC) 1 11,837 (C) 1,588 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION .......................................................IN 1 LAKE GEORGE, HOBART, IN ............................................... (FC) 16,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............IN 1 LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ................................................ (FC) 1 131,618 3,900 (C) 9,400 (C) ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION ON STAGE IV–1 ...........................

COMPLETE BURR STREET LEVEE ..........................................INITIATE PUMP STATION 1A ...................................................CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ..............................................

IN 8, 9 NEW HARMONY, IN ............................................................. (FC) 1 2,455 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
129

IN 9 OHIO RIVER (GREENWAY CORRIDOR), IN .......................... (N) 1 18,000 (C) 500 (C) INITIATE PROJECT ...................................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

500

IN 8, 9 OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION, IN ................................. (FC) 1 4,378 (C) 1,318 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ...............................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

1,318

IN 8, 9 PATOKA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB) ..................................... (FC) 1 7,200 2,000 (MR) 3,500 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION THREE MONTHS ................. 1,500

IOWA:

IA 3, 4, 5 DES MOINES RECREATION RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA ..... (FC) 1 28,000 (C) 6,600 (C) AWARD LUMP-SUM CONTRACT FOR RED ROCK TRAILS, SEG

IVB;.

CONTINUE P,E&D FOR 11 PROJECTS; ....................................CONTINUE SUPERVISON AND INSPECTION .............................CONTINUE PROGRAM MGT. AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES.NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

4,550

1,430

370250

6,600

LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR

REHAB).

(N) 1 15,500 2,600 (MR) 2,600 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

IA 1IL 17

LOCK AND DAM 14, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR

REHAB).

(N) 1 20,000 4,092 (MR) 4,092 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

IA 4, 5KS 2, 3MO 1, 2, 4,5, 6, 9NE 1, 2, 3

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE,

KS & MO.

(E) 1 81,400 5,000 (C) 10,000 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AT VARIOUS

SITES BY SIX MONTHS. ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETIONBY SIX MONTHS.

................

IA 4, 5KS 2, 3MO 1, 2, 4,5, 6, 9NE 1, 2, 3

MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS & MO .......... (FC) 1 139,193 3,000 (C) 3,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

IA 1 MUSCATINE ISLAND, IA ...................................................... (FC) 1 6,820 2,500 (C) 2,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................IA 5 PERRY CREEK, IA ............................................................... (FC) 1 42,580 9,500 (C) 9,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................IA 3, 4 RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ........................ (FC) 1 44,500 (C) 400 (C) CONTINUE REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES .................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

400

IA 4 WEST DES MOINES, DES MOINES, IA ................................. (FC) 1 12,996 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

KANSAS:

KS 4 ARKANSAS CITY, KS ........................................................... (FC) 1 27,400 4,300 (C) 4,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

KS 4 WINFIELD, KS ..................................................................... (FC) 1 6,600 154 (C) 154 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

KENTUCKY:

KY 1TN 7, 8

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ................... (MP) 1 159,799 1,450 (C) 2,750 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 12 MONTHS ......................

KY 5 DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY) ........................................ (FC) 1 13,700 2,500 (DS) 4,900 (DS) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS ................AL 4, 5KY 1, 5MS 1TN 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY .......... (N) 1 533,000 7,750 (C) 15,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 9 MONTHS ........................

IN 9KY 3

MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & IN .......... (N) 1 268,000 2,800 (C) 10,800 (C) ADVANCE AWARD OF PHASE I LOCK CONSTRUCTION 24

MONTHS; AWARD BOAT MOORING CONTRACT; ADVANCEPROJECT COMPLETION BY 24 MONTHS.

KY 3, 4 METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY .................. (FC) 1 12,115 3,251 (C) 3,251 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................KY 5 SALYERSVILLE, KY .............................................................. (FC) 1 8,630 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................KY 4, 5 SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY ................................ (E) 1 10,000 (C) 2,000 (C) INCREASE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM ..........KY 2, 6 TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY .................................................... (FC) 1 92,980 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED EXCEPT FOR UNPROGRAMMED RECREATION

FACILITIES.

LOUISIANA:

LA 5, 6 ALOHA—RIGOLETTE, LA ..................................................... (FC) 1 7,078 581 (C) 581 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................LA 1, 4, 6 COMITE RIVER, LA ............................................................. (FC) 1 82,700 4,000 (C) 4,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................LA 3 GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA .......................................... (FC) 1 36,547 (C) (C) ENGINEERING AND DESIGN WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE

FUNDS.

LA 1, 2, 3 INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA .................. (N) 1 533,000 13,000 (C) 15,900 (C) INITIATE DEMOLITION OF EASTSIDE BUSINESS .....................

ADVANCE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ...................................
131

LA 1, 2, 3 LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE

PROTECTION).

(FC) 1 520,000 11,887 (C) 27,046 (C) PARALLEL PROTECTION:

COMPLETE LONDON, SIMON–LONDON ...............................COMPLETE GENTILLY .........................................................COMPLETE ORLEANS, PHASE 1C .......................................COMPLETE LONDON PUMPING STATION # 4 ......................COMPLETE LONDON PUMPING STATION # 3 ......................INITIATE ORLEANS PHASE 1B LEE & LONDON ..................INITIATE MIRABEAU AND FILMORE ....................................CONTINUE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGMENT.NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECTHAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

151

383

1,2003,320

6,150

100

2,516

1,339

15,159

LA 1, 2 LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN STORMWATER DISCHARGE, LA ...... (E) 1 22,800 (C) 500 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ...............................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

LA 2, 3 LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION). (FC) 1 80,000 2,000 (C) 2,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................LA 1, 2, 3,4, 6

MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON

ROUGE, LA.

(N) 1 171,000 1,500 (C) 1,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

LA 1, 2, 3 NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION). (FC) 1 171,000 1,400 (C) 2,000 (C) ADVANCE INITIATION OF ONE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BY 12 MONTHS. 600LA 4, 5, 6 OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA ............................................ (FC) 29,500 (C) 3,300 (C) INITIATE CONTINUING CONTRACTS FOR LEVEE ITEM 2,

GRAVEL SURFACING FOR MONROE TO SANDY BAYOUAND INITIATE P&S FOR ITEM 3.

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATIOIN’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

3,300

LA 3 PORT FOURCHON, LA ......................................................... (N) 2,557 2,184 (C) 2,184 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ............................................................... ................AR 3, 4LA 4, 5TX 1

RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR & TX .............. (FC) 1 83,069 (C) 600 (C) INITIATE CONTINUING CONTRACTS TO CONSTRUCT LEVEE

ITEMS 5 & 9A.

INITIATE DESIGN OF LEVEE ITEM 6 ........................................CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ...............................................NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

400

100

100

600
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

LA 4, 5, 6 RED RIVER WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, LA. (N) 1,895,691 21,113 (C) 23,613 (C) ACCELERATE INITIATION: COGNAC REINFORCEMENT DIKES .....................................

POISSON ACS ....................................................................CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT .........................................

LA 1, 2 SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA ................................................ (FC) 1 374,000 47,066 (C) 100,000 (C) JEFFERSON PARISH:

COMPLETE 17 CONTRACTS ...............................................CONTINUE 7 CONTRACTS ..................................................ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ...............................................SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION ................................

ORLEANS PARISH:

COMPLETE 2 CONTRACTS .................................................CONTINUE 4 CONTRACTS ..................................................SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION ................................
133

LA 1, 2, 3 WEST BANK VICINITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LA ..................... (FC) 192,000 7,000 (C) 15,070 (C) WESTWEGO TO HARVEY CANAL AREA:

ADVANCE INITIATION OF REACH 3 STRUCTURES (MTKENNEDY/AMES/OAK COVE FLOODWALLS) CONTRACT BY6 MONTHS.ADVANCE INITIATION OF ESTELLE PUMPING STATION TOLP&L 2ND LIFT CONTRACT BY 7 YEARS.

WEST OF ALGIERS:

ADVANCE INITIAION OF ALGIERS LOCK TO BELLE CHASSEHWY (ORLEANS LEVEE # 9) BY 8 YEARS.ADVANCE INITIATION OF ALGIERS LOCK TO BELLECHASSE HWY TO CUTOFF (PLAQ LEVEE # 8) BY 8 YEARS.

EAST OF ALGIERS:

ADVANCE INITIAION OF ALGIERS LOCK TO BELLE CHASSEHWY TO HERO LEVEE (PLAQ LEVEE # 11) BY 8 YEARS.ADVANCE INITIATION OF ALGIERS LOCK TO BELLECHASSE HWY (ORLEANS LEVEE # 12) BY 9 YEARS.

LAKE CATAOUATCHE AREA: ADVANCE ENGINEERING AND

DESIGN.

852283

1,606

3,804

387500638

8,070

MAINE:

ME 2 ST JOHN RIVER I–C DEMO PROJECT ................................. (FC) 3,432 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................

MARYLAND:

DC DEMD 4, 5, 8

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD & DC ............... (E) 12,000 4,031 (C) 4,031 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

MD 1 ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD .................................................. (BE) 1 16,900 (C) 6,200 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION ........................................................ ................MD 1 ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD ................................ (BE) 1 270,300 200 (C) 200 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................MD 1, 2, 3,4VA 1

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (BREWERTON

CHANNEL), MD.

(N) 44,521 9,578 (C) 9,578 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ............................................................... ................

MD 1VA 1

CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM, MD, VA &

PA.

(E) 1 10,000 (C) 210 (C) DESIGN WORK ON SMITH ISLAND WSTWTR TREATMENT PL.

& NORFOLK DIST. PROJ.

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

MD 1 CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD ....................... (E) 2,500 559 (C) 559 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ............................................................... ................MD 6WV 1

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ............................. (FC) 1 27,584 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ...............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

VA 11 NEABSCO CREEK, VA ......................................................... 1 1,125 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................MD 1 POPLAR ISLAND, MD .......................................................... (E) 1 320,000 9,502 (C) 16,000 (C) INITIATE FIRST DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT PROJECT ... ................
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

MASSACHUSETTS:

MA 8, 9, 10 BOSTON HARBOR, MA ........................................................ (N) 1 12,150 1,000 (C) 1,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................MA 10 CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR

REHAB).

(N) 1 30,500 5,000 (MR) 5,000 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

MA 2 HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB) ..................... (FC) 1 18,600 3,257 (MR) 3,257 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................MA 7 REVERE BEACH, MA ........................................................... (BE) 6,825 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED .........MA 7 ROUGHANS POINT, REVERE, MA ........................................ (FC) 1 8,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................MA 9, 10 TOWN BROOK, QUINCY AND BRAINTREE, MA .................... (FC) 1 30,600 1,500 (C) 1,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

MICHIGAN:

MI 1MN 8WI 7

GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS AND HARBORS,

MI, MN, & WI.

(N) 1 11,254 (C) 500 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION UPPER ST MARYS RIVER (VIDAL

SHOALS). CHANNEL DEEPENING.

MINNESOTA:

MN 2 CHASKA, MN ....................................................................... (FC) 1 30,397 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................MN 1 LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR

REHAB).

(N) 1 15,400 3,200 (MR) 5,000 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 6 MONTHS ........................

MN 2 MARSHALL, MN .................................................................. (FC) 1 7,850 2,275 (C) 3,275 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 9 MONTHS ........................MN 8 PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY) .......... (N) 1 9,820 3,390 (DS) 3,390 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................MN 1 ROCHESTER, MN ................................................................ (FC) 1 67,210 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................MN 6 STILLWATER, MN ................................................................ (BE) 1 8,700 (C) 1,158 (C) COMPLETE STAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION ....................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

MISSISSIPPI:

LA 1MS 2, 3, 4,5

EAST PEARL, WALKIAH BLUFF—BG155 ............................. (E) 1 4,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

MS 5 JACKSON COUNTY INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY, MS ......... (FC) 10,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............MS 4 NATCHEZ BLUFF, MS .......................................................... (FC) 1 13,039 (C) 500 (C) CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION OF MADISON STREET TO STATE

STREET.

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

MS 5 PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ................................................ (N) 39,041 7,792 (C) 7,792 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................
135

AL 1, 4, 7MS 1, 3, 5

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS. (N) 91,800 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................

MS 5 WOLF AND JORDAN RIVERS MS ......................................... (N) 2,943 (C) 1,000 (C) INITIATE PROJECT ................................................................... ................

MISSOURI:

MO 5 BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO ........................ (FC) 1 211,000 13,700 (C) 13,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................MO 8 CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO ....................................... (FC) 1 36,293 1,900 (C) 1,900 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................MO 9 LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ................................................... (FC) 20,288 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED EXCEPT FOR UNPROGRAMMED RECREATION

FACILITIES.

................

MO 2 MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO .......... (FC) 1 28,030 3,500 (C) 3,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................IL 12, 20MO 1, 3, 8

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG

WORKS), MO & IL.

(N) 1274,000 3,000 (C) 4,650 (C) ADVANCE INITIATION OF THE CHESTER REACH CONTRACT

BY SEVEN MONTHS.

INITIATE AND COMPLETE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR

DEVILS ISLAND AND ELIZA PT/GREENFIELD (PH 2).

INITIATE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IVORY LANDING ..CONTINUE REGIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (REEGIS).

CONTINUE ESSENTIAL DATA COLLECTION ADVANCE PROJECT

COMPLETION BY 6 MONTHS.

600450

100

250250

1,650

MO 3, 8 STE GENEVIEVE, MO .......................................................... (FC) 1 36,100 7,000 (C) 10,000 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF PUMP STATION/GRAVITY DRAIN

BY 6 MONTHS.

ADVANCE COMPLETION OF LEVEE/DITCHING/GRADING CONTRACT BY 12 MONTHS. ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION

BY 4 MTHS.

1,000

2,000

3,000

AR 3MO 7

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR (DAM SAFETY) .................... (MP) 1 60,200 13,000 (DS) 13,000 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

MONTANA:

MT AL FLATHEAD RIVER, MT ......................................................... (FC) 90 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

NEBRASKA:

NE 1SD AL

MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE & SD ...... (FC) 1 21,000 300 (C) 300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

NE 1, 3 WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE ..................................... (FC) 1 10,000 100 (C) 100 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.

NEVADA:

NV 1, 2 TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV .......................... (FC) 1 208,500 20,100 (C) 35,000 (C) COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF LOWER FLA–MINGO DIVERSION CHANNEL AND INITIATE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF F–1 DEBRIS BASIN ADVANCE PROJECT

COMPLETION 12 MONTHS.

14,900
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

NJ 13NY 13

ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY & NJ. (N) 216,000 (C) (C) PROJECT REQUIRES REAUTHORIZATION ................................

NJ 2, 3 BRIGANTINE TO GREAT EGG (ABSECON) ........................... (FC) 329,000 (C) 7,000 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION .......................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.

NJ 2 CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ ...................... (BE) 1 87,700 1,700 (C) 1,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................DE ALNJ 1, 2, 4,5, 12, 13PA 1, 2, 3,7, 8, 10, 15

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA & DE ............... (N) 1 214,000 16,500 (C) 16,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

NJ 2 GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ ........... (BE) 1 358,800 419 (C) 419 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................NJ 9 HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ ...................................... (FC) 12,500 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONERNS.

NJ 5, 8, 10,11, 13

JOSEPH G MINISH HISTORIC WATERFRONT PARK,NJ ......... (FC) 33,705 (C) 8,000 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION.NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S

REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMICAND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

NJ 10, 13 LIBERTY STATE PARK LEVEE AND SEAWALL, NJ ................ (FC) 19,150 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................NJ 5, 8 MOLLY ANN’S BROOK AT HALEDON, PROSPECT PARK AND

PATERSON, NJ.

(FC) 1 20,600 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

NJ 13 NEW YORK HARBOR & ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANNEL, NJ. (N) 72,100 2,000 (C) 2,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................NJ 11 PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE

AREAS, NJ.

(FC) 18,300 1,800 (C) 1,800 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

NJ 5NY 22

RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND

SUFFERN, NY.

(FC) 6,530 (C) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL INTERESTS ARE

UNAVAILABLE.

NJ 5, 8 RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ ....................................... (FC) 1 11,240 1,300 (C) 1,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................NJ 3, 6 RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ ......................... (BE) 30,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

NJ 6, 7, 12 RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ .... (FC) 1 286,000 1,000 (C) 1,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................NJ 3, 6 SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ .............................. (BE) 1 979,000 9,000 (C) 9,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................
137

NEW MEXICO:

NM 3 ABIQUIU DAM EMERGENCY GATES, NM ............................. (FC) 1 7,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................NM 1, 2, 3 ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM .................................. (FC) 1 66,000 1,500 (C) 1,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................NM 2 ALAMOGORDO, NM ............................................................. (FC) 1 41,400 700 (C) 700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................NM 3 GALISTEO DAM, NM (DAM SAFETY) .................................... (FC) 1 3,990 (DS) (DS) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................NM 2 LAS CRUCES, NM ............................................................... (FC) 1 6,600 2,400 (C) 2,400 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ............................................................... ................NM 1, 3 MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO

TO BELEN, NM.

(FC) 1 46,800 600 (C) 600 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

NM 2 RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL

APACHE, NM.

(FC) 1 62,300 600 (C) 600 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

NM 2 TWO RIVERS DAM, NM (DAM SAFETY) ............................... (FC) 1 1,932 (DS) (DS) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

NEW YORK:

NY 9, 13 ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON

POINT, NY.

(BE) 1 91,000 300 (C) 300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

NY 6, 10,16

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, NY. (BE) 1 63,000 3,320 (C) 3,320 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

NY 1, 2 FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ........................... (BE) 1 532,000 3,000 (C) 3,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................NY 1 FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY ..................... (BE) 1 571,400 3,250 (C) 3,750 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF WEST OF SHINNECOCK INLET

ELEMENT.

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERN’S.

................

NY 22 HUDSON RIVER, NY (NEW YORK CITY TO WATERFORD–

ATHENS CHANNEL).

(N) 12,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ...............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

NJ 7, 10NY 13, 14

KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY & NJ ..... (N) 1 823,300 60,000 (C) 60,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

NY 3, 4, 5 LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY .................................................. (BE) 239,500 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................NY 1 MORICHES INLET, NY ......................................................... (N) 1 9,100 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................NY 8, 18,23, 26

NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY ...................................... (E) 22,500 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ...............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND /OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

NJ 6, 9, 13NY 7, 8, 11,12, 13, 14,15

NEW YORK HARBOR COLLECTION AND REMOVAL OF

DRIFT, NY & NJ.

(N) 1 131,661 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

NY 25 NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM, NY .............................. (N) 1 8,000 (C) 4,200 (C) REIMBURSE PROJECTS COMPLETED BY NYS BARGE CANAL

CORP.

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

4,200

NY 26 NORTH ELLENVILLE, NY (DEF CORR) ................................. (FC) 1 3,194 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

NY 25 ONONDAGA LAKE STORM WATER DISCHARGE, NY ............. (FC) 1 4,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............NY 16, 18 ORCHARD BEACH, NY ........................................................ (BE) 5,200 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS STUDY HAS

IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

NY 1 SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ..................................................... (N) 1 16,900 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................NY 17, 18 YONKERS, NY (DEF CORR) ................................................. (FC) 1 13,529 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

NORTH CAROLINA:

NC 3 AIWW, REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGES,

NC.

(N) 70,700 7,000 (C) 7,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

NC 4 B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ........................... (FC) 147,557 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................NC 7 BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC—OCEAN ISLE BEACH

PORTION.

(BE) 73,800 (C) 200 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION .......................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

NC 7 CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, NC ................................. (BE) 163,780 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED .........NC 2, 4 FALLS LAKE, NC ................................................................. (FC) 183,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................NC 8 HAMLET CITY LAKE, NC ..................................................... (FC) 3,200 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................NC 7 WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ................................................. (N) 247,100 18,300 (C) 18,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................NC 7 WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC ................................................. (BE) 25,200 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED .........

NORTH DAKOTA:

ND AL BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, ND. (FC) 1 40,000 5,000 (C) 10,000 (C) ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS FROM WILLING SELL- ERS. ND AL DEVILS LAKE EMERGENCY OUTLET, ND ............................. (FC) 1 29,000 10,000 (C) 10,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................ND AL FT YATES BRIDGE, ND ....................................................... (MP) 40,577 (C) (C) CURRENT FUNDS ARE ADAQUATE MAJOR ACTIVITIES ON

THIS PROJECT HAVE CURTAILED PENDING EXECUTION OFA MOA WITH THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE.

ND AL GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB) (MP) 1 37,000 6,500 (MR) 6,500 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................MN 7ND AL

GRAND FORKS, ND—EAST GRAND FORKS, MN ................. (FC) 1 175,900 10,000 (C) 10,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

ND AL HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY). (FC) 1 16,000 3,000 (DS) 3,000 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................ND AL LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND (DAM SAFETY) (FC) 1 14,700 (DS) (DS) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................ND AL LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND (MAJOR

REHAB).

(FC) 1 7,800 500 (MR) 1,535 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 12 MONTHS ......................
139

ND AL SHEYENNE RIVER, ND ........................................................ (FC) 1 30,610 (C) 1,700 (C) INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF BALDHILL DAM POOL RAISE

SEPERABLE ELEMENT.

................

ND AL SOURIS RIVER, ND ............................................................. (FC) 1 101,387 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

OHIO:

OH 16, 18 BEACH CITY LAKE, MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH (DAM

SAFETY).

(FC) 1 3,500 1,400 (DS) 1,400 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

OH 3, 6 HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH ............................ (FC) 1 3,896 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................OH 13, 17,19PA 4

LOWER GIRARD LAKE, OH .................................................. (FC) 1 1,593 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................

OH 9 MAUMEE BAY STATE PARK, OH ......................................... (BE) 1 8,317 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED .......... ................OH 1, 2 METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK,

OH.

(FC) 1 13,035 2,266 (C) 4,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 6 MONTHS ................... 1,734

OH 1, 2 MILL CREEK, OH ................................................................ (FC) 1 163,000 915 (C) 915 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................OH 12,15 WEST COLUMBUS, OH ........................................................ (FC) 1 91,700 8,000 (C) 16,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS ................. 8,000

OKLAHOMA:

OK 1, 2 MINGO CREEK, TULSA, OK ................................................. (FC) 75,400 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................TX 4 RED RIVER EMERGENGY BANK PROTECTION, AR & LA ..... (N) 1 400 (C) 275 (C) CONTINUE SEDIMENTATION STUDY ........................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

275

OK 1, 2 SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) ................................... (FC) 1 9,800 500 (DS) 500 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................OK 2 TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) ...................... (MP) 1 37,900 6,800 (DS) 6,800 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

OREGON:

ID 1MT ALOR 1, 2, 3,5WA 3, 4, 5,6

BONNEVILLE NAVIGATION LOCK, OR & WA ........................ (N) 1 336,298 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

OR 2, 3WA 4

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE I, OR & WA (MAJOR

REHAB).

(MP) 1 24,267 (MR) (MR) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

OR 2, 3WA 4

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR & WA (MAJOR

REHAB).

(MP) 1 104,600 10,800 (MR) 16,300 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION ONE YEAR (1) FROM SEPTEMBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2008. 5,500

OR 2, 3WA 4

BONNEVILLE SECOND POWERHOUSE, OR & WA ................ (MP) 1 678,707 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

OR 2, 3WA 3, 4

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR &

WA.

(MP) 1 73,966 6,368 (C) 6,368 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

OR 1 COLUMBIA RIVER, SEAFARERS MEMORIAL, HAMMOND, OR (N) 1 150 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................OR 2 ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ......................................................... (FC) 174,000 500 (C) 7,000 (C) ACCOMPLISH PASSIVE FISH PASSAGE CORRIDOR IN FISCAL

YEAR 2000.

6,500
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

OR 1, 3WA 3

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR

& WA.

(FC) 28,000 262 (C) 617 (C) PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BARLOW POINT

SITE.

PREPARE P&S FOR COLUMBIA SLOUGH SITE .......................PREPARE DECISION DOCUMENT ON OTHER SITES ...............

OR 1, 3, 4,5

WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR ........... (FC) 33,300 (C) 118 (C) PROVIDE DESIGN, PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,

AND CONSTRUCT THE SHADY DELL SITE.

OR 4 WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR ............ (FC) 1 70,600 1,700 (C) 3,500 (C) INITIATE DIVERSION WORK ....................................................

COMPLETE P & S FOR INTAKE TOWER .................................GATE FABRICATION ................................................................

PENNSYLVANIA:

PA 9 BROAD TOP REGION, PA .................................................... (FC) 1 5,500 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJEC HAS

IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

PA 3 GLEN FOERD, PA ................................................................ (FC) 1 1,110 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................PA 12 JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB) ...................................... (FC) 1 32,664 6,800 (MR) 6,800 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................PA 10 LACKAWANNA RIVER, OLYPHANT, PA ................................. (FC) 1 9,839 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................PA 10 LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA ................................ (FC) 1 47,575 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................PA 18, 20 LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER,

PA.

(N) 1 705,000 21,600 (C) 53,078 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS ................

PA 21 PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) ................... (BE) 1 58,085 520 (C) 520 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................PA 14 SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA ...................................... (FC) 1 10,575 3,500 (C) 3,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

SCHUYLKILL RIVER PARK, PHILADELPHIA, PA .................... (FC) 2,700 (C) 2,625 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION ....................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW PA OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

PA 12 SOUTH CENTRAL PA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT,

PA.

(E) 1 36,750 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATIONS REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
141

PA 9, 10, 12 SOUTH CENTRAL PA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT,

PA.

(E) 1 44,650 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ...............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

PA 3 SOUTHEASTERN ENV. ASSIS. EAST CENTRAL INCINERATOR SITE. (FC) 25,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

PA 6 SUNBURY, PA ..................................................................... (FC) 1 18,063 (C) (C) LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION .............................................. ................PA 11 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, PA .................................................. (E) 1 2,000 (C) (C) LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION .............................................. ................PA 12WV 1

WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, PA

& WV.

(FC) 1 12,000 (C) 2,000 (C) CONTINUE DPR FOR WV PROJECTS ........................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATIONS REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

2,000

PA 10 WILLIAMSPORT, PA ............................................................. (FC) 1 13,190 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................PA 11 WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) ............................ (FC) 1 108,300 20,000 (C) 20,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

PUERTO RICO:

PR DE ARECIBO RIVER, PR ........................................................... (FC) 12,500 2,500 (C) 2,500 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................PR DE PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR ............................. (FC) 430,300 5,434 (C) 5,434 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................PR DE RIO DE LA PLATA, PR ........................................................ (FC) 63,300 1,000 (C) 3,000 (C) INITIATE CONTRACT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS FROM

RIVER MOUTH TO DORADO ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 6 MONTHS.

................

PR DE RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR ................................................ (FC) 138,300 (C) 500 (C) INITIATE PROJECT ................................................................... ................PR DE RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR .................................................... (FC) 321,000 9,566 (C) 9,566 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................PR DE SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR ...................................................... (N) 24,100 8,000 (C) 8,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

RHODE ISLAND:

RI 1 ALLENDALE DAM, RI ........................................................... (FC) 300 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ...............

NOTE: THE ADMINSTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

RI 2 NARRAGANSETT TOWN BEACH, NARRAGANSETT, RI .......... (N) 1,425 (C) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL INTERESTS ARE

UNAVAILABLE.

................

RI 2 QUONSET POINT-DAVISVILLE, RI ........................................ (FC) 2,400 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................RI 1, 2 SEEKONK RIVER, PROVIDENCE, RI ..................................... (N) 1 700 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

SOUTH CAROLINA:

SC 1 CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING & WIDENING) ..... (N) 98,444 37,284 (C) 37,284 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................SC 1 FOLLY BEACH, SC .............................................................. (BE) 98,689 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED .......... ................SC 1 MYRTLE BEACH, SC ........................................................... (BE) 140,535 (C) (C) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED .......... ................

SOUTH DAKOTA:

SD AL BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD .................................. (FC) 27,975 (C) 150 (C) COMPLETE OPTIMIZATION STUDY, CHUTE/STILLING BASIN

DESIGN, AND P&S.

150

SD AL CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX,

SD.

(E) 108,000 2,000 (C) 3,000 (C) ACCELERATE REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES .................................. 1,000

SD AL PIERRE, SD ........................................................................ (MP) 100,000 10,000 (C) 10,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

TENNESSEE:

TN 6 BLACK FOX, MURFREE AND OAKLANDS SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN. (E) 1 6,817 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............TN 3 EAST RIDGE, HAMILTON CO.,TN ......................................... (FC) 1 18,750 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............TN 3 TENNESSEE RIVER, HAMILTON COUNTY, TN ...................... (FC) 1 6,669 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ..............

TEXAS:

TX 7, 18,22, 25

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ............................................ (FC) 1 293,010 9,800 (C) 9,800 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

TX 14 CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ................................................ (N) 1 26,820 8,700 (C) 8,700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................TX 9, 22, 25 CLEAR CREEK, TX .............................................................. (FC) 1 75,830 3,200 (C) 3,200 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................TX 7, 8 CYPRESS CREEK, HOUSTON, TX ........................................ (FC) 1 9,848 (C) 4,569 (C) INITIATE & COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION .................................TX 5, 24,26, 30

DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER PROJECT,

TX.

(FC) 112,150 (C) (C) PROJECT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION ................

TX 16 EL PASO, TX ....................................................................... (FC) 1 116,300 6,200 (C) 6,200 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................TX 11, 14 GIWW, ARANSAS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TX ............ (N) 1 20,660 9,000 (C) 9,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................TX 8, 9, 18,25, 29

HOUSTON—GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX ........ (N) 1 415,543 60,000 (C) 60,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

TX 6, 24, 26 JOE POOL LAKE, TX ............................................................ (FC) 1 227,000 (C) 26,700 (C) REIMBURSE JUDGEMENT FUND .............................................TX 13 MCGRATH CREEK, WICHITA FALLS, TX ............................... (FC) 11,050 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................TX 2, 9, 11 NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER,

TX.

(N) 1 41,895 2,000 (C) 2,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

AR 1, 2, 3,4LA 4, 5OK 2, 3, 4,6TX 1, 4, 13,17, 19, 26

RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX & OK ............ (FC) 1 88,422 (C) 2,100 (C) CONTINUE PROJECT ...............................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

AR 1, 2LA 5OK 3TX 1, 4

RED RIVER WATERWAY, TX, AR, OK, LA (INDEX AR TO

DENISON DAM, TX.

(FC) 1 318,600 (C) 5,500 (C) CONTINUE PROJECT ...............................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.
143

TX 20, 21,23, 28

SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX ...................... (FC) 1 153,100 610 (C) 610 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

TX 18, 22,25, 29

SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ............................................... (FC) 1 214,320 18,300 (C) 18,300 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

TX 2, 9 WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ....................................................... (N) 1 78,000 (C) 4,756 (C) COMPLETE PROJECT ...............................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

4,756

UTAH:

UT 2 LITTLE DELL LAKE, UT ........................................................ (FC) 1 41,215 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................UT 2 UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT ................................................. (FC) 1 9,660 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

VIRGINIA:

VA 4 AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA ............................... (N) 1 23,100 3,000 (C) 5,000 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 24 MONTHS ................. ................VA 6 JAMES R OLIN FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, VA .................. (FC) 1 34,800 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................VA 5 JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (MAJOR

REHAB).

(MP) 59,600 1,400 (MR) 1,400 (MR) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

VA 5 LYNCHBURG, VA (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW) ............. (FC) 20,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ...............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

VA 1, 2, 4 NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA ....... (N) 1 137,496 550 (C) 550 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................VA 3, 7 RICHMOND FILTRATION PLANT, VA .................................... (FC) 8,100 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................VA 7 RICHMOND LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, VA ................... (FC) 105,153 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................VA 3, 7 RICHMOND, VA (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW) ............... (FC) 20,000 (C) 10,000 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION OF RETENTION TUNNEL ...............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

VA 6 ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA .. (FC) 28,800 1,197 (C) 1,197 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................VA 2 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .............. (BE) 1 247,300 (C) 26,600 (C) CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION .....................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

VA 2 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (REIMBURSEMENT) ........................... (BE) 1 27,658 (C) 1,400 (C) CONTINUE PROJECT ................................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED POLICY CONCERNS.

................

WASHINGTON:

ID 1OR 2WA 4, 5

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID ............ (E) 1,376,330 100,000 (C) 100,000 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

WA 3, 6 GRAYS HARBOR, WA .......................................................... (N) 18,507 (C) 450 (C) COMPLETE FINAL CRAB MITIGATION AND CLOSE OUT THE

PROJECT.

................

ID 1, 2OR 2WA 4, 5

LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE COMPENSATION,

WA, OR & ID.

(E) 232,000 1,300 (C) 1,800 (C) PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WILDLIFE LAND DEVELOPMENT ........... 500
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Project and State Type

Estimated

Fed, IWTF, &

HMTF cost

Amounts included in President’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

WA 3, 4 MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA .......................... (FC) 195,800 540 (C) 540 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................WA 8, 9 MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) .......................... (FC) 68,717 (DS) (DS) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................OR 2WA 4

THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1–14, WA & OR

(MAJOR REHAB).

(MP) 1 94,000 2,300 (MR) 3,300 (MR) PROCURE WINDINGS .............................................................

WEST VIRGINIA:

WV 3 BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) ................................ (FC) 1 107,300 750 (DS) 4,200 (DS) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS ................WV 3 GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV ......................................... (FC) 1 12,000 (C) 1,000 (C) CONTINUE DETAILED DESIGN ................................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

KY 4, 5VA 9WV 3

LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND

RIVER, WV, VA & KY.

(FC) 1 1,837,841 5,400 (C) 23,100 (C) CONTINUE LOWER MINGO CO, WV N/S .................................

CONTINUE PIKE CO, KY N/S ..................................................CONTINUE MARTIN CO, KY, N/S ............................................CONTINUE UPPER MINGO CO, WV N/S ..................................CONTINUE WAYNE CO, WV N/S .............................................CONTINUE MCDOWELL CO, WV N/S ......................................CONTINUE BUCHANAN CO, VA DPR ......................................INITIATE PIKE CO, KY TRIB DPR ...........................................CONTINUE HARLAN, KY .........................................................CONTINUE MIDDLESBOROUGH, KY ........................................CONTINUE CLOVER FORK, KY N/S .........................................INIT PLAN—3QTR—TOWN OF MARTIN,KY ............................N/S: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT HAS

IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

WV 2 LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR

REHAB).

(N) 1 20,300 600 (MR) 1,400 (MR) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 12 MONTHS ................

WV 2 MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ............................... (N) 1 294,000 9,800 (C) 11,350 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 6 MONTHS ..................WV 2 MOOREFIELD, WV ............................................................... (FC) 1 20,494 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................WV 2 PETERSBURG, WV .............................................................. (FC) 1 19,711 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................OH 6WV 2, 3

ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV &

OH.

(N) 1 363,474 7,150 (C) 9,300 (C) COMPLETE BANK STABILIZATION ...........................................
145

WV 3 SOUTHERN WV ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM, WV. (E) 1 20,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ............... ................WV 2 STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ........................................ (FC) 1 231,000 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED EXCEPT FOR UNPROGRAMMED RECREATION

FACILITIES.

................

WV 1 TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) ...................................... (FC) 1 7,500 2,900 (DS) 2,900 (DS) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................PA 9 WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV

& PA.

(FC) 1 4,000 (C) (C) PROJECT WILL CONTINUE WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS ...............

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

WV 2 WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ............ (N) 1 227,400 1,400 (C) 3,200 (C) ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 24 MONTHS ................. 1,800

WISCONSIN:

WI 3 LAFARGE LAKE & CHANNEL IMPRV, WI 1962 ACT ............ (FC) 1 17,000 (C) 3,000 (C) CONTINUE ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT LAND

TRANSFER AND DEAUTHORIZATION.

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

................

WI 2 PORTAGE, WI ...................................................................... (FC) 1 7,666 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

NOTE: ALTHOUGH PROJECT AND STUDY CAPABILITIES REFLECT THE READINESS OF THE WORK FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT, THEY ARE IN COMPETITION FOR AVAILABLE FUNDS AND MANPOWER ARMY-WIDE IN THIS CONTEXT, THE FISCAL YEAR 2000

CAPABILITY AMOUNTS SHOWN CONSIDER EACH PROJECT OR STUDY BY ITSELF WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE REST OF THE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED FOR THE ARMY’S CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMIN THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATION’S ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS. IN ADDITION, THE TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED FORTHE ARMY’S CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM IN THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET IS THE MAXIMUM THAT CAN BE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY USED. THEREFORE, WHILE WE COULD UTILIZE ADDITIONAL FUNDS ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND STUDIES, OFFSETTING REDUCTIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OUR OVERALL BUDGETARY OBJECTIVES.

1 COST ESTIMATE INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE FOR INFLATION THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
146

REIMBURSEMENTS AND CREDITS

Question. General Ballard, what you have done to manage non-Federal sponsor

requests to perform work for credit or reimbursement or to advance funds for

projects?

Answer. In the past, we have entertained all requests to perform creditable or reimbursable work or advance funds if we had the authority and the request was consistent with the project schedule and other decisions on budget and appropriations.

However, because of the growth in interest in these arrangements, we will review

the program and will consider establishing criteria to limit the impact of such arrangements on the program. Also, our policy is that before negotiating an agreement

involving non-Federal work or advanced funds that could require possible future

Federal appropriations we will coordinate the request within the Administration

and with the Appropriations’ Committees.

GENERAL EXPENSES APPROPRIATION REQUEST

Question. General Ballard or General Fuhrman, the budget request for fiscal year

2000 includes $148 million for executive direction and management functions of the

Corps of Engineers. Is this level of funding adequate to manage the Civil Works program?

Answer. The General Expenses funding level has remained at the $148 million

level for the last two fiscal years as the headquarters and division offices have undergone several restructuring and downsizing initiatives. These initiatives included

a review and realignment of roles and missions to eliminate duplication, remove operating functions, reduce the number of division offices, and reorganize internally.

These efforts were taken to make the most efficient use of the reduced workforce

while still providing the executive direction and management needed to accomplish

the civil works mission and be responsive to our customers.

This reduced workforce has permitted us to maintain an appropriate level of executive direction and management with a constant $148 million budget. However, as

we approach our target manpower level, staffing reductions begin to taper off and

it no longer is possible to absorb the increased costs of salaries, operations, and inflation. Nonetheless, we continue to look at ways to get our job done in the best

manner possible at the lowest cost.

Question. The General Expenses program has been held constant for the past several years. What impact has this had on your program, especially your ability to

attract and retain talent needed to manage the program?

Answer. I am very concerned about maintaining the technical and managerial expertise of the workforce, especially in the division offices and the headquarters. The

problem is that when we cut staff to fit dollar ceilings not all the reductions are

in the right job disciplines. To correct these imbalances, we then have to step up

recruitment and, when we fill those positions, our costs of moving people to the jobs

goes up. This puts more pressure on the General Expenses account so that we have

to cut more staff to stay within our budget. You can see the predicament which is

being driven by trying to manage a people-intensive account with a negative-growth

budget. I call it a negative-growth budget because, although it’s a flat budget in real

dollars, the purchasing power is less than the prior year’s.

Question. What actions have you taken to streamline or bring about efficiencies

required to maintain your Executive Direction and Management at this level?

Answer. The Corps of Engineers has taken significant steps to reduce costs and

increase efficiency. In compliance with Congressional direction, we reduced the

number of divisions from 11 to 8 in fiscal year 1997. While reducing the number

of divisions, we have reduced the number of positions funded by the General Expense account. The total number of positions to be funded from the General Expenses account in fiscal year 2000 is 1,142 which is 35 below the fiscal year 1999

level, and 226 below the number we had with 11 divisions in fiscal year 1996. Of

the fiscal year 1996–2000 reduction, 56 percent comes from the division offices while

the remaining 44 percent is from the headquarters and support activities.

While we have reduced staff in accordance with the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, our General Expenses staffing levels have been reduced by onethird from fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 1999 and about one-third of this reduction

has come in the last 3 fiscal years. We have seen the division office staffing go from

950 in fiscal year 1990 to 584 in fiscal year 1999 while the headquarters has gone

from 608 to 453 during this period. These reductions have permitted us to maintain

an appropriate level of ED&M with a constant $148 million budget.

Question. Your statement identifies business process improvements you are currently undertaking in an effort to hold down executive direction expenses. Given
147

these process improvements, will it be possible to further reduce your General Expenses budget?

Answer. We continue to look at ways to get our job done in the best manner possible at the lowest cost. I have undertaken a comprehensive review of the headquarters operating budget this year to assure we are staffed appropriately, and that

we only incur expenses for essential goods and services. However, as we approach

our target manpower level, staffing reductions begin to taper and it no longer is possible to absorb the increased costs of salaries, operations, and inflation.

The executive direction and management activities performed by the headquarters

and division offices plays a key role in providing guidance and oversight to our vital

civil works mission. We will continue to work this issue and would greatly appreciate the support of the Appropriations Committees as we guide our Civil Works

program into the next millenium.

Question. What is the justification for maintaining extra offices in Chicago and

Omaha?

Answer. The regional offices in Chicago and Omaha are the remnants of the two

division offices that we have closed and merged with the Great Lakes and Ohio

River Division and the Northwestern Division respectively. Since our division office

restructuring in fiscal year 1997, we have been steadily reducing the staffs of each

of these combined offices, taking into consideration the well-being of our workforce.

The Great Lakes and Ohio River Division office and the Northwestern Division office have had their General Expenses staffing levels reduced by a total of 50 fulltime equivalents, or FTE, between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1999. We are continuing with our plan to size these two division offices in accordance with our standard sizing of all division offices. This will result in these two division offices being

staffed at approximately 75 FTE each, or 150 combined. I intend, however, to continue to maintain a very small presence in Chicago in order to support our international team efforts with Canada through the International Joint Commission

(IJC).

REGULATORY PROGRAM—ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS

Question. The Conference Report on the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations Act stated, ‘‘The conferees expect that the increase provided over the

amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997 will be used to begin implementation of an

administrative appeals process for the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program.’’ The

Energy and Water subcommittees of the House and Senate both stated their concern

for implementing this process again in the fiscal year 1999 report. Have you complied with the directions of the Congress? If not, why not?

Answer. We have complied with the Congressional direction in the Committee report language as best as we could, consistent with our commitment to protect aquatic resources as required by law and to provide fair and responsive services to the

public. The final regulation for appeals of permit denials and conditions was published in the Federal Register on 9 March 1999, with an effective date of 6 August

1999. The process for the appeals of jurisdiction determinations is more complex and

labor intensive. With the levels of funding for the Regulatory Program in recent

years and the increase in the number of permit applications, we have not been able

to start up this part of the appeals process without compromising our services to

the public. We could not implement it within the below-budget appropriations in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 without adversely impacting our services to the

public. Consequently, the President’s Budget again requests an appropriation of $5

million to implement the appeals process for jurisdiction determinations.

Question. Now the expectation was that the Corps would implement both the administrative appeals process and the jurisdiction determination appeals process.

What are your plans and timetable for implementing the procedures?

Answer. Based on our budget request, the timetable for the full appeals process

would be as follows:

Permit Denials and Conditions

March 9, 1999. Final regulation published in the Federal Register. Permit applicants are being notified that they may submit appeals of district decisions regarding

their applications. Division offices are in the process of filling appeals officer positions and conducting training.

August 6, 1999. Effective date for the appeals process to begin. Division appeals

officers review the appeals submitted by the public and render decisions.

Jurisdiction Determinations (Fast-track Implementation)

Initiation of Action.—Once funding is provided, the Corps could begin the process

of interagency coordination and approval by ASA(CW) quickly.
148

First 150 days.—This period would be used to complete interagency coordination

and approval by ASA(CW) and OMB. The final regulation would be published in

Federal once approvals are received. The additional appeals officers required for this

part of the appeals process would be hired and trained.

Tenth month after initiation.—Effective date when we would begin reviewing appeals submitted by the public. (If the Corps began interagency coordination in, let’s

say, September/October 1999, the effective date would be extended by about 3

months to the June/July 2000 time frame).

Question. The Congress specifically earmarked or provided $5 million for the

Corps to implement the administrative appeals process in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal

year 1999. In light of the fact that you have not implemented the administrative

appeals process, how were these funds used? Why didn’t you take appropriate actions to initiate and fund the administrative appeals process?

Answer. The Appropriations Committee report language stated the intentions of

the Committee to have a full appeals process implemented. However, the appropriations the Corps received in the fiscal years you mention were below the President’s

budget requests which would have provided for the full appeals process without sacrificing services to the public. At 90,000 permit actions in fiscal year 1998, workload

is at an all time high. More citizens depend on our responsiveness to their permit

applications than the number that would use the appeals process. Therefore, most

of the Regulatory funds in these years was prudently used to continue providing

timely, equitable services to the public. In fiscal year 1999, we were able to set aside

some funds for the appeals of permit denials and conditions which will become effective on August 6, 1999.

Question. I believe the Corps has indicated that they will implement only a partial

administrative appeals process for permits denied. This means that property owners

who disagree with the Corps on jurisdiction determinations will still have to spend

an extended period of time in the permitting process before having the ability to

challenge the decision in court. Please explain your justification for the Corps’ decision to focus both its regulatory efforts and increased budget on a program already

subjected to direct judicial review, and how do you believe this to be a fair and equitable process?

Answer. A wetland delineation does not restrict an applicant from doing anything.

He or she simply has to apply for a permit if the activity is in a wetland. If the

permit is disapproved, or approved with certain conditions, then the applicant can

challenge the delineation. The Corps performance goal is to process permit actions

within 60 days and the most recent analyses of performance data showed that this

goal is achieved 95 percent of the time. Everyone agrees that the appeals process

is less expensive and less time consuming than litigation. Our experience has been

that most applicants within the local Corps district office are satisfied with a fair

hearing, even if they do not get the result they want. We want the permit process

to be fair and equitable to our citizens and we do not believe that litigation is the

best way to resolve differences. While we have supported the implementation of administrative appeals, the problem has been the affordability of a full appeals process

and its impacts on the other parts of the Regulatory Program. To have dedicated

$5 million from our already austere program for the full process would have meant

shortages of regulatory personnel in the districts. This would have meant a noticeable reduction in our responsiveness.

Question. The Conference Report on the fiscal year 1999 bill indicated that implementation of an administrative appeals process for only permit denials is unacceptable. Why has the Corps recently again insisted that it will only implement a program that addresses permit denials and that it needs more money to implement a

full program, against the expressed instructions of the Congress?

Answer. The Army’s position is to support Committee report language as fully and

as best as we can, within the resources provided in appropriation acts. However, the

appropriations we received in the fiscal years you mention were well below the

President’s budget requests. To have dedicated $5 million from our already austere

program for the full process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in

the districts. The public would suffer because, with fewer team members to process

permit applications, backlogs would grow and private citizens and businesspersons

would have to wait longer to receive a permit. Given the limited funding and the

number of people impacted by the permit program vs. the number who would benefit from an appeals program, we believed that a phased implementation would

work best for the program and the public.
149

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Question. General Ballard, I’m informed that the MR&T flood control system cannot pass the project design flood, or even a recurrence of the flood that actually accrued in 1927. Is the budget request for the MR&T project sufficient to make meaningful progress in addressing the flood control needs along the Mississippi River and

tributaries, in your judgment?

Answer. While the budget request for the Mississippi River and Tributaries

project would allow work to proceed on all projects, albeit not on optimal schedules,

the development of the budget required difficult trade-offs. It does not reflect the

full level of capability within the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.

Question. Are you concerned that the budget request is not sufficient to address

this critical situation?

Answer. Until critical work is completed on the Mississippi River and the

Atchafalaya River, the entire lower valley remains at risk from major flood events.

Because I am concerned, I have exercised my full authority to assure that the most

critical work within the Mississippi River and Tributaries project receives a funding

priority.

Question. What risk does not having the ability to pass the project or near project

flood pose to the region and the Nation?

Answer. Through the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Government has

made major investments over the past 70 years to reduce the risk of a recurrence

of the level of flood damages experienced during the 1927 Flood. As a result of these

Federal investments, the risk of failure has been diminishing with each passing

year. However, if the project flood or a near project flood were to occur, because the

project is not yet complete and because of the increased development throughout the

valley since 1927, we would experience major damage on a large scale. If large areas

of the 35,457 square mile alluvial floodplain were flooded, life and property would

be threatened; and interruption to highway, rail, and interstate commerce would result. Both agricultural and industrial interests would be adversely affected and

would require a significant time to recover.

Question. General Ballard, do you believe that the amount requested for fiscal

year 2000 for the MR&T project is adequate to address the flood control, navigation,

and environmental problems and opportunities facing the lower Mississippi Valley?

Answer. No, sir. In my opinion, adequate progress in solving these problems and

meeting needs within the Lower Mississippi Valley would require a larger program

in fiscal year 2000.

Question. General Ballard, what is the Corps’ capability for the MR&T project in

fiscal year 2000?

Answer. The Corps capability for fiscal year 2000 for the Mississippi River and

Tributaries project is $350 million.

Question. How much do you think is needed to make adequate progress toward

completion of this extremely important work?

Answer. An appropriation of $350 million would be needed to maintain optimal

schedules.

Question. Please provide for the record a list which shows the Corps’ capability

for studies, construction and operations and maintenance for fiscal year 2000.

Answer. Yes, sir. I will provide for the record the fiscal year 2000 capabilities for

the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Study and State Type Estimated Federal cost Amounts in- cluded in Presi- dent’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

AUTHORIZED STUDIES

ARKANSAS:

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ........................ 725 365 365 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

AR 4 SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR .............................................. (COM) 4,495 ........................ 1,200 CONTINUE FEASIBILITY STUDY ..............................................

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

ARKANSAS:

AR 1, 2, 4 BAYOU METO BASIN, AR ................................................... (FC) 12,000 1,767 5,000 ADVANCE COMPLETION OF PED 24 MONTHS ........................AR 1, 2, 4 GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR (SEPERABLE ELEMENT) ...... (FC) 11,584 ........................ ........................ FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

ARKANSAS:

AR 1 CACHE RIVER BASIN, AR .................................................. (FC) 155,000 (C) (C) LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION .............................................AR 1, 2, 4IL 19KY 1LA 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7MO 8, 9MS 1, 2, 3,4, 5TN 7, 8, 9

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &

TN.

(FC) 3,667,000 37,685 (C) 43,165 (C) COMPLETE TENN/WILLOW MS LA ..........................................

COMPLETE YUCATAN LA ........................................................COMPLETE WARFIELD MS ......................................................COMPLETE VAUCLUSE AR .....................................................INITIATE WOLF ISLAND BAR KY ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION BY 2 MO.

AR 1 EIGHT MILE CREEK, AR .................................................... (FC) 1 9,000 700 (C) 700 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................AR 1, 2, 4 GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR ............................................ (FC) 1 245,350 21,900 (C) 21,900 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................AR 1 HELENA AND VICINITY, AR ................................................ (FC) 1 8,370 2,190 (C) 2,190 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................AR 1 HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ......................... (N) 32,156 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................
151

AR 1, 2, 4IL 19KY 1LA 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7MO 8, 9MS 1, 2, 3,4, 5TN 7, 8, 9

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &

TN.

(FC) 1,995,000 23,250 (C) 35,750 (C) ADVANCE COMMERCE BIRDS PT LEVEE GRADE RAISE MO ...

ADVANCE WILSON PT PT LOOKOUT LA ITEM 489 R ...............ADVANCE CAROLINA VALEWOOD MS ITEM 502-L ..................ADVANCE VALEWOOD CARLISLE MS IT 496L .........................ADVANCE STATELINE WILSON PT LA ITEM 503-R ..................ADVANCE WILSON PT PT LOOKOUT LA ITEM 487-R ...............ADVANCE CARVILLE MARCHAND LA .......................................ADVANCE ALHAMBRA HOHEN SOLMS LA ...............................ADVANCE HOHEN SOLMS MODESTE LA ..................................ADVANCE REVEILLE PT PLEASANT LA ....................................ADVANCE DRINKWATER MO PUMP STATION ...........................INITIATE BLUE LAKE AR .........................................................INITIATE CAIRO IL ITEM 2 ......................................................INITIATE ISLAND 8, KY ...........................................................INITIATE ABOVE CAIRO IL ITEM 1 ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 6 MONTHS.

1,000

1,0001,000

2,200

1,000

300500300

700

500

1,0001,000

500

1,000

500

12,500

AR 1MO 8

ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO .......................................... (FC) 1 387,000 4,350 (C) 4,850 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS AT

MAIN & DITCH 2, ITEM 2, MO BY 9 MONTHS.

500

AR 4LA 4, 5, 6

TENSAS BASIN—OVERALL ................................................ (FC) 1 475,336 8,930 (C) 9,930 (C) SEE BELOW ............................................................................ ................

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF TENSAS LESS TENSAS R ............. (FC) (94,280) (0) (C) (0) (C) LACK OF ADEQUATE LOCAL SUPPORT .................................... ................TENSAS BASIN, LAKE CHICOT PUMPING PLANT ................ (FC) (96,230) (0) (C) (0) (C) PROJECT COMPLETE ............................................................... ................TENSAS COCODRIE PUMPING PLANT ................................ (FC) (56,466) (0) (C) (0) (C) COMPLETED PROJECT ............................................................. ................TENSAS RIVER .................................................................. (FC) (42,600) (0) (C) (0) (C) LACK OF ADEQUATE LOCAL SUPPORT .................................... ................

AR 1 WHITEMAN’S CREEK, AR ................................................... (FC) 1 3,300 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

ARKANSAS:

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &

TN.

(FC) .................... 55,876 66,676 ................................................................................................ ................

AR 1, 2, 4KY 1LA 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7MO 8MS 1, 2, 3,4TN 6, 7, 8

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DREDGING, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS,

MO & TN.

(FC) .................... (17,046) (20,046) DREDGE ADDITIONAL 4,000,000 CY ON MISSISSIPPI RIVER

BUDGET AMT IS FOR 110 DAYS; 5 YR AVERAGE IS 184DAYS; CAPABILITY WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL70 DREDGING DAYS.

3,000
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Study and State Type Estimated Federal cost Amounts in- cluded in Presi- dent’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

AR 1, 2, 4KY 1LA 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7MO 8, 9MS 1, 2, 3,4, 5TN 6, 7, 8

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, RVT & DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA,

MS, MO, TN.

(FC) .................... (38,830) (46,630) STABILIZE BANK TO PROTECT SHORELINE ............................

STONE REPAIRS TO REVETMENTS AND DIKS ........................

AR 1 HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ......................... (N) .................... 284 484 DREDGE HARBOR ADDITIONAL 200,000 CY BUDGET AMT IS

FOR 9 DAYS; 5 YR AVG IS 12 DAYS; CAPABILITY WOULDALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL 6 DREDGING DAYS.

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ......................... (FC) .................... 443 443 ...............................................................................................

AR 4 LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ................... (FC) .................... 66 66 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................AR 4 LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR .................... (FC) .................... 108 108 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................AR 1, 2, 4IL 19KY 1LA 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7MO 8, 9MS 1, 2, 3,4, 5TN 7, 8, 9

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &

TN.

(FC) .................... 3,736 4,686 REPLACE DOLPHIN, GOOSE POND IL .....................................

RESTORE SLOPE, WEST MEMPHIS AR ...................................RESTORE SLOPE, JOINER AR .................................................REPLACE CULVERT NEW MADRID MO ...................................

AR 1MO 8

ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO .......................................... (FC) .................... 6,300 9,550 CLEANOUT CHANNEL AT HIGHWAY 90, AR & MO .................

CLEANOUT CHANNEL, DITCH 251 UPPER, MO ......................CLEAR CHANNEL, BIG SLOUGH & MAYO DITCHES, AR .........CLEANOUT CHANNEL, DITCH 9, LAKE CITY, AR ....................AERIAL BRUSH CONTROL ON VARIOUS CHANNELS ...............
153

3,250

AR 4LA 5

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ... (FC) .................... 2,344 2,344 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

AR 1, 2 WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ......................................... (FC) .................... 964 964 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

AUTHORIZED STUDIES

ILLINOIS:

IL 12MO 8

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, ALEXANDER COUNTY, IL AND SCOTT

COUNTY, MO.

(FDP) 1 100 30 30 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

ILLINOIS:

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ........................... (FC) .................... 45 45 ................................................................................................ ................

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

KENTUCKY:

KY 1 HICKMAN BLUFF, KY ......................................................... (FC) 1 19,810 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

KENTUCKY:

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ......................... (FC) .................... 25 25 ................................................................................................ ................

KY 1TN 8

LAKE NO 9 PUMPING PLANT, KY ...................................... (FC) .................... ........................ ........................ PERIODIC MAITNENANCE OF PUMPING PLANT NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED. ................

AUTHORIZED STUDIES

LOUISIANA:

LA 3, 5, 6,7

ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO ...................... (FDP) 3,150 700 700 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

LA 6 DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA ................................. (FDP) 3,500 250 250 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................LA 5 SPRING BAYOU, LOUISIANA .............................................. (SPE) 100 ........................ 100 INITIATE RECONNAISSANCE PHASE OF STUDY ....................... ................LA 6 WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA ..................................... (SPE) 2,100 ........................ 100 INITIATE RECONNAISSANCE PHASE OF STUDY ....................... ................

PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

LOUISIANA:

LA 6 LA STATE PEN LEVEE ........................................................ (FC) 424 ........................ ........................ FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................LA 3, 5, 6,7

MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO ........................ (FC) 2,025 700 700 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

LOUISIANA:

LA 3, 4, 5,6, 7

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ................. (FC) 1 185,000 7,500 (C) 8,000 (C) ADVANCE LAND ACQUISITION ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 9 MONTHS. 500
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Study and State Type Estimated Federal cost Amounts in- cluded in Presi- dent’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

LA 3, 4, 5,6, 7

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA .................................................. (FC) 1 1,720,000 19,750 (C) 23,750 (C) ADVANCE BAYOU YOKELY PUMPING STATION 9 YEARS ........

INITIATE LEVEE ENLARGEMENT CONTRACT, 2ND LIFT—

ITEMS W46 & W52.

LA 6 LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA ..................... (FC) 19,500 3,000 (C) 9,000 (C) ADVANCE LEVEE UPSTREAM CAMP C 12 MONTHS—CONTRACT # 1.

ADVANCE LEVEE UPSTREAM CAMP C CONT 2 12

MONTHS—CONTRACT # 2.

ADVANCE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE CONTRACT 6 MONTHS ADVANCE PROJECT COMPLETION 1 YEAR.

LA 1, 2, 3MS 5

MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA &

MS.

(FC) 1 66,900 100 (C) 100 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

LA 3 MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ........................................ (FC) 1 99,200 10,400 (C) 11,884 (C) ADVANCE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR CONTRACT 6

MONTHS.

ADVANCE DIVERSION STURCTURE CONTRACT 6 MONTHS ....

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ................... (FC) (166,900) (8,930) (C) (9,930) (C) ADVANCE AWARD ITEM 1C ....................................................

ADVANCE AWARD ITEM 1D ....................................................PURCHASE LANDS .................................................................NO IMPACT ON PROJECT COMPLETION .................................
155

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

LOUISIANA:

LA 3, 4, 5,6, 7

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ................. (FC) .................... 644 1,702 REFOREST FOR HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND FULLY FUND

EXISTING CONTRACT.

REPAIR INTERIOR ROADS AND CONSTRUCT NEW TRAILS ......PROCURE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR PEST AND FOREST MANAGEMENT.CONSTRUCT ACCESS POINTS TO LANDS AND PROVIDE

SAFETY & HANDICAPPED FEATURES TO FACILITIES.

143276

354

285

1,058

LA 3, 4, 5,6, 7

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA .................................................. (FC) .................... 10,560 14,925 REPLACE GUIDEWALL AT BERWICK LOCK ..............................

REPLACE SOUTHWEST GUIDEWALL AT BAYOU BOEUF LOCKREPLACE SOUTHWEST GUIDEWALL AT SORREL LOCK ............REPLACE NORTHWEST GUIDEWALL AT BAYOU SORREL

LOCK.

REPAIR WEST CHAMBER GUIDEWALL AT BAYOU SORREL

LOCK.

500

1,750

525

1,170

420

4,365

LA 4, 5, 6,7

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ..................... (N) .................... 157 157 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

LA 4, 5, 6,7

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ........................ (FC) .................... 101 101 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

LA 1, 2, 3 BONNET CARRE, LA .......................................................... (FC) .................... 1,068 1,068 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA .......................... (FC) .................... 373 373 ................................................................................................ ................

LA 4, 5, 6 LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ................. (FC) .................... 84 3,034 INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF BAYOU RAPIDES REPLACEMENT

STRUCTURE.

2,950

AR 1, 2, 4KY 1LA 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7MO 8, 9MS 1, 2, 3,4TN 7, 8, 9

MAPPING ........................................................................... (FC) .................... 1,117 1,117 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

LA 3 MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ........................................ (FC) .................... 436 591 OPERATION OF DAVIS POND PUMPING STATION .................... 155
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Study and State Type Estimated Federal cost Amounts in- cluded in Presi- dent’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

LA 3, 5, 6,7

OLD RIVER, LA .................................................................. (FC) .................... 4,027 8,110 ACQUIRE EXHIBITS FOR VISITOR CENTER .............................

REPLACE ELECTRICAL WIRING AT OLD RIVER LOCK ............CONSTRUCT NEW SHOP BUILDING AT THE OLD RIVER COMPLEX.SAND BLAST AND PAINT GANTRY CRANE .............................REPLACE CREOSOTE NEEDLES AT THE OVERBANK STRUCTURE.REPLACE MITER GATES AT OLD RIVER LOCK .......................

AR 4LA 5

TENSAS BASIN, RED ......................................................... (FC) .................... 2,927 2,927 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT RIVER BACKWATER, LA .......

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

MISSISSIPPI:

MS 1TN 9

HORN LAKE CREEK & TRIBUTARIES (INCL COW PEN

CREEK), MS & TN.

(FC) 1 3,120 (C) (C) FULLY FUNDED ......................................................................

MS 1, 2 YAZOO BASIN—OVERALL ................................................. (FC) 1,740,246 24,279 (C) 40,985 (C) ...............................................................................................

YAZOO BASIN, ................................................................... (FC) (38,954) (0) (C) (0) (C) FUNDED AS PART OF TRIBUTARIES ASCALMORE-TIPPO-OPOS

SUM, MS.

YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER—ROCKY INTEREST IS UNAVAILABLE BAYOU AREA, MS. (FC) (18,505) (0) (C) (0) (C) COST SHARING AND FINANCING BY LOCAL ..........................YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER LESS ROCKY BAYOU, MS ..... (FC) (254,491) (20) (C) (20) (C) FUNDED AS PART OF THE YAZOO ACKWATER UNIT ..............YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER PUMP, MS ............................ (FC) (97,840) (500) (C) (1,000) (C) ADVANCE DESIGN ON YAZOO REFORMULATED PLAN NO IMPACT ON COMPLETION OF UNIT. YAZOO BASIN, BIG ............................................................ (FC) (109,383) (3,915) (C) (4,415) (C) PURCHASE MITIGATION LANDS SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .......YAZOO BASIN, COMPLETED UNITS, MS ............................ (FC) (161,439) (0) (C) (0) (C) COMPLETED WORK.
157

YAZOO BASIN, DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL,

MS.

(FC) (244,284) (6,294) (C) (20,000) (C) INITIATE & COMPLETE: ...........................................................

1—FLOODWATER RETARDING STRUCTURE .......................11—RISER PIPE CONTRACTS ............................................3—BANK STAB ITEMS .......................................................4—BOX CULVERT CONTRACTS .........................................6—LOW DROP CONTRACTS ...............................................REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION, MONITORING, E&D AND S&A

NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION’S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT

HAS IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC AND/OR POLICY CONCERNS.

1,363

2,777

962616

1,102

6,886

13,706

YAZOO BASIN, F&WL MITIGATION LANDS, MS .................. (FC) (7,511) (0) (C) (0) (C) FULLY FUNDED ....................................................................... ................YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS ........................................ (FC) (194,431) (20) (C) (20) (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................YAZOO BASIN, REFORMULATION UNIT, MS ....................... (FC) (32,408) (1,570) (C) (1,570) (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ...................................... (FC) (243,000) (340) (C) (340) (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................YAZOO BASIN, UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS .................. (FC) (338,000) (11,620) (C) (13,620) (C) ACCELERATE CONST CHANNEL ITEM 4 ..................................

PURCHASE MITIGATION LANDS NO IMPACT ON PROJECT

COMPLETION.

1,000

1,000

2,000

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

MISSISSIPPI:

MS 2 GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ................................................ (N) .................... 333 333 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ......................... (FC) .................... 193 193 ................................................................................................ ................

MS 2 VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ................................................. (N) .................... 199 199 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................MS 1 YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ............................... (FC) .................... 3,265 4,865 REPAIR INTAKE STRUCTURE & TOE DRAIN SYSTEM ..............

REPLACE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ..................

800

800

1,600

MS 2 YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ..................... (FC) .................... 209 4,709 CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION OF BOGUE PHALIA ...................... 4,500MS 1 YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ......................................... (FC) .................... 3,214 4,354 REPAIR OUTLET STRUCTURE & EMERGENCY SPILLWAY ........

REPLACE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ..................

500

640

1,140

MS 2 YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ...................................... (FC) .................... 946 946 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................MS 1 YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS .................................. (FC) .................... 4,280 6,580 REPAIR DAM BERM DRAINAGE SYSTEM .................................

REPAIR & RESURFACE ACCESS ROADS .................................

800

1,500

2,300
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING CAPABILITIES MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES—Continued

(Amounts in Thousands)

Congressional

Districts Study and State Type Estimated Federal cost Amounts in- cluded in Presi- dent’s budget Study capability Purpose of additional capability 

MS 1, 2 YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS ........................................ (FC) .................... 1,059 1,059 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................MS 1 YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ..................................... (FC) .................... 4,334 5,534 REPAIR OUTLET STRUCTURE AND TOE DRAIN SYSTEM ........MS 1, 2 YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ...................................... (FC) .................... 1,269 1,269 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................MS 3, 4 YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ...... (FC) .................... 493 493 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................MS 1, 2, 3 YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ................. (FC) .................... 560 560 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................MS 3 YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS ....................................... (FC) .................... 846 846 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

MISSOURI:

MO 8 ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO ..... (FC) 1 58,800 7,800 (C) 9,800 (C) ADVANCE COMPLETION OF NEW MADRID PUMPING STATION

12 MONTHS.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

MISSOURI:

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ........................ (FC) .................... 202 202 ...............................................................................................

MO 8 WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .................................................... (FC) .................... 3,500 7,705 COMPLETE HIGHWAY D3 RELOCATIONS ................................

INITIATE CONTRACT FOR HIGHWAY D4 RELOCATION ............OVERLAY ASPHALT GREENVILLE DAY USE AREA ..................MANTAIN NON–REC ROAD BELOW THE DAM ........................REPAIR HOLIDAY LANDING ENTRANCE FORSAFETY ...............

AUTHORIZED STUDIES

TENNESSEE:

MS 1TN 7, 8, 9

MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN & MS .................................... (COM) 2,075 675 675 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

TENNESSEE:

KY 1TN 8

REELFOOT LAKE, TN & KY ................................................ (FC) 750 318 318 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................

TN 7, 8, 9 WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN .............................................. (FC) 579 525 525 NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................
159

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

TENNESSEE:

TN 9 NONCONNAH CREEK—OVERALL, TN & MS ...................... (FC) 1 18,400 2,500 (C) 2,500 (C) ................................................................................................ ................TN 9 NONCONNAH CREEK, ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT,

TN & MS.

(FC) 1 (131) (0) (C) (0) (C) LACK OF RECENT EXPRESSION OF LOCAL INTEREST ............. ................

TN 9 NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN &

MS.

(FC) 1 (17,9411) (2,500) (C) (2,500) (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

TN 9 NONCONNAH CREEK, RECREATION FACILITIES, TN &

MS.

(FC) 1 (328) (0) (C) (0) (C) LACK OF RECENT EXPRESSION OF LOCAL INTEREST ............. ................

TN 7, 8 WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN ................................. (FC) 1 143,000 2,398 (C) 2,398 (C) NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT .............................................. ................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

TENNESSEE:

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ......................... (FC) .................... 113 113 ................................................................................................ ................

TN 9 MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ......................... (N) .................... 800 1,400 DREDGE HARBOR ADDITIONAL 800,000 CY BUDGET AMT IS

FOR 27 DAYS; 5 YR AVG IS FOR 42 DAYS; CAPABILITYWOULD ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 20 DREDGING DAYS.

600

NOTE: ALTHOUGH PROJECT AND STUDY CAPABILITIES REFLECT THE READINESS OF THE WORK FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT, THEY ARE IN COMPETITION FOR AVAILABLE FUNDS AND MANPOWER ARMY-WIDE IN THIS CONTEXT, THE FISCAL YEAR 2000

CAPABILITY AMOUNTS SHOWN CONSIDER EACH PROJECT OR STUDY BY ITSELF WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE REST OF THE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED FOR THE ARMY’S CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMIN THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATION’S ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS. IN ADDITION, THE TOTAL AMOUNT PROPOSED FORTHE ARMY’S CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM IN THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET IS THE MAXIMUM THAT CAN BE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY USED. THEREFORE, WHILE WE COULD UTILIZE ADDITIONAL FUNDS ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND STUDIES, OFFSETTING REDUCTIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OUR OVERALL BUDGETAR OBJECTIVES.

BUDGET AND CAPABILITY AMOUNTS REFLECT FEDERAL FUNDS, EXCEPT FOR PROJECTS WITH COSTS ALLOCATED TO NAVIGATION, FOR WHICH THE AMOUNTS INCLUDE NON-FEDERAL FUNDING FROM THE INLAND WATERWAYS & HARBO MAINTENANCE TRUST FUNDS.1 COST ESTIMATE INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE FOR INFLATION THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
160

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET REQUEST

Question. Does this budget provide the funds necessary to adequately operate and

maintain the project and to respond to the Corps’ many challenges in this environmentally sensitive area?

Answer. The budget maintains the operations portion at current funding level. We

have funded the most critical maintenance in fiscal year 2000. However, repeated

reductions in the maintenance program could delay, slow down or defer channel surveys, repair of levee slides, repair of equipment, maintenance of flood control, navigation, and salinity control structures, and maintenance of recreation facilities. Reductions would also cause adverse impacts on commercial navigation and related industries and local, regional, national, and international commerce.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Question. Briefly, describe for the Committee the differences in the Department

of Energy’s proposed accelerated clean up plan for the FUSRAP program. How does

the Corps’ overall project costs and schedules compare to the DOE accelerated cleanup plan?

Answer. In June 1997, the Department of Energy (DOE) developed a draft accelerated cleanup plan, which showed that FUSRAP could be completed in 2002. To

achieve that completion schedule, the accelerated plan limited the scope of the program, principally by proposing that hazardous wastes at the Niagara Falls Storage

Site remain on site and by proposing to clean up the St. Louis sites to a restricted

use industrial standard rather than industrial use. The draft accelerated cleanup

plan also was based on an estimate of the requirement at the Luckey site which,

it has since been established, greatly underestimated the quantities requiring remediation. In addition, DOE estimates did not include any requirement for remediating

contaminated ground water. Further, DOE’s completion date of 2002 for the draft

accelerated cleanup plan was premised on an annual funding level of $182 million

per year. The Corps received only $140 million in fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year

1999, and has been allocated a ceiling of $150 million a year, starting in fiscal year

2000, to complete FUSRAP. We estimate that at this funding level, with a remaining requirement of $1.1 billion, it will require until at least 2010 to complete the

program. The review of cost estimates, by site, which the Corps completed during

the 3rd quarter fiscal year 1998 confirmed that our costs to complete are comparable

to DOE’s proposed accelerated cleanup plan, when adjustments are made to compensate for the scope differences. The Corps has also built new cost estimates from

the bottom up to validate our initial assessment in the Report to Congress. These

estimates fall within the range provided in the Report to Congress.

Question. General Ballard, the Congress has directed DOE and the Corps to enter

into a Memorandum of Understanding to carry out the program and to eliminate

any misunderstandings that may exist between the two agencies as to the roles and

responsibilities related to the FUSRAP cleanup program? What is the status of the

MOU and when do you expect to have it finalized? What are the remaining sticking

points in working out a final MOU?

Answer. The Corps and DOE have entered final negotiations regarding the MOU.

I anticipate that the final agreement will be signed shortly. All major issues have

been resolved.

Question. Last year you indicated that the execution of the program was not being

hampered by your lack of regulatory authority, or the lack of an MOU with DOE.

Is this still true? Please explain.

Answer. It is still true that our execution of the program has not been adversely

impacted by our lack of regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act or the

lack of a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Energy. As I testified last year, we believe that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, provides sufficient authority for the Corps

to execute FUSRAP. In addition, language in the Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Act, 1999, clarifies Corps cleanup responsibilities under FUSRAP.

Question. The Corps has been in charge of the FUSRAP cleanup effort for about

18 months. Update the Committee on the Corps’ progress, particularly in maintaining cost and schedules since the Corps took over the program. What are the most

significant issues or problems you now face in maintaining the momentum of the

cleanup program? How does your fiscal year 1998 performance compare to that

which DOE had planned to execute?

Answer. During fiscal year 1998, the Corps succeeded in maintaining or improving on the schedules which it inherited when responsibility for executing the program was transferred to the Corps. In a few cases, the Corps developed slightly different schedules based on local community involvement and optimizing available re-
161

sources. We are in the process of adjusting our schedules based upon our current

funding limitations.

Question. In your report to Congress last March, you indicated that your assessment of the program would allow the Corps to complete 16 of the sites transferred

to you by 2002 with the remaining being completed by 2006. Is that assessment still

valid? Can you provide a more definitive schedule and cost to complete the program?

Answer. That report provided technical capability without regard to any fund constraints. We still believe that with funding to support optimal schedules we could

complete the remaining sites by 2006. In order to do so, however, we would require

an appropriation in fiscal year 2000 of $264,000,000, in fiscal year 2001 of

$217,500,000, in fiscal year 2002 of $187,500,000, in fiscal year 2003 of

$187,000,000, in fiscal year 2004 of $376,500,000, in fiscal year 2005 of $82,500,000,

and in fiscal year 2006 of $22,000,000.

Question. What success is the Corps having in establishing clean up standards at

the various sites left to be addressed?

Answer. Each site has a set of circumstances unique to that individual site, and

requires considerable coordination with stakeholders and regulators to establish the

cleanup criteria. During fiscal year 1998 the Corps completed two Records of Decisions documenting final cleanup standards. We also completed documentation, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), to carry out interim removal actions at

five sites. Interim removal actions also require the determination of an appropriate

cleanup criteria. I believe that we have been successful in establishing cleanup criteria which will permit us to complete cleanup within the estimated range provided

in the Report to Congress.

Question. Since some sites are being completed, what is the process for transferring those sites off of the government’s books? Is this a problem between you and

DOE, if so, what is being done to resolve the differences between the two agencies?

Who will be responsible for long term monitoring and site control once cleanup has

been completed?

Answer. The Corps and DOE are in agreement that the Corps would be responsible for site surveillance and maintenance during the first two years following completion of remedial activities, while DOE will be responsible for site surveillance and

maintenance after the first two years and for the long term. DOE will retain accountability for real property during remediation and will be responsible for disposing of government owned sites. Now that the broader issues have been resolved,

the Corps and DOE will develop specific procedures for documenting that the cleanup at a site is complete.

Question. Now, just recently, DOE informed the Corps that an additional area, the

Dayton sites, is eligible for inclusion in the FUSRAP effort. What can you tell the

Committee about the potential cost impact of the Dayton sites on the annual funding level for FUSRAP? How many other additional sites are there that could be eligible for the FUSRAP, and how will this additional cleanup requirement impact future budgets?

Answer. At present I am unable to estimate the potential cost impact of the Dayton sites. I have requested that our Great Lakes and Ohio River Division develop

a preliminary cost estimate based on sampling data currently available, including

information developed by DOE in the late 1940’s and by the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency (OEPA) just last year. We are aware of 18 potential new sites

which then Secretary of Energy Frederico Pena referenced in his letter to Secretary

of Defense Cohen around the same time when transfer of Program execution to the

Corps became effective. We have made no attempt to estimate the potential impact

of these sites on future requirements.

PROGRAM EXECUTION

Question. General Ballard, your statement indicates that the Corps’ expenditure

performance in fiscal year 1998 increased by $400 million. How do you account for

this increase?

Answer. Senator, my commanders focused on execution. It is vital that they carry

out the work that you and the rest of the Congress have assigned us. In fiscal year

1998 we had the added work of the FUSRAP program and we had a substantial

increase in expenditures for the Construction, General program. A number of large

projects are well into their construction cycles thereby generating large expenditures.

Question. You also indicate that you expect to have another improvement in performance in fiscal year 1999. How will you accomplish this increase?

Answer. The majority of the increase will come in the construction and maintenance programs. I have made it a top priority of mine to execute the program that
162

you have assigned us. It is then a top priority of the Division Commanders and they

are pressing hard to accomplish the projects. In the operation and maintenance program there is identified work that can and should be accomplished that will require

the expenditure of all available funds, about $150 million more than fiscal year

1998.

In the construction program the divisions have laid out schedules that will result in expenditures of almost $300 million more than fiscal year 1998. My Commanders

are continuing to seek ways to improve their performance even more. The projects

have been funded and we will see that they are implemented to serve their intended

purpose.

Question. What is the estimated level of unobligated carryover balances into fiscal

year 2000 that you don’t expect to utilize, and what is the reason for this level of

carryover balance? Answer. We have an estimated unobligated carryover of $724 million in direct appropriations into fiscal year 2000. The majority of the carryover falls into two appropriations, Construction, General (CG) and Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

(FCCE) appropriations. The estimated unobligated Construction, General carryover

is $447 million. Most of this carryover is due to one or more of several reasons. The

most significant of these reasons are overly optimistic scheduling, design delays, environmental problems, problems with local sponsor financing, lack of local sponsor,

delays in real estate acquisition, insufficient authorization, sponsor requested protracted schedule, fully funded multiyear projects, and contractor delays. Much of the

carryover is associated with projects that have had appropriations in statutory language, which cannot be reprogrammed for use on other projects when delays occur.

Most of the funds appropriated to the FCCE account are from emergency supplemental appropriations acts. The current balance represents carryover of funds appropriated in the fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental appropriations act. This

balance has been used to fund the emergency preparedness program in fiscal year

1999 and will be used to fund that program in fiscal year 2000.

Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) Fiscal Year 1999 Projected Unobligated

Carryover

[Dollars in Millions]

SCHEDULED

DIRECT APPROPRIATIONS CARRYOVER

General Investigations .................................................................................... 37

Construction, General ..................................................................................... 408

Operation & Maintenance, General ............................................................... 70

FC, Mississippi River & Tributaries .............................................................. 12

Regulatory Program ........................................................................................ 4

General Expenses ............................................................................................ 11

Flood Control & Coastal Emergencies ........................................................... 177

FUSRAP ........................................................................................................... 5

TOTAL ................................................................................................... 724

Question. General Ballard and General Fuhrman, what is the level of deferred

critical maintenance work in the civil works program? Answer. The backlog of deferred maintenance items is currently estimated at $1.6

billion.

Question. Is this of concern to you?

Answer. This is of major concern to me. In addition to our mission as the nation’s

water resources problem solvers, we are responsible for maintaining a very complex

and diversified system of harbors, reservoirs, hydropower facilities, locks and dams.

So far, we have managed to keep our aging infrastructure operating safely with

minimal down time. When maintenance is put off, it may not be noticed the first

year, but deterioration worsens with the continued exposure of project features to

the elements and normal usage. Eventually, conditions can no longer be ignored and

remedial action is necessary.

Question. Can you give the Committee an example of the type of work which falls

into the category of critical deferred maintenance and what impacts would be on

project operations or efficiencies if failure occurred?

Answer. Some of our deferred work packages are as follows (a) replacement of deteriorated miter gates at the Port Allen lock—if the old gate sticks or breaks loose,

the facility would be shut down; (b) additional rip rap to bolster the Jackson Levees—failure to reinforce weakened areas could result in a breach and extensive

flooding; (c) flushing the Los Angeles River subdrain system—a blocked system

causes excessive hydrostatic pressure on the concrete structure and possible failure;
163

(d) repair spillway gates and upgrade overhead crane at Millers Ferry Lock and

Dam—inoperable spillway gates threaten the integrity of the entire embankment

and the old crane is becoming increasingly difficult and unsafe to operate; and (e)

concrete guidewall repairs on Okeechobee Waterway—defective guidewalls can result in navigation traffic congestion and possible damages to transiting vessels

which could, in-turn, damage the lock structure, causing a shut down.

Question. Has the Corps evaluated the problem and developed a plan to address

the issue?

Answer. I have asked each of the Corps Division Commanders to personally evaluate his backlog situation and present to me a plan for coming to grips with the

issue. The backlog of deferred maintenance is very dynamic in nature. As certain

previously-deferred items become critical, they are included in the budget or addressed with available funds during the year of execution. By establishing a goal

of expending all of available O&M funds during the fiscal year managers at all levels have been put on notice to take advantage of any available funds for the purpose

of reducing the backlog. Our fiscal year 2000 budget includes some work that had

been previously deferred, but at the same time, new items have been added to the

list. Although the backlog has grown, the fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects

a more favorable balance between those work items added and those taken off the

list.

SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NEW MEXICO

Question. Last year, the Committee expressed concerns about the progress being

made on the Acequias Irrigation system rehabilitation project in my State of New

Mexico. In addition, the Committee express the expectation that the Corps would

strengthen its communication and coordination efforts with State and local interests. What can you report to the Committee in this regard?

Answer. The Corps has made significant progress in the last year in streamlining

our processes and strengthening coordination effort with local stakeholders. First,

with approval of the amended Project Cooperation Agreement on March 8, 1999, we

will no longer require annual review and approval of this agreement by the Corps

and our local sponsor, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. Second, the

amended agreement incorporates Section 215 crediting/reimbursement provisions allowing the sponsor to design and build projects and receive credit for this work toward project cost sharing. Third, the amended agreement provides for 100 percent

Federal funding of ‘‘reconnaissance’’ level studies of individual Acequia projects. Finally, our environmental procedures are being streamlined through preparation of

a programmatic environmental impact statement in the Rio Chama Basin. The Fish

and Wildlife Service has prepared a draft Coordination Act Report for the basin as

well. We expect these changes to accelerate project construction in the near future.

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL, NEW MEXICO

Question. The Committee requested a report, in consultation with the Bureau of

Reclamation, on the Corps’ progress and plans to complete the Upper Rio Grande

Water Operations Model in New Mexico. What is the status of that report?

Answer. The report has been drafted and forwarded to our Washington level headquarters. It will be forwarded to the Army and, subsequently, to the Committee

shortly.

Question. Funding was provided by the Congress for the current year to award

a construction contract on the Dushore, Sullivan County Pennsylvania small project.

What is the status of and schedule for completing plans and specifications, and

awarding the construction contract of the project?

Answer. Following completion of a feasibility study for this project at Loyalsock

Creek, Borough of Dushore, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania, in March 2001, the

Corps of Engineers is scheduled to initiate plans and specifications and these would

be completed in December 2001. A construction contract award is set for March

2002.

TECHNICAL CENTERS OF EXPERTISE

Question. General Ballard, I have some question regarding a recent policy directive you issued, which restructured the project approval process for Technical Center of Expertise (TCX), and its specific effects on the St. Louis TCX, the Center of

Photogrammetric Mapping.

I understand, and I believe you are aware, General Ballard, that the St. Louis

Center received its TCX designation in 1995 in recognition for the unique special-
164

ized expertise it had developed in the area of photogrammetry, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Global Positioning Systems, civil engineering and remote sensing, among others. Due to its expertise, the Center has developed a large non-COE

customer base and heavy workload, with a vast majority of these projects short term

and in the $50,000 to $150,000 range—which is relatively small. Furthermore, almost 100 percent of the project work is contracted out to the private sector, allowing

for a significant amount of firms to grow and prosper around this work.

General Ballard, as you are also aware, recently the Corps restructured the process by which a Technical Center of Expertise can do work for customers outside of

its particular District. Is it now necessary for the [St. Louis District Photogrammetric Mapping Technical Center of Expertise] to receive approval from both

Corps HQ as well as the district in which the work is to be done, whether or not

the work is to be done in support of assigned Corps missions or for non-COE customers? Is all this correct?

Answer. It is not necessary for a Center of Expertise (CX) to obtain Headquarters

approval to work for customers outside its particular district. However, the Corps

recently introduced a requirement that there be coordination between division offices before an activity, including a CX, in one division performs work outside the

geographical boundaries of that division. The Corps established this requirement to

ensure that division commanders would have complete responsibility for the flow of

work within their geographic area of responsibility. This is central to the Corps regional business center concept which we have established to maximize our organization’s effectiveness and efficiency in delivering services to our customers.

Question. Is it true that the nature of most of the projects, which the St. Louis

Center undertakes on behalf of non-COE clients, require a high level of technical

understanding as well as a rapid response capability?

Answer. Much of the facility engineering and natural resources photogrammetric

mapping performed by the St. Louis District requires highly skilled technical expertise; in many case a rapid response is also required.

Question. Is this same level of expertise available elsewhere within the Corps? If

so, why was St. Louis designated a TCX in 1995 and labeled the Center for Photogrammetric Mapping?

Answer. The St. Louis District was designated as a Technical Center of Expertise

in 1995 because of its superior combination of technical expertise, project management experience, and contracting capability in photogrammetric mapping. Under revised regulatory guidance, which eliminated the Technical Center of Expertise classification, the technical expertise of Photogrammetric Mapping Center has been recognized through its listing on the Directory of Expertise (DX). However, some other

districts also have the technical expertise in photogrammetric mapping and contracting experience sufficient to meet many requirements.

Question. Has the restructuring of the approval process had a negative effect on

the ability of the Center for Photogrammetric Mapping to respond rapidly, which,

in the past, outside clients have come to both expect and depend upon.

Answer. There have been some instances in which the requirement to coordinate

with another division in order to do work outside the assigned geographical boundaries has caused delays in initiating aerial mapping photography for customers.

They can reasonably be expected to diminish as Corps activities, including the CX,

become familiar with the new procedures, and develop and implement measures to

streamline the coordination process.

Question. Is it not true that, since implementation of the restructuring, the project

load of the St. Louis TCX has dropped off, as clients have sought and found alternative contracting avenues besides the Corps, such as the US Geological Survey and

the Tennessee Valley Authority, which are not restricted by a lengthy and unpredictable approval process?

Answer. I am aware that there have been specific instances when other activities

have sought and found alternative contracting avenues besides the Corps, such as

the US Geological Survey and the Tennessee Valley Authority, as a result of the

requirement that the CX coordinate with another division in order to do work outside the geographical boundaries of its division.

Question. Do you believe that, as a result of a possible loss of work, the inflow

of funds will substantially decrease, thus restricting the ability of the [St. Louis District] Center for Photogrammetric Mapping to continually build upon its resource

base and not even increase, but maintain its technical edge?

Answer. I believe that the Photogrammetric Mapping Center may experience

some loss of workload in the short term as a result of our requirement that use of

the CX be coordinated across division boundaries. However I am confident that over

the long term, as a result of providing superior service and streamlined approval
165

procedures, the TCX will be able to maintain a workload which will sustain the current level of technical expertise.

Question. Hasn’t this restructuring that you have ordered—protracted response

process, decreased workload and diminished level of expertise—directly conflicted

with the Corps strategic mission of becoming more streamlined and responsive to

non-COE clients, also known as the ‘‘Support for Others’’ program?

Answer. While there have been delays in the processing of requests for photogrammetric mapping support by the CX, I believe that the number and length of

these delays will decrease as Corps activities, including the CX, become familiar

with the new procedures and develop and implement measures to streamline the coordination process. Furthermore, I believe that, on balance, the Corps regional business center concept will maximize our organization’s effectiveness and efficiency in

delivering services to our customer.

Question. Is it correct that by taking the simple step of reclassifying the St. Louis

District Center for Photogrammetric Mapping from a Directory of Expertise to a

Mandatory Center of Expertise, the Center would be recognized as possessing

unique technical expertise and management skills, and thus be allowed to perform

work for others without the restricting additional layers of review?

Answer. The St. Louis District’s Photogrammetric Mapping Center has previously

been recognized as possessing unique technical expertise and management skills

through its listing on the Directory of Expertise (DX). I fully expect this listing to

be renewed. However, performing work for others outside the Mississippi Valley Division’s geographical area of responsibility, without prior coordination with the division having responsibility for the area where the work is located, would be inconsistent with the regional business center concept.

Question. Is it not true that an internal Corps review of this reclassification of

St. Louis District] has indeed already been conducted, with no adverse impact found

on either the Corps or the private sector?

Answer. The Corps initial Approval Request Report for a Mandatory Center of Expertise designation for St. Louis District did not identify any adverse impacts on either the Corps or the private sector. What was decisive in this case, however, was

the inconsistency of the MCX designation with the concept of regional business process centers.

Question. Is it not also true that the reclassification process was in its final stages

as early as last November, receiving all of the required civilian signatures and half

of those needed from military personnel?

Answer. There were differing opinions on my staff. That is not uncommon. However, after weighing the pros and cons of the alternatives, as presented by my staff,

I decided that the best course was not to designate the St. Louis District as a Mandatory Center of Expertise.

Question. Why did this process come to a complete standstill?

Answer. The process did not come to a complete standstill. However, because of

the differing opinions on my staff, the process took longer than might originally

have been anticipated.

Question. The inability of the Corps leadership to reclassify the St. Louis Center

as a Mandatory Center of Expertise will clearly have an adverse impact upon not

only the Center, but all photogrammetric and GIS activities that the Corps undertakes. Efficiency will be reduced, increased personnel will be required and costs will

rise—do you believe that the Corps has sufficient resources and manpower available

to handle these increased costs and personnel?

Answer. Although there may be some initial impacts on the St. Louis District’s

photogrammetric mapping program, I do not believe that there will be a long term

adverse impact on the St. Louis District nor an adverse impact on the Corps as a

whole. On balance, I believe that our regional business center concept will increase

our efficiency and effectiveness in serving our customers.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Question. The budget request for the Mississippi River and Tributaries program

remains at $280 million, the same amount requested for fiscal year 1999. What is

the Corps capability for this program?

Answer. The Corps capability for the Mississippi River and Tributaries program

is $350 million.

Question. Is there a funding level for this account which will obviate the need for

earmarks, while allowing work to continue on priority projects?
166

Answer. The President’s budget for the Mississippi River and Tributaries program

in fiscal year 2000 is $280 million. The budget would allow work to proceed on all

projects, albeit not on optimal schedules.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES

Question. What is the status of the ongoing work to address deficiencies on the

mainline Mississippi River levees?

Answer. Construction continues on the Mississippi River Mainline Levee and

Berm Enlargement project, to bring the levees up to grade and otherwise assure the

capability of the levee system to successfully pass the project flood. A Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement was completed and a Record of Decision was

signed on 5 October 1998. Construction of most work items scheduled to commence

in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 has proceeded during preparation of the

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and is either complete or nearing

completion. The Corps expects to award the next two construction contracts in May

and June 1999, for work items located in Missouri and Mississippi. These work

items represent levee enlargements for the purpose of eliminating levee grade deficiencies at critical reaches of the levee system. On 4 December 1998,

EARTHJUSTICE Legal Defense Fund, Inc., challenged the adequacy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

A hearing is tentatively scheduled for late May 1999. The Corps is proceeding

with planned fiscal year 1999 work, neither expediting nor delaying work due to the

litigation.

NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI

Question. What is the status of work to address erosion on the bluffs in and

around the city of Natchez, Mississippi?

Answer. A portion of the top priority reach, Area 3, Clifton Avenue, was constructed in 1997 by the Natural Resource Conservation Service under its Emergency

Watershed Protection Program. Construction of the remainder of Area 3 is presently

underway by the Corps of Engineers and scheduled for completion later this year.

A Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in March 1998 and the construction

contract awarded in June 1998. Preparation of a Project Cooperation Agreement

amendment, supporting documents, and design covering the next priority reach,

Area 4, Madison Street to State Street, is currently underway, and every effort is

being made to accelerate activities to award a construction contract for Area 4 this

fiscal year.

Question. How much funding is needed within the existing authorization?

Answer. Sir, through fiscal year 1999, $12,500,000 has been appropriated. The

total additional amount considered necessary to fully fund the remaining authorized

work is $7,049,000. This includes funding the remaining work on Area 4, Madison

Street to State Street at a cost of $3,769,000; and the remaining two authorized

reaches—Area 6, Bluff above Silver Street, $1,110,000 and Area 7, Bluff above

Natchez Under-the-Hill, $2,170,000.

Question. What work needs additional authorization?

Answer. Sir, additional authorization would be required for the Corps to construct

additional features sought by the local sponsor, which are: bluff stabilization measures in Area 1, Weymouth Hall, Area 2, Between Weymouth Hall; and Park Street;

and Area 8, D.A. Biglane Street. Bluff stabilization for Area 5, Silver Street has

been accomplished by the city, and no additional work or authorization is required

for this area.

Question. What is the estimated cost of this work?

Answer. The estimated cost of construction for Areas 1, 2 and 8 is $13,935,000.

This would increase the total first cost of the authorized project from $26,065,000

to $40,000,000. The estimated Federal cost would be approximately $30,000,000 and

the estimated non-Federal cost would be approximately $10,000,000.

JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

Question. What is the status of the Jackson County, Mississippi, water supply

project?

Answer. Sir, the non-Federal sponsor, Jackson County, Mississippi, is preparing

the construction plans and specifications which are scheduled for completion in

April 1999. The Project Cooperation Agreement is scheduled to be signed in July

1999. The construction contract is scheduled for award in November 1999, with completion in January 2001.

Question. How much funding is needed within the existing authorization?
167

Answer. Sir, the existing funding authorization is $10,000,000. We have received $9,200,000 to date through Congressional Adds. Therefore, an additional $800,000

is needed to fulfill the existing authorization.

Question. What work needs additional authorization?

Answer. Sir, the project calls for expansion of the Jackson County industrial

water supply system in segments based on funding availability. Jackson County has

already constructed a portion of the total project and desires to use Corps funding

in the construction of the remaining project.

Question. What is the estimated cost of this work?

Answer. Sir, the estimated cost of this work is $5,000,000.

COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY, MISSISSIPPI

Question. It is my understanding that the Corps has undertaken a coastal environmental impact study for the Gulf Coast of Mississippi. What is the purpose and

scope of this study?

Answer. Sir, The Mississippi Gulf Coast has been developed by the casino industry at a greater rate than was envisioned by either the State of Mississippi or the

Federal agencies when Mississippi first allowed gaming on navigable waters. As a

result, existing casinos have developed most of the coastline previously used for

commercial and industrial facilities. New casino applicants must obtain Department

of the Army permits to build in environmentally sensitive areas in Harrison and

Hancock Counties, MS. Additionally, other large projects such as malls and subdivisions are also being proposed to locate in these same sensitive areas. We believe it

is necessary and timely to undertake a Coastal Environmental Impact Statement

(CEIS) to determine the likelihood and number of additional casinos locating on the

Mississippi Gulf Coast in the future, estimate the numbers of other large-scale

projects, and do a broad study of the environmental consequences of these future

casinos and projects. The scope of the CEIS is expected to encompass the coastline

of Harrison and Hancock Counties, and extend landward about one mile north of

Interstate 10.

Question. What is the estimated cost of this study?

Answer. Sir, The estimated cost of this study is approximately $750,000.

Question. Is the necessary funding included in the President’s budget?

Answer. Sir, the Regulatory Program fiscal year 2000 Budget request includes

$325,000, which is sufficient to continue this study effort.

Question. What is the schedule of work for this study?

Answer. Sir, the study will be initiated in June 1999, and is scheduled for completion in September 2001.

DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL

Question. Please provide a summary of all ongoing Demonstration Erosion Control

(DEC) projects in Mississippi. Please include total estimated cost of each and funding to date.

Answer. The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Black Creek Watershed

is $3,495,000 of which $1,398,000 has been provided for work on 1 riser pipe, 1

floodwater retarding structure and 2 bank stabilization items.

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Hurricane-Wolfe Watershed is

$375,000, of which $351,000 has been provided for work on 15 riser pipes.

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Coldwater River Watershed is

$1,879,000, of which $1,094,000 has been provided for work on 2 low drop structures, 3 box culvert, and 1 bank stabilization.

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Abiaca Creek Watershed is

$2,308,000, of which $441,000 has been provided for work on 1 levee and 1 riser

pipe.

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Batupan Bogue Watershed is

$2,615,000, of which $2,226,000 has been provided for work on 2 low drop structures, and 3 bank stabilizations.

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Cane—Mussacuna Watershed is

$439,000, of which $189,000 has been provided for work on 1 low drop structure.

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Hotophia Creek Watershed is

$350,000, of which $325,000 has been provided for work on 1 low drop structure.

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Otoucalofa Creek Watershed is

$1,876,000, of which $951,000 has been provided for work on 1 channel improvement, 1 riser pipe, 1 low drop structure, and 1 box culvert.

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Yalobusha River Watershed is

$1,755,000, of which $1,618,000 has been provided for work on 2 riser pipes, 2 low

drop structures, and 3 box culvert.
168

The total estimated cost of ongoing work in the Toby Tubby Creek Watershed is

$2,527,000, of which $275,000 has been provided for work on 1 floodwater retarding

structure, and 1 bank stabilization.

Additionally, $5,000,000 has been provided for engineering and design, construction management, data collection and monitoring activities, and approximately

$850,000 has been provided for lands and relocation activities which will be expended throughout these watersheds.

In summary, work with an estimated total cost of $26,469,000 has been initiated

in ten watersheds. Of the total cost, $14,718,000 has been provided through fiscal

year 1999 with a balance to complete of $11,751,000. The fiscal year 2000 budget

request of $6,294,000 will allow completion of all contracts scheduled for award in

fiscal year 1999. The budget does not, however, propose to continue the program

and does not include funding for additional contracts in fiscal year 2000 or beyond.

Question. Please also provide a list of all DEC watersheds.

Answer. A list of the authorized watersheds in the Demonstration Erosion Control

project include: Black Creek; Hurricane-Wolfe; Coldwater River; Abiaca Creek;

Batupan Bogue; Cane-Mussacuna; Hickahala Creek; Hotophia Creek; Long Creek;

Otoucalofa Creek; Yalobusha River; Pelucia Creek; Toby Tubby Creek; Burney

Branch; Sherman Creek; and Town Creek.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BENNETT

REGULATORY PROGRAM—ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

Question. Why hasn’t the Corps done as Congress and the President instructed

by creating an appeals program that allows for jurisdictional challenges?

Answer. The President’s budget for the last two years has included funding requests for the Regulatory Program that provided for the full appeals program. However, the appropriations for these years have been significantly below the requests.

The Corps has difficulty maintaining its staffing levels in the districts to cover the

basic program services. At the appropriations levels enacted, the Corps could not

implement the full appeals program without making significant reductions to the

basic services. The Corps has worked hard to improve its regulatory services to the

public and does not want those services to be degraded.

Question. What has the Corps done with the monies (both fiscal year 1998 and

fiscal year 1999) that were specifically earmarked, at the request of the Corps, for

the implementation of the administrative appeals process?

Answer. The Army budgeted for the administrative appeals process in fiscal year

1998 and fiscal year 1999 but did not request that the funds be earmarked. The

Appropriations Committee report language stated the intentions of the Committee

to have a full appeals process implemented. However, the appropriations we received in the fiscal years you mention were well below the President’s budget requests which would have funded the full appeals process without sacrificing services

to the public. More citizens depend on our responsiveness to their permit applications than the number that would use the appeals process.

The Regulatory Program is a labor-intensive program and, as such, requires a 2–

3 percent increase in funds each year just to maintain staffing levels. Most of the

Regulatory funds in these years was prudently used to maintain staffing levels of

the districts in order to continue providing timely, equitable services to the public.

In fiscal year 1999, we have been able to set aside some funds for the appeals of

permit denials and conditions which will become effective on August 6, 1999.

Question. One of the purposes of the 1993 wetlands plan is that the regulatory

program must be efficient, fair, flexible and predictable, and must be administered

in a manner that avoids unnecessary impacts upon private property and the regulated public. The administrative appeal was designed to ‘‘increase fairness in the

wetlands permitting process.’’ Yet the Corps has implemented an appeals program

that is opposed by the regulated community and only increases the burden on private property owners. Why has the Corps implemented an appeals program that

contradicts the Presidents instructions?

Answer. The Corps has heard from members of the regulated community that

they are pleased we have an appeals process for permit denials and conditions going

into effect this year. Many in the development community wish we had gone further

and adopted the appeals process for jurisdictional determinations as well. However,

at five times the cost of appeals of denials and conditions, the cost of jurisdictional

appeals has not made its implementation feasible.

The President’s budget requests have included the funds for a full appeals process

and they have been specific as to the costs required to fund it. These requests also
169

included funds to maintain current staff in order to ensure other services do not decline. In the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, there was a program increase equivalent

to the cost of the appeals program, but no funds were provided to cover the labor

cost increases needed to maintain the rest of the regulatory program. After three

years of level funding at $101 million, the program was unable to maintain its staffing level and even today the districts have many vacancies. We believe that we

would have unfairly sacrificed the basic services of the program (e.g., timely decisions and protection of the environment) and reversed the progress made to improve

these services if we had set aside $5 million for jurisdictional appeals that would

benefit fewer members of the public.

Question. In fiscal year 1997, the Corps acted on 65,138 Section 404 permit applications. Out of those, there were only 28 individual permit denials. As the Corps

has most recently indicated that it plans to only implement a partial administrative

appeals process for only permit denials, the Corps appears prepared to spend about

$180,000 per permit denial. Meanwhile, property owners who disagree with the

Corps over their jurisdictional determinations will still have to spend over a year

in the permitting process before having ability to challenge the decision in court.

Please justify the Corps decision to focus both its regulatory efforts and increased

budget on a program already subjected to direct judicial review and how you believe

this to be a fair an equitable process.

Answer. While we have supported the implementation of administrative appeals,

the problem has been the affordability of a full appeals process and its impacts on

the other parts of the Regulatory Program. Our cost estimate for appeals of permit

denials and conditions is $1 million per year. The cost to implement a jurisdictional

appeals process is estimated to be $5 million. To have dedicated $5 million from an

already austere program for the full process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in the districts. This would have meant cutting back on other services. The program impacts a sizable segment of the public through its permit and

enforcement-resolution programs. While everyone recognizes the advantages of jurisdictional appeals, it does not make sense to cut basic services in order to spend

money on an activity which would benefit a much smaller group.

A wetland delineation does not restrict an applicant from using his or her property. He or she has to apply for a permit if the activity is in a wetland. The Corps’

performance goal is to evaluate permit actions within 60 days, and the most recent

analysis or performance data showed that this goal is achieved 95 percent of the

time. If the permit is disapproved, or approved with certain conditions, then the applicant can bring a lawsuit against the Corps to challenge the delineation. In addition to 31 permit denials in fiscal year 1997, there also were 5,000 permits issued

that were subject to conditions. These will be subject to the existing appeals process.

Everyone agrees that the appeals process is less expensive and less time consuming than litigation. The Corps’ experience has been that most applicants are satisfied with a fair hearing in the local Corps district office, even if they do not get

the result they want. We want the permit process to be fair and equitable to our

citizens and we do not believe that litigation is the best way to resolve most differences.

Question. As indicated in the 1999 Conference Report, the implementation of an

administrative appeals process for only permit denials is unacceptable. Furthermore, the Conference Report language directs the Corps to demonstrate its progress

in implementing a full administrative appeal process when it requests its fiscal year

2000 budget. Why has the Corps recently insisted that it will only implement a program that addresses permit denials and stated publicly that it needs more money

to implement a full program, against the express instructions of Congress?

Answer. The Army’s position is to support Committee report language as fully and

as best as we can, within the resources provided in appropriation acts. However, the

appropriations we received in recent years were well below the President’s budget

requests. To have dedicated $5 million from our already austere program for the full

process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in the districts. The

public would suffer because, with fewer team members to evaluate permit applications, backlogs would grow and private citizens and businesspersons would have to

wait longer to receive a permit. The permit program serves more citizens than

would the appeals program so we decided that a phased implementation would work

best for the program and the public. We believe that we would be doing the Nation

a disservice by drastically curtailing or eliminating the other program activities in

order to implement fully the administrative appeals program.

We have complied with the Congressional direction in the Committee report language as best as we could, consistent with our commitment to provide fair and responsive services to the public. The final regulation for appeals of permit denials

and conditions was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 1999, with an
170

effective date of August 6, 1999. Permit denials and conditions made on or after

March 9, 1999 are subject to this appeals process. The August implementation is

necessary to recruit and train the appeals staff.

The process for the appeals of jurisdiction determinations is more complex and

labor intensive. With the levels of funding for the Regulatory Program in recent

years, the Corps has been unable to start up this part of the appeals process without compromising its services to the public. However, the Corps is making progress

on drafting a jurisdictional appeals regulation and should be able to implement appeals of jurisdictional determinations in early fiscal year 2000 if the requested funds

are appropriated.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY BURNS

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Question. I am concerned about the Army Corps of Engineers new final rule on

administrative appeals to Section 404 permits as published in the March 9 Federal

Register. As I recall, the President, in his Wetlands Plan of 1993, directed the Army

Corps of Engineers to establish an administrative appeals process for Section 404

permits. However, I understand that the final rule on administrative appeals will

deal only with appeals of denied Section 404 permits, not appeals of jurisdictional

determinations. Lacking this later provision disturbs me especially since Congress

rejected this notion last year of not allowing the public to appeal jurisdictional determinations of the Corps. Why do you insist on not allowing such appeals when

you stated in your March 10 testimony that you allow these types of appeals with

the fiscal year 2000 budget?

Answer. The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Regulatory Program includes funds for implementation of an appeals program for jurisdiction determinations. It would be implemented by a separate regulation published in the

Federal Register. In fiscal year 1999, the Corps is implementing a system for appeals of permit denials and conditions within the appropriation of $106 million.

The Corps has worked very hard to improve its services to the public and run a

program that is fair to landowners and commercial developers while still protecting

wetlands. If the Corps were to go ahead with jurisdiction appeals in fiscal year 1999

at the current funding level, many basic permit evaluation and related services

would have to be reduced to cover the costs of jurisdiction appeals. I would not like

to see these services degraded. An appeals process for jurisdiction determinations

is another step in the right direction, but the Corps needs the resources to implement it without sacrificing the basic services which the public expects and deserves.

Question. You recall Congress’s strong language in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations to the Corps that not including appeals for jurisdictional disputes was unacceptable and that the Corps needed to demonstrate its progress to implement a ‘‘full

administrative appeals process’’ with its fiscal year 2000 Budget request. You also

remember that $5 million was provided in fiscal year 1999 to implement this administrative appeals process. Given this guidance along with the $5 million provided,

why should not Congress rescind these funds given your new final rule?

Answer. The Corps is drafting regulations for the jurisdiction appeals which we

hope to have completed this year for implementation in fiscal year 2000. As I stated

earlier, appeals of permit denials and conditions will begin this year. The fiscal year

1999 appropriation was the same amount as the fiscal year 1998 appropriation and

both were well below the requested amounts. The Regulatory Program has been

struggling to cover basic services for several years because appropriations have not

kept pace with the increasing program demands and costs. The fiscal year 1998 increase of $5 million, the only increase since fiscal year 1995, was used to cover basic

labor-related costs such as salaries, training of regulatory personnel, and travel to

permit sites. Overall staffing had declined due to three years without a budget increase. The population that will benefit from the appeals program is small compared

to the general public who depend upon the Corps for permit evaluations, enforcement and resolution.

Question. If you believe lack of funding is part of the problem to administer an

appeals program for jurisdictional disputes, why haven’t you raised program fees to

generate additional funds? What has been done with the money previously allocated

by Congress to begin implementing a jurisdictional appeals process?

Answer. The President’s budget includes proposed appropriations language concerning regulatory permit fees. The Corps has not changed its fee structure since

1977. The proposal in the President’s budget would authorize the Secretary of the

Army to pursue reasonable changes that the Corps would adopt following notice and
171

comment rulemaking. The objective is to consider changes that would make the fees

more equitable and reduce the net Federal costs associated with the Regulatory program. Under the proposal, the revenues would be credited as offsetting collections,

not added to the Regulatory Program account.

The fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $106 million was an increase of $5 million

over the previous appropriations that had been held to $101 million in fiscal year

1995, 1996, and 1997, all of which were well below the President’s requests. Most

of the increase was used to cover labor costs, including filling vacancies in the districts. As a result of the level funding during these years, the Corps lost some district staff and basic program services were being affected.

Because of the constrained funding, the Corps was not able to fully satisfy the

Appropriations Committee report language regarding administrative appeals. In fiscal year 1998, however, the Corps did begin steps to implement the program for appeals of permit denials and conditions, at an annual cost of $1 million. To have dedicated $5 million for the full appeals process would have had too severe an impact

on the basic services.

Question. You are familiar with the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the 4th Circuit in U.S. v. Wilson. In that case the court found invalid the Corps/

EPA rule which asserts federal jurisdiction over an isolated wetland—a wetland not

directly connected or adjacent to interstate waters—on the basis that degradation

of the wetland could affect interstate commerce. The court required the existence

of an actual effect on interstate commerce before the Corps could claim jurisdiction

over the wetland. However, the Corps chose to apply the court’s holding only within

the five states that comprise the 4th circuit: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia,

North Carolina and South Carolina. The result is a federal regulatory program that

is broader in 45 states and narrower in 5 states. How do you justify this uneven

federal jurisdiction? Why not apply the court’s holding throughout the nation? What

is wrong with requiring a finding of an actual connection to interstate commerce before the federal government regulates private land?

Answer. While we agree that all states should be regulated consistently, we do

not agree with the court holding in the Wilson case. We are currently considering

issuing a regulation to clarify the Clean Water Act jurisdiction for isolated wetlands

that would be applicable nationwide. The Fourth Circuit decision is only required

to be applied within the Fourth Circuit. In this regard, we have issued interim guidance within the Fourth Circuit to comply with the court’s decision while we develop

the national regulation. While documenting an actual connection to interstate commerce would be possible in almost all cases, this approach would result in substantial delays and unnecessary work for the Corps and permit applicants.

Question. I understand the Corps has recently proposed to severely restrict the

use of streamlined permits for minor projects—so-called nationwide permits—in

wetlands near ‘‘impaired’’ waters, in ‘‘critical resource’’ waters and wetlands, and in

the 100-year flood plain. This proposal is likely to halt many projects that are minor

and routine, but nonetheless important to public and private entities alike. Can you

tell me how much of the United States is in the 100-year flood plain?

Answer. The Corps estimates that approximately 8 percent of the land area in the

continental United States is within the 100-year flood plain.

Question. How much of the 100-year flood plain is federal jurisdictional wetlands?

Answer. The Corps estimates that approximately 35 percent of the 100-year flood

plain consists of wetlands that are subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Question. How much of the wetlands within the 100-year flood plain are affected

by authorizations under the nationwide permit program?

Answer. Nearly all of the 30 current nationwide permits that authorize Section

404 activities could be used to authorize discharges into wetlands within the 100-

year floodplain. While all of the wetlands in the 100-year floodplain could be affected by the NWP program, most wetlands in the 100-year floodplain would not be

affected by any specific NWP authorization. During 1997, for example, 21,176 acres

of non-tidal wetlands were filled under general permit authorizations, including

NWP authorizations. Many of these non-tidal wetlands are outside of the 100-year

floodplain. We estimate that there are approximately 55,000,000 acres of wetlands

in the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, only a small proportion of the wetlands in the

100-year floodplain are filled as a result of activities authorized by nationwide permits.

Question. What is the effect on flood control of the activities authorized by nationwide permits in wetlands in the 100-year flood plain?

Answer. Activities that result in permanent, above-grade wetland fills in the 100-

year flood plain will decrease the flood-holding capacity of that floodplain. Unless

that loss of flood-holding capacity is mitigated, that 100-year flood plain will in-
172

crease in area, resulting in the flooding of a wider area during 100-year storm

events

Question. How does this proposal square with Congress’ intent expressed in 1977

when it provided authority to allow nationwide permits and that the nationwide

permits program was to be an integral part of the Section 404 regulatory program?

Answer. The proposal to prohibit the use of certain NWPs to authorize permanent, above-grade wetland fills in the 100-year flood plain is not contrary to the

Congressional intent of 1977, because only certain activities would be subject to this

prohibition. Congress also indicated that the NWPs were for activities that have

minimal individual and cumulative effects. This proposal will help ensure that this

standard is met. Some activities in the 100-year flood plain could be authorized by

other NWPs.

It is important to note that NWPs are optional permits. If the landowner cannot

comply with all conditions of the NWP, then he or she can apply for authorization

through the individual permit process, or request authorization through a regional

general permit, if such a permit is available for the proposed activity. We are considering ways to maximize protection of the 100-year flood plain capacity while not

unnecessarily restricting use of NWPs.

Question. According to the Corps’ own data, in fiscal year 1997 under the nationwide permits program, about 16,000 acres were permitted across the country—about

320 per state. In return, the Corps required the restoration of 28,600 acres as mitigation for the authorized impacts—about 572 per state. As a result, isn’t there a

net gain of 12,600 acres nationwide under the nationwide permits program—about

252 acres per state?

Answer. The data in your question is cited in the July 1, 1998, Federal Register

notice that contains the proposed NWPs to replace NWP 26. The figures, however,

are for activities authorized by the Corps through the standard permit process. For

general permits, including NWPs and regional general permits issued by Corps district offices, the Corps required approximately 24,800 acres of compensatory mitigation (including the restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation of aquatic

resources) for approximately 21,400 acres of waters of the United States lost due

to activities authorized by general permits. The net gain from activities authorized

by NWPs and regional general permits during 1997 was 3,400 acres. Since the

Corps databases combine impacts and mitigation figures for both NWPs and regional general permits, the Corps cannot separate how much of the wetland losses

and gains are due to NWP activities. Also, some of the mitigation was for preservation of existing wetlands.

Question. If there is this kind of gain of wetlands, rather than loss, why are the

restrictions proposed by the Administration necessary? Answer. Each year we spend over $7 billion for flood damages. As a matter of policy we do not believe that we should encourage development of our flood plains. The

purpose of the proposed flood plain restriction is to address concerns about public

health and safety by reducing the loss of life and property caused by flooding, safeguarding sources of drinking water supplies, and protecting and restoring the natural functions of the Nation’s flood plains. It is important to note that, although

there is some wetland gain as a result of activities authorized by general permits,

wetland gain is not necessarily providing additional flood-holding capacity or reducing flood hazards. For example, wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement activities required for wetland losses in the 100-year flood plain that are authorized

by general permits may be conducted off-site and outside the 100-year flood plain.

Question. According to the Corps’ own data, mining activities under the new proposed nationwide permit for mining activities will impact 145 acres of wetlands nationally, or 2.90 per state. If this is not a minimal impact, what is? Why is it necessary to further restrict the use of the proposed nationwide permit for mining activities?

Answer. Mining activities affect more than wetlands. These activities can have

substantial adverse effects on streams and economically important fish species, such

as endangered salmon, that inhabit those streams.

Question. With respect to ‘‘impaired waters,’’ which is not defined in the Administration’s proposal, how many waters will be designated as ‘‘impaired,’’ and thereby

off-limits to use of the streamlined nationwide permits under this proposal?

Answer. Based on data in a report published by the Environmental Protection

Agency in 1996, approximately 252,000 river miles, 6.55 million acres of lakes,

ponds, and reservoirs, 4,730 shoreline miles of the Great Lakes, and 11,155 square

miles of estuarine waters in the United States are considered ‘‘impaired. ‘‘ According

to this report, few states have developed criteria to determine if the loss of wetlands

is the cause of the waters being designated as impaired. As for the NWP restriction,

the Corps is considering using the State lists, which are produced in accordance
173

with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, to determine which waters are impaired. The sources of impairment subject to the NWP restriction include nutrients,

organic enrichment resulting in low dissolved oxygen concentration in the water column, sedimentation and siltation, habitat alteration, suspended solids, flow alteration, turbidity, or the loss of wetlands. We are considering allowing the NWPs to

authorize activities in impaired bodies of water, provided the authorized activity,

plus any required mitigation, results in net improvement of the aquatic ecosystem

of the impaired water.

According to this 1996 report, approximately 124,902 river miles are impaired due

to siltation, 97,147 river miles are impaired due to nutrients, 69,391 river miles are

impaired due to oxygen-depleting substances, 48,573 river miles are impaired due

to habitat alterations, and 48,573 river miles are impaired due to suspended solids.

For lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, approximately 3.36 million acres are impaired due

to nutrients, 1.68 million acres are impaired due to siltation, 1.34 million acres are

impaired due to oxygen-depleting substances, and 840,000 acres are impaired due

to suspended solids. Approximately 311 shoreline miles of the Great Lakes are impaired due to nutrients and 311 shoreline miles of the Great Lakes are impaired

due to oxygen-depleting substances. For estuaries, approximately 6,340 acres are

impaired due to nutrients, approximately 3,458 acres are impaired due to oxygendepleting substances, and 1,729 acres are impaired due to habitat alterations.

Question. Recent reports indicate that the Corps is about to release a final rule

establishing an administrative appeals process within which to appeal decisions by

the Corps. However, the reports quote John Studt, Chief of the Corps Headquarters

Regulatory Branch, as acknowledging that the appeals process will not allow an appeal of the Corps determination that one’s land is ‘‘wetlands’’ subject to the Corps

jurisdiction. I’m concerned about that because right now I understand that in order

to challenge assertion of jurisdiction by the Corps, the Corps requires a landowner

to apply for a permit to use his land, and only if the permit is denied can the landowner go to federal court to challenge not only the permit denial, but the original

determination by the Corps that the land is a wetland. I’m also concerned that the

Corps is ignoring specific directions of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The

Committee provided funding for an administrative appeals process for fiscal year

1998. The report accompanying the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal

year 1999, S. Rep. 105–206, states that the committee supports implementation of

an administrative appeals process ‘‘including appeals related to jurisdictional determinations’’ (p. 76). My question is, given these specific concerns and directives by

the Senate, is the Corps going to issue an appeals process that includes appeal of

determinations that a persons land is wetlands? And if not, why not?

Answer. Appeals of permit denials and conditions will begin in fiscal year 1999.

The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request includes funding for a full appeals

process that includes jurisdiction determinations. The appeals process for jurisdiction determinations will follow, once the necessary funding is available. We want

to implement this initiative and urge Congress to provide this funding in fiscal year

2000.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CRAIG

REGULATORY PROGRAM—ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS

Question. What has the Corps done with the monies (both fiscal year 1998 and

fiscal year 1999) that were specifically earmarked, at the request of the Corps, for

the implementation of the administrative appeals process?

Answer. The Army budgeted for the administrative appeals process in fiscal year

1998 and fiscal year 1999 but did not request that the funds be earmarked. The

Appropriations Committee report language stated the intentions of the Committee

to have a full appeals process implemented. However, the appropriations we received in the fiscal years you mention were well below the President’s budget requests which would have funded the full appeals process without sacrificing services

to the public. More citizens depend on our responsiveness to their permit applications than the number that would use the appeals process.

The Regulatory Program is a labor-intensive program and, as such, requires a 2–

3 percent increase in funds each year just to maintain staffing levels. Most of the

Regulatory funds in these years was prudently used to maintain staffing levels of

the districts in order to continue providing timely, equitable services to the public.

In fiscal year 1999, we have been able to set aside some funds for the appeals of

permit denials and conditions which will become effective on August 6, 1999.
174

Question. In fiscal year 1997, the Corps acted on 65,138 Section 404 permit applications. Out of those, there were only 28 individual permit denials. As the Corps

has most recently indicated that it plans to only implement a partial administrative

appeals process for only permit denials, the Corps appears prepared to spend about

$180,000 per permit denial. Meanwhile, property owners who disagree with the

Corps over their jurisdiction determinations will still have to spend over a year in

the permitting process before having the ability to challenge the decision in court.

Please explain your justification for the Corps’ decision to focus both its regulatory

efforts and increased budget on a program already subjected to direct judicial review, and how do you believe this to be a fair and equitable process?

Answer. While we have supported the implementation of administrative appeals,

the problem has been the affordability of a full appeals process and its impacts on

the other parts of the Regulatory Program. Our cost estimate for appeals of permit

denials and conditions is $1 million per year. The cost to implement a jurisdictional

appeals process is estimated to be $5 million. To have dedicated $5 million from an

already austere program for the full process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in the districts. This would have meant cutting back on other services. The program impacts a sizable segment of the public through its permit and

enforcement-resolution programs. While everyone recognizes the advantages of jurisdictional appeals, it does not make sense to cut basic services in order to spend

money on an activity which would benefit a much smaller group.

A wetland delineation does not restrict an applicant from using his or her property. He or she simply has to apply for a permit if the activity is in a wetland. The

Corps’ performance goal is to evaluate permit actions within 60 days, and the most

recent analysis or performance data showed that this goal is achieved 95 percent

of the time. If the permit is disapproved, or approved with certain conditions, then

the applicant can bring a lawsuit against the Corps to challenge the delineation. In

addition to 31 permit denials in fiscal year 1997, there also were 5,000 permits

issued that were subject to conditions. These will be subject to the existing appeals

process.

Everyone agrees that the appeals process is less expensive and less time consuming than litigation. The Corps’ experience has been that most applicants are satisfied with a fair hearing in the local Corps district office, even if they do not get

the result they want. We want the permit process to be fair and equitable to our

citizens and we do not believe that litigation is the best way to resolve most differences.

Question. As indicated in the 1999 Conference Report, the implementation of an

administrative appeals process for only permit denials is unacceptable. Furthermore, the Conference Report language directs the Corps to demonstrate its progress

in implementing a full administrative appeals process when it requests its fiscal

year 2000 budget. Why has the Corps recently again insisted that it will only implement a program that addresses permit denials and that it needs more money to implement a full program, against the expressed instructions of the Congress?

Answer. The Army’s position is to support Committee report language as fully and

as best as we can, within the resources provided in appropriation acts. However, the

appropriations we received in recent years were well below the President’s budget

requests. To have dedicated $5 million from our already austere program for the full

process would have meant shortages of regulatory personnel in the districts. The

public would suffer because, with fewer team members to evaluate permit applications, backlogs would grow and private citizens and businesspersons would have to

wait longer to receive a permit. The permit program serves more citizens than

would the appeals program so we decided that a phased implementation would work

best for the program and the public. We believe that we would be doing the Nation

a disservice by drastically curtailing or eliminating the other program activities in

order to implement fully the administrative appeals program.

We have complied with the Congressional direction in the Committee report language as best as we could, consistent with our commitment to provide fair and responsive services to the public. The final regulation for appeals of permit denials

and conditions was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 1999, with an

effective date of August 6, 1999. The process for the appeals of jurisdiction determinations is more complex and labor intensive. With the levels of funding for the

Regulatory Program in recent years, we have not been able to start up this part

of the appeals process without compromising our services to the public.

MILO CREEK

Question. Milo Creek flows under the communities of Kellogg and Wardner, Idaho.

During a rain on snow event in May of 1997, the creek jumped its banks and burst
175

through the city streets and yards. Raw sewage ran down the streets and backed

up into one home running through its pipes and flowed out of the roof of the home.

The situation is even more complicated because the area lies within the Bunker Hill

Superfund site. The water running through the streets contained high levels of

heavy metals. The blood lead levels obtained for 1998 showed an increase in children’s levels in the direct area of the Milo Creek project. The communities and the

State chose Alternative D of the Corps Reconnaissance Report Phase of 1995 for reconstruction and Phase I of the project has been completed and they are going to

bid for Phase II. The COE has reviewed and commented on the Phase I and is

awaiting bids for Phase II. However, the COE has not financially participated in the

project. The communities are currently short of funds and with the high snow pack

(150 percent of normal) they are expecting another flooding situation. If the project

can’t be completed this year, the potential for additional health and environmental

related damages is likely to occur.

As the COE has been committed to the Milo Creek project through their studies,

can you apply the money that has been held for the Milo Creek project and use the

money for the Phase II portion of the project?

Answer. There are no Corps funds being held for the Milo Creek project. Also, the

Corps has no authority to apply funds to continue the construction of the State’s

project. The Corps conducted a reconnaissance level study under its Section 205 authority to determine if a viable solution existed that would solve the flooding problems. While this study was favorable, it was only to recommend more detailed feasibility studies. Following the flooding of 1997, local officials decided not to continue

with the more detailed study but focus on addressing the immediate problems. This

resulted in implementation of a project by the State of Idaho.

The Corps could continue the project under the Section 205 program if a local

sponsor is willing to participate in continuing the planning and design phases of the

project, which could lead to the Corps funding the Federal share of construction.

LIBBY DAM, MT

Question. My office has been working with the landowners in Boundary County,

Idaho. They have been experiencing ongoing difficulties with the operation of the

Libby Dam in Montana. When the dam was built it was to be managed for flood

control, power management and recreation. Since that time the government has

added management for the Kootenai River sturgeon and salmon. The down river

landowners have experienced serious erosion because of water flows coming from

the dam.

The levels of the river are kept higher year long allowing for seepage to occur

along the river causing additional erosion and crop loss. This comes about from sturgeon requiring a higher flow during the months of June and July, and salmon requiring faster water during August.

As the requirements for Endangered Species affect the management of the river,

can you provide relief for the landowners during the rest of the year to allow their

land to ‘dry out’ prior to the onset of these faster flows by adjusting river levels?

Can the levels and flows be maintained year round to protect agriculture from damages and erosion?

Answer. We regulate Libby Dam for flood control within our overall operational

constraints. The only time the land can ‘dry out’ is usually the latter part of March

and early April. The flood control operation of Libby Dam requires releasing water

during the fall and winter to assure that the reservoir has adequate flood storage

space at the onset of spring runoff. In years of higher than normal snowpack, like

1996, 1997 and 1999, the Kootenai River is generally high from November until

March. Depending upon how large the snow pack is in a given year, April may be

the only opportunity to reduce flow in the spring.

Regarding the levels and flows, operation of the Libby project is constrained in

large part because of the Corps of Engineers’ commitment to implement actions consistent with the Biological Opinions in place under requirements of the Endangered

Species Act. Current periods of low flow may be from September through November.

In a wet winter, flow will be high from December through March, when April becomes the only opportunity to reduce flow.
176

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR REID

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—CONTINUING AUTHORITIES

Question. In your statement, Dr. Westphal, you request $1.24 billion for the Construction General Program. Is this funding for new studies under the Continuing

Authorities Program or completion of projects already in construction? Answer. The $1.24 billion request for Construction, General includes $57 million

for the Continuing Authorities Program. This amount is sufficient to allow a balanced program of study, design and construction, including both continuation of

projects underway and new starts.

Question. You mention only one new ‘‘survey’’. I’m assuming this is a reconnaissance study. I understand that there may be a backlog in the General Investigation

Program, has there been a decrease in requests from local agencies and interests

for new surveys? Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $100,000 for one new start

reconnaissance section 905b analysis. The new start surveys are being constrained

to allow the backlog of projects approaching construction to be reduced. The number

of requests for new start surveys has not decreased.

HARBOR SERVICES FUND

Question. In your statement, Mr. Secretary, you state that you will be pursuing

Harbor Services Fund legislation separately from WRDA 99. When do you propose

to send it to Congress?

Answer. I plan to send the legislative proposal to Congress in April.

CHALLENGE 21 PROGRAM

Question. Do you have any projects being considered under the new Challenge 21

program anticipated in Water Resources Development Act of 1999?

Answer. More than 50 potential sponsors of Challenge 21 projects have been identified. However, none has been formally selected yet. Regarding WRDA 99, it is not

our intent to budget for specific Challenge 21 projects, but rather to treat this as

a program in which projects would be proposed and funded throughout the year.

Question. Do you have a selection criteria established for projects that will

be considered under this program?

Answer. Basically, all floodplains are eligible for the Challenge 21 initiative. Candidate projects must show the potential to both reduce flooding and restore riverine

ecosystems. Priority will go to projects with strong local support and potential to include other Federal, non-Federal, and non-profit agencies in implementation of the

project. More specific selection criteria will be established when funds are appropriated.

Question. You do not mention the Project Cooperation Agreements and reimbursement issue in your statement, but I would like to know whether you see this as a

problem with future financing of projects? Without closure in the Congressional

committees regarding this issue, should negotiations continue on Project cooperation

Agreements with reimbursement as a component with non- Federal entities?

Answer. Yes, reimbursements could become a problem in the future if the amount

continues to grow each year. There is a potential that the Corps could become a primarily a grant agency in some districts with large reimbursable type projects. We

are concerned about the potential loss of technical expertise within districts as the

number of reimbursement type projects increases. We want to work with Congress

to resolve this problem, but it is the prerogative of Congress to make the decision

on whether or not to continue to undertake such projects. Our current practice is

not to begin negotiation of an agreement involving non-Federal work or advanced

funds that could require possible future Federal appropriations until we have coordinated the request within the Administration and with the Appropriations Committees.

Question. In your statement, you say that you have fully implemented the Project

Management concept and are streamlining the planning process to ensure completion of studies within budget and on schedule. Is your agency prepared to delegate

the responsibility and authority to Division/District levels so that steps can be taken

to fulfill this commitment?

Answer. We have model feasibility cost sharing agreements, which if signed without deviation, require no review at higher level in the Corps. If the sponsor requests

deviations from the model, the agreement does require additional review.

Improving our project delivery process is an ongoing concern of mine. Over the

past several years we initiated a number of process improvements to reduce the

time required to take a project through the planning, design, and construction proc-
177

ess. We will continue to improve and refine our process in the future but there is

only so much that can be done within the current authorization/appropriation process. A recent review of our process by the National Research Council determined

that ‘‘ * * * the Corps project planning procedures are generally sound and not excessively lengthy when compared to private sector planning studies.’’ There are,

however, areas where the Congress can help us further streamline the process. I am

prepared to work with you to further expedite and improve our project delivery process.Question. In your statement, you mention that changes to the Continuing Authorities Program recommended by a process action team will be implemented. Currently, sponsors are not required to provide cash until the construction phases of

a project. How will your changes affect small jurisdictions (Nevada) with limited

funds for upfront contribution?

Answer. Under the traditional Continuing Authorities Program, after the first $100,000, sponsors currently provide 50 percent of the cost of the feasibility study

at the time of the feasibility study. Under the environmental authorities, S.1135 and

S.206, the total study cost is Federally funded and then cost-shared at the time of

construction. The current proposal would create a single project development process that captures some elements of each existing process. Cost-sharing would be initiated during planning on all projects; however, it would be at the more favorable

construction cost-sharing percentage for all authorities. This will create a simpler

and more equitable process for all sponsors under all authorities. We believe that

local sponsors who have provided 50 percent of the feasibility cost for S.205 small

flood control projects in the past would be satisfied with this proposed change.

RESTRUCTURING OF HEADQUARTERS AND DIVISION OFFICES

Question. In your statement, you reference the reorganization of Headquarters

and Division offices. You mention a staff reduction of 14 percent from fiscal year

1996 to fiscal year 1999. Why is the General Expenses budget request the same as

last year?

Answer. The executive direction and management of the Civil Works program,

performed by the headquarters and division offices, plays a key role in providing

oversight and direction to our important civil works mission. Staff reductions have

permitted us to maintain an appropriate level of executive direction and management with a constant $148 million budget from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2000.

Since General Expenses is a labor-intensive account which requires personnel cuts

to absorb cost growth, this flat budget requires us to absorb inflation, pay increases,

and extraordinary expenses within the operating base. The projected fiscal year

2000 inflation of about 3 percent plus the 4.4 percent in pay increases translates

to approximately $5.3 million of cost increases being absorbed.

REGULATORY APPEALS PROCESS

Question. In your statement, you recognize the struggle regarding the Regulatory appeals process. You have requested an increase of $11 million. How will the increase in funding be used to remedy the problems with the appeals process? Will

you be adding staff to your Regulatory field offices in order to process applications

in a timely manner? Answer. Of the $11 million increase in the President’s budget, $3 million is for labor cost increases and filling vacancies in the district offices, and $5 million is for

implementation of the appeals process for jurisdiction determinations. Even without

an appeals process, the Corps must maintain staffing levels in the districts to evaluate permit applications in a timely manner. This is the purpose of the additional

$3 million.

Additional staff will be needed, however, to process administrative appeals for jurisdictional determinations. For appeals of permit denials and conditions, which is

being implemented this year, each division office will have an appeals officer. More

appeals officers will be added, perhaps in the districts, to handle the appeals process

for jurisdiction determinations. Just as the Corps is committed to evaluating permit

applications in a timely manner, it plans to do the same for appeals.

LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS

Question. In Las Vegas there is an area known as the Lower Las Vegas Wash

Wetlands. The area feeds directly into Lake Mead and therefore is significant to the

ecology of the region. There are significant water quality issues such as erosion and

perchlorate contamination in the Wash. Unfortunately, the Corps has budgeted only

$100,000 for this key environmental project. Could you give me a status update on

this project?
178

Answer. Our final reconnaissance report was completed in June 1998. We have

been working with the non-Federal sponsor, Clark County Department of Parks and

Recreation, to develop and finalize the project study plan. The sponsor has been trying to identify a funding source for its cost sharing of the feasibility study for several months and is presently working with the Nevada Water Agency to secure the

necessary non-Federal funds. Although we have currently scheduled the feasibility

study to begin in August 1999, there remains a high level of uncertainty regarding

the source of non-Federal funds.

Question. Since there is a Lake Mead Water Quality Forum that constitutes 21

members of the federal, state and local agencies, the meetings of which are periodically attended by the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers, couldn’t this

project be a model of the National Research Council recommendation regarding watersheds as the basic planning unit?

Answer. Yes, the Lake Mead Water Quality Forum could be a model of the National Research Council recommendation regarding watersheds as the basic planning unit. The Lower Las Vegas Wash feasibility study will focus on habitat restoration opportunities in the watershed. Habitat restoration represents a specific component of the water quality focus of the Lake Mead Water Quality Forum. Since the

Clark County Department of Parks and Recreation is a member of the Lake Mead

Water Quality Forum, there may be information that would be beneficial to our

study and theirs.

Question. The Water Quality Forum is moving toward the finalization of proposals

which they will be presenting my staff. Will the Corps be able or willing to coordinate with the Forum as proposals are finalized at the local level?

Answer. Yes, we will review and evaluate the proposals of the Lake Mead Water

Quality Forum to determine whether or not any of the proposals could be pursued

under existing Corps authorities.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRD

Question. Mr. Chairman, the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request for the

Corps of Engineers of $3.9 billion in new budget authority is, generally speaking,

much better than his budget request for fiscal year 1999, but the request is still

below the level enacted for fiscal year 1999. While I am heartened that the Corps

is receiving some support from the Administration for its programs and projects, I

am concerned about the Corps; ability to carry out its critical mission. These are

difficult budget times, despite all of the media hype about the projected budget surpluses, yet the Corps provides crucial services to the nation in the areas of navigation assistance flood mitigation, recreation opportunities, and power generation. I

look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member and other members of the Subcommittee to ensure that sufficient funds are made available for the

Corps to continue its projects and programs.

In reviewing the specifics of the budget request for the Corps, I note that the request proposes a decrease of 27 million in general investigations and that this decrease will result in (1) less funds for navigation, flood damage prevention and

shoreline protection studies, (2) reduced support for preconstruction engineering and

design, (3) lower levels of flood plain management, and (4) a decrease in research

and development.

Will these proposed program decreases for general investigations have a negative

impact on the long-term health of our economy, our ability to protect communities

from the ravages of floodwaters, or on our quality of life?

Answer. No. I do not believe that the proposed program decreases will have a negative impact on the long term health of our economy. We will continue to address

the flood damage reduction needs of the nation’s communities. Let me assure you

that the Army Civil Works mission continues to very much be in the business of

addressing, evaluating and solving the nation’s water resource infrastructure problems. We are simply proposing a pause in the new study start program for the

Corps this year in order to catch our breath and at least put a sizeable dent in the

number of projects currently in the construction pipeline. I hope, if all goes well

with the Corps program in 2000 as well as with the economy and the budget in general, that we can resume a higher new start program in the outyears.

I also note some major decreases are proposed in the construction account for

locks and dams, for local protection projects, for beach erosion control projects, and

for dam safety assurance projects.

Question. Will these program decreases proposed for construction projects have a

negative impact in the short term on our economy and on flood protection?
179

Answer. The proposed fiscal year 2000 construction program generally does not

fund flood protection projects at their optimum schedules and these projects would

not be completed as expeditiously as possible. In this context, there could be a negative impact on the economy of an affected locality if flood protection were not in

place when a flood occurred.

Question. Won’t the proposed construction decreases have the effect of postponing

the completion of many projects, delaying the benefits that will be realized from

their completion?

Answer. About 66 projects included in the President’s budget would be affected

by the funding levels proposed for the fiscal year 2000 construction program. These

projects would be delayed an average of 5 months from their optimum schedules.

It is not possible to conduct a definitive analysis of the delayed benefits because so

many assumptions about the future are required, and many of these decisions have

not yet been made. Let it suffice to say there are costs associated with forgone benefits.

Question. Does the Corps of Engineers have construction capabilities above the

level proposed in the President’s budget request? What level of construction funding

did the Corps include in its request to the Office of Management and Budget?

Answer. Yes, the Corps has construction capabilities that individually total about

$2 billion. However, these capabilities consider each project by itself without reference to the rest of the program. The Army initially recommended a fiscal year

2000 program to OMB that totaled $1.815 billion. This amount was later reduced

to $1.725 after enactment of appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Question. While most activities of the construction account are proposed for decreases relative to the fiscal year 1999 funding level, two areas would receive modest increases: environmental projects and work involving aquatic ecosystems. While

these increases are quite small, it seems noteworthy that while most construction

activities are slated for decreases, these two are proposed for increases. What work

is slated to be accomplished by the new funds recommended for environmental

projects and aquatic ecosystems?

Answer. Although the request for fiscal year 2000 for the Section 1135 and Section 206 programs is $5.7 million greater than the request for fiscal year 1999, it

is actually $7.2 million less than was appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The fiscal

year 2000 request of $13 million is just $1.2 million more than we expended last

year in fiscal year 1998. The $13 million will allow us to pursue a balanced program

of work, including continuation of over 300 projects underway, coordination with

local sponsors seeking new projects and initiation of new projects.

Question. Does the President’s budget request propose to increase funding for environmental activities at the expense of navigation, flood mitigation and control, and

dam safety?

Answer. For the fiscal year 2000 budget, 28 port development projects and activities are funded to meet optimum completion schedules in accordance with the proposed Harbor Services User Fee which will cover all construction costs. Amounts for

165 flood damage reduction, inland waterways, and shore protection projects and activities which rely on general tax revenues to finance their construction costs are

constrained to a level that is about two-thirds of what is needed to maintain optimum completion schedules. The completion schedules for these projects is similar

to the completion schedules prepared for the fiscal year 1999 budget. In addition,

9 high priority projects for mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and other purposes are

funded to meet optimum completion schedules.

O&M INCREASE

Question. What types of needs and costs will be covered by the five percent increase for operation and maintenance.

Answer. While providing for the operation and maintenance of the Corps projects

at justifiable levels of service in all of the five O&M business processes, (navigation,

flood damage reduction, hydropower, recreation, and environmental stewardship) it

better enables us to extend the useful life of our aging infrastructure.

Question. Does the proposed increase cover all of your anticipated increases for

operations and maintenance?

Answer. As I mentioned, we can continue to safely operate and maintain our

projects, however over the years budgetary limitations have resulted in a buildup

of unfunded maintenance work items. Since that buildup has grown to be over $1.6

billion, we cannot conceivably cover all of that work in one year. The increase has
180

helped us to address some items which had been previously deferred while minimizing the number of new items to be added to the backlog.

IMPACT OF 2000 FUNDING LEVEL

Question. What types of needs and costs will be covered by the ten percent increase for the Regulatory Program?

Answer. The President’s budget requests $117 million which is $11 million more

than the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The funds would be used as follows:

Administrative Appeals Process.—Allows applicants to contest regulatory decisions

without going to court. In fiscal year 1999, the Corps will be implementing appeals

of permit denials and conditions. The appeals process for jurisdiction determinations

would be implemented with $5 million in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.

Maintaining Program Performance.—About $3 million is required to cover ordinary manpower cost increases and inflation. This is essential to allow filling of vacancies so program performance does not decline. At 90,000 permit actions in fiscal

year 1998, workload is at an all-time high. The fact that there was no funding increase from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1999 has meant staff vacancies in the

districts cannot be filled this year.

Watershed Management Efforts and related area studies.—About $2.5 million in

new funding would allow additional special studies of sensitive areas with intensive

developmental pressures. Study products help predict permit impacts in a more

comprehensive manner than is possible on a permit-by-permit basis. Individual future projects can then be evaluated much more efficiently and expeditiously, and

some management plans can result in shared regulatory responsibilities with state

and local governments, reducing duplication and delays.

Wetland Delineator Certification Program.—The Corps is developing a national

program for the training and certification of non-federal individuals as certified wetlands delineators. Final implementation has not occurred because of funding constraints; Start-up costs for full implementation in all districts is approximately

$500,000.

Question. Why is this increase needed for the for the Regulatory Program?

Answer. Because the Regulatory Program is a people-intensive program, the requested funds will continue the Corps commitment to serve the public in a fair and

reasonable manner while ensuring the protection of the aquatic environment required by laws and regulations. In fiscal year 1998, the Corps authorized 90,000 activities in writing. With the number of permit activities increasing by at least 5,000

each year, the President’s budget request will ensure that this level of service is

maintained.

The Corps also will continue to pursue important initiatives. Regional and nationwide general permits increase cooperation with state and local governments and

help streamline the regulatory process. The Corps will establish an administrative

appeals process for jurisdiction determinations which, in addition to the appeals of

permit denials and conditions to be implemented this year, will allow the public to

challenge regulatory decisions without costly, time-consuming litigation.

Question. Why is this increase needed for the for the Regulatory Program?

Answer. Because the Regulatory Program is a people-intensive program, the requested funds will continue the Corps commitment to serve the public in a fair and

reasonable manner while ensuring the protection of the aquatic environment required by laws and regulations. In fiscal year 1998, the Corps authorized 90,000 activities in writing. With the number of permit activities increasing by at least 5,000

each year, the President’s budget request will ensure that this level of service is

maintained. The Corps also will continue to pursue important initiatives. Regional

and nationwide general permits increase cooperation with state and local governments and help streamline the regulatory process. The Corps will establish an administrative appeals process for jurisdiction determinations which, in addition to the

appeals of permit denials and conditions to be implemented this year, will allow the

public to challenge regulatory decisions without costly, time-consuming litigation.

MARMET LOCKS AND DAM

Question. Congress provided $6,500,000 last year for land acquisition, detailed engineering, and design work associated with a major lock replacement program at

Marmet Lock and Dam along the Kanawha River. The President’s fiscal year 2000

budget request for the project is $9,800,000. The Marmet Lock and Dam is a major

navigational structure, responsible for moving millions of tons of cargo to and from

West Virginia every year. This major lock replacement project will help maintain

and increase the efficient flow of commerce.
181

Last year the Corps estimated that is would need to buy about 250 properties for

this project. How many have been purchased to date, and how many do you anticipate having purchased by the close of fiscal year 2000?

Answer. We have purchased approximately 35 properties so far, and we will have

purchased approximately 110 properties by the end of fiscal year 2000.

Question. When do you anticipate that the land acquisition for the project will be

complete? When do you anticipate that the land acquisition will be sufficiently far

enough along that you can begin construction?

Answer. The land acquisition will take through fiscal year 2002 to complete. We

will have completed sufficient land acquisition and design by the end of fiscal year

2001 to initiate construction of the lock in fiscal year 2002.

Question. How much money will be needed beyond fiscal year 2000 to complete

the project? What work will remain to be done?

Answer. An additional $264,200,000 is needed beyond fiscal year 2000 for continued engineering and design of the lock and appurtenant features, acquisition of the

140 remaining properties, and construction of the lock.

Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities at Marmet for fiscal year 2000

above those identified in the President’s budget?

Answer. The Corps has the capability, subject to the qualifying language, to use

an additional $1,550,000 to advance engineering and design and land acquisition.

This would accelerate project completion by approximately six months.

Senator BYRD. Gentlemen, I am encouraged that the President’s budget for fiscal

year 2000 includes support for this project for the inland navigation system. Marmet

has a strong benefit/cost ratio because of the substantial value of the coal, chemicals, and other products shipped along the Kanawha River and the Ohio system.

While the budget request indicates an increased level of support by the Administration for this project, I would remind the Corps that many people are affected by this

project—not just those whose lives and homes are being disrupted by the construction, but also all of the people whose work depends upon the locks, the shipping,

and the products that go through Marmet. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all of

us to help move this project forward as efficiently as we can to avoid any unnecessary delays.

GREENBRIER BASIN FLOOD PROTECTION

Question. The Greenbrier Basin of eastern West Virginia is one of the prettiest

parts of the State and one prone to extensive flooding. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized the Corps to implement local protection plans to help

mitigate damage from future flooding. The fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act provided $500,000 for the design and implementation

of a flood warning system in the Greenbrier basin.

Has the Corps reached an agreement with the City of Marlinton on a local protection plan? Have the details of the plan been worked out and agreed to among the

participants?

Answer. The Corps has been working with the City of Marlinton, and has generally come to an agreement for a plan of protection. The local protection plan includes a levee down the front side of Marlinton that borders the Greenbrier River

and a secondary levee along the Riverside area of town. For the remaining flood protection, two alternatives are presently under consideration. One involves the extension of the levee upstream along Knapps Creek, the other would be for construction

of the Knapps Creek diversion channel.

Question. Has a local sponsor been identified for the non-Federal part of the local

protection plan? What is the non-Federal cost? What is the total cost?

Answer. The City of Marlinton has expressed an interest in being the local sponsor. The total project cost is estimated to be approximately $54,700,000. The city

qualifies for a reduction in its cost share to 14 percent based on ability-to-pay provisions. The non-Federal share would be approximately $7,700,000; however, the city

may need other assistance to provide this amount. The Federal share would be approximately $47,000,000; however, in accordance with Section 574 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the amount authorized to be appropriated for the

Greenbrier River Basin project is limited to $12,000,000.

Question. What activities are currently being conducted on the Marlinton local

protection plan?

Answer. The Corps is finalizing the design, conducting field investigations, and

evaluating the feasibility of the two alternatives in the Knapp Creek area.

Question. What capabilities does the Corps anticipate for fiscal year 2000 for the

Marlinton local protection plan?
182

Answer. The Corps capability for the Marlinton local protection project, an element of the Greenbrier River Basin project, is $1,000,000, subject to the qualifying

language. If provided, these funds would be used for continuing the Marlinton detailed project report.

Question. What is the status of the flood warning system for the Greenbrier

basin?

Answer. The system was installed in 1997 and 1998, within the 18 months specified in the 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. The system is

operational. The Project Cooperation Agreement was modified so that an additional

stream gage could be installed this spring at Renick, West Virginia.

Question. How much will it cost to maintain the flood warning system once it is

fully operational?

Answer. It will cost approximately $32,400 per year to operate the rain gages, including the Renick gage. The State of West Virginia is the project sponsor.

Question. What future construction and operational needs are required for the

flood warning system?

Answer. Installation of the gage at Renick will complete the flood warning system.

Question. How many stream gages and how many rain gages are included in the

flood warning system?

Answer. The system includes 6 stream gages, including the gage at Renick, and

a number of rain gages operated by the National Weather Service.

Question. What is the relationship between the Corps and the National Weather

Service with regards to the warning system?

Answer. The National Weather Service assisted in the installation of the computer work stations at the stream gages and operates the rain gages. The U.S. Geological Survey also has assisted with installing the housing for the stream gages.

WEST VIRGINIA TUG FORK FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS

Question. For fiscal year 1999 Congress provided $11.35 million to continue work

on flood protection projects in southern West Virginia along the Tug Fork and its

tributaries as part of the multi-state Section 202 project. While the President’s request includes $5.4 million for Levisa and Tug Fork projects for fiscal year 2000,

all of these funds are slated for other States.

In fiscal year 1999 for the Section 202 Levisa and Tug Fork project area in West

Virginia, $4,500,000 was appropriated to initiate the McDowell County project and

$1,475,000 for the Upper Mingo County project that specifically included the Mingo

County tributary areas. I understand that both project reports have been completed,

yet as of today, the Corps has yet to execute project agreements for either area.

What accounts for this substantial delay?

Answer. For McDowell County there was an unresolved issue over the level of design detail in the report necessary for proposed ring levees. Subsequent to submittal

of the report, there has been consideration given to a plan involving Federal participation in the consolidation of local schools in lieu of constructing ring levees for the

schools. This assessment of plan details and examination of authorities also has contributed to delays in completion of the report review and execution of an agreement.

The report is expected to be approved in April 1999, and execution of the PCA within 90 days after report approval. For the Upper Mingo County tributaries area, it

took five months to resolve project issues and obtain approval of the supplemental

report. The supplemental report was approved on March 1, 1999, and the supplement to the Project Cooperation Agreement is under review.

Question. What activities will remain to be done beyond fiscal year 1999 in lower

Mingo County and what is the cost of the remaining effort? Does the Corps have

capabilities in lower Mingo County in fiscal year 2000?

Answer. Non-structural flood damage reduction, including measures such as elevating structures, demolishing and replacing structures, and structure-specific

ringwalls, would continue beyond fiscal year 1999 if funds were provided. The remaining cost is $7,000,000. The Corps capability, subject to the qualifying language,

for fiscal year 2000 is $1,300,000.

Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal year 1999 in

upper Mingo County along the Tug Fork and its tributaries and what is the cost

of the remaining effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in upper Mingo County

in fiscal year 2000?

Answer. Non-structural flood damage reduction measures would continue beyond

fiscal year 1999 if funds were provided. The remaining cost is $18,200,000. The

Corps capability, subject to the qualifying language, for fiscal year 2000 is $600,000.
183

Question. What activities will remain to be done beyond fiscal year 1999 in

McDowell County, West Virginia and what is the cost of the remaining effort? Does

the Corps have capabilities in McDowell County in fiscal year 2000?

Answer. Non-structural flood damage reduction measures would continue beyond

fiscal year 1999 if funds were provided. The remaining cost is $148,800,000. The

Corps capability, subject to the qualifying language, for fiscal year 2000 is

$2,200,000.

Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal year 1999 in

Wayne County and what is the cost of the remaining effort? Does the Corps have

capabilities in Wayne County in fiscal year 2000?

Answer. Non-structural flood damage reduction measures would continue beyond

fiscal year 1999 if funds were provided. The remaining cost is $6,000,000. The Corps

capability, subject to the qualifying language, for fiscal year 2000 is $300,000.

Floods have repeatedly devastated many counties in West Virginia, including

those that are part of the Tug Fork basin. The Section 202 project provides important protection to communities and livelihoods. Each of these project areas has local

sponsors to fund the non-Federal portion of the project. I look forward to working

with the subcommittee to make further progress on providing flood protection for

the West Virginia parts of Section 202.

WHEELING RIVERFRONT

Question. Wheeling, West Virginia, is in the midst of a major preservation and

rehabilitation project to protect and enhance its cultural and commercial resources

in its central business district. I understand that the Corps has had discussions in

the past with the Wheeling National Heritage Area about how joint efforts along

the Wheeling Riverfront could be arranged and about what capabilities the Corps

might have in participating in this project. This is an important project and I believe the Corps might have some expertise that would be useful in this effort.

What would be the first step toward involving the Corps more closely with the

revitalization efforts, underway in Wheeling?

Answer. Since the Wheeling waterfront project is recreational in nature, and since

recreation projects have historically been assigned a low budgetary priority, Corps

involvement would not occur unless Congress added funds for the project. If Congress did so, the Corps could conduct a reconnaissance study to determine what role

the Corps could play in the future development of the Wheeling Riverfront project.

Question. What resources would be needed by the Corps in order for it to actively

participate in the Wheeling Riverfront project?

Answer. The normal cost of a reconnaissance study is $100,000.

Question. What legislation, if any, would be required to authorize the Corps’ participation?

Answer. A Committee study resolution provides the authority for the Corps to

study opportunities for urban waterfront development along the Ohio River. This

authority extends to design. The project is on the pool of Hannibal Lock and Dam,

West Virginia and Ohio. Section 4 of the 1944 Flood Control Act, as amended, provides the authority for the Corps of Engineers to participate in the addition of recreation facilities on Corps lands at Corps projects. However, additional authorization

in law would be required for the Corps to participate in recreation development on

non-Corps lands.

Question. What unit of the Corps would have the lead in this participation?

Answer. Wheeling is within the geographic boundaries of the Pittsburgh District,

which would be the lead District. If necessary, resources from other Corps offices

could be made available to assist in this project.

Question. What would be the cost-share requirements for the project?

Answer. A reconnaissance study to determine the Federal interest in future Corps

involvement would be 100 percent Federally financed. The feasibility phase, if applicable, would be cost shared 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal under

a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement. Design would be financed 75 percent Federal

and 25 percent non-Federal under a Design Agreement. Project construction costs

would be cost shared 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal. Design costs

would be folded into project construction costs, and the non-Federal sponsor would

contribute the other 25 percent of design costs in the first year of construction. The

non-Federal sponsor for the feasibility, design, and construction phases must be a

unit of government. Funds provided by another Federal agency may be used for the

non-Federal share if such use is authorized in law.

Question. What types of capabilities might the Corps be able to bring into the

Wheeling Riverfront project (including the Ohio River front area and the mouth of

Wheeling Creek where it enters the Ohio River)?
184

Answer. The Corps has extensive capabilities in recreation master planning, environmental assessment, facilities engineering and design, and construction management that could be used in development of this project.

WEST VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN

Question. In 1998, the Corps signed an agreement with the West Virginia Soil

Conservation Agency to conduct a comprehensive study of the chronic flood problems that devastate West Virginia, to be conducted on a 50/50 cost share basis.

How long will the study take to complete?

Answer. The cost sharing agreement for the second and last phase of the study

is scheduled for execution in May 1999 and the study is scheduled for completion

in July 2001.

Question. What will the study do?

Answer. The study will develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing flooding

problems throughout West Virginia, concentrating on unmet flood control needs, especially in high-priority areas of the state where chronic flooding occurs.

Question. What will the study provide?

Answer. The study will provide a statewide flood damage assessment, identification of existing flood control shortfalls, assessment of existing Federal and state

flood protection programs, formulation of flood protection and floodplain management program improvements, assessment of non-Federal financing capability, identification of financing needs for investment in flood protection, development of a

long-term investment strategy for the state, and a detailed report on a statewide

flood warning system.

Question. What has been appropriated by the Federal Government to date for this

project?

Answer. Appropriations for the West Virginia Statewide Plan total $950,000

through fiscal year 1999.

Question. What additional Federal resources are needed for this project?

Answer. No additional funds are required to complete the study.

Question. What level of support (funding and in-kind services) has been provided

by the non-Federal cooperator?

Answer. $50,000 was used for a reconnaissance-level investigation at Federal expense. The feasibility study cost is $1,800,000 and will be cost shared 50 percent

Federal and 50 percent non-Federal in two phases. For Phase I, the West Virginia

Soil Conservation Agency, which is the study sponsor, provided $213,600 in cash

and $62,000 in in-kind services. The cost sharing agreement for Phase II is scheduled for execution in May 1999. Details of cash contributions and in-kind services

for Phase II are being identified by the study sponsor at this time.

Question. What is the current status of the project?

Answer. Several work tasks identified in the project study plan currently are underway. The Corps and the National Resources Conservation Service are updating

statewide flood damage data and information on flood control projects in the state

that are either completed, under construction, or in various planning stages. The

Corps and the West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency are arranging the initial

meeting of the Flood Mitigation Task Force, which is a part of the Statewide Plan

process, and are developing the schedule for a series of workshop meetings to be

held across the state to solicit citizen and local government input into the planning

process. The workshop meetings are likely to begin in early May.

ROBERT C. BYRD LOCKS AND DAM

Question. A major project was authorized in 1986 at Gallipolis, West Virginia, to

improve the lock system of the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam. This project is making great progress, but I understand that several years worth of work remain. The

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes $7.15 million for this project.

What is the total cost of the project and how much funding is needed beyond fiscal

year 1999?

Answer. The total project cost is $373,000,000. The project’s balance to complete

after fiscal year 1999 is $16,278,000.

Question. What is the status of the on-site mitigation work?

Answer. The on-site mitigation construction contract, which was awarded in September 1997, is 35 percent complete, with completion scheduled for December 2001.

This effort consists of construction of a 50-acre wetland area and fish rearing ponds.

Question. What plans are there for providing fishing access to the Ohio River at

the Locks and Dam?
185

Answer. Fishing access on the West Virginia bank of the Ohio River is complete.

A fishing access site at the abutment on the Ohio side of the river will be constructed in 2001.

Question. What has been your relationship with the West Virginia Division of

Natural Resources on this project?

Answer. The Corps has established a very good working relationship with the

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). They have actively participated in the design of the mitigation features for this project and they participate

in all partnering sessions for the mitigation work. The on-site mitigation contract

includes a system of fish rearing ponds. Upon completion of this contract, the

WVDNR will assume operation and maintenance of this area as its primary fish

hatchery in West Virginia.

Question. What additional capabilities does the Corps have for fiscal year 2000 beyond those identified in the President’s budget request for work on this project? If

funding is provided, how much will the project completion be accelerated by these

additional capabilities? Answer. In addition to the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $7,150,000, the Corps has additional capability, subject to the qualifying language, of $2,150,000,

which would advance project completion by one year.

WINFIELD LOCK & DAM

Question. The Winfield Lock Replacement project has completed all of phase I and

most of phase II-A. The new lock chamber at Winfield is capable of handling 11

jumbo barges at one time and can speed barge traffic through the lock in less than

45 minutes. While much of the construction has been completed, work remains on

site protection and clean-up, onsite environmental mitigation, and post-project efforts involving the National Guard. The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request

includes $1.4 million for this project.

What is the status of the transfer of two buildings to the National Guard?

Answer. A License Agreement was sent in March 1999 to the West Virginia National Guard for signature. This agreement will permit the Guard to use the buildings until the final transfer is accomplished next year.

Question. What is the status of the bank erosion work?

Answer. Bank erosion corrective actions were initiated in January 1999 and are

scheduled to be completed by mid-summer 1999.

Question. What additional capabilities does the Corps have in fiscal year 2000 for

the project above those already identified in the President’s budget request? By

what length of time would these additional capabilities accelerate the completion of

the project?

Answer. In addition to the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $1,400,000, the

Corps has additional capability, subject to the qualifying language, of $1,800,000

that would advance completion by two years.

BLUESTONE DRIFT AND DEBRIS

Question. Drift and debris periodically accumulate behind Bluestone dam. This accumulation of drift and debris has been identified as a significant problem. Following a study authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, the

Corps identified a preferred plan for managing the drift and debris. For fiscal year

1999, $420,000 was appropriated to finalize the construction design for handling the

drift and debris and for continued development of a public awareness program.

What benefits will be derived from the completion of the drift and debris project?

Answer. Completion of construction of the multi-level intake structure would prevent accumulation of drift and debris during periods of high inflow to the project

and reduce the accumulation of drift and debris pileups on the National Park Service property at Sandstone Falls.

Question. What operational changes will occur as a result of the completion of the

drift and debris project?

Answer. Completion of the multi-level intake structure would not require any

operational changes to the project.

Question. What group is covering the non-Federal costs of the project?

Answer. The current and prospective drift and debris management program associated with the project has four components, namely construction of the multi-level

intake structure at the project, acquisition of debris removal equipment, the public

awareness program, and cleanup of debris downstream on National Park Service

lands. The Corps could construct the multi-level intake structure and acquire equipment as part of project operation and maintenance at full Federal expense. The

Corps, the National Park Service, the West Virginia Division of Environmental Pro-
186

tection, and other non-Federal interests are participating in the public awareness

program. The Corps participation is part of project operation and maintenance. The

downstream cleanup currently is financed by the National Park Service and the

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection. If non-Federal cost sharing in

the construction of the intake structure or Corps cost sharing in the downstream

cleanup were authorized, the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection

would be the cost sharing sponsor.

Question. What additional Congressional legislation will be required to implement

the preferred plan?

Answer. No authority is required for the Corps to construct the multi-level intake

structure, acquire equipment, or continue to participate in public awareness efforts.

Legislation would be required for the Corps to participate in the downstream cleanup.

BLUESTONE DAM SAFETY PROJECT

Question. What risks are currently posed by the Bluestone Dam to the communities and environments below the dam?

Answer. Under current design criteria, the probable maximum flood is estimated

to overtop the existing dam by 13 feet. Dam failure would cause catastrophic flooding along the Greenbrier, New, Gauley, Kanawha, and Elk Rivers, including the

metropolitan area and heavily industrialized capital city of Charleston, West Virginia. This would place more than 115,000 persons at risk, with property damages

in excess of $6,500,000,000.

Question. What level of flooding would cause the dam to fail catastrophically?

How likely that such a level of flooding might occur? How likely is it that the dam

will catastrophically fail in the next 50 years? In the next 100 years?

Answer. The dam would be in danger of failing if pool levels approaching the top

of the existing dam were to occur. This flood level, known as the 500 year flood

event, has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any year, a 10 percent chance of occurring at least once in the next 50 years, and an 18 percent chance of occurring

at least once in the next 100 years.

Question. What operational changes would take place as a result of the completion

of the dam safety project?

Answer. Daily operations of the project would not change. For catastrophic floods

approaching a probable maximum flood level, the six hydropower penstocks would

be used to provide additional discharge capacity. Once activated, the penstocks

would remain open until pool levels return to normal and the penstock bulkheads

could be restored. Use of the penstocks does not increase downstream damage; however, the time required for pool levels to return to normal could delay the start of

cleanup efforts by several days.

Question. What are the benefits that might be associated with combining the dam

safety project and the drift and debris project?

Answer. The main benefit attributed to a combined effort would be that a single

structure could be built for the resident engineer’s office that would serve both construction efforts. It is possible that the two efforts could be constructed under a single contract.

Question. Could the drift and debris project precede the dam safety project? What

additional costs and risks might this impose?

Answer. The drift and debris project could precede the dam safety project. However, there are increased risks to life and property associated with any delay in initiating the dam safety project.

ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN

Question. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized a non-structural (local protection plan) project combined with some channel improvements for

Island Creek at Logan. This area experienced major flooding in 1957, 1963, 1974,

and 1977. The Corps completed studies in 1993 and recommended a plan of action

that would provide significant flooding reductions and have a positive benefit-cost

ratio of 1.34. $1.5 million in Federal funds have been spent on the project, but activity stopped in fiscal year 1994 because the Logan County Commission, the local

sponsor, was unable to provide the non-Federal share of the project implementation

costs. Last year, the State of West Virginia agreed to provide funds to assist the

Logan County Commission in sponsoring the project.

Have any Federal construction funds been spent on this project?

Answer. No Federal construction funds have been spent to date.
187

Question. With the local sponsor now able to provide the non-Federal cost share,

are more general investigation funds needed for completing studies or are only construction funds needed to implement the plan of action? Answer. $25,000 in General Investigation funds have been reprogrammed to review plan formulation and conduct an economic update of the project benefits. In

fiscal year 2000, the Corps has a capability, subject to the qualifying language, of

$500,000 in General Investigations funding to develop a project management plan

and complete a General Reevaluation Report. The Corps could complete

preconstruction engineering and design in fiscal year 2001.

Question. What can the Corps do to re-initiate this project? Answer. The Corps recently reprogrammed $25,000 to review plan formulation

and conduct an economic update of the project benefits to reaffirm the Federal interest in further study and project implementation.

LONDON LOCK AND DAM

Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $600,000 to initiate construction of the London Lock and Dam rehabilitation project. This project would replace the upper guard wall and extend the lock chamber. The rehabilitation project

is needed to avoid any future lockage delays on the Kanawha River at London,

where traffic exceeded 8 million tons in 1995.

What is the total cost of the project?

Answer. The total cost of the project is $20,300,000.

Question. When is it scheduled to be completed?

Answer. The project is scheduled for completion in September 2004, subject to receipt of funding to initiate the project construction in fiscal year 2000.

Question. Is any Congressional action other than appropriations required for the

project?

Answer. No additional Congressional action is necessary to proceed with the

project.

Question. Does the Corps have additional capabilities for fiscal year 2000 that

would accelerate the completion of this project were funds available? Answer. In addition to the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $600,000, the Corps has additional capability, subject to the qualifying language, of $800,000, which

would advance completion by one year.

LOWER MUD RIVER

Question. The Lower Mud River project, authorized by Section 580 of the 1996

Water Resources Development Act, was originally a Department of Agriculture

project. Its purpose is to mitigate the repeated flooding events that have caused extensive damage to the city of Milton, West Virginia.

What is the status of the limited reevaluation report being conducted by the Corps

on the earlier Department of Agriculture study?

Answer. The Corps is preparing to enter into a design agreement with the West

Virginia Soil Conservation Agency to cost share work on the Limited Reevaluation

Report. It is anticipated that the agreement will be signed in May 1999 and the report will be completed in December 1999.

Question. What group is the non-Federal sponsor for the reevaluation and what

funds have they provided for the reevaluation?

Answer. The West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency will serve as the non-Federal sponsor for the reevaluation report. It will provide required cost shared funds

at the time of execution of the design agreement.

Question. What capabilities does the Corps have for fiscal year 2000 to move forward with the Lower Mud River project? What funding would be required?

Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the Corps has the capability, subject to the qualifying

language, of $1,000,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design under

the General Investigations appropriation.

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

Question. I understand that the Corps has developed model cooperation agreements with ‘‘cookie cutter’’ language intended to expedite the review and approval

process, yet review and approval still takes many months. This type of delay costs

valuable time, may negatively impact the economy, and could increase risks for communities and businesses from flooding and transportation uncertainties. At what

level within the Corps are project cooperation agreements approved?

Answer. Project cooperation agreements are approved at the Washington level unless there is an approved model agreement for that particular type of project. If

there is an approved model and the district does not deviate from the model, then
188

approval is delegated to the division or district commander. Except for the Continuing Authorities Program, my office approves all agreements not in accordance

with an approved model.

Question. Is it the intention of the Corps to eventually delegate approval for all

project cooperation agreements to the district level or lower?

Answer. While delegation of approval of Project Cooperation Agreements was considered, it is not the intention of the Army to delegate the approval of these important agreements, except where model agreements are in place and followed. The

Army considers these agreements to be important policy documents laying out the

respective responsibilities and commitments of both the project sponsor and the Federal Government. Moreover, once signed, such agreements bind the Government just

as they bind the non-Federal sponsor. We intend to work with the Corps to identify

and put into practice changes in the requirements and review process to improve

the efficiency with which agreements can be reviewed and approved.

Question. What is the status of the implementation of the project cooperation

agreement ‘‘cookie cutter’’ language?

Answer. I strongly encourage the efforts of the Corps to develop as many model

agreements as possible. The approval of more types of model agreements, along with

options appropriate to specific situations, will help to expedite the negotiation process with the sponsor and minimize the number of agreements that must come to

the Washington level because they are not in accordance with law or Army policy.

The Corps has developed, and I have approved, the use of over 35 model agreements. The Corps is currently working an additional five potential models and is

in the process of identifying what other models are needed to support further delegation of project cooperation agreements to the division or district commanders. In

addition to the development of additional model agreements, opportunities are being

investigated to simplify and expedite the Washington level approval process.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MURRAY

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION PROJECT

Question. In the Conference Report to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998 (H. Rept. 105–271), the conferees requested the

Northwest Power Planning Council, with the assistance from the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), to review the Corps’ major fish mitigation capital

construction activities in the Columbia River Basin. The Power Planning Council divided the review into three phases. The first two reports were submitted to the

Committees in July 1998 and January 1999. The final report is due next month.

Answer. One area reviewed by the ISAB was the Corps’ work to develop surface

bypass/collection facilities at Lower Granite Dam and other mainstem projects. The

Power Planning Council concurred with the ISAB’s findings that surface collection

continues to show promise and should continue to be pursued by the Corps.

Question. How much of your fiscal year 2000 request is allocated to developing

and testing surface bypass and surface spill technologies? Also please identify which

projects are involved in this work, and what level of funding is proposed for each.

Answer. Approximately $35 million is requested for surface bypass development

and related spill effectiveness and survival evaluations. In addition, $5.9 million is

requested to continue the ‘fast track’ gas abatement efforts which may improve spill

conditions for juvenile passage. Surface bypass work will be carried out at Lower

Granite for $8.26 million, at John Day for $5.31 million, at The Dalles for $5.64 million and at Bonneville for $15.3 million.

Question. In its first report, the ISAB recommended that the Corps pursue surface

bypass technologies at John Day Dam instead of extended length screens. Please explain how the Corps is implementing this recommendation.

Answer. The Corps is investigating surface bypass at the powerhouse through use

of existing skeleton bays and funding in fiscal year 2000 would be used to initiate

plans and specifications for construction of the surface bypass prototype facility. At

the spillway, fiscal year 2000 work would include testing an overflow weir and initiating a Feature Design Memorandum for a raised spillway bays crest, subject to

preliminary analysis in fiscal year 1999.

The ISAB has concluded that the subject of adult passage at Columbia and Snake

River dams has not been adequately dealt with. The scientists believe that the

Corps’ planned activities relating to adults are supportable, but probably not sufficient to ensure that adult spawning migrations are unimpeded and completed with

minimal mortality induced passage.
189

Question. It is my understanding that only about 9 percent of the Corps’ fiscal

year 2000 budget request is proposed for adult passage activities. Do you intend to

reexamine this allocation in light of the ISAB’s findings that more needs to be done

for adults?

Answer. Yes. The ISAB report on adult measures did not identify specific passage

measures in addition to those underway. However, the Corps is presently coordinating with regional interests to determine what additional passage improvements

should be pursued. Results of this coordination may lead to redirection of funds

within the budget request.

Question. What additional measures to assist adults will you consider?

Answer. We are looking at both facility improvements and additional studies to

better understand the critical areas of uncertainty, for improved adult fish passage

at Corps of Engineers dams. The facility improvements include additional backup

auxiliary water supply systems, automated fishway control systems, replacement/

upgrade of diffuser gratings and valves, refurbishing/upgrade of fishway entrances

and weirs, upgrade of fishway staff gauges, and rebuilding fishwater pumps. Additional study areas, developed in coordination with regional salmon managers, include: relation of adult fallback at dams to specific project operations and impacts

on fish survival and reproductive success; causes of delay in fishways; identification

of factors causing unaccountable losses of adults; quantification of straying and the

impact on survival; effects of water quality on migration and survival; evaluation

of kelt (spawned-out steelhead) passage and survival, and improvement of dam

count accuracy.

The ISAB’s review has provided useful recommendations on a variety of activities

including extended length screens, gas abatement activities, surface bypass systems,

adult passage, and other items.

Question. How will the Corps ensure that these recommendations are given full

consideration in the development of future budgets for the program?

Answer. The Corps intends to seek regional recommendations regarding how the

findings of the ISAB and the Northwest Power Planning Council can be implemented in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project. This is consistent with language in House Report 105–271 which states ‘Upon completion of the review, the

Corps of Engineers shall seek regional recommendations, as provided by the Bonneville Power Administration Fish and Wildlife Budget Memorandum of Agreement

dated September 16, 1996, on implementing the recommendations contained in the

review.’ The Corps intends to seek the recommendations primarily through coordination in existing forums such as the regional System Configuration Team. Results

of this coordination will be reflected in future budget requests for the Columbia

River Fish Mitigation Project.

BONNEVILLE AND THE DALLES POWERHOUSE PROJECTS REPLACE GENERATING UNITS

Question. Two construction projects in the Corps’ fiscal year 2000 justification are

the rehabilitation of generating units at the Bonneville Powerhouse and The Dalles

Powerhouse. The original completion date, at least for the Bonneville Powerhouse

project, was 2002. It seems unlikely that under the current funding levels that the

completion date can be met, and the date will more likely be around 2008 or 2009.

Is the request of $10,800,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the Bonneville Powerhouse

enough to maintain the original schedule for completion?

Answer. No, it is not.

Question. What level of appropriations would be required over the next three fiscal years in order to meet the original schedule?

Answer. For Bonneville, at this point, the original schedule cannot be met. Due

to requirements of the project biological opinion, units can only be completed one

at a time, with short duration overlaps. Funding at the following levels would advance project completion by 1 to 2 years: fiscal year 2000 $16.3 million, fiscal year

2001 $11.4 million, and fiscal year 2002 $10.1 million. For The Dalles, it is unlikely

the original programmed schedule for completion in fiscal year 2005 can be regained

at this point. Funding levels estimated at $12 to $15 million per year beginning in

fiscal year 2001 would advance project completion by 1 to 2 years.

Question. If you had greater funding for these projects, what work would you

prioritize?

Answer. Work is already prioritized within each project according to greatest need

and to maximize work efficiency. Greater funding for these projects would allow earlier completion of the project by accelerating the work.

Question. What are the implications of not maintaining the original schedule in

terms of the overall costs of the project, risk of failure of the units, and lost efficiency?
190

Answer. At Bonneville, not maintaining the original schedule will increase somewhat the project cost and risk of failure of the generating units, and will delay the

expected increase in unit efficiency of four to six percent.

At The Dalles, the original rehabilitation program (Units 1–14) included only 9

generator rewinds, since 5 had already been repaired under the O&M program.

Since initial funding commenced in 1997, two additional generators have been

rewound, both due to failure. Delays, for any reason, increase the risk that additional generating units will fail, thus increasing costs for repair, lost power revenues

due to unscheduled unit outage and reduced plant availability. Loss of an estimated

4 percent increase in unit efficiency also results from delay of turbine blade replacement. In addition, total project costs increase due to out-year inflation as project

completion is stretched out.

Question. What are the impacts in relation to the survival of fish during passage?

Answer. For both Bonneville and The Dalles, past studies indicate that the survival of juvenile fish increases with increased turbine efficiency. In addition, the

shape of the new turbine hub, blades and discharge ring have been redesigned at

Bonneville to reduce potential injury to migrating juveniles that travel through the

turbines. If we can complete installation earlier, increased juvenile fish survival

rates should be realized.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DORGAN

DEVILS LAKE DIKES

Question. The Corps is currently completing the third phase of levee protection

for the City of Devils Lake, North Dakota. What is the status of the current project

to raise the Devils Lake levee (to TOL 1457 feet)?

Answer. Sir, the earth work and the riprap to top of levee 1452 are substantially

complete and the levee protection for the city to top of levee 1457 will be complete

by September 1999. Three of the five pumping stations associated with the levee are

complete and operational. The remaining two are under construction and will be

operational this summer.

Question. I am pleased to learn that the major construction work on the dike is

complete even though the more costly aspects of the project, installing pumps and

rockwork, remains to be completed.

Congress has approved a three-phase increase in the dikes in recent years. If the

Corps had not proceeded with the diking on an emergency basis, can you tell the

Subcommittee what the consequences would have been?

Answer. Without the levee protecting the City of Devils Lake, approximately onethird of the city, including much of the airport, would be in the lake. Wave action

from the lake would have destroyed additional homes and businesses. Portions of

Highways 19, 20, and 2 running through the city would be under water as well. The

rest of the city would have remained vulnerable to future lake level rises. We are

also continuing to take emergency actions, when necessary, for other communities

and Tribal structures threatened by the rising lake levels. Even with these efforts,

Devils Lake continues to cause about $25,000,000 in damages for every additional

foot of rise.

Question. Indeed, we would have had a full-fledged disaster on our hands. As it

is, we still face enormous problems and that is why we need to proceed with a comprehensive flood fighting strategy that includes an outlet for Devils Lake.

Pursuant to the direction of Congress, the Corps is developing a report to Congress on the Devils Lake outlet. What is the schedule for completing the draft interim report to Congress on the Devils Lake outlet?

Answer. The draft interim report will be completed by the end of April 1999. The

report will detail various alternatives to manage the rising lake.

Question. May I note for the benefit of the Chairman and my colleagues that this

report will be made soon and should give us ample time for review before we proceed with the mark-up of next year’s appropriations bill.

This outlet plan has been a challenging undertaking since it involves a chronic

flood that has come and stayed for over five years. Can the Corps please describe

to the Subcommittee some of the promising aspects of the plan which may help to

solve this perplexing problem of chronic flooding?

Answer. The Corps is looking into alternatives that would bring fresh water to

the outlet. The fresh water would be captured prior to its entering Devils Lake and

mixing with the more saline water currently in the lake. The fresh water reduces

or eliminates impacts to downstream water quality. By eliminating the water quality problem, the full capacity of the pump station could be used much of the time,
191

thereby increasing the effectiveness of the outlet at reducing the lake level and

avoiding damages. Pumping would still be restricted to stay within the capacity of

the Sheyenne River. The Corps is also looking at staging construction and using

trigger elevations to determine when to build portions of the outlet plan. This would

cause portions of the outlet to be built only when they are needed, improving the

cost effectiveness of the plan.

Question. Some have suggested that we could use nearby lakes to syphon off some

water from Devils Lake on an interim basis. Is there a plan which would provide

some relatively quick means of containing rising water?

Answer. A controlled gravity channel to the Stump Lakes could be effective as an

interim emergency measure to slow the rise of Devils Lake. The Stump Lake plan

could be designed and constructed much quicker than the outlet to the Sheyenne

River. It also helps manage the water within the basin, reducing any outside concerns; although there are concerns that would have to be addressed, including impacts to a Federal wildlife refuge.

Senator BYRD. I want to thank the Corps for its cooperation with the State of

North Dakota and the Devils Lake Region and to encourage continued efforts to find

workable interim and long-term solutions for this critical problem.

GRAND FORKS DIKES

Question. I understand that there may have been some slippage in the construction timetable for completing the Grand Forks dikes—from 2005 to 2007. What is

the current schedule for completion of the Grand Forks Flood Protection Project?

Answer. The scheduled completion for the Grand Forks—East Grand Forks

project has slipped from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007 due to constrained budget ceilings assigned to our overall construction program. The completion date based

on the constrained budget ceilings is December 2006, a twelve month delay. However, note that this project was funded at the full capability in the Budget year, fiscal year 2000.

Question. What is causing the delays in this critical project?

Answer. The scheduled completion for the Grand Forks—East Grand Forks

project has slipped from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007 due to constrained budget ceilings in the outyears. Nationwide, many worthy water resource projects compete for a limited amount of annual budget ceiling. In order to fund as many

projects as possible, most projects are funded at a less than optimal level, causing

schedules to be stretched out; this was the case for the Grand Forks—East Grand

Forks project.

Question. Do I understand that the capability of the Corps would be to complete

the project in 2005?

Answer. If sufficient funding resources are made available, we could complete construction of the Grand Forks—East Grand Forks project by December 2005, which

is fiscal year 2006.

Question. I understand that the Corps submitted a reprogramming request of $1.1

million for Grand Forks flood control for fiscal year 1999. Can you tell the Subcommittee the status of this request?

Answer. Yes sir, the additional $1.1 million requested for the Grand Forks, North

Dakota—East Grand Forks, Minnesota project was received on 16 March 1999.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DOMENICI. We will be back in session 9:30, Thursday for

a hearing with the Department of Energy.

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Tuesday, March 9, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 11.]

(193)

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 9:39 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen

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

Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Craig, Reid, and Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE AND NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS

STATEMENT OF DR. VICTOR H. REIS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE

OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

ACCOMPANIED BY:

ROSE E. GOTTEMOELLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NONPROLIFERATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY

LAURA S.H. HOLGATE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FISSILE MATERIALS

DISPOSITION

OPENING STATEMENT

Senator DOMENICI. First let me, without elaborating, just apologize for being late. It was unavoidable on my part, and I am sorry.

Senator Reid, you had to waste time waiting for me.

Senator REID. I had a chance to read my newspaper. I am doing

fine.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you for coming. This morning, the subcommittee will consider the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the

Department of Energy’s defense, nonproliferation, and materials

disposition programs. Combined, these programs account for $5.5

billion of the $18.3 billion requested for the Department and are

the core of DOE’s national security function.

That is a very slight decrease from the current level, because of the $200 million provided in 1999 to implement a plutonium disposition accord with Russia.

These programs together are the backbone of our strategic nuclear deterrent. On the one hand, we do see the threat to our Nation posed by others’ weapons of mass destruction, and on the other

hand maintaining our deterrence against the threat that remains.

We are considering the programs together because they are interrelated. If, for example, in the coming decade when we make rapid

progress with disposition of plutonium and uranium in Russia and
194

our ability to verify our potential adversary’s stockpile levels we

may be able to reduce our nuclear stockpile substantially. Conversely, a lack of progress in these areas would prevent us from

pursuing stockpile reductions.

We will begin today with Dr. Reis to review the request for the

Defense Programs, then go to Ms. Gottemoeller, who is currently

the Director of the Office of Nonproliferation—and we are very

proud to have you there. She has been nominated to this position,

and I hope she will be there soon in an official capacity—and then

we will finish with Ms. Holgate, Director of the Office of Fissile

Materials Disposition, and we are glad to have you also.

Let me first place a few accolades in the record with reference

to you, Dr. Reis. Frankly, it has been something very solid and beneficial to our nuclear deterrent that you head this part of the Department of Energy. I commend and congratulate you for the diligent efforts that you have made with reference to stockpile stewardship, a new kind of stewardship in an era of transition, and it

looks like from the science standpoint it is working quite well.

There is a great enthusiasm in the nuclear laboratories for this

kind of science, which is taking place, since underground nuclear

tests have been banned in the United States.

Senator Reid.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Senator REID. Senator Domenici, I appreciate you mentioning Dr.

Reis. I was going to say a few words about him. I think that the

American public does not know what public servants do. The work

that is done by these three individuals, of which Dr. Reis is the one

that I know certainly the best, having worked with him for these

many years, makes our civilization such as it is.

The difference between our having a safe, reliable nuclear stockpile or not having one is work that we do on this subcommittee,

and we rely on you for results. I personally appreciate all the time

and effort and I am glad that you have chosen, with your great academic background and your experience in the private sector, to stay

in public service, because as I said, the American public does not

realize the importance of your job, but Senator Domenici and I do,

our staffs, and we can say no more than that.

Mr. Chairman, the stockpile stewardship and management program is being adopted by a policy which the nuclear arsenal would

be maintained. There were numerous discussions by many in the

administration and here in Congress regarding the minimum

amount needed, and I am pleased to see the budget request is at

that level which we have talked about for a number of years, $4.5

billion.

Now there have been questions about what the needs of the program are. We are going to talk about that today, the National Ignition Facility, Dual Access Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility, and others that are essential to the verification, and safety and

reliability of the nuclear arsenal.

But as I see it, there are two convincing arguments applying to

the rationale for these investments and others. Science must be

comprehensive to keep the verification credible. The laboratories
195

consisting of experts to coordinate with the Department have to

come together on these projects.

Now, the question is, what is the future of both the science and

the credibility and the verification and reliability? At this point,

from our perspective the question for the future rests on whether

the labs and the tests at the Nevada Test Site will be functioning

as active partners in the validation of the science of the Stockpile

Stewardship program.

What we saw in the President’s budget did not make me happy,

but I have recently been given information that indicates a serious

effort to better integrate the Nevada Test Site into the stockpile

stewardship and management program, and so that is one of the

things that we will be watching.

I note the Chiles Commission has reported that of all the centers

necessary to maintain confidence without testing, the Nevada Test

Site has the highest average age of personnel. Consequently, either

by retirement or death, expertise is leaving the Nevada Test Site

at an extremely rapid rate.

So Dr. Reis, I recommend that you repeat the success at the National Labs at the Test Site with the implementation of a similar

program that will attract and maintain highly motivated and

skilled personnel who could effectively turn their energies to the resumption of testing or whatever else is necessary to maintain the

safety and reliability of our arsenal.

The magnet that attracts an enduring workforce, without which

the test ban treaty becomes somewhat meaningless as far as I am

concerned, is a new technically challenging program that has a

front line role in the safety and reliability of the arsenal.

So I look forward, as I indicated, to working with you and this

subcommittee will look forward to getting our bill to the floor as

rapidly as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF DR. VICTOR H. REIS

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Senator Reid.

Dr. Reis, you may proceed.

Dr. REIS. Thank you, and thank you, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for your kind remarks about my service. One of the gratifying parts of that, of course, is working with people like yourselves

and your staffs, and that makes it all worthwhile.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Dr. REIS. I have a relatively short oral statement, and with your

permission I will submit my full statement for the record.

Senator DOMENICI. It will be incorporated.

MEETING THE STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP CHALLENGE

Dr. REIS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, the challenge of stockpile

stewardship is to maintain the safety, reliability, and performance

of the current U.S. nuclear weapons indefinitely without underground nuclear explosive tests. This is indeed a major challenge.

We are asked to maintain forever an incredibly complex device

no larger than a desk filled with exotic radioactive materials that

must create, albeit it briefly, temperatures and pressures only seen

in nature at the center of stars, do it without integrating nuclear
196

tests and without any reduction in extraordinarily high standards

of safety and reliability and, while we are at it, downsize the industrial complex that supports this enterprise by a factor of two, and

start up critical new manufacturing processes.

We must do this with an industrial system that was structured

to turn over new designs every 15 years and for which nuclear explosive testing was the major tool for demonstrating success. We

must meet this challenge, restructure the complex, and do most of

it within the next 5 to 10 years, while the current weapons are still

within the design life and the designers, production and test folks

are still active.

Mr. Chairman, it has been over 10 years since new weapons production stopped and over 6 years since the last underground nuclear test, and I would claim we are meeting the challenge. We

have certified the stockpile as safe and reliable 3 years running.

The major elements of the program are in place, and the budgets

are projected to be stable in the outyears. While there is still much

to do, it is fair to say that the road ahead is reasonably wellmapped and what remains is to but integrate the pieces and to

stay the course.

In short, I believe that all of the many external reviews have

concurred that Stockpile Stewardship is a successful program. Why

do I say that? First of all, there is a compelling national mission.

Despite the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons play a leading

role in the Nation’s policy of strategic deterrence.

Strategic deterrence is the bedrock of all of our national security

efforts. At the same time, the maintenance of a safe, secure, and

reliable nuclear force underpins our arms control efforts. It is as

described in the Presidential Commission for Ratification of the

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of ‘‘supreme national interest.’’

That goal acts as the one and only beacon for the Defense Programs and the weapons complex.

LAB MISSIONS FLOW FROM STEWARDSHIP

Stewardship provides an enormous technical and scientific challenge to the DOE’s nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos,

Livermore, Sandia National Laboratories, which are designed to respond to big national technical challenges. They work best in such

an environment as, indeed, do the folks at the Nevada Test Site.

In a few short years, Stockpile Stewardship has become what is

probably the world’s largest single-purpose scientific program. Our

industrial partners have built by far the world’s largest computers

and those computers are solving real problems throughout the complex.

Subcritical experiments, hydro testing, laser pulse power, and a

variety of other experimental facilities are helping to validate codes

and bring the necessary understanding to provide confidence in the

stockpile now and in the future. I think it is fair to say that the

labs are working together with the other parts of the nuclear weapons complex, industry, and academia better than ever. Other lab

missions flow from stewardship, not compete with it.
197

PRODUCTION COMPLEX RESPONSE TO STEWARDSHIP

Stockpile stewardship has likewise changed the rest of the complex. With the end of the Cold War, there is no new requirement

for nuclear weapons production, though there remains a requirement to return to production, if so ordered.

The most obvious part of this change has been the downsizing of

the physical plant, the ending of production at Rocky Flats,

Pinellas, and Mound, and the shifting of responsibilities, equipment, and people to other parts of the complex.

As the stewardship requirements have become better understood,

the production complex—Oak Ridge Y–12, Kansas City, Pantex and

Savannah River have—has fully responsive to the stewardship mission.

This new production activity is driven by recognizing that if the

stockpile is to remain viable forever, and that is the mission, then

every part of every weapon must sooner or later be replaced and

certified. This means that every part must be thought of as a limited life component, and there is a premium for knowing when a

part must be replaced, and there is a premium for developing and

certifying new, efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly production processes.

All of this is embedded in the Stockpile Life Extension Program,

SLEP. The first W87 life extension unit will be delivered to the Air

Force this May. SLEP will drive production in the complex no less

than certification, but it must be part of an integrated whole. That

integrated whole must fit within a relatively fixed budget. That is

why we are continuing to look hard at consolidating the production

plant management into a single contract.

TRITIUM PRODUCTION

The last programmatic element I will mention is tritium, the ultimate limited life component. When I came to DOE some 5 years

ago, the new source for tritium was a headline item. What would

the new source be and where would it be located?

Last December, Secretary Richardson announced that we will

buy irradiation services from the Tennessee Valley Authority

[TVA], and the accelerator production of tritium will be a back-up.

Negotiations with TVA based on the Economy Act are essentially

complete.

Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth defense program’s budget that

has revolved around Stockpile Stewardship. We have a clear goal.

We have the people and elements of the program in place. We have

demonstrated success across a wide variety of stewardship tasks.

We have a budgetary commitment. The task is now to complete the

integration of the Defense Program complex and to stay the course.

PREPARED STATEMENT

With your continued support, we will continue to meet the challenge of maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile, a supreme national interest.

Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]
198

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICTOR H. REIS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2000 Defense Programs budget request of approximately $4.5 billion for the Stockpile Stewardship

Program. This budget continues support for critical initiatives begun during the past

five years that are creating and using the new tools and technologies needed for

science based stewardship. These tools and technologies are necessary as we seek

to maintain a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing.

It has been nearly 10 years since we have manufactured a new nuclear weapon

and over six years since the last underground nuclear test. Our confidence in the

safety and reliability of the current stockpile remains high. The third annual certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile was transmitted to the President by the Secretaries of Energy and Defense on December 22, 1998. It states that the stockpile

is safe and reliable and that there is no need to conduct an underground nuclear

test at this time.

The Stockpile Stewardship Program faces formidable challenges: continue to

maintain an aging stockpile; restructure and modernize the weapons complex; and,

retain the capability to resume nuclear testing and meet production requirements

appropriate to future national security needs. The Department is meeting these

challenges and is confident of its abilities to maintain the stockpile without testing.

We have laid out a plan—weapon by weapon, part by part, that addresses the

tasks required to maintain the stockpile over the next ten years, and beyond. We

have support on this program from the Department of Defense, and the Administration has committed to funding this program and all its parts. And, we have a back

up. The President, as one of the safeguards under which this nation would enter

into the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) requires us to maintain the Nevada Test Site in a state of readiness should there ever be circumstances in which

we would return to testing. The successful subcritical and other experiments conducted there bear evidence that the Nevada Test Site remains a ‘‘can do’’ operation.

There is a joint DOD/DOE review of the entire test readiness program for the 2001

budget process.

Another Presidential safeguard under the CTBT requires us to maintain the vitality of the nuclear weapons laboratories—Los Alamos (LANL), Lawrence Livermore

(LLNL) and Sandia. History tells us that great laboratories need great missions like

the Manhattan and Apollo projects. The enthusiasm and vigor with which our laboratories are embracing the Stockpile Stewardship Program bear witness that it too

is a great mission. The program is attracting the kinds of people drawn to the challenge of solving tough issues of national importance.

Although we continue to plan and refine the Stockpile Stewardship Program, it

is already working. We have modified the B61 bomb and have seen it enter the

stockpile to replace the aged B53 bomb. We are constructing new experimental facilities and tools—the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the Dual-Axis Radiographic

Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT), and Atlas—and our computation program

has developed the world’s fastest supercomputers. By using stewardship tools, we

have solved some problems that in the past would have most likely required nuclear

testing. We have done literally hundreds of experiments with existing facilities that

increase our understanding of nuclear weapons. We have safely dismantled over

eleven thousand nuclear weapons since 1991, and have produced numerous parts,

on time, while continuing to downsize the production complex.

STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

A key element of the Stockpile Stewardship Program’s continued success is an effective corporate level strategic planning process. I am pleased to advise you that

we are on schedule to transmit the fiscal year 2000 Stockpile Stewardship Plan

(SSP), also called ‘‘The Green Book’’ to the Congress by mid-March. In the development of the SSP, we rely heavily on the Department of Defense, the National Security Council staff, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the OMB, and other

senior policy officials in the ‘‘nuclear community’’ to help ensure that we are on the

right track. The feedback we have received on this year’s Plan is very favorable. In

fact, I was recently informed in a letter from the Commander in Chief of the U.S.

Strategic Command, Admiral Richard Mies, that this Plan reflects a strong commitment by DOE to solicit and address the concerns of the nuclear weapons community.

During 1998, the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) formed joint DOE/DOD teams

to review four major areas of the Stockpile Stewardship Program: tritium, the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), the National Ignition Facility (NIF),
199

and pit production. The Nuclear Weapons Council concluded that these joint DOE/

DOD team efforts were worthwhile, generating alternative options and validating

DOD requirements and DOE plans. The NWC found that tritium, NIF and ASCI

programs were on-track. The NIF program integration was identified as a potential

concern by the NWC which we are addressing now. The NWC further examined the

management and oversight cost controls of ASCI software development in more detail and found that the proper project cost and schedule controls are in place. After

reviewing the DOE pit production plan and alternatives for larger and smaller production capacities developed by the joint DOE/DOD team, the NWC decided that the

current DOE plan is a prudent approach. The NWC approved DOE’s pit manufacturing strategy and will monitor the development of long-term plans. This strategy

for pit manufacturing will be detailed in our response to the fiscal year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act and submitted to Congress shortly.

To better retain U.S. nuclear capabilities, we have been working closely with the

Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise, better known as the

Chiles Commission. As you know, Congress tasked the Commission with developing

a plan for recruiting and retaining scientific, engineering, and technical personnel

that the Commission deems are needed, across the nuclear weapons complex over

the long term, to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile without

nuclear testing.

HOW STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP IS WORKING

For the benefit of new Committee members, I will briefly summarize the Stockpile

Stewardship process and the challenges it now faces before I go into a more detailed

discussion of program elements. Each year representative samples of each type of

weapon are returned to Pantex from the active forces and are disassembled, examined, tested, and analyzed for defects, much as you would go for an annual physical

or take your car into your local automobile mechanic. If any defects are found, their

effect on reliability and safety is assessed. If that effect is deemed significant, the

defective part is remanufactured and replacedand a nuclear weapon has about as

many parts as a modern automobile. Like the battery or spark plugs in your car,

some parts, for example, neutron generators and gas reservoirs, require replacement

at regular intervals. Other parts of a nuclear weapon are made from radioactive materials which decay such as plutonium, enriched uranium and tritium; and as they

decay, may change both their own properties and the properties of other materials

within the weapon.

Remanufacturing replacement parts sounds simple, but subsequent to the time

that many of the current weapons in the stockpile were originally manufactured,

some of our production plants have been closed and manufacturing processes, techniques and standards have changed. General Motors does not build cars the same

way it did 40 years ago. Everyone is more health and safety conscious and more

concerned about waste. Today, replacement parts require even tighter production

controls than the extraordinarily rigid standards under which the original parts

were designed and manufactured. A nuclear weapon, less than the size of a small

desk, has enough explosive power to completely destroy a modern city, and yet it

must be able to survive extraordinary accidents with less than a one-in-a-million

chance of exploding. New industrial materials and new manufacturing processes

make it hard to get exact replacement parts for an old car or appliance. Yet, we

must produce replacements with modern material and processes that will still maintain weapons safety and reliability.

As our stockpile weapons age we expect more parts to become defective—just as

with our automobiles. Because new warheads have not been produced since 1989,

we cannot replace old weapons with new ones. In addition, our weapons designers

with nuclear testing experience are also aging. In about ten years, most of them will

have retired. This means that as our newest system, the W88, reaches the end of

its original design life in 2014, and we may no longer have anyone with the necessary job experience to perform underground testing of nuclear weapons. Similarly,

the engineers and technicians who originally produced even this newest weapon

may also be gone. It is this time factor that is critical to the success of the Stockpile

Stewardship Program.

Since we cannot do a complete underground test of a nuclear explosion, we can

divide the explosion sequence into each of its parts, then test and analyze each of

these separately, much as you would test the ignition system, the cooling system,

and the brakes on your car. We plan to put all the data together into a computer

and develop simulations to see if the resulting performance is within specification.

Each part of the simulation must predict the results of each of the separate tests,
200

and where they exist, the results must be consistent with data from previous underground nuclear tests. We have already begun this process.

STOCKPILE LIFE EXTENSION AND SURVEILLANCE

We are working closely with the DOD to finalize detailed plans to extend the lifetime of each weapon system in the stockpile. The Stockpile Life Extension Program

(SLEP) is DOE’s planning framework for a proactive management of system maintenance activities. Under SLEP, options are developed to address potential refurbishment actions. These options address correcting known problems, preventing foreseeable problems, and improving safety and use control. These life extension options

allow the Department and DOD to anticipate and plan for future resource requirements such as workforce, skill mix, equipment, and facilities.

These requirements provide the framework for stockpile refurbishment workload

and stockpile research and development activities at our laboratories and provide

guidance for our production plants in the design and certification of replacement

components, validation of new materials, and development and certification of new

manufacturing processes. The cycle is continuous and is closely integrated. Data and

information from our surveillance programs and from the hundreds of experiments

and simulations being performed to help identify which parts of a weapon are aging

gracefully and which parts present current and potential future problems.

Stockpile surveillance has been a major element of the U.S. nuclear weapons program ever since the first weapons were put into service. Approximately 100 stockpile weapons are thoroughly examined each year. The results provide data not only

for assessing the current safety and reliability of the stockpile, but also for developing predictive models and age-focused diagnostics required to anticipate weapons

refurbishment requirements.

The technologies and methods, as well as a fundamental understanding of materials properties and weapons science, to significantly improve detection and predictive capabilities are being developed in the Enhanced Surveillance Program

(ESP). An aging mechanism in a stockpile high explosive was identified through the

ESP, ultimately concluding that the changes actually improved the stability of the

explosive. This assessment is permitting the reuse of the high explosive during the

W87 life extension program, thus avoiding significant costs. We have also embarked

on a novel strategy to accelerate the aging process in plutonium. The capability to

predict the lifetime of components made from plutonium will permit us to more accurately identify when pit replacements are needed and when facility investments

must be made in order to support pit replacement.

Dual revalidation is designed to provide a baseline assessment of the condition

of weapons in our aging stockpile. Two teams, one from the laboratory that originally designed and developed a weapon and the second from the other weapons laboratory, are performing in-depth evaluations of the weapon’s ability to meet revalidated military requirements. The W76 is the first weapon to be reviewed. Each

team has performed at least one system hydrotest on the W76, and they have collaborated on a Shipboard Vibration Test. The review of the W76 will be completed

in December 1999. The dual revalidation peer review program not only baselines the

weapon system, but also provides an excellent opportunity for experienced designers

to pass their skills on to the next generation of scientists and engineers.

MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES

Manufacturing continues to play a critical role in the Stockpile Stewardship Program. During fiscal year 1998, almost 1,000 Limited Life Components (LLCs) were

produced. Plans call for the production of over 1,300 LLCs in fiscal year 1999. These

product deliveries signal the successful transfer of production activities from plants

which have been closed. The weapons complex is also performing major refurbishment actions on several weapon types, including the B83, B61, and the W87. In December 1998, the Y–12 plant at Oak Ridge completed and shipped to Pantex the

first refurbished component for the life extension program of the W87 under our

Stockpile Life Extension Program. Earlier this month, the first deliveries of electronic and mechanical parts for the W87 life extension were shipped to Pantex from

the Kansas City plant. The first W87 life extension unit will be assembled at Pantex

by the end of this month with the first group of units due for delivery to the Air

Force in May. This is considered a major milestone in meeting a DOE commitment

made to the Air Force.

The Advanced Manufacturing Design and Production Technologies Initiative

(ADAPT) is providing the manufacturing complex with advanced capabilities for: designing, developing, and certifying components and systems; and for producing, assembling, and delivering the components and systems products. ADAPT is radically
201

changing how DOE supports the nuclear weapons stockpile by infusing new product

and process technologies, and by adopting state-of-the-art business and engineering

practices. Our production complex must take advantage of modern manufacturing

techniques. As an example, a secure communications and data network was established among the production plants and laboratories which is facilitating rapid

interchange of design and manufacturing information related to the W87 life extension program. In the future, this will serve as the backbone of a modern simulation

product realization environment. The network is already reducing the time needed

to produce classified parts, in some instances up to 90 percent.

We remain committed to maintaining a robust and world-class microelectronics

capability at Sandia National Laboratories. This effort will allow us to both develop

and exploit emerging technologies that show great promise for miniaturizing weapon components and improving their reliability and for maintaining a critical capability in radiation- hardened electronics needed to address the threat environments

of the future.

Toward that end, in December 1998, the Department of Energy and Intel Corp.

announced that Intel Corp. will provide a no-fee license for its Pentium processor

design to Sandia National Laboratories for the development of custom-made radiation-hardened microprocessors for use in United States satellite, space vehicles,

and defense systems. The agreement will save U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions

of dollars in microprocessor design costs and provide the federal government with

a ten-fold increase in processing power over the highest performing existing technology. Radiation hardening ‘‘immunizes’’ systems and applications from ionizing radiation, such as cosmic rays, which affect the reliability of conventional electronics.

Prototypes of the custom chips will be fabricated and tested at Sandia’s Microelectronics Development Laboratory. While our production workload is certainly far

smaller than in the past, the demands on our manufacturing processes have actually increased. Let me explain what I mean. We now know how critical baseline

data is to stockpile certification in the absence of underground testing. Understanding how parts change over time involves comparing old and new parts. In the

past, our production facilities built components with a primary focus on staying

within design and process specifications. However, we have learned that seemingly

insignificant variations in products or processes at the time of manufacture can

often be the key to component lifetime and hence to weapon performance.

Thus, we have significantly expanded the amount and type of baseline data, critical to modeling, collected during production. We now record much more than just

the product specifications. We collect information on the physical and chemical properties of individual parts as well as the constituent raw materials. New parts receive significant analysis using new technologies and characterization tools covering

the full scale from the microscopic to macroscopic level. Processes are also being reinstrumented to capture key parameters during production. All information is collected in readily accessible databases. The future of certification relies, in part, on

our ability to accurately record the condition of parts as they were built. These investments in baselining tools and technologies will continue across the complex with

future life extension activities.

We are continuing to right-size and modernize our production complex for the 21st

Century. The Stockpile Management Restructuring Initiative (SMRI) is the first

step and includes the tritium facilities at the Savannah River Site; uranium machining, recycling and storage facilities at the Oak Ridge Y–12 Plant; assembly and

high explosive fabrication facilities at the Pantex Plant; and non-nuclear production

facilities for electronic, electro-optical devices, plastic and machined parts at the

Kansas City Plant.

A pit production capability is being reestablished at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a capability the DOE has not had since the closure of the Rocky Flats Plant

in 1989. A W88 first development unit pit was successfully produced last year and

by 2001, the first pit for stockpile use will be produced. By 2007, LANL will have

a limited capability to manufacture replacement pits for the units destroyed during

surveillance activities.

The final phase of a five year process to resume enriched uranium operations at

the Oak Ridge Y–12 Plant will be completed in fiscal year 1999. The Kansas City

Plant has now been qualified for the production of tritium gas reservoirs for the

W76, W78 and W80 warheads and Sandia National Laboratories will soon have a

new production facility on-line for neutron generators and will deliver almost 300

units in fiscal year 2000.

In November 1998, the Heartland supercomputer, one of the largest and most

powerful computer systems operating in a North American manufacturing facility

was installed at the Kansas City Plant. This system is quickly becoming a key asset

in solving production problems by simulating production processes with some of the
202

same software that is used in engineering and physics simulation on weapon systems and which would previously have required very expensive prototypes. For example, the Heartland supercomputer has been used to evaluate new forge weld designs on such products as the W87 reservoir transfer tube, to determine process parameters for filling electronic systems with foam for structural integrity, and to

evaluate soldering techniques in the radar systems for the B83 and B61.

In addition, over 1,000 nuclear warheads were safely dismantled at the Pantex

Plant in fiscal year 1998, approximately 275 dismantlements will be completed in

fiscal year 1999, and 375 dismantlements are planned for fiscal year 2000. The decrease in quantity after fiscal year 1998 does not reflect a decrease in workload because the systems remaining to be dismantled involve more complicated procedures

and therefore, require additional time and resources. Dismantlements resulting

from the nation’s response to START I, however, will essentially be completed by

fiscal year 2001.

In December 1998, Secretary Richardson announced that a review of the management structure throughout the DOE would be conducted. Until this review is completed, no decision will be made on the Department’s proposal to consolidate contracts at our defense weapon production facilities. Under this concept, the management and operating contract for the Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri,

the Y–12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas,

would be consolidated into a single contract to improve programmatic performance

and integration.

TRITIUM

Current policy requires the Department to develop a new tritium production

source by about fiscal year 2005 to support a START I nuclear stockpile with a fiveyear reserve, and to maintain the ability to ‘‘hedge’’ to a START I level even if the

START II Treaty enters into force. Tritium, which decays fairly rapidly, has not

been produced in the U.S. since 1988 and defense requirements have been met by

the recycling of tritium from dismantled weapons. Secretary Richardson announced

on December 22, 1998, a decision to use existing light water reactors as the primary

source of tritium production. He designated the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts

Bar and Sequoyah reactors as the preferred facilities. Consistent with the Department’s dual track strategy, the Secretary designated the linear accelerator as the

back up technology for tritium production. As such, the Department will complete

engineering development and preliminary design for the Accelerator Production of

Tritium (APT). The Secretary stated that the use of existing TVA reactors was preferred because this alternative uses proven technology, offers the best deal for taxpayers, has the most flexibility to meet present and future tritium requirements,

and is most consistent with U.S. arms reduction goals. An interagency agreement

with TVA under the Economy Act on an as-needed, pay-as-you-go, cost basis is nearing completion and will result in operating costs being as low as possible for the

production of tritium.

The Secretary of Defense publicly endorsed the Secretary’s tritium production decision, and the Chairman of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has made a

commitment that the NRC will expeditiously review requests for regulatory approvals associated with the use of tritium-producing fuel rods in NRC-licensed reactors.

The production of tritium at TVA facilities is expected to begin in 2003. The tritium

gas will be extracted from the rods at the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) at the

Savannah River Site. Construction of the TEF will begin in fiscal year 2000 and will

be completed in time to support stockpile tritium requirements.

During the three years since the Record of Decision on the Environmental Impact

Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling, the projects for both dual-track options

were subjected to numerous reviews by independent groups of experts. Regulatory

oversight was provided by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in appropriate areas. A review of nonproliferation aspects was provided by an interagency review group.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS

It is at the DOE’s Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories and at the Nevada Test Site that the science base of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is developed. Experimentation is how, in the absence of nuclear testing, we divide the physics of the explosive sequence into each of its parts, and analyze each separately. Information that we have from the production and surveillance

activities described previously, helps us to focus our experimental work. Information

that we have from over 1,000 U.S. nuclear tests also tell us what we don’t know
203

and where we need to fill in gaps in our knowledge through experiment and observation.

Hundreds of experiments, large and small, are performed each year in support of

Stockpile Stewardship. Subcritical experiments performed at the Nevada Test Site

have received considerable publicity. The sixth subcritical experiment, Clarinet, took

place on February 9, 1999. This experiment was the second of three planned for fiscal year 1999. Two subcritical experiments are planned for fiscal year 2000 and additional subcritical experiments are being considered.

Subcritical experiments provide empirical data on the high pressure behavior of

plutonium; realistically benchmarking data on the dynamic, non-nuclear behavior of

components in today’s stockpile; analyzing the effects of remanufacturing techniques; understanding the effects of aging materials; and addressing other technical

issues. Information from these experiments will be key to qualifying the pit production capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), as well as certifying the

performance of weapons which will contain the replacement pits. These experiments

also contribute significantly to the maintenance of the critical infrastructure and

educational base of skilled personnel at the Nevada Test Site. In addition to helping

us understand the effects of aging on plutonium, these experiments are key to our

test readiness program. Subcritical experiments are consistent with the safeguards

under which the President has recommended ratification of the Comprehensive Test

Ban Treaty (CTBT).

We do a good job of investigating the first part of the nuclear explosion; that is,

the implosion of the plutonium pit by high explosive, with non-nuclear experiments.

We can measure a number of important features by taking x-ray pictures during

critical parts of the experiment. We can then compare these pictures with calculations and with previous data from the more than 1,000 underground nuclear tests

and 14,000 surveillance tests. During fiscal year 1998, we conducted some 50 nonnuclear hydrotests at the Pulsed High Energy Radiographic Machine Emitting Xrays (PHERMEX) and the Flash X-Ray (FXR) machine facilities at LANL and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). We will do approximately the same

number in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000. In addition, we plan to conduct

approximately 150 less complex experiments per year aimed at understanding and

answering questions about high-explosives behavior and explosive effects on materials.

Experiments using the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) are investigating proton radiography, a new technique in which proton beams from a linear

accelerator are used directly in a novel approach to hydrodynamics-radiography

that, if successful, could provide additional information to our process of certifying

pits. This technique is one of the candidate technologies being considered to make

detailed, three-dimensional ‘‘motion pictures’’ of the implosion process. Smaller-scale

dynamic proton radiography experiments have already been performed at LANSCE

to address important certification issues (e.g., cold high-explosives performance),

paving the way for validation of advanced explosives simulation models.

This year we will be conducting a series of measurements at the Brookhaven National Laboratory as a next step in evaluating protons for weapon radiography. Such

technology could be used in an advanced hydrotest facility. Accelerator experiments

are also being used to probe basic properties of weapons materials that have a direct

bearing on the functional lifetime, hydrodynamic behavior, nuclear performance,

aging and corrosion of weapons materials and components. Based on these experiments, data can be extracted on equation of state, strength, microstructure, and

aging properties of weapons materials.

In the area of inertial confinement fusion (ICF), the Department is conducting an

aggressive research program to support the stockpile. In order to transfer resources

to the National Ignition Facility project, the Nova laser at LLNL is scheduled for

shutdown in 1999. Program emphasis will shift to the Omega laser at the University of Rochester. About 1,300 shots are planned for Omega in fiscal year 2000. A

major activity at Omega in fiscal year 1999–2000 will be installation and operation

of a cryogenic target handling system in preparation for deuterium-tritium cryogenic

fuel implosion experiments.

In 1998, the Z-pulsed power facility at Sandia National Laboratories achieved a

record x-ray energy and temperature levels. In 1999 and 2000, we plan to conduct

about 160 shots in Z in the areas of weapons effects, weapons physics and NIF ignition. The major activity in Z over the next two years will be the installation of the

Beamlet laser from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory which will be used as

a diagnostic on Z. This diagnostic will enhance investigations in all areas. The ICF

program is implementing a detailed multi-laboratory national ignition plan to

achieve ignition and to address other stewardship issues during NIF operations.
204

These, and other experimental facilities that are on line or under construction, are

expected to give us a set of tools sufficient to investigate and understand anticipated

problems in the stockpile. Whenever feasible, the goal is to obtain data experimentally by more than one method in order to improve our confidence in the associated physics models being used in the advanced Accelerated Strategic Computing

Initiative (ASCI) simulation codes.

PROGRESS ON MAJOR EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES

Construction is well underway for three major facilities that are essential to the

long-term success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program—the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT), and

Atlas. NIF, the world’s largest laser, will enable our scientists to generate conditions

of temperature and pressure approaching those that occur in nuclear weapons. Demonstrations of how aged or changed materials could behave under these unique conditions will provide data essential to test the validity of computer based predictions.

The NIF building is about 47 percent completed. The siding and roofing were completed in November 1998. A major event this summer will be the installation of the

target chamber. The first NIF experiments are planned to begin in October 2001

using eight of 192 laser beams. The NIF is expected to be completed on schedule

in October 2003, and on budget at $1.2 billion.

We continue making good progress in completing the DARHT facility. This facility

will examine the shape and size of an imploding pit model from two different directions with greatly improved radiographic resolution. DARHT will also demonstrate

a capability of multi-pulsing to obtain pictures at more than one point in the implosion process. Construction of the facility to house the x-ray machines was completed

and the first arm of the facility, using a single pulse accelerator, will be operational

with experiments scheduled to begin this summer. Design and prototyping of the

second arm is well underway and this multi-pulse machine is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2002.

The Atlas pulsed power facility is under construction at LANL. The design of

Atlas is complete, the large and long-lead procurements have been placed, and the

assembly of the first segment of the machine is underway. The Atlas facility is

scheduled to be completed and commence operations in 2000. Atlas will provide an

improved capability to conduct hydrodynamic experiments for assessment of secondary assemblies in nuclear weapons.

SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION

The Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) is developing the high-performance computational modeling and numerical simulation capabilities necessary

to integrate theory, existing data, and new experimental data to predict results that

can be verified and validated. The ASCI program, a collaborative effort between the

Government and U.S. industry, is developing the world’s fastest, most powerful computational and advanced simulation and modeling capabilities. These advanced

supercomputers are needed to complete the shift from nuclear test-based methods

to science-based methods and to assess and certify the safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile without underground nuclear testing.

Advanced computational capabilities that include application codes, computing

platforms, and various tools and techniques, are being developed under ASCI and

incorporated into ongoing stockpile computational activities. This technology is

being developed at about twice the rate of commercial computing speed and power

advances. ASCI has been highly successful in meeting its milestones and providing

effective new tools to support stockpile stewardship. Information developed from

other elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, such as NIF and our subcritical experiments, will provide the basic physics models and data for ASCI simulations.

At the end of fiscal year 1998, ASCI unveiled its second generation of computing

systems. Two major systems capable of running in excess of three trillion operations

per second (3 teraops) peak speed were delivered ahead of schedule and within

budget. Blue Pacific, developed by IBM, is located at LLNL, and Blue Mountain, developed by Silicon Graphics, Inc., is located at LANL. These systems are each 15,000

times faster and have roughly 80,000 times the memory of the average personal

desktop computer. On February 12, 1998, the Department announced the selection

of IBM to partner with ASCI on the Option White 10 teraops supercomputer to be

located at LLNL. Building upon the experience and knowledge gained with the 3

teraops Blue Mountain system, LANL will conduct a procurement for a computational system that will achieve a peak performance level of 30 teraops by mid-year

2001. And the Department’s first generation, Option Red Intel computer system, in-
205

stalled at Sandia National Laboratories in 1996, with a peak speed of 1.8 trillion

operations per second is now operating in production mode.

The unprecedented computational power of ASCI is also being made available to

selected groups in the university community through the Academic Strategic Alliances Program. In 1997, the Department awarded contracts to five major U.S. universities—Stanford University, California Institute of Technology, the University of

Chicago, the University of Utah and the University of Illinois. The work of the university teams will be of similar difficulty and complexity to that needed for Stockpile

Stewardship and provide another benchmark by which we can assess the accuracy

of our own work. These projects are expected to lead to major advances in computer

simulation technologies as well as to discoveries in basic and applied science; areas

important to ASCI, the broader Stockpile Stewardship Program, and other application areas. Applications being developed and run by the university teams are unclassified and deal with significant non-defense scientific, economic and social priorities.

We are already utilizing the capabilities of the newly installed ASCI platforms to

support assessment of the stockpile. Specifically, we have run the highest resolution

safety simulation of a stockpile weapon, and we have run a 3-dimensional simulation that will help explain a ‘‘mystery’’ from the nuclear test archives, that is relevant to our current program. We have run simulations to support the certifications

of the B61 modification and the W76 neutron generator. These simulations would

not have been possible without the capability provided by the ASCI platforms performing at the teraops level. However, in order to simulate a 3-dimensional full-system weapon and its performance as defined by nuclear weapons designers, scientists, and engineers at DOE national laboratories, we must scale the current capability to the 100 teraops level by 2004.

The fiscal year 2000 request for the ASCI and Computations program operating

budget, which totals $543 million, is about 12 percent higher than the fiscal year

1999 request. In addition, $114 million for simulation activities that previously were

part of the ASCI program plan and $36 million for construction projects to house

ASCI computers is requested. The fiscal year 2000 request is in line with planned

increases resulting from advances in code development work and with simulations

that necessitate additional memory, storage, and networking capability. It continues

the momentum in both hardware development and acquisition to obtain computers

capable of sustained operations of 100 teraops level by 2004. It also permits building

3-D computer codes, which in conjunction with the other experimental programs

such as inertial confinement fusion, are aimed at providing the required levels of

fidelity in weapons simulations.

Two new computational initiatives begun in fiscal year 1999 will continue in fiscal

year 2000. The Distributed Computing at a Distance (DisCom2 ) project develops

key computing and communications technologies that will enable DP laboratories

and plants to apply high-end computing across thousands of miles, to meet the urgent design, analysis, and engineering needs of Stockpile Stewardship. The Numerical Environment for Weapons Simulations (NEWS) will create data exploration

super corridors at the weapons laboratories to support large-scale data analysis for

researchers and weapons assessment teams.

NUCLEAR EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAMS

There are two other elements that exist across the weapons complex that play a

role in maintaining the leading edge expertise of our people and program. Defense

Programs funds DOE’s nuclear emergency response programs which primarily consist of engineers, scientists, and other technical personnel from the three weapons

laboratories, production facilities, and other DOE management and operating contractors. This program provides a technical response capability for any type of radiological or nuclear accident or incident including radiological releases, U.S. nuclear

weapons accidents, or a malevolent event involving a nuclear device or radiological

dispersal device. A robust exercise schedule provides challenging scenarios for all radiological emergency response assets in order to maintain and verify departmental

readiness to meet our mandated responsibilities in conjunction with a wide range

of interagency programs (e.g. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, FBI, etc.). These scenarios include overseas nuclear weapons

accident exercises, field training exercises, multi-agency resolution of nuclear terrorism crises, response to transportation accidents and commercial nuclear reactor

accidents.

The DP Technology Partnership Program, which has been restructured to directly

support Stockpile Stewardship, represents an important investment in the future.

The private sector has technical leadership in many areas critical to weapons activi-
206

ties and the Technology Partnership Program initiates effective collaborations between the laboratories and industry that strengthen all Stockpile Stewardship Program components. It is a difficult task, but we already have success. For example,

Sandia and a world class commercial electronics supplier of radio frequency (RF)

products are partnering to develop a replacement arming, fusing and firing system

for the W76/Mk4. This project will develop the capability for procuring war reserve

RF components from a state-of-the-art, tailored, low-cost, low-volume, high- reliability manufacturing process. In addition, LANL is working with a provider of

highly advanced, ultra-short pulse laser technology to develop sophisticated devices

that will give LANL an entirely new capability to non-destructively inspect and

measure the interior of a pit with extremely high resolution.

PROGRAM INTEGRATION

You have heard about how, over the last several years the Stewardship program

has successfully set in motion a series of initiatives to ensure high confidence in the

safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing or

traditional new weapon development. Core technical capabilities have been fostered

and facility milestones have been established to strengthen a strong science-based

foundation for Stewardship. Construction of facilities like DARHT, NIF, and Atlas

is now underway to provide state-of-the-art experimental facilities for pursuing fundamental weapons physics understanding. The subcritical experiments at NTS return extremely valuable data on the dynamic materials behavior of explosively driven plutonium. The ASCI program has successfully delivered world-class computational power and has focused and paced the development of simulation-based predictive capability that is required to integrate the scientific knowledge derived

through ongoing experimental and theoretical program efforts. A Stockpile Life Extension (SLEP) program has formalized a disciplined process for introducing needed

changes to the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile to address age-related risk. The

time has now come to direct attention on a focused approach toward integrating and

synchronizing the various ‘‘tools’’ of the Stewardship ‘‘toolkit’’ to more effectively

achieve strategic program objectives; namely, by methodically applying science in a

timely way to confidently manage life extension in the nuclear weapon stockpile.

In the fall of 1998, I chartered a Program Integration Task Force comprised of

senior managers of the nuclear weapons laboratories and production plants, as well

as the appropriate headquarters personnel with stewardship management responsibilities. The Task Force provided recommendations for: (a) taking the next steps

toward more effective integration of science with stockpile deliverables; (b) providing

more overall coherence among all program elements; and (c) identifying a basis for

system-wide planning of program and budget.

The Task Force reported back to me in late November 1998. One of its main recommendations was to eliminate the organizational interface between the core stewardship R&D program, and the ASCI and stockpile computing program. This imperative was driven by the urgent need to accelerate integration of experimental data

with the major three-dimensional weapons computer applications codes under development. In validating these codes, an improved predictive capability, derived from

enhanced physics understanding of weapon performance and safety issues, could be

more confidently applied in meeting critical certification milestones associated with

stockpile life-extension modifications. As a result of this consolidation, the weapons

science activities of the new organization could be more coherently managed at the

interface with stockpile manufacturing and production activities.

The Task Force also emphasized the imperative for Headquarters to vigilantly

manage the program balance at the science/production interface. Its suggestion was

to apply a risk management approach in making programmatic tradeoffs between

resources and deliverable schedules. The principle is fairly simple: weapons science

activities not well integrated with stockpile deliverables would, in time, lose focus

and drift away from relevancy and strategic objectives linked to the continued certification of weapon performance, safety, and reliability. On the other hand, any

weapons production without the active integration of science through rigorous certification would eventually result in the inevitable loss of confidence without nuclear

testing, thus losing nuclear deterrence for the Nation. Balancing these two major

efforts under the stewardship ‘‘umbrella’’ will demand a more keen attention to enterprise-wide planning and budgeting, always governed by the principle that budget

requirements should reflect an integrated set of program objectives.

In December of 1998, I took action on these Task Force recommendations by integrating the Stewardship science program under a new organization, the Office of

Research, Development, and Simulation. This office is now actively pursuing program integration by working with the nuclear weapons laboratories and Nevada
207

Test Site to jointly identify and begin planning a set of ‘‘weapons technology campaigns’’. A ‘‘campaign’’ is defined as a major technical effort that focuses resources

on developing a critical enabling technology to support confident certification.

A compelling weapons science or technology issue that demands a measurable enhancement in predictive capability will drive each campaign. Thus, each campaign

will be designed to integrate experiments, simulation, and weapon-system assessments. Campaigns will be focused on achievable goals and identifiable end states

for the 2004 time frame. The three laboratories and NTS will join in a common,

complementary effort to define appropriate technology milestones. Technical efforts

will be designed to exploit the current experimental and computational infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible, while integrating new capabilities as they become available. Collectively, the campaigns will be aimed at enhancing certification

in the 2004 time frame, when about half of our nuclear-test-experienced weapon designers will have retired. By aggressively pursuing these integrating campaigns, we

expect to successfully meet the challenges of the next decade.

Campaigns will result in a clearer set of program expectations tied to needs and

priorities. This in turn will result in our ability to articulate our deliverables and

budget requirements far more precisely and far more measurably than has been

done in the past. Ultimately, I believe, this will result in a better understanding

of what the public is buying for the funds provided. I am convinced that it will also

provide, in the future, a clearer and more demonstrable model for addressing what

can not be provided at a given level of resources.

CONCLUSION

These are but a selection of the broad range of on-going planned Stockpile Stewardship Program activities. Let me reemphasize that the current stockpile is well

tested and well understood. The designers and engineers who built our existing

weapons are still available and are still active. Indeed they are the ones who are

creating the Stockpile Stewardship Program. They are the ones who are working on

the stockpile now, and are helping to train their successors. We are mindful, however, that the clock is ticking on both the design life spans of the weapons, and the

career spans of test-experienced designers, engineers, and production experts. We

have an unprecedented, but time sensitive, challenge to put in place both the tools

and the people that will carry us beyond test-based expertise to science-based expertise for the future.

If supported appropriately, I believe the Stockpile Stewardship Program can indefinitely maintain a safe and reliable stockpile without the need to conduct nuclear

testing. I know of no other national security issue that is more important for our

Nation today and for the next millennium.

STATEMENT OF ROSE E. GOTTEMOELLER

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Ms. Gottemoeller, would you proceed with your testimony? Your

written remarks will be made a part of the record. If you would abbreviate your oral remarks, and we will wait on the questions till

all three witnesses have testified, then we will proceed.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have my

remarks entered into the record. Thank you for the opportunity to

appear before this committee and discuss our fiscal year 2000

budget request.

In my oral remarks, I would really like to hit a few of my office’s

planned activities as highlights for fiscal year 2000. The President

has identified weapons of mass destruction proliferation as a national emergency, and I am proud of the role that DOE and my office play in responding to that emergency.

MATERIAL PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING [MPC&A]

Our total request for fiscal year 2000 is $747.3 million, representing an 11 percent increase over our fiscal year 1999 appropriation. This increase reflects the growing threat to U.S. security

in both international and domestic arenas. Russia is at the top of
208

our priority list. Through our Material Protection, Control and Accounting, or MPC&A program, we are helping Russia secure its nuclear weapons nuclear materials and reduce the risk that these materials will be diverted to the weapons in rogue regimes or terrorist

organizations.

This has been a highly successful effort which has expanded to

include 55 facilities throughout the former Soviet Union. To date,

we have completed upgrades on 30 metric tons of material and

have improved the security of some 400 tons, metric tons, in total.

We are working now at virtually every site we know of that contains weapons—usable nuclear materials in the former Soviet

Union, including the major sites in the Russian defense complex.

We still have much work to do, since we know that the Russians

have at least 650 tons of nuclear material not in weapons and in

need of upgraded protection, but we have developed the goodwill

and the structure needed to efficiently pursue the security of the

remaining stocks of nuclear materials.

Senator DOMENICI. Might I ask, why do you say 650 tons? Do you

accumulate all kinds, rather than telling us what each one is?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes, sir. That is an accumulation of plutonium as well as highly enriched uranium. It is the planning number that we use, although we know from our interactions with our

Russian colleagues that the number may be larger than that.

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. Go ahead.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. We are requesting $145 million for this effort in fiscal year 2000. Our efforts in the area of Russian military

security are made possible in large part because DOE’s role and my

office’s role is important in setting the international standard for

the production of nuclear materials and facilities here in the

United States.

INITIATIVES FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND NUCLEAR CITIES

INITIATIVE

I would now like to turn to the other side of the Russian proliferation problem, the brain drain. Our Initiatives for Proliferation

Prevention programs and our newly launched Nuclear Cities Initiative are working to address the complex issues in this arena. I

know much has been said and written recently on these efforts, but

I would like to say this. We have through the initiatives for proliferation prevention successfully kept thousands, at last count over

5,900, former Soviet weapons experts at home and out of weapons

work in rogue States, terrorist groups, and criminal organizations.

As the General Accounting Office recommended, we need to do

a better job of ensuring more money gets to Russia. We also need

to redouble our efforts to achieve commercial success with these

projects. However, the overall goal, as GAO actually acknowledged,

of keeping these experts at home is succeeding.

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY

Elsewhere in our Russia-related activities, I am pleased to report

that my office has successfully completed integrating the Department’s Office of International Nuclear Safety into our structure.

There is a natural synergy between the nuclear safety work and

my office’s more traditional missions. We are making excellent
209

progress in improving the safety of Soviet reactors, including improving Soviet safety diagnosis and response training, pursuing the

installation of safety equipment, and establishing regional nuclear

safety training centers.

Moreover, our efforts to aid the closing of the Chernobyl complex

continue and, indeed, are intensifying in fiscal year 2000. While we

work to counter threats abroad to our national security, we are

stepping up our security efforts here at home. The threats to domestic safety and security are more diverse than ever and, at the

direction of President Clinton and Secretary Richardson, we are

moving smartly to address these concerns.

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

The Department, through my office, is rapidly pursuing the

President’s call to improve our chemical and biological detection

and identification capabilities. For our chem-bio initiative we are

requesting a 70-percent increase from $19 to $32 million in fiscal

year 2000.

The prime goal of these efforts is to provide first responders with

portable, fast, and accurate tools to detect and ID chemical and biological agents. With one anthrax hoax in the United States every

day, the ability to detect hoaxes and, in the worst case, confirm the

use of chemical or biological agents is vital to reducing the effect

of such events. Our investment in this area is leveraging the already strong expertise residing in the national laboratory system,

especially those in the fields of chemistry and biology.

In addition to our CBW detection work, other important technical

advances are being pursued in our arms control research and development area. The tools being developed through this office will

improve our ability to detect proliferant activities in other countries

and increase our confidence in the verifiability of international

agreements such as the comprehensive test ban treaty.

DOMESTIC SECURITY

Now, sir, I would like to turn to our domestic security missions,

which are equally important and challenging. Our Office of Security Affairs continues its vital role in protecting classified information and the security of the DOE complex overall. This has been

another frequently discussed topic in recent months, but I would

like to say this. Our mission requires us to remain accountable to

the American public. To do this, we must effectively balance two

equally essential missions, protecting classified information to prevent others from using it to harm U.S. interests, and keeping secret only that information which needs to be protected.

To meet these goals, the Department is working aggressively to

review materials before they’re released to ensure the absence of

restricted or formerly restricted data as Congress has required. At

the same time, we are working to comply with President Clinton’s

executive order to declassify documents that no longer require protection.
210

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

The last program I would like to mention is one that gets few

headlines but allows me and my colleagues in the DOE leadership

to get to sleep at night, from time to time anyway. This is the Office of Emergency Management, which is also operated out of my

office 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Our staff

is ready to respond to any of a wide variety of possible events that

would affect our national security and safety, and the overall performance of the DOE complex.

PREPARED STATEMENT

There are many additional programs in our office, and time does

not allow for as complete a listing as I would like to do, but I will

be happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSE E. GOTTEMOELLER

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, for the opportunity

to appear before you today to present this statement for the record on the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Office of Nonproliferation

and National Security (NN). The Department of Energy generally, and the Office

I head specifically, have received extremely strong support from this committee. I’d

like to thank you for that support and say that I look forward to working with you

in the future as we work to address some of our nation’s most important and critical

challenges.

It has been stated many times, but it bears repeating: The world we face today

is vastly changed from the one we lived in during the cold war. The challenges we

face are more varied and less predictable. None of the threats we face is more serious than the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states and, even

more worrisome, terrorist organizations. The President has declared the threat of

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation to constitute a ‘‘national emergency’’ and I am proud of the role the Department of Energy, and my Office in particular, is playing in responding to that emergency.

Within the Department, the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security is

unique in the range of our contributions to national security. The Office is responsible for national security missions in both domestic and international settings. In

Russia, DOE employees and laboratory experts are on the ground and actively working to improve the security of hundreds of tons of plutonium and highly enriched

uranium at dozens of facilities. We are also working with thousands of former Soviet

Union weapons scientists to provide them with non-weapons jobs and prevent them

from straying into work with countries of proliferation concern. Here at home, we

are accelerating our efforts to harness the skills of the national laboratories to meet

the growing threats of chemical and biological weapons and the very serious risk

that such weapons will be used on U.S. territory. In addition, my staff is ensuring

the protection of U.S. nuclear materials and of DOE sites. At the same time, we

must balance the critical job of protecting this nation’s nuclear secrets, with meeting

our obligation to declassify appropriate documents to ensure our accountability to

the American people.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

The Office’s fiscal year 2000 budget request is $747.3 million, representing an 11

percent increase over our fiscal year 1999 appropriation. This increase reflects the

ever growing challenges our nation faces in the international, as well as domestic

arenas. While I won’t, in my prepared remarks, go into detail on all of our programs, I would like to highlight for you some of our main projects and some areas

of proposed expansion in 2000.
211

MATERIAL PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING

First, I will turn to the situation in Russia. The members of this committee are

keenly aware of the importance Russia plays in our overall nonproliferation strategy. For several years, we have been building up a legacy of trust and personal relationships that has allowed us to cooperatively pursue security upgrades throughout

the Russian nuclear complex. The importance of this work, carried out under our

Material Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program, cannot be overstated. Our programs have been key to international efforts to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists or would-be nuclear states. In this goal, we

have made considerable progress, but we have recognized that the task before us

is much greater than we understood when this program began in 1994. Russia’s economic collapse in August has forced us to re-evaluate our methods and priorities

and brought, from the Russians themselves, a renewed sense of urgency to our cooperation. This now includes an increased awareness of the ‘‘insider threat’’ of nuclear materials diversion and an understanding that the size, and geographic scope

of the nuclear enterprise is larger than had been appreciated in 1994.

With this background, over half of our proposed budget increase would be dedicated to our Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation, which implements our

Russian nuclear security efforts. The Russian MPC&A program would receive $145

million, which represents a $5 million increase over last year but an almost $40 million increase over our original baseline. This effort includes a long-range plan that

will continue beyond our original completion date of 2002. Our extended deadline

reflects one simple fact—the job of securing nuclear materials is a much harder and

a larger endeavor than anyone—including Russia—understood when our program

began. While we will have completed upgrades on the number of sites originally included in our program plan, designed in 1994, we have secured Russian agreement

to cooperate on more than two dozen facilities that we didn’t even know existed

when the program began. In addition, in order to limit the program’s overall requirements, we are venturing for the first time into the long-overdue area of ‘‘materials consolidation.’’ The Russians themselves have finally realized the risks associated with maintaining such a far flung nuclear complex. Our cooperative consolidation efforts will help reduce the number of facilities housing nuclear materials,

thereby reducing the strain on the Russian system and the long-term MPC&A requirements—including our own.

A word, if I may, about the absolutely incredible men and women who have been

working on this problem night and day for the past several years. The image of the

civil servant and government bureaucrat has been impugned for years in our society. I know that the members of this committee are well aware that the average

civil servant is motivated and hardworking, but I have been struck since I became

director of NN by the absolute dedication of our MPC&A task force and the almost

superhuman level of their efforts. Their travel includes some of the most remote and

least hospitable locations in the world, spending weeks away from family and basic

comforts and making repeated trips to such locations in order to facilitate and complete their assignments. The work load for the average MPC&A Task Force member

is extreme, as we had sought to limit the task force size to one appropriate for a

limited duration project. This is an issue that we are examining extremely closely

at the present time, in the expectation that the team will become larger and longer

range in its organizational outlook.

Our ability to address Russian nuclear security concerns comes in large part from

NN’s responsibilities at home for the protection of nuclear materials. These include

directing a rigorous safeguards and security program for the entire Department of

Energy complex to ensure the demonstrated security of our own nuclear materials.

Our work in Russia has benefitted greatly from our direct expertise in the protection of materials and facilities here at home, and from the knowledge that our efforts and accomplishments set the international standard for the protection of nuclear materials.

While we still have considerable work in ahead of us to upgrade security around

Russian nuclear materials, we are also striving to address other sources of proliferation risk and concern in the former Soviet Union. We consider our work at nuclear

sites to be the first line of defense against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The

second line of defense is the internal borders of Russia, and helping to ensure that

any stolen or misappropriated materials cannot leave the country. Our Second Line

of Defense program has already installed nuclear material detectors at the main

international airport in Moscow and at the Caspian seaport of Astrakhan. We have

identified 22 additional border crossings that for tactical or strategic reasons warrant the installation of similar equipment. This is yet another example of how a rel-
212

atively small investment can help protect ourselves and our friends against the

greatest of threats.

INITIATIVES FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION/NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE

Another critical component of our nonproliferation efforts in the former Soviet

Union is our effort to engage and orchestrate alternative employment for underemployed and unemployed ex-Soviet weapons scientists. Through our Initiatives for

Proliferation Prevention program, we have worked with over 170 institutes and

sponsored collaborative scientific efforts with over 4000 ex-Soviet nuclear, chemical

and biological weapons experts. This work has helped keep these experts in Russia

and the Newly Independent States, as opposed to selling their know how to rogue

regimes, criminal groups or terrorist organizations.

We are embarking on a much more comprehensive enterprise which also seeks to

develop alternative, non-weapons jobs for weapons scientists, this time as part of

our Nuclear Cities Initiative. The ten closed nuclear cities in Russia are the jewels

in the Russian nuclear crown. We are pleased that Russia is finally taking steps

to reassess and restructure their nuclear complex and has approached us about

helping to develop new jobs for weapons scientists who will lose their defense work

as weapons facilities close. We are approaching this endeavor with a mixture of

commitment and pragmatism, realizing that such efforts will take time. But the

goals of keeping the Russian weapons scientists at home, and helping to reduce the

size of the Russian nuclear infrastructure, contribute directly to U.S. security.

The Department of Energy, and my Office in particular, has taken note of the concerns expressed in the General Accounting Office’s recent report on our Initiatives

for Proliferation Prevention program. We are working aggressively to implement

their recommendations and believe that adoption of their comments will greatly improve what is already a successful enterprise. These include a strengthened review

process to further ensure non IPP projects have dual-use benefits for Russian military programs and an increased effort to provide a greater percentage of resources

to Russian and NIS scientists.

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION

Elsewhere in the former Soviet nuclear complex, NN is now actively engaged in

the area of international nuclear safety. The transfer of the Department’s international nuclear safety activities into NN is now complete and has gone extremely

well. There is a very strong natural connection between various Russian and NIS

activities within NN’s already existing projects and the nuclear safety initiatives.

We continue to make excellent progress in improving the safety to Soviet-designed

nuclear reactors and establishing self-sustaining nuclear safety infrastructures. We

are addressing the most serious risks at these reactors by improving the plants’

physical operating conditions, installing safety equipment, developing improved

safety procedures, establishing regional centers for training reactor personnel, and

conducting in-depth safety assessments of the operating plants.

NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES

Our work in Russia, as important as it is, must not and does not distract our attention from our critical and considerable domestic activities. The changed situation

abroad is matched by a changing picture at home. The President highlighted his

concerns about new domestic threats in January at a National Academy of Sciences

event in which he stated that ‘‘The enemies of peace realize they cannot defeat us

with traditional military means. So they are working on two new forms of assault:

cyber attacks on our critical computer systems, and attacks with weapons of mass

destruction—chemical, biological, potentially even nuclear weapons. We must be

ready—ready if our adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking, communications and transportation networks, police, fire and health services—

or military assets.’’

President Clinton, and his entire national security team, are increasingly concerned about these threats. We are, at the President’s direction, making concerted

and coordinated efforts to meet these growing challenges. Let me explain what DOE

and NN are doing in this area.

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL THREATS

Among the Secretary’s top priorities is responding to the growing threat of chemical and biological (CBW) attacks inside the United States. The Department of Energy, drawing upon the diverse and extensive expertise of the national laboratories,

has extraordinary assets in the fields of biology and chemistry, pursued for both the
213

pure and applied scientific value. With relatively modest sums of money, the Department is seeking to leverage these skills and experience to improve our ability

to detect and identify biological and chemical agents. To pursue this work, we are requesting a total of $32 million, which is a $13 million or 70 percent increase over our 1999 appropriations. The focus of these efforts

is to better equip first responders with the tools to identify and categorize chemical

and biological agents. The tools we seek to develop must be portable, fast, accurate

and simple, so that they can be put to immediate use in the field, serving to protect

the American public from hoaxes or, worse, actual attacks.

Again, Mr. Chairman, defining the challenge is as simple as answering it is complex. There is, on average, one anthrax threat in the United States every day. In

January, the shortcomings of our current capabilities were made glaringly clear,

when an anthrax threat was directed at the 7th floor of the Department of State.

While this, fortunately, turned out to be a hoax, we need to do better in fielding

smart systems capable of detecting potential WMD agents. Today, there are no simple, portable and reliable detection and identification tools for biological agents

available to those officials who are assigned the role of getting to the scene of a

CBW attack first. Delays in assessing the credibility and severity of specific incidents create confusion, waste resources, and, in the event of a real attack, costs

lives. In sum, our limited abilities in this area actually increase the ‘‘terror’’ effect

of such attacks or hoaxes, thus inviting additional events. The sooner we can field

the types of portable detection equipment we are working on, the sooner we will be

able to deter and reduce the number of such attacks.

There are questions raised from time to time about why involve the Department

of Energy—whose weapons expertise is focused in the nuclear arena. To be direct,

DOE and its laboratories have a broad range of ongoing programs in biological and

chemical areas which provide it with a unique set of skills to apply to this problem.

Although originally developed in the service of our primary nuclear mission, these

world-class capabilities can be leveraged for critical chemical and biological detection work. Programs such as the human genome mapping project or chemical spill

remediation efforts are also being drawn upon to better protect our citizens against

the most insidious of attacks.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The larger part of our research and development program, for which we are re- questing $221 million in total, is dedicated to other ground breaking and vital efforts to improve our national security. Within the NN office, our Research and Development activities are working to ensure the early detection of proliferation-related activities and to improve our ability to verify existing or planned international

treaties. While I cannot discuss in open session some of our work, we are pursuing

a number of important avenues which will help detect, with increasing reliability,

efforts to produce and refine nuclear materials, as well as new and better ways to

detect and characterize nuclear tests and activities contrary to international norms

or U.S. security interests.

DECLASSIFICATION INITIATIVE

I would also like to highlight additional areas of work here at home. Within our

Office of Security Affairs, we continue the critical effort to declassify hundreds of

millions of pages of archived information while ensuring the appropriate protection

of classified information. The Secretary and my entire Office are committed to meeting the goals of the President‘s executive order on declassification while, at the same

time, ensuring that Restricted and Formerly Restricted Data are not inadvertently

released. Some might see these two responsibilities as conflicting, but I do not. They

are not only compatible, but mutually supportive. Our requirement to remain accountable to the American public by avoiding excessive secrecy, while at the same

time ensuring the vigilant protection of our nation’s nuclear information are part

of the same goal—ensuring the security and freedom for the American public, and

fulfilling our public trust. We must protect the nation from the threat of nuclear

terrorism as well as the danger of excessive secrecy. Both are critical to meeting

our obligations as public servants and I am confident in our ability—given continued

support—to achieve these goals.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Even as we prepare to address the risk of attack here at home, including our

CBW detection efforts and our domestic security work, we are constantly preparing

for how to respond should an emergency develop. The Office of Emergency Response

is a critical resource for the Department and the United States Government as a
214

whole. This extensive communications network and dedicated staff are vital assets,

and enable the Department’s leadership to receive and process updates and help

manage the response to a large variety of contingencies. These include environmental concerns associated with the management of DOE sites, to the more extreme

cases of attack or sabotage. As with the other offices within my responsibility, I

have been extremely impressed with the professionalism and dedication of the staff

within this program office. Their efforts help reduce the likelihood of a crisis and

enable us to reduce the consequences, should one arise. Their efforts are generally

underappreciated in the eye of the public, largely due to their skill and success in

their jobs.

CONCLUSION

I would like to end where I began, and thank the Chairman and the entire Committee for their support for the Department and my Office as we address the nation’s critical national security missions. I look forward to our continued work together. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF LAURA S.H. HOLGATE

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Ms. Gottemoeller.

Ms. Holgate, will you proceed with your testimony, and your prepared remarks will be made a part of the record.

Ms. HOLGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, members

of the committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2000 budget for fissile

materials disposition.

The Office of Fissile Materials Disposition’s principal focus is on

disposing of inventories of surplus U.S. weapons—usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium, as well as providing technical

support for and ultimately implementing Administration efforts to

obtain reciprocal disposition of surplus Russian plutonium.

These disposition activities, along with other administration efforts aimed at dismantling weapons delivery systems, securing nuclear materials and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons

knowledge, are part of the Administration’s overall strategy to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction.

A recent New York Times editorial stated that nothing would do

more to protect American security in the decades ahead than ensuring that Russia’s immense stockpile of nuclear weapons and materials is diminished. That, members of the committee, is our goal.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for these activities is $200 million, an increase of $32 million over the fiscal year 1999 comparable amount. The increase in fiscal year 2000 will allow the Department to continue detailed design of the pit disassembly and

conversion facility and the MOX fuel fabrication facility, as well as

begin design of the immobilization and processing facility, key elements of the United States hybrid plutonium disposition strategy

involving immobilization and burning of mixed oxide [MOX] fuel in

existing, domestic reactors.

This budget request will also allow the program to continue testing the pit disassembly and conversion prototype at the Los Alamos

National Laboratory, to establish a technical baseline for the ceramic immobilization plant process, conduct fuel qualification, continue MOX fuel facility license activities, initiate a MOX lead test

assembly program, and conduct a repository analysis associated

with disposition technologies.
215

The $160 million out of the fiscal year 2000 budget request is allocated for these elements, required to dispose of 50 tons of excess

U.S. plutonium.

Proceeding with planned design, development, and licensing is

important, because it strengthens the U.S. negotiating position

with Russia and sends a strong message that the United States is

serious about reciprocal plutonium disposition. A decision to stop or

significantly slow the design effort would result in demobilization

of the disposition facility design teams, loss of continuity, and increased costs.

The United States, however, will not begin construction of new

facilities for disposition of U.S. plutonium unless there is significant progress on plans for plutonium disposition in Russia. This is

necessary to avoid putting the United States at a strategic disadvantage in future negotiations with Russia as well as to avoid

large scale expenditure of funds until they are required.

U.S.-RUSSIA PLUTONIUM AGREEMENT

With regard to progress with Russia on plutonium disposition,

important foundations have been laid in the last year. In July

1998, Vice President Gore and former Russian Prime Minister

Kiriyenko signed a Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement. The agreement provides for conducting tests and demonstrations of technologies needed to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium in Russia, including plutonium conversion and nondestructive

assay, burning mixed oxide fuel in reactors, and immobilization of

waste.

This work is needed to build trust and cooperation and will add

to the technical knowledge base, confirm the viability of certain

technologies, and demonstrate the technologies that might be employed for disposition of surplus Russian plutonium. The program’s fiscal year 2000 budget includes $24.9 million to

implement this agreement and to carry out other activities in support of the plutonium disposition in Russia as part of the President’s Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative.

At the Moscow summit in September 1998, President Clinton

and President Yeltsin signed a Joint Statement of Principles. This

statement committed the two countries to seek to conclude a bilateral plutonium disposition agreement as soon as possible. This bilateral agreement will specify the technological approach and

schedules to be followed by each country, the types of facilities to

be constructed in Russia, and commitments with respect to the

support of these activities in Russia.

Negotiations on this agreement are underway, and in initial conversations with Russian counterparts we feel significant commonality of vision on the content, structure, and timing of this

agreement.

The United States delegation is led by the Department of State,

with key negotiation and technical support being provided by my

office. I believe that an agreement can be concluded this year to enable plutonium disposition to proceed in both countries.

Once this agreement is in place, the U.S. and Russia would each

proceed with parallel programs with comparable rates of disposition. In Russia, the program will require the design, construction,
216

and operation of facilities to convert weapons plutonium metal into

oxide powder and to fabricate MOX fuel, as well as to modify Russian reactors to permit MOX utilization.

The estimated annual capacity of existing Russian reactors is 2

metric tons of MOX fuel per year. The U.S. goal is to increase this

rate of disposition in Russia of Russian material to no less than 5

metric tons per year, for the expansion of the plutonium conversion

and MOX fabrication facilities, and the identification and utilization of additional reactor capacity, whether inside or outside Russia, to consume MOX fuel fabricated from plutonium withdrawn

from Russian weapons.

FISCAL YEAR 1999 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION

The Department intends to assist Russia to implement this bilateral agreement initially through the emergency appropriation of

$200 million provided in fiscal year 1999. This dramatic gesture

has been instrumental in the Russians’ current cooperative approach in this negotiation. This funding will be expended in the

Russian Federation over a 2- to 3-year period following completion

of the agreement.

A detailed budget justification and obligation plan will be submitted to Congress once the strategies are defined as part of the

negotiations progress. This funding is likely to be utilized primarily

to begin to create a MOX infrastructure in Russia. The $200 million will not cover the entire cost of implementing

this agreement. Russia will need to contribute some resources, and

the Administration plans to seek support for a portion of this program from the international community, both the private and public sector. If, however, the program requires additional future appropriations, the administration will consider such needs in the

course of its normal budget process.

GAS U.S.-RUSSIAN REACTOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

The fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Act pro- vided an earmark of $5 million for joint U.S.-Russian development

of gas reactor technology called for the Russian Federation to provide a matching contribution of $3 million in either comparable

funds or contributions in-kind. This level of funding should be adequate to cover gas reactor technology R&D efforts in fiscal years

1999 and 2000.

In closing, the Fissile Material Disposition Program has come a

long way in building the domestic and international consensus necessary to begin disposing of surplus highly enriched uranium and

plutonium. Along the way, the program has led U.S. efforts not

only to identify a hybrid strategy for disposing of surplus weapons

plutonium, but also to begin implementation of this strategy. Technology development, tests, and demonstrations are ongoing, and a

prototype pit disassembly and conversion system successfully began

operations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in November.

DOE is about to announce a major contract award for MOX fuel

fabrication and irradiation services, and Title I design will soon

begin for two of the three disposition facilities. Negotiations have

recently begun with Russia aimed at achieving a bilateral agreement for plutonium disposition.
217

Now is the time for the United States to continue this important

mission by sending a clear signal to the world community that we

are intent on finishing this job. Returning to the words of the New

York Times editorial, the modest amount of money needed to

achieve these goals now could save Washington many billions of

dollars in the future to deal with the Russian nuclear threat.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURA S.H. HOLGATE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you

to discuss the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2000 budget request for Fissile

Materials Disposition.

With the end of the Cold War, hundreds of tons of weapons plutonium and highly

enriched uranium have become surplus to defense needs in both the U.S. and Russia. Continued downsizing of nuclear weapons stockpiles and implementation of

arms reduction agreements are expected to result in further weapons dismantlements and increases in stockpiles of surplus weapons materials. Denying a potential proliferator access to these materials is the principal barrier to acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Given the current political instability and worsening economic conditions prevailing in Russia, there is a very real threat that nuclear weapons materials could be stolen or diverted into the hands of terrorists or non-nuclear

nations. These materials could be readily fabricated into crude nuclear weapons for

use not only against other nations but also in the U.S. against Americans.

Within the Department of Energy, the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition’s

principal focus is on disposing of inventories of surplus U.S. weapons-usable plutonium and highly enriched uranium as well as providing technical support for and

ultimately implementation of Administration efforts to obtain reciprocal disposition

of surplus Russian plutonium. These disposition activities—along with other Administration efforts aimed at dismantling weapons delivery systems, securing nuclear

materials, and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons knowledge—are part of the

Administration’s strategy to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for these activities is $200 million, an increase of $32.5 million over the fiscal year 1999 comparable amount. The increase

in fiscal year 2000 is primarily to allow the program to begin design of a key U.S.

plutonium disposition facility to immobilize surplus non-pit plutonium, procure lead

test assembly equipment required for mixed oxide (MOX) fuel irradiation tests, and

hire the field staff necessary to oversee plutonium disposition facility design activities at the selected DOE site. The sections that follow describe the current and

planned activities and requested funding for the Department’s fissile materials disposition activities.

SURPLUS PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION SUMMARY

The Program’s efforts in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 will focus on implementing

the Administration’s hybrid strategy for plutonium disposition. This strategy calls

for immobilizing surplus weapons plutonium in ceramic surrounded by vitrified high

level radioactive waste and burning surplus plutonium as mixed oxide fuel in existing, domestic commercial reactors. Both approaches render the surplus plutonium

as inaccessible and unattractive for retrieval and weapons use as the plutonium remaining in spent fuel from commercial reactors.

DOE is pursuing both disposition technologies because they provide important insurance against unexpected difficulties with the implementation of either technology

by itself and they help ensure an early start for this important task. This hybrid

strategy also provides the United States with flexibility and leverage in negotiating

with Russia and our allies on the critical task of reducing Russian excess weapons

plutonium. While the proposed immobilization technology would be expected to

make the weapons plutonium difficult for terrorists or third world countries to use

in weapons, the Russians have repeatedly expressed concern that the U.S. immobilization approach would not destroy plutonium and would leave it available for

possible re-use in weapons, thus reversing the disarmament process. Moreover,

there is reason to believe that if the U.S. implements only immobilization, Russia

will continue to store, rather than eliminate, its stockpile of surplus weapons plutonium.
218

The Program is conducting necessary technology development and demonstrations, completing site-specific environmental analyses, designing three disposition

facilities, and providing key negotiation and technical support for efforts to attain

a bilateral agreement for the disposition of surplus Russian plutonium.

Proceeding with planned design, development and licensing is important because

it strengthens the U.S. negotiating position and sends a strong message to the Russians that the U.S. is serious about reciprocal plutonium disposition. A decision to

stop or significantly slow the design effort would result in demobilization of the disposition facility design teams, loss of continuity and increased costs. Since the licensing of the MOX fuel fabrication plant and use of MOX fuels in reactors is dependent upon a foundation of design and technical analysis, failure to proceed with

the resulting technical program will significantly lengthen the critical licensing

path.

PIT DISASSEMBLY AND CONVERSION

The United States has declared 50 metric tons of plutonium as surplus to national

defense needs. Approximately two-thirds of this amount is either in the form of classified nuclear weapons components called ‘‘pits’’ or clean plutonium metal. Before

weapons plutonium from pits can be disposed of, it must first be removed from pit

form and converted to an unclassified oxide form suitable for disposition and international inspection. The Department plans to use the Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) process, a low-waste, modular pyro-chemical

process, to convert the pits and plutonium metal to plutonium oxide. ARIES is being

developed jointly by the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Sandia National Laboratories is developing robotics for

the system.

In November 1998, DOE began operation of an integrated pit disassembly and

conversion prototype which utilizes the ARIES process at DOE’s Los Alamos National Laboratory. This demonstration, which involves dismantling up to 250 pits

over a two to three year period, will provide important information for designing

and operating a full-scale Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request seeks funding to continue testing of the integrated prototype system at Los Alamos. Funding is also being sought to complete

Title I & begin Title II design of a full-scale Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility. Contingent on significant progress on Russian plans for plutonium disposition,

as well as successful testing of the prototype, a full-scale facility, capable of processing thousands of pits per year, could be operational in fiscal year 2005.

IMMOBILIZATION

Approximately one-third of the 50 tons of surplus U.S. plutonium is in the form

of impure metal, oxides and reactor fuel which are unsuitable for MOX use without

extensive purification. To dispose of this material, as well as to provide an alternate

disposition pathway should the MOX/reactor approach prove impossible to implement, the Department is focusing on a ‘‘can-in-canister’’ approach for immobilization. Under this approach, feed materials would be converted to oxide which would

be mixed with ceramic material to form disks. The disks would be stacked and

sealed into steel cans which would be arrayed within large canisters into which vitrified high-level waste would be poured. The radioactive waste barrier increases the

proliferation resistance of the immobilized plutonium. The can-in-canister approach

would make use of a high level waste vitrification facility such as currently exists

at Savannah River or is planned to be built at the Hanford Site. Subsequently, the

canisters would be disposed of in a geologic repository.

While the United States has experience with immobilizing high level wastes, the

technological aspects of how to immobilize weapons plutonium on an industrial scale

need to be resolvedFiscal year 2000 efforts will be aimed at resolving technological

issues associated with impurities in the surplus plutonium forms, developing and

demonstrating production-scale processes and equipment, and conducting the necessary verification testing of the preferred can-in-canister approach in order to be

confident that it can be successful in a timely and cost-effective manner.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request also seeks funding to begin Title I design of

an Immobilization and Processing Facility. Contingent on significant progress on

Russian plans for plutonium disposition, as well as successful development and refinement of the immobilization process, a full-scale facility could be operational in

fiscal year 2006.
219

MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION AND IRRADIATION SERVICES

The other half of the hybrid disposition strategy involves irradiating MOX fuel in

existing, domestic reactors. While MOX fuel is used in Western Europe on an industrial scale, the principal uncertainty in the U.S. involves the required cost and business arrangements. Because the Department doesn’t own the reactors needed to irradiate the MOX fuel or a MOX fuel fabrication plant, DOE is conducting a competitive procurement to acquire the services of an industry consortium to design, construct and operate a MOX fuel fabrication facility; to irradiate the MOX fuel produced in that facility in existing, domestic, commercial reactors; and to deactivate

the fuel fabrication facility at the end of the disposition mission. This approach

would maximize private sector participation by teaming fuel designers and fabricators, architect & engineering firms, construction firms, and reactor operators. Under

this arrangement the consortium will have full responsibility for construction and

operation of the fuel fabrication facility as well as modification and operation of the

reactors in which the fuel will be used.

The MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility would be designed, constructed, and operated

by a private sector consortium at an existing DOE site. The facility would be government-owned and operated solely for the disposition of surplus U.S. plutonium.

The government would retain the right to terminate operation of the fuel fabrication

facility, either at the completion of the plutonium disposition mission or earlier, if

required. The facility will be regulated and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In the case of operating reactors, the reactor owners would retain

their inherent responsibility for operating their reactors safely in accordance with

their NRC licenses.

The procurement was initiated in May 1998. Following analysis of three separate

proposals, DOE expects to award a contract this month to an industrial consortium

to start fuel fabrication facility design, licensing, reactor analysis, and fuel qualification.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request will fund process development for MOX fuel

fabrication, procurement of lead test assembly equipment for irradiation tests of the

MOX fuel, as well as completion of Title I and initiation of Title II design of a MOX

Fuel Fabrication Facility. Contingent on significant progress on Russian plans for

plutonium disposition, as well as successful completion of design and licensing efforts, a full-scale facility could be operational in fiscal year 2007.

RUSSIAN PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION

The next two to three years will be a crucial period in U.S. Russian relations concerning the disposition of surplus weapons plutonium. Proceeding with U.S. long

lead-time activities leading up to construction is necessary to maintain momentum

and pressure on Russia for a plutonium disposition agreement, and serves as a sign

to private industry, the public and the world community that the U.S. is serious

about disposing of stockpiles of surplus weapons plutonium. The United States is

proceeding with research, design and licensing activities for disposing of surplus

U.S. plutonium but will not begin construction of new facilities for disposition of

U.S. plutonium (Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, Immobilization and Associated Processing Facility, and Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility) unless there

is significant progress on plans for plutonium disposition in Russia. Completing design is necessary to avoid putting the United States at a strategic disadvantage in

future negotiations with Russia as well as to avoid the large-scale expenditure of

funds until necessary.

At the Moscow Summit in September 1998, President Clinton and President

Yeltsin signed a Joint Statement of Principles for Management and Disposition of

Plutonium Designated as No Longer Required for Defense Purposes. The Statement

committed the two countries to seek to conclude a Bilateral Plutonium Disposition

Agreement. The Bilateral Agreement would specify the technological approach and

schedules to be followed by each country, the types of facilities to be constructed in

Russia, and commitments with respect to the financing of these activities in Russia.

Negotiations are underway, and initial conversations with Russian counterparts

reveal significant commonality of vision on the content, structure, and timing of this

agreement. The U.S. delegation is led by the Department of State with key negotiation and technical support being provided by the Department of Energy. The Russian delegation is led by the Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM), supported by

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I believe that an agreement can be concluded this

year to enable plutonium disposition to proceed in both countries.

Once the Agreement is in place, the U.S. and Russia would each proceed with parallel programs with comparable, although not necessarily identical, rates of disposition. In Russia, this program would require the design, construction, and operation
220

of facilities to convert weapons plutonium metal into non-weapons form and to fabricate MOX fuel, as well as to modify Russian reactors to permit MOX utilization.

The estimated annual capacity of existing Russian reactors (7 VVER–1000 reactors

and 1 BN–600 reactor) is two metric tons per year. The U.S. goal is to increase this

rate of plutonium disposition in Russia to five metric tons per year through the expansion of the plutonium conversion and MOX fabrication facilities and the identification and utilization of additional reactor capacity (whether inside or outside Russia) to consume MOX fuel fabricated from plutonium withdrawn from Russian weapons.

The Department intends to assist Russia to implement this Bilateral Agreement

initially through the emergency appropriation of $200 million provided in fiscal year

1999. This funding will be expended in the Russian Federation over a two- to threeyear period following completion of the United States/Russian agreement. A detailed

budget justification and obligation plan will be submitted to Congress once strategies are defined as negotiations progress. Although the United States and Russia

have not yet agreed on rates, techniques, or facilities for plutonium disposition, this

funding will likely be utilized to begin to create a MOX infrastructure in Russia.

The $200 million will not cover the entire cost of implementing the agreement. Russia will need to contribute some resources, and the Administration plans to seek financing for a portion of this program from the international community, both the

private and public sectors. If, however, the program requires future appropriations,

the Administration will consider such needs in the course of its normal budget process.

WORK WITH RUSSIA

In July 1998, Vice President Gore and the former Russian Prime Minister

Kiriyenko signed a Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement. The Agreement

provides for conducting tests and demonstrations (up to and including pilot-scale

tests and demonstrations) of technologies needed to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium including plutonium conversion and nondestructive assay, burning mixed

oxide (MOX) fuel in reactors, and immobilization. This work is needed to build trust

and cooperation and will add to the technical knowledge base, confirm the viability

of certain technologies, and demonstrate the technologies that might be employed

for disposition of surplus Russian plutonium.

The fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriation earmark of

$5 million for joint U.S.-Russian development of gas reactor technology called for

the Russian Federation to provide a matching contribution of $3 million in either

comparable funds or contributions-in-kind. This level of funding should be adequate

to cover gas reactor technology research and development efforts in the fiscal year

1999–2000 timeframe.

The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget to be allocated towards cooperation

with Russia is $24.9 million. This funding will allow the Department to continue

a series of collaborative disposition efforts which include analyses and small-scale

tests and demonstrations of plutonium disposition technologies, and fund efforts in

the United States to implement a United States/Russian accord for disposition of excess weapons plutonium in Russia. These activities are part of the President’s Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative.

BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY FOR PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION ACTIVITIES

In summary, the portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget to be allocated towards

plutonium disposition activities (pit disassembly and conversion; immobilization;

MOX fuel fabrication and irradiation services; and work with Russia) is $177.0 million. This funding will allow the Department to continue detailed design of the Pit

Disassembly and Conversion Facility and the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility; begin

design of the Immobilization and Processing Facility; continue testing of the pit disassembly and conversion prototype; establish the technical baseline for ceramic immobilization plant process; conduct fuel qualification, continue MOX fuel facility licensing activities, initiate a MOX lead test assembly program; and conduct repository analyses associated with disposition technologies. The fiscal year 2000 budget

for U.S. plutonium disposition activities represents an increase of $22.3 million over

fiscal year 1999. This increase is due to the start of Title I design for the Immobilization and Processing Facility ($21.8 million), and Title II design for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility ($8.7 million), procurement of lead test equipment

for the MOX fuel approach ($7.5 million). This increase is partially offset by decreases in MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility design and other activities (¥$15.7 million).
221

HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM DISPOSITION

In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, the program will continue to focus on

implementing the Department’s July 1996 Record of Decision to disposition as much

as possible of the surplus highly enriched uranium (HEU) by down-blending it with

other uranium to make low enriched uranium which is commercially usable as

power reactor fuel. This approach advances U.S. nonproliferation goals, reduces

storage and security costs, and provides revenues to the Treasury from the commercial sale of these surplus assets over time. The remaining surplus HEU, originally

determined to be unsuitable for commercial use, is to be down-blended and disposed

of as waste.

To date, about 174 metric tons (MT) of HEU have been declared excess to national

security needs. Because of the various forms of HEU and the availability dates from

weapons dismantlement and site cleanup operations, down blending will take place

over an extended period of time. Title to 63 MT of HEU has been transferred to

the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). Thirteen MT was transferred to

USEC and has been down-blended pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. An

additional 50 MT is being shipped over the next six years (4 MT to date) pursuant

to the USEC Privatization Act. An additional 33–40 MT of off-specification HEU

material, not saleable on the open market, is expected to be transferred to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for use in its reactors over the period between 2001

and 2006. DOE is preparing plans for disposition of the remaining surplus HEU.

The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget for surplus uranium disposition activities is $5.8 million. This funding will allow the Department to facilitate and implement disposition of surplus highly enriched uranium, including off-specification

HEU.

SURPLUS FISSILE MATERIAL STORAGE

In January 1997, the Department issued a Record of Decision regarding the storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the disposition of surplus plutonium.

The Department will reduce the number of sites where plutonium is stored through

a combination of storage and disposition alternatives. Under this decision, DOE

began shipping surplus plutonium pits from Rocky Flats to Pantex in April 1997

and will complete the shipments in fiscal year 1999. Stabilized and separated nonpit plutonium from Rocky Flats will be moved to Savannah River (after certain conditions are met). Storage of surplus plutonium at other sites will continue, pending

disposition. Highly enriched uranium will continue to be consolidated and stored at

the Oak Ridge Y–12 Plant, pending disposition.

In August 1998, the Department issued an amended Record of Decision to remove

all surplus non-pit plutonium from Rocky Flats by 2002, in accordance with the Department’s June 1998 Accelerated Closure Pilot Project that calls for closing the site

by 2006. The plan calls for the Department to transfer surplus non-pit plutonium

from Rocky Flats to Savannah River for storage in a modified Building 105–K.

The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget to be allocated towards storage of surplus fissile materials is $4.3 million. This funding will allow the Department to

begin operation of an upgraded storage area for surplus plutonium pits at Pantex.

The increase of $3.4 million from fiscal year 1999 reflects a shift in Program emphasis from analysis of storage and transportation issues required during the construction phase to operation of the upgraded area. Design and construction of upgrades

for surplus pit materials will be funded from fiscal year 1997 carryover balances.

CORE TECHNOLOGIES AND NEPA COMPLIANCE

The Department is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to

help determine the site(s) where surplus weapons plutonium disposition activities

will take place. Four sites (Hanford, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory, Pantex and Savannah River) are being considered for constructing and

operating key disposition facilities.

On December 22, 1998, Secretary Richardson selected the Savannah River Site as

the preferred site for building and operating the Pit Disassembly and Conversion

Facility. Savannah River was selected because the site has extensive experience

with plutonium processing. In addition, locating the pit disassembly facility with

other existing and planned facilities at the site might provide some savings in infrastructure.

Previously, the Department named Savannah River as the preferred site for two

other key disposition facilities—the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility

and the Immobilization and Processing Facility. Subsequent to the release of the
222

Environmental Impact Statement later this year, final site selection will be made

in the Record of Decision to follow shortly thereafter.

The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget for Core Technologies and NEPA is $5.6

million. This funding will provide crosscutting technologies and program integration

activities.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

Program Direction provides the overall management, oversight, staffing, and administrative support necessary to carry out the Fissile Materials Disposition Program. The portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget for Program Direction is $7.3 million and represents an increase of $2.7 million over fiscal year 1999. This increase

is for seven additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) over the fiscal year 1999 FTE

level for field oversight and project management for the design of three plutonium

disposition facilities. The increase also includes funding for FTEs funded with prior

year balances in fiscal year 1999 and movement of support service activities into

Program Direction from Core Technologies and NEPA in accordance with Congressional direction. The $7.3 million level for Program Direction continues to represent

a modest 3.7 percent of the total Fissile Materials Disposition Program budget request.

CONCLUSION

This Fissile Materials Disposition Program has come a long way in building the

domestic and international consensus necessary to begin disposing of surplus highly

enriched uranium and plutonium. Along the way, the Program has led U.S. efforts

not only to identify a hybrid strategy for disposing of surplus weapons plutonium,

but also to begin implementation of this hybrid strategy. Technology process development, tests, and demonstrations are ongoing and a prototype pit disassembly and

conversion system successfully began operations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in November. DOE is about to announce a major contract award for MOX

fuel fabrication and irradiation services and Title I design will soon begin for two

of the three disposition facilities. Negotiations have recently begun with Russia

aimed at achieving a bilateral agreement for plutonium disposition. Now is the time

for the United States to continue this important mission by sending a clear signal

to the world community that we are intent on finishing the job. It is an investment

in our future well worth making.

SURPLUS NUCLEAR MATERIALS THREAT

Senator DOMENICI. We are going to proceed with questions, and

if any Senator has a time schedule I would yield to them.

Ms. Holgate, I would like to hear you when I ask questions be

able to explain this threat related to surplus nuclear materials, and

what we are doing without having to quote the New York Times,

so would you be thinking about that?

Ms. HOLGATE. Certainly, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. I would appreciate it. Not that they should

not be quoted, but I would think you ought to have some other

sources beyond the New York Times as to the importance of this

program.

STOCKPILE SAFETY RELIABILITY, AND SECURITY

I suggest that we go one round quickly. Dr. Reis, for the record,

is the nuclear weapons stockpile safe, reliable, and secure?

Dr. REIS. Yes, it is, Senator.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you have confidence that the weapons in

the stockpile can and will perform as designed?

Dr. REIS. Yes, I do.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you have concurrence in those conclusions

from the laboratory directors at the three nuclear laboratories?

Dr. REIS. Yes, we do, Senator. We sent a letter to the President,

and I assume he will send the letter and the materials along with
223

that up to Congress very, very shortly indicating just those facts,

including not just the laboratory directors, but the Commander-inChief of the United States Strategic Command as well.

CRITICAL NEEDS NOT ADDRESSED IN BUDGET

Senator DOMENICI. Are there any critical needs with reference to

the Stockpile Stewardship program, that program upon which we

predicate the safety and reliability and security of the weapons, not

addressed in the budget because of a lack of budgetary resources?

Dr. REIS. We feel the budget is responsibly addressing the stockpile right now, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. If the defense side of this budget were to be

cut substantially, could that change the answer to the three questions you have just given?

Dr. REIS. It certainly could.

Senator DOMENICI. Will you be prepared during the budget and

appropriation process to respond in that regard?

Dr. REIS. I would be glad to do so.

CHILES COMMISSION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Senator DOMENICI. The Chiles Commission report for just a moment, we will move to it first. Are you familiar with the report and,

if so, can you review briefly the findings and recommendations?

Dr. REIS. Yes, sir. I have a copy of the report right here, and we

have been through those recommendations with Admiral Chiles,

who briefed myself, Under Secretary Moniz, and the Secretary.

They listed basically some 12 recommendations. I will not go

through all of them now. In the briefing that they gave to the

Secretary——

Senator DOMENICI. Just generally tell us, what they were concerned about?

Dr. REIS. This was—as you recall, a congressionally mandated

commission that was to look at the personnel policies, will we have

enough people in the long term to support the Stockpile Stewardship program. It was specifically oriented toward the people, the

personnel policies, and the level of expertise at the laboratories, at

the plants, and in the Federal structure.

What they discovered was, and we concur that we have some

considerable amount of work to do. All is not well at any of those

facilities, we have got some plans in place, but it is important to

move aggressively to ensure that we have those people in the future when the time comes.

BALANCE OF PRODUCTION PLANTS AND LABS FUNDING

Senator DOMENICI. Let me move now to two different budgetary

percentages, first the budget request, about 7.5 percent increase in

the stockpile stewardship. At the same time, it includes a 4-percent

reduction of stockpile management. Does this cause any problems

in carrying out the program with the labs and the production

plants?

Dr. REIS. Senator, every year we have to go through and balance

very carefully the plants and the laboratories and that is not an
224

easy judgment to make. People can differ in terms of those numbers, but we believe those are the best numbers right now.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN RUSSIA

Senator DOMENICI. I will save this series of questions for you

until after the other Senators have inquired. I will just ask one

question each of the other two witnesses.

Ms. Gottemoeller, could you tell me how many nuclear power

plants in Russia are of the type and model at Chernobyl?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. The Chernobyl style reactors are RBMK reactors, sir. I do not have that exact number at my finger tips, so

I will have to provide that for the record.

Senator DOMENICI. Are there some?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Absolutely, sir, yes.

[The information follows:]

RBMK REACTORS

There are currently 14 operational RBMK reactors. This includes 11 in Russia,

2 in Lithuania and the 1 remaining operational Chernobyl unit in Ukraine.

Y2K IMPACT ON CHERNOBYL-TYPE REACTORS

Senator DOMENICI. Might I just ask, we are helping to make

these reactors safer, and working with them on technological advances and improvements. But I read with some concern that Y2K

may have a very big impact on Chernobyl-type reactors. Are we

aware of that, and is that any of our concern at this point?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Sir, we have actually had a very productive

seminar in cooperation with the IAEA, the International Atomic

Energy Agency in Vienna. We have also had two workshops in

Moscow. We have gone to Moscow and sat down with the power

plant industry and, in fact, there are some considerable concerns,

many of which are associated with the stability of the power grid

serving the reactors.

There is quite a bit of concern that should there be a Y2K problem with regard to the electricity flow into the power reactors, the

RBMK types as well as the other types, that it could lead to a serious accident, and so that has been a concern to us, and we have

proposed to the Congress a reprogramming request to work quickly

with the Russians on some programs to lay out the steps that they

have to take within the next 9 months in order to resolve these

problems. We think that they can be resolved, but they need to pay

some attention to them.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, we granted your reprogramming, but

the House has denied it twice. What was the reason for denying

the Y2K programming?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. My understanding, sir, is that there was a

concern with regard to a hardware request. That is, we had hoped

to perhaps supply some emergency generators for the power plants

in case there should be a power failure of the kind I described a

few moments ago.

As a matter of fact, we have been able to respond to their concerns by really refocusing our request on the very important

prioritization planning work that has to be done. In other words,

we have removed the request for hardware from the reprogram-
225

ming request, and we hope that that will deal with the concerns

that have been expressed by the House.

Senator DOMENICI. I misstated. We had not granted the reprogramming, but they denied it before we had a chance. We are

prepared to, but all we got was a denial from the other body. We

will work with you when you are ready on our side.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Thank you very much.

U.S.-RUSSIAN PLUTONIUM AGREEMENT

Senator DOMENICI. One question now of Ms. Holgate. This $200

million that we have provided, set aside for implementation of the

U.S.-Russian plutonium agreement, why isn’t this just foreign aid

to Russia that we are throwing down a rat hole, helping the Russians with their nuclear development by giving them money? How

do you explain that?

Ms. HOLGATE. Well, first of all, sir, let me thank you personally

for your role in providing that additional funding.

Senator DOMENICI. Obviously, I do not believe what I just said.

Ms. HOLGATE. I understand. Nor do I, sir. One of the key reasons

that it is not simply throwing money down a rat hole, is that it is

in pursuit, specifically, of U.S. national security interests.

The other reason is that the Department does not intend to implement that funding through writing a check to Boris Yeltsin or

Minister Adamov. It will be implemented through a series of contracts, most likely with U.S. contractors, in achieving deliverables

and providing goods and services in Russia in an auditable, reliable

fashion. As we work out the details of what needs to be done in

Russia, we will be coming to you with a detailed budget proposal

on how we will do that.

The achievements of the work that will be accomplished with

those funds contributes directly to our national security interests

by reducing the threat associated with these materials. Russia, as

you know, is one of the most likely sources of loose nuclear material, given the enormous volume that they have there, and access

to the material is really the final barrier to the development of a

rogue nation with nuclear capabilities.

Senator DOMENICI. Without divulging anything that is classified,

how many bombs could this plutonium that we are going to dispose

of that is Russian, how many bombs could it be used to make if

it is not disposed of?

Ms. HOLGATE. Tens of thousands, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. So the starting point for your answer is, this

will eliminate the potential for 10,000 or more Soviet nuclear weapons to use this plutonium as a part of their fabrication, correct?

Ms. HOLGATE. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Reid.

STOCKPILE Y2K CONCERNS

Senator REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now, Dr. Reis, Senator Domenici asked Ms. Gottemoeller about

Y2K, and we have here a report from GAO that just came out, and

in this they say among other things resolving the year 2000 computing problem is the most pervasive time-critical risk facing Gov-
226

ernment today. Unless adequate actions are taken, key Federal operations, national defense it mentions could be seriously disrupted.

Tell us how you look at this Y2K, with all the many sensitive

programs over which this subcommittee and you have jurisdiction.

Dr. REIS. Senator, we take Y2K very, very seriously. We have

looked in detail at all the weapons themselves, all of the support

systems, and the certification process. We provided the appropriate

oversight to ensure the work is correct. All of those systems, all of

the strategic systems are, in fact, Y2K-compliant—the weapons

themselves and the support systems. The last time I looked at this

there was only one, if you will, mission critical system that had not

been certified. This is a pay system, and a badging system at

Sandia.

It is certainly critical to people at Sandia that they get paid properly, but we are literally working basically at that level. Not only

have we reviewed it, but we gave that review to the Nuclear Weapons Council. The Strategic Command has also reviewed their systems, so we are quite confident from a Y2K perspective that the

strategic forces and their supporting systems that we have to deal

with are compliant with Y2K.

EXPLOSIVE TESTING CONTAMINATION

Senator REID. Your written and oral testimony refers to a combination of experiments and computer simulations to demonstrate

safety and reliability in our stockpile. Many of the experiments require violent explosions involving nuclear materials. I understand

that explosive testing has resulted in some contamination of certain areas at the laboratories. Would you describe this contamination?

Dr. REIS. Senator, I will have to get back to you on the details

on that for the record.

[The information follows:]

CONTAMINATION RESULTING FROM EXPLOSIVE TESTING

Explosive testing at the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories has resulted in the release of depleted uranium, beryllium, lead and copper

into the immediate vicinity of the test location. The air, surface water, groundwater

and soil at the sites are regularly monitored by the laboratories and reported to

State and Federal agencies; sample concentrations for these contaminants remain

below applicable Federal, State, and DOE standards for all environmental media.

In addition, as a result of explosive testing at the Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory experimental test site, in a remote area some 40 miles from the laboratory and population centers, tritium contamination of on-site groundwater exceeds

Federal drinking water standards. Wells have been established between the contaminated areas and the site boundary to monitor tritium migration to ensure protection of the water supply. The measured migration data, along with the local geological structure known to exist and the inherent radioactive decay rate of tritium,

are used to project contamination levels at the site boundary. There has never been,

nor is there projected to be, a tritium contamination level at the site boundary that

approaches the Federal drinking water standard. Water supplies are anticipated to

remain unharmed.

MAINTAINING TEST READINESS

Senator REID. You are going to continue these very important experiments, is that not true?

Dr. REIS. That is correct.
227

Senator REID. How do you intend to demonstrate our continuing

ability to resume testing?

Dr. REIS. Senator, we have looked at the Test Site, a number of

areas, a number of activities that will maintain that capability. I

think the one most vital is the continued and very aggressive series

of subcritical experiments that we are working with plutonium and

high explosive.

On those tests, of course, we do not have a nuclear explosion, but

from a safety perspective, from procedures perspective, you go

through many of the same things that one would do on a full scale

nuclear test. We are maintaining the diagnostics facilities as well.

One of the things I was specifically concerned about, just for that

question, is we have asked the Department of Defense this year to

review our test readiness programs to give us an independent look

at just how well we are doing on those. We feel comfortable, but

we would like to have a broader look at that, and they will be looking at that specific area in detail over the next year.

ATTRACT AND MAINTAIN SKILLED WORKERS

Senator REID. You refer to the task, and in my opening statement I talked about the Chiles Commission, and Senator Domenici

talked about the Chiles Commission, and their report is that the

skills at the Nevada Test Site are in serious jeopardy because the

workforce there is nearing retirement, and similar problems at the

weapons labs to make sure that we attract and maintain the highest caliber of scientist, which we have had for the last 40-plus

years.

What is your plan to attract and retain the skills necessary to

maintain these capabilities at the laboratories and the Nevada Test

Site?

Dr. REIS. The Chiles Commission also made some significant recommendations on how to do that, and again, I concur with those

recommendations. They start off by suggesting that both the Administration and Congress must maintain a national commitment.

The type of people who go to work at the Test Site, who go to

work at the laboratories, who go to work at these plants, these are

not people who are necessarily interested in just making a buck for

their day. They are really interested in supporting their country’s

efforts. They are interested in working on technical challenges, and

that means that we have to demonstrate to them that we have that

commitment, and we have the budgets, and we have the support

that continue to go along with that over time.

So the first thing is to again maintain that commitment, and

part of that, if you will, is to say that we support the programs that

basically make that happen.

They are also attracted not just by the challenge of the job, but

by the ability of having the facilities available to work on, and that

also means that we have to support those. We have to support the

facilities themselves.

In addition to which, certainly for the laboratories, and again for

many of the other establishments is, we have to make the connections. Through the alliance program and through other things within the universities we get those people in the universities familiar

with what we are doing, working on similar programs, so one could
228

recruit the right sorts of people. Some of those programs are in

place and are working very, very well.

I think what the commission said, we ought to be doing more of

that, and I certainly concur that we will have to be doing more of

that.

Senator REID. Spread throughout the laboratories and the Nevada Test Site, there are some of the finest scientists in the world,

Ph.D’s in all kinds of scientific backgrounds. That is what we are

talking about, maintaining these people in our defense capabilities,

as compared to them going off and working in the private sector

some place, is that not right?

Dr. REIS. That is correct.

NUCLEAR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM

Senator REID. The nuclear emergency response program has undergone major revisions over the past few years. I continue to hear

concerns that these changes may have diminished our response capabilities. These concerns need to be specifically and effectively allayed. How does the Department organize its lines of responsibility

and funding for the emergency response program and, second, do

you think this is the right organizational structure?

Dr. REIS. I believe we have a very good organizational structure

right now. I believe the nuclear emergency support teams that we

support within the Defense Programs continues to get high marks.

I believe in terms of their ability to respond to emergencies it is

integrated with the emergency response, the communications, the

day-to-day emergency response work that Ms. Gottemoeller discussed.

These are always complex issues in terms of how one organizes

it, because the broader emergency response of the Department has

to do with a lot more than just the nuclear responses. As well,

there is chemical, biological responses. There is just all sorts of different types of things which, as Ms. Gottemoeller said, they are

duty 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.

I think the specifics of the nuclear emergency response teams

that we are dealing with is embedded within that overall organizational structure.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY

Senator REID. Do you think we need to undertake a study to establish our ability to respond to the variety of emergency situations

that could occur, or do you think we are okay as is?

Dr. REIS. Do you want to try on that one?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Sir, with regard to the emergency response

capability in the Department, it is quite broad-ranging. I agree

with Dr. Reis on that.

The complex is a very complicated structure with many different

kinds of missions being undertaken, clearly, and it is, I think, very

important to ensure that whatever approach we take to the organization of emergency response that it be highly integrated throughout the Department, and that the major operational programs, Defense Programs and our other major operational programs be intimately involved in the implementation of emergency response.
229

So I think that there is room for improvement in the way emergency response is organized in the Department. I speak with my

hat on as the person responsible, as I said earlier, for overall emergency management in the Department. I think it is worth a look,

but I would like to underscore very firmly that emergency response, wherever and however the necessity for it arises, must be

very, very well-integrated with the other programs.

INITIATIVES FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION

Senator REID. As I indicated when I was complimenting Dr. Reis,

you also have a knowledge of Russian language, is that true?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes, sir.

Senator REID. I think that is worth a comment. That is one of

your main responsibilities, and I am sure it makes it a lot easier

with your having the Russian language capabilities, and I am sure

that is an understatement.

One last line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, then I will stop.

In your opinion, how effectively can you prevent our proliferation

and prevention vessels from delivering dual use benefits to the

Russian military programs?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Sir, this is an issue which we take extremely seriously inside the initiatives for proliferation prevention

program and, in fact, since 1997, when a new management team

took over the IPP program, we have redoubled our efforts to ensure

that project proposals that come in do not have a dual use aspect

to them. They are reviewed by multiple layers in the interagency,

including the intelligence community here in Washington. They are

reviewed by our scientists at the labs, who are also tied into the

overall interagency governmental review process.

We are extraordinarily serious about this aspect. We want to ensure that the work that is done is valuable in its scientific importance but also, of course, keeps scientists at work at their lab

benches and not wandering off to Iran or North Korea, but equally

important is the necessity that these projects and this program do

not serve the development of military capability on the Russian

side.

NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

Senator REID. I applaud your efforts to interdict nuclear smuggling at important border crossings, but I have to acknowledge that

we have not been very successful as a country in preventing illegal

entry into the United States, and so I am really a little concerned

about what efforts, based on how unsuccessful we have been, what

efforts have the Russians mounted to provide border security

against the smuggling of nuclear materials at points other than formal border crossings and at formal border crossings?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. I will say a few words to begin with, Senator, about our second line of defense program.

Our material protection control and our accounting program is

the first line of defense, and I would like to underscore that that

is I think really the first way that we prevent smuggling of nuclear

materials by ensuring that the facilities themselves are under the

best possible safety and security, that we have good fences, that we
230

have effective guard forces and good locks on the doors. That is the

first way that we prevent nuclear smuggling from taking place.

We have also, through a very effective working relationship with

the Russian customs service, just in the last year begun our second

line of defense program where we work with the Russian customs

service to put up nuclear detection devices at the most vulnerable

and high volume border crossing points.

Senator Domenici was with us this past summer when we

opened up the first of such border crossing protection points at

Sheryemetyevo-1 Airport. They are extremely, I think, effective

where they operate. They are at very high intensity sites. For example, the other point we opened up this summer was at Astrakhan seaport on the Caspian Sea, where there is a very high level

of shipping traffic to Iran, so we are choosing very high priority

places to put these nuclear detection devices, in addition to which,

though, we have found that we have to layer basically these programs, and there are programs across the U.S. Government.

I do not want to say that the DOE is doing all the work in that

regard. For example, there is a great deal of work that the Department of Defense is doing in working with the non-Russian Newly

Independent States in order to improve their border patrols and

border controls overall, and so we work very closely and pay attention to integrating the work that we do with the work in other U.S.

Government agencies and in other agencies of the Russian Government as well.

Senator REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. Senator Reid, I failed to mention

in response to your opening remarks, when you spoke of the extreme age of the scientists at the test site, and some of your other

thoughts with reference to maintaining it, that I am going to work

with you to see what we can do, and talk generally about it. We

are now looking with your staff and with others at some specific

things.

Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and panelists, we appreciate your being here this morning. I will make a

brief comment before I ask questions specific to the interest in my

State at the INEEL and Argonne Laboratory West, because oftentimes when you think of them, I will tell you that DOE weapons

and defense labs do not necessarily jump to your mind compared

to New Mexico and Nevada and other places.

We have had a proud history at the site dealing with the country’s naval nuclear propulsion program, and Idaho and the Navy

have effectively and safely managed Navy spent fuel for decades.

Unfortunately, as we know, in Russia naval fuel has not been

managed as carefully. The Defense Department’s cooperative threat

reduction program is beginning to address Russia’s spent naval

fuel. The INEEL and Argonne West have the experience to provide

valuable technical assistance on this problem, and I would like to

see a commitment from all of you to bring DOE’s experiences into

the project rather than to have DOD reinvent the wheel.

We are all squeezing budgets at this time and squeezing them

hard, and my guess is there is a wealth of experience and knowledge already out there that could be of great assistance, as an ex-
231

ample, and we mentioned the Caspian Sea just a moment ago, and

the shipping traffic there.

As an example of this experience base, Argonne West is working

in Kazakhstan on storage of spent nuclear fuel at a breeder reactor

on the shores of the Caspian Sea. The Kazakhstan Government has

decided to shut the reactor down permanently, but some safety upgrades will be required first to fire protection systems, et cetera.

Argonne has experienced people and a proven track record in

Kazakhstan to see that this work is done quickly and efficiently.

Another issue we need to address is the continued production of

plutonium in Russia at its BN–600 fast breeder reactor. Some people may not realize that at the same time we are trying to enter

into agreements with Russia to dispose of its surplus stocks of plutonium, Russia is continuing to make plutonium.

Argonne West again has the experience to convert fast breeder

reactors, because they did it in EBR–2 in Idaho. We need to use

this expertise that we already have at our national labs to assist

the Russians, who face similar problems. The budget for nuclear energy work at Argonne is cut by $20

million in the President’s request, and that would mean the laying

off of about 250 workers. It really does not make sense to me that

we lay off skilled workforce when their skills could be applied to

pressing global nuclear safety issues, so it is with that in mind, Mr.

Chairman that I will only ask a couple of questions, and then I will

come back for more so that we can share equitably in this time.

ENVIRONMENTAL SURETY PROGRAM

Dr. Reis, as DOE facilities are retired from use and become part

of DOE’s cleanup program, I think it is important that we leave the

facilities in a condition which minimizes the amount of waste we

will have to clean up later. The INEEL has been assisting the defense sites in meeting this challenge for the last 2 years through

the defense environmental surety program.

By all accounts, and from letters of endorsement received from

defense production sites, DOE’s environmental surety program was

a very successful and cost-effective program. My question to you,

why was this program zeroed out in the fiscal year 2000 budget?

Dr. REIS. Senator Craig, while we did zero it out from a headquarters perspective effective with the implementation of the fiscal

year 1999 budget, what we have done is turned the responsibility

over to the folks at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I agree

with you that it has been a successful and cost-effective program,

but on any budget you basically have to make decisions. If the folks

who are on the ground who have to do that environmental cleanup,

which are the people at Los Alamos, feel that it continues to be a

successful program, I have no doubt that it will continue to get

funded.

Senator CRAIG. But it is not in the budget now.

Dr. REIS. It is not in the budget right now, that is correct.

Senator CRAIG. So for fiscal year 2000, if the President’s budget

came into place, we would assume this program would not exist.

Dr. REIS. No, I do not think that is true at all. If the folks at

Los Alamos, who again are the people on the ground, decide this

still is the best way to handle the job, it will get funded.
232

Senator CRAIG. Do we know the status of that at this moment?

Dr. REIS. We are still working on that, Senator Craig.

ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY CENTER

Senator CRAIG. Well, we will still work on it with you, then.

Ms. Gottemoeller, at your confirmation hearing last fall you

talked about DOE’s plans to establish the joint U.S.-Russian international center for environmental safety to work on international

nuclear cleanup issues. Some of this work was to be administered

by the INEEL and Argonne West. Can you tell us where DOE is

with respect to getting a signed agreement with the Russians and

initiating this program?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes, sir. I am actually very happy to be able

to report progress to you since we last spoke on this matter last

fall. The establishment of the Environmental Safety Center will be

a centerpiece of the upcoming Gore-Primakov Commission meeting

in 2 weeks time, and the statement establishing the center we actually expect to be signed by the Vice President and the prime minister, so it is a go, sir.

Senator CRAIG. Excellent. Congratulations.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Thank you, sir. We are looking forward to

having INEEL closely involved in it.

RUSSIAN NAVAL FUEL ASSISTANCE

Senator CRAIG. My next question in on Russian naval fuel assistance, and this may be for any witness here. Much of Russia’s naval

spent fuel is sitting in their idled submarines, we are told, and

they do not really have the resources to deal with it.

In Idaho, the Navy has been safely managing U.S. naval spent

fuel for decades, as we all know. Idaho’s personnel have a lot of experience on this issue. Would any of the witnesses care to respond

with ways we might more cooperatively work on the Russian submarine fuel issue to get it into a safer storage condition?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Senator, if I may take a crack at that, we

at DOE already have a very fast-moving material protection control

and accounting program to deal with fresh fuel from the Russian

submarine program, and that is in both the northern fleet area and

the Far East.

It has been very fast-moving. The Russian Navy has really put

a number of intense schedules on us, because particularly in the

far north, of course, we have a very short construction period to

work with, but we have been able to work very quickly to get that

fresh fuel under better, safer, and more secure conditions.

We are currently on both the U.S. interagency basis and in discussions with the Russians considering how to move on to the

broader range of problems that you address. DOD already has its

successful efforts underway under the cooperative threat reduction

program to dispose of the Russian strategic strike submarines, the

SSBN’s, and now we are considering what steps we should take

and what priorities we should set in dealing with the broader question of naval spent fuel and submarine disposition.

So this, too, will be a subject for the Gore-Primakov Commission

meeting coming up in several weeks time, but I wanted to assure

you that not only are we engaged very actively in interagency dis-
233

cussions on this, but also we are beginning to engage with the Russians on this.

Senator CRAIG. So you mentioned a type of submarine. I assume

that will be decommissioned and ultimately cut up, and therefore

those are some of the subs that have that spent fuel in them. You

will obviously have to deal with the fuel at that time.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Exactly, sir. The program that the CTR program has undertaken to cut up the SSBN’s, they already have embraced in that an entire complex of activities to address the spent

fuel problem. The same kind of program would have to be worked

out with regard to the attack submarines, the so-called SSN’s and

the cruise missile submarines, the SSGN’s.

I would like to point out, however, that in examining this issue

we do believe that it will be a very large task to undertake and

quite expensive, and so we believe that this particular set of

projects will be ripe for the involvement of the international community, and that is an explicit part of what we have been planning

under the expanded threat reduction initiative, President Clinton’s

new initiative in this regard.

Senator CRAIG. I was just going to say, surely we were going to

seek a shared burden there.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes, sir, indeed, and I think that there will

be other countries who are interested in participating.

RUSSIAN BREEDER REACTORS

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, let me do one more question, if

I could, and then I would turn to our other colleagues here.

Even as we work cooperatively with the Russians on disposing of

excessive weapons plutonium, Russia’s fast breeder reactors are

producing plutonium. That is an accurate statement, is it not?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes, sir.

Senator CRAIG. In Idaho——

Senator DOMENICI. What was that, sir?

Senator CRAIG. As we are working with the Russians to get rid

of weapons plutonium, we still have Russian reactors producing

plutonium. That seems to be a bit of a contradiction, but it appears

to be the case.

In Idaho we have experience in converting the breeding blanket

on the EBR–2 reactor to stainless steel and making other fuel alterations to reduce plutonium production. Would any witnesses

care to respond to how DOE could use the EBR–2 experience in collaboration with the Russians and Kazakhstan to alter their breeder

reactors? Is there any thought in mind there?

Ms. HOLGATE. Yes, sir. I had the pleasure of meeting with some

of the scientists from Argonne West to discuss this very issue within the last couple of weeks. We have an active R&D program underway in Russia to work on converting that BN–600 reactor to use

MOX fuel, and a key element of that will be removing the breeder

blankets that actually create the plutonium, and I am convinced

that there is a cooperative role for Argonne West’s experience as

we move forward with the Russians on that project.

Senator CRAIG. These reactors I assume would be converted to

energy production. Is that the intent with the MOX fuel?

Ms. HOLGATE. Yes, sir. There is only one of them.
234

Senator CRAIG. There is only one?

Ms. HOLGATE. Only one BN–600.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Senator Cochran.

SUFFICIENCY OF BUDGET REQUEST

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, Thank you.

Dr. Reis, you responded to the chairman’s question about whether or not the amount requested in this budget is going to be sufficient to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, and you answered in the affirmative.

I tried to remember our hearing last year when we talked about

this program that was being put in place and using simulation and

other processes as substitutes for testing of our nuclear weapons,

and I thought I remembered at that hearing that you said, or some

other witness said that it would require $5 billion a year to fund

this stockpile stewardship program, and I am curious what has

changed to make the request of $4.5 billion, $500 million less, sufficient.

Dr. REIS. Senator, I do not recall saying $5 billion. We could look

back at the record. As long as I am the administration witness, I

would support the President’s budget, or I basically would not be

here, and I have been through three administrations now.

Another witness might have said $5 billion, and I think there is

no question it is a question of relative confidence. If the Senate, or

if the Congress suggests that we could use more in certain areas,

I would certainly not object to that one bit. Last year we asked

for—$4.5 billion, and the Congress only gave us $4.3 billion, so

there is clearly different adjustments in terms of how much money

you can spend on this.

It is a matter (a) of confidence, and (b) getting through—dealing

with other priorities within the Administration. You have heard

some of these other priorities which are very important today, and

again the Congress also has other priorities.

So I believe that the budget we have put forward to you is sufficient to answer the question, are we confident in our ability to support the stockpile now and support the stockpile in the future.

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

Senator COCHRAN. Will the ratification of the comprehensive test

ban treaty change any of the plans that you have underway for this

program?

Dr. REIS. No, sir. In fact, the whole idea of Stockpile Stewardship

was to project ahead toward that time when the Comprehensive

Test Ban treaty was ratified and was in place, and so we are building as a basic assumption that it will occur.

I will add that in order for us to maintain confidence after that

treaty is ratified, we would have to maintain the support for this

program for the indefinite future.
235

AGING NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS OF CONCERN

Senator COCHRAN. There was something in your prepared remarks that got my attention, that the age of our nuclear weapons

scientists, those who are familiar with the weapons and are capable of building a weapon, is such that by the year 2014 most of

them are going to be gone. We will not have anybody around who

knows how to build a nuclear weapon if we had to, or if we wanted

to. Why is that a concern?

Dr. REIS. Clearly that is a concern because we may have to build

again. The pace of the program, the reason we are moving ahead

on the simulations, the reason we are moving ahead on the experiments is to get those new people in place to certify the stockpile

while the people who have actually had the testing experience are

there to help us. Let me tell you and tell the American people that

those weapons are safe and the program we have in place is the

right program. So far, so good, but we have to stay the course and

keep moving in that direction.

Senator COCHRAN. On the question of proliferation, I was pleased

to hear the work that is being done in Russia to try to improve the

capacity there for controlling exports of weapons-grade material

and other devices.

Do you get involved at all in missile proliferation issues as well,

because that is so closely connected with nuclear weapons.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Senator, actually the Department as you

know focuses really on the warheads and on the fissile material

and so no, I do not become directly involved in matters to do with

missile proliferation.

CONCERN ABOUT RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE TO IRAN

Senator COCHRAN. There has been some concern about Russian

assistance to Iran in building a nuclear reactor down there. Why

does Iran need a nuclear reactor, with all of its oil reserves and

other energy resources? What is the purpose of building a nuclear

reactor, other than to produce weapons-grade material?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Sir, that is a question we ask ourselves

every day, and it is a very good question I think.

We have, as you know, imposed sanctions on three Russian entities just since January this year, two of which we are concerned

are engaged in nuclear cooperation with Iran, and so we have been

very much focused on that question and very concerned about it,

and have been very direct with the Russian Government in expressing our concerns, and in conveying the necessity that they

move rapidly to resolve these concerns and ensure that there is not

cooperation going forward with the Iranian reactor program outside

that which was agreed bilaterally with the Russian side regarding

the Bushier reactor.

Senator COCHRAN. To your knowledge, have these sanctions had

any effect on Russian business or institute activity?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Sir, I know the Russian Government is paying close attention. I was in Moscow 2 weeks ago with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. We have gotten their attention,

there is no question about it, but there is a team in Moscow even

today talking again with them about these issues, so there is no
236

question in my mind that the Russian Government is very focused

on trying to resolve our concerns. We are just going to have to see

what happens.

But again, this is an issue that has consistently been raised at

the highest level in our Government, and I know it will be an issue

in 2 weeks time at the Gore-Primakov Commission meeting.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, would you yield on that?

Senator COCHRAN. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. Let me just say to you, and for the record I

indicated in my opening remarks about the only thing that Russia

has going with America that is yielding any resources to Russia are

energy programs. We do not have an economic program of assistance. We would be kind of foolish to be putting money into that,

and they know from this Senator that we have to appropriate most

of that in this committee.

They know that the Iranian situation could cause any of these

programs to be canceled just because the United States Congress

could feel, as you have expressed to me, a grave concern that while

we are doing this they are having their games with Iran, and I

think in the last 4 or 5 months there is evidence that has been

raised to higher and higher levels, and they now know it, and they

have made some statements which would indicate they cannot fool

us any more, that something is really happening. They still question the scope of what they are doing, but nonetheless I think your

line of questions is very, very important.

START II

Senator COCHRAN. In your visit recently to Russia, were you able

to get a sense for what the intention of the duma might be toward

ratification of START II, and do you continue to feel that that is

an important initiative for our Government to continue to press

with the Russians?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes, Senator, I think it is absolutely an important initiative for us to press with the Russians, because START

II will be an important aspect, I think, not only of further strategic

arms reductions with the Russians but it also—you know, frankly,

the Russians I think realize, particularly those professionals in the

ministry of defense, that they have a tremendous budget burden to

bear if they are expected to keep their force levels up to START

I numbers, so within the ministry of defense, and I am convinced

within the Government as a whole, there is a recognition of the importance of getting START II ratified.

Now, in the last couple of weeks we have seen, particularly in

the media, but we have seen reference to the fact that there are

those in the duma who also realize that it is time to begin to move

to get this agreement ratified. Even, I noticed in the press last

week, Mr. Zhirinovsky has spoken up now and said that it is time

to move forward and get the START II treaty ratified, so we continue to be hopeful that in fact they will move and get it ratified,

and then we can move forward and begin with a negotiation of the

START III agreement.
237

STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN CUBA

Senator COCHRAN. In connection with the nuclear power program

in Russia, we know that because of the Chernobyl incident there

are causes for concern about the integrity of the reactors. At one

point it was a worry here that in Cuba they were going to build

some Chernobyl-type reactors. What is the status of that situation

in Cuba, and do we have any threat to safety and security of people

in Florida or elsewhere in the United States because of their nuclear power program in Cuba?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Senator, indeed the Russians, the Soviets

before them and the Russians have been cooperating to build a nuclear power plant in Cuba. That project is currently dormant, however, because the Russians, as you know, are suffering severe economic problems and so are the Cubans, and so in terms of that program being an active project, it simply is not so at the present time

according to our observations.

However, I would like to assure you that we keep a very close

eye on that project in case it becomes active again.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. I am sorry it has taken so long, Senator Dorgan. Now you can have as long as you like.

TRITIUM PRODUCTION

Senator DORGAN. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all

of you. This is frankly an area that I have not spent much time

thinking about or discussing or studying.

Dr. Reis, your testimony is very interesting in giving us, at least

giving me a description of what stockpile stewardship means. One

part of your testimony, I would like to just ask a brief question

about, is the production of tritium. I understand its role with respect to a nuclear weapon. What I do not understand is where this

comes from.

I understand the decay requires it to be refreshed from time-totime, and you are suggesting in your statement that we have not

produced tritium since 1988, or whatever, and we, therefore, must

begin going back into production. What is tritium?

Dr. REIS. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, and when you get—

I will not get into the physics of it, but it has two neutrons in addition to the proton and the electron going around, and so it is a special isotope of hydrogen, and it is not found in nature. You have

to make it, and the fact that it has those extra neutrons, that gets

involved in the fusion process and also helps particularly in the fission process itself.

I would say it is like STP for your car, or something like that.

It is a product that really is designed to make this whole nuclear

weapon go. It is key to the whole hydrogen bomb approach, and is

found in all our nuclear weapons, and as far as we know found in

all the current modern nuclear weapons of all the nuclear weapons

states.

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS WITH RUSSIA

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. Let me ask a question

about the issues that Ms. Holgate and Ms. Gottemoeller discussed.
238

I have not been to Russia, regrettably, but I understand, their

economy is in decay; in collapse. They have chaos virtually everywhere you look because they do not have the resources to do the

things that they really need to be doing.

We are encouraging them under our arms control agreements to

destroy weapons and destroy delivery systems, with some success.

I think the Nunn-Lugar expenditures and other approaches have

been remarkably successful.

We are also involved in the disposition of fissile material, ours

and theirs, hopefully, and then also working very hard on nonproliferation issues. Included in that is the closed cities initiative.

One of the things that I have been interested in is the role of

food in all of this. I want to ask just a general question. As you

know, we produce an enormous amount of food in North Dakota,

and Idaho, and some in New Mexico, and we produce grains far in

excess of what we can use. My understanding is there is a desperate need for that, overseas even in Russia, and I am wondering

if in the context of what we are doing with nonproliferation, with

the destructions of weapons systems and delivery systems, whether

there is a role either with respect to incentives or barter using food.

We use food in PL–480, we use it in GSP credits and so on, but

is there an additional role that we might evaluate here in the context of all the things we are trying to do to encourage the Russians

to move in the right direction at a time when they do not have

enough food? Food, of course, is one of the requisites for living and

stability.

So let me ask Ms. Gottemoeller if you would respond to that.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Thank you, Senator. As you know, food assistance is in general a very important part of our cooperative efforts with Russia and has played a vital role in the crisis that has

emerged since the August crash of the ruble, and so both historically and at the current stage it is an important, very important

part of our overall relationship with Russia.

With regard to the very interesting idea that you have raised, we

have already begun working together with your staff to evaluate

the idea. My staff met with yours last week once, and I understand

they will be meeting again today, and so I think it is an idea well

worth exploring, and we really look forward to working with you

on it.

Senator DORGAN. I appreciate that. This is one of the ideas that

I have shared with Senator Craig, who I think also may have some

interest in it.

I ask the question not to do anything other than enhance the

kinds of subjects we are talking about. I happen to think that of

all the issues we deal with in the world today, the proliferation of

nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems represent the one area that has the potential of seriously threatening us, our children, and our grandchildren, and the

future of this world.

The work that you are doing and the work we are doing as a

country to establish a priority in these areas is absolutely essential

for our survival, and my hope is that we are able to see a START

III and see continued reductions in nuclear weapons and delivery

systems.
239

I hope all of that can be remarkably successful, but the discussion about Iran and North Korea and missile tests, the efforts in

the black market to achieve materials to produce nuclear weapons,

all of these things are very frightening and very scary, and that is

why the work that you all are doing is very important, and that

is why funding for that work is so important as well.

Mr. Chairman, I have more, but I will be meeting with the witnesses as I become more familiar with these areas. You have had

the advantage of spending a lot of time in this area and have done

wonderful work. I thank the representatives from the agency.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, Senator, the 5 years since the beginning

of the Stockpile Stewardship as an alternative to underground testing, I have been the chairman of the committee for those 5 years,

and I am very fortunate in that I have become acquainted with and

am kind of proud of this program, and I do my best not only here

but with the administration to keep their budget up. I was part of getting them to go up to the $4.5 billion level without any question, and those who are familiar with it know that.

Dr. REIS. Without any question, Senator.

RUSSIAN PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION

Senator DOMENICI. And also with reference to the plutonium disposition, which I think you quickly caught on to, it is very, very important in terms of the disarmament, a major international disarmament approach, but it is difficult. I mean, there is no question

they have different motives, different goals, et cetera, than we do.

I want to ask Ms. Holgate, Senator Craig raised the issue of—

what he said, it is kind of ironic that in the fast breeder reactors

they are producing plutonium and we are trying to get rid of 50

tons of their weapons-grade pit-formed plutonium. I know that

some of these reactors do produce plutonium, but are they processing plutonium so that it can be used in weapons?

Ms. HOLGATE. Not that I am aware of, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. So there is a difference. That plutonium that

is coming out of those reactors, something has to happen to that.

Ms. HOLGATE. That is correct.

Senator DOMENICI. And what we are talking about is pure plutonium for weapons that has already been processed and is in the

kind of forms that were part of the nuclear weapons.

Ms. HOLGATE. That is correct, sir.

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. My intent was not to do that. My intent was to suggest that we could

assist them in converting these reactors to breed less plutonium

and we have the talent and the skill to do that.

PROGRESS WITH RUSSIA ON PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION

Senator DOMENICI. Senator, one of the anomalies that exists

right now that makes it very difficult for this agreement with the

Russians with reference to the disposition of plutonium to occur is

that they actually believe this pure plutonium is a very, very valuable legacy, not a legacy for military use, but a legacy for civilian

use in breeder reactors, because it is a great fuel for breeder reactors, and they have dreams of building the second and third generation of breeder reactors.
240

In fact, we are either fortunate or unfortunate, depending on how

you look at it, to have the head of the Russian nuclear agency and

an expert in this idea of coming forth with another generation that

would use this plutonium, which caused them not to want to destroy it. On the other hand, I think we are struggling here with

the concept of just keeping some kind of improved light water reactor, the next generation of that alive, and not a third and fourth

generation breeder reactor, and that is causing some very difficult

times in terms of the negotiating. It is a difficult concept, bridging.

Let me say to you, Ms. Holgate, I do not want to overstate the

case of the urgency of getting an agreement signed and putting

some of this money to actual use, but you know that I was instrumental in pushing to put a time limit in that communique you

spoke of. In fact, it says we will be on the way in 6 months.

I do not know the exact words, but it has a 6-month time frame

in there, and now I am telling you from a practical standpoint how

important it is, because there it sits, and it has only been there

since the supplemental of when, September, when did we do it, or

October, and the House in trying to find money to cover a new supplemental is already contemplating using $125 million of it. I

thought $100 million yesterday when I spoke to your negotiators.

It is $125 million, or, I am sorry, $150 million. It is going up every

day. They will have some more supplementals and they will use

the entire $200 million as an offset.

So I think it is vitally important that we show some progress and

that the Russians understand this is not going to sit around there

for very long, and they have got to respond to money, because they

desperately need it.

Ms. HOLGATE. I could not agree more, sir, and believe me, I am

reminding our State Department colleagues of the importance of

that on virtually an hourly basis.

PRODUCTION OF NEW WEAPONS

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I do want to say, since the Department

of Energy has all the expertise, in my opinion, and talent, it is with

great reluctance that I have sat by and watched the State Department of the United States take over these negotiations, but that is

a bigger issue than me. I mean, that is an executive issue that I

guess I could fix it by saying they cannot in a bill, but I would not

do that.

But they have now guaranteed me that they have the best negotiator that they have ever had on these kinds of matters. I have

met him. I just hope he is not a typical State Department negotiator, because they deal in eons in terms of relationships, and this

one will not last that long.

Let me ask a question regarding the production of new weapons.

In my State and in various parts of the country where we have

groups that are against stockpile stewardship and our laboratories

spending the money they are spending, which you were just asked,

is it enough. They are saying it is too much, but they are also saying we are making new nuclear weapons, new nuclear bombs.

Now, are we currently producing or planning to produce any new

nuclear weapons, and when did we last produce a new nuclear

weapon?
241

Dr. REIS. There are no current plans whatsoever to produce new

nuclear weapons. The last one produced was in 1989.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, I am certain that those very same people and groups do not believe you, and do not believe me.

Dr. REIS. I am under oath. [Laughter.]

Senator DOMENICI. Well, frankly, I just want to repeat that everything I can determine the Department is not engaged in any

clandestine efforts to produce nuclear weapons, they are not being

produced, and we have not produced them in quite some time.

Dr. REIS. That is correct, Senator.

REESTABLISHING PIT PRODUCTION

Senator DOMENICI. Now, sometimes the opponents say, well, you

are producing, you are getting ready to produce pits, which are an

integral part of the American, as we name it, the pits of an American nuclear weapon, and you are getting ready to have a facility

in Los Alamos that could produce 20 pits by the year 2007, and

they construe that to be making bombs, new bombs.

Now, the truth of the matter is, the Stockpile Stewardship Program is aimed, as you indicated, at determining each and every

part of the nuclear weapon, and whether it still has integrity in it,

and whether it still has life and can do its job, and the pit production, when we get there, it is to have some spare pits for replacement purposes. Is that correct?

Dr. REIS. That is correct. As you know, every year we take apart

weapons in the stockpile. We take apart approximately 11 of each

weapon type, bring them back from the stockpile, take them apart,

and one of those from each type are, if you will, destructively tested, where we take the pit, and we look at its characteristics. We

look at it under microscopes, electron microscopes. We go through

all the forensics that we need to.

That pit is no longer useful, so when we have to replace those

and put those back in the stockpile, we have to put a new pit in

the weapon. We did make some spares when we made those production pits. Those spares will be running out in a relatively short

period of time, and so we need a new system, a new factory, if you

will, to put those pits together.

We have closed the Rocky Flats, where we made those pits in the

past. It is completely closed, and no intention of opening it, so we

have to replace the pits we are currently using for those surveillance programs.

GAO REPORT ON IPP

Senator DOMENICI. Let me move to Ms. Gottemoeller. The GAO

has issued a report on one of the programs that is aimed at trying

to keep Russian scientists with the kind of expertise that we are

talking about here in Russia, rather than having them as a commodity for barter or sale in the world.

That report indicates that scientists who receive support from

the IPP program may work on dual use technologies, or may even

continue to work on weapons technology when they are not working in the IPP projects. How do you respond to that complaint?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Well, Senator, if I may, I would like to divide my answer into two parts. First of all, as I indicated earlier,
242

we are very, very serious about ensuring that projects that are undertaken in the IPP program do not in fact contribute in a dual use

mode or in a nuclear mode to the development of new capability

in the Russian military establishment, and we are very serious

about that.

We make every effort through our review processes, including

through very serious review processes involving the intelligence

community, to bring all information to bear in order to ensure that

there is no such aspect to any of our IPP projects.

I would like to point out, though, that with regard to the nuclear

weapons scientists, Russia is still a very important nuclear weapons State under the NPT, and they have the same stockpile stewardship concerns that we have. In other words, they need to continue to maintain the safety and the security of their very large nuclear arsenal, so essentially it is important for their nuclear scientists to continue to work in their stockpile stewardship program,

and that is a very important aspect that we support for our own

national security, because we want to ensure that their nuclear

stockpile remains safe and secure.

However, with regard to the chemical and biological scientists,

the problem is easier because chemical and biological weapons have

been outlawed by international law, and so we really have an easier problem there in terms of delineating exactly what those scientists may and may not work on.

With regard to the nuclear programs it is a little bit more complex, but I am confident that we can ensure that the scientists are

not contributing to new Russian nuclear capability.

RUSSIA’S PRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Senator DOMENICI. I would say, and you correct me if I am

wrong, that the Russians could not honestly answer that they are

not producing new nuclear weapons, because they do that, right?

They still are producing them, is that correct?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Sir, their approach to stockpile stewardship

is——

Senator DOMENICI. I am going to get to that in a minute. Just

answer my question.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. They are producing, yes.

Senator DOMENICI. The point of that, however, is that we chose

a path at a juncture in our nuclear weapons history to go with very

complicated weapons that we thought were far superior, difficult to

put together, and we try to maintain them and keep them for long

periods of time, which is what we are preserving, that kind of

weapon.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. They made a decision to go with a much easier design that does not have as long lasting qualities and is—in

some cases the parts are more robust. They replenish those frequently, as compared to us doing it rather infrequently, and us indicating now we are not going to replenish them as a weapon at

all, and so they must do that to keep their stockpile up even if they

were engaged in a stewardship program, is that correct?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. That is correct, sir. They employ a remanufacturing approach.
243

Senator DOMENICI. Remanufacturing of the weapon?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. And we are engaged in pieces that we are

going to replace to keep it solid. We need a huge inventory of new

things to make sure we are doing that right. We need big computers. They may not. They might like to have them, but they may

not need them to keep theirs going in a remanufactured mode.

I do want to say that I am very pleased with the work you are

doing, and I did all I could to get your rank moved up. I think

when you are over there negotiating with the Russians in the capacity that you are, you ought to have the right title, and I hope

we can work on that again and get it working in the committee and

see what we can do to raise your title to what it ought to be.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Thank you very much, Senator. I very much

appreciated your support throughout. You have been a great help.

NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Senator DOMENICI. With reference to the construction of new

buildings, Dr. Reis, there are three new construction starts in your

stockpile stewardship program. The evidence before you and before

us from the independent project review submitted to Congress

gives a mixed picture of DOE’s readiness to initiate new construction projects.

What actions have you taken to ensure that projects are thoroughly reviewed for mission needs, the scope, costs, and schedules

are firm and clearly established, and that quality project management personnel are in place at the labs within DOE?

Dr. REIS. Well, Senator, I think I agree with you that our record

in terms of new construction projects is mixed. Some we do very

well, and some we have done less than very well, to say the least.

The Department has put together a detailed review by external

reviewers. We have initiated our own processes as well, working

particularly with John Browne, the Director out at Los Alamos

where we have a particular concern. In addition, Dr. Bishop, Bill

Bishop, our program manager for the accelerated production of tritium, which is one program that was on time and on budget and

Dr. Bishop has gotten a special assignment, if you will, to go

through and assure ourselves that we are moving in the right direction on construction projects.

There are others—the National Ignition Facility, which is probably the largest, most complex program being done in the Nation

is on time, on schedule, and has put in place right from the start

some of the very best program management that we know available.

So we are trying to, if you will, use a lessons learned approach

as well. Those things that are doing well are going to help those

things that are not doing so well.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Senator Craig.

NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE

Senator CRAIG. Just one last question, and I guess it is really

more of a comment than a question. Senator Dorgan referenced the

nuclear cities initiative that Secretary Richardson has developed
244

with the closed weapon cities of the Soviet Union, and I see that

initially the teams are between Russian cities and DOE weapons

labs.

I guess my comment would be that it would be my hope that

after the initial teams have been in place for a while, that maybe

DOE would consider opening this initiative to nonweapons labs.

Once again, I think we have an opportunity to contribute here,

and would like to do that, and I know certainly folks at my lab

would very much like to.

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. If I may comment, Senator, we already have

that door open, and very much want to have the participation not

only of the weapons labs but of the nonweapons labs as well, and

frankly I think one of the very important areas that we can work

on that will involve INEEL is with reference to the Environmental

Safety Center.

The Russians have some interesting technologies that we have

seen coming out of their nuclear complex, out of their nuclear cities

which can provide some important help for them in their cleanup

arena, and I expect that the Environmental Safety Center will be

able to work with them to help to develop some of those technologies and perhaps commercialize them beyond Russia, so I really see an important role for INEEL in that regard.

Senator CRAIG. Great. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Cochran.

DOMESTIC SECURITY

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to ask about

the so-called lapse in security that we have been reading about in

the press, the fact that we have had secrets or classified information about our nuclear weapons program fall into the hands of

other countries, particularly China in this situation, that we have

had reported.

Have there been changes implemented now to fully protect the

security of our classified information with respect to our nuclear

weapons program?

Dr. REIS. Let me take that one, and perhaps Ms. Gottemoeller

would like to comment.

We have had significant changes, and we have had those changes

occurring over some years. I think Secretary Richardson has been

particularly aggressive in that regard, but when this program, or

this issue first came up some years ago both the Department and

the other parts of the national security establishment were made

aware, and we have begun compensatory actions right from the

start.

Senator COCHRAN. Can you assure us that the information that

we have classified and restricted is being safeguarded by new procedures that are being monitored carefully and enforced to protect

the Nation’s security interest?

Dr. REIS. We are doing everything we can in that regard, Senator

Cochran.

Do you want to add to that?

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Senator Cochran, perhaps I would just add

a few details. Secretary Pen ̃a, and after Secretary Richardson, and
245

Dr. Reis referred to the very energetic way in which Secretary

Richardson has tackled this problem, but the implementation of

Presidential Decision Directive 61 has been taken very seriously

over the last 6 months by now two Secretaries, it has resulted in

a senior FBI individual, Mr. Ed Curran, coming over and taking

over the counterintelligence operations at DOE, working very closely with the labs. He has helped to bring in some very experienced

FBI specialists to work with the laboratories and with the lab directors to improve their counterintelligence performance.

We have also doubled and then redoubled the budget for counter- intelligence, beginning with $7 million and now up to $31 million

over the past year, so we are moving in that regard, and you were

referring to some of the security procedures. That has been an area

that has received an enormous amount of attention, and we are

really strengthening security procedures, including incorporating

the use of polygraphs in certain circumstances.

So, I think that there is a great deal of attention to this set of

problems now, and I think that we have a path forward. We have

to continue working it very hard, but we do have a path forward.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much.

CHINESE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Senator DOMENICI. Dr. Reis, I want to join in a way with Senator

Cochran, who expressed concerns. Obviously, we will all be hearing

more about what has happened over the last years with reference

to China.

I wonder, Dr. Reis, from another vantage point, you know, we

know so much about the Russian nuclear stockpile, and the SALT

negotiations have yielded a great deal in terms of where we ought

to be and where we are moving, and what has dawned on me of

late is that I have not heard anything about relationships between

the United States and China regarding their nuclear stockpile, nor

have I heard any assessment in any committees about how serious

it is, and I think we ought to look at that, too.

We are so busy now worrying about Russia, and Russia is in an

economic doldrum from which they may not spring forth with any

economic vitality for a long time. But China is not in that condition, and China seems to be producing a lot of nuclear weapons,

and they are not even loath, Senator Cochran, to putting them in

parades. They just run their nuclear weapons down the streets and

roads in parades.

So there is a lot know about them, but I think maybe we ought

to consider asking somebody to brief us, or some committee, maybe

yours, on the status of the Chinese nuclear weapons situation, because it is getting more and more serious, and we do not seem to

be—other than now we are worried about how they got it, we do

not seem to be talking about how serious it is.

Maybe you have in your subcommittee, when you are talking

about antimissiles. Has there been some assessment of China in

that?

Dr. REIS. Senator, I would encourage you to do so. I think we obviously cannot discuss this here. I think there are people in the

laboratories who have, I think, as fine a knowledge as there is on

that subject.
246

As you point out, we certainly do not know the same amount

that we know about other nations’ weapons, but I think we have

the ability to give you, or to answer those questions about what we

know and what we do not know. There are certainly experts at the

laboratories who I am sure would be available to give you their

candid views on what the status is in China.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. Could you answer our submitted questions

within 2 weeks?

Dr. REIS. Absolutely.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DOMENICI

CONDITION OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE

Question. Dr. Reis, is the nuclear weapons stockpile safe, reliable and secure?

Answer. Yes. The Secretaries of Energy and Defense have completed the third annual certification and transmitted it to the President. It states that the nuclear

weapons stockpile is safe and reliable and no underground nuclear testing is required at this time.

Question. Do you have confidence that the weapons in the stockpile can and will

perform as designed?

Answer. Yes. Based on the detailed analysis conducted during the annual certification process, I am confident that the stockpile will perform as designed.

Question. Are there any critical needs not addressed in the budget request because of lack of budgetary resources? If so, please explain.

Answer. No. The budget request for Defense Programs is sufficient to address all

critical needs. We have considered carefully both the long-term and short-term

needs of the Stockpile Stewardship program, and believe that we have presented a

balanced program within the $4.5 billion funding envelope.

FUNDING FOR WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Question. Will the budget request before the committee allow DOE to meet all the

DOD annual weapon alterations, modifications, and surveillance schedules? If not,

explain what they are and why they are not of sufficient priority that they are not

included in the Department’s budget request?

Answer. The budget request does not allow DOE to meet DOD’s targets for annual

weapon alterations, modifications, and surveillance schedules. Although the highest

priority requirements are met in our budget request, some workload related to alterations, modifications, and surveillance has been stretched out. This includes: Pantex

workload to support full stockpile surveillance efforts on the W80, W62, B83 and

W88; Y–12 plant workload activities for surveillance test assemblies for the W87,

W88, and B61; Kansas City Plant workload for the B61–7 common radar alteration;

and Sandia workload for surveillance test assemblies for the B61 alterations, and

for Gas Transfer Systems for the W62, B83, and W87. The changes were necessary

to balance near-term stockpile requirements with long-term stockpile stewardship

needs. While these deferred activities are important, they will not have a direct impact on the safety or reliability of the stockpile for fiscal year 2000.

CHILES COMMISSION REPORT

Question. In response to a provision in the National Defense Authorization of

1997, the Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapon Expertise (the

so called Chiles Commission) has submitted their final report and recommendations

on recruiting and retaining the critical technical and scientific workforce needed to

support and maintain over the long term a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing. First, are you familiar with the

report, and if so, can you review briefly the Commission’s findings and recommendations?

Answer. Yes, I am familiar with the report. The Commission’s report contains 12

findings and 12 specific recommendations for action to be taken by the DOE, the
247

Congress, the Administration, DOE national laboratories, and production plants.

These recommendations emphasize competitive recruiting and retention practices,

management and structural reforms, and long-term stability and oversight issues.

Question. Does DOE agree with the findings and recommendations? Does this

cause you alarm or concern?

Answer. The Commission was comprised of individuals with knowledge of the

Stockpile Stewardship Program. Their findings and recommendations are sound and

I find no reason to be either alarmed or concerned. The Commission ‘‘found a great

deal that was healthy in the nuclear weapons complex with many trends moving

in the right direction’’ and that ‘‘the nuclear weapons program is not in crisis, but

additional steps are needed now.’’ I commend the Commission for its thoroughness

and willingness to report their findings and recommendations in an objective manner.

Question. How does DOE plan to respond to the Commission’s recommendations?

Answer. The Commission’s recommendations call for actions not only by DOE but

by the Congress, the Administration, and the DOE laboratories and production

plants. The Department’s response to the Chiles Commission report will encompass

a number of actions beginning with a request to DOE Defense Program lab and

plant directors for data regarding critical skills and newly hired employees. This information will help us to corporately assess whether current hiring trends will

maintain critical technical positions.

Question. Now, one of the Commission’s recommendations was that the DOE establish and implement, on a priority basis, plans for replenishing essential technical

workforce needs in critical skills which will erode significantly over the next few

years. How does the Department plan to proceed with this recommendation?

Answer. To proceed with the Commission’s recommendation to replenish the essential technical workforce, we have requested a listing of critical skills from all

DOE Defense Program laboratory and plant directors to include: the number of people to be hired in these critical skill areas during fiscal year 1999; the number hired

as of April 1, 1999; the projected number to be hired for the remainder of fiscal year

1999 and for fiscal year 2000 consistent with current budgets; and, an assessment

of the number of new hires on the demographics in the critical skill areas. The data

from the labs and plants will enable us to assess whether current and projected hiring is sufficient to ensure that critical skill areas are not eroding over time. By the

end of fiscal year 2000, new hires in critical skill areas should begin to lower the

average age of the technical and scientific workforce in the nuclear weapons program.

STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP

Question. Overall, the budget request for Stockpile Stewardship increases by $160

million or 7.5 percent over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $2.126 billion for

a total of $2.286 billion requested for fiscal year 2000. Major increases are being

requested for the core stockpile stewardship program, construction of new facilities

to support the stockpile stewardship effort, and the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI).

I note that the budget request projects a 7.5 percent increase for Stockpile Stewardship and at the same time includes a 4 percent reduction for Stockpile Management. Does this cause any problems in carrying out an integrated program with the

Labs and the production plants?

Answer. This does not cause any significant problems in carrying out an integrated program with the labs and production plants. The budget must balance many

legitimate but competing requirements within a finite resource envelope. I believe

that the budget request submitted to Congress reflects the appropriate balancing of

priorities.

Question. Why has Defense Programs allocated such significant increases in the

Stockpile Stewardship program and apparently reduced the Stockpile Management

program?

Answer. The increases in the Stockpile Stewardship program are primarily driven

by the planned growth in the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative program

itself, and increases to support its integration into the ongoing science and engineering programs. This integration will allow these programs to more effectively support

the long-term needs of the stockpile, both at the labs and at the plants, particularly

through support to the Stockpile Life Extension Program, the Enhanced Surveillance Program, and the Advanced Manufacturing Design and Production Technologies initiatives.

The reduction in the Stockpile Management program reflects reduced dismantlement requirements; completion of one time costs associated with the restart of en-
248

riched uranium operations at Y–12; and completion of congressionally directed infrastructure improvements at the plants.

Question. The approach in the past has been to have an integrated program between the weapon labs stockpile stewardship and the production plants stockpile

management effort. How does this budget unify and integrate the laboratories and

the production complex?

Answer. We continue to have a closely integrated program that balances near and

longer term needs of the stockpile. Ongoing maintenance and evaluation of the current stockpile ensures the near-term viability of the stockpile, while investments in

science today will provide the technologies and tools necessary to conduct maintenance and evaluation of the enduring, long term stockpile. Examples of this integration are found in the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative, the Enhanced Surveillance Program, the Advanced Design and Production Technologies initiative, and

Stockpile Life Extension Programs.

Question. Dr. Reis, the Department has been spending over $2.0 billion annually

to develop the scientific base, the Stockpile Stewardship effort, to replace the capabilities lost when the United States made the decision to stop underground nuclear

weapons testing. How much has been spent to date in developing this scientific and

analytical capability?

Answer. We have invested about $2 billion annually, on average, in these scientific and analytical capabilities since the initiation of the Stockpile Stewardship

Program in 1996, for a total of about $10 billion through fiscal year 2000. This represents roughly half of Defense Programs’ funding for this period.

Question. When will the Department be able to say with confidence that the

Stockpile Stewardship program is capable of replacing the underground testing program? Can you give the committee any examples of how the scientific capability of

Stockpile Stewardship program has already contributed to solving real problems in

the current stockpile?

Answer. Stockpile Stewardship is working now. While it has been more than six

years since the last nuclear test, we have successfully addressed several problems

with existing warheads by using a combination of computer analysis, archived test

and manufacturing data, and most importantly, the collective judgment of the two

weapon design laboratories. This success, using the experimental and testing tools

available today, provides confidence that even more powerful computing and testing

tools being developed will allow us to solve future stockpile problems without nuclear testing. By annually certifying the safety and reliability of the stockpile, the

DOE confirms that Stockpile Stewardship can be relied on now and in the future.

We have successfully completed the process three times, and the fourth annual certification process is underway. The third certification was provided to the President

by the Secretaries of Energy and Defense on December 22, 1998.

The scientific capability of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is solving real

problems in the current stockpile. Observations from our surveillance program have

led to questions which have been resolved through the combined application of our

advanced computational codes and laboratory experiments. The success in providing

B61–11 certification relied heavily on the scientific capability of the Stockpile Stewardship program. New capabilities developed since the start of the Stewardship program, such as proton radiography, have provided scientific contributions to certification. Complex chemistry models of high-explosive binder materials, benchmarked

by proton radiography experiments, have provided us estimates of the service lifetime of our high explosives enabling us to make some decisions regarding stockpile

refurbishment schedules.

Question. Is the Department of Defense confident that the Stockpile Stewardship

program is capable of addressing the nuclear weapons stockpile security, safety and

reliability needs and issues?

Answer. I cannot speak for the Department of Defense, however, the Department

of Energy has maintained an active dialog with the Department of Defense regarding our Stockpile Stewardship Program since the program was established at the

direction of the President as part of his decision to extend the moratorium on underground nuclear testing. Our Stockpile Stewardship Program Plan which outlines the

steps necessary to ensure that the enduring U.S. nuclear stockpile continues to remain safe and reliable for the foreseeable future in the absence of underground nuclear testing has been reviewed and approved each year by the Department of Defense. The Secretaries of Defense and Energy have recently concluded their third

annual stockpile certification to the President affirming that there is no need to conduct an underground nuclear test to resolve any safety or reliability problem in the

stockpile.
249

NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY

Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes $248 million for the

National Ignition Facility (NIF) which is a major element of the Stockpile Stewardship effort fiscal year 1999 was the peak year for construction funding, and the

budget request for fiscal year 2000 maintains the fiscal year 2003 completion schedule. The project remains within the estimated $1.1 billion cost estimate.

Dr. Reis, how important is the NIF to the success of Stockpile Stewardship and

maintaining the nuclear deterrent?

Answer. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is essential for the success of the

science-based Stockpile Stewardship program. It will enable us to conduct weapon

physics experiments and measurements important to primaries and secondaries at

temperatures and densities close to those occurring in nuclear weapons detonation.

The NIF will examine the effects of specific age-related changes and other nuclear

component modifications on weapon performance. The fusion ignition mission will

test many of the same skills used in analyzing nuclear weapon performance and

NIF will test simulation codes developed under the Accelerated Strategic Computing

Initiative (ASCI).

As the world’s premier laser facility, NIF will attract the highest quality scientists

for work in high energy density science and weapons physics. It will provide an excellent tool for recruiting and training the next generation of scientists for the

Stockpile Stewardship Program.

Question. Now, I understand that DOE plans to use the first several beam lines

of NIF to address nuclear weapons stockpile issues prior to actual completion of the

entire facility in fiscal year 2003, is that correct? Explain the importance in using

NIF as early as possible and how this will contribute to the overall success of not

only the NIF project, but also to the Stockpile Stewardship Program as well.

Answer. The size and complexity of NIF and the scientific precision needed to

achieve ignition, make it important to gain detailed understanding of the laser performance at NIF as soon as possible. For non-ignition weapons science, we would

like to get the results of selected higher energy experiments as soon as possible. In

particular there are a number of important tests that could significantly aid development and testing of the computer simulations in ASCI. Therefore, the NIF project

plans to provide the infrastructure on a schedule that allows for experiments to be

done before the completion of the construction in 2003.

NIF will be about fifty times more energetic than present facilities, such as the

Omega laser at the University of Rochester. Even the first several beam lines of

NIF will have significantly more power and energy than present facilities. This

higher power and energy of these beam lines will allow experiments on stockpile

specific issues, hydrodynamics, radiation physics, and material properties to expand

into new parameter regimes not presently attainable. The NIF Weapons and Ignition planning groups have developed proposed campaigns, which exploit partial NIF

operation during the startup and testing process and better prepare NIF scientists

for full-power NIF operations. Early experimental utilization of NIF will also improve NIF maintenance, startup and operating procedures.

Question. Now, the budget justification implies that there is a shortfall in funding

for NIF which puts the ignition at risk, delays the initiation of the cryogenic handling system, and provides only minimal development of target diagnostics and experimental equipment. If NIF is as important to the national security as you say

and setting aside budget constraints, how do you explain the lack of budget support

to these elements of NIF? What impact does this shortfall have on DOE’s fiscal year

2001 initial use of NIF and the fiscal year 2003 project completion schedule?

Answer. The fiscal year 2003 project completion schedule is not at risk, nor is the

ultimate technical objective of achieving ignition. However, there is a potential delay

from the schedule established in 1996 in the start of new program activities on the

cryogenic target system that is required for ignition experiments as well as a potential delay in development of selected NIF diagnostics. The delays have no impact

on completion of the NIF construction project, but could delay achieving ignition by

as much as one year. Experiments using the first eight laser beams are still expected to begin in fiscal year 2001 and will result in obtaining significant data for

ignition, weapons physics, and laser startup, but collection of some specific experimental data may be delayed due to the potential diagnostic delays. We are working

to improve the integration of our experimental, computational and stockpile workload to better meet stockpile certification needs. In that process, we are developing

options that could mitigate or eliminate the potential delays in the diagnostics and

cryogenic target system for NIF should that prove to be a higher priority than other

activities within the ICF or Core Stockpile Stewardship lines of the budget.
250

Question. The budget request includes $5.9 million in operating funds to support

the NIF Project. Is this sufficient to support the hiring and training of scientists

needed to meet DOE Program goals once initial operation of NIF begins and the

project is fully operational in fiscal year 2003?

Answer. The $5.9 million budget request in operating funds for NIF is contained

within the Other Project Cost (OPC) portion of the Total Project Cost (TPC) for the

NIF Project and is not used for the purposes of funding the operations or staffing

of NIF. The OPC funding request is to provide for project funded activities such as

required environmental and safety documentation and startup planning. The hiring

and training of scientists needed to achieve the NIF mission is funded by the national ICF and weapon science programs. In the present plan, the staffing requirements for first use of NIF are adequately funded in the program operations budget.

Question. What impact does the budget request have on the schedule for proving

ignition from laser fusion?

Answer. We plan to prove ignition with the indirect drive approach as expeditiously as possible. When we submitted last year’s budget, we projected that ignition

experiments would begin in early fiscal year 2006. At the time this year’s budget

was submitted, we projected a delay of up to one year in the start of ignition experiments due to unavailability of the cryogenic target handling system and some

diagnostics. We have been studying options that may mitigate or eliminate these potential delays.

ADVANCED DRIVER DEVELOPMENT

Question. Over the past several years, scientists at Sandia Lab have made major

advances in pulsed power accelerators using the Z facility. Yet, the fiscal year 2000

budget before the committee requests no funding to continue important advanced

driver development. Other than budget constraints, what is the rationale for this

drastic action?

Answer. Development of pulsed power accelerator technology such as that used

at the Z-facility, is funded in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 within the Inertial Confinement Fusion budget. The Sandia pulsed power program has achieved

outstanding success at the Z facility and continues to set performance records in xray output, and in power level and temperature. The Department’s fiscal year 2000

budget request at Sandia also reflects the completion of the installation of the important Z/Beamlet backlighter Z facility. The Z facility will be used for experiments

contributing to stockpile evaluations and for research to understand the potential

of reaching fusion conditions with z-pinches. A review by the National Academy of

Sciences will begin within a few months to evaluate the scientific and technical

credibility of obtaining fusion with the z-pinch approach.

Consistent with Congressional direction, the Advanced Driver Development budget category under the ICF Program supports only the development of high average

power lasers and should not be confused with funding for advanced pulsed power.

No funding is requested for the Advanced Driver Development budget category in

fiscal year 2000.

Question. Does DOE plan to accomplish this work in other parts of the Inertial

Fusion program?

Answer. The Department’s strategy in the near-term is to fully exploit the Z facility for Stockpile Stewardship needs. Development of advanced pulsed power accelerator technology depends on continued progress in Z-pinch physics, validation of fusion ignition on the National Ignition Facility, as well as a consensus on mission

need. Any decision to proceed with another fusion facility within the Stewardship

program would have to consider the value of additional fusion capability balanced

against other program needs.

Question. What impact will this action have on the goals of inertial fusion energy

and future defense program needs?

Answer. The continuance of the Defense Programs pulsed power program enables

the United States to retain world leadership in this rapidly advancing technology.

The Z accelerator at Sandia has already been used for some Stockpile Stewardship

program applications. Pursuing inertial fusion for defense applications advances inertial fusion energy because the two applications have many areas in common. However, substantial additional technology development is required for inertial fusion

energy, including a reliable high-repetition rate driver and a target-driver standoff

concepts. The Department intends to use laser, pulsed-power, and other facilities to

advance its capability in inertial fusion for defense and energy applications. The

great challenge of obtaining inertial fusion and the complexity of applying this capability for defense and energy interests dictates the need for expert judgments in

evaluating development paths. The Department needs both steady technical
251

progress and scientific reviews to guide its fusion development decisions. The

present programs are balancing these factors.

Question. How important is the work undertaken in the Advanced Driver Program

to attracting and retaining scientists in DOE’s stewardship program?

Answer. The Z-pinch drivers are being applied to DOE’s stewardship program

today and this work is a factor in attracting and retaining scientists. These experiments are attracting experimentalists and theorists throughout the nuclear weapons

community, including Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.

These scientists are using and advancing their skills to design and field experiments

at the Z facility that validate large simulation codes—skills which are required for

a successful stewardship program. The excitement and satisfaction level of these scientists is high. As a result, the laboratories are attracting some of the best new scientists in the field to participate in these experiments, particularly in the disciplines

of shock physics and radiation transport—both key areas of expertise in nuclear

weapons science. Other areas of Stewardship activity are similarly vibrant and important. The Z-pinch success is a useful, but not a dominant factor in attracting and

retaining scientists for Stewardship.

FUNDING FOR STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT

Question. The stockpile management program supports the enduring stockpile by

assuring the availability of adequate supplies of tritium; provides safe and secure

storage of nuclear materials and components to prevent proliferation; provides the

ability to respond to potential or real weapons incidents or accidents, and the capability to respond to evolving nuclear terrorist threats; and provides a flexible infrastructure capable of supporting changing stockpile size.

The goals of the program are to: provide high confidence in the safety, reliability

and performance of the enduring stockpile without nuclear testing; ensure the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrent; and provide the ability to resume underground nuclear testing and reconstitute nuclear weapons production capacities

should national security demand them in the future.

The total budget request for Stockpile Management is $1.998 billion, a reduction

of $48 million below the current year funding level. However, the details reflect a

significant reduction in the dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons (down 36 percent or $23 million); and the core stockpile management program (down 4 percent

or $68 million).

Dr. Reis, does the reduction in the Stockpile Management program concern you?

Answer. I would be concerned with the safety and reliability of the stockpile at

any funding level. It is my job to be concerned. That said, the budget request for

Stockpile Management is sufficient to address all critical needs.

Question. What will be the adverse impacts resulting from the reductions in various elements of the Stockpile Management Program?

Answer. To manage within the Stockpile Management Program budget, we have

reduced funding for the dismantlement program which may be reflected in a reduced workforce. Our goal is to manage employment level reductions through attrition as much as possible.

Question. Which elements have been reduced to the point to give you major concern? Please explain why.

Answer. Again, as I have said, I would be concerned with the safety and reliability of the stockpile at any funding level. Among my current concerns are that

we renegotiated several of the workload commitments to the Air Force and Navy.

None of these adjustments will reduce the safety or reliability of the stockpile.

These renegotiations will, however, continue to push out work into later years. Secondly, we must work to develop a multi-year budgeted modernization program at

the plants. We do not have all of the manufacturing capabilities that are critical

to extending the life of the nuclear weapons stockpile. We plan to start to reestablish these capabilities as part of an integrated plant modernization program in the

fiscal year 2001 budget. Lastly, we are concerned with maintaining plant critical

skills as we continue to experience manpower reductions. A large majority of the

current workforce will be of retirement age within the next few years. This is the

labor force that has the experience of building nuclear weapons. It is critical that

we undertake our Stockpile Life Extension Program while this labor force who

knows how to build weapons is still available. This problem is exacerbated by the

fact that manpower reductions have made it difficult to retain junior level people

to gain these skills for future requirements and to attract new personnel. The Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise recognizes the

problem and made various suggestions including incentives to retain personnel at

retirement and attract new personnel.
252

REESTABLISHMENT OF PIT PRODUCTION

Question. Over the past several years, DOE has been working to reestablish plutonium pit manufacturing at Los Alamos to replace pits destructively tested in the

surveillance program and to replace pits in the future should surveillance indicate

a problem with a pit. This is a critical element of DOE’s production complex reorganization.

Could you update the committee on DOE’s efforts to reestablish pit production at

Los Alamos? Are you still on schedule to achieve an annual production capacity of

20 pits by 2007?

Answer. The DOE is on schedule to deliver a certified W88 warhead to the stockpile in fiscal year 2001 which is required to achieve a manufacturing capacity of 20

pits per year by fiscal year 2007.

Currently, we are manufacturing development units to refine the processes to be

used in production. Two development units have been completed and a third is

scheduled for assembly in the near future. Manufacture of development units will

continue into the beginning of fiscal year 2000. Once the processes, tooling, and

qualification infrastructure are fully in place (much of which is being accomplished

in fiscal year 1999), manufacture of qualification units will begin in fiscal year 2000.

Qualification testing (to insure processes, procedures, and tooling can meet the consistency and product reliability of manufacturing and design specifications) will then

be initiated. Achieving the capacity of manufacturing 20 pits per year in a reliable

and sustained manner will require additional manufacturing equipment and facility

improvements to both the plutonium facility and supporting facilities.

Question. Have you been able to produce a certifiable pit? What problems or

issues remain to be resolved in order to achieve certification?

Answer. We are scheduled to produce a certifiable W88 pit in fiscal year 2001.

Currently, there are no specific problems or issues with regard to certification, but

much remains to be done. A number of qualification, engineering, and physics tests

must be conducted to achieve certification.

Currently, we are manufacturing development units to refine the processes to be

used in production. Manufacture of development units will continue into the beginning of fiscal year 2000. Once the processes, tooling, and qualification infrastructure

are fully in place (much of which is being accomplished in fiscal year 1999), manufacture of qualification units will begin in fiscal year 2000. At this time qualification

testing (to insure processes, procedures, and tooling can meet the consistency and

product reliability of manufacturing and design specifications) will be initiated. Engineering and physics testing will continue to confirm that performance of the newly

manufactured pits are equivalent to those currently in the stockpile.

Question. How does the budget request for fiscal year 2000 advance your efforts

to reestablish this capability, and does the budget request maintain the 2007 date

for producing DOE’s goal of 20 pits per year?

Answer. The budget request for fiscal year 2000 enables DOE to continue to reestablish a pit manufacturing capability and to conduct qualification, engineering, and

physics tests required to certify newly manufactured pits for entry into the nuclear

weapons stockpile and to establish a 20 pits per year capacity by 2007.

On the manufacturing side, the budget request allows continued development of

processes, tooling, and procedures necessary to manufacture the pits, and actual

manufacture of W88 qualification pits. The budget also supports replacement of

older laboratory equipment with new equipment required to manufacture twenty

pits per year.

For certification, the budget request provides funds for qualification, engineering,

and physics tests to continue. In fiscal year 2000, qualification testing (to insure

processes, procedures, and tooling can meet the consistency and product reliability

of manufacturing and design specifications) will be initiated. Engineering and physics testing begun in fiscal year 1999 will continue.

TRITIUM PRODUCTION

Question. In December of last year, the Secretary of Energy selected the commercial light water reactors for tritium production, and designated the linear accelerator as ‘‘backup’’ technology if needed sometime in the future. What was the basis

of the Secretary’s decision to select the commercial light water reactor? What major

hurdles remain that could slow down or derail the use of commercial light water

reactors as a tritium source?

Answer. After spending a great deal of time considering the alternatives, the Secretary determined that the use of Tennessee Valley Authority reactors offers the

lowest technical and schedule risk, and the lowest cost of the options under consideration. At the same time, the Secretary designated TVA’s existing Watts Bar and
253

Sequoyah reactors as the preferred facilities for tritium production rather than investing in the completion of TVA’s unfinished Bellefonte Unit 1 reactor. The use of

existing reactors offers unique advantages over any other tritium supply option including significantly lower investment costs and potentially the lowest life cycle cost.

It is the only option that avoids a large capital expenditure on a major new weapons

facility at a time when we are pursuing further arms reductions. It is the only option that allows us to proceed on a pay-as-you-go basis, allowing the Department

to buy only what it needs. Because TVA has agreed to a cost-based Economy Act

transaction, the annual costs will be low, particularly so if the options are not exercised and the reactors remain in a stand-by mode.

Assuming that adequate funding is provided and Congress places no additional

restrictions on the project, there are no ‘‘major hurdles’’ that would slow or derail

the project.

Question. Now, I understand that the NRC must provide regulatory approval in

order to use a commercial reactor for tritium production, is that correct? What is

the date that you must have NRC approval in order to meet the 2005 availability

date of tritium? Have the DOE and NRC established firm schedules and major milestones to meet DOE’s need date?

Answer. The NRC must approve amendments to the facility operating licenses for

Watts Bar and the Sequoyah reactors in order for them to use the burnable absorber rods designed by DOE, rather than the standard burnable absorbers used.

TVA must obtain NRC approval for these license amendments in time to insert the

tritium-producing burnable absorber rods into the Watts Bar reactor core in early

fiscal year 2004 and into the core of one of the Sequoyah reactors a few months

later.

DOE and TVA estimate that the application for license amendments for Watts

Bar and Sequoyah will be completed and submitted to the NRC about 14 months

from now, about the middle of calendar year 2000. The NRC Chairman has committed that the agency will expeditiously review these license amendment applications. DOE and TVA expect, conservatively, that by the middle of 2002 the NRC

will be in a position to act favorably upon the amendment requests. That expectation is based upon an assessment of the activities that are involved in the review

and approval of license amendments by the NRC including the confirmatory demonstration just completed at the Watts Bar facility.

Question. I believe the Secretary stated that the commercial light water reactor

was the most consistent with U.S. arms reduction goals. Can you explain why the

Department believes this to be the case? Does the Administration believe that the

commercial light water reactor option is also best suited to meet U.S. nonproliferation goals, and if so, why?

Answer. On balance the Administration believes that the commercial light water

reactor (CLWR) option is best suited to meet U.S. nonproliferation goals. The CLWR

option entails the use of a civilian reactor to produce material for use in nuclear

weapons, departing from the long-standing principle of maintaining a distinction between U.S. civil and military activities. Such distinction, however, is not mandated

by law with respect to tritium production or by treaty; there have been many past

exceptions involving dual-use facilities; and a number of factors will mitigate the

impact on U.S. nonproliferation efforts.

These mitigating factors include the fact that the reactor to be used for tritium

production belongs to TVA, a U.S. government instrumentality with a long history

of supporting U.S. defense needs; the fact that the reactor could remain eligible for

(and be compliant with) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections;

and the fact that implementation of this option could be delayed until necessitated

by tritium demand, which could be reduced through additional arms control treaties.

The accelerator option does not transgress the civil/military dichotomy, but it

could not follow possible future reductions in tritium requirements as efficiently.

The substantial early investment in an accelerator specifically built for military purposes, moreover, could be seen as building up U.S. nuclear weapon production capabilities at a time when the U.S. is seeking to reassure non-nuclear weapon states

that it is committed to nuclear arms reductions. This could weaken U.S. bargaining

positions in such fora as the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

Question. What are the Department’s plans for an orderly close out of the accelerator, including associated target design, tritium separation and balance of plant

design? What is DOE’s funding profile to complete this work?

Answer. In accordance with Presidential guidance and in keeping with the Department’s commitment to have a backup technology, DOE will complete the development and demonstration work and the preliminary design of the APT plant. All

of the components mentioned are included in that work. The project will provide a

final report to the Department with all of the technical information and the prelimi-
254

nary design that will allow the Department to finish the design and build a plant

should that ever be required.

This effort will require $88 million in fiscal year 2000 and a total of $172 million

between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2002, at which time the project will be completed. The current profile (pending completion of a detailed re-planning), with fiscal

year 1999 as a reference, is shown in the table below.

ACCELERATOR PRODUCTION OF TRITIUM FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 THRU FISCAL YEAR

2002

[Escalated dollars in millions]

Fiscal year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2000–2002

Total

Operating ............................................................. $85 $57 $35 $23 $115

Capital ................................................................. 20 31 26 .............. 57

Total APT ................................................ 105 88 61 23 172

INDEPENDENT PROJECT REVIEW

Question. Over the past few years, the committee has been working with the

House Energy and Water Subcommittee and the Department to establish an independent project review process for capital acquisitions by DOE. The committees felt

that this was necessary because of major cost overruns and changes in a project

scopes which have resulted to significant schedule delays and increased projects

costs. Over the past several months, DOE has been completing and transmitting to

the Congress independent project reviews which assess the readiness of particular

projects to proceed to construction. These reports have indicated varying states of

readiness at the Labs to begin construction of projects funded in prior years.

The budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes 3 new construction starts for the

Stockpile Stewardship program and 1 new start under Non-proliferation and

Verification R&D.

Dr. Reis, the fiscal year 2000 budget includes funding for 3 new construction

starts under Stockpile Stewardship. The evidence from the independent project reviews submitted to the Congress gives a mixed picture of DOE readiness to initiate

project construction. What actions have you taken to insure that projects are thoroughly reviewed for missions needs; that scope, costs and schedules are firm and

clearly established; and that quality project management personnel are in place at

the Labs and within DOE?

Answer. We have instituted measures to ensure that the three new construction

starts for Stockpile Stewardship are thoroughly reviewed to confirm that they are

ready to proceed. External Independent Reviews on site have already been scheduled for the three new projects in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. These reviews

will focus on mission need and project cost, schedule and scope baselines.

We are planning preparatory readiness reviews for each project that will be led

by DP staff with project management expertise who are independent of line managers, and include members from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other agencies,

and contractors with cost and management expertise. These reviews identify areas

needing improvement, and ensure that the projects are ready for the external assessments, including mission need and scope, cost and schedule baselines.

We are in the process of placing experienced project management personnel in

place at the labs and within DP for these and other projects. A survey of the qualifications of all project management personnel is under way to support that process.

In addition, DP will work with the Department on its recently proposed certification

program and related training for project managers.

Question. Now there have been significant problems at Los Alamos in the past related to establishing firm project scopes, and keeping projects on schedule. Specifically, what has or is being done at Los Alamos to strengthen their construction oversight and project management practices?

Answer. Defense Programs has made significant efforts to strengthen construction

oversight and project management at Los Alamos. The Department and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) conducted a construction projects management assessment in 1997 and concluded that there was a need for better project baselines,
255

management, and control systems. Bases on this assessment, the Department and

LANL developed an Action Plan to management construction projects. In July 1997,

the Nuclear Construction Project Office was established at the Albuquerque Operations Office to provide a single field line management organization to provide management and oversight of stockpile management projects at LANL.

Formal agreements between the Department and LANL are completed on each

project to define their respective roles, responsibilities and accountability; the

project baselines and management systems that will be employed during project execution; and the specific programmatic objectives that must be met by each project.

A more rigorous and formal project authorization system has also been put into

place providing improved funds control, definition of project deliverables, and supporting documentation. This enables management to ensure that appropriate resources are in place to support construction project activities

An integrated review process has been developed which ensures program, project,

and safety objectives are quantified and achieved through technical review and decision processes. Integration between program and construction project activities is

supported by plans that integrate programmatic work with equipment installations

and construction activities.

Question. One of the new construction starts is a new $106 million Strategic Computing Complex at Los Alamos. When will the Independent Project Review be completed for this project? What specific actions will you take to ensure this project is

managed to critical schedules, and that cost management is critically reviewed?

Answer. The independent assessment for the Strategic Computing Complex is

scheduled to begin on April 12, 1999, with a final report to Congress by the end

of May, 1999, although some slippage may occur due to other ongoing reviews. Additionally, a readiness review for the Strategic Computing Complex will begin on

March 29, 1999, and will be completed before the independent assessment begins.

In terms of project management, Defense Programs has revised the way construction projects are managed. These revisions are based upon critical analysis of the

program and utilize many of the attributes that have been successfully employed

in projects such as the National Ignition Facility. Key changes include the creation

of small project teams with clear, unambiguous roles, responsibilities, and appropriate authority to execute the projects; organizational changes to ensure senior

management monitoring of the baselines; and an interim qualification of all project

management team members.

Los Alamos National Laboratory has taken additional steps to improve the management of this project by hiring a professional construction project management

firm to assist them in the oversight of the ‘‘design and build’’ contractor. They have

also hired a professional engineering firm to assist them in their reviews of mechanical systems. The addition of these two external groups will significantly enhance

the strength of the Laboratory’s management team on this project.

CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGICAL RESEARCH (CMR) BUILDING UPGRADE

Question. The Department has been struggling with upgrades to the CMR building at Los Alamos for many years. This facility, built in the 1950s, undertakes important analytical work related to plutonium, uranium, and other alloys and materials in support of the weapons program. The project has been plagued with constant scope changes, cost increases and significant schedule delays. The Department

has had a difficult time determining how to proceed with the project which has been

suspended for the past few years in an effort to determine firm baselines of scope

and costs for the CMR facility upgrade project.

Explain the Department’s decision and plans for the CMR building at Los Alamos.

Why was the decision made to proceed with upgrades of the existing facility, which

was constructed in the 1950s and sits on an earthquake fault, instead of constructing a new facility?

Answer. In 1988, the Special Nuclear Materials Laboratory (SNML) project (88–

D–105) was authorized to replace the CMR Building to support continued weapons

production and certification. In 1991, the long term mission of the SNML became

uncertain as weapons production ceased and there was uncertainty relative to the

amount of work involving plutonium material which CMR would be required to support in the coming years. Therefore the Department decided not to proceed with construction of the SNML, but provide interim upgrades to the CMR. These upgrades

were initiated in 1992 and later designated as Phase 1. In addition, studies were

conducted to determine further upgrades required for continued long-term operations (later designated Phase 2). In 1995, the Department opted to initiate Phase

2 of the CMR Upgrades, bringing the Total Estimated Cost for the entire project

to $174.1M, and cancel the SNML project.
256

It has only been in the past year that ongoing geologic studies have revealed the

presence of a seismic fault running under the North side of the CMR facility. Because of the geologic information, the project has been refocused on completing only

those upgrades necessary to maintain safe and reliable operations in the facility

through fiscal year 2010. The Department is examining the activities at CMR to determine where these activities should be conducted in the future.

Question. How important is the CMR facility to the defense mission of DOE?

What role will this facility play in carrying out the defense mission of DOE?

Answer. The capabilities of CMR are essential to DOE’s defense mission. The

CMR facility is the only laboratory facility with full capability for performing analytical chemistry and materials science for special nuclear materials. The CMR is critical to the Stockpile Stewardship Program in pit surveillance, pit manufacturing,

stockpile lifetime extension, and nuclear weapons certification. Analyses performed

at CMR assure that specifications for plutonium are met in pit production and pit

surveillance.

Question. How do you plan to use the $18 million requested for fiscal year 2000?

Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request provides $18 million for completion

of facility upgrades necessary to meet the safety and regulatory requirements for

continued CMR operations. These requirements, and their scheduled implementation, have been formally defined and prescribed by the approved CMR safety authorization basis—the Basis for Interim Operations. These high priority safety upgrades

are necessary to reduce CMR operational risks to the public and workers in the

near-term, and to operate the CMR facility safely through fiscal year 2010. To meet

the safety and regulatory requirements, the majority of the safety upgrades have

been initiated in fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000 funding will allow the design

and construction of these upgrades to continue. If these upgrades are not completed

as scheduled, the CMR facility operations will be severely curtailed or suspended.

Question. What steps and actions has the Department taken at the field and

headquarters level to ensure that the project does not experience further scope

changes and costs increase once work proceeds?

Answer. In the spring of 1997 the Department initiated an in-depth review of

project management issues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) as they

related to the stand down of the CMR Upgrades Project. The review identified root

causes, contributing factors, and, when put into place, corrective actions that will

address systemic institutional performance problems and as well as construction

project deficiencies. An external independent assessment was also conducted in August 1998 and a number of findings and recommendations were made, which again

reflected the issues previously identified in 1997.

While corrective actions have been initiated on the basis of both institutional and

project-specific issues, both the DOE and LANL have taken other actions to assure

control over project scope, schedule, and cost. Significant organizational changes

have occurred to put senior management focus on corrective measures and to assure

project accountability. Technical expertise has been expanded both within the

project and within engineering support offices. Procedures and other management

tools have also been improved to increase project control. All findings and recommendations from previous assessments/reviews, including the two mentioned

above, have been captured as part of an Action Plan (AP). The AP details both the

institutional and project-specific correction actions to be taken to address the findings and recommendations. The AP is being used to establish baselines for several

stockpile management construction projects and to strengthen project management

oversight of milestones and cost. Project baselines and stronger oversight will enable

management to ensure that appropriate resources are in place to support construction project activities. In addition, the Stockpile Management program established

the Nuclear Construction Projects Office (NCPO) at Albuquerque to integrate and

strengthen oversight of all the program projects at Los Alamos. Staffing was increased and roles and responsibilities were clarified between the NCPO, Los Alamos

Area Office, and LANL.

IDAHO OPERATIONS OFFICE

Question. I notice that funding for the Idaho Operations Office is being reduced

significantly below the fiscal year 1999 funding level? Why is this?

Answer. In fiscal year 2000, support will continue for the Radiological Assistance

Program of approximately $400 thousand per year. The DP tasks supported by the

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory under the umbrella of

the Idaho Surety Program will either be completed in fiscal year 1999 or have been

refocused into areas outside of Idaho’s expertise. This is the case with the task supporting the Advanced Design and Production Technologies initiative, the program
257

has refocused its priorities from modeling efforts to the development of processes

and tools specifically required to support the Stockpile Life Extension Program.

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES

Question. Last year there was sizeable controversy regarding the expected level

of unobligated balances within the Weapons Activities budget. If I recall correctly,

the House reduced the program by several hundred million dollars based on information developed by GAO on projected levels of unobligated funding.

Could you review for the committee last year’s situation and update us on where

the program ended up as it relates to unobligated balances? How did the balances

carried over into fiscal year 1999 actually compare to GAO’s estimate and Defense

Programs’ estimates?

Answer. Last year, reports from the authorizing and appropriations committees

specified that Defense Programs should use prior year balances, ranging from a low

of $50 million to a high of $341 million, to offset the need for new budget authority

to fund the fiscal year 1999 program. The final appropriation directed that the fiscal

year 1999 program be financed using $4.4 billion in new budget authority and $82.5

million in prior year balances.

The controversy arose because the information developed by the GAO and provided to the committees differed significantly from DP’s analysis. GAO reported to

the committees that DP would have up to $340.7 million in ‘‘excess’’ balances at the

end of fiscal year 1998, while DP’s estimates indicated that little or no excess

uncosted balances were expected, and $49.4 million for unobligated balances. The

actual end-of-year unobligated balances for direct programs in the Weapons Activities account were $46.6 million.

Question. Now, the final appropriations bill used some $82.5 million of prior year

balances to finance the fiscal year 1999 budget. Were these balances available? If

the balances were not available, what adjustments were you forced to make?

Answer. No. There was not $82.5 million in excess prior year balances available

to finance the fiscal year 1999 budget. We plan to obligate $4.447 billion in fiscal

year 1999, which includes $28.6 million for program scope justified and approved

in prior years but delayed until fiscal year 1999. The balance, $4.418 billion, represents obligations for new workscope composed of $4.4 billion in new appropriations, and $18 million in prior year balances.

In an effort to implement the guidance in the appropriation, which directed that

fiscal year 1999 activities be funded using $4.4 billion in new budget authority and

$82.5 million in prior year balances, Defense Programs undertook a rigorous process

to examine all prior year balances reported at the end of fiscal year 1998. Since

overall ending fiscal year 1998 uncosted balances for Defense Programs were well

below the Department’s goal for operations and maintenance activities, there was

little flexibility to use these funds against fiscal year 1999 requirements. Only about

$18 million was available from unobligated and uncosted balances to be redirected

without unacceptable impact to ongoing program activities. Therefore, we will only

execute program level that falls $64 million below the level outlined in the conference report accompanying the 1999 appropriation.

Question. If I understand your budget, you were forced to make some $64 million

in program reductions because there was only a little over $18 million of prior year

balances available. How was the $64 million reduction allocated by specific activity,

and did this result in any adverse impacts?

Answer. To arrive at the current program and site allocations, we accommodated

first all congressional direction contained in the appropriation and authorization

bills and reports on fiscal year 1999 programmatic and site funding, and then assessed the reduction proportionally to each Defense Programs decision unit. Much

of the reduction has been accommodated by small slips to work schedules, procurements and maintenance with no significant adverse impacts.

OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Office of Counterintelligence

requests funding of $18.6 million with another $12.6 million in additional funding

to come from the national laboratories from other Defense programs to be spent by

the Office of Counterintelligence. Why did you find it necessary to ‘‘tax’’ other programs for additional funds?

Answer. The Counterintelligence (CN) program for fiscal year 2000 is a $31.2 million program. All of the $31.2 million will be under the management purview of the

Office of Counterintelligence. However, it is composed of two pieces. The first is direct funding of $18.6 million which is for costs primarily related to central counterintelligence activities. The second portion, $12.6 million, is not a tax rather it is an
258

estimate of the activities the laboratories will need to fund to better cover their

counterintelligence responsibilities under the direction of the Office of Counterintelligence.

Question. Specifically, where will the $12.6 million come from? Provide for the

record a list by site of how the $12.6 million will be assessed.

Answer. The funds will come from the laboratories that need to make additional

expenditures to cover their counterintelligence responsibilities. This includes primarily the three weapons laboratories, but some additional expenditures will be required at other laboratories as needs for enhancements in counterintelligence are

identified. The character of the improvements necessary will dictate whether these

costs to be borne by the laboratory are from direct program funding or from overhead. The counterintelligence program is sending a team out to the laboratories in

April and one of their responsibilities will be to get an estimate by site and activity

of the expenditures necessary. When the information is complete, we will provide

it to the Committee.

PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVE

Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, three years ago, I considered the programs you oversee to be critical to U.S. national security. What I have come to realize since the

collapse of the Russian economy, since the IMF and the World Bank have pulled

out, and now that Yelsin’s power is in serious question, is that your programs are

the centerpiece of U.S.-Russian relations. I’ve met with the President’s national security staff to discuss the President’s Russia initiative, and I agree something has

to be done since Russia cannot fulfill its obligations under many of our bilateral

agreements. But I only see a few very small increases in your programs. Can you

tell me how the President’s initiative affects the programs you oversee?

Answer. The President’s initiative is a positive step for the programs I oversee.

His five year plan provides additional resources to what I consider to be one of the

United States’ top national security threats: nuclear proliferation.

In the area of nuclear security in Russia and the Newly Independent States, the

President’s Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative will keep the Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) Program’s budget at a more sustained level

than previously planned and will help to provide a more vigorous level of effort during the next five years of the program’s implementation. The President’s Russia initiative provides the MPC&A program with funds to address the expanding mission,

including work at additional Russian navy and civilian sites with weapons usable

nuclear material; emergency measures and long term operations efforts; and nuclear

material consolidation. The President’s initiative will provide top level support for

these measures and enable the MPC&A program to undertake these new, key

projects to improve nuclear materials security and simplify the nuclear materials

problem in Russia.

Other key programs affected by the President’s initiative are the Initiatives for

Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) programs. The

President’s initiative foresees providing funding support at the $30 million level annually for each program through 2004. Each is integral to the initiative and promotes the initiative’s objectives. The two programs, while both addressing nonproliferation in the former Soviet Union, are complementary, but different. Let me

explain the two programs in more detail.

IPP addresses chemical, biological, and nuclear nonproliferation issues in Russia,

Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. It seeks to prevent the drain of expertise from

former Soviet weapons of mass destruction institutes to countries of proliferation

concern by engaging scientists and engineers working at those institutes in cooperative projects with DOE National Laboratories. The purpose of these projects is to

verify technical feasibility and identify Newly Independent States (NIS) technologies

for commercialization in partnership with U.S. companies. The hallmark of the IPP

program in the NIS is the scientist-to-scientist interface, which is enabled through

firm, fixed-price contracts between the NIS laboratories and the DOE National Laboratories. These contracts assure stringent oversight of the projects at the NIS institutes. In addition, the project proposals themselves are reviewed by the U.S. Government interagency community for dual-use and policy concerns. For projects

where technical feasibility is verified and demonstrated, the project is moved to a

second stage, a three-way partnership involving a U.S. industry partner, a DOE National Laboratory, and an NIS institute. Finally, through the development of freestanding businesses or product lines, long-term economic outcomes, in terms of royalties and jobs, are created for the NIS scientists and engineers involved. IPP has

funded over 400 projects in total, of which 84 are cost-shared with U.S. industry.

Several of the IPP projects have reached the point of full commercialization.
259

The NCI focuses on job creation for scientists and technicians who are being shed

from the Russian nuclear weapons complex as a result of downsizing. It is taking

place in the ten closed nuclear cities of Russia, starting with just three—Snezhinsk,

Zheleznogorsk, and Sarov. Extension to other closed cities, planned for the second

year, will be guided by lessons learned during the first year of engagement at the

first three cities. These were chosen because IPP, and before that, the DOE lab-tolab program, had engaged extensively with these cities and developed contacts.

While IPP operates in the institutes of the closed cities, NCI operates in the more

open municipal areas, engaging the new, post-Soviet political and civic leadership

and encouraging the development of the non-weapons economy. In these areas, its

efforts include such measures as infrastructure development, creation of low capital

requirement businesses, and business/entrepreneurship training. NCI has only recently been authorized to obligate funding, and so the first NCI activities are now

being funded in the three closed cities.

MATERIALS PROTECTION CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING (MPC&A)

Question. You know that I have had some very serious concerns about the management of some of your programs; Materials Protection and IPP in particular. I

know you have made changes, and those programs now report directly to you. I understand that the number of sites that need to be secured is much higher than the

original estimate. How long do you think this program will need to continue?

Answer. The Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program based its

original completion date on data contained in the 1995 Joint Atomic Energy and Intelligence Committee (JAEIC) Report. The report identified 80–100 buildings in the

Former Soviet with weapons grade nuclear material which required rapid upgrades.

The program determined that upgrading these 80–100 buildings would require a

sustained effort through 2002. However, since the 1995 JAEIC Report, the program

has greatly expanded due to improved knowledge of and access to sites and buildings containing weapons usable nuclear materials. To date, the program has identified approximately 400 buildings requiring upgrades at 55 sites. We also have expanded the work with the Russian Federation Navy to include all sites with fresh

nuclear fuel and naval spent fuel of proliferation concern. Our initial planning did

not project such excellent cooperation with or access to so much of the Russian

Naval complex. Also, economic and political uncertainties in Russia during 1998

made security of the nuclear material more difficult and have slowed some work.

While the harsh Russian economic conditions have increased the risk of theft of

nuclear materials, it also has created new opportunities to address proliferation

risks. For example, the program is initiating a material consolidation program to

simplify the nuclear security problem by moving material into fewer buildings at

fewer sites. Prior to this crisis, this innovative approach would have been less likely

to be supported by the Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM). The recent violent

acts at MINATOM and Russian Naval nuclear installations have promoted a more

proactive approach by the Russian Federation to reduce the size of the problem. We

are now actively working with the Russian Federation to develop a strategy to consolidate nuclear material into fewer buildings at fewer sites.

Today, the program is still on track to complete rapid upgrades at 100 of the most

vulnerable buildings by the 2002 targeted date. However, in light of the expanded

work, we are currently updating the plan. Our new estimate of 400 buildings requiring upgrades will likely be adjusted downward if we are able to undertake a vigorous consolidation effort with the Russians, which we fully expect at this time.

Thus, as we develop our new work plan, we are necessarily factoring in some uncertainties. The President’s Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative shows the program

extending through fiscal year 2004, but work may be required beyond that time. We

will keep you informed as our new work plan develops.

Question. Russia has now offered to work with us to consolidate the nuclear material in Russia. Have we reached an agreement on that proposal?

Answer. Material consolidation is a new element to the Material Protection, Control, and Accounting Program and is under discussion currently. We are exploring

opportunities with the Russian Federation to consolidate nuclear material into fewer

buildings at fewer sites to simplify the nuclear security task and also possible blend

down of some of the excess highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium. At

this time, we have not finalized the proposal, but we are working with the Russian

Federation Ministry of Atomic Energy to develop a strategy and a proposal that will

work towards consolidating nuclear material in the near future.

Question. Do we know how much material the Materials Protection program has

secured?
260

Answer. The Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program is improving

the security on approximately 400 metric tons of weapons usable nuclear material

by installing initial rapid upgrades, such as delay barriers, access control and portal

monitors. Of this amount, we have completed the installation of fully integrated material protection, control and accounting systems for approximately 30 metric tons.

Question. I also am aware of the conflict between some of your managers and the

leadership of the labs over the Materials Protection program. Both sides make good

points, but are you aware of that problem and are you taking steps to resolve it?

Answer. Our MPC&A program was originally established as a temporary task

force, but work in Russia has proven to be much bigger, tougher and longer-term

than anyone would have expected when we began in 1994. The Russian economy

has not improved, and in fact has gotten worse. The size and geographic span of

the Russian nuclear material storage complex is greater than anyone in the United

States knew. I took steps, as Director of our Office of Nonproliferation and National

Security, to establish a more permanent management structure for our nuclear security operations in Russia and the MPC&A Task Force. Now the MPC&A Task

Force is reporting to me directly, and I have brought on board a senior State Department official to advise me and the Department on new approaches to manage

the MPC&A program and other Russian programs. I expect these changes will dramatically improve the oversight and implementation of this extremely important

program and provide for a more efficiently and effectively managed effort. Our goal

is to further increase the successes and effectiveness of the MPC&A program in

Russia through this change.

GAO REPORT ON INITIATIVES FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION (IPP)

Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, the GAO has issued a report critical of the IPP program. How do you respond to the complaint that Russian scientists who receive support from the IPP program may work on dual-use technologies or may even continue

to work on weapons technologies when they are not working on IPP projects?

Answer. The Department and General Accounting Office (GAO) do not agree on

this issue. GAO claims that some Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP)

projects support the development of ‘‘dual-use’’ technology that may enhance Russian military capabilities. The cases cited by GAO provided no direct aid to Russia’s

military or weapons of mass destruction programs. Moreover, DOE has been extremely concerned about this issue and reinforced the existing review process in the

mid-1997 time frame. This reinforcement enhanced interagency participation in the

review process, to screen out potential ‘‘dual-use’’ projects—especially in the areas

of chemical and biological weapons. Nevertheless, we have implemented GAO’s recommendations to further strengthen the review process.

IPP is not subsidizing Russian weapons activities, as GAO contends, because each

project is designed to produce non- defense products and results in one or more specific deliverable. The deliverables are reviewed by a U.S. laboratory principal investigator who verifies that these meet the original terms of contract requirements. We

take this oversight very seriously. DOE scientists spent the equivalent of ten manyears in the NIS in fiscal year 1998 alone, ensuring that IPP projects were being

properly conducted, according to firm, fixed-price contracts. Time spent by Russian

scientists on these non- defense IPP contracts is time that they cannot spend working on Russian weapons projects—or on weapons of mass destruction programs for

third parties.

We know that senior Russian weapons scientists are devoting time to their IPP

projects, because we are receiving work products, reports, equipment prototypes,

and other deliverables that reflect their project work. Moreover, in many cases IPP

program money is the only actual payment scientists are receiving, thus making IPP

work more attractive to Russian participants than non-paid defense-related assignments.

The involvement of DOE laboratory personnel with that of NIS scientists and engineers provides assurance that old reports and data from archives are not sent in

as new deliverables. The direct interface with DOE personnel also helps ensure that

IPP funds are being spent on IPP projects and are not diverted to other purposes

at the recipient institutes.

The fundamental goal of the IPP program is to keep NIS weapons specialists

working in their home countries, rather than selling their services to foreign states

or organizations of proliferation concern. At virtually all Russian weapons institutes,

salaries are going unpaid for months. These scientists and those formerly employed

at the institutes are the proper targets of the IPP program, because these are the

individuals who are most likely to be tempted to sell their services abroad.
261

GAO also raised the possibility that 19 chemical and biological projects had not

received necessary interagency review. It has recently been verified by review of IPP

documents and records that these 19 projects had received necessary interagency review before their approval. In addition to this, the remaining IPP chemical and biological projects (for a total of 30) have been rechecked to assure that necessary

interagency reviews are underway and should be completed by April 15, 1999.

INITIATIVES FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION (IPP)

Question. I am interested in the GAO’s finding that most of the IPP funds are

spent at our labs and not in Russia. Would you provide to the Committee a breakdown of the how much of the funds appropriated for Materials Protection and IPP

is spent in the U.S. and how is spent in Russia?

Answer. IPP expenditures in the United States have been high because of the involvement of the DOE National Laboratories—an involvement that is one of the core

strengths of the IPP program and one that is mandated in the legislation founding

the initiative. It is the close involvement of DOE National Laboratory scientists and

engineers in the IPP projects that assures that the work done and the deliverables

received, under firm, fixed-price contracts, are receiving stringent oversight. The

principal investigators monitor each contract, collaborate with the NIS scientists

and engineers, working jointly on a given project, participate in selecting an industry partner in the U.S., arrange the Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) with the industrial partner, and then monitor the CRADAs. Often,

joint publications and joint inventions result from these collaborative efforts.

This crucial involvement of DOE laboratory personnel provides confidence that

NIS scientists and engineers are not submitting old reports and data from their files

as new deliverables. The hands-on involvement of DOE personnel also helps to safeguard that IPP funds are being spent on IPP projects and are not sidetracked for

other activities at the recipient institutes. In fiscal year 1998 alone, IPP principal

investigators from the laboratories spent the equivalent of nearly 10 man-years at

facilities in the NIS ensuring that IPP projects were being done properly and in

compliance with contract requirements. (It should be noted that although these days

were worked in the NIS, the travel funds were counted as being spent in the United

States, an accounting artifact that does not provide a full picture of resources devoted to work in the NIS).

Another factor affecting the proportion of IPP funds expended in the United

States is that IPP provides important support for other U.S. government programs.

For example, since International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) funds cannot be spent in the United States, IPP funds are used for work at U.S. National

Laboratories in support of ISTC work in Russia. Over the life of the Program, six

IPP projects worth approximately $950,000 were funded in direct support to ISTC

projects. In addition, IPP has been funding nearly $500,000 in ISTC salaries on an

annual basis. IPP has also provided continued indirect support to ISTC from National Laboratory overheads and other related sources. DOE lab scientists are listed

as ‘collaborators’ on 238 ISTC projects and perform a number of activities which can

include proposal review, review of reports and performance of hands-on research. Indirect support duties also include performance as program ‘coordinators’ for ISTC

projects for which at least partial compensation is received.

Despite these factors, however, the IPP program is implementing changes to increase the commercial emphasis of IPP projects and to raise the overall proportion

of project funds sent to the NIS to well above 50 percent. Our goal is 60 percent.

This will be accomplished by requiring that each laboratory place more of its IPP

project dollars on U.S. industry cost-shared projects, to which U.S. industry is contributing resources, as opposed to technology demonstration and feasibility projects

not involving U.S. industry. For these U.S.-industry cost-share projects, an increased share of funding will go to the NIS. In addition, on-going technology demonstration projects that are not meeting project milestones or have only a slight

chance of commercialization will be canceled and the funds made available for more

commercially promising projects. As an aggregate, these measures will result in an

increasing commercial emphasis, more U.S. industry cost-share and participation,

and a greater percentage of overall IPP funds going to the NIS.

For fiscal year 1997 Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) appropriated

funds, the DOE National Laboratories allocated $12.4 million to the Newly Independent States (NIS). They allocated $15.5 million to laboratory-related activities.

This amounts to 44.4 percent of IPP project dollars allocated to NIS contracts in fiscal year 1997.

For fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds, the allocation percentage to NIS contracts is projected to be 48 percent as new contracts are finalized. The current dis-
262

tribution reflects that the DOE National Laboratories have allocated $6.7 million or

28.2 percent to the NIS and $17.0 million or 81.8 percent of funds is committed to

laboratory-related activities. As contract negotiations with NIS institutes are completed and costing of funds under the new contracts can begin, the NIS expenditures

are anticipated to rise to as high as 48 percent, allocating a 52 percent portion in

the National Laboratories.

It is also the IPP program goal to increase the number of Thrust Two projects,

which involve a cost-sharing with U.S. industry, as a percentage of overall projects

underway. This will contribute, in a positive way, to increasing the flow of funds

to the NIS partners.

For the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A) Program, during

fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, as the program was getting established and

U.S. coordination costs were higher, the MPC&A program spent $107.7 million on

U.S. laboratory labor and travel and $56.3 million on upgrades at FSU facilities, including FSU labor and MPC&A equipment installed at FSU facilities (this equipment was from FSU and Western commercial vendors). This broke down to about

66 percent and 34 percent, respectively.

Since fiscal year 1998 through January 1999, the MPC&A program costs were $100.7 million for U.S. laboratory labor and travel and $90 million for FSU labor

and MPC&A equipment. These costs amount to around 53 percent and 47 percent,

respectively. This trend is heading toward lower U.S. laboratory costs as the

MPC&A program engages in more efficient management.

It must be stressed that much of the laboratory travel associated with both the

MPC&A and IPP programs is carried out in Russia and the NIS, overseeing or performing project work in inhospitable or even hazardous environments. Without the

travel of laboratory specialists to these difficult and remote locations, MPC&A and

IPP project work would not be possible.

NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVES (NCI)

Question. This year’s Defense Authorization Act required a report on the Nuclear

Cities Initiative which we have received—but it is very vague. Will you submit to

the Committee a more detailed report so we can understand basic issues about the

Nuclear Cities Initiative such as; who will serve as the United States executive

agent for this program, where the money will be spent, or what the money will be

spent on?

Answer. The Department will be happy to provide ongoing status reports of

progress under the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) to the Committee. The Nuclear

Cities Initiative has progressed considerably since the December report that DOE

submitted to the Congress.

DOE serves as the U.S. Executive Agent for Nuclear Cities Initiative on behalf

of the U.S. Government.

As reported to the Gore-Primakov Commission in March 1999, important initial

projects are being launched in each of the three initial target cities, Sarov,

Snezhinsk and Zheleznogorsk. Highlights of the current status and plans are:

Working groups have visited each of these three cities and identified promising

projects. One of the primary aims of the mutual effort will be to establish a business

friendly infrastructure within the cities. As a start, in 1999, almost $2 million in

funding will be devoted to upgrading the telecommunications systems and to establishing business development centers to promote market-based economic activity

within each community.

In Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk–70), a pharmaceutical packaging project has been

identified for joint work, leveraging resources to support this important activity to

benefit public health and welfare. In Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26), the U.S.

working group team has just completed its evaluation. The Silicon of Siberia project,

which alone could result in the creation of 500 jobs over four years, will be one target of joint development, with other smaller projects currently being identified.

Progress in the six short months since the NCI Agreement was signed has been

impressive and both U.S. and Russian participants look forward to building a foundation of cooperation that will lead to sustainable job creation in the closed nuclear

cities.

STATUS OF RUSSIAN TALKS

Question. Ms. Holgate, Deputy Secretary Moniz, Deputy Secretary Holum, and

you briefed me in some detail on this yesterday but, for the record, would you summarize the status of the talks with Russia?

Answer. The negotiations are underway. Initial conversations with Russian counterparts, particularly in February, reveal substantial common ground on a number
263

of substantive elements as well as on the structure and urgency of this agreement.

The U.S. delegation is led by the Department of State with key support being provided by the Department of Energy. The Russian delegation is led by the Ministry

of Atomic Energy (MINATOM), supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I believe that an agreement can be concluded this year to enable plutonium disposition

to proceed in both countries.

PARALLEL U.S. AND RUSSIA PROGRAMS

Question. Congress directed in last year’s Act that ‘‘the United States should not

proceed unilaterally to dispose of excess plutonium without parallel progress on the

Russian side.’’ The budget request states that the Administration will not construct

new facilities for disposition of U.S. plutonium unless there is significant progress

on plans for plutonium disposition in Russia. When the Administration says ‘‘significant progress,’’ is that consistent with the Congressional requirement for an agreement to be in place?

Answer. Yes. The United States will not unilaterally dispose of its surplus plutonium without parallel progress on the Russian side. The Department’s fiscal year

2000 budget request for fissile materials disposition seeks funding to proceed with

the up-front research, design, licensing and fuel qualification activities. Proceeding

with these long lead-time activities is necessary to maintain momentum and pressure on Russia for a plutonium disposition agreement, and serves as a sign to private industry, the public and the world community that the U.S. is serious about

disposing of stockpiles of surplus weapons plutonium. The United States will not

begin construction of new facilities for the disposition of U.S. plutonium unless there

is significant progress with Russia on plans for the disposition of surplus Russian

plutonium. A comprehensive bilateral agreement would certainly represent ‘‘significant progress.’’

Question. Your budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes funds to complete

Title I and Title II design of the pit disassembly and conversion facility and to procure some long-lead equipment. You are also on the verge of issuing a contract this

year with a fuel fabricator and utility team to fabricate and burn MOX fuel. It

seems to me that Russia is years behind in that regard. Are you getting in front

of Russia, and how do you plan to deal with a slow-down if the Russian program

does not proceed quickly?

Answer. I do not believe the United States is getting out in front of the Russians

on this matter. Russia is currently conducting feasibility studies on various technical alternatives for converting plutonium metal to plutonium oxide, suitable for

fabrication into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. Following a decision by Russia, we can proceed with design of a full-scale Russian plutonium conversion facility. On the U.S.

side, once we have a contract in place, we too can proceed with the design of the

full-scale plutonium conversion facility. The contract for MOX fuel fabrication and

irradiation services is written so as to allow changing the output of the MOX plant

to allow for parallel progress with Russia.

The U.S. contract for MOX fuel fabrication and irradiation services was awarded

on March 22, 1999. We needed to award this contract in order to select and obtain

commitments on which reactors would be used. Among other things, the first phase

of this contract will include design of the fuel fabrication facility. Without the facility design and the identification of reactors, we would be unable to move forward

with the licensing requirements for the fabrication facility and the reactors. Russia,

on the other hand, already knows which reactors will be used for plutonium disposition and they have begun work on fuel qualification. Russia is working on a conceptual design of a MOX fuel fabrication facility with the French. Our Technical Cooperation Agreement gives us a key mechanism to keep Russian research and development moving ahead during the process of negotiating a comprehensive bilateral

agreement.

Question. Is the procurement of that long-lead equipment consistent with the commitment to proceed in parallel with Russia?

Answer. Yes. In order to obtain the necessary equipment design information for

review and use, the architect-engineer must procure the long-lead equipment early

in the design phase, before the facility design is complete. However, no equipment

manufacturing would begin unless there is significant progress with Russia on plans

for plutonium disposition. Should significant progress be delayed, equipment vendors would not be authorized to fabricate hardware.

DEFINITION OF 50 TONS

Question. Russian Minister Adamov has complained to me that the 50 tons of plutonium the United States plans to disposition of is not all weapons grade. I under-
264

stand that initially we will work with Russia to dispose of equal amounts of each

country’s plutonium, but, over the long run, Russia has a great deal more plutonium

that the U.S. How are we going to achieve parity over the long run?

Answer. You are correct in your understanding that under the bilateral agreement currently envisioned, the United States and Russia will likely dispose of equal

amounts of plutonium and that Russia is believed to have a great deal more plutonium than does the United States. Parity in remaining plutonium stockpiles is intended to be addressed as part of the broader strategic arms reduction process

(START).

Question. Would you provide for the record a list of what plutonium each country

possesses—in the case of Russia it will be our best estimate—and a list of what plutonium each side has proposed to dispose of?

Answer. As specified in the DOE publication, Plutonium: The First 50 Years

(DOE/DP–0137, February 1996), the current U.S. plutonium inventory is 99.5 metric

tons (MT). The U.S. inventory is composed of 85.0 MT of weapons grade (less than

7 percent Pu240), 13.2 MT of fuel grade (more than 7 percent and less than 19 percent Pu240), and 1.3 MT of reactor grade (more than 19 percent Pu240). Of the 85

MT of weapons grade plutonium, 38.2 MT have been declared excess to national security needs. In addition, the Department of Energy considers 14.3 metric tons of

non-weapons-grade plutonium to be surplus.

The DOE publication, Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A)

Program Strategic Plan (January 1998), states that experts believe that the former

Soviet Union produced more than 150 MT of plutonium. In September 1997, Russian President Yeltsin announced a decision to remove gradually from military nuclear programs, up to 50 metric tons of plutonium which has become available

through the nuclear disarmament process. Thus far, Russia has provided no further

breakout of this material.

MOX VS. VITRIFICATION

Question. Ms. Holgate, your program proposes to dispose of excess U.S. plutonium

in two ways: burn it in reactors as MOX fuel or mix it with a ceramic, place that

material in a steel can and surround the steel can with vitrified high-level waste.

It seems to me that it will be relatively easy to recover the plutonium stored in steel

cans, especially as the radioactivity of the waste around it decreases—something

that will occur fairly rapidly. Have you determined that the steel can storage technique meets the spent fuel standard?

Answer. The Department is focusing on this ‘‘can-in-canister’’ approach for plutonium immobilization. Under this approach, plutonium feed materials would be converted to oxide which would be mixed with material to form ceramic disks. The

disks would be stacked and sealed into steel cans which would be arrayed within

large canisters into which vitrified high-level waste would be poured. The radioactive waste barrier increases the proliferation resistance of the immobilized plutonium. Subsequently, the canisters would be disposed of in a geologic repository. The

Department believes that this ‘‘can-in-canister’’ immobilization approach meets the

spent fuel standard in which the surplus plutonium is made as inaccessible and unattractive for retrieval and weapons use as the plutonium remaining in spent fuel

from commercial reactors. Nonetheless, DOE has asked the National Academy of

Sciences to examine the degree to which both U.S. disposition technologies meet the

spent fuel standard. The National Academy of Sciences assessment is expected to

be completed this summer.

Question. Would you be comfortable with China or North Korea disposing of plutonium using the steel can approach?

Answer. As a practical matter, a nuclear weapons state such as the United States,

Russia or China has the technology to recover separated plutonium from either

spent MOX fuel or the immobilized waste form. The real question that needs to be

asked, however, is whether it is practical for a nuclear weapons state to do so in

light of more readily available alternatives, which are cheaper and easier. Given

this fact, the United States would be comfortable with Russia or China disposing

of their surplus plutonium through immobilization and subsequent disposal in a

geologic repository. North Korea, however, is not a recognized nuclear weapons state

and is believed to lack key technology and readily available stockpiles of plutonium

with which to readily fabricate nuclear weapons. As a result, under no circumstances would the U.S. be comfortable with North Korea disposing of surplus

plutonium in this manner, should such material be available.
265

SCHEDULE

Question. Ms. Holgate, your program proposes to actually begin burning up U.S.

plutonium in 2007. When do you plan to complete the disposition of all 50 tons of

excess U.S. plutonium?

Answer. Assuming the U.S. and Russia complete a plutonium disposition agreement later this year, the United States could dispose of its 50 metric tons of plutonium by 2022. This assumes a peak disposition rate of 5 metric tons of plutonium

per year, with the ability to accelerate this rate should parallel progress be achievable in Russia.

Question. How did you decide what an acceptable schedule would be?

Answer. The schedule is an aggressive one based on a number of factors including

technical considerations, cost, infrastructure and Russian considerations. However,

given the current political instability and worsening economic conditions prevailing

in Russia and the very real threat that surplus plutonium could be stolen or diverted into the hands of terrorists or non-nuclear nations, I feel that the aggressive

schedule is warranted.

CANADIAN REACTORS

Question. I’ve been intrigued by the idea proposed a number of years ago to burn

U.S. and Russian weapons-derived plutonium in reactors in Canada. Do you still

plan to fabricate fuel for Canadian reactors, and when might we ship that fuel to

Canada?

Answer. Yes. A joint U.S.-Russian non-proliferation experiment is planned to be

conducted this summer in Canada to demonstrate the feasibility of disposing of excess weapons plutonium by using it in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in CANDU reactors.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory has fabricated eight small fuel pins containing

119 grams of plutonium from dismantled U.S. weapons for the United States part

of the experiment. The Russian Federation’s Bochvar Institute is preparing to fabricate a similar amount of fuel from Russian plutonium. In the experiment, a Canadian test reactor will simultaneously irradiate these small quantities of MOX reactor fuel.

DOE believes there is adequate interest and reactor capacity available within the

United States to dispose of all excess U.S. plutonium. There may, however, be a

need for additional reactor capacity to augment Russia’s capability to dispose of its

plutonium in reactors.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CRAIG

NONPROLIFERATION TECHNOLOGY

Question. Secretary Richardson recently challenged all DOE national laboratories

to ‘‘identify technical breakthroughs which will revolutionize our proliferation detection capabilities.’’ Do you plan to increase your support of research and development

at non-defense laboratories so that the full capabilities of the DOE laboratories can

get to work on meeting this important challenge?

Answer. The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development (R&D)

Program will continue to support R&D at both defense and non-defense laboratories

to utilize the full capabilities of the DOE laboratories. In fiscal year 2000, Chemical

and Biological Nonproliferation has been identified as the highest priority growth

area with a budget request for this program of $31.2M, an increase of almost 70

percent over the fiscal year 1999 budget of $18.5M.

In preparation for an expanded fiscal year 2000 budget the Chemical and Biological Nonproliferation Program invited all DOE National Laboratories to participate

in a call for proposals. Technology gaps in our current program as well as on-going

projects that could be accelerated into fielded capabilities through the infusion of additional R&D funding were the targets of this solicitation. Laboratories were encouraged to team with both academia and industry where technical expertise was needed and where systems were maturing towards implementation.

Both new proposals and ongoing research and development projects will undergo

a rigorous two-step peer review which will be conducted this Spring. The peer review panel will consist of technical experts and end-users from other government

agencies, industry and academia.

Funding decisions will be made on the basis of this peer review process which will

focus upon the work’s potential impact and advancement over current state of the

art capabilities, the scientific and technical quality of the work, and finally the program management and technology implementation plan. It is expected that some of
266

this important work will be conducted at the DOE’s non-defense laboratories to

meet our proliferation detection challenges.

RUSSIAN NAVY FLEET

Question. I understand that the current U.S. program to dismantle Russian ballistic missile submarines is only addressing a fraction of the total number of inactive

Russian submarines. The fuel for these submarines could present an environmental

threat if not dealt with. Do you agree that these submarines pose a threat? Would

you support an accelerated program to defuel all of the Russian submarines?

Answer. Yes, I agree that the possibility of an environmental threat is present if

dismantlement is not handled properly; we are also concerned about possible nuclear safety and security threats. We are coordinating through an interagency process to develop a strategy to deal with this very important issue. We will keep you

informed of our progress.

KAZAKHSTAN BN–350 ACTIVITIES

Question. I understood Argonne-West is conducting a very successful program to

secure the spent fuel and blanket assemblies from the BN–350 reactor in

Kazakhstan. I also understand that Kazakstan has decided to shut down the BN–

350 permanently. Experience in Idaho with the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II

could be used to assist Kazakhstan in fire protection and handling of the radioactive

sodium. Do you have plans for helping to resolve these concerns and assist the shutdown of the BN–350 reactor?

Answer. The Department of Energy intends to assist Kazakhstan with the safe

shutdown of the BN–350 reactor. In this effort, we plan to work closely with the

International Atomic Energy Agency, the Government of Kazakhstan, and other

countries with experience in sodium cooled reactor technology. We plan to place particular emphasis on safety issues, including sodium fire protection and sodium

draining. Due to its experience with the operation and shutdown of the experimental Breeder Reactor-II, Argonne National Laboratory-West is playing and will

continue to play a large role in our work to improve safety and to assist in the shutdown of the BN–350.

NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE

Question. The Mayor of Idaho Falls has expressed interest in establishing a sister

cities arrangement with the Russian city of Ozersk and supporting the work of ANL

and INEEL in that city. What is your position on the mayor’s proposal and on opening up the Nuclear Cities Initiative to DOE’s non-weapons labs?

Answer. The NCI Program has already been cooperating with Idaho Falls.

Through the Energy Communities Alliance Annual Conference, NCI brought together the Mayor of Idaho Falls, Linda Milan, and the Mayor of Ozersk, Sergey

Cherishov, to discuss economic development strategies. Additionally, NCI staff introduced the Russian and American mayors to the Director of Sister Cities International, Alexander Gorev, to promote their cooperation. And finally, NCI program

staff has requested Sister Cities International to permit both Idaho Falls, ID, and

Richland, WA, to pair with Ozersk in a new ‘‘Sister Cities’’ relationship.

The Department supports the participation of the non-weapons laboratories in the

Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI). Currently, the Savannah River Site and the Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory have significant roles assigned under the NCI. For

example, the Savannah River Site teams with Los Alamos National Laboratory in

heading the Sarov City Working Group. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is

teamed with Lawrence Livermore National laboratory in the program efforts at

Snezhinsk. The Oak Ridge Site and Sandia National Laboratories are teamed in the

Zheleznogorsk Working Group. Argonne National Laboratory was recently tasked

with the development of a new medical isotopes functional working group under

NCI.

BN-600 REACTOR

Question. Russia’s BN–600 reactor still incorporates a breeding blanket that produces about 450 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year. Does the Administration plan to propose the conversion of the BN–600 blanket and the use of MOX

fuel in the BN–600 as part of its plan to spend the $200 million emergency appropriation for Russian plutonium disposition provided by Congress?

Answer. The government of Japan recently announced its intention to provide

funding for the conversion of the Russian BN–600 breeder reactor for operation as

a plutonium burner. The Department of Energy intends to cooperate with the Rus-
267

sian Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) and the Japanese government on

issues associated with the conversion and the related funding.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. We look forward to that. We stand in

recess.

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Thursday, March 11, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

(269)

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD–124, the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman) presiding.

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

Also present: Senators Campbell and Allard.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CIVILIAN WASTE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMS

STATEMENTS OF:

JAMES M. OWENDOFF, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

LAKE H. BARRETT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

OPENING STATEMENT

Senator DOMENICI. The hearing will please come to order. I know

Senator Reid is not here, but he will arrive shortly. I apologize, but

I can only be here until 10:15, because I am finishing the budget

markup upstairs in another room. So I would like to get started

and keep my remarks to a minimum, in order to get on with testimony of our witnesses.

We welcome the presence of Senator Campbell, who, while not

being on the subcommittee, has asked, as he did last year, if he

could come here and ask some questions about Rocky Flats. We

will be glad to let you do that, Senator.

This morning we review the budget request of the Department

of Energy’s Environmental Management Program, and the Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management Program, otherwise known as the

Yucca Mountain program.

I want to welcome the witnesses here today, Mr. James

Owendoff, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental

Management; and Mr. Lake Barrett, Acting Director of the Office

of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Gentlemen, we have a busy schedule today in the Senate, and I

ask that you be as brief as possible in summarizing your prepared
270

statements, as you know they will be thoroughly read by the subcommittee. Without objection, right at the offset, your full prepared

statements are going to be made part of the hearing record.

Before I turn to Senator Reid, who will be along shortly, I want

to mention one item of particular interest to Senator Reid and me,

and that is the accelerator transmutation of waste. We included in

last year’s act $4 million to develop a road map for accelerated

transportation of waste technology.

The Department has made a great deal of progress in developing

that road map, and I hope to come back to that issue at a hearing

in April specifically for that purpose.

Having said that, I wonder if, Senator Campbell, would you like

to——

Senator CAMPBELL. Perhaps just a brief comment.

Senator DOMENICI. Please.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

Senator CAMPBELL. Thanks for letting me sit with this subcommittee. I am a member of the full committee as well. Because

of Rocky Flats, I have a very, very keen interest in this, and I am

very pleased to see the administration has requested $657 million

to continue the cleanup. I might tell you, Mr. Chairman, the sooner

we get that cleaned up, we will be able to perhaps supply more

money to WIPP, which is in your state.

One thing I am concerned about is a proposal by the administration that we build some temporary tent structures to house it until

this lawsuit is handled in New Mexico. I think I should tell my

friends here that are going to be testifying, that is absolutely unacceptable. Our communities will go nuts if we tell them we are going

to store any kind of waste in temporary tents, because their feeling,

of course, is that once it is stored there in tents, it is just going

to stay there, and we will not really make a concentrated effort to

get it cleaned up.

Last year, as you probably know, we did get an additional $30

million through the budget here in the Senate to accelerate that

cleanup, but it has not been going as fast as some of us would like

it. I am sure you are aware of that, and I would hope, as I am

going to ask Secretary Richardson this afternoon, at Interior appropriations, to try and prioritize that. He has said that he will come

out and take a look at that himself, as Hazel O’Leary has done,

and a few others have done.

Unfortunately, in the past, they come out for the photo ops, and

then they don’t make a concentrated effort to get the cleanup done.

I think Secretary Richardson, since he is from New Mexico, and is

very keenly aware of the problem in New Mexico and Colorado, will

prioritize it, and I would hope that you would, too. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I will ask some questions at the appropriate time.

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Reid, since I have to leave at 10:15

to finish the budget markup, I started——

Senator REID. I am glad you did.

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. In your absence.

I think both of you know that we are involved in activities in the

Department of Energy that are vitally important and can have significant impacts on the budget of the Department of Energy, be-
271

cause of very expensive programs. I might say in the presence of

Senator Campbell that the one object of cleanup that is going along

with some sense of urgency, and some real goals that are being accomplished, is the Rocky Flats. It is a shining star and we hope it

will stay on track.

We want to fund it and get it done. It seems like at the other

cleanup sites, we are no further ahead today than we were 10

years ago, that is just my editorial comment, but Rocky Flats is

doing very well.

So let us proceed. If you would proceed at this point, we would

be delighted to hear your testimony, Mr. Owendoff.

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. OWENDOFF

Mr. OWENDOFF. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee,

thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the

Department of Energy’s Environmental Management program and

our fiscal year 2000 budget request. I would like to cover several

subjects in my brief oral statement.

First, I will mention some significant progress we have made, as

well as some of the challenges we face. Second, I will describe our

budget request for fiscal year 2000.

PROGRAM GOALS AND PROGRESS

As you know, the Environmental Management program is responsible for managing and cleaning up the environmental legacy

of over 50 years of production of nuclear weapons and government

nuclear energy projects. Cleaning up environmental contamination

is just one part of our program. In addition, we are responsible for

the safety and security of more than 25 metric tons of weapons-useable plutonium, over 2,000 tons of intensively radioactive spent nuclear fuel, and for storing, treating, and disposing millions of cubic

meters of radioactive waste.

Clearly, this is a big job. To bring some closure to this program

we have set a goal of cleaning up as many sites as possible by the

end of 2006. By closing sites early, we reduce the hazards facing

the public and our workers, concentrate our resources on cleaning

up sites, rather than overhead costs necessary to keep a site open,

and thereby lowering the long-term cost to the taxpayers.

We have set very ambitious goals for closing, by the end of 2006,

the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, and the Mound and Fernald sites

in Ohio. Our plans for closing these sites assume a stable funding

stream, but a stable funding stream is not enough. Our ability to

reach these goals will also require the creative use of the facilities

and technical personnel at other sites.

A cooperative strategy of integration across the complex is imperative. Such a strategy requires dedicated efforts by DOE, contractors, regulators, Native Americans, local governments, and other

stakeholders to succeed.

We are making progress toward our goal, as evidenced by some

of the recent accomplishments. When we came before you at this

time last year we had 53 sites requiring active cleanup. During this

past year we reduced that number to 48, and we planned to complete cleanup at six more sites by the end of fiscal year 2000.
272

With the completion of the remaining last two sites last year we

completed surface cleanup at all 22 uranium mill tailings sites, as

well as more than 5,300 contaminated properties in the vicinity of

those sites. We have made real progress in reducing risks and

mortgages at our large sites, where cleanup will continue past

2006.

HANFORD ACTIVITIES

For example, in fiscal year 1998 we completed deactivation of the

N-reactor complex, the last of nine reactors, at the Hanford site,

and the B-plant, a plutonium processing facility at Hanford. In

both cases we reduced annual surveillance and maintenance costs

from $20 million to less than $1 million.

Our past investments in technology development are now making

significant demonstrable contributions. In the past year alone we

demonstrated 40 technologies to reduce risks and/or costs of cleanup projects, and our sites used new technologies in 108 instances.

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT

We have made significant steps toward beginning the operations

at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, where we intend

to dispose of our transuranic waste. In May 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency certified that WIPP met disposal standards, and in June 1998, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board concluded that WIPP could be operated safely.

We expect to begin shipments of non-mixed transuranic waste to

WIPP, assuming pending litigation is favorably resolved. We are

also working with the state to obtain a permit that will allow us

to ship mixed waste.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Turning to our request for fiscal year 2000, we are requesting

$5.7 billion in traditional budget authority, $100 million more than

was appropriated for the current fiscal year. We are also requesting

$228 million in budget authority to support privatization projects.

This budget will support accelerated cleanup and closure, the deployment of new technologies, and progress in treating and disposing of nuclear waste, including shipments to WIPP.

The request also supports closure of Rocky Flats. We have developed a baseline defining the critical path for closing in 2010, and

have identified opportunities to accelerate closure to achieve the

goal of closing the site by the end of 2006.

In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, we have given priority to

our high-risk problems, such as stabilizing and ensuring the security of plutonium, stabilizing high-level waste tanks, and ensuring

the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, including the foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel, with highly enriched uranium,

that we are bringing back to the United States to reduce worldwide

nuclear proliferation risks. We intend to meet our statutory and

regulatory requirements, as well as our obligations under compliance agreements, with state and federal agencies.

We will continue to ensure that our cleanup projects are well

managed and use the taxpayers dollars most efficiently. All of our
273

cleanup work is organized into projects. You can see the projects

and the associated performance measures in our budget request,

which is organized by project, as requested in last year’s appropriations bill.

We are also taking a number of actions to improve our project

management performance. We are conducting external independent

project assessments and enhancing our federal staff capability to

independently review our projects, and we continue to improve our

contracting methods to provide our contractors with the right incentives and penalties for good or poor performance.

In conclusion, our fiscal year 2000 request will enable us to reduce our risks, meet legal obligations, and continue to work toward

our goal of completing as much cleanup as possible by 2006. We

would like to continue to work cooperatively with Congress to meet

these goals.

I also ask for the committee’s consideration of the $53 million reprogramming request that we have submitted for the operation of

the high-level waste tanks for the fiscal year 1999 budget. I want

to apologize for the untimely submission of that request. It was in

no way intended to preclude an appropriate review by the Congress

of that request.

PREPARED STATEMENT

As we indicated to the committee staff, we are also finalizing a

reprogramming request for the Savannah River site in South Carolina and expect to submit that request in the next several weeks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to answer any questions

asked.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES M. OWENDOFF

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity

to appear before you to discuss the Department of Energy’s Environmental Management (EM) program and its fiscal year 2000 budget request.

During this past year, the Department has made a significant amount of progress

both in cleaning up sites and in operating a truly performance-based management

system. Our budget request for fiscal year 2000 provides $5.7 billion in traditional

budget authority, allowing us to continue progress towards our cleanup goals. The

request also includes $228 million in budget authority to support privatization

projects.

The commitments based on this budget will be accelerated cleanup and closure,

deployment of new technologies, and progress in treating and disposing of legacy nuclear waste. We have set very ambitious goals for closing several sites by the year

2006, including the Rocky Flats Site in Colorado, and the Mound and Fernald Sites

in Ohio. We also plan to complete cleanup at the Weldon Spring Site in Missouri,

our sites in California and various other locations by that date. Consequently, we

are eager to continue working with Congress to focus funding on cleaning up and

closing sites.

The EM budget also reflects our expectation that we will begin shipments of

transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) this year and our intent to support and increase shipments in fiscal year 2000. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) certified WIPP for disposal of radioactive waste in May of

1998. We hope to make our first shipments this year if pending litigation is resolved

favorably, a crucial step forward in providing for the permanent disposal of a portion of the Department’s long-lived radioactive waste and the accelerated closure of

sites like Rocky Flats.
274

INTRODUCTION

Before discussing our fiscal year 2000 budget request, I would like to provide an

overview of our program and some of our accomplishments in the past year. We continue to work towards the goal we have established to clean up as many of the remaining contaminated sites as possible by 2006, safely and cost-effectively. Indeed,

when we came before you at this time last year, we had 53 sites requiring active

cleanup. Having completed cleanup at three sites, with transfer of another two sites

to the State of North Dakota at its request, that number is now reduced to 48, and

will decrease by six more sites by the end of fiscal year 2000. By working towards

our goal for accelerated cleanup, we not only reduce the hazards presently facing

our workforce and the public, but also reduce the long-term financial burden on the

taxpayer. For every year that a site remains open because cleanup has not been

completed, we are paying a ‘‘mortgage’’ of overhead costs for activities such as site

security, facility operations, personnel, and safety. The fiscal year 2000 budget request is now fully structured to emphasize site closure and project completion.

A. MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY

The EM program is responsible for managing and cleaning up the environmental

legacy of the nation’s nuclear weapons and government nuclear energy projects. Beginning with World War II, DOE and its predecessor agencies developed the largest

government-owned industry in the United States, responsible for nuclear weapons

research, development, testing, and production as well as a variety of other nuclearrelated research projects. When most nuclear weapons production operations ceased

in 1989, DOE established the Office of Environmental Management to address the

environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production and other nuclear-related programs. Our responsibilities include facilities and sites in 30 states and one territory

which encompass about 2.1 million acres—an area equal to that of Rhode Island and

Delaware combined.

Although EM is often referred to as the ‘‘cleanup program,’’ this term can be misleading if it is interpreted to compare EM’s program to EPA’s Superfund program

or the environmental restoration program at the Department of Defense. In addition

to these ‘‘standard’’ cleanup duties at DOE sites, EM is also responsible for the

world’s largest nuclear stewardship program, which maintains the safety and security of more than 25 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium and over two thousand tons of intensely radioactive spent nuclear fuel, and for carrying out critical

nuclear non-proliferation programs.

Completing the cleanup of the legacy from nuclear weapons production will allow

the Department to focus on its science, security, and energy missions and will fulfill

commitments to communities and, where appropriate, return lands and facilities to

the communities for reuse.

Finally, it is important to note that the nature of much of the waste handled by

DOE is fundamentally different from most chemical waste cleanup programs, since

radioactive waste cannot be broken down into constituent elements, but instead requires isolation from the environment through treatment and/or disposal while it

decays. Because of the frequently long-lived radioactive nature of the 36 million

cubic meters of waste (containing about one billion curies of radioactivity), we can

treat it, stabilize it, contain it, isolate it and monitor it, but we cannot destroy it

with currently available technology.

B. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PROGRESS—CLEANING UP AND CLOSING SITES

I am pleased to report that our program has produced substantial cleanup results

at contaminated nuclear facilities around the country. For example:

Since 1989, we have completed necessary cleanup actions at nearly half (about

4,100) of individual waste sites (known as ‘‘release sites’’) out of a total inventory

of 9,700 release sites.

We completed surface cleanups of all 22 large uranium mill tailings sites as well

as more than 5,300 ‘‘vicinity properties,’’ including elementary schools and homes.

This project included remediation of over 40 million cubic yards of contaminated soil

and material, a volume that would cover a football field with a mound of dirt four

miles high. We are now monitoring low-level ground water contamination at some

mill tailings sites, with active remediation planned at three sites.

We have made significant steps toward beginning transuranic waste disposal operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico—we received certification from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in May 1998 that WIPP

met disposal standards and notification in June 1998 from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board that WIPP can be operated safely.
275

We successfully operated two high-level waste vitrification facilities in South

Carolina and New York, where last year we converted nearly 2,500 cubic meters of

waste into 331 canisters of ‘‘glass logs’’ ready for disposal. The first phase of the

high-level waste vitrification campaign at the West Valley, New York facility was

completed in fiscal year 1998, under budget and ahead of schedule, and we are now

vitrifying the tank heels.

The Department awarded the second part of ‘‘Phase 1’’ of a ‘‘privatization’’ contract, covering the extended design of new facilities for the treatment of a portion

of the high-level waste in the tanks at the Hanford Site in Washington.

We finished connecting community drinking water hookups surrounding

Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. We have sponsored more than 1,500

hookups for off-site residences from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1998 to ensure that residents’ drinking water supply remains unaffected during long-term

ground water cleanup.

In support of non-proliferation goals, we have now completed a total of eight shipments of spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors from fifteen countries, including Chile, South Korea, and Columbia. Seven shipments have been received at

the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and, in fiscal year 1998, the first shipment to the Idaho National Engineering and Environment Laboratory was completed.

We completed ‘‘closure’’ of a second high-level waste tank at the Savannah River

Site in South Carolina. After removing waste, the tank was backfilled using an innovative grout to immobilize residual radionuclides.

We disposed of 30,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 10,000 cubic meters

of mixed low-level waste in fiscal year 1998 alone.

At Rocky Flats, we stabilized or repackaged about 5,000 kilograms of plutoniumbearing residues in fiscal year 1998. In addition, Rocky Flats staff drained acid plutonium liquids from two 2 liquid-piping systems in Building 771 and then removed

the pipes.

We demonstrated 40 alternative technology systems and made 42 systems ready

for implementation with cost and engineering performance information.

Field operations’ use of new technologies that can reduce cleanup cost and schedules is gaining momentum. EM has verified the first-time use of alternative technologies at a site in 108 instances at cleanup projects throughout the DOE complex

in fiscal year 1998.

We continue to use pollution prevention techniques to reduce our overall costs. In

fiscal year 1998 alone, DOE sites completed over 700 pollution prevention projects,

avoiding the generation of 45,000 cubic meters and saving an estimated $155 million.

We continued our financial management improvements: at the end of fiscal year

1998, our uncosted balances were lower than the established benchmark for the

third year in a row.

We are proud of our accomplishments, but also realize that completing our

daunting task will require accelerated cleanup and greater efficiency if we are to

succeed at the level of funding requested in the year fiscal year 2000.

THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUEST REFLECTS THE EVOLUTION OF THE EM PROGRAM

We have been giving priority to high risk problems such as stabilizing and ensuring the security of plutonium, stabilizing tanks containing high-level radioactive

waste, and ensuring the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, including foreign research reactor fuel in support of non-proliferation goals. We are working to accelerate cleanup and reduce ‘‘mortgages,’’ and have aligned our budgeting and management systems to support this goal. We are integrating waste and materials management across the DOE complex to support closure of sites like Rocky Flats and to

improve the efficiency of our operations. We also know that successful cleanup requires investing in developing and deploying more effective technologies; without

successful investments in innovative technologies, the cost and technical challenges

would make long-term success impossible. Finally, we have found that performing

good technical work is not enough. Getting the job done requires cooperation with

regulators and other stakeholders. We have supported effective public participation

through continued relationships with states and site-specific and national advisory

boards, as well as funding for Indian tribes potentially affected by our activities.

The fiscal year 2000 request of $5.7 billion, $100 million more than the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999, reflects our effort to maintain a stable program that

provides sufficient resources to meet our multiple demands of risk reduction, compliance and mortgage reduction.
276

A. MANAGEMENT REFORMS

In last year’s presentation to you, we described a number of changes in the way

EM manages its work to better reflect our focus on completion and closure and to

provide better accountability to program managers, Congress, and our stakeholders.

The reforms begun in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 have now been institutionalized and are more fully integrated across the different components of the program.

1. Taking a Project-Based Approach to Cleanup

The EM program has made great strides over the last several years in organizing

the work that must be accomplished to complete the cleanup of the weapons complex into ‘‘projects.’’ These projects have end-state goals and contain schedules and

life cycle costs for achieving those goals. This ‘‘projectizing’’ of the work has resulted

in increased site ownership and accountability and improved cost-effectiveness in

planning and conducting our work. We recognize, however, that improvements are

needed, for example, in the way the projects are structured and in the underlying

baseline data defining schedules and life-cycle cost to complete each project. We are

actively working to improve the quality of data by implementing a more formal system to control and document changes to the project baselines, and are also pursuing

various strategies to validate the baselines. To determine if these efforts have been

effective, the Secretary has requested that the Office of the Inspector General review some representative projects in July, and report back on additional improvements that may be needed. Through such efforts, we expect to see data quality improve with each subsequent update.

With more than 350 projects of the scope and complexity of those facing EM, it

is critical that we clearly define what we are trying to accomplish, how and when

we are going to accomplish it, and at what cost; and that we are applying sound

project management practices. To improve our project management performance,

EM is developing the capability to conduct in-house independent reviews of projects

to examine their cost, schedule, and technical baseline, as well as other parameters

of good project management. Our reviews use experts within DOE and in external

organizations with nationally-recognized expertise in project management. EM has

conducted independent reviews of three privatization projects—the Hanford Tank

Waste Remediation System, the Oak Ridge Transuranic Waste Treatment project,

and the Carlsbad Transuranic Waste Transportation Project—and a review of alternatives to the In-Tank Precipitation process at the Savannah River Site. In addition, the Office of Field Management has conducted a number of baseline reviews,

as directed by report language accompanying the Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Act of fiscal year 1998. We are using the recommendations from

these reviews to improve the management of our projects.

2. Restructuring the Budget

In fiscal year 1999, we established a new budget structure to align with our goals

of accelerated cleanup and to support project-based management of our work, allowing us to more closely track costs and performance at a project level. The fiscal year

2000 budget request continues that structure, but is now built from the ground up,

one project at a time, with costs, schedules and expectations for performance identified for each project. Congress supported this change to ‘‘projectizing’’ our work in

last year’s budget request and directed EM to prepare its fiscal year 2000 budget

request based on individual projects, an approach we fully support.

The budget and management structure is based on our vision of completing cleanup at as many sites as possible by the year 2006. These accounts—in both the defense and non-defense portions of the budget—are:

—Site Closure Account.—Includes funding for sites for which the EM program has

established a goal of completing its cleanup mission by the end of fiscal year

2006. After EM’s cleanup mission is complete at these sites, no further Departmental mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term surveillance and

maintenance, and the sites will be available for some alternative use;

—Site/Project Completion Account.—Funds cleanup projects anticipated to be

completed by fiscal year 2006 that are located at sites or facilities where a DOE

mission (e.g., weapons research/production or scientific research) will continue

beyond 2006;

—Post 2006 Completion Account.—Funds projects and site cleanup that are too

technically complicated and expensive to be completed by 2006 and includes

treatment of high-level wastes and cleanup of large intensely contaminated

‘‘canyon’’ buildings.
277

3. Measuring—and Managing—Performance

In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act, EM has moved

aggressively to develop and implement a performance-based budget that measures

tangible, on-the-ground accomplishments to demonstrate results for the resources

provided. EM has established Corporate Performance Measures that demonstrate

environmental cleanup progress and provide a balanced approach to assessing effectiveness and efficiency. The fiscal year 2000 budget request provides quantitative

performance goals at the project level for these Corporate Measures. By combining

this project data at the Operations/Field Office level, we have established Management Commitments that are being used to review and evaluate quantitatively performance in the field.

We began developing the current performance measurement system in fiscal year

1994 when EM became a pilot program under the Government Performance and Results Act. We have continually refined the system and have made significant

progress in incorporating the requirements and spirit of the Act into our management system. The measures we have established—quantities of waste disposed, release sites completed, nuclear materials stabilized, facilities deactivated and decommissioned—represent tangible progress, not just paper progress, that link to our

cleanup goals. The performance measurement system is increasingly integrated

from top to bottom—from the EM Program level across the complex to the project

level in the field. The accuracy and consistency of the data have improved from year

to year and, as reliability improves, the determination of the field and the Program

to meet their performance commitments increases as well. We are now working to

improve our life-cycle quantity estimates so that they can be used to set near-term

performance goals.

B. PROGRESS TOWARD COMPLETING CLEANUP

By focusing on completing cleanup at most of our sites by 2006, we expect to substantially reduce life-cycle costs. We have made substantial progress towards this

vision. We are completing site cleanups: in fiscal year 1998, EM completed surface

cleanups at all uranium mill tailings sites with the completion of the last two of

the 22 originally designated sites. EM is scheduled to complete its work at another

three sites in fiscal year 1999, specifically Sandia National Laboratory in California,

Ames Laboratory in Iowa, and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey;

and this fiscal year 2000 budget request provides funds for completion of another

three sites—Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho, the General Atomics site

in California, and the Battelle Columbus-King Avenue site, in Ohio.

We are making progress toward reaching our closure goals at Rocky Flats and

other closure sites. Rocky Flats has defined the critical path for closing in fiscal year

2010 and is now revising this ‘‘baseline’’ to reflect a closure goal of 2006. This fiscal

year 2010 baseline identifies a number of opportunities to accelerate closure and

achieve the fiscal year 2006 goal, such as accelerating off-site shipments of plutonium residues and metals and oxides by two years and decommissioning facilities

more efficiently. The accelerated closure goal is obviously aggressive, and we have

a lot of challenges ahead—including beginning operations at WIPP to allow for the

disposal of Rocky Flats transuranic waste. However, we are committed to making

our best efforts, and the fiscal year 2000 budget request supports the current baseline and activities already identified as necessary to meet the fiscal year 2006 goal.

For example, the fiscal year 2000 request provides for shipments of plutonium-bearing materials to Savannah River Site for temporary storage. It also includes decommissioning of the Building 779 cluster, a former plutonium production facility, by

June 2000, constituting not only an acceleration of the schedule for this specific

project, but also providing an opportunity to examine technologies to accelerate the

overall schedule for decommissioning, useful for other projects at Rocky Flats and

throughout the DOE complex.

We continue on track at the Mound and Fernald sites in Ohio, with a goal of turning over as many of the facilities at the sites as possible to the communities for private use. In fiscal year 1998, for example, the Department executed a sales agreement with the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation for transfer of facilities and structures at the Mound Site, documenting our commitment to

completing work at the site. We are seeing progress at our sites funded from the

Non-Defense account as well: in fiscal year 1998, we completed the primary vitrification campaign of the high-level waste at the West Valley Demonstration Project

ahead of schedule, and have begun the vitrification of high-level waste tank heels

which will continue through fiscal year 2001.

We are also making progress at our larger sites, where cleanup will continue beyond 2006, in completing projects and reducing the mortgage and the ‘‘footprint’’ of
278

the cleanup task. For example, we completed deactivation of N-Reactor in fiscal year

1998, the last of nine production reactors at the Hanford Site in Washington. This

involved the deactivation of 86 facilities and the removal of 33 grouted ‘‘monoliths’’

containing most of N-Reactor’s high-dose materials. Completing the deactivation at

N-Reactor reduced overhead costs of safely maintaining the facility from about $20

million to $500,000 a year. In addition, C-Reactor was placed in safe storage, with

the result that inspection requirements can be reduced from every one to every five

years, and with an annual surveillance and maintenance savings of $190,000.

After completing active cleanup, the Federal Government will be obligated to

maintain some controls at many sites to monitor, maintain, and provide information

on the stabilized and contained residual contamination. These activities are necessary to ensure the continuing integrity of the cleanup and the protection of public

health and safety. Such long-term stewardship will include passive or active controls

and, often, treatment of groundwater over a long period of time. The extent of longterm stewardship required at a particular site will depend on the remedy and resulting end-state developed in consultation among DOE and other representatives

of the Administration, Congress, Tribal Nations, representatives of regulatory agencies including state and local authorities, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and interested members of the public. The Department is committed to

meeting its obligations to provide long-term stewardship of these sites.

Funding for long-term stewardship is managed through various organizations, including (1) the Grand Junction Office, which funds long-term surveillance and maintenance at closed uranium mill tailings sites and several former nuclear weapons

sites, such as the Pinellas Site, as well as closed experimental reactors; (2) the Nevada Operations Office, which funds long-term surveillance and maintenance for

former nuclear explosion sites, located in Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, New Mexico

and Nevada; and (3) individual DOE Operations Offices, where cleanup of some

areas has been completed but other activities continue. We are currently preparing

a study on long-term stewardship, pursuant to the settlement of a lawsuit on the

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (NRDC v. Richardson). We expect

to complete the study by December 2000.

C. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The EM Program has made significant changes in the way our science and technology program conducts its business of providing new or improved cleanup solutions. No longer solely a developer of cleanup technologies, this program has extended its role to provide the full range of science and technology resources and capabilities that are needed to deliver and support fully developed, deployable solutions to DOE’s cleanup and long-term environmental stewardship problems—from

basic research through development, demonstration, deployment and technical assistance. We are also enhancing the membership of our Focus Areas—the teams

that address DOE’s five major environmental problems—to include a lead national

laboratory for each team to complement talent already on the teams. It is our intent

that these teams of the Nation’s best available environmental scientists will serve

as ‘‘centers of expertise’’ to provide the broadened services assumed by this program.

More than 500 site-identified environmental problems need new technological solutions if we are to meet EM cleanup goals. Over 80 percent of these problems are

categorized as high and medium priority. To provide sound advanced planning and

a well executed strategy to ensure we are making the best possible science and technology investments to meet these needs, we have recently developed three complementary products: an EM R&D Program Plan that ‘‘maps’’ investments in solutions to our cleanup needs, a Strategic Plan for the Office of Science and Technology

(OST) to administer these investment plans, and an OST Management Plan that

delineates improved business processes. These new plans provide a fully integrated

approach that ensures our science and technology activities are planned and managed in an interactive, coordinated and participatory relationship with EM cleanup

project managers and stakeholders.

The request of $230.5 million in fiscal year 2000 support science and technology

activities that:

—meet the highest priority cleanup project needs

—reduce the cost of EM’s costliest cleanup projects

—reduce technology risk

—accelerate and increase technology deployment by bridging the gap between development and use

EM’s past investments in science and technology are already making important

cleanup contributions. Let me offer some examples:
279

During fiscal year 1998, innovative technologies made an increasingly important

contribution in cleanup actions at the sites. For instance:

—The Savannah River Site used an improved in-tank grouting process to seal the

second of 24 high-level waste tanks that must be emptied and sealed with grout

to trap the residual waste and strengthen tank integrity.

—The Borehole Miner, which was adapted from the mining industry and uses a

water jet to mobilize waste for pumping, was used at Oak Ridge to remove

sludge and saltcake from underground storage, successfully transferring 95 percent of the waste from five hydrofracture tanks. This technology provides access

to previously inaccessible areas.

We now have several technologies to treat mixed waste, including polymer

macroencapsulation. Waste from over 20 sites has been treated using this process,

where solid waste is encased in a non-leaching plastic monolith suitable for disposal.

We are now able to safely perform tasks in extremely hazardous environments

using remotely operated robotic equipment, such as the ‘‘Houdini vehicle.’’ The Houdini can be inserted through 24-inch openings into radioactive tanks and then

opened into a four-by-five foot mini-bulldozer, complete with a plow blade, manipulator and remote cameras to perform various tasks. The Houdini provides access to

the interior of the tank, which was previously inaccessible.

During fiscal year 1998, 40 technologies that meet needs identified by site personnel were demonstrated. All of these technologies reduce risk and/or costs associated with cleanup or provide technical solutions that did not previously exist. Another 42 alternative technologies were made available for implementation in cleanup projects during fiscal year 1998. Valuable cost and engineering performance data

are available for all of our technologies as they are made available for implementation. Many other new technologies are currently in late stages of development and

will be ready for use in time to contribute to our accelerated cleanup goals.

We are also seeing significant success in moving beneficial technologies out into

the field through the Technology Deployment Initiative (now known as Accelerated

Site Technology Deployment), begun in fiscal year 1998. In fiscal year 1998, we initiated 14 competitively-selected projects, resulting in 13 deployments by the year’s

end, and another 42 projects were selected for possible funding in fiscal year 1999.

In our fiscal year 2000 budget request, deployment assistance activities are an integral part of the work performed by the Focus Areas, rather than a separately budgeted activity.

Our Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP), which is managed in

partnership with DOE’s Office of Science and operates in tandem with the Focus

Areas, is EM’s assurance that basic scientific knowledge is advanced to support the

development of cutting-edge environmental technologies. This program is proving to

be a programmatic and management success for DOE’s cleanup effort. The National

Academy of Sciences has given EMSP high marks, and it was recognized with the

Vice President’s ‘‘Hammer Award’’ in 1998 for the innovative management approaches it is using. Research sponsored by EMSP is providing some significant

technical results. For example, researchers at the University of Washington are genetically engineering a natural soil bacterium with high resistance to radiation into

a natural detoxifier for complex mixed wastes. The efforts may yield an inexpensive,

effective bioremediation of contaminated sites.

In fiscal year 1998, we awarded 33 3-year EMSP grants in two areas to respond

to EM technology needs: decontamination and decommissioning, and high-level radioactive waste. During fiscal year 1999, we have issued Request for Proposals solicitations for vadose zone, subsurface contamination research, and research on the

biological effects of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation.

D. COMPLEX-WIDE INTEGRATION TO SUPPORT CLEANUP

Critical to our success in closing sites and accelerating our work is integrating the

way the Department manages its waste and materials by making the best use of

the unique capabilities at DOE sites to address cleanup problems. This means taking a corporate view of EM’s work and sharing information and resources across

sites. Our integration initiative is seeking to consolidate treatment, storage and disposal facilities where it makes good sense; apply innovative technologies at multiple

sites; eliminate redundant facilities and use available capacity rather than construct

new facilities; and apply lessons-learned and site successes complex-wide.

We have made significant progress in the past year in building the information

base and the institutional structure to support and encourage integration. For example, we now have complex-wide data on waste and material inventories, both current and projected, and on their disposition pathways. Cross-site teams are identifying and evaluating integration opportunities, such as the consolidation of small
280

quantities of transuranic waste currently being stored at small sites such as Battelle

Columbus in Ohio and Energy Technology Engineering Center in California. These

efforts will provide the technical basis and focal point for working with local communities and regulators, as well as within the Department, on integration proposals.

We have several key initiatives to facilitate closure by moving materials to other

sites for interim storage, with requested funds supporting the necessary activities

in both the receiving and the sending sites. For example, the Department has been

consolidating storage of certain special nuclear materials, such as plutonium. Plutonium weapons components from the Rocky Flats Site for example, have been

shipped to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico or to the Pantex

Plant in Texas, an action that is now complete. This consolidation has allowed the

Department to greatly reduce the cost of maintaining security for the remaining plutonium materials at the Rocky Flats Site.

Second, the Department has proposed shipping certain plutonium metals and oxides (non-pit plutonium) from the Rocky Flats Site to the Savannah River Site in

South Carolina. The Savannah River Site is in the process of modifying the K Area

facilities to store this excess plutonium, consistent with a recently issued decision

made in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Third, the Department is seeking to share facilities with comparable capabilities

to avoid duplication in treating and disposing of similar wastes. We have been conducting extensive technical analyses and working with state representatives and

with other stakeholders to address both technical and non-technical issues. In fiscal

year 1999 we expect to make decisions based on the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that will further clarify the number of

low-level and mixed low-level waste treatment and disposal facilities that will be

needed for DOE’s wastes. These decisions are likely to result in some consolidation

of waste disposal as well as development of capabilities that do not currently exist,

capabilities that are needed to support closure of sites.

Finally, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico provides one of the

most compelling examples of shipping nuclear waste to greatly reduce costs and

risks. Currently a large amount of transuranic waste is being stored at about two

dozen sites around the United States. In many cases, this waste has been stored

for decades with no place to go for disposal. Beginning disposal operations at WIPP

will allow the Department to reduce the number of sites where this type of waste

is stored and is critical to the closure of sites such as Rocky Flats, where the site

cannot be cleaned up and closed unless the transuranic waste is disposed of. We

have made significant steps toward beginning disposal operations, but still need to

resolve outstanding litigation and permitting issues so that disposal operations can

begin. Our ability to meet waste management commitments in other states—most

notably in Idaho and Colorado—is dependent on beginning operations.

CONCLUSION

The EM program has a vision for completing cleanup at most sites by 2006. Focusing on this goal will not only accelerate risk reduction, but will result in substantial cost reductions that can be applied to cleanup at other sites. Realizing this vision will require a sustained national commitment. We understand that this is attainable only with an enormous amount of work and with the Department working

cooperatively with Congress.

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET

The total fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Program is $5.7 billion in traditional budget authority and

$228 million of privatization funding. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation will fund

cleanup at sites in twenty-two states across the Nation. Five sites receive two-thirds

of Environmental Management funding—Savannah River Site in South Carolina,

Hanford Site in Washington, Rocky Flats in Colorado, Idaho National Engineering

and Environment Laboratory in Idaho, and Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.

This section describes progress and highlights from the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the major Environmental Management sites and other selected sites.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize our fiscal year 2000 request, organized by the five primary appropriation accounts and by Operations/Field Office and Site, respectively.

Our fiscal year 2000 budget proposal provides details on each project, including

performance measures, which we use to hold managers accountable, and expect to

be held accountable by Congress. We would like to summarize the budget request

and some major activities for several sites:
281

1. Savannah River Site, South Carolina;

2. Hanford, Washington;

3. Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado;

4. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho;

5. Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee;

6. Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio;

7. Waste Isolation Pilot Project, New Mexico;

8. Los Alamos, New Mexico;

9. West Valley Demonstration Project, New York;

10. Wiamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound Site);

11. Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project, Missouri;

12. Nevada Test Site, Nevada;

13. Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York;

14. California Sites.

TABLE 1.—ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST 1

[Dollars in thousands]

Program Account

Defense

Facilities

Closure

Defense EM

Def. EM

PrivatizationNon-Def EM UE D&D

Fund Total

Site Closure .............................................. $1,054,492 .................... ................ $211,146 ................ $1,265,638

Site/Project Completion ............................ .................... $980,919 ................ 100,866 ................ 1,081,785

Post 2006 Completion .............................. .................... 2,513,548 ................ 18,922 ................ 2,532,470

UE D&D Fund ........................................... .................... .................... ................ ................ $240,198 240,198

Program Direction ..................................... .................... 349,409 ................ ................ ................ 349,409

Science & Technology ............................... .................... 230,500 ................ ................ ................ 230,500

Subtotal, Traditional Budget Authority ..................................... 1,054,492 4,074,376 ................ 330,934 240,198 5,700,000

Privatization .............................................. .................... .................... $228,000 ................ ................ 228,000

Total EM request ......................... 1,054,492 4,074,376 228,000 330,934 240,198 5,928,000

1 Does not include $420,000 payment to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, requested in the Defense

appropriation, Post-2006 Completion account.

TABLE 2.—ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST—FUNDING BY

SITE

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

1998

appropriation

total

1999

appropriation

total

2000 congressional

request total

Albuquerque operations office:

Albuquerque Operations Office .............................................. 18,120 8,080 5,550

Grand Junction ....................................................................... 14,015 7,163 8,500

Kansas City Plant ................................................................... 3,513 1,756 1,100

Los Alamos Nat. Lab. ............................................................. 131,315 81,574 110,834

Lovelace-BERI ......................................................................... 789 478 481

Maxey Flats ............................................................................. 8,000 1,200 1,200

Monticello ............................................................................... 25,558 34,250 22,000

Pantex Plant ........................................................................... 23,243 11,299 15,000

Pinellas ................................................................................... 2,318 2,797 5,500

Sandia National Laboratory .................................................... 48,368 27,260 19,435

UMTRA Ground Water Sites .................................................... 5,559 5,902 13,000

UMTRA Surface Sites .............................................................. 35,936 20,782 ..................

Subtotal .............................................................................. 316,734 202,541 202,600

Carlsbad area office: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant .......................... 173,700 185,404 186,404

Chicago operations office:

Ames Laboratory ..................................................................... 363 306 260
282

TABLE 2.—ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST—FUNDING BY

SITE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

1998

appropriation

total

1999

appropriation

total

2000 congressional

request total

Argonne Nat. Lab.—East ....................................................... 15,921 18,170 19,761

Argonne Nat. Lab.—West ...................................................... 3,630 1,142 809

Brookhaven National Lab. ...................................................... 26,137 30,001 29,553

Chicago Operations ................................................................ 435 1,101 644

Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. .............................................. 3,290 3,343 3,073

Subtotal .............................................................................. 49,776 54,063 54,100

Idaho operations office: INEEL ........................................................ 415,556 435,642 409,422

Nevada operations office:

Amchitka ................................................................................. 848 765 592

Central NTS/Project Shoal ...................................................... 1,858 4,160 4,969

Gasbuggy/Gnome Coach ......................................................... 235 66 278

Nevada Test Site .................................................................... 64,985 73,045 76,673

Rio Blanco/Rulison ................................................................. 160 75 2,669

Salmon Site ............................................................................ 832 1,970 126

Subtotal .............................................................................. 68,918 80,081 85,307

Ohio field office:

Ashtabula ............................................................................... 14,637 15,405 15,405

Columbus ................................................................................ 12,567 12,125 16,134

Fernald .................................................................................... 258,700 274,002 280,589

Miamisburg ............................................................................. 86,622 88,949 93,353

Ohio Field Office ..................................................................... ................... 94 94

West Valley ............................................................................. 113,746 107,353 107,353

Subtotal .............................................................................. 486,272 497,928 512,928

Oakland operations office:

Energy Technology Engineering Center .................................. 17,625 16,494 17,398

General Atomics ..................................................................... 4,280 2,030 1,100

General Electric ...................................................................... ................... 313 500

Lab. for Energy-Related Health .............................................. 6,802 4,389 3,863

Lawrence Berkeley Nat. Lab. .................................................. 9,265 10,668 11,098

Lawrence Livermore Lab. ........................................................ 54,210 49,214 49,891

Oakland Operations Office ..................................................... 2,279 2,700 1,100

Separations Process Res. Unit ............................................... ................... ................... 500

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center ........................................ 1,006 1,000 1,400

Subtotal .............................................................................. 95,467 86,808 86,850

Oak Ridge operations office:

Oak Ridge National Lab. ........................................................ 49,439 59,677 57,805

Oak Ridge Offsites ................................................................. 53,131 22,516 23,839

Oak Ridge Operations Office .................................................. 5,027 8,809 10,930

Oak Ridge Reservation ........................................................... 290,340 275,957 310,987

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant ......................................... 39,582 35,983 37,500

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant ..................................... 43,053 35,119 37,500

Weldon Spring 1 ...................................................................... 66,686 63,500 52,000

Subtotal .............................................................................. 547,258 501,561 530,561

Rocky Flats field office:

Rocky Flats Environmental Tech Site ..................................... 611,303 638,397 637,132
283

TABLE 2.—ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST—FUNDING BY

SITE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

1998

appropriation

total

1999

appropriation

total

2000 congressional

request total

Rocky Flats Field Office ......................................................... 20,797 18,803 20,078

Subtotal .............................................................................. 632,100 657,200 657,210

Richland operations office:

Hanford ................................................................................... 906,861 953,001 1,028,280

Richland Operations Office .................................................... 44,536 45,491 36,831

Subtotal .............................................................................. 951,397 998,492 1,065,111

Savannah River operations office:

Savannah River Ops Office .................................................... 28,117 33,157 30,280

Savannah River Site ............................................................... 1,099,806 1,181,789 1,192,220

Subtotal .............................................................................. 1,127,923 1,214,946 1,222,500

Other:

Multi-Site Programs ............................................................... 113,053 85,542 77,098

Program Direction ................................................................... 345,000 337,073 349,409

Science & Technology ............................................................. 269,213 243,156 230,500

Ur/Th Reimbursement ............................................................. 40,000 30,000 30,000

Subtotal .............................................................................. 767,266 695,771 687,007

EM Subtotal: 5,632,367 5,610,437 5,700,000

FFTF (trans to NE in fiscal year 1999) .................... 41,727 ................... ..................

Y2K Supplemental Appropriation .............................. ................... 13,840 ..................

Use of Uncosted Balances ........................................ (11,253) (20,658) ..................

Total, traditional budget authority .................................... 5,662,841 5,603,619 5,700,000

Privatization .............................................................. 200,000 228,357 228,000

EM total ............................................................................. 5,862,841 5,831,976 5,928,000

1 It is the intent of the Environmental Management Program to fund the Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project at

a program level of $63.5 million. The Program will work to identify sources for this important activity.

Savannah River Site, South Carolina Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense, Site/Project Completion ................................................................... $397,636

Defense, Post-2006 ........................................................................................... 824,864

Total ....................................................................................................... 1,222,500

The Savannah River Site continues its work to stabilize legacy nuclear materials

and spent fuel from both the Savannah River Site and other sites across the complex, including plutonium residues and other plutonium-bearing materials from the

Rocky Flats Site in Colorado. This work is critical both in resolving health and safety concerns about these radioactive materials, now in liquid or unstable forms unsuitable for long-term storage, and in supporting closure goals at Rocky Flats. In

July 1997, the Secretary approved the operation of both the F-Canyon and H-Canyon, for the stabilization of ‘‘at-risk’’ nuclear materials. By the end of fiscal year

1998, these canyons had stabilized 3,500 gallon of Pu-242 solutions, 80,000 gallons

of Pu-239 solutions, 16,000 corroding targets, and 144 canisters of failed or declad

spent nuclear fuel. We expect to complete activities in the F-Canyon by fiscal year

2002 and in the H-Canyon in fiscal year 2005.

We are not requesting funding for the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility

(APSF) in fiscal year 2000. In light of the recent decision by the Department identifying Savannah River Site as the preferred location for new missions related to ex-
284

cess plutonium disposition, we have decided to temporarily suspend work on this facility until we can reevaluate the facility’s overall requirements to ensure, for example, that the facility is properly sized and integrated with other facilities, given

these new missions. We are, however, continuing modification of facilities in the KArea and, pending completion of the appropriate NEPA analysis, will be ready to

receive surplus plutonium-bearing materials from Rocky Flats in January 2000, supporting the accelerated closure of that site.

Much of the EM work at the Savannah River Site that will be completed after

fiscal year 2006 involves management of approximately 34 million gallons of highlevel waste in tanks, including vitrifying waste for final disposal and removing

waste from storage tanks so the tanks can be closed. While this is a long-term

project, we have made significant progress. In fiscal year 1998, the Savannah River

Site workers closed another storage tank in the tank farm, removing waste and

backfilling with grout, and produced 250 canisters of vitrified waste in the Defense

Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), 50 canisters above their fiscal year 1998 target

goal. As of first of March, we had a total of 588 canisters of vitrified waste in storage, or 11 percent of the total amount that needs to be produced.

Our goal for production of canisters in fiscal year 2000, however, is lower. The

budget request supports production of only 100 canisters at DWPF, primarily because of the need to devote resources to developing an alternative to the In-Tank

Precipitation (ITP) facility that was to pre-treat certain wastes. ITP operations were

terminated in January 1998 because we were unable to successfully pre-treat the

waste and limit the levels of benzene generation in the tanks to a safe and manageable levels. We undertook a systems engineering analysis to evaluate all possible

alternatives, which was reviewed by a panel of independent experts. Based on the

review, we are pursuing three options, with a final selection of a technical approach

expected in late fiscal year 2000.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request continues support for receipt and storage at

the Savannah River Site of spent nuclear fuel from domestic and foreign research

reactors in support of national and international non-proliferation goals. In fiscal

year 2000, we expected to receive 67 casks of spent nuclear fuel from foreign and

domestic sources and safely store them at the Savannah River Site’s basins. We will

also continue to treat and reduce our legacy of mixed and low-level waste at the

site through continued operation of the Consolidated Incinerator Facility.

We will also continue the cleanup of contaminated release sites and contaminated

ground water plumes at the Savannah River Site. In fiscal year 2000, we will complete remediation of six release sites and operate eight ground water remediation

systems.

Finally, scientists and engineers at the Savannah River Site have been collaborating to develop a cost-effective path forward for some of the spent fuel through

research and development of new technologies. This work is helping to address one

of our most daunting problems: how to manage spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear

materials without chemical separations. Our investments in the Alternative Technology Program has shown progress. An Environmental Impact Statement identifying the ‘‘melt-and-dilute’’ process as the preferred alternative to prepare aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel for geologic disposal was issued in December 1998,

and a final decision is expected in April 1999. The fiscal year 2000 budget contains

funds for the design of a new facility to implement this treatment process. As other

countries begin to address similar problems, these new U.S.-born technologies will

be available to help.

Hanford Site, Washington Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense, Site/Project Completion ................................................................... $376,296

Defense, Post-2006 ........................................................................................... 687,397

Non-defense, Site/Project Completion ............................................................ 1,418

Defense, Privatization ..................................................................................... 106,000

Total ....................................................................................................... 1,171,111

The Hanford Site in Washington remains perhaps our greatest cleanup challenge.

Originally carved out of 560-square mile site in a broad curve in the Columbia River

during World War II, the Hanford site is home to the largest variety of environmental hazards in the former nuclear weapons complex, including large amounts of

spent nuclear fuel, unstable weapons-grade plutonium, 177 underground high level

radioactive waste tanks, and more than a hundred square miles of contaminated

ground water. It is important not to lose site of the successes and accomplishments

that have occurred despite the serious remaining challenges. We believe that our
285

fiscal year 2000 budget request for Hanford addresses the requirements for continued cleanup progress. The Hanford budget is requested largely (65 percent) through

the Post-2006 Completion Account and the Project/Site Completion Account (35 percent).

One of the extraordinary success stories at Hanford during the past year was the

success deactivation of the N-reactor complex, resulting in an annual mortgage cost

reduction from $20 million to $500,000. This required:

—deactivation of 86 facilities in the N-reactor area;

—removal and treatment of more than a million gallons of contaminated water;

—removal of nearly 5,000 cubic feet of contaminated sediment; and

—retrieval and repackaging of 350 pounds of fuel fragments.

The reactor complex is now in a low-cost ‘‘surveillance and maintenance’’ mode,

pending final disposition, perhaps decades from now.

In fiscal year 1998, we also completed the deactivation of the B Plant, one of Hanford’s original World War II plutonium processing facilities, 4 years ahead of schedule and $100 million under budget. The deactivation reduced surveillance and maintenance costs at the Plant from $20 million to less than $1 million a year. Deactivation involved the disposal of 45,000 gallons of bulk hazardous chemicals, the transfer of 23,000 gallon of neutralized acid waste to the tank farms, and the removal

and disposal of 10,000 ft3 of radioactive waste and equipment. The B plant deactivation also required the successful decoupling of the adjoining Waste Encapsulation

and Storage Facility (WESF), which shared operating systems with B Plant. WESF

stores highly radioactive cesium and strontium capsules and must continue to operate until the capsules can be dispositioned.

The 177 underground tanks storing over 54 million gallons of highly radioactive

waste remains one of the biggest challenges at the Hanford site. We have made significant progress in reducing the hazard of leaks from single-shelled tanks: to date,

we have stabilized 64 tanks that have or are suspected of leaking by transferring

free liquids to non-leaking double shelled tanks. Only three ‘‘potential leakers’’ remain to be stabilized, which will be completed following a mutually-agreed upon

schedule negotiated with the State in fiscal year 1999.

The Department is pursuing a privatization approach for obtaining treatment for

the tank waste which, in Phase I, would provide treatment for at least 10 percent

of the waste and 20 to 25 percent of the radioactivity in the tanks. In August 1998,

we signed a contract with BNFL, Inc. that allowed for an initial 24-month period

to enable the contractor to develop more of the design for the treatment facility and

to obtain financing and submit a fixed price bid. In fiscal year 2000, the Department

will decide whether to authorize BNFL to proceed to construction and operation,

based on an evaluation of whether the proposal represents the best value for the

taxpayer.

Following Congressional direction in the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, the Department has established the Office of

River Protection which will manage all aspects of our efforts to store, retrieve, treat,

immobilize, and dispose of the high level waste from the tank farms. The Department has prepared an Integrated Management Plan, provided to Congress in January 1999, which includes 27 new positions out of total of 109 positions that will staff

the Office. The 27 positions have been advertised. In addition, we are proceeding

expeditiously with the appointment of a manager for the Office of River Protection.

We are continuing to dispose of contaminated soil and debris from environmental

restoration operations at Hanford in the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF). Since opening two year ago, the Department has disposed of more than

a million cubic meters of waste in the ERDF.

We recently restarted stabilization operations for surplus plutonium stored in the

Plutonium Finishing Plant. This is a critical step in the deactivation of the Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will substantially reduce risk and mortgage costs at

Hanford.

The Department also completed ‘‘cocooning’’ the C-reactor, one of the eight original reactor along the Columbia River. By deactivating and stabilizing the reactors

in this manner, the department will be able to maintain the reactor in a safe and

low cost status until final disposition is performed in 75 years.

Despite some setbacks, we are moving forward with the long-term goal of cleaning

up the Hanford site and making it available for community reuse or conservation

based on a community involvement process appropriate to the large scale of the operation. For example, we are now evaluating issues associated with transferring the

Wahluke Slope along the Columbia River in a manner that is protective of the river

and responsive to community needs.

Our fiscal year 2000 budget request supports a number of commitments, including:
286

—A total of 14 waste site remediations are scheduled for completion in the 100

Area, and 2 more in the 300 Area, with 228,252 m3 (302,366 tons) of soil removed, in addition to the completion of backfill of 10 waste sites.

—Complete closure of cells 1 and 2 in Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. Additionally 142,181 m3 (314,400 tons) of soil will be disposed.

—Implement Integrated Groundwater/Vadose Zone science and technology roadmap to support site assessment and remediation and system assessment capability development.

—Waste Management activities include preparing about 130 m3 of transuranic

waste for shipment to WIPP; initiating disposal of about 2,500 m3 of mixed lowlevel waste; disposing of 3,800 m3 of low-level waste; and reducing about one

million gallons of liquids in the high level waste tanks through the Evaporator.

—Complete fuel retrieval, drying, transport and storage system testing to support

commencement of fuel removal from the K-West basin in early fiscal year 2001.

—Continue stabilization of 160 liters of plutonium bearing solutions, and about

238 containers of plutonium metals and oxides. Commence stabilization of about

600 kilograms of plutonium bearing residues and plutonium bearing polycube

materials.

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense Site Closure ....................................................................................... $657,210

Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the Defense Closure Account request supports

accelerated cleanup at the Rocky Flats Site, a facility located 16 miles northwest

of Denver, Colorado. The site was used to shape plutonium and uranium weapons

components and for other defense-related production work. The cleanup poses significant challenges because of the large amounts of plutonium and other compounds

remaining in tanks and production lines in facilities, the significant volumes of hazardous and radioactive wastes stored throughout the site, and widespread contamination of soils, sediments, and groundwater.

The Rocky Flats Site is one of the featured prototypes, and certainly the largest

site, for our goal of accelerating site cleanup and closure by 2006. There are many

challenges facing this project, but we are confident that by remaining focused on our

goal we can produce substantial savings and provide dramatic risk reduction sooner

then previously expected. Our current baseline is to complete cleanup and closure

by 2010. The General Accounting Office is now assessing the status and obstacles

to accelerated closure and is expected to report its results this Spring. The site contractor is still developing its baseline for accelerated closure. The accelerated closure

baseline will be submitted to DOE in May 1999, and DOE is expected to complete

its validation of the baseline in December 1999. Based on that revised and validated

baseline, we expect to be able to describe in detail what is required to close the site

by 2006 and provide our level of confidence in our ability to close by 2006. Whatever

the result, we have clearly come a long way since the previous contractor estimated

a few years ago that it would take $30 billion and 30 years to complete cleanup at

Rocky Flats.

The key ingredient for closing Rocky Flats is being able to move nuclear materials

and waste off of the site. Making progress in this critical area requires not only preparing the materials and waste for shipment, but also making sure that the receiving sites are ready. For example, there are approximately 40,000 kilograms of plutonium residues that need to be packaged and sent to WIPP. We are currently modifying a facility to provide temporary storage. However, unless WIPP opens soon, we

will need to provide further alternative storage for those residues; the fiscal year

2000 budget request for Rocky Flats does not include funds to construct such a storage facility. In sum, there are six sites in six states to which we need to ship waste

and materials from Rocky Flats. In some cases we have already begun shipments,

such as the dozens of truckloads of waste that have been already been shipped to

Envirocare in Utah.

The Department has clearly made enormous progress both in reducing risks at

the site, and in greatly improving our management plans for cleanup and closure.

Approximately 5 metric tons of plutonium residues were stabilized and/or repackaged in fiscal year 1998, and we expect to stabilize or repackage 32 metric tons in

fiscal year 1999. By the end of fiscal year 1999, all pits and weapons-grade uranium

will be shipped from Rocky Flats to other receiver sites, and about 99 percent of

the residues are projected to be ready for shipment to WIPP or to Savannah River

Site. We are making progress on demolishing buildings at Rocky Flats, not only reducing risks but also reducing mortgage costs required to maintain those excess

buildings: all remaining glove boxes will be removed from Building 779 by the end
287

of fiscal year 1999, and Building 729—part of the Building 779 cluster—will be completely demolished.

The fiscal year 1999 appropriation and fiscal year 2000 budget request for Rocky

Flats ($657 million each year) fund the activities we have already identified as necessary for accelerated closure. If our fiscal year 2000 request for Rocky Flats is fully

funded, we are committed to producing the following results:

—Demolishing the B–779 cluster of buildings, the first plutonium operations

buildings in the world decontaminated and turned to rubble.

—Ship more than 14,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste off site for disposal.

—Process more than 60 metric tons of plutonium residues preparing for safe disposition.

—Bring on-line a new plutonium packaging system and package 500 cans of plutonium.

—Ship plutonium metals and oxides to the K-Area at the Savannah River Site

beginning in January 2000, pending completion of NEPA requirements.

The progress at Rocky Flats is also demonstrating the success of the Department’s

performance-based, integrating contractor strategy. Because award fees are based

on meeting specific performance and safety goals, the contractor has a strong incentive to make progress on cleanup.

We understand the importance of continuing to seek ways to accelerate cleanup

at Rocky Flats to reduce risk and long-term costs. We also understand the vital role

of accelerated site closure to the community where commercial and residential development along the Denver-Boulder corridor has reached nearly to the fence line

of Rocky Flats.

Idaho National Engineering and Environment Laboratory, Idaho Fiscal Year 2000

Request

[In thousands]

Defense, Site/Project Completion ................................................................... $108,961

Defense, Post-2006 ........................................................................................... 291,253

Non-defense, Site/Project Completion ............................................................ 9,208

Defense, Privatization ..................................................................................... 115,000

Total ....................................................................................................... 524,422

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) supports the receipt and safe interim storage of

spent nuclear fuel, including Navy fuel and domestic and foreign research fuel; the

storage and treatment of high level waste in 11 underground tanks; the cleanup of

43 ‘‘release sites’’, or contaminated areas, and 11 surplus facilities; and the management of legacy waste, including transuranic waste to be shipped to WIPP. Many of

the critical activities at the site are subject to the Settlement Agreement signed

with the Governor of Idaho in 1995, which would result in the suspension of shipments of spent nuclear fuel to INEEL if milestones are not met.

One of the most complex challenges at INEEL is the remediation of buried

wastes, such as remediation of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex, of

which the Pit 9 site, a burial pit containing about 250,000 cubic feet of radioactive

waste, is a part. The Pit 9 project is now being conducted by the Management and

Operating (M&O) contractor under an alternative approach supported by the state

and EPA regulators following termination of the previous subcontractor. We began

stage 1, the subsurface investigation, in October 1998, and have met all regulatory

milestones to date. The Pit 9 cleanup was one of our first attempts at fixed-price

contracting for a large and technically complex project, and both the Department

and the contractor learned hard lessons from the experience. We are applying those

lessons in other projects at the site and across the DOE complex.

INEEL plays a key role in providing safe storage and management of spent nuclear fuel, in support of the Administration’s non-proliferation goals. INEEL received its first shipment of foreign research reactor fuel in fiscal year 1998 and will

continue to receive shipments in fiscal year 1999 and 2000. INEEL is actively improving storage conditions at the site, transferring fuel from wet to dry storage, or

from aging facilities to modern, state-of-the-art facilities. For example, we are storing spent nuclear fuel and core debris from the Three Mile Island incident at the

INEEL Test Area North and will begin moving the fuel from wet storage into dry

storage at the end of this month. The Department has issued a request-for-proposal

in a privatization initiative to procure a new facility for dry storage of other fuel,

which will be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The fiscal year 2000

budget request includes $5 million for this project in the privatization account.
288

A significant portion of the INEEL budget request supports the management of

high level waste. INEEL has about 1.4 million gallons of liquid sodium-bearing

waste stored in 11 underground tanks, and about 135,000 cubic feet of calcined

waste in temporary storage. In the near-term, we will continue to calcine the liquid,

a process that converts the liquid waste into dry, granular material resembling

laundry detergent; calcined waste is easier to store and is greatly reduced in volume. However, the calcining facility will be placed in standby mode on April 30,

1999, as required by the State, until an environmentally safe and economic path forward for the liquid and calcined waste can be identified. Development of an Environmental Impact Statement for the high-level waste alternatives is underway and

expected to be finalized in fiscal year 2000.

We continue our efforts to characterize and prepare transuranic waste for shipment to WIPP and to develop the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, a privatization project that will provide treatment for transuranic and alpha mixed lowlevel waste (waste that contains long-lived radionuclides at levels below those of

transuranic waste). We are, however, in jeopardy of missing a milestone in the Settlement Agreement that requires that we initiate shipment of INEEL transuranic

waste out of Idaho by April 30, 1999, because of the delay in opening WIPP. The

Department considers compliance with the Agreement a top priority and is working

to resolve this issue.

INEEL now operates under the sponsorship of the EM program. As part of the

long-range effort both to further the development of and capitalize on INEEL’s core

competencies, INEEL leads a major integration effort that uses a systems engineering approach to refine EM waste, spent nuclear fuel, and nuclear disposition baselines. The EM integration initiative evaluates cross-site and cross-program opportunities for efficiencies and cost reductions to streamline cleanup.

Finally, the M&O contract for INEEL expires at the end of September of this

year. Contract proposals are due in this month and the contract will be awarded

in June 1999, providing for a three-month transition period. The current contractor,

Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, has decided not to compete for the

contract, so there will be a new contractor at the site in October. We will work to

ensure a smooth transition that maintains continuity of the projects and schedules.

Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense, Post-2006 ........................................................................................... $264,561

Non-defense, Post-2006 ................................................................................... 3,802

UE D&D Fund ................................................................................................. 135,198

Defense, Privatization ..................................................................................... 32,000

Total ....................................................................................................... 435,561

The Oak Ridge Reservation is comprised of three facilities—the Y–12 Plant, the

East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (formerly the K–25 uranium enrichment

facility), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Funding for almost all environmental management activities at Oak Ridge is included in the Defense, Post2006 Completion Account, with funding for the cleanup of ETTP coming from both

this account and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

Fund. In the fiscal year 2000, we are requesting that funding for some projects previously funded in the Non-Defense Account be provided in the Defense Account. We

believe that consolidating funding under one account will provide more managerial

integrity and may reduce indirect and overhead charges compared to funding these

projects from multiple accounts.

The Department continues its efforts to reindustrialize facilities in Oak Ridge,

particularly at ETTP. The primary goal is to clean up ETTP as quickly and as safely

as possible so that the presence of DOE and its contractors can essentially end, and

the site can be reborn as an industrial park. As of November 1998, about 790,000

cubic feet of space has been leased to 43 private companies. In some cases, the Department has conducted cleanup of the building and, in other cases, the private

company is undertaking the cleanup. Overall, we estimate $179 million in savings

in life-cycle costs the Department would otherwise have to spend cleaning up or

maintaining these surplus facilities. The Department is now in the process of developing a consistent DOE-wide policy for assuring that the health and safety of private industry workers at ETTP and other leased facilities are protected. In this way

we will be better able to move ahead with more confidence in our path forward for

this important program.

The fiscal year 2000 request continues support for the decommissioning of the

Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at ORNL. This experimental nuclear reactor was
289

designed to use a fuel of highly-reactive uranium–233 blended with a molten salt

coolant. After 41⁄2 years of operation, the reactor was shut down in December 1969.

The EM program has begun to make substantial progress, with input from the National Academy of Sciences, in stabilizing this reactor. For example, the EM program has installed and continues operation of a system to remove reactive gases

from the reactor tanks until the fuel salt can be removed. In fiscal year 2000, we

plan to complete fabrication and testing of the uranium conversion equipment and

complete planning and design of the fuel salt removal process.

We have completed cleanup of the fourth of eight highly radioactive waste storage

tanks, called the ‘‘Gunite Tanks,’’ at ORNL and have started work on the next tank,

expected to be completed six months ahead of schedule. The tanks were built in

1943 and were used for waste from chemical separations (reprocessing) operations

until the late 1970’s. The tanks vary in size, with some having a capacity of 170,000

gallons (approximately the size of a 4-bedroom house). The estimated cost of the

project is now $80 million, less than half the original estimate of $200 million. A

key factor in the accelerated schedule has been the development of a variety of remote technologies, such as the ‘‘Houdini’’ vehicle and a robotic arm that provide access to the tank interior, which have allowed work to proceed on two tanks simultaneously, rather than sequentially as initially planned.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) incinerator at Oak Ridge, permitted by

the State to treat mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and by EPA to treat PCB-contaminated

wastes regulated under TSCA, offers unique capability within the DOE system. In

addition to treating wastes generated by Oak Ridge facilities, the TSCA incinerator

has also been used to treat wastes from other sites in the DOE complex, providing

a cost-effective and integrated approach to managing these wastes. However, in February 1998 and again in February 1999, the Governor of Tennessee rejected the annual burn plans for the incinerator proposed by the Department, shutting off use

of the incinerator for wastes generated at DOE sites other than those managed by

the Oak Ridge Operations Office. The Governor cited equity concerns, including the

lack of DOE sites available for disposal of waste from Oak Ridge and the adequacy

of funding levels for environmental management at Oak Ridge, as well as the overall commitment of the Federal Government to the Oak Ridge site. The Department

has assured the State leaders of our firm commitment to the site and is working

to resolve State concerns.

Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense Site Closure ....................................................................................... $280,589

The cleanup activities at Fernald Environmental Management Project account for

more than $280 million, or 27 percent of the funding in the Defense Site Closure

Account. The Fernald te, encompassing approximately 1,050 acres near Cincinnati,

produced uranium for nuclear weapons from 1951 to the end of Cold War in 1989.

Nearly forty years of uranium production for nuclear weapons left the Fernald Site

with soil and groundwater contamination, a large backlog of wastes, including some

unstable liquids, as well as stored nuclear materials such as depleted and enriched

uranium. Several years of cleanup progress have included stabilization of liquid uranium solutions, off-site shipment of low-level waste, and deactivation, decontamination and demolition of several large industrial buildings at Fernald. The current

baseline calls for cleanup to be completed by fiscal year 2008, but the Department

is seeking enhanced efficiencies to complete work by fiscal year 2006. Groundwater

remediation and long-term institutional controls will be necessary after active cleanup is completed.

Last year we reported to you that we were beginning to dispose of waste in an

on-site disposal cell. Site personnel realized that such a disposal cell would be required for some waste to keep disposal costs attainable, and the community realized

constructing it at the Fernald site would be more equitable than demanding that

all wastes be disposed of off-site in other states. I am pleased to report that we are

successfully filling the first and second section of this disposal cell. We are now constructing a liner for section three. The availability of this on-site disposal cell is enabling us to accelerate disposal of contaminated soil and debris resulting from cleanup and building demolition.

We also reported last year that we were expecting to begin excavating, treating,

and shipping radioactive residue from the Waste Pits to an off-site disposal facility.

We began excavation and loading of that material into railcars in February of this

year and expect to begin shipments by rail for disposal in the April/May time frame.
290

Finally, Fernald personnel have continued the process of razing deactivated and

decontaminated industrial buildings. They completed demolition of 5 of the 11 major

facility complexes (Plants 1, 4, 7, 9 and the Boiler Plant), resulting in outyear reductions in mortgage and landlord costs.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense, Post 2006 Completion ...................................................................... $186,404

The Department is requesting funding at essentially the same funding level as appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New

Mexico.

Opening and operating WIPP is a key element of the Department’s strategy to

provide for the permanent disposal of a portion of the Department’s stored longlived radioactive waste. Currently a large amount of transuranic waste (more than

100,000 cubic meters) is being stored at more than two dozen sites around the

United States. In many cases, this waste has been stored for decades. By shipping

this waste to WIPP for disposal, the Department will be able to reduce the number

of sites where this type of waste is stored, reducing the costs of storing this waste

and the long-term risks to the public and the environment. Opening WIPP for disposal is critical to the closure of sites such as Rocky Flats, where the site cleanup

plan relies on disposal of the transuranic waste.

Many of the schedules and requirements in the Federal Facility Compliance Act

orders between the States or EPA, and DOE at the transuranic waste sites (e.g.,

INEEL and Rocky Flats) are based on the assumption that WIPP will open and

begin accepting waste in the immediate future. In May of 1998, EPA certified WIPP

for disposal of radioactive waste, and the Department declared WIPP ready to begin

operations. We hope to make our first shipments this year, if pending litigation is

resolved favorably. The Department is developing the necessary transportation capacity to move transuranic waste from sites where it is stored to WIPP to meet compliance agreement requirements. The Department continues to do everything possible to open WIPP and meet its legal obligations. The fiscal year 2000 budget will

allow WIPP to continue disposal operations. The Department expects to ramp up the

receipt rate of contact-handled transuranic waste shipments to 14 shipments per

week by the end of fiscal year 2000 and to 17 shipments by December 31, 2000.

The WIPP program also funds a variety of institutional programs that provide

economic assistance and operational oversight for affected governments and stakeholder groups. The funding request for fiscal year 2000 includes $20.9 million for

New Mexico Impact Assistance, as required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act

Amendments of 1996, and additional funds for cooperative agreements with New

Mexico Emergency Response, Indian Tribes, Southern States Energy Board, and

others.

The Department is relying on privatization to obtain the capital equipment for

transuranic waste transportation to reduce costs. The fiscal year 1999 budget included $19,605,000 in the Defense Privatization account to transport remote-handled transuranic waste from generator sites to WIPP. Because this contract is not

expected to be awarded until late fiscal year 1999 or early fiscal year 2000, the Department is not requesting additional funding in fiscal year 2000.

Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense, Post-2006 Completion ...................................................................... $104,834

Non-Defense, Post-2006 Completion .............................................................. 6,000

Total ....................................................................................................... 110, 834

Our goal at Los Alamos National Laboratory is to complete cleanup work by 2006

except for a few complex contaminated sites and disposition of legacy transuranic

waste, and to complete all EM cleanup projects at Los Alamos by 2015. Through

fiscal year 1998, the Department completed remediation of 1,395 release sites and

decommissioning of 41 facilities, out of a total of more than 2,000 release sites and

130 facilities. We plan to complete 9 additional release sites and one facility in fiscal

year 1999, and 28 release sites and two facilities in fiscal year 2000.

The fiscal year 2000 EM budget request for Los Alamos of $110 million is nearly

$30 million more than our fiscal year 1999 budget. Much of this increase (86 percent) is devoted to environmental restoration work, such as drilling new regional

ground water wells to characterize the hydrogeology and work required to complete

cleanup in anticipation transferring land to the community. Pursuant to the require-
291

ments of Public Laws 105–119 and 105–245, DOE has identified ten parcels totaling

about 4600 acres for potential transfer to the County of Los Alamos and the Pueblos, has published a draft Environmental Impact Statement on the land transfers

and supporting Environmental Restoration Report, and will submit a detailed

project plan for cleanup of a land parcel, referred to as ‘‘TA–21’’, to Congress by late

March 1999. DOE intends to follow a phased approach in accomplishing the land

transfers, starting with the transfer of the relatively simple, uncontaminated parcels

in 2000 and continuing with the transfer of the more complex sites in the outyears.

Another significant increase in the Los Alamos budget is attributable to the need

to manage wastes recently-retrieved buried transuranic waste and to characterize,

certify, and ship the waste to WIPP for disposal. Los Alamos was the first site to

have waste certified by DOE for disposal at WIPP. In fact, the WIPP certification

rule that EPA promulgated in fiscal year 1998 specifically includes EPA approval

of the characterization program at Los Alamos for certain transuranic wastes.

The fiscal year 2000 request for EM does not include funds for management of

on-going waste generation; the Department transferred this waste management responsibility at Los Alamos, along with funding responsibility, from EM to the Office

of Defense Programs in fiscal year 1999.

The Department recently designated Los Alamos as the lead laboratory for research and development efforts to support the Department’s response to Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 94–1 on nuclear materials safety.

In this capacity, Los Alamos provides solutions to complex-wide technical and operational issues associated with stabilization and storage of plutonium and other nuclear materials.

West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Non-Defense, Site Closure Account ................................................................ $107,353

Cleanup of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), located in upstate

New York less than 40 miles from Buffalo, is being conducted at the site of the only

nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to operate in the U.S. The private company processed commercial spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium and uranium from 1966

to 1972, generating 2,200 cubic meters of liquid high-level waste.

The principal operation at West Valley is the solidification of the liquid high-level

waste into borosilicate glass using a process called vitrification. The primary vitrification campaign began in June 1996 and was completed ahead of schedule in June

1998. Vitrification of the high-level waste tank heels is currently underway and will

continue through fiscal year 2001.

Following the vitrification of the high-level waste, the equipment and facilities

used in carrying out the project will be decontaminated and decommissioned, based

on the results of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision

(ROD) for the completion of the project. This phase of the cleanup project is expected to begin in late fiscal year 2000.

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and DOE are

working together and with stakeholders, including a Citizens’ Task Force, to formulate a preferred alternative for closure or long-term management of the site. Selection of a preferred alternative and subsequent ROD will determine the outyear

scope of work for the project and final disposition of the waste. The EIS and ROD

process is scheduled to be completed in May 2000. The estimated completion date

for WVDP may extend through 2015, reflecting the uncertainty related to the future

EIS ROD.

Another critical element of the EM program at West Valley is the safe management of 125 spent nuclear fuel elements stored at the site. EM will continue surveillance and maintenance of the spent fuel facility to ensure safe storage until the

spent fuel can be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (currently planned for 2001).

In fiscal year 1999, major activities include continuation of vitrification of the

HLW tank heels (producing approximately 15 canisters of solidified HLW), development of an EIS Preferred Alternative for project completion, progress towards resolution of responsibility issues with the State of New York, and continuation of preparations for shipment of spent nuclear fuel.

In fiscal year 2000, major activities include continuation of vitrification of the

HLW tank heels (producing approximately 5 canisters of solidified HLW), issuance

of a Final EIS and ROD for project completion, and continuation of preparations for

shipment of spent nuclear fuel.
292

Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound Site) Fiscal Year 2000

Request

[In thousands]

Defense Site Closure ....................................................................................... $92,353

Non-Defense, Site Closure .............................................................................. 1,000

Total ....................................................................................................... 93,353

The Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, a 306-acre facility near

Dayton Ohio used for tritium and plutonium–238 operations, consists of 416 release

sites and 111 facilities. We have a goal of completing cleanup of the site by 2005

or earlier. We are making good progress—all legacy bulk tritium has been shipped

off-site, and a consolidated treatment processing facility and a radioactive wastewater treatment facility have been constructed and are in use. In fiscal year 1998,

we completed remediation of the Miami-Erie Canal, allowing re-establishment of a

park for the local community. In fiscal year 1998, we demolished or removed 25

buildings out of an initial inventory of 106 buildings scheduled for demolition or removal and will complete another 5 in fiscal year 1999, adding to the 17 buildings

that had been demolished or removed before fiscal year 1998.

We have negotiated an agreement to transfer the ownership of the site to the

Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation as cleanup is completed.

Currently 28 private businesses employing more than 250 workers are leasing facilities at the Mound Site. Within the next few months, we plan to transfer ownership

to the community of the first parcel of land, consisting of two buildings currently

occupied by private businesses. This transition process will allow the Department

to eventually leave the site without creating an economic void in the community.

Nevada Test Site and Operations Office, Nevada Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense, Post 2006 Completion ...................................................................... $85,307

The Post–2006 Completion Account includes $85 million for cleanup and waste

management activities at the Nevada Test Site, as well as funds to remediate eight

other inactive sites contaminated by past DOE nuclear testing in five other states

(Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico). The Nevada Test Site

(NTS) is located 65 miles from Las Vegas and encompasses 1,350 square miles, an

area roughly the size of Rhode Island. In addition to the cleanup of radioactive contamination resulting from above- and below-ground testing of nuclear weapons and

management of its on-site waste, the Nevada Test Site plays a crucial role for other

DOE sites as one of the major low-level waste disposal facilities in the DOE complex. By fiscal year 2006, the Department expects to complete restoration of the surface area of off-site locations and complete shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP,

while continuing to operate low-level disposal facilities at NTS for the DOE complex.

institutional controls and to maintain groundwater monitoring.

In fiscal year 1999, the Department expects to meet its commitment to dispose

of more than 37,000 cubic meters of low-level waste, more than half of which is from

other DOE sites, and to complete cleanup of 446, or 32 percent of the contaminated

release sites. In fiscal year 2000, the Department is committing to disposing of

64,000 cubic meters of low level radioactive waste at NTS—a 70 percent increase

over fiscal year 1999. Based on new scientific findings about transport of plutonium

and other actinides in ground water, the Department is increasing it efforts to monitor ground water at NTS to improve our understanding of this complex issue. We

also plan to continue treating transuranic waste in fiscal year 2000 for shipment

and disposal WIPP.

Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project, Missouri Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Non-Defense, Site Closure Account ................................................................ $52,000

The Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project (WSSRAP) in Missouri includes

a decommissioned uranium processing plant, an abandoned quarry used as a dump

site, as well as numerous vicinity properties that were contaminated by uranium

processing operations conducted for nuclear weapons support in the 1950’s and

1960’s, similar to the Fernald Site in Ohio. The Oak Ridge Operations Office in Tennessee is managing the cleanup, which includes about one million cubic yards of

waste at the 229-acre site.
293

Cleanup of the Weldon Spring Site is expected to be completed as early as 2002.

All contaminated material will be placed in an on-site, above-grade cell for permanent disposal. Long-term surveillance and monitoring for the disposal facility will

be conducted after project completion, and the remaining land will be released for

unrestricted use.

Our progress in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 puts us on track for completing cleanup in 2002. Fiscal year 1998 marked the start of the waste placement

in the 1.4 million cubic yard capacity disposal facility, with about 640,000 cubic

yards of material being placed in the facility in fiscal year 1998. The construction

of the Chemical Stabilization and Solidification Facility was completed and treatment of waste pit sludge begun in fiscal year 1998, with treatment of sludge completed in fiscal year 1999. Cleanup of all vicinity properties but one were completed.

The site Groundwater Record of Decision will be signed, and Quarry restoration activities will begin in fiscal year 1999.

In fiscal year 2000, the waste placement activity will be nearly completed, and

the construction of the disposal facility cap will begin. Quarry restoration will continue, and the chemical plant site restoration and waste pit remediation will begin.

Although the fiscal year 2000 budget targets $52 million for Weldon Spring, it is

the intent of the Department to fund this program at a level of $63.5 million, the

level of funding of fiscal year 1999, to ensure the 2002 completion date can be attained.

Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Non-Defense, Site/Project Completion Account ............................................. $29,553

At the Brookhaven National Laboratory, we are treating contaminated groundwater at several on-site locations and will start the first off-site groundwater treatment system by the end of this fiscal year. Over 1,500 homes have been hooked up

to the municipal water supply to ensure that the residents’ drinking water supply

remains unaffected during long-term ground-water cleanup. To eliminate sources of

potential future contamination, we have removed buried waste as well as a number

of underground storage tanks and cesspools, and have capped on-site landfills. In

fiscal year 1999, the Department expects the regulatory and stakeholder review

process for proposed cleanup remedies to be completed, and the final remedies to

be identified for contaminated soils, sediments and groundwater. We will begin implementing the final remedies in fiscal year 2000.

A site-wide review in fiscal year 1997 highlighted concerns with the Brookhaven

Graphite Research Reactor, due in part to the radioactively contaminated water collecting in underground air ducts associated with the facility. I am pleased to report

substantial progress in addressing this concern through the combined efforts of this

office and the Office of Science. The contaminated water has been removed, and

sources of potential further water intrusion have been sealed off. Moreover, the Offices of Science and Environmental Management have reached agreement on managing the remaining characterization, stabilization, and decommissioning of the Research Reactor, and both offices have committed funding in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 to maintain the momentum on this project. Final decommissioning of

this facility is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2001.

The EM Program will continue its activities in fiscal year 2000 to dispose of legacy wastes and will also continue to compliantly store, treat, and dispose of wastes

generated by on-going Brookhaven operations, with the transfer of waste management responsibilities to the generating program expected in fiscal year 2001.

Sites in the State of California Fiscal Year 2000 Request

[In thousands]

Defense, Site/Project Completion Account:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ............................................. $49,891

Oakland Operations Office ...................................................................... 800

Non-Defense, Site/Project Completion Account:

Energy Engineering Technology Center ................................................. 17,398

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ................................................ 11,098

General Atomics ....................................................................................... 1,100

Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research ................................... 3,863

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center ........................................................ 1,400

General Electric ........................................................................................ 500

Oakland Operations Office ...................................................................... 300
294

A total fiscal year 2000 request of $86,350,000 supports activities at the seven

sites in California. The funds will support the characterization, remediation, decontamination and decommissioning of contaminated release sites and facilities; waste

minimization efforts; and management of hazardous and radioactive wastes generated at sites. We are committed to completing cleanup at all sites by 2006, including shipping legacy waste off-site, ending EM responsibilities. For those sites with

on-going Departmental missions, we plan to transfer responsibility for managing

newly generated wastes to the waste generating programs by fiscal year 2003, and

transfer responsibility for long-term maintenance of completed remedial actions

(e.g., pump and treat facilities) and surveillance and monitoring by fiscal year 2006.

The major accomplishments expected for fiscal year 2000 include:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.—LLNL consists of two sites—the Main

site and Site 300. We will complete the Site-Wide Proposed Plan for the Interim

Record of Decision at Site 300. At the Main site, EM will activate and start operational testing of the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site and complete deployment of electro-osmosis innovative technology in source area contaminant remediation, for a potential

life cycle savings of over $50M and reduction in time for cleanup of over 40 years

compared to conventional pump and treat technology. We plan to complete cleanup

at the LLNL sites by 2006.

General Atomics.—EM will finish all cleanup activities in fiscal year 2000 with

the completion of decontamination and decommissioning activities at the Hot Cell

Facility, formerly used by DOE for nuclear research and development.

Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research.—We will complete soil excavation

at the western dog pen and Strontium-90/Radium-226 Areas in fiscal year 2000,

keeping us on schedule for completing overall site cleanup, including off-site waste

disposal, by fiscal year 2002.

Energy Technology Engineering Center.—The Department signed a contract in December 1998 with Boeing North America, the owner of this facility, to complete

cleanup by 2006. The contract calls for transfer of all facilities and land to the

owner, who will take responsibility for any long-term stewardship needed for the

completed remedies. In fiscal year 2000, we will complete the decontamination and

decommissioning of the SNAP–8 facility and the H–1 Heater Facility.

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.—We will complete excavation of PCB-contaminated soils in the Lower Salvage Yard. Responsibilities for on-going waste management were transferred to the generator in fiscal year 1997. We expect to complete EM’s cleanup responsibilities by 2002.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.—Excavation of contaminated soils at several on-site locations at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory will continue, as

will storage, treatment and disposal activities to reduce legacy waste, with a goal

of completing EM responsibilities by 2003.

STATEMENT OF LAKE H. BARRETT

Senator DOMENICI. We will proceed now with Mr. Barrett, and

then we will ask questions.

I note the presence of Senator Wayne Allard, from Colorado.

Would you like to comment now before we proceed with the witness?

Senator ALLARD. Well, I have a statement I would like to make,

if that is okay with the Chairman, if it is appropriate for your

agenda this morning.

Senator DOMENICI. What is your time schedule for this morning?

Senator ALLARD. Well, I need to preside at 11:00 o’clock, and I

want to thank the Chairman for letting me sit here on your subcommittee.

Senator DOMENICI. You are welcome. Let me proceed with the

witnesses, and I will give you a chance here shortly.

Senator ALLARD. Thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
295

VIABILITY ASSESSMENT

We, in the Civilian Waste Radioactive Waste Management Program, have made significant progress in the last year. Specifically,

we completed the Viability Assessment, which was sent to this

committee and the President, and the rest of the Congress.

The Viability Assessment found that there were no showstoppers

and that work should proceed in characterizing the Yucca Mountain site. This Administration continues to move forward with the

scientific characterization of Yucca Mountain, progressing toward a

national decision whether the site is suitable to be a geologic repository. We are now nearing the conclusion of our scientific site characterization effort.

The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request supports the Viability Assessment’s findings. It is important to note that we still

have work to do. The budget request, building on the scope of work

identified in the Viability Assessment, spells out what we plan to

do in fiscal year 2000 to support the decision process in the coming

years.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN SCHEDULE

The overall schedule for the Yucca Mountain activities is shown

on this chart to your right. We are on target for a decision in 2001

whether Yucca Mountain is suitable to be the location of a geologic

repository, and if the site is suitable, to submit a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2002.

Meeting those milestones will maintain a schedule for the start

of waste emplacement in 2010, if the site is suitable and licensed.

Your continued support for this program is essential. This program is essential to our national policy for the management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, the cleanup of our defense nuclear facilities, the disposition of our naval nuclear spent fuel, and the disposition of surplus plutonium to support the nation’s nuclear nonproliferation goals in this post-Cold War period.

RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Before I discuss the 2000 fiscal year budget request, I would like

to give you a brief summary of our recent accomplishments. We are

focusing on the work products to support the milestones on this

chart.

They are specifically the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

in the summer of this year, the Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2000, a determination if the site is suitable for a recommendation to the President in 2001, and a License Application,

if the site is suitable in 2002.

Last year, as I noted, we completed the Viability Assessment.

That assessment served to identify the critical issues that must be

addressed before a decision may be made by the Secretary whether

to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for development as the nation’s first repository. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request implements the work plan to address those issues to allow a final national decision.

At Yucca Mountain, we are working to understand the key scientific issues, including the flow of water through the repository,
296

and the effect of heat from waste packages on the geology and the

hydrology.

We are investigating design alternatives to enhance performance.

Our understanding of those issues will help reduce the uncertainties related to the performance of a repository. Now I would like

to turn specifically to the fiscal year 2000 budget request.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

We are requesting $370 million in new budget authority and the

release of $39 million from the funds appropriated in fiscal year

1996 in the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Appropriation, for a

total funding of $409 million. We have proposed allocating $332

million to continue the scientific and engineering work at the Yucca

Mountain site characterization program, $6 million for waste acceptance, storage, and transportation, and $71 million for program

management, which includes our nuclear quality assurance and

regulatory and National Environmental Policy Act responsibilities.

The $332 million devoted to the Yucca Mountain site characterization will be used to continue the necessary cutting-edge scientific and engineering work to implement the characterization of

the Yucca Mountain site; to reduce the remaining uncertainties

about the site’s performance, by developing models that predict the

geophysical and engineering performance; to further refine our repository and waste package designs; to assist in the assessment of

the repository safety strategy and total system performance. This

includes the flexibility to incorporate emerging new technologies,

such as accelerator transmutation of waste, which could supplement and improve the performance of a repository in Yucca Mountain. We also are working to finish the environmental impact statements.

In addition to the hard science and engineering technical activities under way at Yucca Mountain, we believe that the financial

support envisioned by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to the state

and units of local government is important in enabling these governments and citizens directly adjacent to the Yucca Mountain

project to remain informed and to participate in a meaningful way

in the day-to-day program actions that may affect them. To that

end we seek your approval of our request for such funding.

The budget request for the waste acceptance storage and transportation program is $6 million. This request will support our continuing long-lead work that must proceed transporting spent fuel

to a federal receiving facility, and continue interactions with the

standard contract holders to discuss how best to accommodate the

delay in the acceptance of spent fuel from commercial utilities.

In the program management area the $71 million requested will

support the Nuclear Regulatory Commission mandated nuclear

quality assurance activities, regulatory compliance, program control and management activities. The funding requested also provides core support for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandated

EIS’s, the planning and program management, and the extensive

records management systems that we must have.
297

CONCLUDING REMARKS

As I noted in my opening remarks, we have made substantial

progress and we are appropriately positioned to finish the site

characterization effort. The Viability Assessment found that there

were no ‘‘showstoppers’’ with respect to the site at Yucca Mountain.

They also identified the necessary remaining scientific and technical work we have to complete, and provided the funding profile

required, which our fiscal year 2000 budget request is based upon.

Funding at our request level will give us the resources required

to address the last remaining questions about the suitability of the

Yucca Mountain site. We are committed to determining the suitability of the site, and we seek your support in our efforts toward

moving through this critical national decision.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you for your support, and I would like to answer any

questions that you may have.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAKE H. BARRETT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Lake H. Barrett, Acting Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to present our fiscal year 2000 budget request

to you and discuss our plans for continuing to move forward with the scientific and

technical program activities at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request of $409 million is devoted to supporting principally those activities that may lead to a decision to recommend the site currently

being characterized at Yucca Mountain, Nevada for development of a repository for

the Nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

BACKGROUND

The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program and, in particular, the

Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project being implemented is the cornerstone

of the national policy for the management of spent nuclear fuel produced by nuclear

power reactors for the generation of electricity and the clean-up of the high-level radioactive waste currently stored at sites that were key facilities of the nuclear weapons complex. The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program also directly

supports the requirement to dispose of the Department of Energy’s spent nuclear

fuel including naval nuclear spent fuel. The disposition of surplus plutonium and

other nuclear weapons materials in a permanent geologic repository is a key factor

in maintaining the United States’ international leadership position regarding nuclear nonproliferation.

Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, we have made significant progress. We have designed and are implementing a program that is leading the developed countries in planning for geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel

and high level waste. Despite the progress made, the implementation of this program continues to be one of the most daunting public policy challenges before us.

The Department, is however, getting closer to being able to make a decision regarding the recommendation of the site to the President for development as a repository,

if it proves to be suitable.

VIABILITY ASSESSMENT

Since I last appeared before you, the Department completed, and submitted to the

President, the Congress, and the public, the Viability Assessment of a Repository at

Yucca Mountain and its companion documents. The Viability Assessment is comprised of four major elements: (1) a preliminary design concept for a repository and

waste package; (2) a total system performance assessment that describes the probable behavior of a repository in the Yucca Mountain geologic setting; (3) a plan and

cost estimate for the remaining work required to complete and submit a License Ap-
298

plication to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and (4) an estimate of the costs

to construct and operate a repository.

The Viability Assessment is the compilation of over fifteen years of scientific and

engineering work at the Yucca Mountain site. It provided Congress, the President,

and the public with information on the progress of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project. The Viability Assessment serves as an important management

tool for the Program to guide the completion of site characterization by identifying

critical issues that need to be addressed before a decision can be made by the Secretary on whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for a repository.

The key conclusion of the Viability Assessment is that there are no ‘‘show stoppers’’ with respect to the Yucca Mountain site and that work should proceed to support a decision in 2001 on whether to recommend the site. The President’s fiscal

year 2000 budget request supports that conclusion and I seek your support as well.

It is important to note that we still have work to do. The budget request, building

off of the scope of work identified in the Viability Assessment, spells out, in some

detail, what we plan to do in fiscal year 2000 to support the decision process in the

coming years.

The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, in accordance with the

guidance provided by the Fiscal Year 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, applied the majority of our funding and two years of focused, concentrated effort to the development of the Viability Assessment. The Viability Assessment having been issued only three months ago, now provides both the shortterm and long-term planning basis for the Program. It lays out the scope of work

and the cost profile for the remaining work that must be accomplished to not only

reach the decision point regarding the recommendation of the site to the President,

if the site is found to be suitable, but also the work that must be accomplished and

costs associated with it to construct a repository subsequent to receiving a License

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is being used by the Program as a

point of departure for developing and implementing the planning baseline against

which Congress and outside observers may measure our progress in the future.

We have also made the Viability Assessment widely available by putting it and

its companion documents The Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, December 1998 (Total System Life

Cycle Cost Report) and the statutorily required Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy:

An Assessment, December 1998 (Fee Adequacy Report), and all the supporting technical studies—on our Internet home page.

LITIGATION

Before I discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request and some of the accomplishments in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, I would like to touch briefly on the

ongoing litigation with State agencies and utilities regarding the Department’s

delay in accepting commercial spent fuel.

As you know, the Department is in litigation over our inability to meet our contractual obligation to accept spent fuel from the nuclear utility companies by January 31, 1998. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that

the Department has an obligation to commence spent fuel disposal by January 31,

1998. The Court denied the utilities’ and States’ request for a move-fuel order, finding that the Standard Disposal Contract provides a potentially adequate remedy.

The Court stated that the Department may not rely on the ‘‘unavoidable delays’’

clause to excuse its delay in performance and suggested the ‘‘avoidable delays’’

clause of the Standard Contract as the potentially adequate remedy. This clause

provides for an equitable adjustment of schedules and contract charges to reflect

any estimated additional costs incurred by the contract holder.

Pursuant to the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Department will process claims presented to it under the standard disposal

contract. Although we have held settlement discussions with several utilities, only

one utility has proposed a bilateral modification and request for equitable adjustment of the contract, and no formal claims have been filed.

To date, ten utilities have filed claims for monetary damages in the U.S. Court

of Federal Claims. In the first three cases decided by the Court, the Department

was found to have breached its contracts with three utilities, each with only one

shutdown reactor, and the Department is now engaged in discovery to determine the

amount of damages the Government must pay these utilities. Other cases, most involving utilities with operating reactors paying ongoing fees to the Department, are

currently pending.
299

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Our Quality Assurance Program, working as it should, has detected certain deficiencies in the execution of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization effort, which

has resulted in a redirection of work to respond to these deficiencies. Corrective Action Plans approved by our Office of Quality Assurance are being implemented.

Process improvements have been identified, procedures have been revised, training

is underway, and managers have increased their self-assessments. Although these

efforts are causing us to refocus and redefine some of our currently planned work,

we anticipate that we can accommodate this effort with minimal impact on cost and

schedule. We expect some of the analyses, however, may have to be based on less

data than previously planned but we are confident that the analyses will support

the Site Recommendation Report and License Application.

PAYMENTS TO THE STATE AND AFFECTED UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

We believe that the support envisioned by Section 116(c) of the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to the State and units of local government affected

by site characterization activities is important in enabling local governments and

the citizens most directly impacted by the Yucca Mountain Project to remain informed and to participate in a meaningful way in the day to day program actions

that affect them. Financial support is particularly important for the rural counties’

programs where financial resources are severely limited and I would urge that you

support the funding requested.

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUEST

With respect to fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $370 million in new budget

authority and the release of $39 million from funds appropriated in fiscal year 1996

in the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Appropriation (currently in a Congressional

Reserve) for total funding of $409 million. This request level fully supports the funding profile for the scientific and engineering activities planned for the Yucca Mountain Project as described in the Viability Assessment.

We have proposed allocating $332 million to continue the scientific and engineering work at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office; $6 million for the activities directed by the Office of Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation; $10

million for the Program’s Nuclear Quality Assurance program; and $61 million to

carry out the Program’s Management and Integration functions.

Before I review with you how we are proposing to use the funds provided for in

the fiscal year 2000 budget request, I would like to briefly highlight, in summary

fashion, some of the fiscal year 1998 and projected fiscal year 1999 accomplishments.

FISCAL YEAR 1998–FISCAL YEAR 1999 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

At the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Office, we are continuing the

transition from a project whose principal focus was on the collection of scientific

data to a project that is increasingly focused on activities that support the remaining key near-term requirements described in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,

as amended. Those key activities will provide the remaining technical documentation (collectively these materials are referred to as the ‘‘Site Recommendation Report’’), to support whether the Secretary should recommend to the President the site

currently being characterized at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, if the site is found to be

suitable, as a repository for the Nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

In fiscal year 1999, the Program applied $282 million to the site characterization

effort at Yucca Mountain. That was almost 80 percent of the Program’s total appropriation.

The Project is focusing their activities on scientific and engineering investigations

related to the remaining key uncertainties about the Yucca Mountain site. Those

uncertainties were discussed in the Viability Assessment. They include the presence

and movement of water through the repository block; the effects of water movement

on the waste package; and the effects of heat from the decay of radioactive materials

inside the waste packages on the site’s geologic and hydrologic behavior.

The focus at Yucca Mountain during fiscal year 1998 was on completing the Viability Assessment, completing excavation of, and starting testing in, the Exploratory

Studies Facility Cross Drift that extends to the west side of the repository block,

and on starting one major thermal test and completing two others.
300

Development of the Viability Assessment represented many ‘‘firsts’’ for us. It was

the first time we have articulated our integrated understanding about the whole

Yucca Mountain Site since the 1986 Environmental Assessment supporting the decision to carry out site characterization. It was the first time an integrated technical

review of one of our major technical reports included members of the Department

of Energy complex who currently have responsibility for waste forms planned for

geologic disposal. It was the first time we have used the Internet as an important

part of our process for distributing major technical reports to the public. Lessons

we have learned from these activities are being implemented as we start developing

the Site Recommendation Report and the License Application. In addition to the Viability Assessment, we produced key supporting documents such as the Total System Performance AssessmentViability Assessment Analysis Technical Basis Document and the Yucca Mountain Site Description.

In December 1997, we started excavation of the 16.5-foot diameter cross drift in

the Exploratory Studies Facility to better understand the geologic and hydrologic

conditions of the west side of the repository block. By the close of fiscal year 1998,

we completed excavation of over 2578 meters. The remaining 103 meters were completed in October 1998. Geologic mapping of the cross drift has been completed.

Model predictions of the stratigraphy of the cross drift were verified to be within

a few meters in elevation of the actual stratigraphic contacts. The eastern splay of

the Solitario Canyon fault was mapped, and showed the actual offset to 220 to 230

meters matched the predicted offset of 230 meters.

Long duration tests are providing critical input for validating models we use to

predict performance of a repository. We designed three different thermal tests to

evaluate how the high temperatures in a repository (from heat generated by radioactive decay of the emplaced waste) can affect the natural barriers (i.e., the rock

surrounding the emplacement drifts) and the engineered barriers (i.e. the waste

package and the emplacement drift openings). Our thermal testing program is well

underway.

—The single heater test, which began in August 1996, was completed in fiscal

year 1998. The final results from this test are generally consistent with model

predictions of temperature, rock displacement, and moisture movement. Data

were obtained on heat transfer, thermal conductivity, thermal expansion, thermal chemistry, air permeability, and hydrology of the heated rock. The test also

allowed us to refine the design and instrumentation of the drift scale heater

test.

—The large-block heater test, which began in February 1997 in a fourteen foot

high section of an outcrop at Fran Ridge, an area adjacent to Yucca Mountain

in a portion of the potential repository host rock exposed at the surface, was

completed in fiscal year 1998. The use of an isolated block allowed us to measure the moisture movement caused by heat in a controlled environment. Core

samples obtained from the block are now being analyzed to look for changes in

rock fractures due to heating.

—The drift scale heater test is a long-term test to obtain data on the mechanical

and thermohydrologic properties of a repository host rock. The test, which

began in fiscal year 1998, nearly 1000 feet below the surface of Yucca Mountain

inside the Exploratory Studies Facility, is in the heat-up cycle. On December

3, 1997, a series of electric heaters were turned on, initiating the flow of heat

into a section of the mountain. Designed to simulate the heat from actual waste

packages, the drift scale test is the largest of the three heater tests at Yucca

Mountain, and for that matter, is the largest underground thermal test ever

conducted in the world. During fiscal year 1998, we increased the temperature

in the test drift from ambient 86 degrees Fahrenheit to 275 degrees Fahrenheit.

The goal is to maintain the drift wall rock temperature at 392 degrees Fahrenheit for two years before the cool down cycle begins. The total duration of this

test will be eight years: four to heat-up and four to cool down.

Testing in an underground facility at Busted Butte near Yucca Mountain began

in fiscal year 1998 and is still ongoing. Test results in the Calico Hills rock unit

will provide an analog to expected conditions in the same type of rock that lies

below the potential repository horizon. Tests are being conducted to validate laboratory data and conceptual numerical transport models. These tests are intended to

reduce uncertainties in assessments of the potential transport of key radionuclides

from the repository area, through the unsaturated zone, and into the water table

underlying Yucca Mountain. Tests also will address the importance of colloid-facilitated transport of radionuclides, especially plutonium. Observations at Busted Butte

are important to understanding transport in the unsaturated zone, beneath the emplacement drifts, because additional sorption of radionuclides is expected even in a

scenario dominated by fracture flow. Future work will quantify the fracture-matrix
301

coupling that will be incorporated into the updated site-scale models to support the

total system performance assessment for the Site Recommendation Report and the

License Application.

Under the agreement with Nye County, eight wells have been completed along

Highway 95 south of Yucca Mountain. We have collected cutting samples and are

reviewing the geologic logs. We are in the process of analyzing water samples from

these wells. This data will be used in updating the geologic framework model.

Thus far, our repository performance assessments have shown that the rate and

amount of seepage of water into the emplacement drifts is very important to repository performance. Since the effects of tunnel ventilation may well mask the detection of any seepage, in 1998 we isolated individual niches in the Exploratory Studies

Facility from ventilation to see whether any seepage can be detected. To date, no

seepage has been observed in these test niches.

One alcove in the Exploratory Studies Facility has been isolated from ventilation

effects to monitor humidity and seepage during the higher rainfall caused by El

Nin ̃o. This alcove is within the vicinity of the potential repository block area near

to and within the Ghost Dance fault exposure. To date, no seepage has been observed.

The focus at Yucca Mountain during fiscal year 1999 will be on issuing the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement; completing the last phase of the peer review of

the Total System Performance Assessment that supported the Viability Assessment;

and updating repository and waste package designs to support updating the Total

System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation Report. Those activities are also the Program’s Government Performance and Results Act commitments.

In fiscal year 1999, to date, we have made the following progress:

—In support of the Environmental Impact Statement, we began the Departmentwide review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We are on schedule

for meeting the July 1999 date for publishing the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement and starting the public hearings.

—Completed a topical report on the methods we plan to use to model and evaluate the potential for a nuclear criticality event (sustained chain reaction). The

report was transmitted to the NRC in January 1999.

—Completed License Application Design Selection workshops aimed at assuring

validity and transparency of the process for selecting repository designs and options that will be modeled for the Site Recommendation Report and License Application.

—Completed management plans to guide writing both the Site Recommendation

Report and the License Application and began developing the first drafts of both

these documents.

—Completed phase one of the Busted Butte radionuclide transport test. The preliminary results provided significant information on flow partitioning between

fracture and matrix of the rocks beneath the potential repository.

—Continued National Environmental Policy Act consultation and coordination activities with numerous federal, state, and local agencies and Native American

tribal organizations. Status briefings on the Environmental Impact Statement’s

development, as well as coordination of any Environmental Impact Statement

data needs, were conducted with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S.

Air Force, State of Nevada and affected counties, and Native American tribes.

WASTE ACCEPTANCE, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION

The Department’s acceptance of commercial spent nuclear fuel remains a critical

objective of the Program and, in the Office of Waste Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation (OWAST) area, that is where we focused our efforts. However, in recognition of the hardships associated with the Department’s delay in waste acceptance,

we have offered to make equitable adjustments with the contract holders to address

those issues.

In fiscal year 1998, we developed a generic, non-site specific topical safety analysis report for a centralized interim storage facility. The report was submitted to

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contained the required analyses and evaluations necessary to show that the operation of such a facility would meet the Commission’s requirements for the protection of the environment, public safety, and

health. We have continued interactions with the Commission and expect their approval this year.

In fiscal year 1999, the Program utilized just under $2 million to conduct activities that are the responsibility of the Office of Waste Acceptance, Storage, and

Transportation. Several of the sub-elements of the OWAST function were de-empha-
302

sized in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 to apply resources to the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization activity rather than on transportation activities.

We continued to refine a competitive procurement strategy for acquiring waste acceptance and transportation services utilizing private industry. We issued a revised

draft Request for Proposals (RFP) in December 1997, that embodies a market-driven

approach relying on the maximum use of private industry capabilities, expertise and

experience to acquire contractor services to accept and transport commercial spent

nuclear fuel to a Federal facility. In September 1998, the draft RFP was revised to

address public/industry comments, and a Notice of Availability was published in the

Federal Register. Work on the RFP was subsequently deferred until a repository

siting decision process is completed. When that process is completed, activities related to the acquisition of waste acceptance and transportation services will be reinitiated.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION

In fiscal year 1999, we continued to ensure that the integration requirements between the various components of the waste management system were adequately

addressed and alternative system designs and proposals were evaluated with careful

attention paid to their effects on system operations and costs. We completed a Total

System Life Cycle Cost Report and a statutorily required Fee Adequacy Report.

Those two documents accompanied the Viability Assessment at the time of its

issuance.

The Program also concluded and is implementing Memoranda of Agreement’s with

the Office of Environmental Management and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program that specify each Office’s technical, programmatic, and financial responsibilities with respect to spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

In an effort to utilize our resources more efficiently, we streamlined our operations. The program reduced headquarters staff in 1998 through a significant reduction-in-force. With reductions-in-force and staff reassignments, the Program reduced

Headquarters staffing by 39 percent. Since fiscal year 1992, the Program has significantly shifted the balance of staffing from headquarters to Nevada, with a reduction

at headquarters of 50 percent and an increase in Nevada of 40 percent.

In fiscal year 1999, responding to the Congressional direction regarding the use

of its support service contractors, the Program reduced, by over 10 percent, funding

for ‘‘* * * management and administrative support service contractors at the Yucca

Mountain Site Characterization Project Office and Headquarters.’’ No reductions

were made in other support service contracts that provide support for Nuclear Regulatory Commission-required quality assurance verification and support for preparation and publication of the required Environmental Impact Statement.

The attachment to my statement provides a more detailed treatment regarding

the objectives of work and progress made in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.

APPLICATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

OVERVIEW

The President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is consistent with the policy direction provided by Congress in the last several Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts. The

Program’s Budget Request focuses principally on the activities being conducted by

the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project. The Budget Request will fund activities necessary to complete the final years of the site characterization program,

including:

—Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2000; and

—The decision, by the Secretary, whether to recommend the site to the President

in 2001 for development of a repository, if the site is found to be suitable.

Should the President and Congress accept the site recommendation, the work to

be completed in fiscal year 2000 is critical to the development and submission of

a License Application for repository construction to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2002.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

In fiscal year 2000, the funds that will be allocated to the Yucca Mountain Site

Characterization Project will be used to move us beyond the Viability Assessment,

specifically to:

—Continue the necessary scientific and engineering work to complete the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site;
303

—Address the remaining uncertainties about the site’s ability to contain and isolate nuclear waste, including completion of some of the design analyses for the

engineered barrier that will serve, in part, as the basis for the Site Recommendation Report and License Application (such as structural, shielding,

thermal, criticality, cost, and design basis event aspects);

—Further refine our repository and waste package designs to assist in the assessment of a repository safety strategy and total system performance, including updated reports on waste package materials and waste form characteristics;

—Continue to strengthen our understanding of the expected performance of the

proposed repository’s natural and engineered barriers;

—Evaluate total system performance using updated models to support development of the Site Recommendation Report and License Application;

—Complete the public hearings on the draft Environmental Impact Statement

and develop a Comment Response Document that will be included in the final

Environmental Impact Statement;

—Prepare, and issue, the final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-level Radioactive

Waste at Yucca Mountain; Nye, County Nevada. Incorporate public comments,

as appropriate, on the draft Environmental Impact Statement; and

—Continue efforts to support the preparation of a high quality, complete, and defensible Site Recommendation Report and, if the site recommendation is approved, a License Application.

The plan for fiscal year 2000 and beyond reflects the transition of the project activities from scientific investigations to data synthesis, model validation, repository

and waste package design, and safety analysis. Those activities are essential inputs

to: (1) the decision by the Secretary whether to recommend the site to the President,

if the site is found to be suitable; and (2) the submission of a License Application

to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if the site is approved for repository development. Near-term priorities will be on enhanced characterization efforts to develop

the remaining information required to support the Site Recommendation Report and

the License Application. Specific activities for fiscal year 2000 will focus on:

Core Science.—Core Science includes collection of site characterization and performance confirmation data from the surface and subsurface, and testing in the laboratory; environmental data collection, monitoring, and requirements compliance;

site and materials performance testing; scientific test planning and design; formulation of scientific hypotheses; modeling and hypothesis testing; development of scientific information for technical data bases; and completion of models and synthesis

reports that serve as the basis for scientific descriptions and analyses used in the

documentation supporting remaining major program milestones, including the Site

Recommendation Report and License Application.

Our planned activities in the Core Science area are focused on data synthesis and

documentation, model updating and validation and continuing performance confirmation efforts to advance our overall knowledge for the Site Recommendation Report and the License Application. Specific activities will focus on testing in the Exploratory Studies Facility, including the Cross-Drift and the drift scale test; confirmatory field-scale tests; modeling; environmental, safety and health compliance; and

environmental monitoring and mitigation activities.

Within the Exploratory Studies Facility, we will continue the long-term drift-scale

thermal test that began in December 1997. This test will allow us to explore how

the rock and fluids in a repository system will behave in the long-term presence of

heat generated by radioactive decay of the emplaced waste. Testing in the CrossDrift will continue to collect data on hydrologic properties of the repository horizon

(i.e., fracture-matrix interaction, and fracture flow properties, particularly of the

lower lythopysal unit where approximately 65 percent of the emplacement drifts are

expected to be located).

We will refine the geologic process models that underlie the total system performance assessment models that will support both the Site Recommendation Report

and License Application. Conceptual and numerical models of flow and transport,

the near-field environment, and repository thermohydrology used in the Viability

Assessment will be updated to reflect scientific data that have been collected since

mid-1998. Saturated zone and unsaturated zone models for flow and radionuclide

transport will be validated for use in the Site Recommendation Report and License

Application. Confirmatory data collection and long-duration testing will continue.

Confirmatory field-scale tests will continue to support refinement of near-field environment models. These models involve coupled thermal, chemical, mechanical, and

hydrologic processes and describe how water could enter emplacement drifts, interact with waste packages, and transport radionuclides through the engineered barrier system. These tests support the evaluation of near-field process models that will
304

directly support the total system performance assessment for the Site Recommendation Report by reducing and quantifying uncertainty in calculations of radionuclide

releases from the engineered barrier system. These tests will also confirm predictions of coupled process behavior in the repository near-field associated with repository heating.

We will continue to monitor transient seismicity and meteorological events and

moisture movement in the Exploratory Studies Facility and we will conduct hydrographic monitoring in boreholes. Meteorological data for use in radiological dose assessments and biosphere modeling will be collected and airborne transport characteristics monitoring at Yucca Mountain will continue.

The fiscal year 2000 budget includes $10 million for a cooperative agreement between the Department and the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). The agreement started in fiscal year 1999 and will continue into fiscal year 2002. The principal purpose of the cooperative agreement is to develop and

continue providing the public and the Yucca Mountain project with an independently derived body of scientific and engineering data concerning the study of Yucca

Mountain as a potential high level waste repository in support of the Site Recommendation Report and License Application. Under this agreement, UCCSN will

perform scientific or engineering research, and develop and foster collaborative

working relationships between government and academic researchers.

In fiscal year 2000, work will focus primarily on research and evaluation in the

areas of seismology and hydrology and improvement of data retrieval systems to

support Program goals. Geodetic measurements and studies with respect to the

strain rate of the earth’s crust in the Yucca Mountain region will be conducted to

help determine the probability of the occurrence and magnitude of seismic events.

The UCCSN will conduct studies related to fluid inclusions with respect to potential

rising of hydrothermal fluids at Yucca Mountain. Under this task, UCCSN will collect and analyze data and share the results with federal and State of Nevada scientists. Continuing work on improving data retrieval systems will explore and enhance record indexing techniques to provide a better method of tracking and retrieving data in the records management system in support of the licensing support system. In addition many smaller tasks will be conducted by UCCSN such as saturated

zone data analysis, long term performance confirmation monitoring, microbiologically influenced corrosion research and hydrogen embrittlement testing.

Nye County is drilling a network of boreholes to be used to monitor the movement

of groundwater south of the proposed repository, off the Nevada Test Site. The county’s researchers are establishing the conditions that exist before repository construction and will use the network as an Early Warning Monitoring System. We are coordinating with Nye County to obtain water measurements and water and rock

samples from their drilling program. Cooperative planning has produced a program

of scientific activities that complement the Nye County objectives. We will conduct

chemistry and isotopic analysis of the water; and paleohydrologic, Eh/redox potential, rare earth and trace element analysis; and geophysical log interpretations.

Environmental monitoring and compliance activities will continue. These activities include monitoring air quality and meteorology, water resources studies, archeological and radiological studies, and monitoring of ecosystem and socioeconomic indicators. We will maintain and acquire requisite permits so that uninterrupted site

activities may continue, and we will conduct surveillances, audits and assessments

of site activities to ensure regulatory compliance. Many of these activities are regulated by statutes and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, Comprehensive Environmental response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and the Clean Water

Act.

Design and Engineering.—The Design and Engineering includes three major

areas—Waste Package Development, Repository Design, and Systems Engineering.

Waste Package Development includes two very distinct areas of engineering activity—waste package design and waste forms and waste package materials testing.

Repository design also includes two distinct areas—subsurface facilities design and

surface facilities design. Systems Engineering integrates all aspects of design and

ensures that the Monitored Geologic Repository can be constructed as designed, and

will perform safely and efficiently.

The fiscal year 2000 performance measure, associated with the Government Performance and Results Act, involves deciding on the reference design that will be presented in the Site Recommendation Report and License Application. The License

Application Design Selection evaluation now underway, will result in technical recommendations for repository/waste package designs and options. The design will,

most likely, result in additional features that will require detailed design analyses

prior to the design selection in fiscal year 2000.
305

The reference design for the Site Recommendation Report and License Application

will be documented. Design documentation will include safety and accident analyses

and will describe the design in sufficient detail to show that a repository can be operated safely during waste emplacement at Yucca Mountain and after all waste

packages have been emplaced (i.e., preclosure period).

Important areas of ongoing design emphasis include: waste package materials;

waste form testing and analyses; waste handling system and emplacement operations; (i.e., repository concept of operations); a demonstration of design compliance

with codes, standards, and regulatory requirements (i.e., design verification); assurance that the technical work being performed within the individual engineering specialties is integrated (i.e., interface control); and detailed engineering for these elements of a repository system that show no similarities to systems licensed previously in commercial nuclear power plants.

Nuclear waste forms that will be placed in a repository include spent nuclear fuel

from commercial nuclear power plants, spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from

the Department of Energy, Naval nuclear spent fuel, and immobilized plutonium.

A repository will be designed to accommodate the varied size, weight, radioactivity,

and heat characteristics of these materials in the repository. Development of repository acceptance criteria (e.g., disposal interface specifications) for noncommercial

spent fuel will continue.

Licensing/Suitability/Performance Assessment.—The primary focus in fiscal year

2000 is to compile the technical documentation that will comprise the Site Recommendation Report. A draft Site Recommendation Report will be developed and

will be available at the hearings planned for early fiscal year 2001 to notify the public that the Secretary of Energy is considering whether to recommend the site to

the President. The final Site Recommendation Report, together with the final Environmental Impact Statement, and other information required by the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act of 1982, as amended, including the views of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the State of Nevada, will be considered by the Secretary of Energy in

deciding, in early fiscal year 2002, whether to recommend the site to the President.

Development of the License Application for repository construction, which would

be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Secretary of Energy,

will continue. Before the License Application would be submitted, we would continue to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resolve procedural and

technical issues. Interactions with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and

other external organizations will continue.

The focus of performance assessment activities will be to update the total system

performance assessment models used in the Viability Assessment, and use them to

support development of the Site Recommendation Report and License Application.

The total system performance assessment models will be refined based on site characterization information, design information, and feedback from external organizations (e.g., Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel) acquired during fiscal year 1998 and

1999.

All technical data used for a repository and waste package design, total system

performance assessment, and models for site processes and conditions must be

traceable and electronically retrievable in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart

J. The latest web-based technologies will continue to be utilized to ensure that program data and records are quickly and easily retrievable at the time that the Secretary of Energy may decide to recommend the site to the President.

NEPA.—The primary focus will be on National Environmental Policy Act compliance. Activities include completing the public hearings on the draft Environmental

Impact Statement, which will be held nationally, completing the final Environmental Impact Statement, including the Comment Response Document, and issuing

it in August 2000.

Operations/Construction.—To support collection of scientific data, we will construct one large test area (alcove) and one smaller test area (niche) in the CrossDrift tunnel. We will continue to provide support services necessary for continued

testing in the Exploratory Studies Facility, the Cross-Drift, and the Busted Butte

Test Facility. These services include providing test set-up, training, and test facility

modification; maintaining and upgrading the ventilation, electric, and other utility

systems; aligning the underground rail system; providing site and underground security; and providing other services designed to protect worker health and safety

and protect the environment. We also will support surface based testing by providing any necessary drilling/coring and well work-over. We will continue to maintain underground and surface test facilities, vehicles, and equipment consistent with

programmatic and asset management requirements.
306

External Oversight and Payments Equal to Taxes (PETT).—We will continue to

support external oversight activities and payments equal to taxes. External oversight activities consist of financial and technical assistance to the State of Nevada

and affected units of local government (i.e., Churchill, Clark, Esmeralda, Eureka,

Lander, Lincoln, Mineral, Nye, and White Pine Counties in Nevada and Inyo County in California). Payments-Equal-to-Taxes are made to the State of Nevada and

Nye, Clark, and Inyo Counties. Payments-Equal-to-Taxes will increase in fiscal year

2000 due to the increased value of facilities at the Yucca Mountain site.

Yucca Mountain Project Management.—We will continue to enhance our critical

project management and project control activities, including planning, budgeting,

and scheduling. This will include activities to ensure that staff are qualified to perform their approved activities, and trained to perform them safely, and that performing organizations are provided with the facilities, equipment, information systems, and support services needed to perform their approved activities.

Project management also includes conducting public information and outreach

programs to ensure open and informative interactions with the public, technical review organizations, and other program managers. We will maintain records and ensure technical information is broadly disseminated to these groups.

International Conference.—In September 1998, Secretary Richardson announced

at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference that, in 1999, DOE

would host a conference on global efforts to dispose of nuclear materials in geological repositories. The ‘‘DOE International Conference on Geologic Repositories’’ will

be held October 31-November 3, 1999. The purpose is to share results of our experience and progress and welcome the input of others. Tours of the Yucca Mountain

site and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico will be on October

31 and November 3, with the conference taking place on November 1 and 2, 1999.

WASTE ACCEPTANCE, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION

In fiscal year 2000, the budget request for the Waste Acceptance, Storage, and

Transportation program area is $6 million. The request will support the following

set of functions:

—Interactions with standard contract holders to discuss how best to accommodate

the delay in the acceptance of spent fuel from commercial utilities;

—Activities related to generic and non-site specific long-lead time activities that

must precede the removal of spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites once a federal

facility becomes available;

—Interactions with potentially affected parties to plan for the provision of technical and financial assistance, as required by Section 180(c) of the NWPA, as

amended, to States and Indian Tribes for emergency response training for public safety officials through whose jurisdiction shipments of spent nuclear fuel

and high-level radioactive waste will be transported; and

—Preparation of acquisition documents and technical specifications to facilitate

issuance of an RFP for acquisition of waste acceptance and transportation services from private industry.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION

The $71 million that we request will support Nuclear Quality Assurance, Regulatory Compliance, Program Control, and Management activities.

—$17 million for Regulatory Compliance related activities that include Nuclear

Quality Assurance/Quality Control, the Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact

Statement, and independent technical validation and verification;

—$18 million for Program Control that includes planning, program management

and control functions, Total System Life Cycle Cost Report and Fee Adequacy Report preparation, systems engineering and integration; and

—$36 million for Management functions that include federal salaries, information

technology applications, audits, records management, and public information.

As noted, the budget request of $71 million supports the fundamental base program, which support crosscutting programmatic activities such as strategic and contingency planning; program monitoring and control; quality assurance; technical

oversight, systems integration; regulatory compliance and integration; human resources and administration; information resource management; and federal salaries.

Nuclear Quality Assurance.—Our Nuclear Quality Assurance activities ensure the

adequate and appropriate implementation of federally-mandated Nuclear Quality

Assurance requirements related to radiological health and safety and waste isolation. In fiscal year 2000, we will conduct audits and surveillances on activities performed by the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Waste Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Program; provide support for the disposition of
307

the Department’s nuclear materials (including naval nuclear spent fuel); and continue to document our compliance with quality assurance requirements. These activities will support the development and eventual licensing of nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities.

Regulatory Compliance.—The Program’s Regulatory Compliance activities focus on

ensuring that the activities leading to the implementation of the waste management

system are consistent with the regulatory guidance and provisions of the Program’s

governing authorities. In fiscal year 2000, we will continue to interact on a proactive

basis with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board to address key technical issues. We will continue to transition our

focus from the issue of how individual features of the site perform in isolation, toward the goal of achieving a common understanding of the issues important to overall repository performance and the adequacy of proposed methodologies and approaches to resolution of important technical issues.

These activities are critical to the success of the overall program as they directly

affect the Commission’s licensing process. We intend to continue our dialogue with

the Commission on these issues. Following the issuance of the Viability Assessment,

we will continue to engage in more frequent interactions to address key technical

issues.

Program Control/Systems Engineering.—The overall objective of our systems integration effort is to ensure that the various components of the federal waste management system (such as transportation services and procurement activities, and repository and waste package design activities) are integrated into a single system that

is safe, efficient, reliable, and cost-effective. In fiscal year 2000 we will ensure that

those integration requirements between the various components of the waste management system will be adequately addressed and, if necessary, alternative system

designs and proposals will be evaluated with careful attention paid to their effects

on system operations and costs. We have just completed a Total System Life Cycle

Cost Report and Fee Adequacy Report and we will work within the Department to

address a wide range of issues associated with the acceptance of Department-owned

spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and Naval nuclear spent fuel.

Program Management.—The program is continuing to implement the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Strategic System Management Policy. The policy clarifies accountability, responsibility, and authority. It codifies management policies

and requirements. Further, it provides for a performance-based approach that promotes accountability across federal and contractor organizations. The implementation will focus management attention on the identification and consolidation of overlapping, duplicative, and redundant management system requirements, processes,

and practices necessary to manage the program.

We will continue to use our information management technology to improve the

productivity of the Program’s human resources, drive process improvements, and reduce overall program costs. We are also responding to increased demand from Program stakeholders and the public for easy and timely access to a wide range of information about the Program. As an example, we made available, through our Internet Home Page, the Viability Assessment, its companion documents, and all relevant technical studies/analyses supporting the Viability Assessment. Interest in

these documents has been high. We have received comments or requests for additional information related to the Viability Assessment via e-mail from as far away

as Australia, Germany, and the Philippines. Internet access will also be provided

to program documents supporting the Site Recommendation and License Application. We expect even greater demands for information systems, support, and services as we move to licensing.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

As I noted in my opening remarks, we have made substantial progress in the last

year and we are appropriately positioned to continue. The Viability Assessment, as

you know, found that there were no ‘‘show stoppers’’ with respect to the site at

Yucca Mountain. It laid out the path forward for the Program. It identified the necessary remaining scientific and technical work we have to complete and it laid out

the funding profile we require.

We are almost at the end of site characterization. Funding at our request level

will give us the resources required to address the last remaining questions about

the suitability of Yucca Mountain on the schedule we have laid out. If the site if

found suitable, the Secretary will be in a position then to make a decision about

recommending the site to the President for development as the Nation’s repository

for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

I urge your favorable consideration of our appropriation request.
308

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

FISCAL YEAR 1998-FISCAL YEAR 1999 MAJOR PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

During the past year, the Program focused its efforts on the transition from conducting scientific investigations to data synthesis, model validation, repository and

waste package design, and safety analysis necessary to develop the Site Recommendation Report, and License Application. Specifically, we focused on: (1) completing the Viability Assessment and; (2) completing design and scientific and performance assessment models to support development of the draft Environmental Impact Statement.

During the balance of fiscal year 1999, we will see the completion of several activities and continuation of longer-term efforts. Our major emphasis will continue

to be on implementing the Viability Assessment Volume 4, License Application Plan

and Costs to guide technical work that will address the remaining uncertainties in

support of a site suitability determination, Site Recommendation Report and License

Application.

Emphasis will be on completing those activities and analyses that contribute to

developing the Site Recommendation Report and drafting the License Application.

These activities and analyses are grouped into the broad categories of Core Science,

Design and Engineering, Suitability/Licensing, Performance Assessment, NEPA, Operations and Construction, and the supporting category of Project Management.

Each of these categories plays an important role in assembling a comprehensive picture of the viability of a repository at the Yucca Mountain site.

The Viability Assessment.—The Viability Assessment, completed on schedule in

fiscal year 1998, was submitted to the President and Congress on December 18,

1998. Even before it was released, it was used as a management tool to focus future

work needed to support the decision on a site recommendation.

Core Science.—The majority of the surface-based testing needed for licensing has

been completed. With completion of the Cross-Drift in the Exploratory Studies Facility, the focus of underground work will shift to investigations of the Solitario Canyon fault and to hydrologic and thermal studies of the upper and lower portions of

the repository rock unit. Testing in the cross drift will provide additional insight

into fracture patterns, potential faults, distinct rock layers, and hydrologic characteristics of the repository, and the Solitario Canyon fault. This testing will further

reduce uncertainties about the site and help us better understand processes that are

critical to site suitability and repository construction.

Two additional boreholes (SD–6 and WT–24), to the west and north, respectively,

of the proposed repository block are providing information on rock properties, deep

stratigraphy, and the saturated zone to support three-dimensional geologic and hydrologic modeling efforts.

Three tests using electric heaters to simulate heat generated by radioactive decay

of the emplaced waste were designed to yield important information on how heat

affects rock chemistry, rock mechanics, and site hydrology—and thus repository performance. The first study, a large-scale underground test, used a single heater to

heat a 25-cubic-meter volume of rock to 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius). The second study involved heating a large, discrete, aboveground block of rock

that permitted us to more closely control and monitor test parameters. The third

study approximates an actual waste emplacement drift—an underground alcove

about 50 meters long—will be heated over several years 392 degrees Fahrenheit

(200 degrees Celsius).

In mid-fiscal year 1998, a controlled experiment was initiated to determine the

infiltration rate and travel time through the Tiva Canyon welded tuff. The test involved a surface infiltration network and a collection system located in Exploratory

Studies Facility Alcove 1 directly below the surface infiltration plot. Monitoring of

this experiment is planned to determine the relationship between infiltration and

drift seepage.

The drift seepage testing program was expanded during fiscal year 1998 and

1999. Pre- and post-excavation air permeability tests were completed at two niches

in the Exploratory Studies Facility. Concurrently, 40 liquid-release tests were performed in 16 test intervals to determine the drift seepage threshold flux, which is

defined as the liquid-release rate at or below the level where water will no longer

seep into the drift. These experiments directly feed the unsaturated zone, drift seepage, and near field models, and are a critical input to performance assessment simulations.
309

Matrix and fault flow tests are underway in the Paintbrush Tuff exposed in Exploratory Studies Facility Alcove 4 to determine how the presence of a structural

break, such as a fault, affects the movement of water in this medium. Similarly,

pneumatic and liquid-release testing of the densely welded repository unit has been

conducted in support of the Alcove 6 fracture-matrix interaction experiment. Results

from these two experiments will be incorporated into the unsaturated zone process

model and used in the performance assessment.

Hydraulic and transport testing using conservative and reactive tracers has been

completed in the Prow Pass hydrogeologic unit at the C-Hole complex. Test results

from this low-flow zone near the water table are important because any radionuclides released from a breached waste package would first encounter this

hydrogeologic unit.

Sample collection and analysis of the oxidation-reduction potential of saturated

zone were performed for boreholes WT–17 and WT–3 south and east of Yucca Mountain. Measurement of this parameter is important to performance assessment because reducing conditions in the saturated zone can render radionuclides immobile

due to strong sorption potential.

During the remainder of fiscal year 1999, we will continue documenting our

present understanding of the geologic conditions and processes at Yucca Mountain,

and completing models of geologic and hydrologic processes in the saturated and unsaturated zones, sufficient to support the Site Recommendation Report and working

draft License Application. We will continue with the four-year heat-up phase of the

drift-scale heater test. We will continue to collect meteorological, and other environmental data to support the Environmental Impact Statement, Site Recommendation

Report, and the License Application.

Nye County is drilling a network of boreholes to be used to monitor the movement

of groundwater south of the proposed repository, off the Nevada Test Site. They are

establishing the conditions that exist before repository construction and will use the

network as an Early Warning Monitoring System. We are coordinating with Nye

County to obtain water measurements and water and rock samples from their drilling program. Cooperative planning has produced a program of scientific activities

that complement the Nye County objectives. We will conduct chemistry and isotopic

analysis of the water; and paleohydrologic, Eh and redox potential, rare earth and

trace element analysis; and geophysical log interpretations.

We implemented a cooperative agreement with the University and Community

College System of Nevada to perform scientific and engineering research, and develop and foster collaborative working relationships between the government and

academic researchers.

Design and Engineering.—We continued to develop and refine repository design

requirements. To this end, several analyses to substantiate or resolve assumptions

related to requirements and criteria were completed or revised.

A study of design features and design alternatives that will be a basis for selecting the License Application reference design will be completed. Features are design

enhancements that can be easily incorporated within multiple alternative designs.

Alternatives involve significant changes to the fundamental design concepts on

which the Viability Assessment was based. Each has the potential for improving repository performance, simplifying the safety strategy, or both.

The waste package nondestructive examination and weld development program

proceeded with demonstrations of remote welding and successful nondestructive examinations. A full-diameter mockup of the waste package made from alloy C–22 and

carbon steel (VA Design) was achieved by shrink-fitting the carbonated barrier

around the alloy C–22. Ultrasonic inspection revealed 100 percent contact between

the two surfaces.

Corrosion testing of candidate waste package materials continued. Additional

specimens were acquired and installed for exposure in the large chambers maintained under controlled temperatures and humidity levels. The Project initiated an

experimental study for measuring the composition of the ionic salts as they concentrate on heated metal surfaces. Testing started on alloy C–22 and titanium specimens under controlled slow-strain rates. Revision 1, Version 1.3, of the Waste Form

Characteristics Report was completed. This report describes preliminary degradation process models for use in the site recommendation and license application performance assessments. The update for the Engineered Materials Characterization

Report was also completed. This report documents all of the test results and performance models generated in the past two years.

For the remainder of fiscal year 1999, design and engineering activities will include the coordination and planning of waste package and repository surface and

subsurface designs; the design and acquisition of services and equipment for the

Cross-Drift in the Exploratory Studies Facility; preparation and maintenance of de-
310

sign requirements and design control documents; performance testing; and development of modeling programs for waste forms and waste packages.

Suitability/Licensing.—Our investigations of the Yucca Mountain Site have resulted in a substantial understanding of the site, a preliminary reference repository

design, and assessments of the performance of a repository system. However, additional work is needed to complete the postclosure safety case, support the preclosure

safety case and support remaining design decisions. The primary focus in fiscal year

1999 and fiscal year 2000 is to compile the technical documentation that will support the Site Recommendation Report.

We significantly refined our analysis for a repository safety strategy. The strategy

relies on engineered barriers, geologic features, and natural processes to retard

movement and prevent releases of radionuclides to the natural environment and to

reduce exposure to the public.

We completed management plans for both the Site Recommendation Report and

License Application. Our focus for the remainder of fiscal year 1999 will be to complete development of the working draft License Application and start a comprehensive review of the draft. We will also develop a draft of the Site Recommendation

Report that will be available for public review at the consideration hearings. Those

hearings are planned for early fiscal year 2001.

Interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will continue to focus

on two objectives. The first is to reach a common understanding regarding the

issues that are significant to overall repository performance. The second objective

is to reach agreement on the adequacy of proposed methodologies and approaches

to address important technical issues, such as criticality control and seismic design.

The goal is to reach a mutual understanding of a repository concept as it develops.

This understanding will provide bases for Nuclear Regulatory Commission preliminary comments on the sufficiency of site characterization and design information for

inclusion in a License Application.

Performance Assessment.—During fiscal year 1998, we completed development of

the Total System Performance Assessment for the Viability Assessment’s (TSPA–

VA) supporting technical volume ‘‘Total System Performance Assessment-Viability

Assessment Analysis Technical Basis Document.’’ Site characterization data, design

information, process level modeling results, and opinions elicited from various experts provided the basis for abstracted component models used in TSPA–VA. The

second and third interim reports from the Performance Assessment Peer Review

Panel were issued in fiscal year 1999. Recommendations from this panel and those

from external organizations (e.g., the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) were factored into the development of the

TSPA–VA model.

The TSPA–VA model is being used in fiscal year 1999 as one of the tools to evaluate various design alternatives and options currently under consideration. The

TSPA–VA model is also being used during the remainder of fiscal year 1999 to support development of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Concurrent with

this, activities are underway to begin refining the abstracted total system performance assessment component models that will be used to support the final Environmental Impact Statement, Site Recommendation Report, and License Application.

We have begun to hold a series of workshops where open issues are identified, discussed, and prioritized. Specific work activities will be defined based on the outcome

of these workshops to ensure that the issues are addressed in future performance

assessment analyses.

Following completion of these workshops, refinement of the total system performance assessment abstracted models will commence. The Performance Assessment

Peer Review Panel issued its final report in February of 1999. Their recommendations and those of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board, and other external groups will be used in the development of refined

total system performance assessment models. The methodology and assumptions

that will be used in future total system performance assessment iterations will be

documented in a report to be issued in July 1999.

NEPA.—In fiscal year 1998, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, we began to prepare the draft Environmental Impact Statement. A management council, which includes representatives of the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of Environment, Safety and Health, and the Office of General

Counsel, is helping us provide guidance for developing the draft Environmental Impact Statement ensuring coordination within the Department of Energy. A preliminary draft Environmental Impact Statement is undergoing Departmental review.

In fiscal year 1999, we will complete and issue the draft Environmental Impact

Statement and hold hearings across the nation to receive public comments.
311

Operations and Construction.—In fiscal year 1998, the Busted Butte test facility

construction was completed. This facility will enable scientists to conduct field-scale

observations of the Calico Hills formation. This is the same rock stratum that is located below the repository.

Also, in early fiscal year 1999, we completed the excavation of the Cross-Drift in

the Exploratory Studies Facility. This drift will give us access to more of the area

near the location where waste might be emplaced.

In fiscal year 1999, we will continue to support the operation and maintenance

of the Exploratory Studies Facility, including test set up and training, alcove modification, maintenance and upgrades to ventilation, electric, and other utility systems, security, and the protection of health, safety, and the environment. We recently completed transition to the Integrated Safety Management System. The Exploratory Studies Facility continues to be monitored for occupational health compliance with ventilation and air quality requirements for dust abatement and silica exposure mitigation.

WASTE ACCEPTANCE, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION

In the Waste Acceptance area, we performed fee verification for commercial spent

nuclear fuel; interacted with other Departmental offices, the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, utilities, and others concerning nuclear materials safeguards.

A non-site specific centralized interim storage facility Topical Safety Analysis Report was completed and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal

year 1998. That report is currently under staff review. We have continued interactions with the Commission staff during the review process. A cold demonstration

program of a prototype spent fuel dry transfer system was initiated in June 1998.

This demonstration program is sponsored jointly by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and the Office of Environmental Management with industry participation. This system can be used by nuclear utilities with reactors that

have limited crane capacities and are incapable of handling large storage casks.

And, we continue to maintain and update our data base on industry development

of storage and transportation technologies. We continued interaction with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding review of the dry transfer system topical

safety analysis report that had been submitted previously for Commission consideration.

The Program issued a revised draft RFP to obtain additional comments on the

planned acquisition of waste acceptance and transportation services, including canisters, transport casks, and storage modules. The RFP, to address the public/industry comments, was updated and a notice of availability was published in the Federal

Register in September 1998.

In recognition of our obligations under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy

Act of 1982, as amended, which provides for financial and technical assistance to

States and Indian Tribes through whose jurisdictions the Department plans to ship

spent nuclear fuel, the Program issued, in April 1998, a Notice of Revised Proposed

Policy and Procedures in the Federal Register. The Notice reflected our consideration of input from the States, local public safety officials and other interested parties on the proposed implementation procedures. In fiscal year 1998, we also continued to provide funds through cooperative agreements to national and regional

groups to address transportation related issues.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION

Over the past year the Program Management and Integration area continued to

support the activities of the two Business Centers—the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office and the Office of Waste Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation.

Nuclear Quality Assurance.—The Office of Quality Assurance completed the transition and consolidation of the Program’s quality assurance activities in fiscal year

1998. This resulted in more effective execution of quality assurance activities and

provided cost reductions in implementation. The Office of Quality Assurance supported the development of the Viability Assessment in fiscal year 1998, and is providing assistance to Site Recommendation Report activities in fiscal year 1999. The

Office of Quality Assurance is continuing to support the Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management System Management and Operating contractor staff in fiscal year 1999

in the Process Validation and Re-engineering efforts, which will result in procedural

enhancements and consolidation. The Office of Quality Assurance continues to provide quality assurance guidance for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization

Project and the Office of Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation.

Program Control/Systems Engineering.—We provided program- and project-level

systems engineering and integration support for the ongoing Yucca Mountain site
312

characterization, waste package, and repository design activities and the waste acceptance, storage, and transportation efforts. We implemented the Interface Management Process to allow the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office and the

Office of Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation and their design and procurement contractors to effectively control system-level design interfaces. We

worked extensively with Departmental elements responsible for the government’s

spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste to develop waste acceptance criteria that

are compatible with the radioactive waste management system design requirements.

We defined roles and responsibilities concerning the acceptance of Departmentowned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and we completed Memoranda of Agreements with Office of Environmental Management and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. We incorporated immobilized plutonium waste forms into

the technical baseline.

We coordinated and integrated the Program’s activities with other Departmental

elements regarding the Department’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste. We continued to develop and implement an integrated schedule for the Monitored Geologic Repository system, the Office of Environmental Management, and

the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition.

We continued to conduct systems engineering studies and analyses and completed

a number of studies, including the effects of early receipt of spent nuclear fuel on

the program; impacts of early reactor shutdown, options for the disposal of site-generated wastes; dual purpose canister disposability benefit analyses; and the impacts

of all legal-weight truck transportation. We completed work on analyses for the

Total System Life Cycle Cost Report as well as the Fee Adequacy Report. Those reports were issued as companion documents to the Viability Assessment. We completed Revision 1 of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Total System Description of the waste management system as currently envisioned. We have also

been actively working on developing a cooperative agreement with the Russian Federation to work together on geologic repository issues.

Regulatory Compliance.—We continued to interact regularly with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission staff and Commissioners to address management and technical issues (e.g., quality assurance, total system performance assessment, repository and waste package design) and participated in numerous Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and panel meetings. We renegotiated the prelicensing agreement that provides guidelines for communications between the staffs and management organizations of the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We

supported interagency discussions on the development of the Environmental Protection Agency radiation protection standard for Yucca Mountain. In addition, we coordinated and integrated program-related National Environmental Policy Act, environmental, safety, and health activities to ensure compliance with Federal and State

requirements and Departmental directives.

Program Management.—We issued Revision 2 of the OCRWM Program Plan in

July 1998. Revision 2 essentially continues the thrust of the draft 1996 revised plan,

and identifies strategic objectives for fiscal year 1998—fiscal year 2003, states the

assumptions that the plan rests on, defines measures of success, and provides for

contingency planning. It is intended to serve not only as the foundation of program

management, but as a common framework that all parties can use to evaluate our

progress and shape their own participation in the Program.

We continued the development and implementation of a program wide information architecture to provide the foundation for the definition, development, organization, and management of, and access to, all program data, records, and information

systems. Regarding our external communications, we continued to use our World

Wide Web presence to distribute a variety of program information to interested

stakeholders. Our address is http://www.rw.doe.gov/

Many of the Program’s policy and technical documents, including the Viability Assessment and all of its relevant companion and supporting documents, are available

to the public through our electronic databases.

During fiscal year 1998, we continued our Y2K compliance efforts by initiating the

assessment and testing of all software applications. We validated for Y2K compliance and implemented all mission-critical systems ahead of the Department’s

stretch goal of January 31,1999. Assessment of non-mission critical systems is in

progress, and we expect to validate and implement all non-mission critical systems

later in fiscal year 1999.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN WATER MIGRATION

Senator DOMENICI. Senator Reid, do you have any questions?

Senator REID. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
313

Mr. Barrett, I have some questions, but because of the press of

the time of the committee and my time, if you would just respond

yes or no, that would be appreciated.

I understand that water poses a risk to long-term containment

of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste. Do you

agree?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

Senator REID. I also understand that early on in the Yucca

Mountain project it was thought that it would take more than

1,000 years for surface water to penetrate to repository depths, is

that right?

Mr. BARRETT. Some theories say that.

Senator REID. If no, then how long would those that disagree say

it would take?

Mr. BARRETT. It is a physical distribution of how the water

moves, so it is a complex issue. Some of the water can move very

fast, but the majority of the water moves very slowly.

Senator REID. Okay. Do you agree that scientific evidence now

exists that proves that surface water penetrated to repository

depths in about 40 years?

Mr. BARRETT. We have indication that some water has.

Senator REID. Please, yes or no.

Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

Senator REID. Mr. Barrett, I understand that the water moves so

rapidly to the repository depths, because of what is called highspeed pathways, is that correct?

Mr. BARRETT. I have never heard the words high-speed pathways.

ROCK FRACTURES

Senator REID. Okay. Would you say they are just cracks in the

rocks then?

Mr. BARRETT. There are natural fractures in all rock, including

Yucca Mountain, and there are analyses that say water has been

present in some of those fractures in the last 50 years.

Senator REID. The question is: Why is the rock cracked, and

what are possible things that could generate cracks in massive rock

formations?

Here is the question: Earthquakes are thought to generate massive deep fissures in the ground, and I suppose then that it is possible that earthquakes could generate cracks in the rock around

Yucca Mountain. Would you agree to this supposition?

Mr. BARRETT. Most of the cracks——

Senator REID. Can you answer that yes or no?

Mr. BARRETT. I cannot, sir.

Senator REID. Okay. You cannot. Then you would disagree with

my supposition that earthquakes generate cracks in rocks around

Yucca Mountain.

Mr. BARRETT. No, I do not disagree with that.

Senator REID. Okay. You are aware that there is evidence that

the earth around Yucca Mountain is stretching and that the program there is funding further study of this area, is that true?

Mr. BARRETT. That is true.
314

Senator REID. Could stretching like this also generate cracks in

the rock around Yucca Mountain?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

Senator REID. Is it true that earthquakes are normally proceeded

by stretching and distortion of the earth?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

EARTHQUAKE THREATS

Senator REID. Because the Yucca Mountain region experiences

the third highest frequency of earthquakes in the United States, I

suppose that it is not surprising to see that significant stretching

and distortion of the earth is there, would you agree, yes or no?

Mr. BARRETT. I cannot. There is some. It is a relative thing. Yes,

there is stretching at Yucca Mountain——

Senator REID. Okay. That is the question.

Mr. BARRETT [continuing]. But we do not believe that stretching

is causing any of the fractures that have to do with the water infiltration.

Senator REID. That is your opinion.

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

Senator REID. Okay. So we have agreed on a number of things

here this morning. What I cannot understand, and what I believe

you should not tolerate, is the dismissal of the threat of earthquakes to the performance of the repository. Water is the worst

threat to containment.

It is reaching repository depths many times faster than expected,

because of cracks in the rock. There may be some dispute as to how

the cracks got there, but everyone acknowledges that water is getting there quicker and quicker.

Earthquakes and their associated distortion can proliferate these

cracks, leading to greater amounts of water reaching the repository

faster. So I would say that the cracks, however they get there,

would pose a threat to the repository performance, is this true or

false?

Mr. BARRETT. The way that question was put together, I would

say that is false.

Senator REID. Okay. Can you extend this argument to the rate

at which uncontained radioactivity reaches the groundwater?

Mr. BARRETT. Could you say that again?

Senator REID. Yes. If there is an argument that the water can

reach where the containment is, would you agree that radioactivity

would follow the path of water?

Mr. BARRETT. Radioactivity will go with the water. There are different layers from the surface to the Yucca Mountain repository horizon and from that the horizon down to the saturated zone below

it. There are different scenarios.

Senator REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. It seems to me, since I have 20 minutes before I have to leave, that I can still yield to you for a couple of

questions.

Senator Campbell.
315

STORAGE OF WASTE AT ROCKY FLATS

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opening

statement I did mention this rumor I had heard that DOE was

talking about putting temporary tent storage at Rocky Flats, and

I appreciated Mr. Owendoff’s commitment that we are going to finish that up and get it cleaned up by 2006. We have kind of pushed

that date back a few times, as you know.

But I also mentioned that our communities are just going to

rebel at that thought of temporary storage, and I wanted to tell you

that my reaction will also be somewhat near nuclear. I would like

your comment on that, if that is true or not, that they intend to

store any hazardous or radioactive material in tents.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Campbell, I think your concern and your

angst are also shared by Secretary Richardson, which he has testified on——

Senator CAMPBELL. He will be testifying before another committee this afternoon, Interior Appropriations, and I will——

Mr. OWENDOFF. So you will hear firsthand——

Senator CAMPBELL. You bet.

PLUTONIUM OXIDE STABILIZATION

Mr. OWENDOFF [continuing]. Senator. We are in a box. We believe that it is necessary to continue the stabilization of the plutonium oxides that are at Rocky Flats. An option for us is to not stabilize those oxides that ultimately will go down to WIPP.

So the approach that we are taking is, we want to continue the

progress on stabilizing those oxides and putting them in containers.

These are very robust containers that are used to transport waste

to WIPP. Then what we are looking at are options that, if for some

reason WIPP does not open in a timely fashion this year, that we

will have places to put those containers.

Now, one option that we are looking at is putting those containers in an existing facility. If we put them in an existing facility,

then that would delay when we would be able to decontaminate

and demolish that existing facility.

Another option would be some temporary storage—I know they

are referred to as tents, but they are not like the tents my boy is

in over in Saudi Arabia right now. They are fabric structures, with

a concrete or paved floor in them.

We believe that can be an appropriate option, at a very, very lowdollar cost. We realize, though, that the message that that can

send is that we are temporarily storing the waste, but it is not concrete structures or long-term storage. In the balance, though, Senator, we believe that is an appropriate approach.

ADDITIONAL WORKLOAD AT ROCKY FLATS

Senator CAMPBELL. Well then, I just have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee or the full committee, I intend

to try and put language in our appropriations bill that prevents

that from being stored in anything that I would describe as a tent

or temporary storage.

Let me also ask you this, if we are committed to trying to get

that cleaned up by 2006, why are we adding more work to it? It
316

is my understanding that the Department has asked Savannah

River, as an example, to develop plutonium canisters, and now

Rocky Flats has been told that they will have to do that.

If we are going to close it up by 2006, why are we adding to the

workload, which would tend to push the closure back further?

Mr. OWENDOFF. I think if we look at the whole picture with

Rocky Flats, we are asking many of the other sites to accept material from Rocky Flats, so we have asked Savannah River to accelerate when they would receive these plutonium oxides. There are

certainly some increased costs that Savannah River has experienced as a result.

Senator CAMPBELL. I know very simply this, that you are going

to add to the workload. Can we get a commitment that it is not

going to add to the time frame by which it will be closed?

Mr. OWENDOFF. That is our commitment, Senator, and what my

disappointment is, whatever information that your staff may have

gotten from the contractor was, that they did not relate to you the

reductions in cost that we have been achieving. So all you have

been seeing is more and more, but we have been receiving significant reductions in costs, which we are going to continue some $70

million——

Senator CAMPBELL. Well, it is not only the money, I am concerned about time frame, too.

Mr. OWENDOFF. I am going out this evening, Senator Campbell,

to Rocky Flats to talk about this.

TRANSURANIC WASTE

Senator CAMPBELL. All right. One last question, do you agree

with New Mexico, there is one type of waste called transuranic

waste, and it is my understanding that we have asked for—the

President’s budget is a pretty healthy commitment, but there is

only one place where that waste is developed, and that happens to

be at Rocky Flats, and there are different kinds, some radioactive,

some not hazardous, and so on, that will eventually go to WIPP,

but does that mean that there will be any additional parts of that

monies that will be going to Rocky Flats, since that is the only

place where this stuff called TRU is developed?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator, Rocky is not the only place that has——

Senator CAMPBELL. Oh, it is not.

Mr. OWENDOFF [continuing]. TRU waste. Los Alamos, Savannah

River, Hanford, Oak Ridge have TRU waste.

LAWSUIT AT WIPP

Senator CAMPBELL. Well, that takes care of that question. The

last thing is that in the State of New Mexico we have this ongoing

lawsuit. What is your agency doing to try and help the state resolve the outstanding problem so it can be opened?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Well, the key date is next Tuesday, when Judge

Penn here in the District Court is going to rule on the injunction,

and I believe at that time we will have a clearer picture, Senator.

Senator CAMPBELL. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you allowing me to ask those questions.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. Senators Murray and Craig, could

I just impose on you? I have not asked any questions yet, and I
317

must go up to the sixth floor and finish the budget markup in 15

minutes.

I would like to ask a few questions, and then if one of you want

to stay beyond that for your questions, you are free to do that.

Senator Craig, of course, you are on the committee. It would be

good if you could maintain the committee functioning for a while.

Senator Murray has to leave when I leave, right?

Senator MURRAY. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. So why don’t you take a minute or two right

now. You said you needed two.

HANFORD SITE BUDGET

Senator MURRAY. Just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Obviously, the Hanford budget is critical for those of us in Washington State, and I was pleased to see the President’s budget with

an additional $100 million. I hope this committee can support it.

Mr. Owendoff, can you just quickly tell us what that additional

funding will be for?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Yes, ma’am. The portion of that additional

money going to Hanford will be used to support tank waste operations, the Plutonium Finishing Plant operations, and work at K

Basins.

TANK WASTE REMEDIATION SYSTEM PRIVATIZATION

Senator MURRAY. Now, let me ask you about the TWRS, or the

tank waste remediation system privatization request. This is something I have worked hard on, and Congress has been reluctant in

the past to fully fund that. Can you tell us what will happen if

Congress does not fund that?

Mr. OWENDOFF. There are two things, Senator Murray. One is

the $106 million for the 2000 budget request, and the other is the

funds that we are requesting for the advanced appropriation.

The reason that we are requesting advanced appropriation is we

believe that that will add to the confidence of the commercial lenders, as we go through the next 24 months of developing the design

and the financing package for TWRS. This will give confidence to

the lenders that we are serious about this project and in support

of this project.

As you well know, in the past our record has been somewhat

spotty as far as large projects having support, continued support,

so we use this as a method to get that continued support and drive

down those costs.

HANFORD SITE MANAGER

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Finally, we have to get an experienced innovative site manager at Hanford. Can you tell me when

the Department is going to appoint somebody?

Mr. OWENDOFF. The Secretary indicated that it was his goal to

try to get a manager by the end of this month for Hanford. I know

that is difficult and challenging, but that is——

Senator MURRAY. We are waiting for it. Thank you.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Thank you, Senator.
318

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Well, I have a very,

very long series of questions. I obviously will not get them done,

but I will submit them to both of you.

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, because of the time I did not ask

questions of James Owendoff. I would ask permission to be able to

submit those in writing to him.

Senator DOMENICI. Without objection.

ESTIMATED COST OF CLEANUP

Senator DOMENICI. Maybe 2 weeks to respond, is that fair

enough for you-all? Okay. What is the current estimate, Mr.

Owendoff, to clean up the waste generated by nuclear weapons activities in the past years, and how long will it take to complete the

cleanup.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Our estimate, based on analysis that came in

last June, Senator, is $147 billion, and that is our projection

through year 2070. We will have an update to that this summer,

where we will update those numbers. The good news of that effort

that we see, is we go down by each site, project by project at each

site, and understand the scope and the costs.

Senator DOMENICI. How does this estimate, even though you are

going to update it, how does it compare to previous estimates, and

what is the reason for the difference, if there is one?

Mr. OWENDOFF. We have had in the past, where the estimates

have been $200 billion, $300 billion.

The difference is that I think we have looked at some realistic

cleanup goals, what needs to be cleaned up, what material needs

to be disposed of, and what are those technologies that do that. So

there is a whole series of things that we can certainly share for the

record on those.

[The information follows:]

COMPARISON OF COST OF DOE CLEANUP WITH PREVIOUS ESTIMATES

In 1995 and 1996, as requested by Congress, the Department developed its first

estimates of life-cycle cost and schedule for the remaining EM cleanup effort. These

Baseline Environmental Management Reports (BEMRs) described the estimated

scope of the EM program. The 1996 report stated that, as a mid-range estimate, the

program would cost approximately $230 billion (constant 1996 dollars) spent over

a 70-year period, using certain assumptions about funding levels, productivity, and

land use in developing the estimate.

The Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure report issued in June 1998 reported

a life-cycle cost estimate of $147 billion. The $147 billion life-cycle estimate was adjusted to form the basis of EM’s portion in the Department’s fiscal year 1998 Annual

Financial Report for fiscal year 1998 estimate, which was determined to be about

$145 billion.

The primary reasons for the difference between BEMR and Paths to Closure can

be attributed to the fact that BEMR: (1) included costs for both ‘‘legacy’’ waste associated with historical nuclear weapons production and nuclear related activities, and

newly generated wastes; (2) included costs for the eventual transfer of DOE facilities

not currently in the Environmental Management program; and (3) in some cases,

used different end-state assumptions than Paths to Closure.

Paths to Closure addresses a somewhat different scope. For example, Paths to Closure includes costs for legacy waste cleanup but not newly generated wastes, and

excludes costs for any facilities not currently in the Environmental Management

program. Additionally, Paths to Closure reflects improved estimates for a number

of projects and improvements in efficiency in accomplishing the same or comparable

activities, thereby lowering total life-cycle costs of the program. In addition, $145

billion representing EM’s portion of the fiscal year 1998 environmental liability
319

statement reflects future estimated costs starting in fiscal year 1999, while the 1996

BEMR estimates costs beginning in fiscal year 1996.

LEVEL OF CLEANUP

Senator DOMENICI. All right. What level of cleanup is assumed

in the 2006 plan? Is the Department assuming a mid-level cleanup

or maximum cleanup in this plan?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Mr. Chairman, we look at each site individually.

The key is what is the land use. In the case of the Mound facility

in Ohio, we are looking at industrial standards. For the Fernald

site in Ohio, it is open space. For Rocky Flats, it is also open space.

So there is a difference between the industrial, open space, versus

residential standards.

Senator DOMENICI. Is there any contention by anyone in litigation or at the local level that says that approach is not valid?

Mr. OWENDOFF. I think we will always see some concern and

some discussion back and forth on what the appropriate future

land use should be. Certainly, there are local governments and

communities that are concerned, just as there are on Superfund

sites, that if you do not clean them up to background levels, that

that might encumber the use in the future. But we believe there

is a reasonable tradeoff that needs to be discussed.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I, for one, want to make my observations part of the record at this point. I am convinced that we are

going to have to do some work on better defining the risks of radioactive levels, and that we will not be able to meet our cleanup

goals if we leave the standards as they are.

They are all based on some linear extraction. There is no real research, although we just started now with some real research on

that aspect of the danger of low-level radioactivity. I want you to

know we will try to support you with reference to its different—the

standard could be different, if you have industrial sites or if you

have open space, as compared with residential, otherwise, we are

never going to get some of these sites cleaned up. We will just sit

there and spend money forever.

FUSRAP SITES

There is a little known program, it has kind of a funny set of letters, F–U–S–R–A–P, FUSRAP. Now, Congress gave the program to

the Corps of Engineers with an assignment to take on a few of

these cleanup sites and see if they could make better progress than

we have been doing. Do you have a report or something to tell us

about how they are doing?

Mr. OWENDOFF. The Corps of Engineers, Mr. Chairman, to my

understanding, has submitted a report. It has not been our task,

nor has the Congress asked us to oversee the——

Senator DOMENICI. No. I am certainly not asking you to do that.

You have enough to oversee.

Mr. OWENDOFF. In answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, I do

not.

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. I would like the committee to know

that while this is a small program, it very well might point to some

approaches where the Corps of Engineers might be able to come

along, and rather than take as long as the Department of Energy
320

takes, for some reason, whatever they are, they seem to be making

some headway and they are happy with their assignment. So, we

will get a report from the Corps.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment just on

that. As we have seen, certainly on Rocky Flats and the others,

there is a necessary integration across the complex for materials,

and to make things happen. FUSRAP was very straightforward—

get material from one place and dispose of it.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, nonetheless, it appears that you were

not able to get it done as quickly as they have.

Mr. OWENDOFF. I think we can demonstrate that we are doing

that.

TWRS PRIVATIZATION PROJECT

Senator DOMENICI. Good. I hope so. I understand that the requirement for budget authority for the TWRS privatization project

increases from $106 million this year, to $600 million in 2001, and

$660 million in 2002. Am I correct, and if so, what will the impact

be on the project, if the committee is unable to provide the additional budget authority? What options do you have?

Mr. OWENDOFF. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we will have a limited number of options, because trying to stretch this project out

is really going to be very difficult. We have had to make commitments in the past down at Savannah River in building a high-level

waste vitrification plant, and I believe we need to do the same

thing in Hanford.

Let me state, though, Mr. Chairman, quickly, we are looking at

a range of alternatives of financing and approaches, so we will be

coming back to the committee over the next 2 years and sharing

with you that range. So we are not going to give you just one price.

FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

Senator DOMENICI. For all the programs, how much is your 2001

over baseline assumptions?

Mr. OWENDOFF. We do have a significant problem. Those estimates will be coming in to us in May, Mr. Chairman, but I know

we have some challenges in 2001.

Senator DOMENICI. So, your funding requirement is going to be

up substantially, right, is that what you are saying?

Mr. OWENDOFF. That is what I am hearing from the field, but I

do not have dollars. I would normally anticipate that that is what

the field——

Senator DOMENICI. I would very much appreciate it if in your response to questions you would try to give us a better handle on

what that might be.

Mr. OWENDOFF. I understand.

EPA GROUNDWATER STANDARD

Senator DOMENICI. Let me just ask two questions about Yucca

Mountain, please. As we understand, there is not just one standard

you are trying to meet, there is an EPA standard for Yucca Mountain, and it includes a separate groundwater standard, is that not

correct, Mr. Barrett?
321

Mr. BARRETT. EPA is still developing their standard, and they

have not yet submitted one for agency review, but they are considering including a groundwater standard, as well as an all pathway

standard.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, whether it is final or not, you are certainly part of the mix that is looking at what standard they are

thinking of setting, are you not?

Mr. BARRETT. We would have to demonstrate through science

and technology that we could meet whatever the legally promulgated standard would be, and that would be the EPA standard

which goes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who would then

oversee us. So yes, we would have to meet whatever it is.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, are you participants in trying to help

decide what the right standard is? Does DOE just sit on the sideline and watch that occur?

Mr. BARRETT. No, sir. DOE provides technical information on

what we know about Yucca Mountain. The EPA will do the judgment, as to what should be the appropriate environmental safety

standard for the country under the statute, but we provide scientific information on what science can and cannot do.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Barrett, it seems to me when you were

testifying, although you were not using a lot of words, because the

questioner wanted you to be brief, you do not have to be quite so

brief to me when I ask you a question. How could you give the estimates that you were giving of the possible success of Yucca when

you must admit that whether we could meet the standards at all

will depend upon what standard the EPA determines to be the appropriate standard with reference to groundwater. They could set

a standard, could they not, that would make it impossible for Yucca

to proceed?

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. From what you hear, they are moving in the

direction that may very well have that standard, is that correct?

Mr. BARRETT. I expect that there will be a range of requirements

for an EPA standard. Some of those may not be achievable, some

of those may be achievable.

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

Senator DOMENICI. Now, whether I like the standard or not, it

just does not make any difference. They are charged with doing it,

and that then yields to a very serious question, what do your models tell you about when and how much radioactive material, whatever the contaminant level is, will reach the groundwater under

Yucca Mountain, and are these levels of concern to you?

Mr. BARRETT. In our viability assessment report, which was the

reference at the time last year, we had estimates to when that

would be. We did not expect to see any contamination off-site at

Yucca Mountain for several thousand years.

Nominally, at 10,000 years we expected to see, based on our

probabilistic projections, around .1 millirem per year to a person

who drank the water, had a garden, had cows; essentially was exposed to all pathways. We believe that that is not an unreasonable

exposure to the person, and that is what we had there.
322

Now, we do not know what the standard is. The standard will

be duly promulgated, and we will compare the performance of

Yucca Mountain against that standard, and that will be the criteria

of——

Senator DOMENICI. Could you tell us just quickly, how much does

that .1 millirem—how do you compare that with what an average

person gets daily in the United States?

Mr. BARRETT. It is a small fraction of the annual background. It

is a small percentage, very small.

Senator DOMENICI. I am going to leave now, but I would like to

do this, since Senator Allard has been here so long, I would like

to—Senator Gorton, did you have some comment you would like to

make?

Senator GORTON. Could I ask one very brief question——

Senator DOMENICI. Yes.

HANFORD SITE BUDGET

Senator GORTON. Mr. Owendoff, the Administration, it seems to

me, has come up with a much better and realistic Hanford budget

this year. Our note, however, is that even at over a billion dollars

it is a relatively modest $23 million short of the legal requirements

of the Tri-Party Agreement. Is that the case, in your view, and if

so, how do you propose to keep to the legal requirements of that

agreement?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Gorton, certainly, if one looks at what

the estimated funding needs are for all the various projects, there

is some dollar amount on some projects, but I think, as you pointed

out, when one looks at a billion dollars, there are some abilities to

defer some things. But these we need to discuss with the regulators

and the stakeholders, because everybody is engaged with the budget.

So, I think there are some things that are not legally required

that we could defer to accomplish, legally required activities.

There’s also the ability for us to get some prices, some lower prices

than what we anticipated, so I think as one works through the

year, that’s where these——

Senator GORTON. But you are committed to meeting all of the

legal requirements of that agreement.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Yes, Senator.

Senator GORTON. Okay. That is all I have. Thank you very much,

Mr. Chairman.

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT

Senator DOMENICI. I would like to make one last comment. I note

the presence of Senator Craig. He has a genuine interest in the status of WIPP, because of transuranic waste that is in his state.

I would just say, we have a governor, he is elected by the people,

he was elected by a very huge majority last time, and he is insisting that the environmental department of the State of New Mexico

issue a permit before any materials are moved to our state.

In addition, New Mexico cannot proceed any faster when there

is a temporary injunction placed against them by a court, so everyone has their version of what they will not do. However, I think

the reality is that New Mexico and WIPP may not be able to be
323

open, because of one or other of these issues that I have just raised,

I hope not, and I think that everybody will have to sit down and

talk sensibly about that in the event that that is the case.

I do believe that we are not far away from an opening date, but

we have said that before; although, this judge is going to decide

this coming Tuesday. Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I hope we are not far away from

the opening date. There is another date that is important, the legal

commitment date created by a court between DOE and the State

of Idaho to begin to move transuranic waste out of Idaho. That date

is April 30 of this year, so I will be pursuing that question in a few

moments. There are time lines out there, and the governor of the

State of Idaho will act, no question about it, if that agreement is

violated.

He will have to act, for all the political reasons that Senator

Reid, and I, and others become so exorcized about nuclear materials. The new governor of Idaho will have to respond, so I will pursue that question. There are time lines out there. The governor of

New Mexico has an obligation to his people, but so does the governor of Idaho.

Senator DOMENICI. I understand. I do not know that anybody is

going to violate a Federal district court order, that is all I am saying. The judge will decide on Tuesday, and I am very hopeful that

he decides that we have done everything that we were supposed to

do. I have every reason, having been briefed, that that will happen.

Senator CRAIG. Good.

ROCKY FLATS SITE

Senator DOMENICI. My final comment is, Rocky Flats is doing so

well. I think it would be interesting for you, if you can, to do an

absolute analysis of what it is doing better than the other sites.

There are certain characteristics about what is going on there

that seem to me are not going on in some of the other sites, both

as to local communities efforts and agreements with the states, and

also with reference to management and the company doing the

work. I mean everything seems to be just perfect. The match seems

very, very good. It is not so elsewhere.

Mr. OWENDOFF. If I could, just as a second, I think if you look

at Weldon Springs, in Missouri, Fernald, in Ohio, Mound, in Ohio,

I think you will see that those are preceding Rocky Flats, and we

are making progress, they are closing.

If you look at Weldon Springs, all the buildings are down. The

pads are gone. The disposal cells should be finished up in 2 years.

Mound will be 2 years behind it. We are using those experiences

to help us with the integration work at Rocky, so I believe we are

not just waiting for Rocky to happen all at once.

I think we are demonstrating that we are making progress at

these sites, as well as making progress at the larger sites, like I

mentioned at Hanford, taking the projects that were costing us $20

million down to $1 million by taking out the nuclear materials, getting the cost of the monitoring that is required down. So I believe,

Mr. Chairman, that we are making demonstrable progress.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. Maybe we can spend a little less

money if you are being so successful.
324

Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I will proceed with the hearing, and in doing so, I will turn to

my colleague from Colorado, who has waited here patiently. Do you

wish to make any comments or ask questions before I make my

comments and follow-up with questions?

ROCKY FLATS FUNDING

Senator ALLARD. I again want to thank the chairman of this committee for his support in my efforts to get Rocky Flats cleaned up

as soon as possible. The target date right now is 2006. I also want

to recognize the efforts of your Secretary and my secretary for

working to make sure that we have extra dollars in there, in this

year’s budget. I do recognize that. I personally thank him for that.

I realize there are a lot of challenges, and I am heartened to hear

that there is some optimism about the way the project is moving

along. But there are a few things that I think I must raise just as

a concern, because this is a number one priority, as far as I am

concerned, for Colorado.

I think it has gone on entirely too long, and I know that you do

have interests in other states that have similar concerns, but my

bottom line is that we could sure hold this out as an example of

how sites could be cleaned up, and I think really by doing that

could help your program and your assurances to other Americans

who have similar problems that these things can happen.

I do have a couple of follow-up questions that my colleague, Senator Ben Campbell, asked you, and I want to recognize his efforts

and help also in a public way in helping to get Rocky Flats cleared

up.

ADDITIONAL WORK REQUIREMENTS

But recently you suggested that the Rocky Flat site team might

be crying wolf about the effects of added scope requirements on its

budget, and you further inferred that Rocky Flats failed to acknowledge benefits and/or additional funding somehow obtained

from other sites, and my colleague, Senator Campbell, was coming

up to that question and did not quite ask it directly like I have.

I wonder if you might explain where these additional funds came

from, and if you could be specific, I would appreciate it.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Let me just take a step back, Senator Allard, if

I may. If we look at where we were 3 years ago, we were in a situation at Rocky where we did not know where much of the spent nuclear materials would go—where the plutonium materials that

were there would go. There was some general ideas, but we did not

have a pathway.

Senator ALLARD. Yes.

Mr. OWENDOFF. It was at that time that we said, within the Environmental Management budget, let us take on a man-on-themoon goal, what can we do in 10 years for the whole complex, not

just Rocky. I’ll get to Rocky specifically, but we said, what can we

do across the complex.

We were very sensitive that both the Congress as well as the

American people are not going to be satisifed with $6 billion a year

for the next 70 years. That just will not happen.
325

Now, by taking that goal on we could not demonstrate what are

all the activities that we are going to have to put in place to meet

the 2006 goal, just like we did in the man-on-the-moon program,

but we said, if we do not challenge ourselves there, then for sure

we will never get there. Some of the things since then that have

taken place are, we have moved highly enriched uranium to Oak

Ridge, we have moved plutonium pits, the useable material, to

Pantex, and there will be some materials that will be utilized at

Los Alamos.

Also, we have accelerated removal of one material which will go

to Savannah River to be processed, some of the higher-grade oxides. In fact, we have even modified an existing facility. Instead of

waiting for a brand new facility, we looked and we modified a current facility for the storage of those materials that allowed us to

have that acceleration.

Now, when we looked at Rocky Flats, we said the biggest thing

that is costing us in the way of, let us say steady-state expenses,

is the amount that it takes to keep it running as well as the safeguards and——

Senator ALLARD. Securities.

Mr. OWENDOFF [continuing]. Securities. Exactly right. So the

quicker we can get those down, then the greater savings that—I

mean more money can go into cleanup, the less money has to go

into the safeguards and securities.

By the way, I have a very cooperative working relationship with

Jesse Roberson and with Bob Carr, so we are not in an adversarial

relationship. In fact, as I mentioned to Senator Campbell, I am

going out this evening and will spend all day tomorrow at Rocky

Flats, and one of the things that we are looking at is the contractor, Kaiser Hill, who has submitted a baseline for closing Rocky

in 2010.

We know that there are opportunities then to then pull that closure date to 2006, and what we want to do is to strategize to ensure that there are not other opportunities for us to have higher

confidence to bring those costs down—and bring that project in.

Senator ALLARD. So your bottom line is, by facilitating the disposal of some of the more radioactive material there earlier on,

that is where the cost savings comes down——

Mr. OWENDOFF. Yes.

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. And then consequently, you are

asking for additional responsibilities for Rocky Flats to assume. I

think my colleague mentioned the containers. So you are saying,

well, we have that, we expect to absorb those other costs, is that

what you are saying?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Well, let me state this. The one reason that Kaiser Hill requested that they be allowed to have the contract to purchase the containers is, they were going to be purchased by Savannah River, the receiving site——

Senator ALLARD. I see.

Mr. OWENDOFF [continuing]. But Kaiser Hill said, we believe

that is an integral part in the mechanics of our business. When

would Rocky Flats receive them, would the containers be on spec,

and things like that. So what they have asked is that they be able

to take over the procurement responsibility.
326

Now, I certainly realize that from a funding standpoint, I am the

one that has to make some balances across the complex and to understand where we are. I believe that we held flat funding, our request had been $625 million, as you mentioned. It was ‘‘plussed up’’

within the Congress.

Even though we had some small increases, we held to that

amount, and we had some tough choices across the complex. So we

believe that by requesting at the higher level in the 2000 budget

request, doing that, that we had provided some increases from

where our plan was last year.

Senator ALLARD. There is some disagreement, I think, between

Kaiser Hill, maybe, on this, and maybe we can get to the bottom

of that. We will work on that. We will work with you and we will

work with them and see just exactly what is happening there.

ALTERNATIVES FOR STORAGE AT ROCKY FLATS

The scope changes have started eating into some of these efficiency savings for some money that would be spent on accelerated

closure into funding. Scope changes, for example, the accelerated

demolition of buildings 771 and 779 is being put in danger, because

money for the demolition of these sites is instead of being used for

the purchase of the—that is what we talked about, was the 997—

and the building of the tents now. Are you aware of how much

money would be saved yearly if we could get these buildings down?

Mr. OWENDOFF. I do not have in my head, Senator Allard——

Senator ALLARD. Does $60 million sound okay to you or close to

range?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Well, that is a lot of things. If we look at the

construction of facilities, we are talking in the $3 million to $4 million for potentially additional temporary storage, but I think what

is key there is, how much would we build, what would it look like.

My preference is that we would continue on with the demolition

of a facility and not try to use it as temporary storage, because I

believe that the other alternatives are a very cheap way to go. The

fabric structures are very cheap, Senator.

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DELAY IN OPENING WIPP

Senator ALLARD. Could you tell me the hidden costs of WIPP not

opening on time, as they would apply to Rocky Flats?

Mr. OWENDOFF. We are working on what those costs are. I do not

believe that they are significant through this year. As long as we

can get WIPP open within this year, they are not significant costs,

but once we go beyond this fall, that is when we have to start making the commitments on some additional temporary storage, because we believe that it is prudent to continue stabilizing the oxides, and we need to have some place to store those containers.

SHIPPING NON-MIXED WASTE TO WIPP

Senator ALLARD. Well, I think my colleague shares the concern,

the Idaho delegation and Colorado delegation have the same concern about the WIPP. We spent over $2.1 billion, and then we are

not putting anything in there. It seems crazy, to me, to ask the tax-
327

payers to do that, and I think that it is important that we get that

open as soon as possible, and try to work on this.

We have reviewed some of the law, and whatnot, and I would appreciate a yes or no answer on this. Does DOE have the authority

to ship straight, non-mixed, that’s the transuranic waste, to WIPP,

without the State of New Mexico approval?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Let me submit that, because I want to make

sure we have the current injunction. You did not refer to the

injunction——

Senator ALLARD. No, I did refer to the——

Mr. OWENDOFF [continuing]. You referred to the State of New

Mexico.

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Because I am going to cite you a

specific reference in law, that reads like this, and it is my reading

of RCRA, and as long as you are not mixing stuff with it you do

not have to go for a RCRA permit. It is 42 USCA, 6903(27), that

states, ‘‘Solid waste does not include special nuclear or by-product

material, as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.’’ If, in fact,

the material at Rocky Flats falls within the definition of this, then

it would not require a state RCRA permit, would it not?

Mr. OWENDOFF. It should not, if there are not hazardous materials.

Senator ALLARD. Right. If it is just straight material, it goes out.

If it is not mixed, it can go right to the State of New Mexico, and

there should not be any ability for the State to prevent it from

going there, should there?

Mr. OWENDOFF. I am not trying to defend the State, but let me

tell you that from what the State has said is, we need to ensure

that that, indeed, is non-mixed, that there are no hazardous contaminants in it. So even though we would say it is non-mixed, New

Mexico has indicated we need to have some assurances on why it

is non-mixed.

Senator REID. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Yes, I would be glad to.

Senator REID. If the reasoning of New Mexico is right, Nevada

ears’ should be perked up real loud, because if New Mexico can

keep it out on that basis, by having the environmental agency of

the state say it cannot come in, Nevada should be able to do the

same thing.

Senator ALLARD. A reasonable argument.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Yes.

Senator ALLARD. It just seems to me that we are letting some unnecessary delays occur here, and I just wanted to press that point

in a public way, because I think it is an important point.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Allard, if I may, I think this is, as we

were talking about, in general, how do we accelerate things, and

the ideas—several years ago we would look at and felt we were

going to have a RCRA permit for WIPP, and that there would be

no need to have to try to send just non-mixed, or straight radioactive material, without any hazardous constituents.

However, one of the things that we looked at to be able to accelerate activities is, let us go through and only ship non-mixed

waste, rather than waiting until we did have the RCRA permit, so
328

that we could continue with shipment of the material. So we looked

at—that was not on our initial baseline.

Senator ALLARD. My understanding is that we have non-mixed

waste, and we would like to get it out, get it moving.

Mr. OWENDOFF. That is correct. That is correct.

Senator ALLARD. I want to thank the committee and the chairman for his indulgence. I have some other questions, but I would

like to submit those to you, and if they would fall under the deadline of the committee for response, I would appreciate it.

I wanted to make my major points here, and Mr. Chairman, you

graciously allowed me to do that, and I thank you very much. We

continue to look forward to working with you, and we are going to

continue to push for the closing of 2006. Thank you.

Mr. OWENDOFF. Thank you, Senator Allard.

Senator CRAIG. Senator, thank you very much. We share some

common interests, and I am pleased you could be here this morning

to ask those questions. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

SHIPMENT OF TRANSURANIC WASTE OUT OF IDAHO

Assistant Secretary Owendoff, you heard me lead up to the ultimate question that I will ask. Today is March 18. The Department

of Energy has a deadline of April 30 to begin moving transuranic

waste out of the State of Idaho.

When Secretary Richardson appeared before the Senate Energy

Committee last month he testified that the State of New Mexico

had repeatedly pushed back the date of issuing the hazardous

waste permit for WIPP, and as a result he has withdrawn $10 million from the WIPP budget to provide funding for alternatives to

WIPP, which will still meet DOE’s deadline of April 30 to the State

of Idaho.

What alternatives are in the works? Will your plan ‘‘B,’’ if you

have one, still meet the April deadline?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Craig, we are looking at alternatives. I

think as you can appreciate, because that can involve other entities, that those can be very sensitive, certainly.

Senator CRAIG. We are all very sensitive about this issue.

Mr. OWENDOFF. I appreciate that. But I want to say that we are

going to certainly abide by what was in the settlement agreement,

that indicated if material is not—if TRU waste shipments do not

start by April 30, then that holds up foreign research reactor fuel

from coming into the State. Now, we do not take that lightly.

Our commitment is continued, and I can assure you that a lot

of my time is spent on this issue of looking at a number of alternatives which would allow us to begin that shipment. So this is not

a casual date to us——

Senator CRAIG. No. That is what I wanted——

Mr. OWENDOFF [continuing]. As the end of March date is for the

TMI fuel to move out of wet storage. So I have those dates right

in front of me, Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Well, Senator Allard had mentioned the type of

waste—non-mixed waste—that we think under the law can move

and should move to WIPP now. I think we have some 50-odd barrels of the nearly half-million—let me repeat that—nearly half-million drums of mixed transuranic waste in Idaho.
329

So we are kind of the waste king when it comes to the transuranic materials, but we believe those 50 drums could move,

should move, and it is important that our country demonstrate

they will move them, that there is a will to move waste, and to

handle it appropriately.

I think it also demonstrates to the states involved that they cannot play the politics of waste when there is no science to back it

up. That is very important.

PIT-9 AT INEL

On Pit-9, when Secretary Richardson appeared before the Energy

and Natural Resource Committee to testify on the DOE budget, I

had a series of questions for him regarding DOE’s intent to proceed

on Pit-9.

Secretary Richardson replied that due to pending litigation, Pit9 was the topic he needed to discuss with me privately. We are

working to get that meeting together. I have been in touch with his

office. I hope we can put that together right quickly.

Would you convey to the Secretary my eagerness to discuss this

issue? I think it is important that it get handled appropriately and

in a timely fashion. It potentially has impact on new contracts, new

contractors, as it relates to how the site gets managed, and it is

just one of those things that is incumbent upon all of us that—attorneys love to sue, and they love to play legal games, but sometimes we are well ahead if we all sit down at a table and resolve

issues and do so in a straightaway fashion.

Have you received any new direction from the Secretary regarding the use of alternative dispute resolution for Pit-9?

Mr. OWENDOFF. I have not, Senator.

THREE MILE ISLAND FUEL STORAGE

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Another milestone in the DOE settlement

agreement with the State of Idaho, calls for moving Three-Mile Island fuel stored in Idaho from wet storage to dry, as we have discussed, by June 1, 2001. Fuel movement must be started by March

31 of this year.

Mr. OWENDOFF. That is correct.

Senator CRAIG. Is that project on track?

Mr. OWENDOFF. It is, Senator Craig. In fact, Warren Bergholtz,

the acting manager, this morning is with the NRC. We should be

receiving that license from the NRC. We have some other activities

that we need to accomplish before the March 31 date, but we are

proceeding with those, and we do anticipate that we will be able

to start fuel movement. We do not see that there is a showstopper

problem. It is just working through, as you can appreciate——

Senator CRAIG. Sure.

Mr. OWENDOFF [continuing]. With the events that took place last

summer. We will probably err on the very cautious side, but anyway, we expect to meet that date.

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL PROGRAMS

Senator CRAIG. That is good news. DOE’s national spent fuel program and its integrated spent fuel program are managed by the
330

INEEL. The work is actually carried out at a number of DOE labs,

including Argonne and Sandia. The programs were funded at $35.5

million in fiscal year 1999. In the year 2000, DOE has requested

$22 million. I find that very disappointing.

These spent fuel programs are responsible for making sure the

information is available to include DOE spent nuclear fuel in the

Yucca Mountain repository environmental impact statement and license application, which we all know is a critical last step in DOE’s

cleanup program.

It is my understanding that DOE is managing about 250 different spent fuel types, and that the DOE license application for

Yucca Mountain must include information on the specific fuel types

to be disposed of in the repository.

Will the proposed funding level allow DOE to obtain the information needed to include all DOE spent fuels in the license application?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Craig, we believe that the budget is sufficient to do that. The folks within Environmental Management are

working with Lake Barrett’s people, we believe that we have that

appropriate information that is there.

I must state there are some small amounts of what is often referred to as cats and dogs, very unique fuels that we know we are

going to have to do some additional work on.

There had been some shifting of activities in looking into the out

years, based on some near-term things, some other things we needed to get done at Idaho, and also in looking at the schedule for the

repository and the needed information. But we believe that the

budget is appropriate, Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Well, the proposal to reduce spending for these

programs by nearly 40 percent I think does call into question the

department’s commitment to ship fuel out of Idaho. I mean that is

how I am looking at it through my glasses at the moment.

Can you explain how such a drastic funding reduction is consistent with meeting the commitments DOE has made to the people of my state?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Craig, let me get an in-depth breakdown

of those costs and that rationale, but in general, let me say that

because of our commitment that I think is demonstrated, of moving

the Three Mile Island fuel into dry storage, of the privatization

project that we currently have on the street to move Peach Bottom

fuel into dry storage, I think that we are demonstrating that we

are taking those preliminary steps, demonstrable steps of stabilizing and reducing the costs for overseeing the spent fuel, and also

putting it into a form that we have a confidence will be able to

move into the long-term repository, without repackaging it.

[The information follows:]

IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

In its National Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and Integrated SNF programs, DOE is

focusing the requested funding on activities needed to support development of the

geologic repository license application, while deferring activities that do not have to

be completed until later in the process of preparing to send DOE’s spent fuel to a

repository. This approach allows us to accomplish those tasks that must be completed in the near term to stay on course to fulfill our commitments to the State

of Idaho. The activities that are being deferred or reduced are in PBS ID–SNF–101

and PBS ID–SNF–102, as described below:
331

—In fiscal year 1999, funding for repository design support was used for total system performance assessment and criticality analysis. In fiscal year 2000, further analysis of these topics is being delayed since the information provided by

this activity is not needed until 2002.

—In fiscal year 1999, DOE initiated an extensive release rate testing program for

DOE spent fuels to demonstrate that DOE spent fuels will not be a major contributor to the repository release rate. Follow-up work on this task is being deferred by one year (to fiscal year 2001), since accomplishing the work on this

slightly delayed schedule will still allow the results to be available in time to

meet the schedule for potential submittal of the geologic repository license application in 2002.

—In fiscal year 1999, DOE provided significant support to Argonne National Laboratory in development of the electrometallurgical treatment system for sodiumbonded spent nuclear fuel. This effort will be essentially completed prior to fiscal year 2000.

In fiscal year 1999, funding was required for development and procurement of

hardware for the Multi-Detector Analysis System (MDAS—to conduct nondestructive assay and examinations to obtain characterization data for spent fuel).

In fiscal year 2000, a reduced level of funding will be sufficient since the only remaining tasks are to demonstrate the MDAS technology.

—In fiscal year 1999, funding was required to allow completion of a NEPA analysis for a container system to be used in transporting spent fuel from Idaho to

an off-site repository. This initiative was required to meet a settlement agreement milestone. The NEPA analysis has been completed.

—In fiscal year 2000, the level of funding for program support will also be reduced, consistent with the reduced level of effort overall.

Finally, DOE has also identified emerging issues which must be addressed in fiscal year 2000 concerning development of information on DOE spent fuel to support

geologic repository performance assessment for the license application. To ensure

that DOE/EM supports preparation of the repository license application, DOE is

working internally to fund these activities within the EM program.

DEFENSE SPENT FUEL AND WASTE

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much. Mr. Barrett, your program

is in various stages of preparing both a repository environmental

impact statement and the repository license application.

In accordance with President Reagan’s 1985 decision to dispose

of defense waste in the civilian repository, will the EIS and license

application now in preparation for Yucca Mountain make provisions for defense-spent fuel and waste?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

Senator CRAIG. Well, obviously, that is the answer I wanted to

hear. I do not want us to get down the road aways and say, oops,

we did not include that. Obviously, that is the mission now, and

I am glad to hear that that is the case.

OUTYEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEANUP

A major issue the Department faces in Idaho and other cleanup

sites is insufficient funding in the out-year budget plans to meet

cleanup obligations. How do you expect to meet cleanup commitments to the states without significant growth in the out-year

budgets?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Craig, certainly as I mentioned to the

Chairman earlier, we know that in the out-years we do have some

significant challenges. One of the ways that we are looking at of

accommodating that is being able to get finished with sites like

Weldon Springs, Mound, Fernald, and——

Senator CRAIG. So what are we looking for, a renegotiation in

cleanup schedules? Would that not be a part of it?
332

Mr. OWENDOFF. I do not know that it is, per se—I am not going

to say to you that we now have to renegotiate everything. I think

one of the things that we need to continue to do is to look at the

relative risk of the activities at each installation and facility, and

to ensure that we have the funds going to the highest risk and look

at what are the benefits for some of the other activities.

In a balanced budget situation, as you well know, I think it is

going to be very challenging for us in the out-years to have significant increases in the budget amounts, but I think at this time last

year there were a lot of people crying wolf on what will happen on

the 2000 budget. I think the Secretary demonstrated that he was

able to have a hundred-million dollar, roughly a hundred-million

dollar increase in the Administration’s budget that came through

the Congress. So some said at this time last year that it will never

happen.

In fact, the budget request would be reduced, but I think the secretary demonstrated that he can get those monies when they are

necessary.

UTILITY COMPENSATION FOR ON-SITE STORAGE

Senator CRAIG. Okay. When the Secretary was before us on February 25, I submitted a series of questions regarding his proposal

to compensate utilities for the on-site storage of their spent nuclear

fuel in lieu of DOE’s 1998 waste acceptance obligation. I had not

yet received a reply to my questions. Do you have any indication

of time when I might expect that response?

Mr. BARRETT. I know those are actively being worked on within

the administration, and I expect they will be sent to you soon, sir.

ON-SITE STORAGE COSTS

Senator CRAIG. All right. Mr. Barrett, the reason I ask that, and

I will ask you a similar kind of question, because my guess is the

Secretary drew upon the analysis done by you and your staff regarding the cost, feasibility, and any technical or legal pitfalls on

such an approach.

What kind of an analysis have you and your contractor staff performed on this subject or these subjects?

Mr. BARRETT. At the Secretary’s request we scoped various scenarios that could be done. There were tremendous uncertainties,

because it depends upon what the utilities would wish to do to try

and implement such a proposal.

For example, there is a very broad range between a utility that,

for example, has space in their existing spent fuel pool, but may

have an allocation, what their situation is. We would believe that

the costs are very minimal for that additional burden resulting

from the Department’s inability to pick up that fuel.

In the middle would be utilities that have an active power production program at their site, but have dry storage. We believe it

would be best that perhaps we would assume the financial aspects

of that, but they would do all the active management. That is a different situation. Then there are those reactor sites where the utility no longer generates electricity, and they are in the process of

decommissioning that site, where the corporate entity would like to
333

be able to go away. We have to consider the management of the

fuel at these sites.

Senator CRAIG. I appreciate all those scenarios, Mr. Barrett. Did

you attempt to estimate the cost of the variations or the various

proposals versus, let us say, the cost of an interim storage facility?

Mr. BARRETT. We have done cost estimates for the various situations that we are faced with. We are costing out HR–45, and we

have information that will be coming for that. We intend to do the

same for S. 608.

When the Secretary said the estimated costs would range from

$2 billion to $3 billion in that hearing, that was based upon a mix,

as we saw the situation. Basically, we drew on generic industry

numbers. We believe that to design, license, and construct the basic

storage facility at a reactor plant would cost in the neighborhood

of $10 million per site.

Senator CRAIG. Now, go back and repeat the $10 million per site.

How did you come to that figure?

Mr. BARRETT. That is based on our understanding of what the

costs are in the industry for their sites that have done this.

Senator CRAIG. Is that an annualized operation, annualized cost?

Mr. BARRETT. No, that is a one-time cost.

Senator CRAIG. A one-time cost.

Mr. BARRETT. A one-time cost to go through licensing, design,

and construction of a simple basic concrete pad. Once you go

through that process, we assume that nominally costs to build storage containers are a million dollars a ton, or a hundred dollars a

kilogram.

That is a nominal industry cost today that utilities use. We use

that number as well. Those costs are for a Nuclear Regulatory

Commission-certified system.

So then we looked at the operational costs of a site of around $5

million per year. That would be for a site where there would be a

lot of stand-alone costs. It might be considerably less than that.

So this is a broad range that we used. For example, we believe

that there is virtually no cost of storing the fuel in the pool, if there

is room in the pool. There is a very broad range of costs and there

are many other circumstances that are site by site, utility by utility.

REGULATORY CONCERNS FOR ON-SITE STORAGE

Senator CRAIG. Does the proposal pose any regulatory concern?

Did you look at all of the legal and the regulatory hurdles, including states and state utility commissions, and potential lawsuits?

Did you factor in the cost of lawsuits and all of that? Did you run

a guesstimate?

Mr. BARRETT. No, sir, we did not include costs of litigation on

this. We did not, at this stage, go into any legal analysis concerning

individual state laws.

This was an idea, as the secretary said to you, to explore if there

was interest, and we need to have dialogue before we can really

come to any more specificity on——
334

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION—ON-SITE STORAGE

Senator CRAIG. Did you have any dialogue then with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission on the proposal?

Mr. BARRETT. Not in any depth, but yes, there has been some

dialogue between myself and Commission staff, not with any of the

Commissioners, but with senior Commission staff.

We looked at the activities in Environmental Management, for

example, the Three Mile Island fuel, the fuel in Colorado, where

DOE is becoming the licensee under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So we looked at those experiences as well.

S-608

Senator CRAIG. Okay. You already in your comments, Director

Barrett, mentioned S–608, so obviously you are well aware of what

Senator Murkowski and I, and Senators Grams and Crapo have

done, and that is going to be a point of debate, and probably long

hours on the floor between Senator Reid and myself in the near future.

I trust by your comments you are generally familiar with the

provisions of the legislation.

Mr. BARRETT. I am aware of the number. I understand we have

a hearing on that next week, but I have not read it, sir.

Senator CRAIG. Well, basically, in brief terms, what it says is an

interim storage facility will be constructed in Nevada by 2003, and

that is the date that I want to discuss with you. Your current

plans, by this chart, call for a site recommendation to the President

in 2001, and a repository license application by 2002.

Why is interim storage in Nevada so problematic to DOE, since

our interim storage facility starts after both of these dates in the

year 2003?

Mr. BARRETT. As the Secretary stated, the Administration opposes designation of interim storage in Nevada, until the scientific

work on the suitability of the repository is completed.

Senator CRAIG. Is that a scientific argument or a political argument?

Mr. BARRETT. That was the Secretary’s position.

LONG-RANGE PLAN AT INEEL

Senator CRAIG. Okay. And he is sticking to it. All right. DOE has

made a commitment to Idaho to fund the long-range business plan

in order to help assure the long-term viability of the INEEL. The

commitment reached with DOE was $25 million a year for 5 years,

yet this has somehow settled in at $22.5 million, and has been difficult to achieve on an annual basis.

Would you be willing to recommit to the previous level, and

would you be open to potential increases in the future to address

these specific needs?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Craig, as you mentioned, the specific

straight funding is $22.5 million; however, there is also the lab discretionary research and development fund that pulls monies in

general from all programs so those come in between $8 million to

$10 million, as well as there is a piece from a university consor-
335

tium that brings some monies in. So Senator Craig, I believe we

are well above the $25 million——

Senator CRAIG. In other words, it is all in how you add it.

Mr. OWENDOFF. That is correct.

COMPLEX-WIDE INTEGRATION EFFORT

Senator CRAIG. All right. Well, we will sit down with you and see

how you add it versus how we add it, and see if we can understand

the differences.

I understand that the environmental management system integration work done at the INEEL may be used as a model for DOE

complex-wide integration of the cleanup program. This integration

will be necessary to accomplish cleanup, I think, in a cost-effective

way.

Mr. Owendoff, how do you plan to utilize the INEEL systems and

engineering expertise for complex-wide integration to the cleanup

program?

Mr. OWENDOFF. Senator Craig, I think you can see that today,

we are using the integration work in the roadmap efforts that the

INEEL prepared. It is being utilized by all the sites in looking at

where they are today, what their plans for treatment and/or disposal.

We are also taking those activities and looking at where do we

have some shortcomings in research and development needs, so we

are identifying where we have a critical path, and assessing how

we can accomplish some more focused research and development on

those key junctures.

But we are utilizing those integration efforts today, and it is not

only on the main waste streams of high-level waste, low-level

waste, and transuranic waste, but there is probably over a hundred

of individual material dispositions, I mean unique type of materials, radioactive materials, that again we are using those road

maps today across the other programs within DOE Headquarters

and trying to get to decisions on what should the disposition be of

those waste streams. So I can assure you that that is an integral

part of our strategy.

JACK ASS FLATS RADIATION EXPOSURE

Senator CRAIG. One last question, and then I will turn to Senator

Reid, if he has any more. Director Barrett, if I were a DOE employee or military personnel traveling across Jack Ass Flats, what

kind of radiation might I be exposed to?

Mr. BARRETT. Basically, natural background in the Jack Ass

Flats area. There is minimal radiation from any DOE activities in

the Jack Ass Flats area, which is adjacent to Area 25.

Senator CRAIG. What are current employees out there exposed

to?

Mr. BARRETT. The natural background radiation, which should

be, I do not know in the Jack Ass Flats specifically, nominally 200

millirem, plus or minus.
336

GROUNDWATER POTENTIAL PROBLEMS

Senator CRAIG. How does that compare with the millirem analysis that you gave in relation to groundwater potential exposure in

the out-years of a Yucca Mountain facility?

Mr. BARRETT. Many orders of magnitude higher.

Senator CRAIG. How about three-thousand?

Mr. BARRETT. No argument.

Senator CRAIG. It is awfully important that we keep these measurements in perspective as to what is normal and what is real, and

what humans are now currently receiving versus our attempted

ability to measure out 10,000 years, or a thousand years. I think

your figure there was, was it not, .1 millirem.

Mr. BARRETT. Ten-thousand years, .1 millirem. Yes, sir.

Senator CRAIG. That was at 10,000 years. I think it is important

that the record show those kinds of comparisons, so that there is

a little bit of understanding by those of us who are novices in this

area as to what these figures mean, or do not mean, for that matter. I thank you for that.

It is obvious that we are talking about a minute measurement

compared to background today, and are levels that those at DOE

and the Defense Department find acceptable, and are based on current medical science, as to what a workforce can be exposed to. So

I thank you very much for that.

I turn to my colleague, Senator Reid.

COSTS TO SET UP ON-SITE DISPOSAL

Senator REID. The figures that we had originally were $5 million

to set up an on-site disposal, but you said $10 million, so it is within that range, is that right?

Mr. BARRETT. I am sorry. Operating costs versus the capital costs

to build the pad?

Senator REID. It is my understanding that you said that to construct an on-site storage facility would cost $10 million.

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. A one-time up-front cost.

Senator REID. Some of the arguments we have heard before is $5

million, but in the neighborhood of $5 million to $10 million is

what it would cost.

Mr. BARRETT. And some could be $5 million and some could be

$25 million.

TOTAL SPENT AT THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE

Senator REID. Yes. Right. Also, how much have we spent to this

point in Yucca Mountain?

Mr. BARRETT. Approximately $3 billion.

Senator REID. That is construction. That does not count the overhead costs.

Mr. BARRETT. Very little of that are actual construction costs.

Since we started in 1983, most of that has been scientific costs.

Much of that work had been done in national laboratories. That is

how much we had spent on the Yucca Mountain program. Some of

that includes state monies, county monies, the whole Yucca Mountain budget allocation.
337

Senator CRAIG. We have appropriated more than that in this program since 1982.

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct. For example, the repositories that

we looked at, potential repository sites in Texas and also the monitored retrievable storage facility that we proposed in Tennessee.

So all of that other work is around $2 billion.

Senator CRAIG. In addition to the $3 billion.

Mr. BARRETT. Yes. At a cost of about $5 billion, I believe. I can

check the numbers, if you want, specifically.

MAINTENANCE COSTS OF ON-SITE STORAGE

Senator CRAIG. It does not have to be exact. That is fine. Also,

Mr. Barrett, it is my understanding that you had said that in addition to the costs of constructing an on-site storage facility there

would be the costs of maintaining it, and they would vary from $1

million to $5 million a year, is that what you said?

Mr. BARRETT. Virtually none, zero. I mean if it is just additional

fuel and—if the site has been decommissioned it is $5 million a

year. There may be situations that may be more than that.

Senator REID. But we are in the ball park.

Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

COSTS OF TRANSPORTING NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator REID. We have not at all here today talked about the

costs of transporting nuclear waste if, in fact, there becomes a site

available in Nevada, either temporary or permanent, is that right?

Mr. BARRETT. We have described those costs in the report we released with the viability assessment, which is the Total System

Life Cycle Cost report. We have those costs, sir.

Senator REID. What would you estimate the transportation costs

to be?

Mr. BARRETT. In the Total System Life Cycle Cost report for the

70,000 metric tons considered it is close to $6 billion. For the period that we costed to 2010, where we established the system, and

then put the infrastructure in place to be ready to start moving

fuel, approximately 17,000 tons of fuel, it is around $2 billion.

Senator REID. Those are current dollars.

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. Actually, that is budget authority, but it

is still in that neighborhood.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions, other

than those we are going to submit in writing to Mr. Owendoff,

which are really not on point at this time.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DOMENICI

ON-SITE INTERIM STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

Question. Mr. Barrett, could you explain the proposal put forth by the Secretary

to participate in assisting the utilities with on-site interim storage of spent nuclear

fuel produced by nuclear power reactors?
338

Answer. The Secretary committed to work with Congress on nuclear waste issues.

His objective was to begin a constructive dialogue. Taking title to utility spent fuel

on site at reactors is a promising near-term solution that can address our contractual obligation to utilities. It is not intended to be a permanent solution or to alter

the Administration’s commitment to permanent geologic disposal. This proposal represents an alternative to years and billions of dollars of litigation. As the Secretary

indicated in his testimony, the Department’s proposal to take title to spent fuel at

utility sites is in an early stage of development. We could take title consistent with

our contract acceptance schedule. We could have utilities manage the facility or we

could assume responsibility. The Department is exploring specific options, based

upon individual circumstances at each utility. Such options would consider current

operating status of a utility, availability of on-site dry storage, and utility financial

needs. For instance, a utility with a permanently shut down reactor and no ongoing

nuclear operations may want the Department to assume complete responsibility for

the management of the spent fuel and storage facilities, while other utilities with

operating reactors may prefer the Department only to take financial responsibility.

We still have to address a range of issues, including liability, financial and operational responsibilities. In return for taking title to spent fuel the Department

would expect the utilities to terminate their litigation and claims. We want to hear

from the utilities and to work with Congress as this dialogue continues.

Question. What is this program expected to cost, how will it be funded, and do

OMB budget profiles support this effort over the next 5 years?

Answer. The Department’s preliminary estimate is that the proposal could cost up

to $2 to $3 billion through 2010. The Department is willing to enter a dialogue with

Congress to ensure that the repository program continues to be adequately funded,

as well as address the Secretary’s proposal. In exploring any funding alternatives,

the Department’s objectives would be: (1) that the Department impose no undue

burdens on either utility ratepayers or the taxpayers; and (2) that the revenues

raised by the nuclear waste fee remain available to complete the nuclear waste

management system.

ACCELERATION OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN MILESTONES

Question. Mr. Barrett, I am sure that you are aware of the growing frustration

and dissatisfaction by some regarding the pace at which the Department is moving

to begin construction of a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. Is there any way

that the 2001 date to submit a recommendation to the President and the 2002 submission date of a license application to the NRC can be accelerated?

Answer. The Viability Assessment identified the remaining technical work which

must be accomplished and the schedule that must be met before submitting a Site

Recommendation and a License Application. Provided that we have the funding that

meets costs in our ‘‘License Application Plan and Costs,’’ we believe that we can

complete the technical work, which includes complicated scientific testing and analysis, and evaluation of design alternatives, and accomplish a Site Recommendation

and a License Application in 2001 and 2002, respectively. We believe that accelerating the schedule we proposed in the Viability Assessment would not allow us

to address the remaining uncertainties that exist and must be addressed before a

decision to recommend the site.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS TO ON-SITE STORAGE

Question. Mr. Barrett, is on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel viable for the longterm?

Answer. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), through its regulatory

and inspection processes, ensures the public health and safety for storage of spent

fuel. The NRC, in its Waste Confidence ruling, 10 CFR 51.23, has indicated that

spent fuel can be safely stored onsite for at least 30 years after a plant’s operating

license expired.

Question. What other options is the Department exploring, other than on-site storage?

Answer. The Department is committed to geologic disposal as the permanent solution for nuclear waste. The Department continues to proceed diligently to determine

the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site as a permanent geologic repository. If the

site is found to be suitable, the Secretary will make a decision whether to recommend it to the President for development as a repository.

Question. What are the relative risks to the public associated with on-site storage

versus storage in a facility such as Yucca Mountain?
339

Answer. All commercial storage facilities, regardless of the location, are licensed

by NRC and meet the appropriate NRC regulations to ensure safety to the public

and the environment.

EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT AND PAYMENTS-EQUAL-TO-TAXES

Question. Mr. Barrett, could you explain the reason why the request for external

oversight and payments-equal-to-taxes doubles from $11.7 million in fiscal year

1999 to $22.3 million in fiscal year 2000? What has changed since last year to require such a large increase in the payment to Nye County, Nevada?

Answer. The increases from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000 reflect the following: In fiscal year 1999, only $250,000 was provided to the State of Nevada for

external oversight. In the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request, $4.7 million is requested

for State external oversight.

For external oversight for affected counties, we have requested $108,000 less than

that appropriated in fiscal year 1999.

We have requested $2.03 million in fiscal year 2000 for the potential liabilities

associated with the closeout of previous contracts for work performed for Yucca

Mountain in prior fiscal years. This is a $1.84 million increase over fiscal year 1999.

There is $140,000 requested for School-To-Work in fiscal year 2000. There were

no funds provided for this purpose in fiscal year 1999.

We have requested $10 million for Payments Equal To Taxes (PETT) in fiscal year

2000. The increase reflects the fact that the current PETT agreement with Nye

County (FYs 1994–1999) expires on September 30, 1999. The new agreement will

reflect the increased value of facilities at the Yucca Mountain site and increases in

work activities at the site.

The following table illustrates these changes:

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal

year 1999

Fiscal

year 2000

request

Difference

External Oversight—State of Nevada ........................................................... .25 4.72 4.47

External Oversight—Affected Counties ........................................................ 5.54 5.43 (.11 M)

Contract Close-out from Previous Fiscal Year .............................................. .19 2.03 1.84

School-To-Work .............................................................................................. .14 .14

PETT ............................................................................................................... 5.72 10.00 4.28

Total ................................................................................................. 11.70 22.32 10.62

COST OF DOE CLEANUP PROGRAM

Question. What is the current estimate to cleanup the wastes generated by nuclear weapons production activities in past years and how long will it take to complete this cleanup work?

Answer. As reported in the Department’s Annual Financial Report, DOE’s fiscal

year 1998 environmental liabilities estimate was $186 billion over the next 70 years

to complete the cleanup of wastes generated by nuclear weapons production and

other government nuclear energy programs. Previous analyses (the 1995 Baseline

Environmental Management Report, and the 1997 Linking Legacies report) indicated that about 85 percent of the cleanup work results from nuclear weapons production. The EM portion of the Department’s fiscal year 1998 environmental liabilities estimate was based on data used to develop the initial Accelerating Cleanup:

Paths to Closure report (Paths to Closure) issued in June 1998, which reported a

life-cycle cost estimate of $147 billion. The $147 billion life-cycle estimate was adjusted (e.g., removal of fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 costs and various scope

adjustments) to form the basis of EM’s portion of the fiscal year 1998 environmental

liability estimate, which was determined to be more than $145 billion. The balance

of the Department’s fiscal year 1998 environmental liability was derived from the

1995 and 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report.

EM presently has cleanup responsibility for a total of 113 geographic sites. At the

end of fiscal year 1997, 60 of the 113 contaminated sites had been cleaned up. In

fiscal year 1998, EM cleaned up three geographic sites and transferred another two

sites to the State for cleanup at its request, which leaves EM with 48 sites remaining to be cleaned up. By 2006, EM intends to complete cleanup at all but 10 of its

48 remaining sites.
340

We are currently in the process of updating the life-cycle cost and schedule estimate for cleanup of the EM program. This estimate is being updated as part of the

Paths to Closure planning process and is presently scheduled to be released early

this summer. This estimate will form the basis for determining EM’s portion of the

Department’s fiscal year 1999 environmental liability.

Question. How does this estimate compare to the previous estimate, and what is

the reason for the difference? How much money has been invested to date in the

cleanup effort?

What are the major factors that have contributed to the reduction in the estimated cost of the cleanup effort?

Answer. In 1995 and 1996, as requested by Congress, the Department developed

its first estimates of life-cycle cost and schedule for the remaining EM cleanup effort. These Baseline Environmental Management Reports (BEMRs) described the estimated scope of the EM program. The 1996 report stated that, as a mid-range estimate, the program would cost approximately $230 billion (constant 1996 dollars)

spent over a 70-year period, using certain assumptions about funding levels, productivity, and land use in developing the estimate.

The primary reasons for the difference between BEMR and Paths to Closure can

be attributed to the fact that BEMR: (1) included costs for both ‘‘legacy’’ waste associated with historical nuclear weapons production and nuclear related activities, and

newly generated wastes; (2) included costs for the eventual transfer of DOE facilities

not currently in the Environmental Management program; and (3) in some cases,

used different end-state assumptions than Paths to Closure.

Paths to Closure addresses a somewhat different scope. For example, Paths to Closure includes costs for legacy waste cleanup but not newly generated wastes, and

excludes costs for any facilities not currently in the Environmental Management

program. Additionally, Paths to Closure reflects improved estimates for a number

of projects and improvements in efficiency in accomplishing the same or comparable

activities, thereby lowering total life-cycle costs of the program. In addition, $145

billion representing EM’s portion of the fiscal year 1998 environmental liability

statement reflects future estimated costs starting in fiscal year 1999, while the 1996

BEMR estimates costs beginning in fiscal year 1996.

Since its inception in 1989 through fiscal year 1999, the Environmental Management program has received $52.9 billion in funding. This funding covers not only

‘‘cleanup’’ but also other EM activities (e.g., nonproliferation, waste disposal, spent

fuel storage, fissile material, security, site infrastructure maintenance). The following chart for the record displays this funding by fiscal year. (The information follows.)
341

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year

Total

1989 1 1990 1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Traditional BA ......................................................................... 1,657.3 2,274.1 3,601.0 4,286.9 5,520.3 6,000.0 5,809.3 6,067.3 5,661.2 5,662.8 5,603.6 52143.8Privatization ............................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 330.0 200.0 228.4 758.4

Total, EM ................................................................... 1,657.3 2,274.1 3,601.0 4,286.9 5,520.3 6,000.0 5,809.3 6,067.3 5,991.2 5,862.8 5,832.0 52902.2

1 Reflects funds managed by the newly-created Office of Environmental Management, which were appropriated under DOE programs to support cleanup work. Funds were appropriated to EM-managed accounts beginning in fiscal year 1991.
342

Question. What annual funding levels are assumed for the defense portion of the

cleanup effort over the next 5 year planning period? How important is funding stability to the success of the program?

Answer. The Administration’s outyear funding profile is dependent upon enactment of Social Security, Medicare, and Universal Savings Account proposals. The

Defense funding for the Environmental Management program for fiscal year 2001

through 2004 would be as shown in the following table:

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year

2001 2002 2003 2004

Defense Environmental Restoration & Waste Mgmt 1 ......... 4,486 4,486 4,486 4,486

Defense Facilities Closure .................................................... 1,054 1,054 1,054 1,054

Subtotal ................................................................... 5,540 5,540 5,540 5,540

Defense Privatization ............................................................ 671 659 633 594

1 Excludes funding for EH Health Studies.

In developing the report Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure, the Department

established annual funding targets for the EM Operations Offices consistent with

a stabilized $5.75 billion funding level for the EM program for the immediate future.

This funding level includes both defense and non-defense appropriations, but does

not include funding for the privatization account. In a number of instances, EM operations offices developed plans that were based on funding levels higher than these

targets in order to accomplish accelerated closure, risk reduction, and other programmatic goals. The report stated that EM would address these funding differences by seeking productivity improvements, additional funding, as well as

reprioritization of activities where necessary. The Department will work with our

regulators, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and our stakeholders

to address these issues.

The Department recognizes that under current budgetary constraints and realities

any increases above the current level of funding—which has remained approximately stable for the past several years—are not likely. However, funding stability

is necessary for EM to develop and successfully execute a credible plan that will accomplish our regulatory requirements and other commitments in a timely manner,

assist in keeping our projects on schedule and within budget, and ultimately reduce

the long-term costs of the program. Depending on the level, stable funding could

provide predictability and sufficient funding to accomplish these objectives.

Question. An important element in meeting cost projections and schedules is early

determination of the level to which a site is cleaned up—the end land use plan.

What level of cleanup is assumed in the 2006 Plan? Is the Department assuming

a mid-level cleanup or a maximum cleanup in the Plan? How can DOE provide a

credible estimate of how much of the cleanup effort will cost if you do not know to

what level you are cleaning up a site?

Answer. The cleanup levels identified in Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure

were determined on a site- by-site basis. The level of cleanup for some EM sites has

been agreed to by EPA or State regulators in conjunction with EM field office personnel at those sites. The laws governing these cleanups require that site-specific

factors be considered in deciding the level of cleanup. The agreed-to levels at these

sites are reflected in Paths to Closure.

However, in most cases, particularly at the large sites where closure will not occur

for decades, agreement has not yet been reached with regulators and stakeholders

on the cleanup levels and end states. Where sites have not reached final agreement,

the DOE field staff developed planning-basis end states that are being used solely

for planning purposes. All end state assumptions used in Paths to Closure have been

shared with stakeholders and regulators and are acceptable to them for planning

purposes. At these sites where no final agreement has been reached, the appropriate

review and consultation will occur before cleanup levels can be definitively established.

In developing the life-cycle estimate of $147 billion as reported in the June 1998

Paths to Closure, EM did not assume a consistent level of cleanup for all sites. As

discussed above, the cleanup level agreed to, or currently assumed for each site, is

unique to that site. It is clear, however, that a maximum, or ‘‘green field’’ approach
343

is being pursued at few, if any, sites. In fact, very few sites are being cleaned up

to a level allowing unrestricted use for the entire site; consequently, EM is examining what long-term stewardship measures will be required after cleanup is completed.

Given the fact that each EM site will not undergo the same level of cleanup, EM

developed its life-cycle estimate based on the agreed-to, or currently assumed cleanup level for each site. EM believes that this is the most meaningful and accurate

approach to arriving at a credible life-cycle estimate.

Question. How many sites are there to be cleaned up and how many approved site

cleanup plans are in place? Provide for the record your schedule for having an approved site cleanup plan in place for each site or major activity requiring a plan.

Answer. The Environmental Management (EM) program currently has 48 geographic sites remaining to be cleaned up. In fiscal year 1998, EM completed cleanup

at three geographic sites and transferred another two to the host State (at its request) for cleanup, bringing the total completed to 65 of the 113 sites currently

under EM’s responsibility. In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, EM plans to

complete cleanup at three additional geographic sites each year, leaving 42 sites for

cleanup in fiscal year 2001 and beyond.

Cleanup plans and site-specific strategies for all remaining EM geographic sites

are captured in each site’s June 1998 Paths to Closure report, and are compiled in

the June 1998 national Paths to Closure report. We are currently updating this information, with release expected this summer; and we intend to update it annually.

It is important to note that while each site has a cleanup strategy in place, not all

assumed end-states and cleanup levels have undergone the appropriate review needed to ensure agreement between regulators and the Department. This is an ongoing

process without a set schedule. Where sites have not reached final agreement, planning-basis end-states have been developed and shared with regulators, and have

been found acceptable for planning purposes. As part of the Paths to Closure planning process, EM will provide the status of where each site is in the cleanup process, identifying, for example, whether agreements have been reached with regulators.

Question. Are there any site or activities being delayed or slowed due to lack of

agreement of the end land use or level of cleanup?

Answer. The Department is working closely with its regulators and stakeholders

to reach agreement on the eventual end use for its sites. Reaching agreement on

the end use generally will facilitate agreement on required cleanup levels as well

as allow for more expeditious cleanup. In most cases, general agreement has been

reached on the desired future land use and resource uses for Department sites, including the time frames in which those land uses should be attained. The actual

land uses ultimately selected, however, will be a risk management decision based

on the technical feasibility, costs, and implementation risks associated with the specific remedial actions carried out to achieve a certain level of cleanup. Although future land use is always an important consideration, and substantial time may be

needed for a final decision on end use or level of cleanup, typically there are several

interim steps that can be taken to reduce risks that do not require a final determination on land use, and therefore necessary cleanup can proceed while final land

use decisions are still being discussed. Consequently, activities at the various Department sites are not being delayed due to lack of agreement on the eventual end

use or the level of cleanup required.

Question. How much additional savings can be obtained or expected if site end

use land conditions were known?

Answer. The Department does not have an estimate of total life-cycle costs if ‘‘site

end use land conditions were known.’’ We believe strongly that substantial cost savings are possible if cleanups are performed to make land available for reasonably

anticipated future end uses, rather than seeking to make all sites clean enough for

unrestricted use everywhere. That is why we have been working closely with EPA

and state regulators to negotiate cleanup agreements that result in cleanup standards that are based on reasonably anticipated future land uses. We also worked

with EPA and other agencies in developing the Administration’s recommendations

to reform Superfund, including a provision that would make it easier to consider future land uses in remedy selection. These reforms have not yet been acted upon by

Congress. Nonetheless, we believe that the administrative reforms adopted by EPA

and state agencies have allowed us to negotiate remedies that adequately consider

future land uses.

The life cycle costs cited in previous responses include the costs for these negotiated remedies where substantial savings were attained by considering future land

uses. In fact, one of the principal findings of the 1995 and 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Reports and the 1998 Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure
344

report was that, at most sites, the contamination and waste is not being moved, but

is being contained in place, resulting in restricted land uses. There may be some

instances in which cleanup agreements require cleanup to a level not justified by

expected future land uses, but we are continuing to identify those exceptional circumstances, and do not expect significant additional savings by renegotiating cleanup agreements to account for future land use. As a result, the Department is now

developing a program to provide adequate long-term stewardship (e.g., monitoring

and maintenance) of the residual hazards left after cleanup is completed. We have

not yet completed a technical or cost estimate for this program, but expect that it

should be relatively insignificant compared to the cleanup program.

It is important to remember that much of the Department’s Environmental Management program involves stabilizing extremely hazardous nuclear materials, and

treatment and disposal of radioactive wastes. The costs for these elements of the

cleanup program will not change based on expected land uses.

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT

(CERCLA) CLEANUP AT DOE SITES

Question. What laws set the standards for cleanup or is DOE self regulated and

able to establish its own standard through negotiations with State, local and other

interests?

Answer. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to require responsible site owners, operators, generators and transporters to clean up releases of hazardous substances, including radioactive substances. In 1986, CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Under section 120(a) of CERCLA, as amended, all

Federal agencies, including DOE, are subject to the same procedural and substantive requirements as private parties. In addition, section 120 requires each Federal facility listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) to enter into an interagency

agreement with EPA regarding the cleanup of the facility. (States are often included

as parties as well.)

DOE has entered into 17 interagency agreements with EPA and affected States

for 17 of the 18 DOE facilities listed on the NPL. The agreement for the remaining

facility is under negotiation, and is expected to be executed during fiscal year 1999.

These agreements integrate the requirements of CERCLA with the applicable requirements of other laws and regulations such as the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). This is done through a process known as ‘‘ARARs’’—applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements—wherein EPA establishes a process

described in CERCLA section 121(d). Primarily, ARARs are requirements established under RCRA which States have been authorized by EPA to enforce. Although

the ARARs process allows DOE to discuss cleanup standards with the regulatory

authorities, the EPA and state environmental regulators are, in effect, the final decision-makers for cleanup work because of their regulatory approval roles. DOE’s

role is to comply with schedules negotiated with state and federal regulators for conducting studies, proposing recommended courses of action, and implementing actions once regulators have made decisions. The Department submits an annual report to Congress on our CERCLA cleanups, as required by CERCLA section 120.

A copy of our 1997 report, the most recent available, is enclosed.

COST OF DOE CLEANUP PROGRAM

Question. What will the 2006 Plan cost on an annual basis? What can the committee expect to be completed between now and 2006 with the funds appropriated?

Answer. Based on the June 1998 Paths to Closure report, EM projected the cost

of cleanup at $147 billion, of which $57 billion would be spent between 1997 and

2006, in roughly equal annual increments, and $90 billion would be spent after

2006. EM anticipates that all but 10 sites would be cleaned up by 2006. This includes completion of all cleanup activities at Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, Weldon

Spring, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Battelle Columbus Laboratories. In

addition, 80 percent of all release sites, that is, specific locations or areas where contaminants may have been released to the environment, and stabilization of all nuclear materials and spent fuel and completion of all preparations for their ultimate

disposition will have occurred.

EM is currently in the process of updating the life-cycle cost and schedule estimate for cleanup of the EM program. This estimate is being updated as part of the

Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure planning process and is presently scheduled

to be released early this summer.
345

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Question. What major accomplishments or activities were completed with the

funding provided for fiscal year 1998, and what do you expect in fiscal year 1999

and fiscal year 2000?

Answer. The Environmental Management program has produced substantial

cleanup results at contaminated nuclear facilities and anticipates achieving substantial results with the fiscal year 1999 appropriation and its fiscal year 2000 budget

request.

Fiscal Year 1998 Accomplishments

With the cleanup of Naturita and Maybell sites in Colorado, we have completed

surface cleanup of all 22 large uranium mill tailings sites, as well as more than

5,300 ‘‘vicinity properties,’’ including elementary schools and homes. This project included remediation of over 40 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and material,

and construction of 19 disposal cells. We are now monitoring low-level ground water

contamination at some mill tailings sites, with active remediation planned at three

sites.

We received certification from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in May

that Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) met disposal standards, and notification in

June from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board that WIPP can be operated

safely.

We completed cleanup of 290 release sites, or local areas where hazardous/radioactive releases had occurred, bringing the total number of release site cleanups to

about 4,100, almost half of our inventory of about 9,700 release sites.

The Department awarded the second part of ‘‘Phase 1’’ of a ‘‘privatization’’ contract, covering the extended design of new facilities for the treatment of between

6 percent and 13 percent of the high-level waste in tanks by mass at the Hanford

Site in Washington.

We closed a second high-level waste tank at Savannah River Site. After removing

waste, the tank was backfilled using an innovative grout to immobilize residual radioactivity.

We successfully operated two high-level waste vitrification facilities in South

Carolina and New York, where last year we converted nearly 2,500 cubic meters of

waste into 331 canisters of ‘‘glass logs’’ ready for disposal. The first phase of the

high-level waste vitrification campaign at the West Valley, New York facility was

completed in fiscal year 1998, under budget and ahead of schedule, and we are now

vitrifying the tank heels.

In support of non-proliferation goals, we shipped three shipments of spent nuclear

fuel from foreign research reactors, bringing the total at the end of fiscal year 1998

to eight shipments from fifteen countries, including Chile, South Korea, and Colombia. Seven shipments have been received at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and, in fiscal year 1998, we completed the first shipment to the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

We finished connecting community drinking water hookups surrounding

Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. We have sponsored more than 1,500

hookups for off-site residences from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1998 to ensure that residents’ drinking water supply remains unaffected during long-term

ground water cleanup.

To provide for state oversight of our management of low level waste, we executed

a Joint Federal/State oversight agreement of the low-level waste disposal program

at the Nevada Test site.

We disposed of 30,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 10,000 cubic meters

of mixed low-level waste in fiscal year 1998 alone.

At Rocky Flats, we stabilized or repackaged about 5,000 kilograms of plutoniumbearing residues in fiscal year 1998. In addition, we drained acid plutonium liquids

from two 2 liquid-piping systems in Building 771 and then removed the pipes.

We completed cleanup of the fourth of eight highly radioactive waste storage

tanks, called the ‘‘Gunite Tanks,’’ at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and have started work on the next tank. The cleanup made use of several innovative remote access

technologies developed through our science and technology program (i.e., a robotic

arm and vehicle, and a waste dislodging and conveyance tool) that provided access

to areas of tanks which were previously inaccessible.

EM has verified the first-time use of alternative technologies at a site in 108 instances at cleanup projects throughout the DOE complex in fiscal year 1998.

We also began a Technology Deployment Initiative designed to spur widespread

use of available new technologies. Fourteen competitively selected projects were initiated in fiscal year 1998 that resulted in 13 deployments by the year’s end.
346

We completed Large Scale Demonstration and Deployment Projects (LSDDP) at

the Chicago Pile 5 Research Reactor facility at Argonne National Laboratory.

We continue to use pollution prevention techniques to reduce our overall costs. In

fiscal year 1998 alone, DOE sites completed over 700 pollution prevention projects,

avoiding the generation of 45,000 cubic meters and avoiding an estimated $155 million in waste management costs.

We completed deactivation of the N–Reactor complex and the B Plant at the Hanford Site, reducing annual surveillance and maintenance costs for each of the complex from about $20 million to less than $1 million. We also placed C–Reactor at

Hanford into safe storage and completed deactivation of the ROVER facility at

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

Fiscal Year 1999 Commitments

On March 26, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant received the first shipment of transuranic waste for disposal. We plan to ship wastes to WIPP from Los Alamos, Idaho

National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, and Rocky Flats.

We expect to complete cleanup at Ames Laboratory in Iowa, Sandia National Laboratory in California, and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey.

At INEEL, the new dry storage facility for spent nuclear fuel was completed, and

we began transferring Three Mile Island spend nuclear fuel from wet storage in the

Test Area North–607 pool to the new facility.

We will begin interim stabilization of an additional four high-level waste tanks

at the Hanford Site.

We will continue stabilization of ‘‘at-risk’’ nuclear materials, such as plutoniumbearing materials at Rocky Flats and Savannah River and failed or declad spent nuclear fuel, in the H– and F–Canyons.

We plan to deactivate about 65 facilities, and decommission 80 facilities.

We will begin stabilizing plutonium oxide at the Plutonium Finishing Plant at

Hanford.

At Rocky Flats, we will drain and remove 12 liquid systems from Building 771

and drain 10 areas in Building 371.

We will complete the removal of spent nuclear fuel from Facility 7823 on the Oak

Ridge Reservation.

We plan to demonstrate another 22 innovative technologies that meet site-identified needs and make another 40 new technologies ready for implementation with

cost and performance data. We also plan to use new technology in at least 60 instances in cleanup activities.

Another 32 accelerated site technology deployment projects have been initiated in

fiscal year 1999.

Environmental Management Science Program grants will be awarded in the areas

of biological effects of low doses of ionizing radiation and subsurface contamination/

vadose zone.

Fiscal Year 2000 Commitments

We will complete cleanup at 3 sites: Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho,

the General Atomics Site in California, and Battelle Columbus Laboratory in Ohio,

bringing the number of sites completed to 71.

We expect to increase the rate of shipments of transuranic waste to the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant to about 14 per week, and will be disposing of waste from

Rocky Flats, INEEL, the Hanford Site, and the Savannah River Site.

We plan to begin shipments of plutonium metals and oxides from the Rocky Flats

Plant to the Savannah River Site, two years earlier than initially planned, to support accelerated closure of Rocky Flats.

We will continue our efforts to bring down the ‘‘mortgage’’ at Rocky Flats by demolishing Building 779 and decommissioning Building 771.

At Hanford, we will continue efforts at the K Basins to ensure we meet the November 2000 milestone to begin moving spent nuclear fuel from the basins to safe

storage.

At Hanford, the extended design phase under the privatization contract for treatment of tank waste will conclude in August 2000, supporting a decision whether to

proceed to construction and operation of the treatment facilities.

At INEEL, we will begin construction of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment

Project facility under a privatization approach.

We will continue vitrification of high level waste at the Defense Waste Processing

Facility at the Savannah River Site, and will select the technology and begin design

work on the alternative to the In-Tank Precipitation process to pre-treat certain salt

wastes.
347

Complex-wide we will deactivate about 60 facilities, and decommission 110 facilities, bringing the total number of facilities decommissioned to more than 600 out

of a total inventory of about 3,300 facilities.

We will stabilize about 160 liters of plutonium solutions, 38,000 kilograms of bulk

plutonium residues, and 238 containers of plutonium metal/oxides.

We plan to demonstrate another 30 innovative technologies that address site-identified needs and make another 30 new technologies ready for implementation with

cost and performance data. We also plan to use new technology in at least 60 instances in cleanup activities.

At West Valley in New York, we expect to vitrify 50 cubic meters of high-level

waste, producing 5 canisters and reducing the inventory of waste to 32 cubic meters,

and will begin shipments of spent nuclear fuel to INEEL.

In addition, EM has established tangible, quantitative measures that track cleanup progress at the sites and establish annual goals for performance. These measures, found on page 45 of the Environmental Management fiscal year 2000 Budget

Request, provide additional information on our accomplishments and commitments

in fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000.

IMPACT OF TRANSFERRING CLEANUP PROGRAM TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Question. Mr. Owendoff, the committee has watched with interest the good work

that the Corps of Engineers has been doing with the FUSRAP program. What would

be the impact of transferring parts or the entire cleanup program to the Corps to

manage?

Answer. The Department believes that there would be no benefit to transferring

additional parts of the Environmental Management (EM) program, and that there

would be significant downsides to such a transfer. The Department also believes the

EM program has demonstrated considerable success since the Formerly Utilized

Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) was transferred to the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers by the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 1998. The Department

has been working closely with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that the transfer

of the program was successful and that the impacts on the various stakeholders was

minimal. I believe the Department’s past efforts and continued support of FUSRAP

have contributed to the current progress. In the Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy that was signed on

March 17, 1999, this cooperative effort is formalized so that the program may continue to make progress.

At the time of transfer to the Corps of Engineers, the Department was completing

cleanup at many FUSRAP sites and, at the remaining FUSRAP sites, was shifting

its efforts from characterization to remediation of these sites and the associated vicinity properties. As part of this shift, the larger and more complex sites were ready

for the start of major remediation efforts. DOE had completed cleanup at 25 of the

46 FUSRAP sites and significant progress had been achieved at the other 21 sites

prior to their transfer to the Corps of Engineers. I had personally spent a lot of time

working with Congressional delegations, regulators and communities to agree on

cleanup levels and schedules to complete cleanup. We had also asked Congress in

our fiscal year 1998 budget request to significantly increase the funding for

FUSRAP to support a goal of completing the project quickly. At the time of transfer,

cleanup decisions were in place. In short, I believe the Department had positioned

the FUSRAP program to successfully move into the implementation phase at the

large sites, so that either the Corps of Engineers or the Department could have

made major progress in the last 18 months.

Considerable effort had been made in characterizing the larger FUSRAP sites and

providing this information to the regulators and local communities. By early 1993,

however, agreement had not been reached on the cleanup levels at these sites, the

condition of the sites when the cleanup was completed, and the future ownership

of many of the sites. In late 1995, the Department decided to take a dramatic step

and embarked on a two-fold strategy: (1) DOE would get consensus from the regulators and communities on the cleanup approach for each site; and (2) DOE would

request a nearly doubling of the FUSRAP budget with the commitment or goal of

completing the cleanup in five years. This would provide incentives for the regulators and communities to reach agreement on achievable cleanup approaches, while

providing the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress with a commitment to get cleanup of the FUSRAP sites completed as soon as possible.

The Department’s task for 1996 was to achieve consensus on as many of the large

sites as possible to provide justification for the budget increase. We knew it would

be difficult to complete Records of Decisions for the cleanup approach since there

was not sufficient characterization work done to be able to agree on the extent to
348

which soil should be removed. Rather than spend more time and money on characterization, we recommended to the regulators and communities that we proceed

with ‘‘removal actions,’’ reaching agreement on what the level of cleanup would be

depending on the extent of contamination and agreed-to land use. Where we had

a pile of contaminated dirt which had been stockpiled as interim storage from the

cleanup of vicinity properties, we would remove the contaminated dirt which was

above specific levels of contamination. We would continue the excavation until the

contamination level was below acceptable levels. This would bring the site to the

level appropriate to its agreed-to end use. The community and property owner could

then re-develop their land as a residential or industrial site, or as a public area such

as a park. In some cases, this would be a couple of feet below the surrounding

ground level; in other cases, the excavation would be more extensive. Based on negotiations with the regulators, communities, and Congressional delegations during

1996 and the early part of 1997, we believed we had a winning strategy and had

received support in achieving consensus on the cleanup approach and the associated

funding needed to proceed.

This was the case at the Tonawanda disposal sites in New York, the Maywood

interim disposal site in New Jersey, the Wayne interim disposal site in New Jersey,

the St. Louis disposal sites near the airport and downtown sites in Missouri, the

Middlesex interim disposal site in New Jersey, and the Colonie disposal site in New

York. The Department had developed a contracting strategy at the Wayne site

where we competitively bid the entire job on a fixed-priced basis for the removal

and disposal of the contaminated interim disposal site with several options for the

excavation below grade depending on how much contamination we found. Since this

approach was successful, we were preparing contracts for each of the sites. Additionally, the Department was developing alternatives for disposal of the waste generated by the FUSRAP program. The Department had negotiated for disposal of

some of the waste in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal

site and was investigating other alternatives as well. Further, we were aggressively

renegotiating our disposal contracts.

We had also changed the approach from one of doing cleanups on a cost basis,

to an integrating contractor who issues a number of competitive fixed-price contracts and only conducts cleanups where the extent of the contamination is extremely difficult to quantify, such as contaminated soil along old haul roads. The

integrating contractor had project managers and a health and safety staff at each

site to ensure the conditions of the contract were met, and to provide ready availability to the local regulators and community. Thus we had taken steps to ensure

we were integrating the sites efficiently and effectively.

I believe at the time the Congress transferred responsibility to the Corps, DOE

had: (1) developed consensus on the cleanup strategy with the regulators, communities, and congressional delegations, including future land-use designations and

cleanup levels; (2) prepared a contracting strategy that supported competitive fixedprice contracts, which would provide safe and cost-effective cleanups; and (3) adjusted the management approach which could focus on cleanups in a streamlined

and efficient manner. We were pleased with the progress we had made from late

1995 to October 1997 in getting the FUSRAP onto a fast track for cleanup and removal of contamination from urban areas. We also believed that the two-fold strategy we embarked upon in late 1995 was the right approach and had been proven

successful.

With regard to the transfer of other parts of the EM program to the Corps, I believe any such transfers would have very serious impacts on cleanup progress for

several reasons. First, the other EM sites within the Department are not independent, but rather have a strong degree of interdependence that extends to all aspects of the Department’s ongoing missions. Even sites within the Closure Fund account, like Rocky Flats, rely on other DOE sites with ongoing missions to accept radioactive material, whether for storage, re-use, or disposal. Some of these site activities are operated and managed by other non-EM Departmental offices, with varied

missions that may include energy operations, research and development, waste

management, or environmental restoration efforts. This is significantly different

from the single focus of FUSRAP. The removal of cleanup portions of this matrix

would interrupt site management and operations at the multi-program sites.

By contrast, the nature of the sites in the FUSRAP program has enabled the

Corps to divide responsibility for the sites among its numerous and autonomous districts. Although the FUSRAP sites are connected historically, they are not interdependent. The sites were managed under a single program by DOE in order to

avoid redundancy in management, even though geographically they could have been

separated into site groups and been managed without central coordination.
349

Second, the material being handled by the FUSRAP program is also significantly

lower in radioactivity than much of the material that is managed at other DOE

sites. The safe management of this highly radioactive material depends upon the

close coordination of the DOE management teams at the various Department sites.

It is doubtful the Corps, without experience in management of significant quantities

and levels of radioactive material, would enhance the cleanup mission at the sites.

On the other hand, placing the Corps in charge of site cleanups could disrupt the

safety and health functions at the sites.

Third, the Department believes that it has gained significant experience in managing cleanup projects and has been able to accelerate the progress being achieved

at its sites. Our actions have included accelerated characterization, aggressive contracting approaches, and incorporation of new technologies that have enabled the

Department to clean up sites more quickly, more efficiently, and more safely. We

believe that our successes at one site can be applied to other Departmental efforts

being carried out across the country and that DOE is uniquely positioned to build

on these successes.

For example, a major milestone was achieved in fiscal year 1998 by the Department, which significantly contributes to the overall EM cleanup mission. All Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Surface Project remediation activities

were completed. This brings to a close one of the Department’s longest running and

major environmental cleanup programs, which was authorized by Congress in 1978

and cost approximately $1.5 billion, including $100 million provided by the states

involved. Under the UMTRA Surface Project, the Department completed remedial

actions at 22 of the 24 originally designated sites, with two sites being delisted and

their responsibility transferred to the state of North Dakota. The project involved

efforts with 11 States, 2 Indian tribes, and 23 communities. Cleanup was performed

at over 5,300 vicinity properties located near the 22 designated UMTRA sites, and

over 40 million cubic yards of material were remediated and nineteen long-term disposal cells were constructed. The disposal cells must be permanently monitored and

maintained. At most of these sites, groundwater contamination remains and is being

addressed by the UMTRA Groundwater Project. The completion of the UMTRA Surface Project marks a significant milestone in the Department’s efforts to remediate

the environmental legacy from the production of nuclear weapons. Just as mining

and milling of uranium was the first step towards the production of nuclear weapons, the completion of the UMTRA Surface Project represents the first step towards

‘‘closing the circle’’ of the environmental legacy from nuclear weapons production.

Overall in fiscal year 1998, EM completed cleanup at five geographic sites, bringing the total completed to 65 of the 113 sites currently under EM’s responsibility.

Progress was also demonstrated by cleaning up portions of the EM geographic sites,

referred to as ‘‘release sites,’’ and facilities. Cleaning up these areas ultimately leads

to the completion of the entire geographic site and in fiscal year 1998, cleanup was

completed at 290 release sites, and 108 facilities were decommissioned. This brings

the total release sites completed to 4,124 of the total 9,700 release site inventory,

and 448 facilities decommissioned out of the 3,354 facility inventory.

We have also been making significant progress at our major sites. For example,

at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, DOE has made significant

strides in groundwater and soils remediation over the past several years. Of the 500

acres that require remediation, nearly 330 acres have been remediated or are in the

process of being remediated. Of eleven groundwater contamination areas, six have

remediation systems in operation and over 3,000 million gallons of groundwater has

been treated. Innovative technology has played an important role in acceleration of

remediation at SRS and has helped drive down costs. For example, passive technologies have reduced costs while achieving excellent pollution removal. A total of

12 innovative technology deployments in 1998 will further accelerate our remedial

activities. Unlike FUSRAP sites, significant work remains at the SRS to manage the

legacy nuclear materials and wastes requiring stabilization and disposition. Additionally, the SRS will be assisting other DOE sites, including the Rocky Flats site

in Colorado, by accepting certain excess nuclear materials. Key to these activities

is the complex operations in the H and F Canyon processing facilities and the Defense Waste Processing Facility. These large facilities require specialized management experience in nuclear safety programs, including radiation safety and criticality control. DOE has more relevant and significant experience in these areas and

is better positioned than the Corps to assure oversight in these key areas. DOE also

has the requisite experience to ensure that the waste tank farm operations are conducted in a manner that fully supports the waste processing needs of the Canyon

facilities.

The Department also is actively engaged in a program to assure the return of

highly enriched uranium from foreign research reactors in support of U.S. non-
350

proliferation efforts. Program management activities require extensive exchange

with the Department of State, interface and technical assistance to foreign research

reactor owners, outreach with affected States and receipt, transport and storage of

spent nuclear research reactors fuels at Savannah River and Idaho. Again, the Department has significant and relevant experience in these complex program areas.

The Department must manage its facilities in an integrated fashion to accelerate

cleanup, and more rapidly reduce large mortgage costs at its sites. This integration

is typified by the current plans to accelerate the closure of the Rocky Flats site. The

SRS is preparing to receive surplus plutonium from Rocky Flats at an accelerated

pace by modifying the K Area Reactor to permit storage of the Rocky Flats plutonium two years earlier than previously planned. This action will help support accelerated Rocky Flats closure by fiscal year 2006, with an estimated life cycle cost savings of approximately $1.3 billion. Significant program integration efforts involving

EM Headquarters, the Rocky Flats site, Savannah River, the Hanford Site, the DOE

Office of Fissile Materials Disposition and other contractor and national laboratory

participants was necessary for providing the needed support. In our view, the Department is better able to effectively manage these integration efforts because of our

extensive experience. In short, the programmatic challenges faced at Savannah

River require the unique experience of the Department for effective, successful management.

At Rocky Flats, we are aggressively working to accelerate the closure of the site,

and are developing a revised baseline to achieve closure by 2006. Closure of Rocky

Flats is absolutely dependent on other DOE sites. Waste and material generated

during the closure is going to a minimum of six other DOE facilities in six states.

Material from the pits is going to Pantex, highly enriched uranium to Oak Ridge,

residues to Savannah River, low-level waste to the Nevada Test Site, and TRU

waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP); decisions on the disposition of classified parts still categorized as national security material are being finalized, with

the material likely to go to Savannah River Site, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and/or the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Many of these shipments

are on-going. Some of the material being shipped is actually being stored or processed in facilities funded and managed by other DOE programs in addition to EM.

Extensive coordination among DOE federal staff is necessary to ensure schedule,

cost, and environmental concerns are known and are being resolved to allow the

shipments to take place.

At Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the Department has made significant progress in the

remediation of the first gaseous diffusion plant at the K–25 site. This site, now

known as the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), is a good example of how

the Department is working closely with the private sector to accelerate cleanup and

returning property and buildings to productive use. The Department’s innovative

approach to reindustrialization of the site has attracted 20 companies and over 650

jobs, and has resulted in considerable savings to the government. Major remediation

projects such as the removal of contaminated sludge from highly radioactive storage

tanks, called the ‘‘Gunite Tanks’’ at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the removal

of radioactive deposits from old process buildings have reduced the risk of criticality

as well as health and safety risk to workers and have been completed ahead of

schedule.

The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Incinerator, located at the ETTP, is a

unique resource used by other DOE programs and sites. This facility treats radioactive, TSCA, and RCRA hazardous wastes from numerous facilities, allowing them

to maintain compliance with their Site Treatment Plans required by the Federal Facility Compliance Act. The Filter Test Facility (FTF), also located at ETTP, is another facility operated by EM that provides a complex-wide service to other DOE

programs. The FTF tests High Energy Particulate Air Filters that are used throughout the complex and are essential to worker safety and controlling releases of radioactive constituents. This facility is the only one within the DOE complex serving

this function. In addition, EM has awarded the Broad Spectrum Waste Treatment

Contract at Oak Ridge to effectively treat mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes

to meet compliance schedules established by the Site Treatment Plans at other DOE

sites as well as at Oak Ridge.

EM has also made considerable progress at Oak Ridge in several other areas.

Cleanup of Gunite Tanks is well underway using robotic technologies, developed by

EM’s Office of Science and Technology (OST), to empty the tanks of the transuranic

contaminated sludges. This project is attacking problems similar to the tank waste

project at Hanford, and lessons learned from Oak Ridge activities will be utilized

at Hanford. Technologies developed by OST at other sites have also been instrumental in mitigating releases of contaminants to ground and surface waters at the

Oak Ridge Reservation, and at the Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio sites.
351

In addition, EM is addressing a highly complex problem with the decommissioning

of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at ORNL. EM is in the process of purging

radioactive gases from the system and is about to tackle the removal of Uranium

deposits that have migrated into the project’s filter system. This is a highly complex

operation with high levels of radioactive material, and EM is drawing on the expertise of DOE’s National Laboratories to solve the problem. Another technically difficult problem at Oak Ridge is the treatment and packaging of TRU waste for eventual disposal at WIPP. Oak Ridge currently has most of the DOE complex’s remotehandled TRU, as well as large amounts of contact-handled transuranic waste in

storage and has recently issued a fixed price contract to prepare this material for

shipment to WIPP.

EM is also a partner with DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy in dealing with the

United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) at the Paducah and Portsmouth

Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Kentucky and Ohio. DOE provides landlord services to

USEC and obtains services from USEC’s operating contractor, Lockheed Martin

Uranium Services, for maintenance and other EM tasks. In addition, if USEC shuts

down either of these plants, it will be transferred to DOE and become part of EM’s

responsibilities. Funds for this activity have been specifically earmarked by Congress in the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

managed by the Department’s Oak Ridge Operations Office. Certain United States

nuclear utilities contribute to this fund based on past operations.

At the Weldon Spring, Missouri site, the Department is on track to complete a

complex remediation effort which involves decontamination and demolition of dozens

of contaminated structures, treatment of millions of gallons of contaminated waste

waters, hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of sludge waste, removal and disposition of hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of contaminated soils, and construction of an on-site disposal facility that will close one of the first DOE complexes used

in the development of our nation’s nuclear weapons program. Working with the site

contractor and with the cooperation of stakeholders, DOE has been able to reach

its remediation goals at Weldon Springs within the cost and schedule objectives as

originally planned.

At the Fernald, Ohio site, the Department has been working to accelerate the

cleanup by closely coordinating our plans with the regulators and the community.

Again, dozens of structures are being decontaminated and removed, and the land

is being remediated so that it can be returned to public use. Our cooperative approach with the stakeholders and regulators will enable the Department to close

this site and return it to public use decades ahead of the original schedule.

At Idaho, DOE has made major strides in meeting the Idaho Settlement Agreement commitments for placement of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in dry storage. The

new dry storage facility was ready to receive its first shipment of SNF in December

1998, and the first transfer of Three Mile Island SNF was loaded into the facility

in March 1999. In January 1999, DOE issued a Request for Proposal for a SNF privatization storage project which, when awarded late this year, will be a critical facility for providing dry storage capacity for additional SNF at Idaho. In addition, DOE

will complete moving at-risk SNF from wet storage in the CPP–603 facility to safe

storage by December 2000. Idaho is and will continue to receive and store both domestic and foreign research reactor fuel. The success of safely managing the highly

radioactive SNF has been due to the experienced and highly qualified DOE staff at

Idaho and Headquarters, and an established working relationship with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission and the State of Idaho. Idaho also manages the National

Spent Nuclear Fuel Program and integrates all SNF management and disposition

activities across the DOE complex, including coordination with the DOE Office of

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which is responsible for ultimate disposal.

The inter-dependence between DOE sites is especially evident at Idaho, which depends on other DOE sites, including Argonne National Laboratory-West for examination of spent nuclear fuel, Yucca Mountain for receipt of high-level waste and

spent fuel, the WIPP site for receipt of transuranic waste, and the Y–12 Plant in

Oak Ridge for receipt of highly enriched uranium. Shipments of transuranic waste

from Idaho to WIPP are being coordinated among EM Headquarters, the Carlsbad

Area Office, the Idaho Operations Office, and other DOE sites that will be shipping

to WIPP. Other sites also depend on Idaho, since it receives their mixed low-level

waste for incineration at Idaho facilities.

At the Hanford, Washington site, the Department faces probably the greatest

technical challenges as well as the largest inventory of high level waste. The cleanup of the K–Basins and the high-level waste tank farms are unique missions involving high-level radioactive materials which need the specialized expertise the Department has built over many years. After about 50 years of producing nuclear materials at Hanford, DOE is now cleaning up seriously degraded facilities containing
352

great hazards. The background, knowledge, skill and training of the contractor and

Department personnel are essential to conducting the work safely. Many times the

experience of the workers and the Federal staff are a critical component in determining how to conduct work safely in old facilities where existing conditions are uncertain. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) recognized the critical importance of worker qualification and experience in issuing Recommendation

93–3 to the Department on this topic, and DOE staff have worked diligently over

the past six years to reach the DNFSB expectations. Furthermore, the DNFSB has

issued a number of other Hanford-specific recommendations that recognize the difficult challenge of characterizing the wastes in the tanks, and highlight safety

issues. These are topics that demand personnel who are highly specialized and

trained in the nuclear sciences and engineering—exactly the people that the Department and its contractors now have.

Furthermore, there are many interfaces across the Hanford site which led the Department to adopt the Management and Integrating contractor concept. We are now

realizing the benefits of this arrangement through greater cooperation among onsite organizations, resulting in improved performance, cost savings and enhanced

cleanup accomplishments. For example, the groundwater and vadose zone studies

in the tank areas and in the other parts of the Hanford site are being integrated

to develop a site-wide picture of subsurface water movements. Similarly, integration

of work by the various contractors is being accomplished through a systems engineering approach, governed by Interface Control Documents. This effort is part of

DNFSB Recommendation 92–4. The integration of the numerous programs and contractors enables DOE to manage the whole site, putting limited resources on the

most important work yet taking into consideration the concerns of stakeholders. The

Department views the path to success as more integration; sharing cleanup with another Federal agency would limit the opportunities for integration.

Progress in 1998 at Hanford included completion of the B–Plant deactivation, four

years ahead of schedule and at a savings of $100 million. Annual facility costs have

been reduced from $20 million to less than $1 million. DOE and its contractors used

innovative techniques to accelerate the project, including reengineering the organization to make it more efficient, forming dedicated project teams and using lessons

learned from the successful early closure of the PUREX Plant. The continuation of

expertise from key Federal staff involved in the PUREX project played a vital role

in the success of the B–Plant project. The N–Reactor deactivation project was also

completed in fiscal year 1998, placing the N–Reactor in a low-cost surveillance and

maintenance mode pending final disposition. This project included the deactivation

of 86 facilities, removal of 4,774 cubic feet of sediment and 1,140,000 gallons of

water, and 350 pounds of fuel from the fuel basin. The N–Reactor deactivation

project cost $120 million over a 6-year period, and resulted in the N–Reactor being

placed in a safe and stable condition with an annual surveillance and maintenance

cost of only $350 thousand.

In light of all the progress EM is making, the Department does not believe additional transfers to the Army Corps of Engineers would provide any significant benefit. The FUSRAP program was the most straightforward of the DOE’s cleanup programs. With the exception of the wastes stored at the Niagara Falls Storage Site,

this program involved material with some of the lowest concentrations of any material managed by DOE. The inter-site and intra-Department integration of radioactive materials at the other DOE sites being remediated would be disrupted by

other possible transfers of responsibilities. The regulatory and safety issues involved

with the remediation of DOE sites could quickly lead to complications if responsibility for cleaning up these sites were transferred to the Corps, due to the fact that

these other sites generally are contaminated with material of significantly greater

radioactivity levels than the FUSRAP sites, which in many cases cannot be disposed

of at any facility other than a DOE site under DOE control. Likewise, a number

of sites contain special nuclear materials often require coordination with and the involvement of other DOE sites. The Department has extensive expertise in dealing

with these waste materials, which the Corps does not have.

For these reasons, I believe that the consequences of transferring any additional

portions of the Department’s cleanup program to the Army Corps of Engineers

would be to slow down progress and that any such transfer would be detrimental

to the sites involved, the communities, and the Government as a whole.

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP)

Question. How important is the opening of WIPP to DOE’s waste disposal strategy?
353

Answer. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is the cornerstone of the Department’s

national strategy for disposal of transuranic waste. Numerous legally-binding Consent Orders and Agreements between the Department and States are predicated on

the disposal of transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In addition, WIPP is critical to achieving the accelerated closure of sites such as Rocky

Flats.

Question. Will DOE begin waste shipments to WIPP this year as planned? What

is your current schedule to make the first shipment? What actions could jeopardize

the first shipments at this late date?

Answer. On March 22, 1999, Judge John Garrett Penn concluded that the permanent injunction he issued in 1992 does not prevent the shipment of waste to WIPP

for disposal, and that WIPP has interim status under the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA). The first shipment of waste from Los Alamos occurred

on March 26, 1999. DOE made its first shipment of waste from the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to WIPP on April 27, 1999, and plans

to begin shipments from the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in June

or July 1999. There is still the possibility that private plaintiffs or the New Mexico

Environment Department will seek to block shipments to WIPP from DOE sites outside of New Mexico.

Question. Mr. Owendoff, you know I have been extremely concerned about the

State of New Mexico’s delay in considering a RCRA permit for WIPP. Can you tell

me where we stand today with respect to the suit before Judge Penn and when you

expect the New Mexico Environmental Department to issue a permit?

Answer. I am happy to inform you that on Monday, March 22, Judge Penn ruled

that WIPP has interim status under RCRA and that DOE could ship waste to

WIPP. On Wednesday, March 24, eight federal judges in three separate courts

agreed that WIPP’s opening should not be delayed. The first shipment of waste from

the Los Alamos National Laboratory arrived at WIPP at about 3:30 am (MST) on

Friday, March 26. Over the next several months, DOE plans to send additional shipments to WIPP from Los Alamos, Idaho and Rocky Flats based on the judge’s decision that WIPP has interim status and therefore may accept waste while the permitting process is completed.

We do not expect that the Department will be in a position to ship waste to WIPP

from these three sites pursuant to a final permit until late this year or sometime

next year. It appears that the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) will

not issue a final permit until October or November 1999, and under New Mexico’s

regulation, the permit would not become effective until thirty days after its

issuance. In addition, the draft permit requires that NMED approve every site before it ships mixed waste to WIPP, and NMED has never provided DOE with any

indication of its schedule for issuing these approvals for Los Alamos, Idaho and

Rocky Flats.

The latest draft of the permit issued by NMED also has provisions that would require Westinghouse, DOE’s contractor at WIPP, to provide financial assurances for

closure of the facility despite the fact that RCRA exempts the federal government

from the requirement for financial assurances. Westinghouse estimates that, even

if it finds an insurance or bonding mechanism for providing such assurances, the

cost could be somewhere between $2–18 million annually. DOE will have to reimburse Westinghouse for this expenditure.

We are also troubled by statements NMED has made during the permit hearing

and elsewhere that DOE might be: (1) required to submit a new RCRA permit application; (2) prohibited from using Panel 1 after the permit is issued; or (3) subject

to enforcement actions under RCRA if DOE ships waste to WIPP before the State

issues the permit. We know of no legal basis for these assertions, but NMED has

been making them even after Judge Penn concluded that WIPP has interim status.

Question. What would be the impact across DOE if WIPP does not open as expected?

Answer. We are pleased to report that WIPP received its first shipment of transuranic waste on March 26. We look forward to operating WIPP as the integral part

of our environmental cleanup program.

Question. How many State consent orders and agreements would be impacted by

a delay in WIPP opening?

Answer. There are sixteen states which have DOE facilities that generate or store

transuranic (TRU) waste. All of the facilities in these states have ‘‘waste disposition

maps’’ which identify WIPP as the disposal facility. Key among the State consent

orders and agreements are those for Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL) and the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS)

which are at the critical point for milestone compliance. Several other DOE sites

may need to negotiate with their host state on transuranic waste alternatives if the
354

final resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) WIPP permit is issued beyond

the October–November 1999 time frame.

At INEEL, DOE met the milestone in the Idaho Settlement Agreement when the

first shipment of TRU waste left the state on April 27, 1999. Under the Agreement/

court order, DOE must also meet the following TRU waste interim deadlines: ship

no fewer than 3,100 cubic meters of TRU waste out of Idaho by December 31, 2002;

after January 1, 2003, ship out of the State a running average of no fewer than

2,000 cubic meters of TRU waste per year; and ship an estimated 65,000 cubic meters of TRU waste out of the State of Idaho by a target date of December 31, 2015,

but no later than December 31, 2018. If any of these deadlines are not met, the

DOE must suspend shipments of DOE spent nuclear fuel and foreign research reactor spent fuel to INEEL for storage.

Under the terms of the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement, the Department committed to ship 375 drums of TRU waste by the end of fiscal year 1998. Because

WIPP did not open, DOE renegotiated the milestone with the regulators to ship 670

cubic meters of TRU waste offsite by the end of fiscal year 1999. An inability to ship

TRU waste offsite for a prolonged period of time would require construction of a

storage facility for TRU and mixed TRU waste. In addition, DOE is strongly committed to accelerated cleanup of Rocky Flats, and shipments of transuranic waste

should begin this year to support achievement of that goal.

By making the first shipment from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Department was able to meet a commitment to the State of New Mexico and avoid

entering into negotiations to identify treatment requirements for the transuranic

waste in storage at that site.

Question. If WIPP does not open on time will DOE waste movements come to a

halt? What alternatives is DOE considering to maintain schedules and cost savings

tied to opening of WIPP?

Answer. On Monday, March 22, Judge Penn ruled that WIPP has interim status

and that there is no reason to delay shipments to WIPP any longer. On Wednesday,

March 24, eight federal judges in three separate courts agreed that WIPP’s opening

should not be delayed. The first shipment of waste from the Los Alamos National

Laboratory arrived at WIPP on Friday, March 26. DOE also made the first shipment to WIPP from the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

(INEEL) on April 27, 1999. Over the next several months, DOE plans to send additional shipments to WIPP from Los Alamos, Idaho and Rocky Flats.

LOS ALAMOS ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM

Question. A few months ago, there were new reports of contamination of the

groundwater aquifer around the Los Alamos Laboratory from high explosive residues. Could you explain the problem and what DOE is doing to address the issue?

Answer. The Department has detected high explosives (HE) residues in groundwater beneath the southwest edge of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

This contamination was discovered in the characterization well R–25 that is currently being constructed at LANL Technical Area 16. The contamination comes from

past high explosives research, development, and testing activities carried out in this

area. Prior to operations at the Pantex site, HE components for the nation’s nuclear

stockpile were manufactured at the TA–16 area.

High explosives and chemicals associated with their breakdown were present in

most of the samples down to a depth of 1,607 feet. Concentrations in most groundwater samples above 1,607 feet exceed the EPA health advisory guidance for drinking water.

Groundwater in the TA–16 area is not used for drinking water. The closest water

supply well is located 3.5 miles east of the R–25 well. The groundwater travel time

between the R–25 well and the nearest water supply well is probably between 50

and 200 years. Samples from the nearest six water supply production wells on the

LANL property were tested and found to contain no high explosive degradation

products.

Steps have already been taken to reduce the discharge of high explosives processing water in the TA–16 area. In the early 1990s, LANL recognized that high explosives wastewater discharges at TA–16 would not meet State stream standards,

and began to reduce discharges and improve discharge water quality. These changes

were completed in September 1997 and included a new high explosives wastewater

treatment plant. In addition, installation of new vacuum pumps at TA–16 high explosives processing facilities improved reuse of wastewater and reduced flow to the

wastewater treatment plant. Other changes eliminated 19 of the 21 high explosive

wastewater outfalls. Before 1997, the Laboratory discharged more than 12 million

gallons of HE-contaminated wastewater a year at TA–16. Since the new treatment
355

plant was installed and the wastewater outfalls were eliminated, the Laboratory

discharges only 120,000 gallons per year, or about 1 percent of the amounts previously discharged.

The R–25 well is the third of 32 planned deep wells that LANL will install as

part of a seven-year groundwater study. The study, documented in the Hydrogeologic Workplan, has been approved by the New Mexico Environment Department

and is being carried out jointly by the Offices of Environmental Management and

Defense Programs. The goal is to develop better understanding of the geology,

groundwater flow, and geochemistry beneath the 43 square mile LANL area. The

study will also assess impacts that prior LANL activities have had on groundwater

quality in the area.

The TA–16 area is one of LANL’s highest priority cleanup sites. Removal of high

explosives from contaminated soils near recently eliminated wastewater outfalls will

begin this year. In particular, high explosive contaminated soils in the vicinity of

the Building 260 outfall are scheduled for cleanup this summer. The Department

is also constructing R–25 as a monitoring well with nine sampling ports distributed

throughout the upper and lower zones of saturation. Once completed, the additional

samples will be collected on a periodic basis to define the distribution of high explosive concentrations in groundwater and to monitor changes in the quality of the

groundwater over time.

Question. Are you coordinating your actions with the State of New Mexico and do

they concur with your actions and plans?

Answer. The Department and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) staff are

working closely with regulators in the New Mexico Environment Department and

Groundwater Bureau to define future planned activities as a result of the R–25 findings. State regulators have been briefed on the R–25 results throughout the R–25

drilling effort. Results have also been discussed with the New Mexico Environment

Department at the Hydrogeologic Workplan quarterly meeting on February 9, and

at a meeting with the New Mexico Environment Department and Groundwater Bureau held in Santa Fe on March 4.

LANL staff discussed the R–25 results and future characterization plans with

State regulators at the March 29–31 Hydrogeologic Workplan meeting.

Question. What are DOE’s plans and schedule for installing a new regional aquifer to the monitoring well to determine whether contaminants have moved away

from Technical Area–16?

Answer. The Department is accelerating the schedule for installing a new regional

aquifer monitoring well that will be located between the characterization well R–

25 and the nearest water supply wells as part of the Hydrogeologic Workplan. The

new well will show whether contaminants have moved away from TA–16, and provide information to assist LANL efforts to ensure that drinking water supplies are

protected. Drilling the new well will begin either this year or early next year.

In addition to the regional aquifer well described above, LANL is planning additional investigations in the TA–16 area to better understand the nature and extent

of groundwater contamination identified by the R–25 drilling effort. Plans are currently under development to determine the size of the contaminant plume that contains high explosives components and the direction and velocity of groundwater

flow. The numbers and locations of any new wells will be developed in cooperation

with State regulators in the New Mexico Environment Department and Groundwater Bureau.

HANFORD REPROGRAMMING/EM PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTROL

Question. Now I’d like to talk for a moment about the Hanford Tank Operations

reprogramming proposal, and the broader, more fundamental issue of accountability

and control within the Environmental Management program.

First, regarding the reprogramming of $53.3 million for Tank Operations at Hanford, I understand that DOE knew as early as May 1998 that additional ‘‘critical’’

work requirements would make it difficult to stay within available funding levels.

The Department was notified in August of 1998 by the M&I contractor that there

were increased funding needs to address important issues in the tank farm. Yet,

there was no action taken until mid-February 1999 to alert the committee of a potential problem, and it was not until February 24, 1999, that the Department formally notified the appropriate Committees of Congress of the funding shortfall and

the need for the additional $53.3 million. This chronology raises serious questions

as to how the Department of Energy manages its programs and the extent that the

Department is able to control how appropriated funds are spent.
356

Why, based on your own timeline, in May and again in July of 1998 when additional unscheduled work became known, didn’t the Department take actions to reorder priorities in an effort to stay within the available funding level?

Answer. In May 1998, although some of the conditions that would eventually require this reprogramming were known to exist, the impact to fiscal year 1999 planning was not fully apparent. By July, a number of events occurred, such as completion of a Process Control Plan for tank C–106, the State’s notification of its intent

to sue related to interim stabilization, and a high incidence of reported alarm failures, that defined the urgent and emergent safety actions which would need to be

addressed in fiscal year 1999. However, the full scope, schedule, and costs associated

with these activities were not defined sufficiently to be able to reprioritize work at

that time. In retrospect, we should have advised the Congress in August 1998 of

the new requirements and the potential for a reprogramming request. This would

have provided the Congress the opportunity to decide if the fiscal year 1999 appropriation marks should be revised.

Question. Why in August of 1998 was the committee not informed of the additional problems and funding needs as identified by the M&I contractor? You’ll remember that the Conference on the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill had not taken place, so the committee had the ability and opportunity to

address this issue when finalizing the fiscal year 1999 Environmental Management

budget.

Answer. While the need was recognized, the information required for a formal request was not fully developed. In August 1998, the Richland Operations Office was

still working on the contractor’s multi-year work plan. Additionally, the Department

was in the midst of negotiations with the State of Washington concerning stabilization of the single shell-tanks. The full scope of the activities to be required was not

fully defined at that time. Therefore, the entire scope of the additional work was

not clearly defined, nor were the associated costs. It would have been premature to

request Congressional action without proper details to support the request. However, in retrospect, had we advised the Congress in August 1998 of the new requirement and potential for a reprogramming request, it would have provided Congress

with the opportunity to decide if the fiscal year 1999 appropriation marks should

be revised.

Question. Why, knowing of the shortfall in funding, did the Department authorize

the M&I contractor to proceed with additional work prior to notification and approval of a reprogramming by the Committee on Appropriations of the House and

Senate?

Answer. The contractor was authorized to proceed to address urgent and emergent safety needs, as well as regulatory requirements. At no time did Richland intend to exceed available funding limits, or violate any fund controls. There had always been a plan in place to reduce scope to stay within the limitations. However,

this plan involved significant impacts to site-wide programs. The need for the reprogramming arose because of the requirement for additional operating funds in the

Post-2006 Completion Fund account. If the reprogramming were to be disapproved,

all programs under this account (i.e., environmental restoration, waste management, and Tank Waste Remediation System/privatization support) would have had

to absorb reductions to allow the tank safety work to continue.

Question. Why did it take from August of 1998 until February 1999 for the Department to get a reprogramming request to the committee?

Answer. Last summer, the Richland Operations Office identified several funding

needs in the high level tank waste operations program. These needs exceeded the

identified potential funding sources. Therefore, the Richland Office and Headquarters worked together to develop the funding priorities to be included in the reprogramming request as well as the potential funding sources.

During this process, additional funding needs arose as a consequence of new technical issues with one tank that has posed significant health and safety problems in

the past, as well as the new consent agreement with the State of Washington to

resolve compliance issues concerning interim stabilization of the single shell tanks.

To ensure that these new activities were properly priced and to avoid the need

to submit two reprogramming requests, the Richland Office and Headquarters continued to work together to finalize the technical approaches and pricing for these

new activities before the reprogramming request was submitted to Congress.

The Richland Office submitted its formal reprogramming request to Headquarters

on December 10, 1998; Headquarters submitted the request to OMB on February

4, 1999; and the Department submitted the final request to Congress on February

24, 1999.

In retrospect, we should have advised Congress in August of 1998 of the new requirement and potential for a reprogramming request. This would have afforded
357

Congress the opportunity to decide if the fiscal year 1999 appropriation marks

should be revised or wait for a formal reprogramming request.

Question. Finally, can you explain how or why the Department was able to assume approval of the reprogramming in the fiscal year 2000 budget, which the Department prepared last year and submitted to the Congress on February 1, 1999,

when the requirements of the reprogramming request were not fully known and no

request had been submitted to the committee?

Answer. The Department intended to present the Congress with a request for fiscal year 2000 that was consistent with the reprogramming request that would be

presented to the Congress at approximately the same time. In this manner, the Department would be presenting to the Congress a consistent and coherent description

of the program that the Department was seeking to execute at the Hanford site in

fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. With respect to the timing of the fiscal year

2000 budget submission, the Richland portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget request

was not finalized until late January 1999, so that it would accurately reflect the information contained in the soon-to-be-submitted reprogramming request. At no time

did the Department assume the reprogramming had been approved. If the reprogramming had not been approved, we would have modified our request for fiscal

year 2000 accordingly.

In retrospect, we should have advised the Congress in August 1998 of the new

requirement and potential for a reprogramming request. This would have provided

the Congress the opportunity to decide if the fiscal year 1999 appropriation marks

should be revised.

Question. Secondly, and probably of more concern, is the total lack of ability of

DOE to control the waste cleanup program, not just at Hanford, but throughout the

DOE complex. This reprogramming is just one illustration of the issues and problems. It is just a symptom of a bigger problem namely, that DOE’s cleanup efforts

are being driven by compliance agreements and state threats of legal action irrespective of the actions by Congress in appropriating funds for the Environmental

Management program.

Mr. Owendoff, would you care to respond?

Answer. First, I would like to address the concern regarding the extent to which

the EM program is ‘‘driven’’ by cleanup agreements and potential state legal actions.

The EM budget is driven by a number of factors, including:

(1) the need to mitigate or control risks to human health and the environment

posed by the Department’s unprecedented inventory of nuclear and hazardous

wastes and materials;

(2) legal obligations to perform a variety of activities, and the national policy to

reduce global nuclear proliferation risks; and

(3) a strategy to invest in certain activities such as accelerating project completion

dates that can reduce longer-term program costs.

The Department’s legal obligations arise directly from federal and state environmental and public health laws and regulations that apply to DOE’s activities, and

from compliance agreements that the Department has entered into pursuant to

those laws.

The Department recognizes the importance of both meeting its legal obligations

and managing a program within the current budgetary constraints. In many instances, state and federal regulators have been willing to renegotiate compliance

milestones in light of emerging technical information and budgetary constraints.

However, state and federal regulators have recently indicated an increasing reluctance to continue to do so.

Many EM projects involve unique and complex technical and managerial challenges. These include unique, high-level liquid radioactive waste mixtures in leaking

underground tanks, corroding spent nuclear fuel in wet storage pools, and waste in

burial pits containing plutonium and other wastes in unknown concentrations and

locations. In a number of instances, the cost and schedules of these projects have

proved difficult to accurately define or project in advance. However, the Department

has taken a number of steps to improve its project management to help ensure that

projects can be completed on schedule and within current budgets. For example, the

Department has undertaken a major effort to integrate cleanups between sites to

take advantage of potential economies of scale and to eliminate duplicate facilities.

Also, pursuant to Congressional direction, the Department has created the Office of

River Protection to manage the Hanford tank program. EM also is creating the Office of Independent Project Reviews to monitor and improve management of major

projects. We are continuing to improve our contracting methods to provide our contractors with the right incentives and penalties for good or poor performances.

I must respectfully disagree with the suggestion that there is a ‘‘total lack of ability to control the waste cleanup program.’’ The Department acknowledges that there
358

have been prominent instances in which project cost escalations and/or delays in

schedules have led to legal issues and budgetary pressures. These projects generally

have involved the unique technical challenges described above. In these cases, the

Department has taken steps to improve its management of these specific projects

as well as other technically challenging projects. In fact, the Department has made

substantial progress in completing cleanup projects. By the end of fiscal year 1999,

we expect to have completed cleanup or made ‘‘no further action’’ determinations for

nearly half (47 percent) of the approximately 9,300 contaminated release sites for

which the EM program is responsible. This will result in the completion of the active cleanup of 65 of the 113 sites originally under the EM program (excluding the

FUSRAP sites). We have produced 617 canisters of waste vitrified into glass since

operations began at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina, and 237

canisters at the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York. In 1998, the Department completed the Uranium Mill Tailings Surface Project (cleanup of 22 mill

sites and 5,700 vicinity properties); the decommissioning of the Hanford-Reactor and

B–Plant; the cocooning of the Hanford C–Reactor; and the completion of Phase I of

the vitrification program at West Valley, New York (vitrification of all waste except

for tank heels.) In addition, the Department is on track to complete the closure of

the Weldon Spring site by 2002 and the Mound site by 2005. We are also on track

to complete cleanup at Fernald by 2006 and continue to refine our project baselines

at Rocky Flats in order to meet our ambitious goal to clean up Rocky Flats by 2006.

The Department therefore believes that although there are several instances in

which project management has been a difficult challenge, the program is being managed and we are making the necessary progress.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Question. The funding request for fiscal year 2000 for the DOE environmental

management Science and Technology program is $230.5 million compared to $243.2

million provided of the current year, a reduction of $12.6 million. Within the overall

request is funding for the Office of Science program which support the efforts of the

Environmental Management program. This is funded at $47 million in fiscal year

1999 and the request for fiscal year 2000 is $32 million, a reduction of $15 million

from the fiscal year 1999 level.

Is the continued reduction in the Science and Technology program strictly related

to budget constraints or is there some other reason for the decline?

Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the Department requested $219.5 million for the Environmental Management Science and Technology program, including $32 million

for the Science Program. The Congress appropriated $243.5 million for the Science

and Technology program, including $47 million for the Science program. This represented a $15 million increase from the request for the Science program and a $14

million overall increase. The increase provided by Congress in fiscal year 1999 for

the Science program will enable the Department to initiate several new projects in

fiscal year 1999 to address scientific problems associated with vadose zone, subsurface contamination, and groundwater issues at sites such as Hanford and to develop a better scientific basis for understanding exposures and risks to humans from

low dose radiation.

In fiscal year 2000, the Department is requesting $230.5 million for the Science

and Technology program, including $32 million for the Science program. The requested level for the Science program represents the amount that is necessary to

continue funding for the projects that already have been initiated. The Department

intends to assess the results from the first round of Science program projects (for

which fiscal year 1999 is the last year of funding) prior to requesting funding for

new projects.

The Science and Technology program budget is developed in conjunction with the

budget for the other EM sites. The EM budget is driven by a number of statutory

and regulatory requirements for which sufficient funding must be requested. The

program’s priority is to fund these compliance requirements, and other safety-related priorities, before it funds other important, but discretionary, items such as research that allows the program to address many of the technical challenges it faces.

We are committed to and pleased with the progress of the Science and Technology

Program, including the Environmental Management Science Program, which is comanaged by EM and the Office of Science. We continue to believe that a strong

Science and Technology Program is essential to the success of the EM Program.

Question. Now several years ago, GAO gave the program poor marks for use of

funds appropriated for technology development and moving that technology into use

around the DOE complex. What has DOE done to bring about change and to focus

the technology development program on the areas of critical need?
359

Answer. The Environmental Management (EM) program has made significant

changes in the way our science and technology (S&T) program seeks to deploy new

technologies. S&T is no longer solely a developer of cleanup technologies. S&T now

provides the full range of science and technology capabilities necessary to deliver

and support fully developed, deployable solutions to DOE’s cleanup problems—from

basic research through development, demonstration, deployment and technical assistance. We have enhanced the ‘‘focus area’’ membership—teams that address EM’s

five major problem areas—to serve as centers of expertise to provide technical assistance to the sites on technologies through all phases of development and deployment. We have also established Focus Area User Steering Committees that consist

of senior-level user and developer representatives who are involved in decisionmaking throughout all phases of technology development. This ensures that users

provide input as technologies evolve so the technologies meet sites’ needs as they

become available for use.

Also, an EM Research and Development Program Plan has been developed that

‘‘maps’’ investments in technical solutions to site-identified needs. This effort ensures that our science and technology activities are planned and managed in an

interactive, coordinated and participatory relationship with EM cleanup project

managers and stakeholders.

S&T uses a multi-attribute decision model that defines and prioritizes EM’s technology needs and drives investments for science and technology. The prioritization

criteria help ensure we are meeting our highest priority needs to solve environmental cleanup problems, as well as addressing areas of high technical risks, addressing high cost waste streams, and accelerating deployment.

To spur widespread use of available innovative technologies, EM began an accelerated site technology deployment initiative in fiscal year 1998. Fourteen projects

were competitively selected and initiated that resulted in 13 deployments by the

year’s end. Another 42 deployment projects were reviewed and approved for possible

funding in fiscal year 1999, from which 32 have been funded and initiated. The cost

and performance data from these successful deployments help accelerate widespread

use by eliminating the perceived business risks associated with new technology.

S&T also helps sponsor the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation

Working Group (ITRC), a state and federal partnership for streamlining the regulatory approval process. ITRC provides an excellent forum for regulators from 26

states to collaborate with representatives from federal agencies, industry and stakeholder groups to raise the confidence of environmental decision-makers concerning

deploying new technologies. This collaboration among participating states eliminates

duplicative verification work, thereby reducing the time and cost regulating agencies

must spend reviewing and permitting new technologies.

Question. Can you give the committee some idea of how you have been able to

develop and move technology from the concept stage to use at DOE sites?

Answer. An example of a viable technology that grew from an idea is cesium removal using crystalline silicotitanate (CST). Approximately 100 million gallons of

radioactive waste are stored in underground storage tanks at Hanford, Idaho, Oak

Ridge, and Savannah River. The waste contains the radioactive element cesium,

which emits penetrating radiation that presents health risks to workers and the

public if they are exposed to the tank waste. Removing the cesium from liquid tank

waste reduces the volume that must be carefully and expensively handled to prevent

such exposures.

To address the cesium removal problem, we began a collaboration between Texas

A&M University and the Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) to improve our understanding of the molecular structure of this type of waste. This effort showed promise

as an improved method for separating radionuclides from high level wastes. These

early results led to a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between

SNL and a private company, UOP Molecular Sieves, to produce CSTs in an engineered form. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) used their ‘‘hot’’ cell facilities

to perform successful pilot-scale testing (one-liter samples). The results of the pilotscale tests enabled scale-up to a size suitable for processing Oak Ridge waste, and

25,000 gallons of Melton Valley tank waste were successfully treated using a fullscale system built by TTI Engineering under contract with ORNL. Going from

breakthrough to full-scale deployment took about five years and involved one university, two National Laboratories, and two companies.

Question. One of the tools which has been developed is ‘‘technology roadmaps’’.

Explain the concept of these ‘‘roadmaps’’, how DOE plans to use them, and how the

budget request addresses areas where there are significant science and technology

issues to be addressed?

Answer. EM has been playing a lead role in the Department-wide effort to use

roadmapping techniques to improve the way we develop and manage science and
360

technology investments. Roadmapping within EM involves an interactive dialogue

between the user community responsible for the cleanup and the science and technology community developing solutions. This dialogue results in a jointly defined set

of needs and an investment strategy to address them. The success of the DOE environmental cleanup program will ultimately depend on whether cleanup project managers at DOE sites have the tools and information they need to complete their

projects on time and within budget.

EM has approached roadmapping at three levels. In November 1998, EM issued

the EM Research and Development Program Plan. This Plan outlines a five-year investment portfolio for science and technology at the program level and is based on

data provided by the sites to support EM’s planning processes. The second level of

roadmapping is at the environmental problem level (i.e., high level waste, mixed

waste, deactivation and decommissioning, plutonium stabilization, and subsurface

contamination). We have developed a set of multi-year program plans for each of

these major problem areas which are reviewed by the site users and ultimately endorsed by the Focus Area User Steering Committees—groups established to ensure

user and developer coordination through all phases of technology development. The

third tier of roadmapping is at the project level and to date has been focused on

a limited number of projects (e.g., salt treatment alternatives for cesium removal at

the Savannah River Site and vadose zone activities at Hanford). These roadmapping

efforts provide the underlying basis for the budget request.

To ensure the requested budget addresses areas where there are significant

science and technology issues, S&T uses a multi-attribute decision model that defines and prioritizes EM’s technology needs and drives investments for science and

technology. The sites across the DOE complex recently reported over 500 environmental problems that require technological solutions in order to complete cleanup

activities, over 80 percent of which are categorized as medium and high priority.

Also 86 pathways or events on the critical path to closure were identified as having

medium to high technological risk, where critical cleanup projects may not be completed on time or within budget due to a technology deficiency. This prioritization

process uses these data to ensure that S&T’s investments are aimed at meeting the

highest priority needs, addressing areas of high technical risks, addressing highestcost needs, and accelerating deployment.

Question. How important is the Science Program to the success of the environmental management and cleanup program?

Answer. The Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP), which is comanaged by DOE’s Offices of Environmental Management (EM) and Science (SC),

has a significant role in the successful cleanup of the DOE weapons complex. The

sites have identified a number of significant and intractable problems they will face

in the long-term, primarily in work that needs to be done beyond the 2006 timeframe. The EMSP addresses the most challenging, and potentially the most costly,

technical problems facing DOE related to high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, mixed

waste, nuclear materials, remedial action, decontamination and decommissioning,

and health, ecology and risk.

Question. Is the $32 million funding level sufficient to carry out a credible program? Please explain.

Answer. We are confident that the requested $32 million is adequate to continue

the multi-year grants that were awarded in previous years. This includes the last

year of 66 three-year research projects initiated in fiscal year 1997, 33 three-year

projects initiated in fiscal year 1998 in the areas of radioactive tank waste and decontamination and decommissioning, and fiscal year 1999 grants to be awarded in

September 1999 to address subsurface contamination/vadose zone and effects of low

dose radiation exposure.

Question. What, in your judgement, is the minimum credible annual funding

level?

Answer. At this time, we believe $32 million is the minimum level at which the

EMSP program can adequately conduct a research program that provides basic scientific knowledge in support of the development of ‘‘cutting-edge’’ environmental

technologies. The requested level for the Science program represents the amount

necessary to continue funding for the projects that already have been initiated. The

Department intends to assess the results from the first round of Science program

projects (for which fiscal year 1999 is the last year of funding) prior to requesting

funding for new projects.

Question. Can you give the committee some of the accomplishments to date as a

result of the funding provided for the Science Program?

Answer. We are pleased with the progress of the Environmental Management

Science Program (EMSP), which is co-managed by the DOE Offices of Environmental Management (EM) and Science. Since its beginning in fiscal year 1996
361

through fiscal year 1999, EMSP has invested over $190 million to support 235 research projects—work that is already providing useful results. Some selected accomplishments are:

—We are genetically engineering a natural soil bacterium with high resistance to

radiation into a natural detoxifier for complex mixed wastes. These results show

the promise of yielding an inexpensive, effective bioremediation of contaminated

sites.

—We have also demonstrated innovative metal contaminant remediation methods

using tobacco plants (phytoremediation) to remove methyl mercury from soils.

—We now have a better understanding of gas bubble-tank waste interactions during barometric pressure changes, which can lead to better methods of measuring and monitoring dangerous gas formation in high-level waste tanks and

process streams.

—We are developing a method that combines seismic reflection and ground-penetrating radar to better map near-surface (2 to 8 meters) conditions at waste

sites. This non-invasive approach can facilitate retrieval of buried waste at sites

with complex geologies.

At the end of fiscal year 1999, we expect final reports from over 100 of the research projects awarded in fiscal year 1996, and we expect to have many scientific

results that will help EM in achieving its cleanup mission.

Question. Has the Department decided whether there is no longer a need for a

stable Science Program as reflected in the budget request for fiscal year 2000?

Answer. We believe the requested $32 million is appropriate at this time to support the multi-year grants that were awarded in previous years.

ROCKY FLATS CLEANUP

Question. Last year the Congress funded the cleanup work at Rocky Flats in the

Closure Account at $657 million. The budget request for fiscal year 2000 is level

funded at $657 million. The committee has been funding the Rocky Flats cleanup

effort based on an accelerated schedule with closure by 2006. The current plan on

which Rocky Flats cleanup costs and schedules are based on project closure of the

site by 2010 at a cost of $7.3 billion. DOE’s Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure

also indicates that cleanup will not be completed by the year 2010.

Accelerated cleanup of Rocky Flats is a key to DOE’s efforts to reduce landlord

and mortgage costs thereby freeing up resources to be applied to other critical cleanup work and sites. If Rocky Flats is not accelerated and the resulting savings of an

estimated $1.3 billion realized, then there will be insufficient funds available to accomplish work at other sites across the DOE complex.

Explain DOE’s strategy and approach to cleaning up Rocky Flats. Why doesn’t

DOE’s report on Pathways to Closure support closure by 2006?

Answer. The Department fully supports efforts to clean up and close Rocky Flats

as soon as possible, including meeting the 2006 goal. The strategy for cleanup and

closure of Rocky Flats is straightforward, but challenging. The nuclear material in

the buildings at Rocky Flats needs to be stabilized, packaged and sent off-site to

a disposition facility or for storage in preparation for disposition. Once the materials

are removed, the buildings will be deactivated and torn down. Waste generated by

all these activities will also be sent off-site to a disposal facility. The soil will then

be cleaned up to the agreed-upon soil action level and some areas will then be

capped. The existing baseline and the Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure document show this work being completed in 2010. The Department and the Rocky Flats

contractors have accepted a challenge to accelerate that goal to 2006. This goal has

not yet been translated into a detailed baseline and assumptions necessary to give

us confidence that this goal can be turned into a plan, but we expect to receive a

detailed baseline to achieve the 2006 goal from the contractor in May 1999. We plan

to validate that baseline by the end of this year. Following this, we expect that future revisions of Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure will reflect the 2006 goal.

FUNDING FOR 2006 COMPLETION

Question. Does the fiscal year 2000 request of $657 million support the 2006 date,

and if not, why? How much additional funding is needed to maintain the 2006 completion schedule?

Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request is based on the current baseline for

Rocky Flats, which has a 2010 closure date. However, activities have already been

identified that would help accelerate closure to 2006, and these activities are included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Some examples include the ongoing

shipment of plutonium residues to the Savannah River Site (SRS) for stabilization,

and accelerating by two years the shipment of metals and oxides to SRS. We are
362

expecting the details of a 2006 closure baseline from the contractor in May 1999.

DOE expects to validate the baseline by the end of this year. I am confident at this

point that the Department’s fiscal year 2000 budget request includes adequate funds

to support accelerated closure.

WIPP OPENING

Question. How important is the opening of the WIPP facility in New Mexico to

the Rocky Flats accelerated cleanup strategy. What impact will a delayed opening

of WIPP have on cleanup plan for Rocky Flats?

Answer. Opening WIPP is extremely important to the overall effort to accelerate

the closure of Rocky Flats and several other DOE sites. We are very pleased that

WIPP has begun receiving waste and expect this will help clean up and close Rocky

Flats. Nonetheless, more on-site storage for TRU waste may be needed. The repackaging of plutonium residues in fiscal year 1999, when combined with existing and

projected TRU waste in inventory at Rocky Flats, may result in more TRU waste

than can currently be stored at Rocky Flats even assuming shipments of waste from

Rocky Flats to WIPP. Therefore, even after WIPP begins receiving Rocky Flats

waste this summer, more storage capacity may be needed. Rocky Flats is already

increasing its storage capacity by modifying existing temporary structures and expanding Building 440. If Rocky Flats does not begin shipments of waste to WIPP

by July 1999, and is not able to ship at fairly aggressive rates, the site will need

to make a decision by the end of fiscal year 1999 on whether to start modification

or construction of additional storage facilities. We do not expect the need for additional storage to impact the 2006 closure goal.

CLEANUP BUDGET

Question. What portion of the $657 million budget request is for actual cleanup

work and how much goes to other expenses such as landlord and management

costs?

Answer. Approximately $245 million (37 percent) of the $657 million fiscal year

2000 request is for actual cleanup work, including stabilization, packaging, and

shipment of special nuclear material, storage and shipment of waste, deactivation

and decommissioning of facilities, and environmental restoration activities. The remaining $412 million (63 percent) (commonly referred to as fixed cost) supports

safeguards and security, surveillance and maintenance of over 600 facilities, infrastructure and utilities, analytical support, and project/program management. The

desire to reduce the high ‘‘fixed cost’’ at Rocky Flats is one of the key reasons that

the Department is investing cleanup dollars for accelerated closure of the site.

MIXED LOW-LEVEL AND LOW-LEVEL WASTES

Question. What are DOE’s plans regarding disposal of mixed low-level and lowlevel wastes? Do you have an approved plan, where is the waste to go, what is the

schedule for having plans approved, and what are the major issues or problems associated with providing a path for disposal of these wastes?

Answer. Low-level waste is currently being shipped to the Nevada Test Site for

disposal. Some mixed low-level waste is currently sent to a commercial facility. The

wastes now being shipped generally have a low radionuclide content.

Some mixed low-level wastes that will be generated during cleanup do not now

have an approved disposal pathway. These mixed low-level wastes are projected to

have radionuclide levels greater than any commercial facility is currently authorized

to accept; and no DOE facility can accept off-site mixed low-level waste, regardless

of radionuclide content, until DOE issues the Record of Decision for mixed low-level

waste based on the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. We are pursuing two potential disposition paths for this higher radionuclide

waste—disposal in a commercial facility in Colorado or disposal in a DOE facility.

A decision on these options is expected in fiscal year 2000.

IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

Question. Briefly explain the strategy and major milestones for waste management activities at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

(INEEL).

Answer. The INEEL Waste Management program will safely treat, store, and dispose of low-level waste, mixed low-level waste, transuranic waste, and high-level

waste in compliance with agreements (e.g., the 1995 Settlement Agreement among

the Department, the State of Idaho, and the U.S. Navy), the Federal Facility Compliance Act Site Treatment Plan, and other applicable environmental requirements.
363

The Department’s strategy is to dispose of 6,500 cubic meters of stored low-level

waste by the end of fiscal year 1999, to treat and dispose of backlogged mixed lowlevel waste (as defined in the Site Treatment Plan) by 2003, and to treat and dispose of the retrievably stored transuranic waste by 2018. Newly generated low-level,

and mixed low-level waste will be dispositioned within one year of generation. High

level waste will be treated and prepared for transport out of Idaho by 2035.

Question. What impact is there on the Idaho Settlement Agreement if the WIPP

facility does not begin receiving waste this year as planned? What alternate or

backup plan is there to ensure that the requirements of the Settlement Agreement

are met?

Answer. The remedy for failure of DOE to meet the transuranic waste shipment

milestones outlined in the Idaho Settlement Agreement is the suspension of DOE

spent nuclear fuel and foreign research reactor shipments to the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory (INEEL). DOE met the first milestone

when the first shipment left INEEL on April 27, 1999.

Question. Is there anything other than opening of WIPP which could delay shipments of TRU waste out of INEEL in fiscal year 1999?

Answer. DOE shipped the first shipment of transuranic waste from INEEL on

April 27, 1999, to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. Over the next several months, DOE plans to send transuranic waste shipments to WIPP from Los Alamos, INEEL, and Rocky Flats.

ADVANCED MIXED WASTE TREATMENT PROJECT (AMWTP)

Question. The fiscal year 2000 Budget Request includes $110 million for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. This project is being carried out under the DOE Environmental Management Privatization program.

Update the Committee on the current status of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project. Is construction of this facility required under the Idaho Settlement

Agreement?

Answer. The AMWTP has been proceeding very successfully since the contract

was awarded in December 1996. The contractor, BNFL Inc., has submitted quality

Phase I project deliverables on schedule. Examples of such deliverables include the

DOE Environment, Safety, and Health Program Operating Plan; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit application; Air Permit to Construct application;

and the Toxic Substances Control Act permit application. The AMWTP Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed and distributed in February 1999, and

the DOE Record of Decision was signed by the Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management on March 22, 1999. In the Record of Decision, DOE decided

to implement the EIS Preferred Alternative, which is to proceed with construction

(Phase II) and operation (Phase III) of the AMWTP facility, in accordance with the

Department’s contract with BNFL Inc.

The project is still in Phase I. BNFL is in the process of securing the necessary

permits and completing needed safety and health documents to obtain DOE authorization to proceed. BNFL will begin construction after regulator approval is received. The regulators have indicated they expect to issue the permit by the end of

this year.

Completing construction of a facility by December 31, 2002, to treat INEEL transuranic and alpha-emitting mixed low-level waste is a specific requirement of the

1995 Settlement Agreement between the State of Idaho, DOE, and the Navy. The

AMWTP is on track for meeting this construction milestone. Construction of a facility to treat these wastes is also required by the INEEL Site Treatment Plan pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act, which is enforceable by the State.

Question. How will the budget of $110 million be used?

Answer. The $110 million in privatization program funds in the fiscal year 2000

Congressional Budget Request will be available, if necessary, to cover the costs incurred by the contractor during the construction phase (Phase II) of the project if

the Government decides to terminate the contract for its convenience. When the facility becomes operational in 2003, the $110 million will be available to pay the contractor for the amortized capital facility costs over the first 25,000 cubic meters of

treated waste, as required by the contract.

Question. What is the facility expected to cost? How long is the facility expected

to operate and at what cost?

Answer. There are two components of the unit price for treated waste: an operating cost component and a capital amortization component. The privatization funding pays for the capital amortization component and the site’s operating budget pays

for the operating cost component.
364

The privatization portion of the total project cost is $569.4 million, which includes

the capital facility financing portion of the contractor’s price, profit, and the cost of

financing (i.e., interest). The facility is expected to operate until 2015 to complete

the treatment of 65,000 cubic meters of INEEL waste under Option 1 of the contract, at a cost of $546 million, which includes the M&O Contractor and other

project support costs, as well as decontamination and decommissioning costs. Therefore, the total project cost is $1,115.4 million. If DOE executes Option 2 of the contract, the AMWTP could also treat up to 120,000 cubic meters of additional, similar

waste from INEEL or other DOE sites at a cost (in operating dollars) of $2,596 per

cubic meter. In this case, the facility could treat up to a total of 185,000 cubic meters of waste and would operate for its full expected design life of 30 years.

Question. Why has the total project cost been revised from $1.078 billion to $1.115

billion? I thought that using the privatization approach was an effort to control

project schedules and costs?

Answer. The capital portion of the privatization contract is fixed and is not subject

to either price redetermination or economic price adjustment. There has been an adjustment to the facility operating costs due to two factors. First, the contract was

negotiated with an assumed, level production schedule. An updated production

schedule has been developed and incorporated into the contract which reflects a

more realistic waste processing schedule having less throughput during the early facility startup phase. This adjustment totaled $7.8 million.

Second, escalation rates in the initial forecast were based on rates established by

the Office of Management and Budget. However, the negotiated contract requires

use of a Department of Labor index as the basis for change in economic price adjustment. This contract requirement resulted in an adjustment to the estimated life

cycle cost of $28.7 million. It can be expected that downward or upward changes

to unit prices will occur when the index forecast changes materially. Future budget

submissions will stay constant unless there is a significant increase or decrease in

the index. The economic price adjustment clause of the contract does not apply to

the privatization (capital) part of the contract price; the clause applies only to facility operating costs.

Question. Explain the change in the escalation rates from the OMB required rates

used in the initial estimates to the economic index based escalation negotiated in

the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project contract which has resulted in an increase of $28.7 million in the estimated life cycle cost of the project.

Answer. Escalation rates in the initial forecast were based on OMB rates. However, during negotiation of the contract with BNFL, the Department and BNFL negotiated the use of a Department of Labor index as the basis for change in economic

price adjustment. This contract requirement resulted in an increase to the estimated

life cycle cost of $28.7 million. It can be expected that downward or upward changes

to unit prices will occur when the index forecast changes materially. Future budget

requests will reflect significant increases or decreases in the index through adjustments to the project estimates. The economic price adjustment clause of the contract

does not apply to the privatization (capital) part of the contract price; the clause applies only to facility operating costs.

PIT 9 PROJECT

Question. What is the current status of the impasse related to the Pit 9 project

at INEEL? What can you report regarding the Secretary’s commitment to find a

path forward to resolve the impasse?

Answer. There are two matters in litigation regarding the default termination of

the Pit 9 subcontract with Lockheed Martin Advanced Environmental Systems

(LMAES) for remediation of Pit 9. First, LMAES and Lockheed Martin Corporation

have commenced an action in the United State Court of Federal Claims against the

United States. (Cases in that court are filed against the United States rather than

against an individual department or agency.) Second, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company (LMITCO) commenced an action against LMAES and the Lockheed Martin Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of

Idaho, to which the Department is not a party.

The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the Court of Federal Claims action because (1) there exists no privity of contract between the United States and

LMAES or the Lockheed Martin Corporation upon which to base a direct contract

action against the United States, and (2) no action undertaken by the United States

Government has effected a cognizable taking of the property of LMAES or the Lockheed Martin Corporation. That motion is pending before the Court.

With respect to the Idaho litigation, we understand that there have been discussions between LMITCO and LMAES and the Lockheed Martin Corporation. In addi-
365

tion, LMITCO has been exploring with the Department various mechanisms that

might be available and appropriate to address issues raised by the Pit 9 subcontract

dispute. Such an undertaking has been impeded, however, by the efforts of LMAES

and the Lockheed Martin Corporation to have the Idaho litigation stayed (that is,

consideration of its merits delayed) while they pursue their Court of Federal Claims

action in Washington.

The Secretary and the Department remain committed to moving ahead expeditiously on cleaning up the Radioactive Waste Management Complex, including Pit

9. Working with EPA and the State of Idaho, the Department has developed and

begun to implement an ‘‘alternative’’, three stage approach to the Pit 9 cleanup.

Stage I focuses on subsurface exploration. Stage II focuses on design, construction,

and operation of robotic and remotely operated retrieval systems and confinement

systems to demonstrate that remedial action Record of Decision objectives are

achievable. Stage III will complete the remediation of Pit 9.

Question. What is the current cost to finish the project and how does this compare

to the original baseline estimate?

Answer. DOE, EPA, and the State have agreed to complete the remediation of Pit

9 under a three-stage project for an estimated cost of $200 million, which was the

fixed price of the original project under the now-terminated sub-contract signed in

1994 with LMAES. A more detailed cost estimate will be available at the completion

of stage 2 of the project.

Question. The budget justification indicates that DOE plans to spend $50 million

for an Alternate Pit 9 phased alternative approach. Explain DOE’s plans to proceed

with a ‘‘Alternate’’ approach at Pit 9. Doesn’t proceeding with this effort make it

more complicated and difficult in resolving the current legal and contractual dispute?

Answer. Because the subcontract for the implementation of the Pit 9 interim action was terminated and the regulatory agencies are requiring DOE to meet the

terms of the original 1993 Pit 9 Record of Decision, the development of a revised

schedule and scope of work were necessary to satisfy the requirements under the

1991 Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order to issue a Comprehensive

Record of Decision for the Radioactive Waste Management Complex in 2002. A

three-stage process for remediating Pit 9 was jointly developed by the DOE, EPA,

and the State of Idaho, and the schedule for completing the comprehensive investigation of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex was extended. The revised

effort, referred to as the Operable Unit 7–10 Staged Interim Action, will include

three stages: Stage I focuses on subsurface exploration; Stage II focuses on design,

construction, and operation of robotic and remotely operated retrieval systems and

confinement systems to demonstrate that remedial action Record of Decision objectives are achievable. Stage III will complete the remediation of Pit 9.

The $50 million requested in the fiscal year 2000 Congressional Budget Request

will be used for CERCLA work on the entire Radioactive Waste Management Complex, which includes Pit 9. The Pit 9 portion of these funds will be used to complete

Stage I, continue work on Stage I activities (including monitoring and waste treatability studies), and initiate Stage III remediation.

The decision to proceed with the Staged Interim Action for Pit 9 described above

does not affect the ability of the management and operating contractor (Lockheed

Martin Idaho Technologies Company, Inc. (LMITCO)) to resolve its dispute with

Lockheed Martin Advanced Systems, Inc. (LMAES).

HANFORD SITE

Question. Explain the overall strategy for cleanup and removal of legacy waste

from the Hanford Site, particularly as it relates to the high level waste tanks and

activities associated with the K–Basin.

Answer. The Hanford Site strategy is to protect the Columbia River and to mitigate, to the extent practicable, the greatest hazards by 2006 while proceeding with

the necessary preparations for longer-term cleanup. As part of the near-term work,

the corroded spent fuel in the aging K–Basins is being moved away from the Columbia River into safe, dry storage on the central plateau of the 200 Area, where it will

remain in interim storage awaiting final disposition in a national repository. Other

near-term actions include completing stabilization of plutonium; interim stabilizing

the single-shell tanks, some of which have leaked, which involves transferring

pumpable liquids into double shell tanks; and developing a privatized vitrification

facility to treat and immobilize the high-level wastes in the double shell tanks and

low-activity wastes at the tank farms. The high-level wastes will be placed in an

interim storage facility to await final disposition in a national repository, and the

vitrified low-activity wastes will remain in an on-site facility. Transuranic wastes
366

will be shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant beginning in fiscal year 2000, and

other waste-types will be safely disposed on-site at Hanford.

The site is remediating contaminated soils, cleaning up facilities and buildings

through demolition or decontamination, and addressing groundwater contamination

to reduce risks and reduce surveillance and maintenance costs. As agreed to by the

regulators, DOE will address the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of

the surplus reactors in two phases. Phase I will place the reactors in interim safe

storage, ensuring that facilities are safe and secure and reducing surveillance and

maintenance costs. Phase II will involve removal of reactor cores to a disposal facility in the 200 area. The overall strategy for remediation and D&D activities is to

complete cleanup first in areas nearest the Columbia River, then move cleanup efforts toward the 200 area. The majority of contaminated soils and materials will be

disposed on-site in the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in the 200 area,

which has already received over 1.5 million tons of contaminated soil.

Question. How does the Paths to Closure plan support these DOE’s strategies?

Answer. The Paths to Closure report focuses on addressing the highest risk activities first, along with accelerating project completion and site closure. This strategy

is reflected in the prioritization of activities at the Hanford site, where mitigation

of the greatest Hanford hazards (e.g., tanks, spent fuel in K-basin, and the Plutonium Finishing Plant) are given the highest ranking while environmental restoration and deactivation work is executed in a more constrained manner. The Paths

to Closure analysis indicates that the funding profile for a number of sites decreases

in the 2006–2010 time frame as projects are completed. Several major hazard-reduction projects at Hanford should also be completed by this time. We therefore anticipate that some additional EM funds will be available for the Hanford site for the

TWRS project and environmental restoration activities.

Question. What are the areas where the Plan does not meet the milestones of the

Tri-Party Agreement? What is DOE doing to bring its planned work into compliance

with the Agreement?

Answer. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure is consistent with all current

milestones in the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) with the State of Washington and the

Environmental Protection Agency. However, the Richland Operations Office’s June

1998 Plan was developed prior to the signing of the BNFL contract. DOE is proceeding with negotiations with BNFL to determine the full scope and schedule of

the privatization contract. The Department is also negotiating with the State of

Washington to revise the current high-level waste milestones in the TPA based on

the outcome of contract negotiations with BNFL.

Question. The 2006 Plan and budget realities demand increased efficiencies in

order to save resources which can then be applied to critical cleanup work. What

were the results of negotiations between DOE, its regulators, and stakeholders to

identify and agree upon needed efficiencies to cover project compliance shortfalls?

Answer. The Department is continuing to strive for efficiencies to avoid shortfalls.

This was the purpose of numerous discussions that were held between DOE, the

field offices, federal regulators, state regulators and stakeholders. At Hanford, these

meetings explored different means to get more work done given the existing budgets. The general areas that were identified as areas of potential savings and are currently being pursued are:

44. Reduce the amount of money going to support activities (e.g. safeguards and

security, project/program management).

45. Reduce infrastructure costs and activities.

46. Examine areas where DOE can improve and possibly reduce the requirements

to make sure that excessive, low value activities are not placed on contractors.

47. Work closely with regulators to ensure that we are only doing what is necessary to fix a problem.

48. Perform the work that is currently being done in waste management and environmental restoration using fewer resources.

49. Delete unnecessary work, or if it is not a high priority, explore the possibility

of moving it to the future.

The regulators and stakeholders actively participated in the fiscal year 2000

budget development. They are aware that additional efficiencies alone may not be

sufficient to solve all future funding issues. We will work with the State and local

stakeholders to address compliance issues that may arise.

Question. What major cleanup activities remain to be accomplished at Hanford

other than the tank remediation work?

Answer. Other than tank remediation work, the other major Hanford cleanup

projects include:

—completion of stabilization activities at the Plutonium Finishing Plant;
367

—removal of spent fuel from the K–Basins near the Columbia River and placement into the Canister Storage Building on the 200 Area plateau;

—stewardship of nuclear materials and spent fuel pending final disposition;

—retrieval, certification and packaging of transuranic wastes for shipment to the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico;

—remediation of 1,497 contaminated areas (release sites); this will require moving

almost 6 million tons of material, much of it from along the Columbia River,

to safe disposal in the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in the 200

Area;

—decontamination and decommissioning, and ultimately dismantlement and disposal of 244 structures including final disposition of the seven deactivated reactors in the 100 area;

—remediation of contaminated ground water to prevent migration towards the

Columbia River, including operation of ‘‘pump and treat’’ systems to extract contaminants such as chromium, carbon tetrachloride and strontium-90.

TANK WASTE REMEDIATION SYSTEM (TWRS)

Question. Explain the TWRS privatization proposal. How much will it cost to

cleanup the storage tanks at Hanford?

Answer. Under the privatization approach, the Department has moved from a

government-owned, contractor-operated facility concept to a contractor-owned, contractor-operated facility concept where the Department will purchase the necessary

Hanford tank waste treatment and immobilization services. In July 1998, the Department submitted its Report to Congress, Treatment and Immobilization of Hanford Radioactive Tank Waste, which details the history and the next steps in the

privatization of the treatment of tank wastes.

In February 1996, the Department solicited and awarded contracts for Phase I of

the privatization contract, Part A, which required the contractor teams to demonstrate their technical, operations, regulatory, business and financial approach.

During 1998, after a controlled process that analyzed contractor proposals, the Department selected BNFL, Inc., and authorized it to proceed to Part B–1 of the contract. We are now in Part B–1, which is a 24-month design period that is intended

to develop sufficient engineering and financial maturity to establish fixed-unit prices

and to finalize project financing terms, including BNFL’s ability to obtain outside

financing. The design phase ends in August 2000. DOE will then make a decision

whether to authorize BNFL to construct and operate the facilities as proposed.

If authorized, BNFL would provide both high-level and low-activity waste treatment and immobilization services and would be expected to process approximately

10 percent of the Hanford tank waste by mass and 20 to 25 percent by radioactivity.

Phase I is scheduled to be completed in 2018, with the potential to continue into

Phase II with BNFL. The Phase II concept for full-scale production facilities to complete the tank waste remediation effort will be developed based on Phase I experience. Under all scenarios being considered for Phase II, the Phase I plant will be

expanded and continue to operate in Phase II.

The tank waste will be processed by using vitrification, a process that immobilizes

the waste in glass. The less radioactive low-activity waste will be permanently and

safely stored at the Hanford site. The high-level waste will be temporarily stored

at Hanford. It will eventually be moved to a national repository. Both types of waste

will be treated in the BNFL facility.

The design, construction, and operation of the treatment facilities for both highlevel radioactive wastes and low activity wastes will be the responsibility of BNFL.

BNFL will commit its own equity to the project, augmented with additional financial backing to pay for facility construction. The Department will pay fixed-unit

prices for delivery of the immobilized waste.

In the fiscal year 2000 Congressional Budget Request, the Department estimated

the cost of Phase I of the vitrification project to be approximately $12.5 billion (current year dollars). This estimate includes the cost to construct, operate, and deactivate the privatized vitrification facility, as well as BNFL’s financing costs and fee.

It also includes the costs that will be incurred by the Department at the Hanford

site to support to the operations of the privatized facility, including activities to retrieve the waste from the tanks, deliver feed to BNFL, accept and store the lowactivity and high-level vitrified products, and provide other infrastructure support

to BNFL

In the report Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure, released in June 1998, the

Department estimated the total life-cycle cost of cleaning up the 177 underground

high-level waste storage tanks at Hanford to be approximately $52 billion (current

year dollars). This estimate included the costs of both Phase I and Phase II. How-
368

ever, this estimate was prepared before the Department selected and authorized

BNFL, Inc., to proceed with the design of the Phase I vitrification facility. The Department is currently evaluating several options for facility design and operations

during Phase I, each of which has an impact on total life-cycle costs for the project.

The Department will update and provide a revised total life-cycle cost estimate for

the project as Phase I proceeds.

Question. The budget request for fiscal year 1999 includes $106 million, a slight

increase over the current year level, to continue the Hanford TWRS privatization

project. What activities were carried out in fiscal year 1998, what work is scheduled

to be accomplished in fiscal year 1999, and what work is planned to be accomplished

in fiscal year 2000?

Answer. Fiscal year 1998 resulted in the completion of Phase I Part A of the

TWRS privatization contracts. Part A was a 20-month period to establish the technical, operational, regulatory, and financial elements required by privatized facilities to provide waste treatment services at fixed-unit prices. The 20-month period

was divided into a 16-month period for the contractors to provide Part A

deliverables and a four-month period during which they were reviewed and DOE determined whether to proceed to Phase I Part B. During performance of Part A, the

contractors developed two parallel solutions for 1) Low Activity Waste (LAW) treatment and immobilization services only, and 2) LAW and High-Level Waste (HLW)

services. During fiscal year 1998, the DOE reviewed the deliverables from both contractors and negotiated a contract modification with BNFL to proceed into Phase I

Part B–1.

Fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 encompass the time period associated with

Phase I Part B–1. During this period BNFL will: (1) optimize the LAW and HLW

treatment and immobilization system, mitigate risk, and reduce contingencies in the

waste treatment and immobilization system defined by BNFL during Part A of the

contract; (2) revise the technical, operational, regulatory, and financial elements of

the waste treatment and immobilization system; (3) provide firm fixed-unit prices

for waste treatment services; and (4) perform all contractor activities necessary to

reach financial closure for privatized facilities. The major decision affecting the

TWRS privatization project, whether to authorize BNFL to proceed into construction

and operation of facilities to treat the waste, is currently scheduled for August 2000.

Question. What are the major compliance and other milestones and decision

points for the remainder of fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000?

Answer. Major compliance and other milestones and decision points for the Office

of River Protection, which manages the Tank Waste Remediation System project, include Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) milestones, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board recommendations, and decisions affecting scheduled for August 2000, whether

to authorize BNFL to proceed into Phase 1B2 for construction and operation of facilities to treat and immobilize the Hanford tank waste. This decision will be made

based on BNFL’s success in completing an acceptable 30 percent design by August

2000, committing equity and arranging financing for the construction and operations of the facilities, and submitting an agreeable fixed unit price for treating and

immobilizing the tank waste.

The major TWRS compliance and other milestones for the remainder of fiscal year

1999 and fiscal year 2000 are:

Milestone Description Date

TPA M–40–12 ............................. Resolve nuclear criticality safety issue .................................................... 30 Sep 99

TPA M–43–12 ............................. Start construction for upgrades in the first tank farm .......................... 30 Jun 99

TPA M–43–13 ............................. Start construction for upgrades in the second tank farm ...................... 30 Jun 00

TPA M–45–08A ........................... Complete systems description and operation strategy for tank leak

monitoring and mitigation.

31 Dec 00

TPA M–41 series (Consent Decree).Initiate pumping for interim stabilization of single shell tanks S–102,

S–103, and S–106.

30 Jul 99

TPA M–41 series (Consent Decree).Initiate pumping for interim stabilization of single shell tanks U–103,

U–105, U–102, and U–109.

15 Jun 00

TPA M–41 series (Consent Decree).Reduce pumpable liquid remaining to be removed from single shell

tanks to 93 percent of total liquid.

30 Sep 99

TPA M–41 series (Consent Decree).Reduce organic complexed pumpable liquids remaining to be removed

from single shell tanks to 38 percent of total organic complexed

pumpable liquids.

30 Sep 00

DNFSB 93–5 ............................... Transmit letter to DNFSB reporting completion of topical report to resolve high heat safety issue.31 Dec 99

(originally 31

May 98)
369

Milestone Description Date

DNFSB 93–5 ............................... Transmit letter to DNFSB reporting resolution of organic complexant

safety issue.

30 April 00

DNFSB 93–5 ............................... Complete vapor sampling of all double shell tanks ............................... 31 Dec 00

Question. How much does it cost annually to monitor and maintain the 177 tanks

at Hanford? What do you expect these costs to be after the waste in the tanks is

removed?

Answer. The highest priority items with the TWRS budget are those necessary

to maintain a ‘‘minimum-safe’’ condition. The current annual ‘‘minimum-safe’’ cost

is about $100 million, and it is expected to remain at this level until the amount

of high level liquid waste is substantially reduced.

In the post-2028 time-frame, when all the liquid wastes in the tanks have been

removed, treated, and immobilized, the tanks themselves will remain, along with

some solid waste material in the bottom of the tanks. The final disposition for these

residuals has not yet been determined, but nominal surveillance and maintenance

will be continued until the tank farm area is completely remediated. The annual

cost will be a small fraction of the current surveillance and maintenance costs.

Question. What is the estimated total project cost for Phase I of TWRS, how does

it compare with the cost estimate reported last year, and what accounts for the

change?

Answer. The BNFL contract for Phase I contains target prices for treatment and

immobilization services during the construction and operations phase. These target

prices will be refined during the design phase, which is August 1998 to August

2000. The current agreement negotiated with BNFL establishes a $6.9 billion target

price (constant fiscal year 1997 dollars) for a 10-year, minimum-order quantity of

treatment and immobilization services. This minimum-order quantity will treat 10

percent of the Hanford tank waste by mass and 20 to 25 percent of the radioactivity.

This target price is higher than the original DOE estimate for Phase I. The fiscal

year 1999 budget submission as reflected in the Construction Project Data Sheet

showed an estimated cost of $5.14 billion. The higher price is due in part to the fact

that the hazards presented by the operations to be performed under the contract

necessitated more substantial facilities for processing and confinement of the waste.

These hazards are principally due to worker radiation protection and seismic requirements. These facilities will have a 30-year design life rather than the original

concept of a 5 to 9-year demonstration facility. As a by-product of the longer design

life, the proposed plant has the potential to treat additional waste, to treat waste

with a broader composition range, and to treat, with limited additional investment,

more than half of the tank waste by mass and approximately 95 percent of the longlived radionuclides if the plant is expanded in a modular approach.

Question. What is the basis for the $1.45 billion estimated total cost of the capital

investment required under Phase I, and how confident is DOE that the capital investment can be held within this estimate?

Answer. The estimated cost of the capital investment required under Phase I is

$5.4 billion (current year dollars), as determined at the end of Phase I Part A. (The

$1.45 billion was a preliminary estimate of construction costs developed prior to

Phase I Part A.) At that time, the design was only about five percent complete; and,

as more data and information become available, this cost estimate will be refined.

However, because the construction costs have such a large impact on the total costs,

DOE is working hard to control and manage these costs. The contract with BNFL

includes incentives for BNFL to reduce the capital cost of the facility as part of the

process of establishing ceiling prices for waste treatment services. These ceiling

prices will be established prior to the start of Phase I Part B–2—the construction

and operations phase of the project. DOE is also negotiating with BNFL to include

in the contract incentives for BNFL to control and reduce these costs during Part

B–2. Any cost reductions will result in a decrease in the price that DOE pays for

waste treatment services.

Question. Now, I understand that the requirement for Budget Authority for the

TWRS privatization project increases from around $100 million this year to about

$600 million in 2001 and $660 million in fiscal year 2002. Am I correct, and if so,

what will be the impact on the project if the committee is unable to provide the additional budget authority? What options would DOE have available to continue the

project at that point?

Answer. The Department identified in the fiscal year 2000 Congressional Budget

Request a target funding level for the TWRS privatization project of $606 million

in fiscal year 2001 and $659 million in fiscal year 2002.
370

The Department would have several options if the target level of funding is not

provided. The Department’s determination of which of these options to proceed with

would include a consideration of the magnitude of any funding shortfalls and the

potential for additional funding shortfalls.

First, the Department could renegotiate the terms of the privatization contract

with the contractor. However, because the current funding targets represent the optimal schedule for the project, an extension of the schedule of the contract due to

the unavailability of sufficient funds would lead to increased project costs. The magnitude of the cost increase would depend upon the extent of the funding shortfall

and the length of the extension of the contract.

Alternatively, the Department could abandon the privatization approach and proceed with a traditional level-of-effort or cost-plus contracting approach. Either of

these approaches will present less risk to the contractor in a budgetary environment, where project funding fluctuates from year to year and the government is unable to provide any certainty to the contractor regarding future funding levels. However, these approaches again put the burden on the government for project risks and

cost growth. Thus, these options may increase total project costs significantly.

It should be noted that the contractor may not be able to secure adequate financing for the project if the government is unable to provide a sufficient amount of

budget authority. The private sector may be unwilling to invest sufficient funds if

it believes that the government is not strongly committed to the project. In the

event of funding shortfalls, the contractor may attempt to either increase the contract price to cover the increased risk of project termination or even terminate the

project.

The Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) establishes enforceable milestones for removing

and treating the high-level waste from the Hanford tanks. The Department is working with the State of Washington and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to

re-negotiate milestones for the privatization project to align with the current privatization schedules. The Department is also seeking to establish alternative milestones in the TPA in the event the Department does not proceed with the privatized

approach.

Once the Department proceeds with the privatization approach, and is subject to

milestones consistent with that approach, a renegotiation of the contract schedule

or the abandonment of the privatization approach and the re-establishment of a traditional contracting approach could subject the Department to fines and penalties

for non-compliance with TPA milestones.

The Department believes that fully funding the privatization approach will provide the most cost-effective option for successfully meeting the government’s obligation to remove the high-level liquid wastes from the Hanford tanks.

Question. How does the TWRS privatization approach shift sufficient risk to the

private sector to ensure that hoped for efficiencies and cost savings are realized?

Answer. The most visible way to see the risk shift from the government to the

contractor is through the payment process. Rather than using a ‘‘cost-plus’’ type arrangement, DOE is paying BNFL based on performance. In a cost-plus type of contract, DOE assumes all the risk. However, in a performance or fixed-price type contract, once the price is set for a given period, that price will be fixed through that

period. If BNFL costs go up because of their own actions, differences would be absorbed from their funds; and DOE would not be responsible for that cost growth.

If BNFL can reduce costs, they will benefit from the savings.

It should be noted that DOE will still assume part of the risk relative to cost

growth. DOE will assume risks from escalation and from uncontrollable circumstances. But again, any actions or decisions of BNFL that increase costs will be

covered by BNFL. This places the equity investment of BNFL and its parent company at risk.

In order to optimize the financing of the project, the Department is applying ‘‘financial engineering’’ skills to complement physical engineering skills. Financial engineering seeks to optimize the allocation of risks, rewards and penalties. The balance between public and private capital is critical to obtaining the best results. At

succeeding points in the development of the project, there will be varying optimal

capital structures. We will continuously review the financial structure to minimize

the ‘‘life cycle’’ cost of the program over time.

Financing for the construction and operations phase will involve BNFL equity,

loans that are not backed by DOE (non-recourse debt), and loans that rely upon

some level of credit support from DOE (recourse debt). Equity funding represents

BNFL’s direct corporate investment in the success of the project. This investment

is in a ‘‘first loss’’ position and would be at risk if the project should fail because

of inadequate performance by BNFL. Originally it was hoped that sufficient private

funding could be secured to fund the entire project. DOE now believes it will need
371

to back a significant portion of BNFL’s loans to enable BNFL to obtain sufficient

and affordable private sector financing. However, government payment of debt occurs only after BNFL and its partners have lost all their equity investment and contingent liabilities. Therefore, only under a worse case scenario would the government be liable for the payment of the debt.

By shifting risks that the contractor can control to the contractor and by using

the right mix of incentives combined with the optimum mix of financing type, significant cost savings can be attained. Initial estimates indicate that, even with the

financing costs associated with the BNFL contract, substantial savings can be realized over alternative contracting approaches. Private financing will inject powerful

incentives to contain costs and to ensure project success.

Question. What can you offer the committee that will assure us that this approach

is the most effective and cheapest way for the government to procure this service?

Answer. BNFL has provided DOE with a technically robust approach that is expected to perform as designed and that may be capable, with future capacity expansions, of processing essentially all of the Hanford tank waste. Also, one of Congress’

concerns is that DOE’s traditional contracting methods may not result in work being

performed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. DOE has examined a number

of different options to process the Hanford waste as quickly and cost effectively as

possible. Based on the results of these studies and investigations, the privatization

concept was selected. A summary of these comparisons was included in the July

1998 Report to Congress: ‘‘Treatment and Immobilization of Hanford Radioactive

Tank Waste.’’ The establishment of fixed prices and the risk to the contractor’s own

equity together with incentives for cost reduction will drive the contractor to perform work under the contract in an efficient and cost-effective manner. DOE’s evaluation has shown that work will be done more efficiently and cost-effectively than

under DOE’s traditional contracting approach.

Question. Since financing costs are a significant part of the total project cost, why

is it to the government’s advantage to use this privatization approach?

Answer. While the financing costs do represent a significant part of the total

project cost, the privatization approach offers savings that balance these out. In our

Report to Congress on the TWRS privatization, we provided some detailed information on the financing strategy and the benefits to be derived. Most specifically, the

Department’s experience in the traditional cost reimbursement contracting approach

has been that schedules slip and costs increase. The government bears the financial

burden associated with these project changes. The privatization approach places

more responsibility on the contractor to control the costs and schedule. Because the

contractor has a financial stake in the work to be performed, they are more motivated to stay within budget and on schedule. Also, the contractor assumes a greater

share of the risks, particularly those under the contractor’s control such as technology performance and operating efficiency. Private financing is shown to provide

built-in incentives as the contractor’s money is also at risk. Project failure would result in loss of equity. The contractor also has the incentive to perform more efficiently since this can result in additional profit to the company. The advantage to

the government is realized through greater efficiency during project performance

and through achieving project completion at cost and within schedule.

The Department’s current plan is to finance the privatization through the use of:

—Equity from BNFL. This is typically the most expensive type of money because

BNFL has this whole amount at risk should the project fail and therefore requires a higher return on investment.

—Non-recourse debt. This money will is backed by the contractor and the projects

ability to repay the money. This type of loan is a little more expensive than recourse debt because, if the project failed, the lender and BNFL could lose much

of this money.

—Recourse debt. This type of loan is backed by DOE, meaning that, if the project

failed, DOE would ensure that BNFL has the money to repay its loan. This is

the least expensive type of money, but it also puts less risk on the contractor

and lender and more risk on DOE.

Each source of money has costs and benefits associated with it. DOE is currently

studying the mix of the different funding types to determine the percentage of each

funding source that will be used to finance the TWRS Privatization. This study will

not just consider the costs of the funding types but also the benefits of each. The

final results of the study should indicate the optimum proportion of the different

funding types, the associated costs, and the associated benefits. DOE is also evaluating other financing options in addition to those discussed above. The financing approach will be determined in August 2000.
372

Question. Under Phase II B of the contract with BNFL, does the government have

the option of whether or not to proceed with construction of waste processing facilities? If you do, when must that decision be made?

Answer. At the end of the 24-month design phase of the contract (Phase I Part

B–1), DOE will reach closure with BNFL on the cost of the project and the firm

fixed price the DOE will pay to have the waste treated and immobilized. At that

point, the contract can be terminated if the DOE determines that the price is too

high, the technology is not satisfactory, or for any other reason which leads the DOE

to conclude that continuation of the contract is not in the Government’s best interest. This decision will be made in the summer of 2000.

Question. What criteria will the Department base its decision on?

Answer. At the end of the 24-month design phase (Phase I Part B–1), DOE will

decide whether to proceed with the subsequent construction and operations portion

or to pursue one of several other approaches to process waste. The BNFL authorization to proceed will depend on:

1. DOE receiving acceptable fixed-unit prices

2. Acceptance of the BNFL design for nuclear and chemical process safety

3. Adequate assurance of technical success

4. Assurance that BNFL can successfully manage the project

5. Substantial equity commitment by BNFL

6. Other significant financing arranged by BNFL

7. Assurance that the M & I contractor at Hanford (Project Hanford Management

Contract) can deliver waste to the facility on schedule

Question. What impact would a decision not to proceed have on current compliance agreements?

Answer. The schedule proposed by BNFL, Inc., for treatment of tank wastes in

Phase I, which is required to comply with hazardous waste regulations, does not

meet the current Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) milestones. The current milestones are

based on an approach to the project that has since changed because of the complexities identified in Part A, and are no longer considered feasible. The Department has

been working with the regulators on a proposed strategy for re-negotiating new TPA

milestones which would align with current DOE/BNFL ‘‘90 percent confidence level’’

privatization schedules. These non-enforceable target dates would convert to enforceable milestones consistent with the Phase I Part B–2 contract including a reasonable contingency.

The Department has proposed July 31, 1999, as the completion date for negotiations on TPA milestones for tank waste remediation. If negotiations are successful,

DOE, Washington State and the EPA will have reached agreement on a set of commitments for the privatized approach to address the tank farm wastes. These commitments would include provisions for an alternative tank waste treatment approach should the Department decide not to proceed with the privatization approach.

The milestones in the TPA are subject to enforcement by the State of Washington

and the EPA. The State has already indicated its intent to take appropriate enforcement action for non-performance should we fail to successfully renegotiate the existing milestones. A decision not to proceed with privatization would be likely to significantly delay the development of treatment capability and increase the Department’s vulnerability under the TPA.

The capital portion is $5.4 billion from the overall $12.5 billion total project cost

reflected in the fiscal year 2000 Congressional budget submission. The $12.5 billion

also includes an estimated $5.1 billion for facility operations and $2 billion for the

Management and Integrating contractor support. We are working hard at reducing

construction costs and considering various financial alternatives to understand their

impacts on risk allocation between the government and BNFL. We will be discussing these alternatives with the Congress prior to decision on the next phase,

the construction phase.

Question. Do current OMB budget planning targets support the $600–$660 million

requirement for new budget authority in fiscal year 2001 and beyond?

Answer. Yes. The Administration’s request for advance appropriations is sufficient

to cover the new budget authority required to support the TWRS Privatization

Phase I project in the years fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2004. The amounts

requested are sufficient to cover the funding profile for the project as presented in

the Project Data Sheets in the Congressional Budget Request for fiscal year 2000.

Question. Can you explain for the committee the concepts of loan guarantees,

lease/purchase, or other arrangements, and how they affect the future budget picture for the TWRS project?

Answer. The Environmental Management privatization approach requires the

contractor to finance the acquisition of facilities to deliver cleanup services. As the
373

contractor begins to provide cleanup services, DOE pays for its operating costs and

the construction and financing costs the contractor incurred. Based on this approach, the Office of Management and Budget scores privatization projects (i.e., determines when and how much budget authority and outlays will be counted against

the budget caps) as service contracts, which means that only sufficient budget authority is needed each year equal to the government’s legal obligations under the

contract. If services will not be delivered until the construction of a facility is complete, outlays would not be scored during the construction period.

If privatization projects were to be scored as the purchase, lease-purchase, capital

lease, or operating lease of an asset, more budget authority and outlays would be

counted against the caps earlier in the period of performance for the contract. For

example, budget authority for a lease-purchase would be scored in the amount of

the estimated net present value of the government’s total estimated legal liability

in the year budget authority is first made available. Outlays for a lease-purchase

in which the government assumes substantial risk (e.g., with loan guarantees)

would be scored across the construction phase of the contract.

The TWRS project will be financed using BNFL equity, non-recourse debt, and recourse debt backed by the government. The debt supported by the government is

not a loan guarantee because DOE is not making a commitment to the lenders to

pay back the loans. The exact proportion of each type of financing has not yet been

determined. The financing package will be a factor in the 24-month decision point

to determine whether Phase I Part B–2 can begin. BNFL’s equity is at full risk

should there be a problem with the project. The more the government supports the

debt (as it does with progress payments), the lower the financing cost of the project

to the government. However, because the government is accepting the added risk,

the overall cost of the project could rise even though the initial price to the government may fall. As the party best able to manage the risk is no longer totally responsible for managing its risk, the potential for failure increases and thus the potential

for increased costs becomes higher. At the end of Phase I Part B–1, we will identify

the optimum proportion for each type of money. For the current estimate, these different types of money have been accounted for and are included in the project estimates. Although the exact proportions may shift some, at present we believe that

they will not shift enough to materially impact future budget requirements.

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE

Question. Explain the plan using the F-Canyon to help accelerate closure of Rocky

Flats.

Answer. The key to accelerating closure of Rocky Flats is removing nuclear materials from the site. Combined with substantial cleanup work, moving nuclear materials (e.g., plutonium and uranium) from Rocky Flats is the most critical element

of our effort to reduce risks and costs. The Department has been working to identify

receiver sites with appropriate facilities to manage the nuclear materials at the lowest cost with the greatest safety and security.

On November 25, 1998, the Department issued the first Record of Decision on

Management of Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky

Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS). This Record of Decision announced

that the Department had decided to ship the following nuclear materials to the Savannah River Site (SRS) for stabilization to help accelerate closure of Rocky Flats

by 2006:

—3,377 kg bulk (271 kg Pu) Sand, Slag, and Crucible (SS&C) and Plutonium

Fluorides

—700 kg bulk (200 kg Pu) Scrub Alloy.

The first shipment of SS&C was received at the SRS from RFETS in early December of 1998. All the nuclear materials listed above are scheduled to be shipped to

the SRS by July of 2001. All of these nuclear materials are scheduled for stabilization to metal in F–Canyon/FB–Line by May of 2002 for safe, interim storage at SRS.

Question. What are the major elements and milestones for making this happen?

Answer. There is only one major milestone for this stabilization effort: by May

2002 the Savannah River Site will convert the above Rocky Flats nuclear materials

to stable metal and then package them to meet the metal and oxide storage standard. The Department committed to meeting this milestone in Revision 1 of the Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 94–

1, Remediation of Nuclear Materials in the Defense Nuclear Facilities Complex,

dated December 22, 1998. In addition, this stabilization effort is a milestone in the

fiscal year 1999 Savannah River Site Annual Operational Plan/Westinghouse Savannah River Company/F–Area Stabilization Project/Summary Task Description

Sheet, dated September 2, 1998.
374

The first shipment of SS&C was received at the SRS from RFETS in early December 1998. All the nuclear materials listed above are scheduled to be shipped to the

SRS by July 2001. All of these nuclear materials are scheduled for stabilization to

metal in F–Canyon/FB–Line by May 2002 for safe, interim storage at SRS.

Question. How important is the opening of the WIPP to the success of this effort?

What alternative or contingencies exist if WIPP does not open as scheduled?

Answer. Being able to dispose of waste at WIPP is extremely important for the

overall effort to accelerate closure of Rocky Flats, as well as several other DOE

sites. The type of waste sent to WIPP, however, is transuranic waste that meets the

WIPP waste acceptance criteria. The material being shipped to SRS for processing

in the F–Canyon does not meet these acceptance criteria and cannot be disposed of

in WIPP. Hence, the opening of WIPP has no impact on shipment of the Rocky Flats

materials listed above to the Savannah River Site for stabilization and safe, interim

storage.

Question. Has the state of South Carolina approved this approach, and if not,

what is the schedule for getting State approval?

Answer. The Department provided copies of the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) on Management of Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (DOE/EIS–0277D and DOE/EIS–0277F)

to the State of South Carolina when it was issued as a draft for public review and

comment, and when it was issued as a final document. The Department also provided copies of the first and second Records of Decision (ROD) on Management of

Certain Plutonium Residues and Scrub Alloy Stored at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (63 FR 66136 of December 1, 1998 and 64 FR 8068 of February 18, 1999) to the State of South Carolina. As documented in Chapter 9 of the

final EIS, the various agencies of the State of South Carolina that reviewed the

draft EIS either had no comment, or specified that the ‘‘Project is consistent with

our goals and objectives.’’ The State of South Carolina had no comment on the final

EIS, as documented in Section V of the first Record of Decision.

ACTINIDE PACKAGING AND STORAGE FACILITY

Question. A key element/component to the Savannah River and DOE wide nuclear

material storage and handling capability is the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility and modifications to the K–Area facilities. How do these facilities fit into

DOE’s waste management strategy?

Answer. These facilities are expected to be very important for secure storage of

plutonium. The Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility (APSF) is intended to store

plutonium from the Savannah River Site (SRS) and from the Hanford site near

Richland, Washington. The Department intends to use SRS K Area facilities to store

Rocky Flats plutonium. Both facilities will store plutonium until such time as the

Materials Disposition (MD) facilities that will be used to prepare the plutonium for

final disposition come on line.

Question. Explain the major changes which have occurred on the Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility project and how the Department plans to proceed with

this project in the future.

Answer. There have been changes to the design of the APSF to expand storage

capacity and reduce life cycle security costs (putting the vault underground), implementing International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and security requirements,

and reducing personnel exposure to existing project limits. A decision has been

made to temporarily suspend work on the APSF pending a re-evaluation of functional requirements. This re-evaluation has become prudent given the significant estimated construction cost increases for the APSF subproject, coupled with the recent

designation of the Savannah River Site as the preferred location for the surplus plutonium Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility. We have concluded that it is advisable to halt further progress on the APSF to allow time to conduct a systems engineering evaluation of plutonium material management functions and planned new

storage facilities at SRS. This study will consider the benefits and efficiencies available through designing and constructing storage facilities with an eye towards

shared storage, economies of scale, and improved safety margins. The plan is to restart the APSF project in fiscal year 2001, implementing the results of this study.

Question. How will the funds previously appropriated for this project be used?

Answer. Funds previously approved for this project have been used to complete

the original design of the facility and a number of other development activities that

have led to the existing design package. The Department also intends to seek a $44

million reprogramming of fiscal year 1999 funds from Actinide Packaging and Storage Facility (APSF) to critical projects that have budget shortfalls. These include (1)

upgrades to the ventilation systems in the F and H Canyons that address safety
375

and health deficiencies, and (2) funding to support operations in the H Canyon facilities for stabilization of plutonium solutions.

IN-TANK PRECIPITATION PROJECT (ITP)

Question. DOE has experienced major problems with the In-Tank Precipitation

Project which is a key facility in processing waste in storage tanks at Savannah

River. Describe the problems encountered and why they were not foreseen .

Answer. During the design and construction activities related to ITP, several

studies and reviews raised questions about the operability and efficiency of the ITP

process. These concerns dealt with various issues, including the generation of benzene, an explosive chemical. However, the extent to which very large quantities of

benzene would be produced was not raised.

The In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) Facility initiated radioactive operations in September 1995 to remove cesium and other radioactive components from Tank Farm

waste salt solutions. During slurry pump operation in December 1995, benzene was

generated from the reaction tank at higher rates than expected, presenting an explosion risk.

Subsequent investigations revealed the source of the benzene was decomposition

of sodium tetraphenylborate (TPB) that was added to precipitate cesium from the

waste solution. ITP operations were suspended in March 1996 to better understand

the ITP process chemistry and evaluate any impacts on down stream facilities.

While benzene generation was expected as a result of this process, it was not anticipated to be produced at such high rates. Further investigations revealed that

trace amounts of some elements such as paladium found within the waste were acting as catalysts driving the chemical reaction and subsequent benzene production

to much higher levels then originally predicted. The presence of these catalysts was

not known during the limited testing phase.

Question. Also explain why the In-Tank Precipitation technology was selected.

Answer. The ITP process was believed to be a cost effective alternative for separating high-level radioactive cesium from the other materials in the waste. There

were several reasons supporting the selection of ITP.

From a technical standpoint, ion-exchange was, and is, the more commonly used

technology for separation processing. However, that technology was not as effective

for the very alkaline high-level waste at the Savannah River Site. On the other

hand, the tests supporting the ITP process at that time looked very promising.

From a cost standpoint, the ion exchange alternative was expected to have a lifecycle cost (including capital and operating costs) in excess of one billion dollars. The

ITP process used existing high-level waste storage tanks, which saved the costs of

constructing new facilities.

Question. How is the delay impacting waste processing efforts at Savannah River,

and what is DOE doing to address issues relating to ITP?

Answer. Waste processing and pretreatment activities continue for the sludge

waste stream feed. Canister production continues at the Defense Waste Processing

Facility (DWPF) with sludge-only canisters being produced. As of March 22, 1999,

we have produced over 600 canisters of the estimated 5,200 total (salt and sludge)

canisters, and will continue to produce sludge-only canisters until the replacement

for ITP is operational about fiscal year 2008.

We originally anticipated that ITP would begin operation in fiscal year 1999 to

pre-treat (i.e., separate out the highly radioactive cesium from the balance of the

salt waste) and supply the salt waste stream precipitate (i.e., the cesium) for processing at DWPF. Due to significant technical and safety issues incurred due to the

higher than anticipated levels of benzene generation with the ITP process, the restart of operations at ITP were suspended in January 1998.

With the suspension of ITP efforts, we began a systems engineering approach in

March 1998 to assess all potential alternatives for removing cesium from stored

high-level waste solutions. This resulted in a recommendation to pursue three options with a final selection of a process in fiscal year 2000. The three options are:

direct disposal as grout, small tank in-tank precipitation, and non-elutable ion exchange.

On February 22, 1999, the Department published a Notice of Intent to prepare

a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the alternatives to the

ITP process. As part of this process, two public scoping meetings were held in Columbia, S.C. and North Augusta, S.C. on March 11 and 18, 1999, respectively.

In the SEIS, the Department will assess the potential impacts of the three ITP

replacement processes and a no-action alternative. The Department does not have

a preferred alternative at this time. However, the Department intends to complete
376

this SEIS in the February 2000 time-frame, and a Record of Decision (ROD) some

time after that.

Question. What impact does this have on the Defense Waste Processing Facility

operations?

Answer. The Defense Waste Processing Facility will continue to produce sludgeonly canisters, and, according to current waste feed projections, should be able to

maintain production of sludge-only canisters until the year 2008 time-frame. At that

time, we will need to have the alternative salt separation process in place and producing waste feed for DWPF.

Question. How much funding was provided for the operation of the ITP facility

in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, and how have these problems affected the

use of these funds?

Answer. The funding for the operation of ITP was $19 million in fiscal year 1998 and $12 million in fiscal year 1999. These funds have been used to maintain the

ITP facilities in a safe condition until final determination on the use of these facilities is made as a part of the overall Salt Alternative assessment process.

Question. How will any unobligated balances be used?

Answer. There were no unobligated balances for the Salt Alternative in fiscal year

1998 and we do not expect to have any fiscal year 1999.

Question. What level of funding is included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request,

and how will those funds be used?

Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the High-Level Waste Salt Alter- native Disposition is $42 million. These funds will be used to complete the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), support research and development

activities on three alternatives to the ITP process, and construct a pilot prototype

for the preferred alternative.

Question. What date is assumed for the restart of ITP operations?

Answer. fiscal year 2008 is the anticipated start of radioactive operations for any

of the alternatives being evaluated.

Question. Will DOE have to construct a new facility?

Answer. Yes, if any of the three alternatives under consideration are selected, new

facilities would have to be constructed. At this time we are also looking very closely

at which, if any, existing facilities could be utilized.

Question. Explain technology options being considered and the costs associated

with each.

Answer. Three technology alternatives are being evaluated. The costs identified

below include capital costs and operating costs in support of construction for the

necessary facilities associated with each alternative. They do not include the costs

for operation or the facilities or for waste disposal. They are:

Small Tank In-Tank Precipitation.—This alternative would use the same chemicals and process as the existing ITP batch process, but would use continuous flow,

low residence time, and chilled tank processing. The high-level liquid waste would

be mixed with monosodium titanate and filtered to remove adsorbed uranium, plutonium, and strontium. The adsorbed solids would be vitrified at DWPF. To capture

the cesium, as with the larger ITP process, this process would use sodium

teraphenylborate as the reactant to precipitate cesium out of the waste. The precipitate stream would be fed to DWPF to be vitrified. The smaller tank process would

eliminate the benzene control uncertainties associated with the large tank process.

Preliminary cost projections for construction of new facilities and the support activities necessary for implementing this process are $1.1 billion.

Ion Exchange.—This alternative would use a different ion exchange medium from

that previously considered. The medium (or resin) being proposed is crystalline

silicotitanate (CST). The high-level liquid waste would be mixed with monosodium

titanate and filtered to remove adsorbed uranium, plutonium, and strontium. The

adsorbed solids would be vitrified at DWPF. The CST resin ion exchange columns

would be used to remove the cesium from the salt solution. The cesium bearing-resins would be vitrified in the DWPF. Preliminary cost projections for construction of

new facilities and the support activities necessary for implementing this process are

$1.2 billion.

Direct Disposal as Grout.—In this alternative, the high-level liquid waste would

be mixed with monosodium titanate and filtered to remove adsorbed uranium, plutonium, and strontium. The adsorbed solids would be vitrified at DWPF. The filtered

salt solution which would contain radioactive cesium would be combined with grout

in a facility that would be constructed under this alternative, and disposed of in the

SRS saltstone vaults. Preliminary cost projections for construction of new facilities

and the support activities necessary for implementing this process are $900 million.

Question. Do future OMB budget planning targets have sufficient room to accommodate a potential new facility to pre-treat the waste at Savannah River?
377

Answer. The current OMB outyear targets provide a stable level of funding for

the Environmental Management program under the assumption that the Administration’s Social Security reform and other proposals are enacted. To accommodate

new requirements, such as the salt alternative program, within these current targets, the EM program will have to become more efficient and/or reprioritize currently planned activities. EM intends to work with OMB, regulators, stakeholders,

and the Congress on such funding and prioritization issues as they arise.

CANISTER PRODUCTION AT DWPF

Question. Explain the reason why canister production is falling off in fiscal year

2000.

Answer. The Department’s fiscal year 2000 budget request stated that it would

be necessary to reduce sludge-only canister production from its current level of 200

to 100 in fiscal year 2000 to accommodate funding for salt alternative work. The

reduced canister production, accomplished by slowing down the waste removal activities, would then provide additional funding for continued study of the high-level

waste salt alternatives.

However, subsequent to the fiscal year 2000 budget submission, and based on senior level discussions and consideration of all factors involved, the Savannah River

Site has committed to maximizing canister production (about 200 canisters) in fiscal

year 2000.

PROCESSING OF HEAVY WATER

Question. Last year Congress provided additional funds for the Department to

process tritium-contaminated water stored at the Savannah River site. Could you

update the committee on the current status of this program? Has the agreement

with Canada been completed and signed? If not, why?

Answer. As currently planned, the heavy water contract with Atomic Energy of

Canada, Limited (AECL) will be in two parts. We expect to sign the first part of

the contract at the end of April 1999. Under the first part of the contract, AECL

will ship 35.5 metric tons (MT) of clean heavy water to the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) to meet Savannah River Site (SRS) commitments

to NIST. SRS will then ship 50 MT of tritium-contaminated heavy water to Canada

to replace the clean heavy water shipped to NIST. By the end of May, we expect

to sign the second part of the contract. This part of the contract will result in shipment of an additional approximately 950 MT of tritium-contaminated heavy water

to AECL.

AECL has decided to team with a Canadian partner, who will provide the financial support needed for AECL to accomplish their functions under the contract, as

well as construct and operate a detritiation facility in Canada. In addition, the Department has decided to add an option to include another 500 metric tons of heavy

water in the contract, if and when the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) program determines that it no longer needs or wants the water. This heavy water is

now being held in reserve for the APT program. When AECL has negotiated a contract with their partner, we believe that all preparations will be in place for both

the Department and AECL to sign the second part of the contract. The contract has

been delayed until now due to the contract changes discussed above and the fact

that AECL needed to find a funding source for their efforts.

Question. Does the fiscal year 2000 budget request continue to support the program adequately and in accordance with the agreement?

Answer. Recognizing that the contract has not been finalized, the fiscal year 2000

budget request provides sufficient funds for this program.

Question. Does the Department believe the program is cost effective and in the

U.S. interest.

Answer. Yes. The Department no longer needs the heavy water. Therefore, continuing to store this material is not cost-effective for the Department. The revenues

from the sale of heavy water will offset the cost of cleaning up the former heavy

water production and storage facilities.

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Question. The budget request for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory proposes to

transfer several activities conducted under non-Defense environmental management

to the Defense Environmental Management program for fiscal year 2000. The total

amount to be transferred is estimated to exceed $60 million.

Please explain the reasons for proposing the transfer of several programs previously conducted under the non-Defense environmental program over to the De-
378

fense environmental management account for fiscal year 2000. What is the total

amount proposed to be transferred?

Specifically, what is the direct link to the Defense work that would support the

transfer to Defense EM?

Provide for the record a crosswalk which shows all programs or activities being

proposed for funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget under Defense Environmental

Management which were funded outside of the Defense EM program last year. The

crosswalk should show the amount of funding in fiscal year 1999 and where it was

provided, the request for fiscal year 2000 and where it is requested, along with a

brief reason for the move, including a brief explanation of the direct link with defense activities which would support the Department’s proposal.

Answer. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a complex, multi-funded site,

which supported both weapons production (defense) and energy research (non-defense) activities through the years. While waste generated or shipped to the Bethel

Valley and Melton Valley sites was from both non-defense and defense funded activities, the majority of the waste was produced from defense activities, including

early prototype reprocessing activities.

Historically, funding for environmental management activities at Bethel Valley

and Melton Valley was provided both from the defense and non-defense accounts.

During the 1980’s funding was solely from the defense account. Beginning in the

early 1990’s, funding for these two sites was provided from both the defense and

non-defense accounts. (In fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1998 approximately

$230 million was provided from the defense account and approximately $260 million

from the non-defense account for environmental restoration activities.)

In fiscal year 1999, funding for environmental management activities at these two

sites was exclusively from the non-defense account. The reason for this decision was

due to budget constraints on the defense account. The non-defense account no longer

has the flexibility to accommodate funding these important activities. For example,

in fiscal year 1999 Congress increased the defense appropriations by about $90 M

from the requested level, and decreased the non-defense appropriations by about

$30 M (out of $462 M) (6 percent). The Department believes that because the majority of waste at the Oak Ridge sites is from defense funded activities, it is appropriate that funding be provided from the defense account. This is reflected in the

fiscal year 2000 budget request. In addition, under the new Management and Integration contract for environmental management activities at ORNL there will be

many more fixed price subcontracts than in the past. The administration of these

numerous subcontracts would be much more difficult to manage if they were funded

from two different accounts. Thus, in order to streamline the program management

and administration costs, the decision was made to fund this work from one account.

The defense account was chosen because, as noted above, the majority of waste at

these sites is from defense funded activities.

The following four activities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory were funded from

the Non-Defense Environmental Management Appropriation in fiscal year 1999, and

now are being requested in the Defense Environmental Management and Waste

Management Appropriation. The crosswalk follows:

[In thousands of dollars]

TITLE NON-DEF PBS

NON-DEF

FISCAL

YEAR

1999

DEFENSE PBS

DEFENSE

FISCAL

YEAR

2000

Melton Valley D&D ........................... OR43201 ................... 33,434 OR43101 ..................... 24,307

Melton Valley RA .............................. OR43202 ................... 2,573 OR43102 ..................... 1,300

Bethel Valley RA .............................. OR43203 ................... 18,473 OR43103 ..................... 28,569

Bethel Valley D&D ............................ OR43204 ................... 5,197 OR43104 ..................... 3,626

Total .................................... 59,677 57,802

Question. What is the National Metal Recycle Center which is being funded from

Oak Ridge Defense Direct Support in fiscal year 2000? What level of funding was

provided for this Center in fiscal year 1999 and previous years? Provide a detailed

breakout of the $4.162 million being requested for Direct Support-Defense activities

compared to the $2.898 funding level for fiscal year 1999.

Answer. The National Center of Excellence for Metal Recycle was created in October 1997 to facilitate the cost effective recycle of clean and decontaminated metals

at DOE sites across the country. The Center identifies recycling opportunities and
379

provides technical assistance to all DOE sites on projects that may be able to realize

cost reductions through recycling of materials for unrestricted use. The Center provides expertise to support the evaluation of cost and risk aspects of specific recycling

projects to make sure that each project is safe and cost effective. The Center’s goal

is to make recycling a well understood and commonplace component of our cleanup

projects. The Center has already participated in six large projects and several smaller actions that resulted in the recycling of 11,000 tons of metal, with an estimated

savings to the Department of approximately $9.9 million.

The Oak Ridge Operations Office funds the Center, which provides technical assistance to any site or recycling project in the DOE complex. The Center receives

funds from each of the three main Oak Ridge appropriations, that is, Post 2006

Completion Defense, Post 2006 Completion Non-Defense, and the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund. The total funding for the Center in fiscal year 1998 was $700,000

and $900,000 in fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 Congressional Budget Request includes $900,000 for this program.

The requested detailed breakout of the direct support-defense activities (PBS OR–

48104) is provided below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year

1999 2000

Agreements In Principle ..................................................................................................... 1,650 1,225

DOE Direct .......................................................................................................................... 2,000 2,437

Metal Recycle ..................................................................................................................... 100 500

Total ...................................................................................................................... 1 3,750 4,162

1 The current total fiscal year 1999 is $3.75 million. However, only $2.898 million was shown in the fiscal year 2000

budget request due to the availability of carryover funds. Therefore, Defense -funded Direct Support requirements have

really only increased a net of approximately $400K.

DOE Direct funding covers crosscutting program technical requirements such as:

support to the EM portion of transportation activities; technical program support in

the areas of independent validation; readiness assessments and laboratory audits;

and State mixed waste fees. This activity also supports corporate and educational

initiatives such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Educational

Initiatives and educational grants to local schools. The increase in fiscal year 2000

represents increased funding for independent validation of program baselines and

increased independent audit requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CENTERS

Question. Regarding special ‘‘Centers’’, how many other ‘‘Centers’’ is DOE funding

in the Environmental Management program? Provide for the record a list of those

‘‘Centers’’ showing where each ‘‘Center’’ is funded, what funding has been provided

each year for the past 4 years, the funding profile over the next 5 years, and what

the benefit they provide to the Defense EM program?

Answer. The Metal Recycling Center is the only Oak Ridge Center. The majority

of the Centers of Excellence were established in fiscal year 1997, therefore the funding profile will begin with fiscal year 1997. Attached is a chart depicting where each

center is located and the funding profile, as well as a brief description of the benefits

provided to the Environmental Management Program.
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

[In thousands of dollars

Center of excellence

Fiscal year

Description/benefit of centers

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001–2006

Albuquerque: LLW/MLLW Center of Excellence 1. ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Prepares Federal Facilities Compliance Act, Chief Financial Office

Congress.

Chicago: Risk Management Center of

Excellence.

1,103 1,962 2,389 2,415 14,490 Provides technical expertise and support to help field offices imp

DOE risk initiatives; technical assistance to field on the Acceleto Closure development.

Idaho: LLW/MLLW Center of Excellence 1. ................ 498 395 ................ 13,264 Idaho is the lead for complex-wide Environmental Management int

forts for LLW/MLLW (opportunities for acceleration of cleanup, mduction, cost savings).

National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program1. 19,844 21,952 26,092 14,275 82,338 Idaho will provide overall program management to safely and effic

age DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and prepare it for disposal.

Nevada: LLW/MLLW Center of Excellence 1. ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Provides technical assistance to the LLW Federal Review Group; com

posal facility Performance Assessments/Composite Analyses and to consolidate site audits of treatment, storage and disposal fac

Savannah River:

National Environmental Training

Office Center of Excellence.

1,000 1,600 1,500 1,500 6,000 Coordinates/manages EM-related technical training and facilitate

standardization of contractor training.

National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program **. ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) Savannah River is the lead for aluminum-based and Foreign Resea

fuels.

FETC: Center for Acquisition and Business Excellence. 2,125 1,275 1,594 1,702 10,841 Serves as a field resource in areas such as research acquisition pl

ment, business and technical assistance in developing procureegy, and identifying and promulgating best practices and lessons 

1 Funding for both the LLW/MLLW and National Spent Fuel Centers of Excellence are requested under Idaho and released to other sites during execution.
381

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR COCHRAN

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Question. Mr. Owendoff, one of the Department of Energy’s major thrusts has

been privatization of its cleanup efforts. One of the dangers of privatization is that

private companies are selling general solutions that are not always tailored to the

specific waste site. Without proper departmental oversight and necessary tailoring,

these already expensive solutions can become even more costly.

How is the Department of Energy using university organizations—such as DIAL

at Mississippi State University—to provide independent evaluations of the feasibility of cleanup proposals, such as the $10 billion cleanup effort at Hanford, Washington?

Answer. The Department is currently using a number of university organizations

and faculty—including for example, the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis

Laboratory (DIAL) facility at Mississippi State University; the Hemispheric Center

for Environmental Technology (HCET) facility at Florida International University;

and the Institute for Central and Eastern European Cooperative Environmental Research at Florida State University—to provide independent evaluations of the efficacy of environmental technologies in cleanup proposals. The Director of the DIAL

facility has, for example, recently been invited to participate in an independent assessment of the baseline technology proposed by the privatization contractor for the

Tank Waste Remediation System at Hanford, Washington. In addition, researchers

at DIAL are currently working on validating a critical thermodynamic equilibrium

model that will be directly applicable to successful treatment of the waste contained

in all Hanford tanks, and to the work of the privatization contractor.

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP)

Question. Mr Owendoff, the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency has been

informed that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) program budget has been cut

by $513,000. Mississippi and other states, through which transuranic waste will ultimately travel to WIPP, have been using this money to prepare for the impending

shipments and address safety concerns associated with them. With reduced funding

for WIPP, how will states such as Mississippi adequately prepare for the safety concerns associated with these transuranic waste shipments?

Answer. On March 22, 1999, Judge John Garrett Penn concluded that the permanent injunction he issued in 1992 does not prevent the shipment of waste, and that

WIPP has interim status under RCRA. This ruling resulted in the Department completing the first shipment of transuranic waste to WIPP on March 26, 1999. The

Department plans to continue shipments of waste to WIPP and to increase the rate

of shipments to 17 per week.

Since WIPP did not open when originally planned, the Department had withdrawn approximately $13 million from the Carlsbad Area Office budget to offset increased waste management costs at the sites where transuranic waste is stored.

However, now that shipping has begun, we have already released funding for the

Southern States Energy Board, which supports the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator CRAIG. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time

and your willingness to be forthright in your responses.

The subcommittee will recess.

[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., Thursday, March 18, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

(383)

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1999

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 9:42 a.m., in room 138, Dirksen Senate

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

Present: Senators Domenici, Reid, and Dorgan.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF SCIENCE

STATEMENT OF DR. MARTHA KREBS, DIRECTOR

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

STATEMENT OF BILL MAGWOOD, DIRECTOR

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER, ASSISTANCE SECRETARY

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. The hearing will please come to order.

First, I want to welcome my ranking member and indicate to him

that since he has a time schedule that is difficult, I will let you proceed wherever you would like.

Would you like to make your opening statement?

Senator REID. No, I’m okay.

Senator DOMENICI. Today, the subcommittee will review the Department of Energy’s budget request for the Office of Science, the

Office of Nuclear Energy, and the Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy programs. In that regard, we will hear from Dr.

Martha Krebs, Director of the Office of Science; Mr. Bill Magwood,

Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology;

and Mr. Dan Reicher, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewables.

Before we begin, I want to compliment all three witnesses. Mr.

Magwood assumed his responsibilities after Congress was extremely critical of the management of the Office of Nuclear Energy

Science and Technology and has initiated a number of interesting,

and worthwhile programs. We thank you for that.

Dr. Krebs is the first Director of Science at the Department of

Energy, since we created that office last year in this committee. We
384

thought there ought to be one focal point for all of science. It was

predominantly under you before, but now it is unequivocal, in that

now there is one office and you are in charge.

Beyond that, obviously, she has other duties. She manages some

of the Department’s most exciting research in the human genome,

high-energy physics, fusion energy, and other areas, or I should say

as part of that office. Those are all exciting functions for the Department.

I have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Reicher. The programs

for which he is responsible within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, if we were able to provide the amount in request, would

expand 50 percent since 1998. I do not think that we are going to

be able to do that, however, but I do not think the resources are

going to be more fully justified.

But within the request, I do see some changes that I find encouraging. I see an effort to move away from short-term thinking and

deployment toward long-term research. I see an effort to choose

among technologies and to stop pursuing technologies that are not

making necessary advances.

CLIMATE CHANGE BUDGET REQUEST

With that said I must point out that, in my opinion, the funding

is rather lopsided in the President’s request in terms of dealing

with climate change. Within the subcommittee jurisdiction, the Administration has requested $436 million for research and development related to climate change. Of that, $399 million is for solar

and renewable energy, $33 million is for science, and a paltry $5

million is for nuclear energy.

I do not know how much longer policy makers are going to be

able to carry on this kind of a charade by continuing to ignore nuclear power as we attempt to address the issue of climate change.

So I have to wonder if the Administration is serious about climate

change or is simply using this opportunity to use renewable energy

as a kind of a bone that they throw money at indicating that it will

solve the global climate issue.

I do not believe that is the case, and I do not know how much

longer we can continue to say to those who know we need nuclear

energy that this approach and this kind of balance or lack of balance is something realistic.

Having said that, as soon as the distinguished Senator from Nevada is finished, we are going to start with you, Dr. Krebs, followed

by Mr. Magwood, and then Mr. Reicher.

Senator Reid.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Again, I

apologize to you and the witnesses. I had the morning cleared for

this hearing, but there was a meeting called at the White House

and I am obligated to attend, so I am going to have to leave here

at about 10:15.

I would ask permission that I be allowed to submit the questions

that I had prepared to these witnesses and that they respond in

a reasonable period of time.
385

Senator DOMENICI. That will be the order. The questions and the

Department’s responses will be included at the appropriate place in

the record.

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Senator REID. First I want to talk about energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Mr. Reicher, energy-efficient advances in building insulation,

lighting technologies, and many other things have saved the country enormous quantities of energy and money, and I would like to

think that work we have done within this committee to direct attention to that has been one of the cost-saving areas that we have

done, and we should be proud of these accomplishments.

Renewable energy sources that do not contribute to pollution or

global warming can be just as successful if these technologies can

become cost competitive with proven power technologies. Tax incentive is another artificial subsidy which, in my opinion, can never

replace the effectiveness of cost savings, and so competitiveness has

to be a primary goal in the renewable energy program.

Mr. Chairman, I just returned from a trip to South America, and

in Brazil they decided to privatize the power industry. They went

from 60,000 employees that worked for the Brazilian government,

now that it’s private, to 6,000, and it is much more effective and

working very well. Can you imagine that, 60,000 to 6,000?

So my point here is that tax incentives and artificial subsidies

can never replace the effectiveness of cost savings. Competitiveness

has to be the primary goal in renewable energy and some of our

other programs. I hope that testimony here, Mr. Reicher, will demonstrate the Department’s commitment to developing renewable resources that are market-driven instead of policy-driven.

I am particularly interested in the program, because Nevada is

a state with significant renewable energy potential, as is I think

much of the Southwest, which has not been fully developed.

We know that commercial geothermal power production is an important resource already in northern Nevada. However, in spite of

high potential for wind power generation, no wind power has been

developed in Nevada. I have spoken to you and others. There may

be some problems with that, because of the wind now blowing like

it does in some parts of California, but it is something I think we

need to take a look at. We, in Nevada, think the wind blows all

the time.

Finally, Nevada is at the very center of the highest quality solar

power potential in the country. We have been told by experts that

there is enough sun generated where the Nevada test site is located to supply power for the whole United States, and the largest

producer of solar power in the country is down near Barstow, that

is 200-megawatt facility, very small compared to the potential

available. So I think we need to do a better job of solar energy.

The United States, particularly Nevada, will benefit enormously

from the development of cost-competitive and renewable energy. So

I wish you well.
386

SCIENCE RESEARCH BUDGET REQUEST

As far as science, Dr. Krebs, the $2.8 billion request for science

programs competes significantly with other priorities in our appropriations bill, such as water projects that are important to many

western states. Many seem to see science as a luxury that can be

reduced, later even abandoned. I do not agree with that.

I believe that science provides one of the foundations of leadership that the United States clearly must show in its economy, its

quality of life, and its ability to promote global peace and security.

It is important that you, Dr. Krebs, demonstrate the relevance

and priority of your programs, because these programs are very difficult to sustain given some of the other priorities that people have

looked to this subcommittee for years to fund. One of the projects

that I think we have to take a close look at, we need to understand

the development of geologic faults, and their permeability is being

reduced, because I understand there are some general reductions

in geo-sciences.

This topic is critical to understanding what is going on in the

western United States. We had the serious earthquake in Northern

California and a serious earthquake in Southern California.

Nevada is the second most earthquake-prone state in the United

States, and with the population growth as it is there, I think we

need to do a lot better in understanding earthquakes. That also, as

part of that, is the problems we are having on nuclear waste. So

I hope that you will all personally within your discretion do a good

job of promoting science programs, because we need help in this

subcommittee to do that.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Last, Mr. Chairman, nuclear energy. Last year this subcommittee held a hearing on the future of nuclear energy. For the

past 2 years the Administration has proposed a couple of initiatives, the Nuclear Energy Research Institute and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization. I want to build upon what you have just

said, Mr. Chairman.

I am not opposed to nuclear waste, if, in fact, we can show that

it is safe, but I think we cannot even consider more nuclear power

production unless we talk about the number one problem dealing

with nuclear power, and that is what you do with the waste. That

has taken months of our time here in the Senate, what are we

going to do with nuclear waste, and I find that not addressed.

We have to do something about that before we can talk about developing more nuclear power. Unless we can handle the waste,

there will never be nuclear power. That is in addition to all the

safety problems that we have.

So I hope and I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee,

that I doubt that geologic disposal will ever be found acceptable. If

we are going to do more with nuclear power generation, we have

to be able to answer what we are going to do with disposal.

I compliment and applaud the chairman that he is willing to

take a look at other methods of disposing of nuclear waste. So, Mr.

Chairman, thank you very much for your allowing me to go on with

this extended statement. I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony.
387

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Dorgan, do you have some opening remarks?

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman.

The President has a briefing on Kosovo this morning, so I regret

I will not be able to attend the entire hearing. But I did want to

comment and indicate that the President’s proposed increases in

both the conservation program and also the request for expenditures on renewable fuels, I think, is one of a whole series of approaches to deal with climate change; but it also represents investments in the right kinds of things.

I welcome Dr. Magwood and Dr. Krebs. I do not know quite as

much about your work as I do of Mr. Reicher’s, but am interested

in learning, and have been reading some of the statements that you

are offering today.

I want to thank Mr. Reicher, he came to North Dakota and pronounced that North Dakota was the Saudi Arabia of wind energy.

I guess only when I am home he meant that to be the case, but

that does not mean that is what we are producing from wind energy, but the potential in North Dakota is quite extraordinary in

wind energy, and bio-mass and wind energy programs, I think,

hold great promise, and I appreciate very much the leadership of

Mr. Reicher.

I found out during his visit in North Dakota that he has kayaked

the Yangtze River, and I wondered whether someone who decided

they wanted to kayak the entire Yangtze River was fit for public

service after that, and I discovered he is. He is an extraordinary

asset to our government. I appreciate all three of you being here

and presenting testimony today about these important areas.

If we can make the right kinds of investments and make the

right kinds of choices about our energy future, we can address,

even as we make those choices, a lot of the significant problems

that lie ahead of us, and that is part of what the job of this subcommittee is about, to help make those choices. The President has

made recommendations. I think they are sound recommendations. The proposed increases in areas, solar and wind, $274 million in the President’s request, geothermal, $29 million, and so on, represent, in my judgment, good choices, and I am pleased to be here

to support them, and pleased to welcome the panel.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Senator.

I just wanted to say, particularly to you Senator Reid, with reference to the admonishment toward the Science Program. Dr.

Krebs has a very high post, and of great concern to us, because we

need clear thinking and as much as we can get with reference to

science.

HUMAN GENOME PROJECTS

I do not know if you know, Dr. Krebs, but one of the greatest

wellness and health programs, research programs, that ever came

upon human beings is genome research—it will revolutionize how

we get well, stay well, and how we get rid of hundreds of very, very

big diseases that have bothered humanity for a long, long time.
388

I think when people ask whether the Department of Energy is

really a science institution, you ought to hold your head up proudly

and say, ‘‘Well, but for the Department of Energy and Dr. Charles

DeLisi, who moved to DOE from NIH, we would not have the genome project.’’

He was at NIH, and they did not want to start that project, so

he, in frustration, moved over to your department, and came up to

see me, and said, ‘‘This is a great thing, we ought to do it,’’ and

as a matter of fact, within 7 or 8 months, Senator Lauton Chiles

and I started it without any authorization, nothing in the President’s budget.

It was developed at NIH, the program was shared by the two departments. We get one-third now, and we have for the last 8 or 9

years. They get two-thirds, but they deal theirs out all over the

country. One laboratory gets one program, another gets another,

with reference to chromosomes, and we have made some giant

strides. I assume you are enthusiastic about the genome program,

are you not?

Dr. KREBS. I am very enthusiastic about the genome program. I

think it is one of the best things that the Department of Energy

has done over the last 10 to 15 years. Creation of the genome program will change the way biology is done in the future.

Senator DOMENICI. Yes.

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, I had a tour of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and they had this genome project there. I misunderstood, let me make sure, but I had the impression they took

credit for it, but it was just part they were sharing with everybody

else.

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. They got a chromosome. I do not remember which one. They might have two.

Dr. KREBS. Nineteen, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOMENICI. Which one?

Dr. KREBS. I think theirs is chromosome 19.

Senator DOMENICI. Los Alamos has one, et cetera. It is one of

many chromosomes, Senator Reid.

Dr. KREBS. Right.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, this is interesting and a history

that I was not aware of. I wonder if the staff might be able to put

together a little briefing memo for us establishing the outline of

this, because I think you make an excellent point. There are a lot

of investments we make that people are very unaware of, and the

origin of these often comes from——

Senator DOMENICI. Committees.

Senator DORGAN [continuing]. Areas of our government, and committees, and committee and subcommittee chairs, and so on, so

that would be very helpful, I think, just to put together a briefing.

Senator DOMENICI. It will. The staff will combine and get it done.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARTHA KREBS

Dr. KREBS. May I make a comment before I start my——

Senator DOMENICI. Sure. Then you can go to your sermon,

please?

Dr. KREBS. Right, my advocacy piece. [Laughter.]
389

Actually, the Office of Biological and Environmental Research

within the Department of Energy has existed for 50 years, since

the time of the Atomic Energy Commission. We have a document

that celebrates those 50 years that could tell you about the work

we have done in nuclear medicine, as well as in the genome, and

I would be happy to provide that in addition to whatever the staff

might prepare. It is a very exciting story, actually.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The following information ‘‘A Vital Legacy,’’ Biological and Environmental Research in the Atomic Age, by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, U.S. Department of

Energy, Internet address is www.er.doe.gov/production/ober/ can be

found in the subcommittee files.]

Senator DOMENICI. What happened, Senator, to the predecessor

agency, before we had Energy. There was the Atomic Energy Commission, and then we had the Energy Research and Development

Agency [ERDA], and now DOE. It was because of the development

and use of the atomic weapons, the Department of Energy and its

predecessors became a primary focal point to try to determine the

health effects of those two first atomic bombs. They were required

to keep all kinds of data, and became the data experts with reference to hundreds of thousands of Japanese people. From that developed the expertise in biological and environmental impact.

They have great biologists in the Department of Energy, some of

the best in the world, working at the laboratories, is that not right?

Dr. KREBS. Working at the laboratories, also universities, the

positron emission tomography technology, and the research that

supports it in everything from addiction to brain tumors, a lot of

things have come out of the Department of Energy’s Biological and

Environmental Research Program.

Senator DOMENICI. Please continue.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Dr. KREBS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, Senator Dorgan, I am

delighted to be here this morning to describe the fiscal year 2000

budget for the DOE science programs. It is important to keep in

mind that in terms of the Federal investment and basic and applied research, DOE is second only to the Department of Health

and Human Services.

The Office of Science itself is in a class with the National Science

Foundation. We are the primary funders of physical science in this

country, at $1.7 billion, and clearly out rank organizations like

NASA and the National Science Foundation.

We have a principal role in large scientific user facilities, the

high energy and nuclear physics accelerators, at Fermi, at SLAC,

at Jefferson Lab, the Cyclotron sources and research reactors for

material science and chemistry.

But significantly, as well, we are an integral part of the Department of Energy, both carrying out its science and technology missions and commitments through the high energy and nuclear physics programs, in what we call a theme of exploring energy and matter, and not only are we looking at fundamental particles, but also,

for example, the building blocks of life, like the genome.

We have a critical role in supporting the energy missions of the

Department of Energy, as well as the environmental missions, in
390

terms of both the consequences of the use and production of energy,

but also in supporting the cleanup mission, understanding how to

remove the contamination that has been induced at our sites, and

then as I noted before, we build extraordinary tools to carry out extraordinary science, and we get results year after year.

PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Let me tell you about some of them. We have had new findings

this year on corrosion resistance, which will enable better protective coatings for high-temperature, high-wear environments, such

as furnaces, turbines, engines. In the exploration of the new world

of nano-structures, we have created small fibers 50 to 100 times

more conductive than copper, which could have a major impact in

energy utilization.

Again, in the biological area, as a spinoff of the human genome

we have been using the genomic technologies to explore other organisms. One of them is called D. radiodurans, which we call ‘‘Conan

the Bacterium.’’ It is a thousand times more resistant to radiation

than humans, and we sequenced its genome this past year, and

now we are engaged in the systematic exploration of its properties.

We believe there may be long-term use of this organism for bioremediation at some of our most contaminated sites, and, in fact,

the environmental molecular science program, which we help the

Environmental Management Program to manage jointly, is exploring more practical applied applications of this mechanism.

As I mentioned before, most recently we have been using the

positron emission tomography at the Brookhaven Laboratory to explore the chemical pathways of addiction, and this year we identified an epilepsy drug, GBG, as a treatment to block the addictive

effects of cocaine and nicotine. Joanna Fowler, who leads that

group, was recognized this year with the Lawrence Award for her

activity.

Science Magazine named the work of a group at the LawrenceBerkeley Lab on the accelerating universe as the scientific breakthrough of the year. It represents a 10-year campaign that indicates that there may be a new force in the universe that works

against gravity, expanding the universe at a faster and faster rate.

Another advance was the first indications of neutrino mass at

the facility in Japan, but that was strongly supported by the

United States high energy physics program, and we supported

most of the U.S. scientists in that collaboration.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Let me turn to the budget itself now. In fiscal year 2000 we are

requesting $2.8 billion. It is up about $138 million, or 5 percent,

over 1999, taking into account $46 million of one-time projects. The

overall activity is up about $184 million.

If you want to think about how we used that additional $184 million, it was an increase of $84 million for the Spallation Neutron

Source to keep it on track with the original proposed cost profile,

$70 million for the Scientific Simulation Initiative, part of the

President’s information technology initiative, and a $10 million increase for science education, and the remaining is spread in various

ways.
391

Despite increases for our major initiatives, difficult decisions

were made within the base program that are defensible, but not

comfortable. One of them was the example that Senator Reid gave

of our reductions in geoscience, but some accommodations had to

be made, given the tight constraints that the Administration applied to the budget, and which I know you have equally tight constraints as well.

Within these constraints we have to accommodate new projects

and new directions, and we have to make sure that we balance the

operation of existing facilities against that which supports the research, and the researchers that use them.

The budget request has numerous important elements, but in the

time that remains, I will talk mainly about the two major initiatives in the budget, the Spallation Neutron Source and the Scientific Simulation Initiative.

SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE

The Spallation Neutron Source is a $1.36 billion facility, expected

to be completed in December 2005. It is a five-lab collaboration,

among Oak Ridge, Argonne, Berkeley, Brookhaven, and Los Alamos. It is a high-priority facility for the scientific community. It

was recommended first in 1984, in the National Academy study,

and again reconfirmed in the 1999 material science study by the

National Research Council.

The material impacts are important, but there are also other activities that will benefit from this facility. In particular, metals, ceramics, polymers, magnetic systems, and biological systems as well

as molecular structures, and understanding the functional properties of biological molecules.

A recent January 1999, review took place that has received some

fair amount of coverage in the scientific press, but also in the

House Committee on Science, that made some fairly strong criticisms of this project. These criticisms were echoed in testimony

given by the General Accounting Office, but they only confirmed

what had been discovered by our review; namely, that the technical

project director must report to the lab director, that the civil construction requires more oversight, and we need to prepare a new

baseline for the project by July 1999, and regain additional cost

contingency above what had already been regained by the project.

Within a week of that review, the five lab directors identified Dr.

David Moncton, from Argonne National Laboratory, as the project

director. He has been on-site at Oak Ridge and working with the

technical team for the project, and today they are briefing the involved lab directors from the five different laboratories on the results of their review, which is essentially a stem to stern technical

review of the project and a commitment to an action plan for the

next 6 months to arrive at the baseline and to get the project back

on track.

This review will be presented to Under Secretary Moniz tomorrow, and we will be presenting it, bringing Dr. Moncton to the interested congressional committees and members on Thursday and

Friday.
392

GAO STUDY

Senator DOMENICI. Can I interject here? On the spallation machine for Oak Ridge, was the GAO study helpful?

Dr. KREBS. The GAO study in general confirmed the findings of

our own review. They were present at our review, by our invitation.

Additional comments made by the GAO about the Department’s capability to manage large projects are things we have heard before.

Senator DOMENICI. You have heard that before?

Dr. KREBS. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. That was not the question. Was it relevant?

Dr. KREBS. Only insofar as they confirmed what we had already

found out.

Senator DOMENICI. Okay.

Dr. KREBS. They did not provide any new information. It is important for me to also say that Dr. Moncton was responsible for the

on-time and on-budget delivery of the $800 million Advanced Photon Source at the Argonne Lab, so I think he is one of the best people we could possibly find to deliver this kind of a project.

I think it also demonstrates the effectiveness of our construction

management review process that has helped the Office of Science

deliver projects on time and on budget, such as the Relativistic

Heavy Ion Collider, the Jefferson Lab, the Advanced Photon

Source, the Advanced Light Source.

It demonstrates the workability of the collaboration of the five

lab directors, but we are going to go further, we will negotiate

stronger memorandums of agreement and clear performance measures for all the labs.

SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION INITIATIVE

Let me turn quickly now to the Scientific Simulation Initiative,

DOE’s contribution to the President’s information technology for

the 21st Century. This initiative is aimed at providing the science

base that will build the computer and information technology for

the second decade of the next century. The National Science Foundation and DARPA have the primary responsibility for this science

base.

The Department of Energy and other mission agencies, NOAA,

NASA, and NIH, are investing in the Tera scale computer and software infrastructure under development now for specific applications.

DOE has a special role in that effort. In Defense Programs, the

Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative [ASCI] is developing the

trillion-operations-per-second machines and intermediate software

to enable certification of the safety and security of the nuclear

stockpile in a comprehensive test ban regime.

It is now foreseeable that tens of Teraops will be available in the

next decade for science, also the next century, but we have to start

now developing the algorithms, building the models, to match both

the capability and the structure of these new machines.

In the Department of Energy, we have two primary applications

to drive the development on these machines for science, climate

modeling and combustion. The criteria that we use to choose these

initiatives were, first of all, we needed to have complex scientific
393

problems for which an order of magnitude increase in computing

would transform the understanding of the problem.

We needed a scientific community comfortable and sophisticated

about large-scale computing, and finally we had externalities that

justified prompt development and exploitation of the coming technologies. In climate models, as you have noted, the need to better

understand the impact on a regional scale of changes resulting

from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the environment generally is an increasingly pressing problem in our negotiations and discussions with colleagues around the world. In combustion, foreseeable emission limitations that may be the discussion of regulations for transportation could present a crisis for vehicles in the next decade.

In sum, DOE has critical scientific problems. We are in the middle of the technology development, and the interagency collaboration will enable us broad access to the scientific community. It is

very exciting, and it is relevant. We have a lot of other activities

that I could talk to you about. Our scientific facilities are coming

along.

In addition to bringing on RHIC, the B-factory, the Combustion

Research Facility at Sandia Livermore, we are also in the middle

of and working well in our upgrades at LANSCE. We are making

progress on the Large Hadron Collider. The Next Generation Internet is moving along, and in the human genome we will be dedicating the production sequencing facility that matches some of the

new investments at NIH.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Let me just say that in closing, this is a good budget. It will enable exciting science. We believe we are managing effectively in the

face of lots of uncertainties. There is room for improvement, and

we look forward to working with you.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you have prepared remarks?

Dr. KREBS. I do. I would like to submit them for the record, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Your full statement will be made part of the

record.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTHA KREBS

Mr Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: This is the sixth time I have

had the honor of testifying before this subcommittee on behalf of the budget for the

newly renamed Office of Science (SC). The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the

Office of Science supports: Basic Energy Sciences, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Biological and Environmental Research, Computational and Technology Research, Energy Research Analyses, Multiprogram Energy

Laboratories-Facilities Support, and supporting Science Program Direction. The

Technical Information Management program budget is located within the Energy

Supply R&D account. Continued leadership in science and technology is a cornerstone of the President’s and Vice President’s vision for America. During the past six

years, the Administration and this committee have provided substantial growth for

scientific research and enabling technology programs despite tight overall fiscal constraints. This budget request builds upon and strengthens those vital investments

for the Twenty-first Century.

Scientific research and the knowledge and technologies that follow have been

credited with about half of the productivity growth of the United States’ economy

in the past fifty years. What growth it has been—millions of high-skill, high-wage

jobs; the longest life expectancy in human history; agricultural output to confound
394

Malthus; new means of working and communicating on a global basis; and exciting

new frontiers to explore. The Department of Energy, and its predecessor agencies,

have been a proud sponsor of science-driven growth through the combined efforts

of the National Laboratories, 66 Nobel Laureates and thousands of other outstanding university and industry based researchers nationwide. As we begin the

Twenty-first Century, we prepare for the next fifty years with focused investments

in science and scientific tools for the future.

The Department of Energy (DOE) budget for fiscal year 2000 plans for the next

century by providing for a $138 million increase in the Office of Science, to invest

in thousands of individual research projects at hundreds of research facilities across

the U.S., primarily in our national laboratories and research universities. The fiscal

year 2000 request will allow for continued construction of the Spallation Neutron

Source, the first world class neutron source built by the U.S. in over 30 years; the

pursuit of a new Scientific Simulation Initiative that will revolutionize our ability

to solve scientific problems of extraordinary complexity and enable us to apply these

new resources toward advancing DOE missions; and participation in the Next Generation Internet effort with a focus on R&D and implementation of the technologies

and tools that help meet mission requirements and contribute to the Scientific Simulation Initiative.

OUR MISSION HASN’T CHANGED

As the Office of Science, our mission remains to: produce the scientific and technical knowledge needed to develop energy technology options; understand the health

and environmental implications of energy production and use; maintain U.S. leadership in understanding the fundamental nature of energy and matter; provide and

operate the large-scale facilities required in the natural sciences; ensure U.S. leadership in the search for scientific knowledge; and support the availability of scientific

talent for the next generation.

Achieving our mission contributes to the goals of the Department and the Administration while advancing science and contributing to U.S. economic growth. Our

history of success continued in fiscal year 1999 with the following:

Hundreds of principal investigators, funded by SC, yearly win dozens of major

prizes and awards sponsored by the President, the Department, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the major professional

societies including: the 1997 Nobel Prize for Chemistry; National Medal of Science;

Presidential Young Investigator Award; 1998 Fermi and Lawrence awards; National

Science Foundation Career Award; eight 1998 R&D 100 awards; two 1998 Discover

Awards; 1998 Federal Laboratory Consortium Award; Gordon Bell Prizes and

Fernbach Award; IBM’s Supercomputer Award; and many other awards and honors

from scientific societies.

Researchers supported by the Office of Science showed that the universe is not

only expanding but that the outward motion appears to be speeding up, not slowing

down. The implication is that Einstein was right when he suggested that there is

a mysterious energy that fills ‘‘empty’’ space and that most of the energy of the universe is in this form. The finding raises profound questions about the nature of

space and the ultimate fate of the universe including fundamental new questions

for physics. As a result, Science Magazine named The Accelerating Universe ‘‘the

1998 Breakthrough of the Year ’’.

SC also provided support for the $100 million detector, Super-Kamiokande, operated by a collaboration of 120 physicists from 23 institutions headed by the University of Tokyo’s Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR). This experiment demonstrated that the supposedly massless neutrino must, in fact, have a non-zero rest

mass. Once verified, this discovery will force a revision in the Standard Model,

which assumes a massless neutrino and may alter our estimates of the total mass

of the universe, with implications for understanding its origin and eventual fate.

Incredibly light synthetic metals with a potential electrical conductivity 50–100

times better than copper per weight are being made from carbon nanotubes doped

with metals. First discovered in 1991, nanotubes are a new class of materials

formed from graphite-like sheets of carbon rolled into exquisitely small cylinders

(one-billionth of a meter).

Microbial genomics, one of today’s most exciting and high profile fields in biology,

was initiated by DOE in 1994. Science Magazine also identified microbial genomics

as one of the top 10 fields of discovery in 1998. Two of the 1997 ‘‘11 hottest papers

in biology’’ were for microbial genomic sequences funded by SC. For example, SC

research on ‘‘Conan the Bacterium’’—D. radiodurans R1, has shown extreme resistance to genotoxic chemicals, oxidative damage, high levels of ionizing and UV radiation, and desiccation. The ability to survive such extreme environments is attrib-
395

uted in part to a unique DNA repair system in combination with its chromosome

copy number and structure. The remarkable capabilities of this microbe may enable

scientists to engineer a form of D. Radiodurans that can help us clean up some of

our most troublesome waste problems.

The Human Genome Program was initiated by the Department of Energy (DOE)

in 1986 to map and determine the complete DNA sequence of the human genome.

A Memorandum of Understanding was established with the National Institutes of

Health (NIH) in 1988 to coordinate the U.S. Genome Project. The latest joint fiveyear plan was published in Science Magazine in October 1998. This plan calls for

determining the complete sequence of the human genome by the year 2003, two

years ahead of the original target date. Recent successes include identifying the

gene for kidney disease.

SC has renewed our commitment to forging more effective partnerships that leverage our research investments and connect us more closely with other federal science

programs and the direct beneficiaries of our research. We are fostering new kinds

of partnerships among our national laboratory, university and industry based researchers to maximize the effectiveness and impact of research activities. In partnership with the Department’s applied programs, SC is also working to bridge the

gap between basic research and application through: joint planning of critical longterm research; joint solicitations and funding of targeted research efforts; and annual integration workshops that bring together program managers and researchers

from across DOE.

New scientific research facilities coming on-line include: the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory; the Jefferson Lab’s Large Acceptance

Spectrometer; SLAC’s B-Factory, the Oak Ridge Free-Air CO2 Enrichment Facility,

the JGI Production (DNA) Sequencing Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion

Collider (RHIC). Initiation of RHIC operations in fiscal year 2000 opens an exciting

new era of nuclear physics studies: the behavior of hot, dense nuclear matter and

an expected new state of matter, the quark-gluon plasma. Projects completed on

time and budget include: Fermilab’s Main Injector, and the Combustion Research

Facility Phase II.

Bringing science to the researcher’s desktop became a reality as over 30,000 technical reports (2 million full-text pages) of DOE’s R&D results became accessible and

searchable over the World Wide Web via the Information Bridge (www.doe.gov/

bridge). Researchers are regularly downloading 4,000 reports per week from this

web site.

The Department of Energy is a science agency because its mission and goals require technologies and scientific knowledge far beyond that which is currently available. From safeguarding the nuclear stockpile to ensuring our nation’s energy supply for the next century, DOE continues to challenge the frontiers of science and

technology.

The DOE Strategic Plan outlines the vision, goals and strategic objectives that

will, through leadership in science and technology, help the DOE to meet those challenges. In keeping with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the

Office of Science fiscal year 2000 budget request includes program specific goals,

strategies, and measures that focus our research activities and ensure continuity

with Departmental plans and national goals.

RETHINKING OUR GOALS AND STRATEGIES

In the past year, the Department has begun to rethink how we characterize our

R&D efforts across business lines to assemble the key information for improving our

analysis and management of these investments. The result is a set of R&D Portfolios, scheduled for public release this month, that capture the spectrum of DOE

R&D efforts in each Business Line.

The basic research of the Office of Science presses forward on the frontiers of fundamental understanding but also supports and enables the R&D of the other business lines. Thus, a Science Portfolio has been developed so as to clarify and improve

the integration of our program results in the Department. As the Department R&D

Portfolios evolve, the Office of Science will continue to integrate basic research with

the applied R&D in the other business lines’ Portfolios to ensure strong linkages between technology needs and science.

A revised Strategic Plan of the Office of Science, also scheduled for release at the

end of the month, will articulate the long-range vision, goals, objectives, and strategies for our programs. The Science Portfolio complements and supports the Strategic

Plan by providing a near-term ‘‘snapshot’’ of our investments that dovetails with the

new strategic framework.
396

The motivations behind this planning effort are to develop a shared long-term

focus for SC programs, their scientific communities and performers; to describe our

present scientific programs and position them for the future; to provide a framework

for cooperation and risk taking; to illustrate the unique and coordinated role of SC

programs within the DOE and the federal science investment; and to inform and

inspire our sponsors and the general public.

The new SC Strategic Plan, and supporting Science Portfolio, is structured around

five high-level goals with twelve strategic objectives, listed in Figure 1. These goals

were developed through a series of planning activities and workshops that drew on

the experience and knowledge of our research scientists and stakeholders to capture

both what is necessary and what is possible for our science as we look to the next

century.

The first goal, Fueling the Future, is centered on science for affordable and clean

energy options for the future. Some of the questions that motivate this goal are:

How can we tap and harness affordable, clean fuels? What clean new electric power

systems will fuel the future? and How can energy systems be made more efficient

and environmentally sound?

Development of this goal has been closely connected with the development of the

Energy R&D portfolio and the objectives directly map onto the energy portfolio.

—Fueling the future: New fuels; clean and affordable power; and efficient energy use. —Protecting our living planet: Sources and fate of energy by-products; impacts on

people and the environment; and prevention and protection.

—Exploring energy and matter: Components of matter; origin and fate of the universe; and complex systems.

—Extraordinary tools for extraordinary science: Instrumentation for the frontiers

of science; scientific simulation; and institutional capacity.

—Enabling world class science.

The second goal, Protecting our Living Planet, is centered on understanding energy impacts on people and the biosphere. Some of the questions that motivate this

theme are:

—What are the sources and fate of energy-related by-products?

—What factors affect global climate and how can they be controlled? and

—How do complex biological and environmental systems respond to our energy

use?

This goal also contributes to both the Energy R&D portfolio and the Environmental R&D portfolio.

The third goal, Exploring Matter and Energy, is centered on discovering the building blocks of atoms and life. Some of the questions that motivate this theme are:

—What are the fundamental components of matter?

—How can the origin and fate of the Universe reveal the secrets of energy, matter

and life? and

—How do atoms and molecules combine to form complex dynamic systems?

This goal captures the most fundamental research in the Office of Science. The

complex systems question links to R&D efforts in all of the DOE business lines.

The fourth goal, Extraordinary Tools for Extraordinary Science, is centered on the

national assets that DOE provides for forefront, multidisciplinary research. This

goal builds on the unique role of the Office of Science in providing the nation with

forefront research facilities at our National Laboratories such as research accelerators, reactors, computational centers, and other unique instrumentation. In addition,

the National Laboratories as a system of institutions is increasingly becoming an

extraordinary tool beyond the set of specific facilities located on their sites. The Office of Science will continue to ensure that these critical research tools remain accessible to peer reviewed researchers from all across the nation and meet the technical

challenges of forefront scientific investigation. This goal looks to the future and to

training and educating the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Some of the questions that motivate this goal are:

—How can we explore the frontiers of the natural sciences?

—How can we predict the behavior of complex systems? and

—How can we strengthen the nation’s capacity for multidisciplinary science?

This goal enables research in all of the DOE business lines. By organizing future

facility needs, as identified by the scientific community, this theme ensures that

America’s research capability will remain both accessible and state of the art.

The fifth goal, Enabling World Class Science, conveys the commitment of DOE

and National Laboratory staff to continuously improve their operational processes.

Of paramount importance is the selection and conduct of excellent, productive

science that is carried out safely and with care for the environment and involvement

of local communities.
397

IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIES—INITIATIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

The five goals provide a framework for current programs and a platform for future

efforts. Fiscal year 2000 initiatives and priorities that support these goals include:

utilizing the advances in computation that are flowing from the Accelerated Strategic Computation Initiative (ASCI) to aid scientific research in critical complex

areas as part of The President’s Information Technology for the Twenty-first Century (IT2); continuing progress made toward returning U.S. International Leadership in Neutron Science; carefully managing our partnership in the Large Hadron

Collider; ensuring wide utilization of our Scientific User Facilities; developing and

applying DOE applications and technologies for the Next Generation Internet; providing the scientific basis for DOE’s Climate Change Technology Initiative; and providing unique services in the exploding field of Genome Research. Figure 2 depicts

the cross-connection between the goals above and the priorities in the fiscal year

2000 request.

Scientific Simulation Initiative.—It is now possible to obtain computational capabilities 100 times faster than currently in common use through the application of

technologies developed for the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI).

Therefore the Department of Energy, in coordination with the National Science

Foundation and other federal science programs, has developed a Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) in support of the President’s Information Technology for the

Twenty First Century (IT2) Initiative. The purpose of the SSI is to further develop

and employ an emerging generation of very high performance computers as major

tools for scientific inquiry. These resources will revolutionize our approach to solving

complex problems in such areas as energy, the environment, and fundamental research. This initiative will require close collaboration between scientists in many

disciplines: chemistry, fluid flow, global systems, mathematics, computer science,

etc. However, it is important to remember that this is a research program and that

even the operation of computing facilities at this scale presents significant research

issues.

Within the Office of Science, the SSI will be an integrated effort with the Computational and Technology Research (CTR) program coordinating and overseeing

competitive, peer reviewed selections of sites for computational centers and basic

science applications. In addition, CTR will manage the leading edge research programs in computer science and enabling technologies which will be required to

transform the SSI computing and communications facilities into tools for science.

The element of the program that addresses enabling hardware and software will be

directed by a joint SC/Defense Programs ASCI effort. The management of the research programs required to use these facilities for scientific discovery will be led
398

by the appropriate programs within the Office of Science: Basic Energy Sciences for

Combustion; Biological and Environmental Research for Global Systems; and the

Offices responsible for the scientific disciplines selected in the basic science applications competition.

The first scientific applications to be run on these new massively parallel computers have been chosen carefully. Combustion and global systems are complex scientific problems for which terascale computing will provide a transformation in our

level of understanding. The scientific communities in these areas are also experienced in using computational tools. Finally, these two problems are central to DOE’s

mission.

Combustion.—Currently, eighty-five percent of U.S. energy use is derived from the

combustion of fossil fuels and this dependence on combustion is not likely to change

in the coming decades. Combustion remains one of the primary causes of lowered

air quality in urban environments. At present, engineers have neither sufficient

knowledge nor the computational tools to understand and predict the chemical outcome of combustion processes with any degree of practical reliability. Existing models that guide the design process are of very limited usefulness because of the extraordinary complexity of the combustion process. With very high end computing resources and a concerted research program in combustion modeling, we can develop

the next generation of combustion modeling tools for accelerated design of combustion devices meeting national goals of emission reduction and energy conservation.

Global Systems.—Unlike many disciplinary areas of research, the complex workings of the global environmental system cannot be studied in a laboratory setting.

The integration of knowledge from the many disciplines that together describe the

global system can only be performed in computer simulation models. It is only

through such general circulation models that it is possible to understand current climate and climate variability and to predict future climate and climate variability,

including prediction of the possible effects of human activities on the global system.

Advances in scientific understanding are therefore predicated upon the successful

development of modeling tools to keep pace with the rapid advances in the quality

and quantity of data available. These tools will lead to the development of detailed

fully coupled global system models that accurately reproduce, and ultimately predict, the behavior of the interacting components of the system, i.e. the global atmosphere, the world ocean, the terrestrial land surface and both glacial and sea ice.

Fundamental Research.—Whereas the scientific accomplishments of this century

have resulted in seeking and understanding the fundamental laws that govern our

physical universe, the science of the coming century will be characterized by synthesis of this knowledge into predictive capabilities for understanding and solving

a wide range of scientific problems, many with practical consequences. In this endeavor, the computer will be a primary instrument of scientific discovery. Many

areas of scientific inquiry, critical to the Department’s mission, will be advanced

dramatically with access to high-end computation—including, but not limited to,

materials sciences, structural genomics, high energy and nuclear physics, subsurface

flow, and fusion energy research.

The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS).—The importance of neutron science for

fundamental discoveries and technological development has been enumerated in all

of the major materials science studies over the past two decades, including a major

study by the National Research Council entitled ‘‘Major Facilities for Materials Research and Related Disciplines’’ (Seitz-Eastman Report).

As the needs of our high-technology society have changed, so has the way in

which we conduct the R&D that helps us to meet those needs. It has become increasingly important to develop new materials that perform under severe conditions

and yet are stronger, lighter, and cheaper. Major research facilities are used to understand and ‘‘engineer’’ materials at the atomic level so that they have improved

macroscopic properties and perform better in new, demanding applications. The

SNS is a next-generation facility for these types of applications. Neutron scattering

will play a major role in all forms of materials design and understanding. This research will lead to the development of advances such as: smaller and faster electronic devices; lightweight alloys, plastics and polymers for transportation and other

applications; magnetic materials for more efficient motors and for improved magnetic storage capacity; improved understanding of form and function in biological

structures and the development of new drugs for medical care. Upon completion, the

SNS will be the world’s most powerful neutron source, accommodating more than

1,000 researchers and 30 to 40 special purpose instruments.

The SNS Total Project Cost (TPC) is estimated to be $1,360 million over a 7.25-

year schedule. Throughout the life of the project, semi-annual reviews will track cost

and management fiscal year 1999 funding provides for the start of Title I design

activities, initiation of subcontracts and long-lead procurement, and continued R&D
399

to reduce technical and schedule risks. The fiscal year 2000 budget request of $214

million would support Title II (detailed) design for the technical components and

control systems. Construction, on some of the conventional facilities, is scheduled to

begin in fiscal year 2000 along with the procurement of key technical equipment.

The SNS project is an example of DOE’s commitment to use the DOE laboratories

as a system. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is responsible for the project with participation from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory. The

laboratories have been working together in an increasingly effective manner and

R&D is proceeding smoothly with no technical barriers in sight.

In January 1999, an Office of Science construction management review of the SNS

made recommendations with respect to the project director and staff experienced in

the oversight and integration of all aspects of the large complex project. The Laboratory Director has hired a new Associate Laboratory Director for the project and is

assembling the necessary senior management team. As a first step, I tasked the laboratory to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the project. The assessment is

due to the Department in the first week in April. These construction management

reviews have been a key tool for keeping SC projects on time and on budget. The

prompt action in response to the review’s recommendations will allow us to deliver

the SNS as well.

Scientific Facilities Utilization.—This fiscal year 2000 budget request continues to

strongly support Scientific Facilities Utilization in the following programs: Basic Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Fusion Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, and Computational and Technology Research.

Each year, over 15,000 university, industry, and government sponsored scientists

conduct cutting edge experiments at these particle accelerators, high-flux neutron

sources, synchrotron radiation light sources, and other specialized facilities, such as

the Combustion Research Facility (CRF) at Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California. The CRF is an internationally recognized facility for the study of

combustion science and technology, which will begin its first year of operation after

its Phase II development project. The user community continues to be pleased with

the results of the Science Facilities Initiative as evidenced by their many letters of

support and by the positive results of surveys conducted at the facilities.

The Large Hadron Collider.—The foremost high energy physics research facility

of the next decade will be the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the European

Center for Particle Physics. The primary physics goals of the LHC will impact our

understanding of the relation of mass, fundamental forces, and the structure and

origin of the universe. U.S. participation in the LHC is required to provide U.S. access to the high energy frontier in order to maintain the U.S. as a world leader in

this fundamental area of science.

The LHC is an outstanding example of international cooperation in large scientific

projects, as well as interagency and inter-laboratory cooperation. An International

Cooperation Agreement has been negotiated between CERN, DOE and NSF. The

Agreement provides for U.S. participation in the construction of the accelerator, and

of the two very large detectors, ATLAS and CMS. Carefully defined lists of

deliverables and costs have been agreed upon for each of these areas of participation. U.S. costs are capped at $531 million ($450 million DOE and $81 million NSF),

consistent with Congressional guidance. In return, participating U.S. universities

and laboratories will join, as full partners, in LHC experiments. In addition, a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been executed between DOE and NSF

that defines the relationship between the agencies relative to programmatic coordination of U.S. LHC activities including joint oversight and execution of the U.S.

LHC Construction Program.

Under the terms of this MOU, Fermilab is the Lead Laboratory for the accelerator

portion of the program, which it will execute in cooperation with Brookhaven (BNL)

and Lawrence Berkeley (LBNL) National Laboratories. BNL is the host laboratory

for the ATLAS portion of the program, which also involves Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and LBNL along with 28 university groups. Similarly, Fermilab is

the host laboratory for the CMS detector portion of the program, along with 33 university groups. Cost and schedule baselines have been reviewed and validated for

each of the three programs and management systems are in place to monitor

progress against baselines.

The Next Generation Internet (NGI).—The program is creating the foundation for

more powerful and versatile networks of the Twenty-first century, just as previous

federal investments in information technology R&D created the foundation for today’s Internet. This program is critical to DOE’s science and technology missions because enhancements to today’s Internet from commercial R&D will not be sufficient

to enable: effective use of petabyte/year (would fill the hard drives of millions of to-
400

day’s desktop PCS) High Energy and Nuclear Physics facilities such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC); remote visualization of terabyte to petabye data

sets from computational simulation; development of advanced collaboratories; and

effective remote access to tomorrow’s advanced scientific computers.

For example, typical RHIC experimental collaborations involve hundreds of scientists at dozens of institutions across the country and the world. Using the current

Internet, it would take about 2,500 hours to transmit one day’s data from RHIC to

one remote site for analysis. Using NGI it would take 25 hours.

Thus, DOE’s NGI research program is focused on discovering, understanding, developing, testing and validating the networking technologies needed to enable wide

area, data intensive and collaborative computing. The DOE applications share two

important characteristics. They all involve extremely large data sets and they all

require that scientists be able to interact with the data in (nearly) real time. Current network technology limitations significantly limit our ability to address these

characteristics.

The DOE program includes research in advanced protocols, special operating system services for very high speed, and very advanced network control, the components needed to enable wide area, data intensive and collaborative computing. In

addition the DOE program addresses issues that result from the many different

kinds of network devices, network-attached devices, and services that need to be integrated together. Examples of the components and services that need to be integrated include: network resources, data archives on tape, high performance disk

caches, visualization and data analysis servers, authentication and security services,

and the computer on a scientist’s desk. This type of integration, as well as the

issues of improving the performance of the individual components, all require significant research because the issues are currently not well understood. Indeed, the

first identification of many of these issues is the result of previous work in

collaboratories and visualization supported by DOE.

Thus, DOE’s participation in the NGI builds on previous DOE research and its

over two decades of success in using advanced networks as tools for science. Furthermore, the differences between the requirements of commercial networks and

networks for scientific research require DOE to conduct this research because these

tools and technologies will not be developed by commercial R&D. However, the results and ‘‘spinoffs’’ of this research, after testing and prototyping by the scientific

community, will impact broad commercial use of networks. DOE’s fiscal year 2000

NGI program will build on the results of the competitive research solicitations conducted in fiscal year 1999.

Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI).—Eighty-five percent of our Nation’s

energy results from the burning of fossil fuels, a process that adds carbon to the

atmosphere. Because of the potential environmental impacts of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, carbon management has become an international concern and

is a focus of the CCTI.

The Office of Science is well positioned to make significant contributions to the

many solutions needed to address this problem. SC can build on the fundamental

discoveries of core research programs in carbon and non-carbon energy sources, carbon sequestration, and carbon recycling, extending them to the new discoveries

needed to make carbon management practical and efficient.

Activities in both Basic Energy Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research support the DOE and Administration CCTI efforts in: science for efficient

technologies; fundamental science underpinning advances in all low/no carbon energy source; and sequestration science.

The SC portion of the CCTI leverages the foundation of excellent research already

underway. The additional SC effort will also have a major impact on many scientific

disciplines by advancing the state of knowledge in such fields as genome science,

molecular, cellular and structural biology, biochemistry, chemical dynamics, solid

state chemistry, photochemistry, ecology, nano- and meso-phase materials science,

condensed matter physics, engineering, theoretical chemistry and physics.

For example, the BER microbial genome program has made significant investments in the technology that enables genome sequencing at rates previously unattainable. Capitalizing on these investments, the genomes of microbes that produce

methane and hydrogen from carbonaceous sources will be sequenced as part of the

first awards under CCTI. This will enable identification of key genetic components

of the organisms that regulate the production of these gases. The carbon sequestration research program will focus on understanding the natural terrestrial sequestration cycle and the natural oceanic sequestration cycle as part of the first awards

under the CCTI. The ultimate goal is to enhance the natural carbon cycle in both

the terrestrial and oceanic systems. The search for new fuel sources and carbon sequestration research are key elements of the carbon management science program.
401

CCTI research and related activities within the Office of Science will continue to

be coordinated with the Office of Fossil Energy. Fiscal year 1999 integration efforts

include the coordination of new CCTI proposal solicitations and preparation of a detailed carbon dioxide sequestration roadmap.

Genome.—In its first full year of operation, the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI)

became a leading producer of high quality human DNA among U.S. sequencing centers. The JGI is scaling up its sequencing capacity from 21 million finished bases

in fiscal year 1998 to 30 million finished bases and 40 million high quality draft

bases in fiscal year 1999. In total, SC will complete sequencing of 50 million finished

and 70 million high quality draft subunits of human DNA to submit to publicly accessible databases in fiscal year 2000. In addition, SC will complete the full genetic

sequencing of more than 10 microbes that have significant potential for waste cleanup and energy production.

Improvements in high throughput human DNA sequencing technology and sequence data management are needed to complete the first human genome by 2003

and to efficiently and cost effectively use that sequence information for future medical diagnoses and scientific discovery. The Joint Genome Institute, in which the National Laboratories work as a system, are primarily focused on high throughput sequencing. Fiscal year 2000 is the third year of a major 3–5 year scale-up in DNA

sequencing capability for this virtual institute. DOE will continue to work with the

private sector, where appropriate, to accelerate progress and reduce cost in the

Human Genome project. The SC program is actively involved with other federal

agencies funding, human, plant and microbial research to encourage effective and

efficient management of the total federal genome research portfolio. Genomics is the

foundation for future biological research and is the reason that the next century has

been called ‘‘the century of biology.’’

Program Direction.—The Science Program Direction budget funds the staff and

related expenses that are necessary to develop, direct and administer a complex and

broadly diversified program of mission-oriented basic and applied research. The Office of Science continues to achieve technical excellence in its programs despite managing one of the largest and most diversified and complex basic research portfolios

in the Federal Government with a relatively small Federal and support contractor

staff compared to other programs both within and outside the Department and will

strive to meet staffing levels as outlined in its Workforce Management Plan. Enhanced business processes that are built from our Activity Based Management activities and Strategic Information Planning will enable the staff to carry out the

mission and functions of the organization effectively and efficiently. Work will continue on piloting the transfer of management responsibility of newly generated

wastes at SC sites from Environmental Management to the Office of Science. I am

proud to recognize SC efforts that have resulted in: lower prior year uncosted balances; reduced unnecessary duplication through external peer review; support for

new initiatives, such as the Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI); and more than six

years of on-time, on-budget construction projects due to an effective SC construction

management review program that has been recognized by both the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Association of Public Administrators

(NAPA).

The scientific and technological challenges of the Department’s missions demand

an adequate supply of scientists, engineers and technicians. For over 50 years, DOE

and its predecessor agencies have supported science and engineering education programs involving university faculty as well as pre-college teachers and students. Tapping the significant human and physical resources of the DOE National Laboratories is perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the agency’s contribution to

science education. Within the fiscal year 2000 request for Program Direction is SC’s

core program for science education, supporting such activities as: the Undergraduate

Research Fellowship Program, the National Science Bowl, and the Albert Einstein

Distinguished Educator Fellowship. In addition, two new initiatives, developed in

partnership with NSF, will be supported through the five SC scientific programs.

The first initiative will be focused on providing pre-college science and math teachers with research opportunities that will improve their knowledge and skills of scientific discovery and enhance their ability to apply them in their classrooms. The

second initiative will allow university faculty and undergraduate student teams to

participate in long-term research projects at DOE Laboratories. Historically, over

two-thirds of undergraduates who have participated in DOE programs have gone on

to graduate school in disciplines directly related to DOE missions. These activities

will help to fulfill SC’s responsibilities in developing the next generation of scientists

and engineers and to address the daunting demographic trends that suggest these

new scientists will have to come from the ranks of women and minorities, two

groups traditionally under-represented in scientific fields.
402

SCIENCE PROGRAMS—BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation—$799.5 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request—$888.1 M

The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is one of the Nation’s primary sponsors

of fundamental research in materials sciences, chemical sciences, geosciences, plant

and microbial sciences, and engineering sciences. Performance measurement helps

determine the distribution of activities supported within BES. All BES research programs undergo rigorous peer evaluation through competitive grant proposals, program reviews, and advisory panels. The program funds more than 2,400 researchers

at 200 institutions nationwide. BES-supported research also underpins the Department of Energy missions in energy, the environment, and national security. Strategic directions are set through working relationships with other DOE programs, research workshops with public and private scientific communities nationwide, and

policy directives.

Within the base research effort in fiscal year 2000, a program in Complex and

Collective Phenomena will continue to support work at the frontiers of basic research that hold the promise of delivering revolutionary breakthroughs. This effort

is designed to obtain fundamental knowledge of increasingly complex systems in

order to help bridge the gap in our understanding between the atomic and molecular

properties and the bulk structural and mechanical properties of materials, for example. In addition, BES will continue its Partnership for Academic-Industrial Research

(PAIR) program to facilitate research partnerships between academic researchers,

their students, and industrial researchers.

In fiscal year 2000, BES also plays a major part in the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) and the Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI). The BES research under CCTI will primarily focus on carbon recycling, improved efficiency in

the use of fossil carbon energy sources, and new and improved non-carbon energy

sources. Examples of the types of research areas in each of the four BES subprograms are: high-temperature materials for more efficient combustion; electrochemical energy storage; mechanical stability of porous and fractured reservoirs/

aquifers; and the biological process of photosynthesis. The BES research under SSI

includes Combustion Systems Integrated Applications, an integrated effort bringing

together computational and communication resources, focused research in scientific

disciplines, and research in computer science and other enabling technologies to

solve the complex problems that characterize DOE’s scientific research needs.

In addition to directly supporting research performers, BES is also the steward

of 17 major national user facilities. Included among these facilities are the four

major synchrotron radiation light sources, four high-flux neutron sources, and a

number of specialized facilities for electron beam microcharacterization, materials

synthesis and processing, combustion research, pulsed radiolysis, and ion beam

studies. The facilities are planned in collaboration with the scientific community

and permit scientists to carry out forefront experiments that cannot be done in any

other way. A major part of the fiscal year 2000 BES budget request is for the continuation of the Spallation Neutron Source project to provide the Nation with a

next-generation short-pulse spallation neutron source for neutron scattering and related research in broad areas of the physical, chemical, materials, biological, and

medical sciences.

BES scientific user facilities enable researchers to gain the new knowledge necessary to achieve the Department’s missions and, more broadly, to advance the Nation’s entire scientific enterprise. The number of scientists conducting research at

the BES user facilities has grown dramatically in recent years. BES user facilities

are open to all qualified investigators in academia, industry, and government laboratories on a no-charge basis to all qualified researchers whose intention is to publish in the open literature. Over 6,000 users were accommodated at the BES scientific user facilities in fiscal year 1998. These facilities have an enormous impact

on science and technology, ranging from determinations of the structure of superconductors and biological molecules to the development of wear-resistant prostheses,

from atomic-scale characterization of environmental samples to elucidation of geological processes, and from the production of unique isotopes for cancer therapy to

the development of new medical imaging technologies.

Materials Sciences.—The Materials Sciences subprogram supports basic research

in condensed matter physics, metals and ceramics sciences, and materials chemistry. This basic research seeks to understand the atomistic basis of materials properties and behavior and how to make materials perform better at acceptable cost

through new methods of synthesis and processing. Basic research is supported in

corrosion, metals, ceramics, alloys, semiconductors, superconductors, polymers, metallic glasses, ceramic matrix composites, catalytic materials, non-destructive evaluation, magnetic materials, surface science, neutron and x-ray scattering, chemical
403

and physical properties, and new instrumentation. Ultimately the research leads to

the development of materials that improve the efficiency, economy, environmental

acceptability, and safety in energy generation, conversion, transmission, and use.

These material studies affect developments in numerous areas, such as the efficiency of electric motors and generators; solar energy conversion; batteries and fuel

cells; stronger, lighter materials for vehicles; welding and joining of materials; plastics; and petroleum refining.

Chemical Sciences.—The Chemical Sciences subprogram has two major components. The disciplinary areas within each component are connected to and address

needs of the principal DOE and BES mission goals and objectives. One major component is comprised of atomic, molecular and optical physics; chemical physics; photochemistry; and radiation chemistry. This research provides a foundation for understanding fundamental interactions of atoms, molecules, and ions with photons and

electrons. This work also underpins our fundamental understanding of chemical reactivity. This, in turn, enables the production of more efficient combustion systems

with reduced emissions of pollutants. It also increases knowledge of solar

photoconversion processes resulting in new, improved systems and production methods. The other major component of the research program is comprised of inorganic

chemistry, organic chemistry, analytical chemistry, separations science, heavy element chemistry, and aspects of chemical engineering sciences. The research supported provides a better molecular level understanding of homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions occurring at surfaces, interfaces, and in bulk media. This has resulted in improvements to known heterogeneous and homogeneous catalytic systems

and to new catalysts for the production of fuels and chemicals, better analytical

methods in a wide variety of applications in energy processes and environmental

sciences, new knowledge of actinide elements and separations important for environmental remediation and waste management, and better methods for describing turbulent combustion and predicting thermophysical properties of multicomponent systems.

Engineering and Geosciences.—The Engineering and Geosciences subprogram conducts research in two disciplinary areas, engineering and geosciences. In Engineering Research, the goals are to extend the body of knowledge underlying current engineering practice to create new options for improving energy efficiency and to

broaden the technical and conceptual knowledge base for solving the engineering

problems of energy technologies. In Geosciences Research, the goal is on fundamental knowledge of the processes that transport, concentrate, emplace, and modify

the energy and mineral resources and the byproducts of energy production. The research supports existing energy technologies and strengthens the foundation for the

development of future energy technologies. Ultimately the research impacts control

of industrial processes: to improve efficiency and reduce pollution; to increase energy

supplies; and to lower cost and increase the effectiveness of environmental remediation of polluted sites.

Energy Biosciences.—The Energy Biosciences subprogram supports mechanistic

research on fundamental biological processes related to capture, transformation,

storage and utilization of energy. The research focuses on plants and non-medical

microorganisms to form a broad scientific foundation for support of Department of

Energy’s goals and objectives in energy production, environmental management, and

energy conservation. Basic research on plants includes photosynthetic mechanisms

and bioenergetics in algae, higher plants, and photosynthetic bacteria; control mechanisms that regulate plant growth and development; fundamental aspects of gene

structure, function, and expression; plant cell wall structure, function and synthesis;

and mechanisms of transport across membranes. Research supported in these areas

seeks to define and understand the biological mechanisms that effectively transduce

light energy into chemical energy, to identify the biochemical pathways and genetic

regulatory mechanisms that can lead to the efficient biosynthesis of potential fuels

and petroleum-replacing compounds, and to elucidate the capacity of plants to remediate contaminated environments by transporting and detoxifying toxic substances.

The research focus in the microbiological sciences includes the degradation of biopolymers such as lignin and cellulose, anaerobic fermentations, genetic regulation

of microbial growth and development, thermophily, e.g., bacterial growth under high

temperature, and other phenomena with the potential to impact biological energy

production, conversion and conservation. Organisms and processes that offer unique

possibilities for research at the interface of biology and the physical, earth and engineering sciences are also studied.
404

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation—$436.7 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request—$411.2 M

For over 50 years, the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program has

been bringing revolutionary solutions to energy-related biological and environmental

challenges. Through its support of peer-reviewed research at the Department’s national laboratories, universities, and private institutions, the program develops the

fundamental knowledge needed to identify, understand, and anticipate the longterm health and environmental consequences of energy production, development,

and use. The BER program contributes to a healthy citizenry, cleanup of the environment, and understanding global environmental change, and operates the world

class facilities essential to the scientific breakthroughs of the future.

As part of the President’s Scientific Simulation Initiative, the BER request includes funding to accelerate the development of advanced global climate models with

the high regional resolution needed for definitive predictions. This fundamental research will support the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

The BER request also includes funding for the President’s Climate Change Technology Initiative. The BER contribution to the initiative includes research to sequence microbes for alternative fuel production (methane and hydrogen production)

and to develop natural carbon sequestration processes in terrestrial and ocean systems.

Life Sciences.—The Human Genome Program continues to be the centerpiece of

our Life Sciences Research program, both in terms of its contribution to the international effort to sequence the human genome, and in terms of the spin-off technologies. Through efforts at the Joint Genome Institute and its Production Sequencing Facility, DOE does its share of high-throughput human DNA sequencing and

develops, validates, and integrates new DNA sequencing technologies into the production of DNA sequencing. Fiscal year 2000 is the third year of a 3–5 year scaleup in DNA sequencing capacity for the Joint Genome Institute. The DOE’s share

of the funding for the U.S. Human Genome Program is about 25 percent of the national effort.

The field of microbial genomics continues to be one of the most exciting and high

profile fields in biology today. Initiated by DOE in 1994, microbial genomics and microbial genomic sequencing were identified by Science Magazine as one of the top

10 fields of discovery each of the past two years. The broad impacts of this research

emphasizes a central principle of the BER genome programs—complete genomic sequences yield answers to fundamental questions in biology. Microbes are being

sequenced and characterized in several parts of the BER program because of potential impacts across several DOE missions. These include the Climate Change Technology Initiative (sequencing methane or hydrogen producing microbes or microbes

involved in carbon dioxide sequestration), environmental cleanup (microbes for bioremediation), alternative fuel sources (methane production or energy from biomass),

industrial processes (industrial useful enzymes), and biological nonproliferation (understanding and detecting biowarfare agents). The fiscal year 2000 request includes

funds for determining the DNA sequence of 10 microbes with significant potential

for waste cleanup, energy production, or carbon sequestration.

The fiscal year 2000 request provides continuing support for both the national

user facilities for scientists and the research support needed to determine the molecular structure and function of enzymes, antibodies, and other important biological

molecules. Computational structural biology research combines computer science,

structural biology, and genome research to predict the functions of biological molecules. This information will enable the design or more efficient use of biological

molecules for drugs to control or treat a great variety of diseases, environmental

cleanup, or energy-production and use.

The low dose radiation research program uses molecular level knowledge gained

from the Department’s human genome and structural biology research to determine

the human health impacts, all the way from effects on single molecules to people,

of exposures to low doses of energy and defense-related radiation. This information

will provide an improved scientific basis for remediating contaminated DOE sites

and achieving acceptable levels of human health protection, both for cleanup workers and the public, in a more cost-effective manner that could save billions of dollars. A key aspect of this program is the regular communication between scientists

who propose and conduct the research and regulators who develop and implement

risk policy.

Environmental Processes.—The Environmental Processes subprogram conducts research on a range of issues related to the mission of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Activities are focused on understanding and predicting

the potential consequences on climate and ecological systems and resources of the
405

emissions of aerosols and trace gases, especially carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. Additional efforts support the Climate Change Technology Initiative

(CCTI).

As the major federal agency supporting research into climate predictions on the

decade-to-century time scale, the DOE continues an integrated observational and

modeling program focused on predicting climate variability and climate change 10

to 100 years in the future. The BER Climate Change Prediction Program will continue to extend its modeling breakthrough in ocean simulation to develop a fully

coupled atmosphere-ocean model useful for climate prediction. Because of the limited high-end computational resources, computer-intensive climate modeling at regional spatial resolution has been difficult to perform. To address this need, BER

will support a Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) in collaboration with other agencies, including the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration to accelerate

the development of advanced global climate change models with higher spatial resolution than currently available. The SSI will make high-end computational resources more available to the climate modeling community than at present, improve

climate models capable of simulating the principal components of a coupled atmosphere-ocean climate system, and increase the availability and usability of climate

change projections to the broader climate change research and assessment communities.

The BER request includes funding to operate three Atmospheric Radiation Measurement sites and eighteen AmeriFlux sites to provide data to improve climate models and understand the magnitude and variation in carbon sequestration in major

terrestrial ecosystems in North and Central America. The BER Environmental Processes subprogram will also continue to support major experimental studies to develop data to improve understanding of the ecological effects of climate and atmospheric changes.

As part of the CCTI, BER will support research to better understand the biophysical processes controlling carbon sequestration in terrestrial and ocean systems,

with the long term objective of both developing approaches to manipulate these

processes to enhance carbon sequestration on land and in the ocean and understand

the environmental and economic implications of implementing such approaches.

These studies will complement previously noted efforts to sequence the microbial

genomes as part of the BER CCTI program.

The Environmental Processes subprograms provide a scientific basis for assessing

both the effects of human activities on the Earth’s climate and the need for action

to mitigate any adverse effects. They also provide information needed to determine

the potential of natural processes in terrestrial and ocean systems to help mitigate

the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. The Environmental Processes subprograms are coordinated with other agencies through the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural

Resources.

Environmental Remediation.—Research in the Environmental Remediation subprogram is focused on understanding the fundamental physical, chemical, geological,

and biological processes that must be marshaled for the development and advancement of new, effective, and efficient processes for the remediation and restoration

of the Nation’s nuclear weapons production sites. The two highest priorities of this

subprogram are bioremediation research and operation of the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) as a national scientific user facility to investigate fundamental molecular processes and properties that affect the

environmental transformation, mobility, and biological availability of contaminants.

The EMSL focuses on molecular-level collaborative research in the environmental

sciences, and provides support to over 600 users, with over half of those from academia. The subprogram also addresses both natural bioremediation, which relies on

naturally occurring microbial and plant processes, and accelerated bioremediation,

which seeks to accelerate desirable processes through, for example, environmental

modifications or the addition of amendments to contaminated environments.

The Environmental Remediation subprogram request also includes the infrastructure funding for BER program activities. The funding enables minor construction activities associated with upkeep of buildings and building systems at these research

facilities. It includes such items as new roofs and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning upgrades and replacements.

Medical Applications and Measurement Science.—The Medical Applications program fosters research to enable beneficial applications of nuclear and other energyrelated technologies for medical diagnosis and treatment. The program promotes a

fertile partnership among the sciences, advanced technologies and medicine in three

major research areas: nuclear medicine; boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT); and
406

instrumentation. Research in radiopharmaceutical chemistry and imaging techniques and investigation of a broad range of potential diagnostic and therapeutic applications provide the scientific and technological foundation for the expansion of

nuclear medicine as a major medical specialty and for the continued vitality of the

national industries for radiopharmaceutical development and production and medical imaging instrumentation. The technologies developed under this program are

directed at solving major problems in medicine, such as the non-invasive detection

and localization of small malignant lesions in the body, the quantitative measurement of dynamic organ function, and the treatment of cancers that resist conventional therapies. Nuclear medicine at the Department has accelerated with many recent contributions in areas as diverse as medical imaging technologies for improved

diagnostic accuracy and radiopharmaceuticals for the study and treatment of substance abuse. Medical Applications research, in partnership with the Department’s

human genome and life sciences research, is forging new technologies to find not

only where disease-causing processes take place, but to locate and study the action

of genes involved in still-mysterious normal functions such as learning and memory.

Our measurement science program focuses on research and development of new

instrumentation to meet the needs of our environmental and life sciences programs

for better ways of characterizing samples ranging from living cells to subsurface

contaminants. The fiscal year 2000 request provides for a variety of activities, with

particular emphasis on using the advanced technologies developed in the Department’s National Laboratories for environmental and biomedical research.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation—$695.5 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request—$697.1 M

High energy physics research seeks to understand the nature of matter and energy at the most fundamental level, as well as the basic forces which govern all

processes in nature. The Department of Energy provides more than 90 percent of

the Federal support for the Nation’s high energy physics (also called elementary

particle physics) research program. The balance is provided by the National Science

Foundation (NSF). Our knowledge of the universe, the fundamental constituents of

matter, and the laws of nature that underlie all physical processes continues to

grow as a result of this research.

High energy physics research not only helps us learn how the world works, it also

contributes to the Nation’s economic competitiveness in the high-technology marketplace. High energy physics research requires accelerators and detectors utilizing

state-of-the-art technologies in many areas, including fast electronics, particle detectors, high speed computing, superconducting magnets, and high power radiofrequency devices. In these areas, high energy physics research frequently drives the

technology, which not only contributes to other scientific disciplines, but also has led

to many practical applications having major economic and social impacts. Who could

have predicted that research that went into the building of accelerators and particle

detectors and the subsequent technology would contribute so much to today’s medical imaging capabilities. And who could have predicted that particle physicists

seeking new ways of communicating and sharing large amounts of data would

change the way in which the world communicates—yet that is just what the World

Wide Web has done.

The High Energy Physics program also has a history of attracting and training

some of the best and brightest young minds. The training they receive prepares

them for careers not just in high energy physics, but also in other disciplines as

well, including computer sciences, teaching, industrial research. It is the unique

problem solving abilities learned from this scientific discipline that make them attractive. More than half of the Ph.D.’s trained for high energy physics find permanent employment outside the field.

Carrying out high energy physics research effectively depends on many elements

including the availability of forefront experimental capabilities, effective use of specialized facilities, and the availability of new and upgraded facilities to take advantage of new technologies and research opportunities. The Department supports two

major high energy physics accelerator centers—the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). Each of

these laboratories provides unique capabilities and is operated as a national facility

available to qualified experimenters around the Nation and abroad on the basis of

the scientific merit of their research proposals. In addition, the high energy physics

program makes limited use of the AGS at BNL. (The AGS will be transferred to

the nuclear physics program, at the end of fiscal year 1999, to be operated as an

integral part of the RHIC facility). Approximately 2,000 U.S. scientists and 200–300

foreign scientists work at these facilities at any given time.
407

Experimental and theoretical researchers from more than 100 universities conduct about three fourths of the research, with the remainder being done by national

laboratory staff. In general, the laboratories and universities perform different, but

complementary, activities. University scientists provide the primary intellectual

base for the program, performing experimental research at accelerators and non-accelerator facilities, technology R&D, and theoretical research. University grantees

are selected and retained based on the quality, appropriateness, and performance

of their research activities. All research proposals received are subjected to a rigorous multi-stage review, especially including peer review by technical experts from

the high energy physics community.

National laboratories primarily provide major accelerator facilities at which university scientists perform their research. In addition, the laboratories provide the

related technical and scientific expertise, as well as day-to-day liaison between university researchers and laboratory experts and management. Responsibility and authority for setting the program at a national laboratory and for determining which

experiments are awarded running time rest primarily with the laboratory directorate within the general guidelines provided by the Department. Research requiring the use of a facility at one of the laboratories is reviewed extensively by the laboratory including by the laboratory’s Program Advisory Committee (PAC), another

form of peer review. The Department carries out its oversight responsibilities by

conducting annual reviews of the laboratories’ scientific programs. In addition, the

Department tracks project progress against budget and schedule milestones using

semiannual project reviews.

The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) is home to the world’s

highest energy superconducting accelerator, the Tevatron, which provides both fixed

target and colliding beam research programs. The colliding beam research program

has two major detector facilities, the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and the

D-Zero Detector, which complement each other in their different technical capabilities. Fermilab completed a very successful fixed target run this past year prior to

shutting the Tevatron down to bring the Main Injector on line. These two collaborations continued to produce new scientific knowledge during this run. The CDF collaboration of university and laboratory scientists from around the world observed

the predicted B meson which contains a charm quark; this discovery completes the

theoretically predicted family of B mesons. In addition, the KTeV experimental collaboration of university and laboratory scientists made the first observation of the

decay of a kaon into two charged pions plus an electron-positron pair. This collaboration also made the first observation of violation of time-reversal invariance (T-violation), by making precise measurements of these decays. T-violation had been predicted on the basis of other results, but had never been directly observed.

Construction of the Fermilab Main Injector project was completed on schedule and

within budget. Commissioning is proceeding very well, and the first physics run is

expected later in fiscal year 1999. The CDF and D-Zero upgrades are progressing

well; and the upgraded detectors will be moved back into position on the Tevatron

beam line and commissioning will begin with them late in fiscal year 2000. This

project will provide a fivefold increase in collider luminosity and a doubling of intensity for the fixed target program, as well as allowing simultaneous operation of the

collider and fixed target programs, a capability previously not possible. The Main

Injector will greatly enhance the physics capabilities of the Tevatron accelerator and

its detector facilities and increase the likelihood for major new scientific developments early in the next century.

Also at Fermilab, the NuMI/MINOS (Neutrinos at the Main Injector) project design got underway in fiscal year 1998. The experiment will study the possible oscillations between different types of neutrinos to determine if neutrinos have mass.

The beam of neutrinos for the project will be produced at Fermilab and aimed at

two detectors—one on site and the other at the Soudan Underground Laboratory in

northern Minnesota. The project baselines for cost, scope, schedule, and management were established in November 1998. Detailed design for the NuMI underground enclosure and technical components will be developed in 1999, and excavation of the cavern in Minnesota for the MINOS detector is also expected to begin

later this year.

In addition, Fermilab continues to play an active role in the Large Hadron

Collider. Fermilab is the host and center of the U.S. CMS detector effort of university and laboratory scientists, and host and center of the U.S. LHC accelerator collaboration, with specialized expertise in the design and fabrication of superconducting magnets.

At the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), the Stanford Linear Collider

(SLC), the world’s only high energy linear collider, continued during fiscal year 1998

to achieve record high luminosities in positron-electron collisions, and the SLD de-
408

tector reached more than 20,000 Zo events per week. Researchers from universities

and laboratories conducting research at SLAC are in the process of analyzing the

large amounts of data collected. In fiscal year 1999, the SLC was shut down to allow

for the B-factory to be brought on line. Construction of the B-factory PEP–II storage

rings was completed in fiscal year 1998 on schedule and within budget. Commissioning began in mid-May 1998, resulting in first electron-positron collisions in July

1998. Commissioning has continued to go very well, and substantial progress toward

achieving design luminosity has already been made. Data-taking with the BaBar detector will begin later in fiscal year 1999, and about 39 weeks of operation is

planned for fiscal year 2000. The B-factory will provide a high luminosity, asymmetric electron-positron colliding beam facility to study the preponderance of matter

over anti-matter in our universe. It will also provide opportunities for university

and laboratory scientists to pursue a rich program of experiments in a large number

of other areas of intense interest in high energy physics. In addition to all-out running of the B-factory in fiscal year 2000, emphasis will continue on R&D in support

of a future linear collider. Participation with NASA and university scientists in a

non-accelerator-based experiment, the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope

(GLAST), is also planned.

The Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven National Laboratory

(BNL) will be transferred later in fiscal year 1999 to the Nuclear Physics program

to be operated as the injector for RHIC. Operation of the AGS for the high energy

physics program in fiscal year 2000 and beyond will be on an incremental cost basis.

Recently, U.S. university and laboratory researchers working at the AGS recorded

a first observed decay of a charged kaon to a pion and two neutrinos, first observation of the decay of a neutral kaon to an electron-positron pair, as well as evidence

for the existence of an unusual meson. AGS operation for high energy physics in

fiscal year 2000 will be for the high precision measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Brookhaven is also a key participant in the LHC project

as host and center of the U.S. ATLAS detector collaboration of university and laboratory scientists, as well as a participant in the U.S. accelerator collaboration.

BNL’s Accelerator Test Facility (ATF), a small, low energy electron linac, has

achieved one of the brightest electron beams in the world. It is used by universities,

national laboratory groups, and industry for testing new advanced accelerator concepts.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a machine that will be about seven times the

energy of the Fermilab Tevatron, is in the process of being built at the European

Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland. The U.S. and

CERN have signed an agreement that provides for U.S. support and participation

in the project. The LHC will become the foremost high energy physics facility in the

world around the middle of the next decade. With the LHC at the energy frontier,

American scientific research on the frontier depends on participation in the LHC.

It will ensure continued world class excellence of our university and national laboratory scientists and will provide training to many students in leading edge science

and technology.

The Department will provide a total contribution of $450 million for the specifically agreed to components of the two detectors and the LHC accelerator over the

period fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2004. Of the $450 million, $250 million

will support U.S. activities on the LHC detectors, while $200 million will support

U.S. activities working on the LHC accelerator. NSF will provide approximately $81

million for U.S. work on the detectors. Almost all of this funding will be spent in

the U.S. for in-kind contributions from U.S. laboratories, universities, and industry.

Funding in the amount of $70 million is being requested by the Department in fiscal

year 2000.

During the past year, progress continued to be made on the technical components

for the LHC and many management details were finalized. Technical, cost, and

schedule baselines for the three subprograms—ATLAS detector, CMS detector, and

the accelerator—were reviewed and approved; a Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and NSF on U.S. participation in the LHC project was negotiated and

signed; and Project Management Plans were finalized and put in place for the accelerator, ATLAS detector, and the CMS detector, as well as the overall U.S. LHC

Project Execution Plan. In fiscal year 2000, the fabrication of components for the

LHC continues. The U.S. LHC project continues to be on schedule and within budget.
409

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation $334.6 M, Fiscal Year 2000 Request $342.9 M

The primary goal of nuclear physics research is to understand the structure and

properties of atomic nuclei and the fundamental forces between the constituents

that form the nucleus. Nuclear processes determine essential physical characteristics of our universe and the composition of the matter that forms it.

Beyond maintaining world leadership in basic research, the Nuclear Physics program develops and transfers knowledge to enhance the Nation’s technological and

economic competitiveness in such fields as nuclear medicine. The Nuclear Physics

program continues to be a vital source of trained people for fundamental research

and for these applied technology areas. The program supports the graduate training

of approximately 450 students per year, and typically 100 Doctorates in nuclear

physics are awarded each year in DOE-supported nuclear physics programs. A majority of these highly trained researchers will take positions in high-technology private industry.

Many future nuclear physics investigations will study questions related to the

quark presence in composite nuclei. Until the last few years, the fundamental understanding of nuclear properties has been based on the idea of a nucleus composed

of protons and neutrons that interact through a combination of weak, strong, and

electromagnetic forces. It became clear that achieving a real knowledge of many nuclear properties depends on understanding nuclear structure based on quarks, and

particles called gluons that bind the quarks together. Quarks and gluons are the

building blocks of protons and neutrons (nucleons). The Long Range Plan for the

U.S. Nuclear Physics Program, prepared by the nuclear physics community every

five years, provides the definition of the pressing issues in nuclear science and the

priorities for pursuing important scientific problems in various budget scenarios.

Studies of nuclear structure require ultra-high resolution ‘‘microscopes’’, accelerators that produce particle beams of various energies, depending on the problems to

be studied. The request is designed to provide the sufficient hours for these facilities, so that researchers may take advantage of their unique capabilities.

Research programs at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

(TJNAF), formerly CEBAF, are studying effects due to the presence of quarks in

nucleons in the nucleus. Two principal focuses of these studies are to continue to

develop an understanding of how the ‘‘spin’’ of a nucleus originates in the quarks,

and how the size of a quark cluster in a nucleus affects the strength of the interaction of that cluster with other nucleons in the nucleus. It is interesting to note

that no one has ever observed a single free quark; they always travel in closely knit

groups of threes within nucleons and twos within mesons. In fiscal year 2000,

TJNAF will operate for 4,500 hours to allow several high priority experiments to

study the quark presence in nuclei. The laboratory is fully operational, and all three

experimental halls are being utilized for experiments.

In fiscal year 2000, the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven

National Laboratory, a second major facility for the study of new ‘‘quark-based’’ nuclear physics, will be searching for a predicted quark-gluon plasma. Construction of

RHIC will be complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 1999, and the new facility

will be fully operational in fiscal year 2000. It is predicted that if a collection of

nucleons could be compressed and heated to a very high temperature by collisions

of high energy heavy nuclei, there would be a phase transition to a new state of

nuclear matter in the collision region where the quarks are ‘‘freed’’ from their

nucleon boundaries to form a so-called quark-gluon plasma.

RHIC will be a unique, world-class facility with colliding relativistic heavy ion

beams that will permit exploration of this hot, dense nuclear matter and recreate

the transition from quarks to nucleons which characterized the early evolution of

the universe. Studies with colliding heavy ion beams will provide researchers with

their first laboratory opportunity to explore this new region of nuclear matter and

nuclear interactions which up to now has only been studied theoretically. In fiscal

year 2000, RHIC will begin its first full year of operations with a 33 week running

schedule and a goal of 22 weeks (3,300 hours) for research and 11 weeks for accelerator studies.

Some of the most critical nuclear reactions in stellar burning processes involve

nuclei which, because of their short lifetimes, have not been available for laboratory

studies. Three Nuclear Physics facilities will be investigating these reactions by generating radioactive beams as new probes of nuclear structure.

Another new generation facility, the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility

(HRIBF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is now producing some of the previously

unavailable nuclear beams so that these important stellar processes can be studied

in the laboratory. Beams for experiments became available in fiscal year 1998 and
410

it is possible for the first time to study many processes which are crucial to our understanding of how nuclei were synthesized in the Big Bang. In fiscal year 2000,

the HRIBF will operate for 2,400 hours for studies of these processes and for studies

of very proton rich nuclei far from stability. Radioactive ion beams, in addition to

the stable beams normally provided, are also being produced at the ATLAS accelerator at Argonne National Laboratory and the 88-inch Cyclotron at Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory. These laboratories are pursuing research as well as

developing new techniques for the generation of radioactive beams. The experience

gained and ideas generated at all three laboratories will provide important input to

the design of a proposed new Isotope Separator On Line (ISOL) radioactive beam

facility presently being studied by the Nuclear Physics Program.

Subsequent to submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Department

has determined that the MIT/Bates accelerator will continue to operate. The Department will work with the Administration to submit a budget amendment and an

amended budget request.

The solar neutrino problem remains one of the great challenges in astrophysics.

The predicted rate of neutrino production by the sun is significantly higher than the

observed rate. There are two possible explanations for the discrepancy. Either our

understanding of solar burning is very wrong, or the neutrino has a small mass,

in contradiction to the long-held belief that it is massless. Construction of a third

major new facility to study this problem, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO),

7000 feet below the surface of the earth in Canada, was completed in fiscal year

1998. In fiscal year 1999, preliminary data is being accumulated as the detector is

being filled with ‘‘heavy water’’. SNO, which will be fully operational in fiscal year

2000, is designed to sort out this long standing solar neutrino problem. The project

involves an international collaboration among the U.S., Canada, and the United

Kingdom.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation—$222.6 M, Fiscal Year 2000 Request—$222.6 M

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Fusion Energy Sciences program continues a broad-based, fundamental research effort to acquire the knowledge base

needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source.

Fusion research provides two major benefits—in the near term there are advances

in plasma science and technology spinoffs and in the long term there is the basis

for development of a new energy source. Advances in plasma science have contributed to numerous other areas of science. In astrophysics, it has allowed an understanding of the behavior of plasma and magnetic fields in the earth’s

magnetosphere, in the sun and other stars and the galaxies. Plasma physics is integral to our understanding of magnetic storms, solar flares, shock waves in space,

magnetic fields, black holes, and star formation. In the area of large-scale scientific

computing, fusion research pioneered the use of supercomputers to solve complex

problems. Novel optical and magnetic diagnostics have been created to provide access to the extreme temperature, density, and magnetic fields prevalent in fusion

experiments. In addition, fusion and other plasma based research has provided a

stimulus to the development of large superconducting magnets, development of advanced materials, advancement in pulsed-power technology, and plasma aided manufacturing processes such as those used in semiconductor device fabrication.

Although there is no schedule for developing and deploying fusion energy systems,

the availability of fusion, as an option for large central station power plants, would

be valuable insurance against possible environmental concerns about fossil and nuclear energy. As fusion is one of the few potential sources capable of providing an

appropriate energy intensity for urbanized society in an environmentally sustainable fashion, development of fusion as a practical energy source may be essential

for the longer term. In addition, there may also be non-electric applications of fusion

in the transmutation of wastes and isotope production.

The quality of the research in this program is continuously evaluated through the

use of merit based peer review and scientific advisory committees. In addition, the

Department has requested the National Academy of Sciences to review the quality

of science in the fusion program in fiscal year 1999. We will also be carrying out

a review of fusion energy technologies using the Secretary of Energy Advisory

Board. The Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee has also been asked to assess program restructuring and the overall balance of research efforts. A program

plan/roadmap for fusion, including both magnetic and inertial and based on the

above reviews, will be completed by the end of 1999.

As a part of the ongoing restructuring of the program, the major U.S. experimental facilities—the DIII–D at General Atomics, the Alcator C-Mod at the Massa-
411

chusetts Institute of Technology, and the new National Spherical Torus Experiment

(NSTX) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)—are being managed as

national resources with multi-institutional topical teams addressing the scientific

issues and coordinating efforts on relevant facilities. The fiscal year 2000 budget request provides for substantial operation of all three facilities, along with modest upgrades.

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) located at PPPL was closed down in

fiscal year 1997 after 13 years of pioneering experiments yielding significant scientific results from producing actual fusion power in a laboratory. In fiscal year

2000 we will begin a 3-year program to decontaminate and decommission the TFTR

facility. This will provide for the removal of the TFTR tokamak and activated components from the experimental test cell and basement.

Fabrication of the NSTX, a vital new device of a much smaller scale than TFTR,

will be completed in April 1999. This proof-of-principle facility will provide the scientific basis for an innovative magnetic confinement concept that has indicated the

potential for reactor-scale plasma performance in earlier very small experiments.

In fiscal year 2000 a conceptual design will be completed for a novel compact

stellarator-tokamak experiment that combines the best features of the two leading

magnetic fusion concepts. Critical computing codes will be modernized to take full

advantage of the President’s Information Technology Initiative. In addition, three

new innovative concept exploration experiments will become fully operational.

In accordance with congressional direction and with the cooperation of our International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) partners, the Department

will complete an orderly closeout of our ITER activities in fiscal year 1999. The

R&D activities to complete the U.S. Model Coil and to be involved in its test in

Japan are proceeding through fiscal year 1999 consistent with congressional direction. The Model Coil is part of the largest superconducting magnet ever built to operate with a changing magnetic field. It was recently completed and is now en route

to Japan where the testing will be done.

The European Union, Japan, and the Russian Federation are proceeding with a

3-year extension of the ITER program to complete the design of a reduced cost and

reduced objectives facility, and to decide in 2–3 years whether and where to construct ITER. We will be involved only on the periphery of the project consistent with

traditional exchange of scientific information. If the other Parties decide to construct

a burning plasma facility like ITER, the United States will then consider whether

to propose to be involved.

With the closeout of the ITER activities, we are restructuring the fusion technology development activities to focus on our domestic needs in advancing the

science of fusion. Emphasis will be placed upon R&D that will enable existing and

near-term U.S. fusion facilities to achieve their ultimate performance capability.

New methods of modeling and predicting the behavior of fusion materials will be

investigated. R&D will continue on novel methods of enabling the new, innovative

U.S. fusion concepts to achieve their full performance. This will include applied scientific research on issues such as the use of flowing liquid walls to handle heat and

particle flux in magnetic or inertial systems and the study of advanced heating and

fueling techniques. Some international R&D collaboration will continue at foreign

facilities that have scientific research capabilities beyond those in the United States.

Also, as part of the restructuring of this element of the fusion program, a Virtual

Laboratory for Technology has been established to improve the governance of the

various, diverse enabling R&D elements through improved advocacy, coordination,

and communication.

In conclusion, the U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences program has made excellent scientific progress and has been responsive to the congressional request to restructure

the program. Fusion and plasma science make a unique contribution to the nation’s

scientific infrastructure in the near-term and provide a vital energy option for the

future. Europe and Japan are making large investments in this area. The challenge

to the United States is to continue a strong scientific base program, including making effective use of existing facilities, and to sustain a meaningful participation in

the world program.

COMPUTATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation—$157.5 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request—$198.9 M

Some of the pioneering accomplishments of the Computational and Technology

Research (CTR) program are: development of the technologies to enable remote,

interactive access to supercomputers; research and development leading to the High

Performance Parallel Interface (HiPPI) standard; and research leading to the development of the slow start algorithm for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP),
412

which enabled the Internet to scale to today’s worldwide communications infrastructure. This long history of accomplishments in the CTR program continued in fiscal

year 1999 including: the 1998 Gordon Bell Prize for Best Performance of a Supercomputing Application, the 1998 IEEE Fernbach Award for outstanding contribution

in the application of high performance computers using innovative approaches and

four R&D 100 Awards to CTR researchers in areas ranging from parallel numerical

libraries to near frictionless coatings.

The CTR program supports advanced computing research—applied mathematics,

high performance computing, networking, and operates supercomputer and associated facilities that are available to researchers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The

combination of support for fundamental research, computational and networking

tools development, and high-performance computing facilities provides scientists

with the capabilities to analyze, model, simulate, and—most importantly—predict

complex phenomena of importance to the Office of Science and the Department of

Energy.

Experiments at Office of Science facilities may generate millions of gigabytes

(petabytes) of data per year (which would fill the disk drives of millions of today’s

personal computers) presenting significant computational and communications challenges in analyzing and extracting information from the data. The wide-area, dataintensive collaborations of the Department are the focus of DOE’s efforts in the Next

Generation Internet (NGI) Initiative. CTR is responsible for DOE participation in

the NGI program to create the foundation for more powerful and versatile networks

of the Twenty-first century.

CTR also heads the Department’s Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) as a competitive, peer-reviewed program with the other program offices in SC. CTR’s role in

the SSI includes management of the selection process for the two basic science application efforts initiated in fiscal year 2000, management of the SSI Advanced

Computing and Communications Facilities, and management of the Computer

Science and Enabling Technology component.

In addition to these computing related activities CTR also manages the Laboratory Technology Research (LTR) program for the Office of Science. The mission of

this program is to support high risk, energy related research that advances science

and technology to enable applications that could significantly impact the Nation’s

energy economy. LTR fosters the production of research results motivated by a practical energy payoff through cost-shared collaborations between Office of Science laboratories and industry.

MULTI PROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES

FACILITIES SUPPORT

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations—$21.3 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request $21.3 M

Fulfillment of the DOE’s science and technology goals depends heavily on the existence and operating efficiency of the five multiprogram SC laboratories. The five

multiprogram energy laboratories are: Argonne National Laboratory-East,

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak

Ridge National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. These laboratories have over 1000 buildings with 14.7 million gross square feet an average

age of 35 years. Their estimated replacement value is over $8.7 billion. All facilities

at these laboratories are government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO). Total operating funding for these laboratories including work-for-others is over $3 billion a

year.

Portions of the infrastructure of these laboratories are old, deteriorating, and, in

some cases, obsolete. Improvements are needed to comply fully with the environment, safety and health requirements in effect today as well as to meet everyday

operational needs.

The Office of Science established the Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities

Support (MEL–FS) program in 1981 to provide a systematic approach to its stewardship responsibility for the general purpose support infrastructure of these laboratories. The MEL–FS program helps to preserve the government’s investment in infrastructure and to maintain infrastructure integrity in a reasonable and economic

manner at these laboratories.

The program supports line item construction projects to refurbish and replace inadequate general purpose facilities and infrastructure. This budget request provides

for continuation of six on-going projects and for two new projects. Projects are selected based on the Life Cycle Asset Management the Cost-Risk-Impact Scoring Matrix. The new starts are:
413

Fire Safety Improvements—Phase IV, (ANL–E).—This project will bring 30 major

facilities into compliance with the Life Safety Code and the National Fire Alarm

Code. It will significantly improve the fire detection, suppression, and reporting capabilities at the lab, thereby reducing the possibility and magnitude of personnel

or property loss during a fire.

Electrical Systems Upgrade, (ORNL).—This project will upgrade the 30–50 yearold electrical system to include: replacing overhead feeders; installing advanced protective relaying capabilities at major substations; and replacing major switchgear

and transformers. This project will increase system reliability and capacity, while

reducing the possibility of personnel injury or lost productivity due to system failures.

The program also provides funding for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. These discretionary payments are made to state or local governments where the Department or its predecessor agencies have acquired property previously subject to state or local taxation.

ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSES

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation—$1.0 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request—$1.0 M

The mission of the Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program is to conduct technical assessments of the Department’s civilian research and development programs

and to provide direction to future research and development activities. Energy Research Analyses also conducts science policy analyses, and coordinates the development of the Office of Science Strategic Plan and the DOE Science Portfolio.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request will provide funding for peer reviews of

projects in the Office of Science, Fossil Energy, and Energy Efficiency to continue

to improve the quality and relevance of DOE research and development. Other activities will include evaluation of critical planning and policy issues of DOE science

and technology using expert groups at the National Academy of Sciences, the

JASON group, etc., as appropriate.

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation—$49.8 M; Fiscal Year 2000 Request—$52.3 M

Science Program Direction provides the Federal staffing resources and associated

costs required to provide overall direction of activities carried out under the Office

of Science. This program supports staff in the High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Biological and Environmental Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Fusion Energy

Sciences, Computational and Technology Research, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support, and Energy Research Analyses programs, including management and technical support staff.

Science Program Direction also supports staff at the Chicago, Oakland, and Oak

Ridge Operations Offices directly involved in program execution. The management

and technical support staff includes scientific and technical personnel and program

management support in the areas of budget and finance, general administration,

grants and contracts, information resource management, policy review and coordination, infrastructure management and construction management.

At the direction of Congress in fiscal year 1999, funds were also provided in

Science Program Direction for Science Education. These funds will support the Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowship, National Science Bowl and the Albert Einstein

Distinguished Educator Fellowship programs. These programs utilize the Department’s scientific and technical resources to enhance the development of a diverse,

well-educated and scientifically literate workforce.

SCIENCE EDUCATION

For fiscal year 2000, DOE proposes new science education activities focusing on

assets at our laboratories to build a partnership with universities and educational

institutions. These proposed science education activities will allow university faculty

and student teams, at the undergraduate level, to participate on long term research

projects at DOE laboratories. In addition, pre-college science and math teachers will

be provided with laboratory research experience to improve their knowledge and

skills of scientific discovery and to enhance their ability to apply them in a classroom environment. Funds for these activities are included in the line program budgets.

There is a national need to maintain worldwide leadership in science and technology and to stay competitive in critical research areas such as high energy and

nuclear physics, computational science, and renewable energy technologies. Our outstanding National Laboratories help to drive the progress of science and technology
414

development in the United States. To replenish our stocks of scientists and engineers for the next century, we must invest in our nation’s youth to encourage interest in science and scientific careers. A proven method to achieve this is by introducing students to the excitement of scientific research through exposure to the National Laboratories. Historically, over two-thirds of undergraduates who have participated in DOE programs have gone on to graduate school in disciplines directly

related to DOE missions.

According to the latest research, trends show a declining number of graduates in

the natural sciences and engineering from the early eighties to 1996. This trend is

especially true among women, even those who have displayed a natural aptitude for

science and math on standardized test scores. By instituting a program that effectively promotes proficiency and inspires students, we can help to ensure our future

in science to develop the technologies that help us meet our mission and contribute

to economic growth.

The proposed science education activities will provide hands-on experience to both

students and faculty. Working with laboratory researchers links this work to real

world, mission driven challenges while improving communications and connections

between Academe and the National Laboratories. Undergraduate students and college faculty will be able to participate in and contribute to long-term research

projects at the National Laboratories, providing unique opportunities for hands on

experience with state-of-the-art equipment. This experience allows the student to

develop technical skills that build confidence and reinforce classroom learning. This,

in turn, will support a productive relationship between the national laboratory and

the participating college or university while strengthening the research at both institutions. This activity efficiently connects academia and industry with the excellent resources of the DOE laboratories and the enormous intellectual resources of

the nation’s universities. $5 million of the SC request will provide over 1000 student

and 200 faculty with fellowships for the Faculty/Student Science Teams during academic year 2000–2001.

The second new activity involves the training of pre-college teachers as part of a

national effort to strengthen K–12 student performance in science, mathematics,

and technology. The Department of Energy has a vested interest and vital role to

play if Federal efforts, to ensure science literacy for all Americans and to develop

future generations of scientists, are to be successful. This activity will provide high

school and pre-college teachers with 8-week appointments at DOE’s Office of Science

Laboratories. In these settings, teachers will work in teams with scientists and engineers and will participate in and contribute to the ongoing research of the Laboratories. Teachers will participate in designing experiments, creating mathematical

models, and collecting and analyzing data. Experience has shown that allowing

teachers to experience being treated as research colleagues provides a sense of renewal, and increases connection to their field and profession. Therefore, this activity

includes additional follow-up such as remote mentoring and opportunities for teachers to attend and make presentations at regional and national meetings of scientific

and teacher organizations. It also includes loans and grants of equipment and materials, assistance in translating their research experience into investigations, activities, and demonstrations applicable to their classroom settings, and sharing research experiences with their colleagues. $5 million of the SC request will reach

over 200 teachers nationwide annually through this activity.

ENERGY SUPPLY R&D PROGRAMS

TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation—$8.6 million; Fiscal Year 2000—$9.1 million

The Technical Information Management (TIM) program provides timely, accurate

technical information to DOE’s researchers and the public by collecting, preserving,

and disseminating scientific and technical information, the principal product resulting from DOE’s multi-billion dollar research and development programs. The TIM

program also provides worldwide energy scientific and technical information to DOE

researchers, U.S. industry, academia, and the public through interagency and international information exchange agreements and coordinates technical information-related activities across DOE and its laboratories.

In fiscal year 2000, TIM will build on the huge success of the Information Bridge

(www.doe.gov/bridge) and use digital information technology to complete a virtual

library of energy science and technology. Specifically, the Information Bridge, already with over 2 million pages of searchable full-text R&D information, will be expanded to include both the most current research findings as well as historic

records. To complete the virtual library capability, collaborative agreements with
415

U.S. science journal publishers will be forged to establish hyper-text linkages between TIM’s electronic journal citations and the publishers’ full-text on-line journal

articles. This capability will potentially save the Department millions of dollars in

duplicate paper journal subscriptions.

CLOSING

The significant increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Office of

Science recognizes the critical role that fundamental knowledge plays in achieving

the DOE missions and for the general advance of the Nation’s economy and the welfare of its citizens. The Scientific Simulation Initiative represents a major investment in producing the necessary scientific computation and information infrastructure for DOE science applications as part of a multi-agency initiative. This request

will also provide the U.S. scientific community with increased research capability

and new opportunities at the DOE scientific user facilities, including progress on

SNS, a new forefront neutron source, and upgrades of existing facilities. On behalf

of the Administration and the Department, I am pleased to present this budget for

the Office of Science and welcome the challenge to deliver results.

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

FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REQUEST—OFFICE OF SCIENCE

[In millions of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year

1998 Appropriation1999 Appropriation 2000 Request

Basic Energy Science .................................................... 651.8 799.5 888.1

Biological and Environmental Research ....................... 395.7 436.7 411.2

Fusion Energy Sciences ................................................. 224.2 222.6 222.6

Computational and Technology Research ..................... 146.8 157.5 198.9

High Energy Physics ...................................................... 668.6 695.5 697.1

Nuclear Physics ............................................................. 314.7 334.6 342.9

Multiprogram Energy Labs-Facilities Support ............... 21.3 21.3 21.3

Energy Research Analysis ............................................. 1.4 1.0 1.0

Sciences Program Direction .......................................... 37.6 49.8 52.3

SBIR/STTR ...................................................................... 80.7 ......................... ........................

Subtotal ............................................................ 2,542.8 2,718.5 2,835.4

General Reduction for Use of Prior Year Balances ...... (15.3) (13.0) ........................

Superconducting Super Collider .................................... (35.0) (7.6) ........................

Total ................................................................. 2.492.5 2,697.9 2,835.4

Technical Information Management .............................. 10.1 8.6 9.1

General Reduction for Use of Prior year Balances ....... (0.1) (0.2) ........................

Total ................................................................. 10.0 8.4 9.1

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD

Senator DOMENICI. I think what I am going to do, Dr. Krebs, is

let everyone testify and then ask questions. So let us proceed.

I think Mr. Magwood, you are next. If you have prepared remarks that you do not plan to give in their entirety, they will be

made part of the record.

NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. MAGWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief.

Mr. Chairman, I am Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, at the Department of En-
416

ergy. I am pleased to be here before you today to discuss our fiscal

year 2000 budget request.

Over the last year my office has worked very hard to focus and

prioritize our program activities among two primary goals; first, to

reassert U.S. leadership, nuclear technology nationally, second, to

conduct research and other activities that we believe are required

to prepare the country for the next century. I believe we have made

considerable progress toward both goals.

Much of our recent progress would not have been possible without the leadership demonstrated by this subcommittee in advancing nuclear research as part of the Department’s technology portfolio. We have appreciated the interest and support you have

shown in nuclear technologies and look forward to working closely

with you as we continue our efforts to maintain a viable nuclear

energy future for the nation.

Before discussing our fiscal year 2000 request, I would first like

to highlight a few points. I think it is important to reflect on some

of our past accomplishments to understand how the federal nuclear

R&D program can best serve the American people in the future.

The Department of Energy has a rich and successful history in development of nuclear technologies, dating back to the Manhattan

Project and the Atoms for Peace Program. Our accomplishments

have benefited the nation in many ways.

As we all know, nuclear power technology itself was born in federal research programs, but fewer people know that our programs

have given birth to nuclear medicine, which saves lives and reduces

health care costs, and further, as shown in the first chart, even

after nuclear power is launched as a commercial business, our past

work has resulted in accomplishments and improvements to save

American rate payers millions of dollars every year.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

We also are very proud of our work in the advanced light water

reactor program, which concluded a few years ago. Working with

industry we helped make a new generation of safe reactors available to utilities in the United States and around the world. Today,

three companies have brought three advanced nuclear power plant

technologies to the market.

Any doubt that anyone may have harbored about whether these

technologies will perform as advertised need only to go to Japan or

look at my next chart to see the first two advanced boiling water

reactors in operation at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa Nuclear Power

Station. This seven-unit facility is, I believe, the largest power

plant of any type in the world, and it supplies 23 percent of Tokyo

Electric’s capacity.

These advanced plants can now be routinely built in Japan in

less than 4 years. A similar U.S. Standard plant will be built soon

in Taiwan. Many U.S. jobs will be generated by these activities and

by other advanced nuclear power plant projects in Korea and quite

likely other nations over the next few years.

These examples demonstrate how our past accomplishments have

enabled the United States to maintain its leadership role in nuclear technology. However, the outlook for the future is uncertain.

As you can see in this next chart, the U.S. has dramatically de-
417

creased its funding for nuclear R&D over the last 20 years. In fact,

an event that reverberated throughout the international community, our R&D budget reached essentially zero in fiscal year 1998.

This next chart shows that we have been out of step and outpaced by many of our economic competitors. The blame for this, I

believe, rests largely with us. We did not change with the times

and we did not plan well for the future, but now I believe we are

on a positive track. I think we now know what is needed and what

our role should be in the future.

While we do not provide Federal research dollars overseas,

through our research initiative, we are able to show considerable

leadership in the international community by holding various discussions and meetings. Our R&D funding is essential in showing

that we are serious and credible participants in the international

exploration of nuclear technology.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE

We were very pleased that Congress approved our proposed Nuclear Energy Research Initiative for fiscal year 1999. Universities,

laboratories, industry, and the international research community

have shown great interest and excitement about the NERI program. For NERI’s first year, we have received over $300 million worth

of research proposals for work conducted over 3 years, and we have

found that research organizations are anxious to reestablish cooperation with the United States through the NERI program. As

a matter of fact, Deputy Secretary T.J. Glauthier met just last

week with a large delegation from Japan who had a long list of

projects they would like to cooperate with us on using the NERI

program as the basis.

For the coming fiscal year we are requesting a modest increase for NERI from $19 million in its first year to $25 million in fiscal

year 2000 to continue important work begun this year and initiate

a modest number of new and innovative ideas coming from universities, our national laboratories, and industry.

We are also proposing two new programs. One, the Advanced

Nuclear Medicine Initiative, is needed to apply the Department’s

unique expertise in isotopes and large inventory of alpha-emitting

isotopes to fight against cancer, arthritis, and many other illnesses.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION

The other is the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization [NEPO] program. The NEPO program is designed to conduct research and develop technologies that will be needed to optimize the efficiency

and safety of today’s nuclear power plants as they continue to operate for the long term. NEPO can help assure that existing operating nuclear power plants continue to serve our national interest

by producing electricity in all weather conditions, while reducing

harmful air emissions.

As you can see in this chart, efficiency-enhanced nuclear power

plants comprise the largest contribution to utility plant to reductions in CO2 emissions.

The next chart demonstrates that the operation of nuclear

plants——
418

Senator DOMENICI. Can you leave that one up for a moment?

What is this again?

Mr. MAGWOOD. This represents the pledges made by the utilities

in the United States, leading up to the year 2000. I think this covered approximately a 10-year period. It shows that in efficiency improvements, the existing nuclear power plants made up 33 percent

of all the pledges that utilities made in their reduction of CO2

emissions, compared to fossil plants which only contributed 14 percent, and even improvements in energy efficiency, which contributed 18 percent.

So even though we are not building nuclear power plants, making the existing plants more efficient has proven to be a major contributor to reducing offsetting CO2 emissions.

The next chart shows that the operational nuclear plants were

essential to states striving to meet the Clean Air Act requirements.

Increased generation of nuclear plants in these states enabled

these states to meet 37 percent of the emission reduction targets

required by the Clean Air Act. Operation Nuclear Plants can continue to provide these benefits into the middle of the next century.

While at $5 million, our request for NEPO is very modest, we believe that it will enable us to demonstrate the needed leadership

at a time of great uncertainty in the electric utility industry. You

need only look at our joint comprehensive DOE Electric Power Research Institute Strategic R&D plan to see how even the possibility

of a new DOE program in this area has helped the industry define

and organize the long-term research needs for existing nuclear

power plants.

Further, industry has committed to match our investments, at

least on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and we believe this effort is a vital

component of our effort to maintain nuclear power for now and also

in the long term. I would also like to note that we are relying more

than at any other time in our history on independent external advice. The best example of this was when in October 1998, Secretary

Richardson established the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory

Committee, or NERAC, to help us plan for the future.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

As you can see in this last chart, we have 28 independent prominent individuals on NERAC, including experts in fields such as nuclear technology, medicine, education, policy, economics, and nonproliferation. NERAC is chaired by Dr. James Duderstadt, a former

professor and President of the University of Michigan.

This group is working with us to develop a nuclear energy R&D

long-term plan, a road map on the nation’s nuclear science and

technology infrastructure, and a long-term isotope research and

production plan. In addition, NERAC has formed a special subcommittee to help us guide the NEPO program and plan for the

long-term technology needs of existing nuclear power plants.

I think you will probably note that we still have Dr. Glenn T.

Seaborg listed, although I think we did footnote that he is deceased. I could not just bring myself to quite take his name off the

list at this point, but I guess I will get around to that at some

point, we will miss his counsel greatly.
419

In closing, nuclear power and nuclear technology benefit Americans in many ways. U.S. nuclear plants provide a fifth of our electricity. Nuclear medicine is a part of every day life, with over

40,000 diagnostic imaging procedures performed at U.S. hospitals

every day.

We believe that nuclear technology can continue to benefit the

American people in the future and with your help, support, and

counsel, the Department will play a role in pointing the way.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I know there are many issues that interest the subcommittee,

ranging from the depleted uranium hexafloride to the future of Argonne National Laboratory and the Fast Flux test facility, and I

look forward to discussing all of these issues with you today.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am William D. Magwood, IV,

Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. I am pleased to have this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2000 budget

request to you today. As you know, this is my first time before this committee as

Director and I look forward to working with the Committee as you review our priorities and allocate resources for the next fiscal year.

As we stand at the threshold of a new century, the United States remains the

most powerful force for peace, prosperity, and democracy in the world. We remain

a nation with abundant resources and capabilities. The United States remains at

the forefront of technological and scientific advancement—ranging from air flight

and space exploration, harnessing the atom, to medicine and computing. Throughout, government has been a partner in developing technology for the American people—meeting vital national security interests and providing for the well being and

prosperity of the nation and its people. For the Office of Nuclear Energy, these interests are represented by the following strategic objectives:

—providing for energy diversity and security,

—developing Department of Energy mission critical technologies,

—maintaining vital nuclear research facilities and supporting a strong knowledge

base for nuclear technology in the 21st century, and

—securing our nation’s environmental future.

This program has a rich history, dating back to the Manhattan Project and the

Atoms for Peace Program. For over 50 years, we have supported research and development that produced the prototypes for reactor technologies that are in commercial

use throughout the world today. Similarly, for over 50 years, the Department, with

its infrastructure of reactors, accelerators, and hot cells, has developed and brought

to the American people, vital isotopes used for medicine, research and industrial applications. Today, we are working in partnership with clinicians, researchers, and

industry to respond to the needs of the 21st century. For almost 40 years, we have

produced radioisotopic generators and heat sources for space and for national security missions—missions that we expect to continue well into the next century. And

as leaders in development and operation of nuclear reactor technology, for over 50

years we have managed the safe operation of nuclear energy’s research reactors.

Today, we support the important work of the Office of Science and others by managing the safe operation of all of the Department’s research reactors. Finally, we

take seriously our stewardship responsibilities associated with prior missions of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and our landlord responsibilities at the Test

Reactor Area at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and

the former government gaseous diffusion sites.

Overarching our strategy for the 21st century is the fundamental belief that the

United States must retain its leadership position in nuclear energy—to be a player

in shaping the international landscape and advancing the interests of the American

people at home and abroad.
420

1The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Federal Energy Research

and Development Challenges of the Twenty-First Century, Report of the Energy Research and Development Panel, November 5, 1997. 2 U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Directors, Recommendations for a Department of Energy R&D Agenda, December 1997.

ROADMAP FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Our strategic framework, which flows down from the President’s National Security Strategy for a New Century, October 1998 and the Department’s Comprehensive

National Energy Strategy, April 1998, provides the basis for our fiscal year 2000

budget request. In addition, the resources applied to implement this strategy are

shaped in part by the recommendations of the President’s Committee of Advisors

on Science and Technology (PCAST) 1 and by the response to these recommendations

provided by the laboratory directors of seven of our national laboratories.2

In 1997, the PCAST panel on Federal Energy Research and Development (R&D)

identified nuclear energy as one of the technologies that could alleviate global climate change and address other energy challenges, including reducing dependence

on foreign oil, diversifying the U.S. domestic electricity supply system, expanding

exports of U.S. energy technologies, and reducing air and water pollution. PCAST

recommended that the Department establish nuclear energy R&D programs initially

funded at $60 million, growing over five years to over $100 million. Although our

funding levels do not approach the levels recommended by PCAST, we are optimistic

about the future of our nuclear energy research and development activities as we

demonstrate the value of this work to the Nation. Today, the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology remains focused on its core R&D missions and we are

working hard to establish meaningful plans and direction for the future.

This past October, Secretary of Energy Richardson established the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) to provide advice to the Department

on the direction of our nuclear technology and research programs in the 21st century. This committee, chaired by Dr. James Duderstadt, former President of the

University of Michigan, is comprised of 28 eminent senior policy, science and technology experts from academia, industry, and our national laboratories with expertise ranging from reactor operations and nuclear engineering to biological sciences

and nuclear medicine, to environmental sciences, economics and strategic planning.

The membership of this committee is diverse, including an environmental advocate,

senior officials from industry, researchers in nuclear medicine, laboratory directors,

and a former Member of the Senate.

As their initial charges, I have asked this group to help us formulate our Nuclear

Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap, to help us develop long-term plans

for our nuclear energy research program and our medical isotope production and research programs, and to help us identify the technology needs of current U.S. nuclear power plants.

This spring, the NERAC will complete the Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap, evaluating our present and future requirements for neutron

generating facilities and assessing the viability of our existing infrastructure of hot

cells, accelerators, and reactors to meet the Nation’s needs for basic science research, applied technology research, national security, space nuclear power, and isotope production and related missions over the next 20 years. This roadmap represents the first step in managing our long-term nuclear R&D infrastructure and

in the short-term, it is an important tool in balancing future missions at our nuclear

R&D facilities and in identifying strengths and weaknesses in our current infrastructure. Additionally, Secretary Richardson has tasked NERAC to provide in the

roadmap, their recommendations on whether the Fast Flux Test Facility should be

considered to meet the Nation’s requirements for isotope production or other important and enduring missions of the Department.

The expertise of NERAC is deep and their mandate broad, ranging from helping

us to define the direction and character of our future programs, to providing independent oversight of our research programs, to providing recommendations on our

priorities.

PROVIDING FOR ENERGY DIVERSITY AND SECURITY

Today, as in the past, our research and development initiatives are the centerpiece of our program. Although our focus has changed over time, our R&D is based

on the fundamental belief that nuclear energy and technology is and will remain

an important element in our energy mix and will continue to provide important

technological benefits and advancements for the nation. Today, with increasing pressure to reduce the discretionary spending and with R&D dollars more constrained
421

in both government and industry, we must adopt new approaches to advance nuclear technology—through leveraging our federal R&D dollars with others and

greater collaboration among our universities, our laboratories, and the private sector—to get the best return on investment for the nation. And to further leverage

our investment, I am committed to expanding international cooperation.

Today, 104 reactors are operating to provide about 20 percent of the electricity

generated for the American people. This is the second largest source of electricity

behind coal. As we look to the future, these plants are critical to maintaining compliance with our existing emission laws and to assuring the nation maintains a

flexible portfolio of energy supply options. By 2010, about 10 percent of plants will

reach the end of their operating lifetimes, about 50 percent by 2020, and the remainder by 2030. Re-licensing and extending operations for these plants for another

20 years can have a dramatic impact on sustaining generating capacity, with the

added benefit of offsetting carbon emissions from other sources. Without re-licensing, we face a significant decrease in capacity and dramatic increases in emissions

in the near term. With the right strategies by government and industry, these

plants can continue to operate safely, reliably, and efficiently well into the next century.

As you know, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, Congress funded nuclear energy research

that the Department cost-shared with industry to develop the advanced light water

reactors, a program established to ensure the viability of nuclear energy and to advance energy security and diversity in the 21st century. Today, three vendors have

brought two ‘‘evolutionary’’ designs and one ‘‘passive design’’ technology to commercialization, with the first two advanced boiling water reactors in operation today

overseas. In November, I visited the Kashiwazaki Kariwa Nuclear Power Station,

where the first General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactors are operating. An

impressive sight, this is the world’s largest nuclear power station, with seven units

supplying about 23 percent of Tokyo Electric’s total capacity. In addition, the two

GE boiling water reactors represent today’s state-of-the-art technology.

Today, with the completion of the advanced reactor design program, our R&D initiatives are focused on two primary areas:

—The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), a new program funded in fiscal

year 1999 by the Congress at a level of $19 million, aimed at reducing the barriers to the long-term use of nuclear energy at home and abroad. I am pleased

to report to you that the response to this program has been exceptional. The

Department received 307 proposals for this program, representing over $300

million in potential research. We are not only pleased with the number of proposals, but with the teaming occurring among the laboratories, our universities,

and industry and with the innovative ideas coming forward. In fiscal year 2000,

we are requesting an increase of this program to $25 million, to continue the

important work begun this year and for a modest increase in the number of proposals that can be selected.

—The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program, a new program in fiscal year 2000 to meet our national interest for safe, secure, and reliable access
422

to energy in the 21st century. These plants are significant to our nation’s energy portfolio and represent a critical infrastructure that is needed beyond the

timeframes under which the existing plants are licensed. This program, aimed

at reducing barriers to efficient and safe operation—increasing plant capacity

from 71 percent in 1997 to 85 percent in 2010 and addressing issues associated

with plant aging—would be 50–50 cost-shared with industry through the Electric Power Research Institute, guided by a joint EPRI/DOE strategic plan, and

coordinated with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

These initiatives are based on the recognition of a clear distinction between the

respective roles of government and industry in advancing nuclear technology in the

21st century. Industry must continue to carry the burden of short term research and

they are meeting this challenge very well with an investment well in excess of $100

million annually. On the other hand, there is a clear role for the Department in providing for the longer term research of initiatives such as NERI and working with

industry to fill the void on intermediate term research—research equally needed to

protect our critical energy supply infrastructure.

DEVELOPING DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

MISSION CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES

For well over 50 years, we have been developing, producing, and delivering hundreds of types of stable and radioactive isotopes for research, industrial applications,

and for medicine. The dramatic advancements made in nuclear medicine during the

second half of this century are, in large part, because the Department and its predecessors had the foresight to pursue development of isotopes as a mission that was

ancillary to other historical missions of the Department.

In medicine alone, the application of stable and radioactive isotopes for research,

diagnosis, and therapies is an indispensable and growing component of our health

care. Isotopes reduce health care costs and improve the quality of patient care. Each

day, 40,000 patients benefit from isotope-based medical imaging techniques. In industry, isotopes are used for a multitude of applications, ranging from radiography,

to sterilization of medical instruments, to lasers and smoke detectors. The NERAC

projects that demand for medical isotopes can be expected to increase between 8 and

17 percent per year over the next 20 years.

Today, and in the future, our mission remains focused on bringing new and improved isotope applications, products, and services to the American people for use

in medicine, industry, and research and on assuring that a reliable supply of isotopes exists for the nation. This program operates with a revolving fund, with about

two-thirds derived from federal appropriations and one-third from annual sales. It

is our policy to aggressively pursue opportunities for private sector involvement in

production, distribution, and sales of isotopes, particularly commercial isotopes, and

we have successfully privatized several key operations, which previously had required a federal appropriation. These privatizations allow us to decrease our cost

of operations while providing a revenue stream from the royalties derived from the

privatization.

In the last two years, we completed two important privatizations—one, of hot cell

facilities for production and processing of iridium-192 and other isotopes in Idaho

and another, of a technology developed and patented by the Department for production of a promising new cancer isotope, yttrium-90, derived from strontium left over

from weapons production at Hanford. Although each of these privatizations were different, both are examples of DOE doing what it does best—developing an isotope

for treatment of devastating illnesses or for other applications—and industry doing

what they do best—bringing the product to market with no additional cost to the

taxpayer.
423
424

In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting funding to continue the construction of the

beam spur at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) facility so that it

can be accomplished while the facility is in an outage and can come on line in fiscal

year 2001 with no significant interruption in the supply of isotopes. The beam spur

enables us to continue to provide vital short lived isotopes that can only be produced

in an accelerator of this size.

By the end of this fiscal year, modifications to the Annular Core Research Reactor

and associated Hot Cell Facilities at Sandia National Laboratories will be completed

and the facilities will be ready for private sector use as a backup source of molybdenum-99, a precursor isotope to the most widely used diagnostic imaging isotope,

technetium–99m . With this accomplishment, the goal of achieving the capacity for

an emergency backup supply will be met and no appropriation in fiscal year 2000

is requested.

Lastly, we propose to launch the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, a new

program for fiscal year 2000, to apply the Department’s unique expertise and capabilities in isotopes to advance nuclear medicine technology. This initiative will sponsor nuclear medical science through university scholarships and internships in nuclear medicine and support peer-reviewed research including use of the Department’s large inventory of alpha-emitting isotopes available from DOE to fight a

spectrum of illnesses, including various types of cancer. This initiative responds to

a need not currently addressed by existing Departmental programs.

Additionally, we will continue to provide safe, proven, reliable, maintenance-free

radioisotope power systems for use in deep space and national security applications

as we have for 38 years. In 1997, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched the Cassini spacecraft to Saturn using electric power from radioisotope thermoelectric generators provided by the Department. Previous NASA

space exploration missions that have used radioisotope power systems include the

Apollo lunar module and the Pioneer, Viking, Voyager, Galileo and Ulysses, Cassini

and Mars Pathfinder spacecrafts.

Future NASA missions will require even lighter, lower power systems, more efficient energy conversion, and new materials. Efforts are underway to meet this requirement by developing an Advanced Radioisotope Power System that uses a new

technology. In fiscal year 2000, the program will complete fabrication and initiate

testing of module units of this technology, proceed to design and fabrication of a fullscale qualification unit. In fiscal year 2000, we will continue to develop the stateof-the-art power supplies that could cover a range of power levels required to support future NASA space missions. These technologies include advanced conversion

concepts, new materials, and heat source technologies. Potential new NASA missions over the next six to eight years requiring radioisotope power systems include

missions to Mars, Europa, and Pluto and the Solar Probe mission to the Sun.

Because our supply of plutonium-238 used in these systems will be exhausted in

the first half of the next decade, we are conducting an environmental impact analysis. The EIS on re-establishing a plutonium-238 production capability will be completed early in fiscal year 2000. Facilities at Oak Ridge, Idaho, and Hanford are currently being evaluated and the Department has also sought expressions of interest

from the private sector for irradiation services. Additionally, we are currently evaluating whether assembly and test operations performed at the Mound Site should remain at Mound or should be transferred to another site.

DEVELOPING DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

MAINTAINING VITAL NUCLEAR RESEARCH FACILITIES AND SUPPORTING A STRONG

EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Government, industry, and academia alike face similar challenges today as we

seek to sustain our critical nuclear science and technology infrastructures—our facilities and our human resources. Like much of the industrial base which took shape

during and in the years following World War II, the nuclear industry is a mature

industry, comprised of scientists and engineers, many of whom are currently retiring or will retire over the next decade. Along with this, our nuclear science and engineering programs at universities and colleges are challenged by declining enrollments and aging facilities. The Department as well faces these same challenges to

our own workforce and our own facilities.

Inextricably linked with our R&D programs are our initiatives to arrest the eroding nuclear energy infrastructure. Opportunities for new and exciting R&D serves

not just to advance breakthrough technologies for the American people, but serves

to attract the best and brightest to our universities, our laboratories, and our industry in general. To strengthen our knowledge base, in fiscal year 2000 we propose

to apply a total of $11.3 million to enhance nuclear research and education pro-
425

grams at universities and colleges across the country. This Committee has been a

strong proponent for this program and we have seen it grow over the last several

years. I am pleased to submit it again at about the level you appropriated last year.

I am also pleased to include in it, the Nuclear Engineering Education Research

(NEER) program, vital to attracting and retaining faculty, at the same level as appropriated last year. These initiatives under the university programs will help ensure the future ability of the U.S. to continue to apply the nuclear sciences to medical research, the development of new materials, and future environmental and energy challenges.

To strengthen the infrastructure at our universities and ensure that university research reactors are available into the next decade, we are proposing a modest increase in the program in fiscal year 2000 to assist in the maintenance and modernization of university research reactors by replacing outdated equipment and upgrading experimental capabilities under the reactor upgrade activity. University research reactors are a little-known but essential part of the nation’s scientific infrastructure. Currently, there are 28 university research reactors at 26 universities in

21 states. These research reactors have contributed to innumerable important scientific discoveries ranging for analysis of moon rocks to dating of dinosaur bones,

to new methods of targeting and destroying rare brain tumors. Quoting John Bernard from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ‘‘the public thinks they are

all producing electricity, but these research reactors are much like a microscope.

You’re producing a beam of neutrons to see the world.’’

In the 1990’s the Department concentrated the responsibility for management of

the Department’s reactors in the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology,

where the core of the U.S. government’s expertise in nuclear energy research, technology and engineering resides. Among the reactors under our purview are the High

Flux Isotope Reactor, the High Beam Flux Reactor, our Annular Core Research Reactor, the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), and the Fast Flux Test Facility. We also

serve as landlord for the Test Reactor Area site at Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory, where the ATR is located, and where we are responsible

for providing utility services and maintaining the site area in a safe and environmentally compliant configuration. As many of you know, there was an accident last

year at the TRA during a maintenance operation at a facility occupied by another

DOE program in which carbon dioxide inadvertently discharged from a fire suppression system. The accident caused one death and several life-threatening illnesses.

I want to underscore the sincere regret expressed by Secretary Richardson when he

said, ‘‘our hearts go out to the family and friends of Kerry Austin.’’ This is an accident that never should have happened and I pledge that the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology will work hard to ensure that safety remains at the

forefront of all of our activities.
426

My office is also responsible for the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), the most recently deployed reactor in the Department, operating between 1982 and 1992.

Today, it is shutdown and maintained in standby and this spring Secretary Richardson will decide whether to shut it down permanently or pursue civilian missions for

the reactor. To provide a more informed decision, NERAC will complete this month,

the Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap, to assess our present

and future requirements for neutron generating facilities in light of our existing and

currently planned infrastructure of hot cells, accelerators and reactors. This roadmap will include recommendations on whether there is a future need for FFTF to

meet mission critical requirements.

SECURING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURE

The Department is responsible for safe storage and disposal of approximately

8,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel containing about 2,700 metric tons of uranium and

transuranic elements from various civilian and defense-related programs. Some of

this fuel contains materials that are highly reactive or are in a condition that precludes their disposal in a geologic repository. A technology which may someday assist the Department in dealing with this spent fuel challenge is the

electrometallurgical treatment technology under development at Argonne National

Laboratory (ANL). The demonstration of this technology will be completed this August on a portion of sodium-bearing spent fuel removed from the Experimental

Breeder Reactor-II (EBR–II) located at ANLWest in Idaho. In fiscal year 2000, we

expect to complete an Environmental Impact Statement on the use of this technology for the remaining EBR–II spent fuel as well as certain other spent fuels. In

concert with this, we expect the National Research Council to report back to the Department in that same time frame with their final assessment of the technology. Together, these activities will provide the technical basis for a decision on whether to

proceed with full scale operations of the Fuel Conditioning Facility and treatment

of the fuel.

Additionally, we will complete the processing of the sodium coolant from the

EBR–II and Fermi-I reactors in fiscal year 2000, enabling us to shut down the last

of the EBR–II facilities, with the exception of the Fuel Conditioning Facility, used

for the demonstration project. It will be retained in standby pending a decision on

treatment of the remaining sodium bonded fuel.

My office is also responsible for important activities related to the Federal uranium enrichment program that were not transferred to USEC, Inc. when it was
427

privatized in July 1998, including, sale of surplus natural assay uranium and management of the about 57,000 14-ton depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinders located

at the gaseous diffusion sites in Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and the Oak

Ridge Site in Tennessee. For the past several years, we have worked to improve

storage conditions for the cylinders through inspections, maintenance, and monitoring. As required by Public Law 105–204, signed by the President last July, the

Department is required to prepare a plan to begin by January 31, 2004, construction

of plants at Portsmouth and Paducah to treat and recycle the depleted UF6 inventory. The initial plan was submitted to this Committee on March 12, 1999. The final

plan will be submitted in May and we are confident it will meet the intent expressed by Congress in the enacted legislation.

Mr. Chairman, Nuclear Energy’s fiscal year 2000 funding request is outlined in

the following table:

Budget Authority

[Dollars in Thousands]

Program Element Request Fiscal year 2000

Nuclear Energy R&D ...................................................................................... $87,345

Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems .................................................. 37,000

Test Reactor Area ..................................................................................... 9,000

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support .................................. 11,345

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative ....................................................... 25,000

Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization ....................................................... 5,000

Isotope Support ................................................................................................ 21,000

Termination Costs ........................................................................................... 65,000

Fast Flux Test Facility .................................................................................... 30,000

Uranium Programs .......................................................................................... 41,000

Program Direction ........................................................................................... 24,960

Total nuclear energy, science and technology request ....................... $269,305

I will now provide the Committee with greater detail regarding the importance

of our programs and the benefits they provide.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D)

The mission of the Nuclear Energy R&D program is to conduct advanced research

and development in areas such as nuclear power and space power systems. In addition, this program supports nuclear engineering education and enhancement of the

Nation’s nuclear science infrastructure. It also supports the infrastructure needs for

the Test Reactor Area at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL).

ADVANCED RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS

The Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies have provided radioisotope power systems for use in space and terrestrial applications for 38 years. These

systems are safe, proven, reliable, maintenance-free, and capable of producing either

heat or electricity for many years under the conditions required for deep space and

national security missions. The unique characteristics of these systems make them

especially suited for applications where large arrays of solar cells or batteries are

not practical, for example, at large distances from the sun where there is little sunlight or in harsh environments. To date, the Department has provided over 40 radioisotope power systems for use on a total of 25 spacecraft. In fiscal year 1998, NASA

launched the Cassini spacecraft to Saturn, entirely electrically powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generators provided by the Department. Critical national

security activities and NASA missions to explore deep space and the surfaces of

planets could not occur without these systems.

In fiscal year 2000, the program will continue developing new, state-of-the-art

power supplies required to support both future NASA space exploration, such as a

mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa, a mission to Pluto, and the Solar Probe mission

to the Sun, and national security applications. In keeping with NASA’s new philosophy of smaller, lighter weight and more technologically advanced spacecraft, these

future NASA missions will require lower power, highly efficient lighter radioisotope

power systems. In fiscal year 1998, DOE initiated the development of the next generation radioisotope power system, using a more efficient energy conversion technology to achieve a lighter weight, more efficient power system. In fiscal year 2000,
428

the focus will be completing the design of the new system and proceeding to fabricate a flight qualification unit to more accurately assess its performance against

NASA needs.

The outyear planning for future space missions reflects arrangements with the

national security users and NASA that the Department will sustain the facility infrastructure to produce radioisotope power systems. This infrastructure represents

the sole national capability to produce radioisotope systems. In accordance with arrangements with our customer agencies, NASA or other users will provide funds to

the Department to pay for mission-specific costs, including mission-specific development, hardware fabrication, and other mission support costs.

A key factor in the ability to provide radioisotope systems for future missions is

to have an adequate supply of the radioisotope Pu-238 that is used in all of these

systems. It is very important to note that Pu-238 is not weapons-grade material and

is not usable as an explosive in nuclear weapons. The current inventory of this isotope, with the exception of approximately nine kilograms that were purchased from

Russia, was produced in the Savannah River reactors and processed in the HB-Line

facilities that are shutdown or are in the process of being shut down. For the longterm, the Department has initiated an environmental analysis to evaluate sites for

supporting domestic production of Pu-238. Sites to be evaluated include DOE’s Hanford Site, the INEEL, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The Department is currently analyzing whether the assembly and test operations

performed in Building 50 at Mound should be retained at the Mound Site or whether the functions should be moved to another site. As you know, this site is being

environmentally restored by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management and they

plan to turn the site over to the private sector and exit the site in 2005. In general,

it is the Department’s policy to reduce our footprint where it can be demonstrated

to produce a savings for the taxpayer and we are currently reassessing the cost involved in retaining operations at Mound versus costs of consolidating at other sites.

In the meantime, progress on the environmental impact statement, begun this fiscal

year, will continue at a slower pace until we complete this important assessment.

The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems Program is an important part of the

nuclear energy research and development efforts, and the Department will continue

to manage this program in an effective and cost-efficient manner. We are submitting

a report to Congress summarizing the status of actions taken to streamline the program. In conjunction with the user agencies, the Department will responsibly maintain the capability to supply these systems for future missions that are important

to the exploration of space and vital to U.S. national security interests.

TEST REACTOR AREA LANDLORD

The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is responsible for the landlord program for the Test Reactor Area of the INEEL. The TRA Landlord Program

provides essential services to the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) and its related facilities, including the ATR Critical Facility reactor, the TRA Hot Cells that were recently privatized for isotope production, and the INEEL Applied Engineering and

Development Laboratories, as well as a machine shop that supports the entire site.

These facilities are operated primarily to support vital nuclear reactor testing and

materials testing for the Office of Naval Reactors, but are also operated for other

programs, including our isotope program. This area of the site is expected to continue to perform national security and civilian missions well into the 21st century.

As such, we must protect this critical infrastructure—maintaining facilities and

services at a level that ensures protection of the workers and the public, the environment and minimizes programmatic disruptions.

In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $9 million for the landlord program, a $2.3

million increase over last year. Most of the increase is directed to ensuring that we

meet commitments in managing our legacy waste and in continuing the electric utility line item project, which will be completed in 2003. The electrical utility project

reconfigures the 40 year old electrical utility system to meet current needs and replace aged switchgear, panels, and transformers for which replacement parts are not

available or which have reached the end of their useful lifetime and are not economical to repair. Additionally, we will continue the fire protection upgrade line

item in fiscal year 2000, at a lower level than previous years, and then with a

slightly increased level of effort the following year to bring it to completion. The fire

protection line item was initiated several years ago to retrofit existing facilities to

meet provisions of the National Fire Protection Agency’s Life Safety Code and provide an adequate level of protection, as needed, for building occupancy. We feel that

this project is particularly important in light of the suppression system- related accident that occurred last year in this area of the site.
429

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE

World leadership in nuclear science and technology is vital to the United States

from the perspective of national security, international influence, and global security. The United States has more nuclear power plants in operation today than any

other nation in the world and most of the world’s operating nuclear power plants

are based on United States technology. Many countries, especially the fast-growing

economies in Asia and the Pacific Rim, are interested in building new plants using

our designs. Given the projected growth in global electrical energy demand as developing nations industrialize, our vital strategic interests in addressing global climate

change, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear safety, and economic competitiveness, and

our need to satisfy the growing domestic needs for energy in an environmentally responsible manner, the United States must maintain its scientific and technological

leadership in nuclear energy.

Recognizing this need, the PCAST Panel on Federal Energy Research and Development recommended in 1997 that the Department establish a new nuclear energy

research effort to address the key issues affecting nuclear energy’s potential as a

future energy source. The key issues affecting nuclear energy’s future include disposal of spent fuel, concerns about nuclear proliferation, plant safety and uncompetitive economics. PCAST recommendations are that the Department competitively select, through a peer-review process, proposals from universities, national laboratories and industry to conduct scientific and engineering research in the areas of

proliferation-resistant reactors and fuel cycles; new reactor designs with higher efficiency, lower cost, and improved safety; lower output reactors for use in the global

market; and new techniques for the management and storage of nuclear waste.

The Department’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology implemented

the PCAST recommendations in fiscal year 1999 by establishing the Nuclear Energy

Research Initiative (NERI) to fund new and innovative scientific and engineering research on these key issues and to preserve our nation’s nuclear science and technology leadership. The initiative has as its primary mission the advancement of nuclear science and engineering research over the long-term.

We are very pleased with the response to the NERI program. The Department received 307 final proposals from national laboratories, universities, and industry, representing over $300 million in potential research. Additionally, a significant fraction

of the proposals submitted by the national laboratories included teaming with universities and others. These individual and collaborative research proposals are being

peer-reviewed by independent experts for scientific and technical merit and will be

evaluated for relevance to the Department’s nuclear energy objectives prior to funding selection. The process by which grants are awarded under NERI is modeled

after other successful investigator-initiated independent peer review processes, such

as those used by the National Science Foundation and DOE’s Office of Science. As

with all of the nuclear research programs, the NERI will receive guidance from the

Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee.

The Department strongly supports the continuation of this vital scientific and engineering research effort in fiscal year 2000 and we request $25 million for this program, an increase of $6 million over fiscal year 1999 to continue important research

begun this year and to award a modest number of new proposals in fiscal year 2000.

In doing so, we seek to address key obstacles affecting the expanded future use of

nuclear energy in the U.S.; advance the state of nuclear technology to maintain our

competitive position in overseas and future domestic markets; promote and maintain nuclear science and engineering capabilities to meet future technical challenges; and improve the performance, efficiency, proliferation resistance, reliability,

and economics of nuclear energy applications.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM

Over the last couple of years, there have been significant changes in the strategic

landscape—a growing recognition of the importance that our existing nuclear power

plants play in meeting the needs of the nation for electricity during the first half

of the next century and their importance in meeting international commitments on

climate change. These plants are also critical to helping utilities meet state implementation plans and EPA requirements for Clean Air Act compliance.

Two years ago, with electricity restructuring looming and concerns over regulatory

uncertainty, the prediction was that the existing nuclear plants were doomed—that

fewer plants would seek license extensions and that many would shut down prematurely. Today, with consolidations in ownership occurring and several plants announcing their intention to seek license extensions, it is clear that there is a future

for many of the U.S. nuclear power plants. However, for these plants to remain viable beyond 2020, both government and industry must take action—government re-
430

ducing regulatory and other barriers to operation and industry, investing capital in

the upgrading their facilities for the future and investing in short-term R&D. Also,

together, government and industry should explore intermediate-term evolutionary

technologies to sustain these plants. For these reasons, the Department is resubmitting its proposal for the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program in fiscal year 2000 to address the issues that could prevent continued operation of existing U.S. nuclear power plants.

The DOE Energy Information Administration projects that even with aggressive

energy efficiency measures, U.S. electricity consumption will increase 1.4 percent

per year through 2020 the equivalent of seven large 1000-megawatt power plants

each year. During this same period, about 127,000 megawatts of existing electricity

generating capacity could be retired because of age, competitive pressures, and as

part of U.S. utility measures to meet clean air standards. In order to meet the demand for new baseload capacity, the Energy Information Agency estimates that the

U.S. would need to build the equivalent of over 1,000 new fossil plants by 2020. This

magnitude of building would require a huge economic investment over the next 20

years with the potential for significant increases in air emissions.

However, continued operation of our existing nuclear power plants can mitigate

this need and dramatically reduce or offset air emissions. For example, continued

operation of 90 percent of the existing nuclear power plants through their current

license terms would displace over 3,950 million metric tons of carbon emissions between 1995 and 2035. Extending the licenses of 75 percent of these nuclear plants

could reduce emissions by 64 million metric tons between 1995 and 2010, 208 million metric tons by 2015, and 2260 million metric tons by the middle of the next

century, when the last existing plant would shutdown.

The Department’s Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program is proposed to address issues associated with operating existing nuclear power plants, in

cost-shared cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and in

coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a collaborative program,

industry would share a minimum of 50 percent of the cost and the program would

be guided by a joint DOE/EPRI strategic plan. The proposed program would involve

the nation’s national laboratories, universities, and industry and although no federal

research dollars would be allocated internationally, the program would benefit from

substantial international collaboration and coordination.

Specifically, we propose the following R&D initiatives:

Managing the long-term effects of nuclear plant aging.—R&D conducted under

NEPO would provide a better understanding of material degradation mechanisms

and how they occur, enabling development of cost-effective aging management strategies which will provide capabilities to easily prevent, detect, or repair the degradation.

Improving nuclear power plant capacity factors from 71 percent in 1997 to 85 percent in 2010.—This initiative focuses on improving the long-term economic performance of current plants through development of technologies that will improve equipment reliability, lower operating costs, and increase power output while maintaining

high levels of safety.

Optimizing power generation through efficiency and productivity improvements.—

Current nuclear plants were designed and are operating with technology developed

over 25 years ago. As plants age, components and parts degrade or become obsolete,

introducing inefficiencies, added costs, and unreliability. There have been significant

technology advancements over the last 25 years that are applicable to power generation, particularly in computers, communications, materials, sensors and digital electronics, and artificial intelligence that provide more accurate, reliable and cost-effective technologies; however, most of these technologies are not qualified to meet Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Further R&D developments will

produce new technology applications that meet regulatory requirements and that

will improve plant operation and maintenance, increasing overall plant output. This

initiative is focused on demonstrations of technologies necessary to achieve regulatory acceptance of the new technologies.

Research performed under this program would be prioritized by the NERAC subcommittee on operating nuclear power plant research, coordination and planning.

UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

The Department of Energy’s University Nuclear Science and Reactor Support Program conducts the important task of supporting nuclear science education and research in the United States. Under this program, we work with universities and colleges across the nation, with assistance from private industry, to maintain nuclear

education programs, support outstanding students, undertake innovative nuclear
431

engineering research, and continue the operation of research reactors. Much of the

program funding is used to provide fresh fuel to these reactors, to remove spent fuel,

and to upgrade the operational capabilities at the university research reactors at 26

universities in 21 states.

To ensure that these valuable educational tools remain available into the next

decade, in fiscal year 2000, for the third straight year we plan to support U.S. universities and colleges in their efforts to modernize reactor safety systems and improve their operational capabilities. These reactors are critical and unique assets of

the U.S. scientific infrastructure. They are used for educational purposes, to conduct

important medical and materials research, and to make vital isotopes. In fiscal year

2000, we will continue to supply fresh fuel to, and transport spent fuel from, universities requiring assistance. In addition, we will continue converting university reactors that currently use highly enriched uranium fuel to low enriched uranium fuel,

thus advancing our nonproliferation goals. Additionally, through our reactor sharing

program we will provide a means for students at universities without reactors to

have access to another university’s reactor for education, training, and research purposes.

We will continue the very important and successful Nuclear Engineering Education Research grants initiative that provides much needed funding to faculty for

innovative research at universities at the same level of funding you appropriated

in fiscal year 1999. This program is vital to the research needs of the U.S. universities’ nuclear engineering departments and, in particular, to attracting and retaining faculty.

We plan to maintain our growing number of partnerships with the electric utility

industry and other private sector entities by providing research grants to universities that receive similar commitments from the utilities and private companies. As

in the past, we intend to provide funding equal to the amount contributed by private

organizations, to a maximum of $50,000 in Department of Energy grants per university. In fiscal year 2000, we expect to fund $800,000 in grants to 17 universities that

will be matched by participating companies.

We also plan to continue our support of scholarships for outstanding students in

undergraduate and graduate nuclear engineering and health physics programs at

our universities and colleges, including fellowships for outstanding students at our

minority institutions. These fellowships and scholarships provide for the education

of approximately 18 outstanding graduate engineering students across the country

and approximately 62 undergraduate students. We will continue an initiative, begun

in fiscal year 1999, which provides practicums at national laboratories for 30 undergraduates in their junior or senior year, thus giving them valuable real-world experience in nuclear engineering. In fiscal year 2000, we will begin an initiative to support nuclear engineering recruitment activities in conjunction with professional societies to ensure a highly informed group of college freshmen enter university nuclear

engineering and related scientific courses of study. Also, we will continue a

radiochemistry initiative begun this year to help educate a new generation of

radiochemists, prepared to address the technical challenges associated with operating nuclear plants.

ISOTOPE SUPPORT

Our isotope program develops, produces, sells, leases, and ships hundreds of different stable and radioactive isotopes for medical applications, scientific research,

and commercial use throughout the United States and to approximately 25 other

countries. Consistent with our mandate in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, it is our

longstanding policy to produce isotopes when no domestic or private sector capability exists; where unique government production facilities are needed, such as nuclear reactors and isotope enrichment facilities; or where other productive capacity

is insufficient to meet the Nation’s needs. Over the last several years, we have aggressively pursued private sector investment in new isotope production ventures and

in fiscal year 2000, we will complete privatization of our commercial isotope production activities, including privatization of our business functions. In instances where

the private sector can produce isotopes more efficiently than the government, we

will sell, lease, or license existing facilities, technologies and inventories for commercial purposes.

The isotope program operates with a revolving fund and maintains financial viability through revenues from sales and annual appropriations. We function like a

business, and as such, must have sufficient operating cash to fill customer orders

and maintain solvency during market changes. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request,

which funds about two-thirds of the program, will provide the minimum necessary

operating cash. The revolving fund is audited annually by an independent public ac-
432

counting firm, KPMG Peat Marwick, and since the first audit in 1992, the isotope

program has continuously received an unqualified opinion which states that the financial statements are presented fairly in all material respects. The audited financial statements are an essential management tool for the Isotope Program.

Although we are not obligated to provide all isotopes requested, we strive to meet

our customers’ requests subject to inventory, production capability, and financial

constraints. This fiscal year, to obtain a better understanding of our customers’ requirements, a panel of medical experts convened to develop a consensus on the

growth of demand for medical isotopes between now and the year 2020 and to identify future support the Department of Energy will need to provide to the nuclear

medical community. The panel’s report has been accepted by NERAC as the basis

for its development of a long-term isotope research and development plan. The report indicates that the need for medical isotopes used in diagnostics, therapy, and

research will increase between 8 and 17 percent per year over the next 20 years.

Although the cost of meeting this demand is not insignificant, it is a fraction of that

which would be saved in health care costs by the use of isotopes for diagnosis and

treatment.

The isotope program has negotiated a number of cooperative arrangements with

foreign suppliers, to assure an uninterruptible supply of isotopes in the U.S. For example, in 1997 we completed a cooperative production agreement with the Institute

for Nuclear Research (INR) in Troitsk, Russia, for production of strontium-82, which

was followed by FDA qualification of the Russian strontium-82 in 1998. This agreement resulted in the supply of material to Los Alamos for chemical processing and

eventual distribution to hospitals at a time in which no large accelerator, necessary

for strontium-82 production, was operating in the U.S. We are making similar cooperative efforts for reactor-produced isotopes.

Because until recently the United States was dependent on a single supplier of

molybdenum-99, a major initiative of the past several years has been to bring our

facilities at Sandia National Laboratories—the Annular Core Research Reactor

(ACRR) and associated Hot Cells to the point that emergency production of this important medical isotope could be established if needed. molybdenum-99 is a precursor of technetium-99m, an isotope used for diagnostic imaging, including body

organ functions, in more than 36,000 medical procedures each day in the United

States alone. This isotope allows physicians to accurately diagnose cancer and other

diseases without resorting to exploratory surgery. Substantial modifications have

been undertaken at these facilities to ensure a stable production source that is capable of meeting part or all of the U.S. demand is available if needed. Modifications

will be completed to both the ACRR and Hot Cell Facility this year that will place

them in a condition where emergency production of molybdenum–99 could be constituted if needed. The demand for molybdenum-99 continues to grow due to the application of this cost-saving diagnostic technique, thus making it attractive to privatization. For this reason, we are pursuing privatization of molybdenum-99 production

and related business activities. A draft Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued

this month, followed by the final RFP in May 1999, with a contract award anticipated by the end of the fiscal year.

Our fiscal year 2000 request includes funding for relocation of the Los Alamos isotope target irradiation station at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center

(LANSCE), a facility owned by and operated primarily for the Office of Defense Programs. Because of the research community’s identified year-round need for shortlived radioisotopes that can only be produced in a large accelerator, we are continuing the modifications to the LANSCE facility to construct a beam spur that can

be dedicated to isotope production. Without this beam spur, the nation will lose the

ability to make certain isotopes when LANSCE shuts down later this year. The total

estimated cost for the relocation of the LANSCE target irradiation station is $14

million. Conceptual design and planning activities for this project began in fiscal

year 1998 to support construction of the relocated target station and tie into the accelerator beam, scheduled to take place in fiscal year 1999, in a time-frame dictated

by Defense Programs’ accelerator maintenance schedule. By the end of fiscal year

2000, construction should be 60 percent complete and with the additional $8 million

requested, the new station will be completed and commissioned in fiscal year 2001.

The fiscal year 2000 funding request is essential to minimizing the time that the

country is unable to produce these isotopes.

Additionally, the President’s fiscal year 2000 request includes a recommendation

to establish a new program, the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, initially

funded at $2.5 million. This initiative will apply the Department’s unique expertise

and capabilities in isotopes to advance nuclear medicine technology in the U.S.

Under the initiative, the Department will sponsor nuclear medical science using a

peer-review selection process, encourage the training of individuals in nuclear medi-
433

cine methods by establishing scholarships and fellowships for nuclear medicine specialists and by sponsoring summer internships at appropriate institutions, and initiate a focused program to apply alpha-emitting isotopes to fight a spectrum of malignant diseases including most common cancers and infectious diseases such as

meningitis and AIDS.

TERMINATION COSTS

The termination costs program funds the deactivation of the Experimental Breeder ReactorII (EBR–II) facility located at Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANLWest) in Idaho. The objective of the program is to place the EBR–II facility and

other surplus facilities at ANL-West in a radiologically and industrially safe shutdown condition, for low-cost and long-term surveillance and maintenance, pending

final decontamination and decommissioning. The principle components of this program are completing the electrometallurgical treatment demonstration project,

which will occur this fiscal year; completing processing of the sodium coolant from

the shutdown reactor, and closing the last of the EBR–II facilities.

The Department is responsible for the safe storage and disposal of approximately

8,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel containing about 2,700 metric tons of uranium and

transuranic elements from various civilian and defense-related programs. Some of

these spent fuels contain materials or are in a condition that may preclude their

direct disposal in a geologic repository. The electrometallurgical treatment technology under development at ANL is a technology that has the potential to assist

the Department in dealing with this spent fuel challenge, a challenge which is

unique to the Department.

In particular, this technology may be the best way to deal with the sodium-bearing spent fuel removed from EBR–II. This spent fuel contains metallic sodium, a

material which can cause an explosion when brought into contact with water. This

spent fuel must be treated if it is ever to be relocated to a geologic repository. Under

the Consent Agreement between the State of Idaho and the Department (Batt

Agreement), this spent fuel as well as other sodium bonded fuel onsite must be removed from the State by 2035. Consequently, this technology may be crucial to the

Department’s success in meeting those obligations. If this technology is not successful, new R&D activities will have to be initiated to find other alternatives for treating the Department’s sodium-bonded fuel.

The Department will complete the electrometallurgical treatment demonstration

this fiscal year. In fiscal year 2000, the Department will complete an environmental

impact statement on using this technology. In parallel with this, the National Research Council will complete their review of the technology and will issue a final

report to the Department during the first quarter of fiscal year 2000. Together,

these activities will form the basis for a decision early in fiscal year 2000 on whether to proceed with this technology for treatment of the rest of the inventory of EBR–

II spent fuel as well as certain other spent fuels in the Department’s inventory.

In 1994, the Department began the permanent shutdown of EBR–II and associated support facilities at ANL-West. During fiscal year 2000, our efforts to place

these facilities in a radiologically and industrially safe shutdown condition will continue. The Sodium Process Facility, designed and constructed to convert the highly

reactive sodium coolant to an environmentally acceptable form suitable for routine

disposal, will complete its mission in early fiscal year 2000. The facility will be

placed in a safe configuration, awaiting further deactivation and eventual decontamination and decommissioning. With exception of the Fuel Conditioning Facility,

used for electrometallurgical treatment, all facilities will be in a shutdown configuration by the end of fiscal year 2000.

FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY

Nuclear Energy also provides program management and technical direction for

the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) located at the Hanford Reservation in Washington. FFTF is a 400 megawatt thermal, sodium cooled reactor that operated between 1982 and 1992. Originally designed to provide irradiation testing of nuclear

reactor fuels for the U.S. liquid metal reactor program, it operated for materials

testing for fusion, space reactor, and the international fast reactor programs. In

1992, the Department shut down the facility and placed it in standby, pending a

decision on using the facility as a bridge for tritium production until an accelerator

or a commercial light water reactor could come on line to produce tritium. In December 1998, Secretary Richardson announced that FFTF is not required for tritium

production or other defense missions. However, the Secretary indicated that he will

decide, this spring, whether to begin permanent deactivation of FFTF or consider

using it for other missions, such as medical isotope production, plutonium-238 pro-
434

duction for space missions, advanced materials research, and nuclear energy R&D.

If so, the Department would initiate an Environmental Impact Statement on the potential restart of the facility.

To provide a more informed decision, the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee will complete their evaluation this spring of the Nuclear Energy, Science and

Technology Infrastructure Roadmap. This road map is important not just to assessing the need for FFTF but for assessing the existing facilities and capabilities for

neutron science and isotope production across the Department as well as the needs

of the Nation over the next 20 years.

The funding requested in fiscal year 2000 is the absolute minimum level required

to continue to maintain the facility in a safe condition and in compliance with federal and state safety and environmental regulations. Neither the fiscal year 1999

appropriated level nor the fiscal year 2000 requested levels are sufficient for either

option of beginning permanent deactivation or pursuing restart for other missions.

Responsibility for funding FFTF standby activities transferred from the Office of

Environmental Management to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology in fiscal year 1999.

URANIUM PROGRAMS

The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology retains important government activities related to the Federal uranium enrichment program that were not

transferred to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC Inc.). In particular,

this program addresses the facility and environmental legacies associated with the

enrichment program, management of government assets, and associated research

and development.

One of the principal missions of Uranium Programs activities is to effectively

manage the Department’s depleted uranium hexafluoride (depleted UF6) inventories. A key responsibility of the Department is to ensure that an estimated 46,400

cylinders of depleted UF6 are maintained in an environmentally responsible manner

by conducting annual cylinder inspections, and developing and implementing options to repair cylinders exhibiting accelerated corrosion. The Department is currently evaluating alternative long-term management strategies for the material. In

December 1997, we issued a draft programmatic environmental impact statement

(EIS) for public comment, and we expect to issue the final programmatic EIS and

the record of decision shortly.

Maintaining safe cylinder storage in the interim requires substantial work, with

costs ranging from $12 to $15 million per year. Many of these cylinders date back

to the Manhattan Project and have been in outside storage for up to 50 years. To

improve storage conditions, one cylinder yard has been reconstructed, and three new

cylinder yards have been built to date. A pilot cylinder painting program has been

completed, and 12,000 cylinders are being painted over 3 years to reduce accelerated

corrosion of the cylinders. We are also applying advanced technologies to facilitate

inspections, detect leaks, and evaluate cylinder wall condition.

In addition to appropriations received for management of DOE-generated depleted

UF6, the Department received $66 million in fiscal year 1998 from the United States

Enrichment Corporation (USEC Inc.) for the management and disposition of about

11,200 additional USEC-generated depleted uranium cylinders. In accordance with

fiscal year 1999 appropriations report language, the Department submitted, on December 17, 1998, its initial plan for applying the $66 million received from USEC.

These funds are administered in accordance with the terms of the two Memoranda

of Agreement (MOAs) and related correspondence for activities required to accept

and maintain the USEC material. Also, in July 1998, the President signed Public

Law 105–204, requiring the Department to prepare a plan to begin by January 31,

2004, construction of plants at Portsmouth and Paducah to treat and recycle the depleted UF6 inventory. The initial plan was submitted to this Committee on March

12, 1999. The final plan will be submitted in May 1999 and we are confident that

it will meet the intent expressed by Congress in the enacted legislation. The Department’s fiscal year 2000 budget requests $5 million to be used in addition to the

MOA funds to begin activities to begin the process of constructing depleted UF6 conversion plants.

Other Uranium Programs activities at the gaseous diffusion plants in Portsmouth,

Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee include maintenance of facilities and grounds, cleaning legacy spills in the leased areas of the diffusion site consistent with the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, and guarding and protecting

highly enriched uranium stored at the Portsmouth site.

Since the Department shut down highly enriched uranium production at the

Portsmouth Plant in 1992, we have been removing the highly enriched uranium res-
435

idues and placing the facility in a safe shutdown condition. Progress on the removal

of highly enriched uranium has been substantial, and all highly enriched uranium

oxides not planned for transfer to USEC will be removed from the site by the end

of fiscal year 1999.

More than 70 facilities at the enrichment plants were not leased by USEC, Inc.

and remain the responsibility of the Department. As landlord, my office maintains

these facilities and their associated permits and is responsible for completing environmental corrective actions. We are also responsible for satisfying financial obligations associated with enrichment operations before the transition to USEC, Inc.

Chief among these obligations is payment of post-retirement life and medical benefits to the Department’s enrichment plant operating and power supply contractors

and assisting in litigation involving claims against the Department for its prior operations. Lastly, after assisting in the transfer of regulatory oversight of the leased

facilities and obtaining an initial certificate of compliance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department continues to review and update safety documentation as necessary, for the non-leased facilities and assist the NRC in preparing annual congressional reports on the status of the diffusion plants.

My office is also responsible for the management and disposition of the Department’s surplus natural uranium inventories. The Department currently has an inventory of approximately 24 million pounds of natural uranium, with a total value

of about $260 million, that may be sold in the commercial market. All of the uranium to be sold under this program is currently held at the Portsmouth or Paducah

gaseous diffusion plants. The USEC Privatization Act and the Energy Policy Act

allow the Department to sell excess uranium stockpiles subject to certain conditions.

Before the Department sells any of its excess natural uranium, the USEC Privatization Act requires the Secretary to determine that ‘‘ * * * the sale of the material

will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic mining, conversion, or enrichment industry, taking into account the sales of uranium under the U.S./Russian

Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement and the Russian Suspension Agreement * * * ’’

Finally, my office is also responsible for administering the $325 million authorized

in Public Law 105–277 for the purchase of natural uranium pursuant to 1997 and

1998 deliveries under the U.S./Russian HEU Agreement. The purchase of this material is contingent on the Russian and Western uranium suppliers reaching a longterm agreement on purchases of the natural uranium component of the low enriched

uranium delivered under the U.S./Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase contract. I understand these negotiations are going very well and an agreement may

be reached soon.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $25 million for salaries, travel, support

services, and other administrative expenses for 144 Headquarters and Operations

Office personnel providing technical direction to uranium, isotope support, and other

nuclear energy programs. This budget item includes management and staff support

funded by other Department of Energy accounts (e.g., technical direction for the operation of the Department’s research reactors funded by the Office of Energy Research); other Federal agencies; and foreign governments. It also funds the activities

of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC).

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer

any questions. Again, I look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee this

year as we examine important questions and issues concerning the allocation of federal resources to strengthen our universities and colleges, protect our critical infrastructures, bring vital isotopes and technology to the American people, support deep

space and related missions, and meet our important stewardship responsibilities.
436

Nuclear Energy: Essential in Reducing CO2 Emissions

[Utility pledges to reduce greenhouse gases]

Improvements to nuclear plants ........................................................................... 33

Renewable energy .................................................................................................. 4
437

Nuclear Energy: Essential in Reducing CO2 Emissions—Continued

Methane recovery, foresty and fly ash reuse ....................................................... 9

Improvements to fossil plants ............................................................................... 14

Improved energy efficiency .................................................................................... 18

Miscellaneous and uncategorized ......................................................................... 22

IMPORTANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much.

I might just say here for the record, I do not see how we could

have a Department of Energy, and have such little emphasis on

nuclear power. It borders on being a sham, in my opinion, not your

fault.

Clearly, when the Administration puts such emphasis, a budget

emphasis, on climate change technology initiative, departmental

cross-cut, it is obvious to me that we have a department that wants

to be for nuclear, but does not want to offend those who are against

nuclear.

Even so this document Climate Control Program which did not

include any of the old programs, said zero for nuclear research, and

then said this year it is going up 100 percent. Kind of interesting.

Anybody looking at it who does not like nuclear power would love

it.

They would say, ‘‘Look here, solar and renewable, as a climate

change initiative has $398 million in the President’s request, and

that bad old nuclear stuff, it has $5 million. So we are still keeping

it under check. The Department put little or no emphasis on nuclear power.’’ When you put up charts that show in controlling the

ozone problem, that one of the biggest and most significant contributors is nuclear power, and probably will be necessary in the future
438

for us to meet our treaty obligations, if we ever do validate it in

Kyoto.

So I do not make any bones about it. I have done enough research now on nuclear power, traveled the country enough to say,

and I am for it, and I believe we are going to miss the boat as new

technologies arrive which are going to permit safer, modular, easyto-build nuclear power plants. A very small group of people can

contain the Department of Energy, can control it, and indicate that

so long as we do all these other things they will support the Department, but if you do anything in nuclear, then that is the end

of the game.

I have also found, and I want this on the record, and I would like

Dr. Krebs in particular to hear this, but also you Mr. Magwood, I

have traveled now and delivered two major addresses on this subject, one at Harvard and one at MIT. The response from across this

country has been overwhelmingly positive from those who know

how we are falling behind in technology of this type. Now, you

showed on one of your charts, that the rest of the world is not falling behind, and they are proceeding, using American ingenuity and

American talent. You just showed us a super plant in Japan—how

long did it take to build that plant?

Mr. MAGWOOD. Just about 4 years.

Senator DOMENICI. Four years. Incidentally, for those who wonder, they have a high safety record, a marvelous safety record in

Japan. So 4 years to build it and there is no indication that they

are cutting corners, it is that they have accepted nuclear power as

something that is necessary and have adjusted their regulatory

program accordingly.

I do not know what other things we are going to find in other

hearings that might be necessary to move ahead in this area. But

I assure you, we cannot continue with a policy that says let us not

offend those who are against nuclear power, because they have

some power base that is important.

I think what is important is that we do the right thing, and I

believe we are moving in that direction in our committee. I think

whether it be this year or next year, but eventually within a very

short number of years, the administration will come to the reality

that you have to move ahead with nuclear power if you want to

have a clean environment and meet some obligations with reference to our contribution to that pollution.

Thanks for permitting me to follow-on on your remarks, and now

we will go quickly to our testimony on the solar and renewable program. I have already complimented you, Mr. Reicher, and I want

to do that again. I think you have found that we were pretty concerned about some of the things they use solar and renewable

money for. It did not seem to some of us to be promoting the future, but rather promoting some organizations, and I would appreciate it very much if you would tell us about that, but also give us

your vision and view, a realistic one I hope, with reference to these

programs.

STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER

Mr. REICHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all I want

to thank you for the confidence you have expressed in the job we
439

have been doing in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy. I am pleased to testify on the Energy and Water Development subcommittee portion of that budget. As you know, the other

portion of the budget comes from the Interior subcommittee.

PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago renewable energy was generally produced at a very high cost and in a very inefficient manner, and advanced power delivery system components and high-temperature

super conductivity did not even exist. Furthermore, the alternative

transportation fuel sector was very immature. We have come a

long, long way in the last two decades. In large measure, it is as

a result of the support of the Congress and the work of many national laboratories.

The cost of electric power from wind turbines in 1980 ranged

from thirty to forty cents a kilowatt hour, and it has dropped as

a result of aggressive R&D, to between four and six cents a kilowatt hour.

At this price, wind power systems are entering the marketplace,

expanding from early California sites, to states ranging from

Vermont to Alaska, and from Wisconsin to Texas. We are also

working on the next generation of turbines, which would bring the

cost of wind power to as low as two-and-a-half cents a kilowatt

hour by 2002. We are close to 20,000 megawatts of wind worldwide,

and Mr. Chairman, this chart shows why wind is now the fastest

growing energy source worldwide. Worldwide we have installed the

equivalent of scores of fossil fuel plants, with more than 2,000

megawatts installed in 1998 alone across the globe.

I am pleased to announce today that the New Mexico Energy Office, through our broadbased solicitation has been selected for negotiation to evaluate four potential wind sites. We anticipate that the

negotiations will be completed within the next few weeks.

PHOTOVOLTAIC

As another example, Mr. Chairman, the first commercially available photovoltaic panels in the early 1980s produced power at a

cost of one dollar per kilowatt hour. By fiscal year 2000, these PV

systems will be delivering electricity for as low as twelve to twenty

cents per kilowatt hour, and in the next decade it should drop to

below a dime, if we continue adequate support, particularly the

work at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia

National Lab.

We now have large PV manufacturing plants in states as diverse

as Virginia, Maryland, California, Michigan, Delaware, and Massachusetts. The solar industry is a fast-growing part of the U.S. economy; however, while both domestic PV production and U.S. product

sales are up, we risk losing our world market leadership, having

dropped from 44 percent in 1996 to 40 percent in 1997, to 35 percent in 1998. Our potential loss of this growing market is exacerbated by a Japanese PV budget, which is three times what we

spend in the U.S.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Reicher, I note that I have to make a

phone call at 10:30. We will come right back to you in about two

minutes.
440

Mr. REICHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Senator DOMENICI. The hearing will come to order, please.

Would you continue, Mr. Reicher?

BIOFUELS PROGRAMS

Mr. REICHER. Production of ethanol is also on track for widespread domestic use at very competitive prices. As you know, Mr.

Chairman, the use of ethanol is a very effective means to reduce

our dependence on foreign oil. To compete with today’s inexpensive

gasoline, our biofuels program focuses on the development of facilities which make ethanol from agricultural and forest waste and

from dedicated crops.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar and former CIA director, James

Woolsey highlighted the phenomenal potential for waste to ethanol

production in a recent article in foreign affairs. I request that it be

entered into the record, and you will find it a very interesting discussion of how we can cheaply produce ethanol from waste materials.

Senator DOMENICI. Very good.

[The information follows:]

THE NEW PETROLEUM

[Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey]

WHY CHANGE?

Oil is a magnet for conflict. The problem is simple—everyone needs energy, but

the sources of the world’s transportation fuel are concentrated in relatively few

countries. Well over two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil reserves lie in the Middle East (including the Caspian basin), leaving the rest of the world dependent on

the region’s collection of predators and vulnerable autocrats. This unwelcome dependence keeps U.S. military forces tied to the Persian Gulf, forces foreign policy

compromises, and sinks many developing nations into staggering debt as they struggle to pay for expensive dollar-denominated oil with lower-priced commodities and

agricultural products. In addition, oil causes environmental conflict. The possibility

that greenhouse gases will lead to catastrophic climate change is substantially increased by the 40 million barrels of oil burned every day by vehicles.

Ethanol has always provided an alternative to gasoline. In terms of environmental

impact and fuel efficiency, its advantages over gasoline substantially outweigh its

few disadvantages. But until now it has only been practical to produce ethanol from

a tiny portion of plant life—the edible parts of corn or other feed grains. Corn prices

have fluctuated around $100 a ton in the last few years, ranging from half to double

that amount. Ethanol has thus been too expensive to represent anything but a

small, subsidized niche of the transportation fuel market. In spite of recent reductions in the expense of ethanol processing, the final product still costs roughly a dollar a gallon, or about double today’s wholesale price of gasoline.

Recent and prospective breakthroughs in genetic engineering and processing, however, are radically changing the viability of ethanol as a transportation fuel. New

biocatalysts—genetically engineered enzymes, yeasts, and bacteria—are making it

possible to use visually any plant or plant product (known as cellulosic biomass) to

produce ethanol. This may decisively reduce cost—to the point where petroleum

products would face vigorous competition.

The best analogy to this potential cost reduction is the cracking of the petroleum

molecule in the early twentieth century. This let an increasingly large share of petroleum be used in producing high-performance gasoline, thus reducing waste and

lowering cost enough that gasoline could fuel this century’s automotive revolution.

Genetically engineered biocatalysts and new processing techniques can similarly

make it possible to utilize most plant matter, rather than a tiny fraction thereof,

as fuel. Cellulosic biomass is extremely plentiful. As it comes to be used to produce

competitively priced ethanol, it will democratize the world’s fuel market. If the hundreds of billions of dollars that now flow into a few corners in a few nations were
441

to flow instead to the millions of people who till the world’s fields, most countries

would see substantial national security, economic, and environmental benefits.

PAYING FOR ROGUES

Energy is vital to a country’s security and material well-being. A state unable to

provide its people with adequate energy supplies or desiring added leverage over

other people often resorts to force. Consider Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, driven by his desire to control more of the world’s oil reserves, and the international response to this threat. The underlying goal of the U.N. force, which included 500,000 American troops, was to ensure continued and unfettered access to

petroleum.

Oil permeates every aspect of our lives, so even minor price increases have devastating impacts. The most difficult challenge for planners, policymakers, and alternative-energy advocates is the transportation sector, which accounts for over 60 percent of U.S. oil demand. The massive infrastructure developed to support gasolinepowered cars is particularly resistant to modifications. It precludes rapid change to

alternative transportation systems and makes America highly vulnerable to a break

in oil supplies. During a war or embargo, moving quickly to mass transit or to fuelcell or battery-powered automobiles would be impossible.

For most countries, excluding only those few that will be the next century’s oil

suppliers, the future portends growing indebtedness, driven by increasingly expensive oil imports. New demand for oil will be filled largely by the Middle East, meaning a transfer of more than $1 trillion over the next 5 years to the unstable states

of the Persian Gulf alone—on top of the $90 billion they received in 1996.

Dependence on the Middle East entails the risk of a repeat of the international

crises of 1973, 1979, and 1990—or worse. This growing reliance on Middle Eastern

oil not only adds to that region’s disproportionate leverage but provides the resources with which rogue nations support international terrorism and develop weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles to carry them. Iraqi vx nerve gas

and Iranian medium-range missiles show how such regimes can convert oil revenues

into extensive and sophisticated armament programs.

IS OIL RUNNING OUT?

Optimists about world oil reserves, such as the Department of Energy, are getting

increasingly lonely. The International Energy Agency now says that world production outside the Middle Eastern Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

(OPEC) will peak in 1999 and world production overall will peak between 2010 and

2020. This projection is supported by influential recent articles in Science and Scientific American. Some knowledgeable academic and industry voices put the date

that world production will peak even sooner within the next five or six years.

The optimists who project large reserve quantities of over one trillion barrels tend

to base their numbers on one of three things: inclusion of heavy oil and tar sands,

the exploitation of which will entail huge economic and environmental costs; puffery

by OPEC nations lobbying for higher production quotas within the cartel; or assumptions about new drilling technologies that may accelerate production but are

unlikely to expand reserves.

Once production peaks, even though exhaustion of world reserves will still be

many years away, prices will begin to rise sharply. This trend will be exacerbated

by increased demand in the developing world. As Daniel Yergin, Dennis Eklof, and

Jefferson Edwards pointed out in these pages (‘‘Fueling Asia’s Recovery,’’ March/

April 1998), even assuming a substantial recession, increased Asian needs alone will

add enough demand by 2010 (9 million barrels per day) to more than equal Saudi

Arabia’s current daily production.

The nations of the Middle East will be ready to exploit the trend of rising demand

and shrinking supply. The Gulf states control nearly two-thirds of the world’s reserves; the states bordering the Caspian Sea have another several percent. Barring

some unforeseen discoveries, the Middle East will control something approaching

three-quarters of the world’s oil in the coming century.

A WHOLE NEW WORLD

If genetically engineered biocatalysts and advanced processing technologies can

make a transition from fossil fuels to biofuels affordable, the world’s security picture

could be different in many ways. It would be impossible to form a cartel that would

control the production, manufacturing, and marketing of ethanol fuel. U.S. diplomacy and policies in the Middle East could be guided more by a respect for democracy than by a need to protect oil supplies and accommodate oil-producing regimes.

Our intrusive military presence in the region could be reduced, both ameliorating
442

anti-American tensions and making U.S. involvement in a Middle Eastern war less

likely. Other states would also reap benefits.. Ukraine, rich in fertile land, would

be less likely to be dominated over time by oil-rich Russia. China would feel less

pressure to befriend Iran and Iraq or build a big navy to secure the oil of the South

China Sea. The ability of oil-exporting countries to shape events would be increasingly limited.

The recent report by the President’s Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) predicted that U.S. oil imports will approximately double between

1996 and 2030, from 8.5 million barrels per day, at a cost of $64 billion, to nearly

16 million barrels per day, at a cost of $120 billion. They estimated, however, that

with concentrated efforts in fundamental energy research and investment in renewable fuel technologies, this could be reduced to 6 million barrels per day in 2030.

The report concluded,

A plausible argument can be made that the security of the United States

is at least as likely to be imperiled in the first half of the next century by

the consequences of inadequacies in the energy options available to the

world as by inadequacies in the capabilities of U.S. weapons systems. It is

striking that the Federal government spends about 20 times more R&D

money on the latter problem than on the former.

FUEL FARMERS

Cellulosic ethanol would radically improve the outlook for rural areas all over the

world. Farmers could produce a cash crop by simply collecting agricultural wastes

or harvesting grasses or crops natural to their region. Agricultural nations with little to no petroleum reserves would begin to see economic stability and prosperity

as they steadily reduced massive payments for oil imports. Even more striking

would be the redistribution of resources that would occur if farmers and foresters

produced much of the world’s transportation fuel. We know from the positive results

of micro-credit institutions and other such programs that even small increases in

income can be a major boost to a subsistence-level family’s prospects. If family income is a few hundred dollars a year, earning an extra $50–$100 by gathering and

selling agricultural residues to a cellulosic ethanol plant could mean a much improved life. Such added income can buy a few used sewing machines to start a business or a few animals to breed and sell. It can begin to replace despondency with

hope.

There are likely to be even larger effects on rural development if biomass ethanol

production can lead a shift toward using plant matter for other products as well,

such as biochemicals and electrical energy. The cleanliness of renewable fuel technologies makes them particularly attractive to countries that lack a sophisticated

infrastructure or network of regulatory controls. At least some facilities that process

carbohydrates should lend themselves to being simplified and sized to meet the

needs of remote communities. If such towns can produce their own fuel, some of

their fertilizers, and electricity, they will be far better positioned to make their way

out of poverty and to move toward democracy and free enterprise. Local economic

development can promote political stability and security where poverty now produces hopelessness and conflict.

A major strength of the new technologies for fermenting cellulosic biomass is the

prospect that almost any type of plant, tree, or agricultural waste can be used as

a source of fuel. This high degree of flexibility allows for the use of local crops that

will enrich the soil, prevent erosion, and improve local environmental conditions.

Finally, as recession and devaluations overseas move the American balance-of- payments deficit from the 1998 level—$1 billion every two days—toward nearly $1

billion every day, there will be increased calls for protectionism. The best way to

avoid the mistakes of the 1930s is to have a solid economic reason for increasing

U.S. production of commodities now bought abroad. The nearly $70 billion spent annually for imported oil represents about 40 percent of the current U.S. trade deficit,

and every $1 billion of oil imports that is replaced by domestically produced ethanol

creates 10,000–20,000 American jobs.

EASY BEING GREEN

To be politically and economically acceptable, changes in fuel must be understood

by the American public to be affordable and not disruptive. Most other countries require the same tough criteria—U.S. difficulties in convincing developing nations to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to the cost and the damage

this would have on their development plans. But if one of the most effective ways

to reduce greenhouse emissions also produced an unproved balance-of-payments deficit and opportunities for rural development, economic benefits would suddenly far
443

exceed the costs. The political acceptability of reducing emissions changes substantially when the economics change. A shift to biomass fuels stands out as an excellent way to introduce an environmentally friendly energy technology that has a

chance of both enjoying widespread political and economic support and having a decisive impact on the risk of climate change.

Renewable fuels produced from plants are an outstanding way to substantially reduce greenhouse gases. Although burning ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere, it is essentially the same carbon dioxide that was fixed by photosynthesis when the plants grew. Burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, releases carbon

dioxide that otherwise would have stayed trapped beneath the earth.

If one looks at the complete life cycle of the production and use of ethanol derived

from feed grains, the only addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere results from

the use of fossil fuel products in planting, chemical fertilizing, harvesting, and processing. But this fossil fuel use can be substantial—up to seven gallons of oil may

be needed to produce eight gallons of ethanol. When ethanol is produced from cellulosic biomass, however, relatively little tilling or cultivation is required, reducing

the energy inputs. It takes only about one gallon of oil to produce seven of ethanol.

There is a virtual consensus among scientists: when considered as part of a complete cycle of growth, fermentation, and combustion, the use of cellulosic ethanol as

a fuel, once optimized, will contribute essentially no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

According to a 1997 study done by five laboratories of the U.S. Department of Energy, a vehicle powered by biomass ethanol emits well under one percent of the carbon dioxide emitted by one powered by gasoline. More surprising, however, is that

ethanol produced from biomass emits only about one percent of the carbon dioxide

emitted by battery-powered vehicles, since the electricity for those is commonly produced by burning fossil fuels at another location. Although local air quality is improved, total carbon dioxide emissions are not curtailed; they are merely exported—

for example, from Los Angeles to the Four Corners. Unless the electricity to charge

the car’s batteries is produced by renewable fuels or nuclear power, electric vehicles

are only 20 to 40 percent better as carbon dioxide emitters than gasoline-powered

cars. Biomass ethanol beats both by a factor of about 100, fundamentally changing

the global-warming debate.

FRINGE BENEFITS

Cellulosic ethanol is the only alternative fuel that requires, at most, very modest

changes to vehicles and the transportation infrastructure. One need not spend

money retooling Detroit, nor spend years awaiting the gradual replacement of older

vehicles by those with new technology. Nor does one need to modify or construct

pipelines and storage tanks to hold hydrogen as an alternate to petroleum. This

compatibility with today’s infrastructure saves billions of dollars and not just years,

but decades. Moreover, there is nothing incompatible between using ethanol now in

internal combustion engines and using it later in more efficient power systems, such

as hybrids or fuel cells.

Essentially all automobiles currently on the road can use fuel containing up to

ten percent ethanol. But strict fuel economy standards have encouraged the development and production of flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) that can use up to 85 percent

ethanol. FFVs are already in dealers’ showrooms, containing (at no added cost to

the consumer) the minor engine modifications—a computer chip in the fuel system

and a fuel line made out of slightly different material—that make large-scale ethanol use possible. Even pure ethanol vehicles are quite practical. Brazil has 3.6 million on the road.

Corn ethanol will continue to serve an important role as ethanol production shifts

to cellulosic biomass. Commercialization of corn ethanol has provided a base of industrial experience, talented people, and infrastructure from which a much larger

cellulosic ethanol industry may be launched. For corn farmers, biomass is no threat;

it will probably be a boon. Indeed, there is likely to be a continuing, perhaps even

an expanding, market for corn ethanol because of the value of its byproducts, such

as animal feed. In general, the transition from corn to cellulosic biomass and from

a few producers to many is likely to expand opportunities for American farmers.

BIOENGINEERED BUGS

Ethanol’s economic viability depends on making it cheaper to produce. This can

be achieved by making it out of cellulosic biomass, which includes essentially anything that grows or has grown: agricultural and forest residues, prairie grass,

kudzu, waste wood, used paper products, even much of urban waste. Last year,

about 95 percent of the ethanol produced in the United States came from corn. But
444

agricultural residues and other wastes have low or even negative cost—some you

are paid to haul away—while crops like prairie grass cost only a few tens of dollars

a ton. This represents a substantial savings in the raw material used in ethanol and

puts it within the range of oil, even inexpensive Persian Gulf oil.

Only recently have scientists developed the means to convert cellulosic biomass

efficiently into ethanol. The edible portions of corn and other grains easily ferment

into ethanol because of their chemical make-up. Most biomass, however, consists of

more recalcitrant hemicellulose and cellulose, requiring both the breaking up of

these two fibers as well as the fermenting of both five- and six-carbon sugars. This

all happens in nature, but two parts of it—fermenting five-carbon sugars and breaking up cellulose quickly—are technically challenging. The first is now done by genetically engineered microorganisms; this tool and other new techniques are now

being brought to bear on the second problem.

How far along are these developments? The current efficiency of ethanol processing is somewhat analogous to that of petroleum refining in the early 1900s: after

the invention of thermal cracking made it possible to use a major share of the petroleum molecule for gasoline production but before the invention of catalytic cracking

opened up an even larger share of petroleum to exploitation. In short, we have come

a long way, but still have some inventing to do. The new, genetically engineered

microorganisms have already taken us far toward the fermentation of ethanol from

a wide range of plant material, laying the groundwork for reductions in processing

costs as well.

The new microorganisms, combined with other improvements in processing, fundamentally change the equation for considering ethanol a major transportation fuel.

According to a recent study by Dartmouth engineering professor Lee Lynd, utilizing

only some of the nation’s agricultural and forest residues, with no additional land

use, could supply over 15 billion gallons of ethanol a year—more than ten times the

amount now produced from corn, and enough to replace around eight percent of the

nation’s gasoline. (Not all residues would be used, of course, since some must be left

for long-term fertility.) Lynd also calculated that taking a little over half of the 60

million acres of cropland historically idled by federal programs for conservation and

other purposes, and using for ethanol production the mown grasses with which

much of this acreage is ordinarily planted, would produce enough ethanol to fulfill

around 25 percent of the country’s annual gasoline needs. These calculations use

current automobile mileage. Lynd notes that, further mileage improvements,

achieved through a shift to hybrids or fuel cells, could obviate the need for gasoline

entirely, without taking land from food crops or nonagricultural uses. The coproduction of animal feed and biomass residues from alfalfa and switchgrass is especially

promising. There is, in short, no basis for the argument that America does not have

the land to produce enough ethanol to make a very large dent in U.S. gasoline consumption.

Biofuels must be produced in ways that enhance overall environmental quality.

Sound land-use policies certainly must be followed, to protect wildlife habitat and

address other environmental concerns. But professional land-use techniques should

readily accomplish this. Alternative fuels are often seen as an unpalatable necessity

representing a retrenched standard of living, forced upon us in an age of limits. The

opposite may be true. Utilization of renewable fuels will make it possible for us to

continue enjoying the freedom afforded by private cars, even as the production of

petroleum begins to decline.

THE RIGHT STUFF?

Early this century, Henry Ford expected that ethanol, not gasoline, would be the

fuel of choice for automobiles. His reasons are evident. The two fuels can be compared by examining three basic parameters—energy content, octane, and vapor

pressure. Pure ethanol contains 69 percent of the energy of gasoline. A lower energy

content translates into fewer miles to the gallon; in order to travel the same range,

about a 30 percent larger fuel tank is needed (as is used in Brazil). Many scientists

believe that optimizing engines for ethanol use will largely compensate for this difference, in part because ethanol is a simple combination of carbon, hydrogen, and

oxygen. It is vastly less complex than gasoline, which means that fine-tuning an engine to squeeze every last drop of energy from ethanol is potentially easier.

Octane is the measure of a fuel’s ability to oxidize hydrogen and carbon molecules

within a fraction of a second. When the reaction is not simultaneous, ‘‘engine knock’’

and inefficient combustion result. Ethanol has an octane rating 15 percent higher

than gasoline’s. In the 1920s ethanol was briefly considered as a large-scale additive

to gasoline to stop the knocking of the new higher compression engines. However,

to the detriment of public health, ethanol lost out to highly toxic tetraethyl lead,
445

for three reasons: in contrast to ethanol, only a small amount of lead was needed

as an additive; some were concerned that corn-derived ethanol would compete for

land and threaten the feed grains market; and since Prohibition was in effect, many

were also worried about the security problems associated with maintaining large

volumes of what is essentially 200-proof vodka. Ethanol’s ability to be an effective

fuel, however, was never an issue.

A third important fuel measurement is vapor pressure, or how readily a liquid

evaporates. A fuel’s vapor pressure is directly linked to the quantity of vehicle emissions, since over 40 percent of automobile emissions result from evaporation, not

tailpipe emissions. Substituting ethanol for gasoline in any amount reduces tailpipe

emissions and thus reduces urban smog. Pure ethanol, and any gasoline-ethanol

mixture that is more than 22 percent ethanol, has a lower vapor pressure than gasoline and would therefore reduce the amount of evaporative emissions.

Somewhat confusingly, however, blends of ethanol and current gasoline have a

slightly higher vapor pressure than pure gasoline when the mixture contains less

than 22 percent ethanol, because of the unique mixing properties of the liquids.

Some studies show that low-level blends of ethanol and gasoline (like gasohol, which

is ten percent ethanol) can actually worsen local air pollution, especially the formation of low-level ozone. Consequently, in cities in the Northeast and California, proposals to encourage the use of ethanol blends have often fallen on deaf ears. Some

environmentalists see them as camouflaged subsidies for Midwestern corn growers

at the expense of the cities.

But although low-level ethanol blends present complex issues, blends with more

than 22 percent ethanol—which can be used in FFVs—do not have the vaporization

problem. Moreover, with different approaches to refining and blending gasoline, a

solution to the vaporization problem may well exist even at mixtures below 22 percent. Finally, ETBE—an oxygenate made from ethanol that improves gasoline combustion—improves air quality both in tailpipe emissions and vaporization, although

its use means the fuel contains five to ten percent ethanol.

Choosing to use cellulosic ethanol is not a choice to forsake more advanced automobile propulsion technologies, such as hybrids and fuel cells. Ethanol is compatible

with both. Jeffrey Bentley, vice president of Arthur D. Little, Inc., a company recently honored by the U.S. government for its novel fuel-cell technology, stated that

‘‘ethanol provides higher efficiencies, fewer emissions, and better performance than

other fuel sources, including gasoline * * *. Where ethanol is available, it will be

the fuel of choice by consumers.’’ As both hybrids and fuel cells continue to improve,

automobiles powered by them may dramatically reduce air pollution. Ethanol’s compatibility with both makes moving toward cellulosic ethanol as a transportation fuel

much more desirable.

If government policies promote FFVs, moreover, a large fleet of ethanol-compatible vehicles will be available much earlier than would otherwise have been feasible.

This is because FFVs can burn gasoline now but can use cellulosic ethanol as it becomes available. Introducing FFVs into the national fleet differs radically in timing

from other changes in transportation. Even if an ideal hybrid or fuel-cell vehicle

came on the market, the slow rate of turnover in the nation’s cars would mean that

it would be many years before its introduction would make a dent in overall fuel

use. But moving now to substantially increase the number of FFVs being produced

would create the capability to shift to cellulosic ethanol as soon as it is available

at attractive prices.

In addition, insofar as U.S. security and environmental concerns are more with

the consumption of problem-causing petroleum fuel than with fuel in general, substituting cellulosic ethanol for gasoline improves relevant ‘‘mileage’’ radically, even

in internal combustion engines. For example, an average automobile gets approximately 17 miles per gallon and is driven approximately 14,000 miles per year, thus

using 825 gallons of gasoline annually. Suppose that same automobile were an FFV

using a mixed fuel containing 85 percent cellulosic ethanol. Because of ethanol’s

lower energy content, it would use about 1,105 gallons of fuel, but only 165 would

be gasoline. Such a vehicle could be said to be getting, in a sense, over 80 miles

per gallon—of national-security-risk-increasing, carbon-dioxide-producing gasoline.

The one remaining barrier to widespread replacement of gasoline with ethanol is

production cost. Relying on feed grains makes this cost comparatively high and volatile, since corn is subject to the caroming behavior of feed markets. In 1995, its price

of $100 a ton nearly doubled, forcing a sharp curtailment in ethanol production. A

partial shift to biomass should circumvent such instabilities. Over the past 15 years,

the cost of producing a gallon of ethanol has been cut in half, to just over $1 a gallon wholesale. If, as predicted, the new biocatalysts, low and steady raw material

costs, and improved processing let costs fall another 50 percent or so, ethanol could
446

compete with gasoline at today’s prices. If oil prices rise in the next century, gasoline could actually be at a substantial price disadvantage.

Such a reduction of ethanol cost is entirely plausible for two reasons. First, a simple comparison of energy content reveals that a dry ton of biomass crops—$40 is

a reasonable current average cost—is comparable to oil at $10–13 a barrel. Agricultural wastes, in many cases, are considerably cheaper than either: many are free

or have negative cost. So the overall costs of cellulosic biomass are likely to at least

be in the same ballpark as those of crude oil. Second, further reductions in the cost

of processing seem quite achievable. The current cost of processing ethanol is significantly higher than the equivalent price per barrel for oil. But this discrepancy reflects the maturity and sophistication of the petroleum industry, developed over the

past century, as compared to the fledgling biofuels effort. Producing ethanol is not

inherently more complex than refining petroleum—in fact, just the contrary. The

world has simply invested far more effort in the latter.

JUMP-START

While the private sector will provide the capital, and motivation to move toward

ethanol, the federal government has a vital role to play. Market forces seldom reflect national security risks, environmental issues, or other social concerns. The private sector often cannot fund long-term research, despite its demonstrated potential

for dramatic innovation. Hence, the federal government must increase its investment in renewable energy research, particularly in innovative programs such as genetic engineering of biocatalysts, development of dedicated energy crops, and improved processing. The very small sums previously invested by the Departments of

Energy and Agriculture have already spawned dramatic advances. Every effort

should be made to expand competitive, merit-based, and peers reviewed science and

to encourage research that cuts across scientific disciplines.

Research is essential to produce the innovations and technical improvements that

will lower the production costs of ethanol and other renewable fuels and let them

compete directly with gasoline. At present, the United States is not funding a vigorous program in renewable technologies. The Department of Energy spends under

two percent of its budget on renewable fuels; its overall work on renewable technologies is at its lowest level in 30 years. Because private investment often follows

federal commitment, industrial research and development has also reached new

lows. These disturbing trends occur at a time of national economic prosperity when

America has both time and resources for investing in biofuels. The United States

cannot afford to wait for the next energy crisis to marshal its intellectual and industrial resources.

Research alone will not suffice to realize cellulosic ethanol’s promise. The federal

government should also modify the tax code to spur private investment. The existing

renewable alcohol tax credits have recently been extended by Congress through

2007—which will help the growth of the new biofuels industry and offer some protection in the transition from grain to cellulosic biomass. But the tax credit structure should facilitate the gradual adoption of cellulosic ethanol—in time, it should

not need subsidies. Government incentives to produce FFVs should also be increased.

Finally, there must be a coordinated effort across the many different federal agencies that oversee government laboratories and regulatory agencies. The analogy to

the semiconductor industry is instructive. In 1987, Congress authorized the creation

of a government-industry partnership, the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology Association (SEMATECH). Under the direction of the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, SEMATECH pursued fundamental research in semiconductor components and manufacturing processes. Private firms

with innovative ideas were encouraged to devote research dollars to transform the

idea into a commercial reality. The few domestic semiconductor manufacturers were

brought together in forums where the companies could discuss technical hurdles

without sacrificing competitive advantage. Today, the success of SEMATECH is evident, as the high-technology sector demonstrates. Biofuels offer a similar opportunity.

Cellulosic ethanol is a first-class transportation fuel, able to power the cars of

today as well as tomorrow, use the vast infrastructure already built for gasoline,

and enter quickly and easily into the transportation system. It can be shipped in

standard rail cars and tank trucks and is easily mixed with gasoline. Although

somewhat lower in energy content, it has a substantially higher octane rating than

gasoline, allowing for more efficient combustion. It can radically reduce the emission

of global warming gases, help reduce the choking smog of our cities, and improve

air quality. It is far less toxic than petroleum, far less likely to explode and burn
447

accidentally, and far simpler physically and chemically, making possible simpler refining procedures. If a second Exxon Valdez filled with ethanol ran aground off Alaska, it would produce a lot of evaporation and some drunk seals.

Our growing dependence on increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil is a fool’s

game—there is no way for the rest of the world to win. Our losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price increases, agonizingly through developing-nation poverty, relentlessly through climate change—or through all of the

above. It would be extremely short-sighted not to take advantage of the scientific

breakthroughs that have occurred and that are in the offing, accelerate them, and

move smartly toward ameliorating all of these risks by beginning to substitute carbohydrates for hydrocarbons. If we do, we will make life far less dangerous and far

more prosperous for future generations. If we do not, those generations will look

back in angry wonder at the remarkable opportunity that we missed.

Mr. REICHER. As an example, construction recently began in Louisiana of a first-of-a-kind production plant, with 80 percent cost

share, that will produce ethanol from sugarcane waste. We are also

supporting the development of plants in California and New York

that will use rice draw and even municipal solid waste to produce

ethanol, again, which can be used in automobiles, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

A final example of our technological progress involves superconductivity. Through our innovative industry-laboratory R&D program, superconductivity has rapidly moved from discovery to utility-scale prototypes that carry 100 times the current of conventional copper cables, and this has occurred in only 10 years. I am

pleased to note that the world’s first super-conducting power line

will be installed in Detroit next year.

While we are making tremendous strides in these technologies,

we still have much work to do. The competitive revolution and

power generation has led to drastic decreases in the price of electricity. Still, renewable energy is already making market in-roads

in many states.

The world’s largest wind installation is being developed in Iowa.

Major new commitments to solar energy in many states, ranging

from Massachusetts, to Nevada, to New Mexico, biomass power

plants in states such as New York, Ohio, Minnesota, Vermont, and

Indiana, and tens of thousands of new geothermal heat pumps in

homes, businesses, federal installations, and schools in states as diverse as Wisconsin, Kentucky, North Dakota, and South Carolina.

We are also aggressively pursuing integration of fossil fuel with

renewable energy technologies. Projects that combine wind with

natural gas and co-firing of biomass with coal demonstrate the opportunities that exist between renewables and fossil fuels.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the opportunity to provide a

more in-depth discussion of our successes at the upcoming subcommittee hearing on the deployment of renewable technologies.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Our fiscal year 2000 budget request would accelerate the development and market penetration of renewables and advanced power

systems. Our request is $325 million, up $53 million, or 19 percent,

from this year’s enacted level. I would note that this year’s request

is a small fraction of what Congress appropriated for renewables

in the early 1980s.
448

Let me quickly give you some examples of major program activities in fiscal year 2000. The photovoltaic program will initiate the

development of new high-efficiency, multi-junction solar cells to

capture and convert one-third of the sun’s energy to electricity.

That would be up from 8 to 15 percent conversion today. The

biopower program will accelerate development of advanced conversion systems, such as co-firing biomass with coal. The biofuels program will continue its waste ethanol projects and advance its core

conversion technology research with universities and national labs.

I would also note that biofuels have the potential to mitigate

major environmental problems in the West. Due to suppression of

forest fires, large quantities of dead and diseased trees and underbrush have accumulated in the forest, creating a severe fuel loading problem, which threatens human life and property, as well as

wildlife and timber resources. Working with states, labs, and industrial partners, we are evaluating forest thinnings for conversion

to ethanol and co-generation of electricity.

The wind program will place added emphasis on fuel testing

small wind turbine prototypes to verify performance for remote

sites, cold weather, and off-grade energy needs. We will also begin

testing the next generation of large turbines for major on-grid

power production as a major step towards producing power at two

to three cents a kilowatt hour.

The geothermal program will focus more resources on high-priority research and technology development for electric power applications. The program will accelerate work to produce an advanced

drilling system capable of economically accessing the vast geothermal resources below 10,000 feet. These initiatives will enable

the program to achieve its goal of producing power at three cents

a kilowatt hour.

I also want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that in fiscal year 2000 we

proposed to more than double our hydropower budget to help us

maintain and enhance our nation’s existing hydroelectric generation, which today provides 10 percent of U.S. electricity.

With more than 200 hydro facilities up for relicensing in the next

decade, early indicators suggest than environmental concerns may

cause regulators to reduce generation capacities or relicense facilities unless fish mortality and water quality concerns are met. We

are developing and completing testing of advanced environmentally

friendly hydropower turbine prototypes that will improve water

quality and reduce fish kills.

In fiscal year 2000, our hydrogen request will continue a strong

core R&D effort to meet the goals in producing the cost of hydrogen

production, increasing the energy density and efficiency of our storage systems, and developing low-cost reliable sensors to detect hydrogen leaks. Hydrogen, Mr. Chairman, has a phenomenal potential for clean power production and vehicle propulsion.

SOLE SOURCE VS. COMPETITIVELY AWARDED GRANTS

Mr. Chairman, when I became Assistant Secretary about 17

months ago, I realized that the office faced many management

challenges, and I made a major commitment to you to fix them. We

have listened to you, to industry, to our other stakeholders, and we

have delivered. This committee said we were relying too heavily on
449

non-competitive mechanisms to disburse funds. We listened and we

delivered a dramatic reduction in our use of non-competitive funding mechanisms.

The Office of Power Technologies, which represents the bulk of

the funding from this subcommittee, has increased its level of competition to 93 percent, including congressionally directed activities.

Close to 100 activities previously funded by sole source contracts

within the Energy and Water Development account in fiscal year

1998 will now be competitively awarded. In 1998, we competed the

$1 billion management and operating contract for the National Renewable Energy Lab, the first time it was competed in 15 years.

Across all of our offices we have reduced uncosted balances by

more than 58 percent since the beginning of fiscal year 1996. I am

very proud of this progress.

We realize, however, that our work to improve the way we do our

business is by no means complete, and so we have established a

new office management improvement team, and we are working

with the National Academy of Public Administration to improve

our procurement. The National Academy of Sciences is also conducting a broad review of our R&D programs.

We are also trying to break down the stovepipes that have often

separated our various offices. Our bioenergy initiative, for example,

is helping us to better integrate our important work in bio-power,

biofuels, and bioproducts.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we have accomplished a great

deal over the last two decades. We have set aggressive, but achievable goals. We have improved our management, and we have requested a realistic budget. We hope that in light of our success and

our commitment we can earn this subcommittee’s support.

I am happy to respond to questions. Thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much for an excellent statement.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN W. REICHER

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Energy and Water Development

portion of the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Department of Energy’s Office

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). I will address three areas related to Solar and Renewable Resource Technologies: (1) the tremendous technological progress that has been achieved to date; (2) what we will accomplish with

the resources proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget; and 3) important management improvements we have instituted within EERE.

Technology Progress

Twenty years ago renewable energy was generally produced at a very high cost

and in an inefficient manner. Advanced power delivery system components and high

temperature superconducting materials did not even exist, and the alternative

transportation fuel sector was very immature. We have come a long way.

For example, the cost of electric power from wind turbines in 1980 ranged from

$0.30–$0.40 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Through aggressive R&D by EERE and its industry partners on wind turbine aerodynamics, materials development and computer-aided design, we have been able to reduce the costs to between $0.04 and

$0.06 per kWh. At this price, wind systems are entering the marketplace, expanding

from the early California windfarms to include States ranging from Vermont to

Alaska and from Minnesota to Texas. Wind energy systems are also poised to ex-
450

pand into other Great Plains and Northeastern locations, such as Oklahoma, Wisconsin the Dakotas, Maine, and New York. We are also working on Next Generation

Turbines to reduce the cost of electricity from wind even further—to as low as 2

1⁄2 cents per kWh by 2002. This cost will enable wind to compete in many regions

of the U.S.

As another example, the first commercially-available photovoltaic (PV) systems in the early 1980s produced power at a cost of more than $1.00 per kWh. By fiscal

year 2000, PV systems will be delivering electricity for as low as $0.12–$0.20 per

kWh—depending upon the specific technology—making clean, reliable PV systems

competitive in many remote and on- grid sites here in the U.S. and around the

globe. By 2010 we project PV-generated electricity will drop to $0.10 per kWh. At

this price solar would be a competitive power option in many urban and suburban

areas where transmission and distribution systems are constrained and also in rural

areas across the entire United States where distribution costs are too high. Improved materials manufacturing techniques and energy conversion improvements—

most supported by DOE and its laboratories—have made and will make these cost

reductions possible and have facilitated the resurgence of the U.S. PV industry as

the world’s leader in this $1.2 billion global industry, which grew 95 percent between 1995 and 1998. With large manufacturing plants in Virginia, Maryland, California, Michigan, Delaware and Massachusetts, the solar industry is a growing part

of the U.S. economy. However, global competition is fierce. While both domestic PV

production capacity and U.S. product sales are up, the U. S. risks losing its world

market leadership, having dropped from 44 percent in 1996 to 40 percent in 1997

to 35 percent in 1998. Our potential loss of this growing market is exacerbated by

a Japanese PV budget that is three times what we spend in the U.S. ($240 million

in Japan in fiscal year 1999 vs. $72 million in the U.S. in 1999).

Production of ethanol is also on track for widespread vehicle use at competitive

prices. To compete with today’s inexpensive gasoline, our biofuels program focuses

on the development of facilities that make ethanol from agricultural and forest

wastes and dedicated crops. Construction recently began in Jennings, Louisiana, on

a ‘‘first-of-a-kind’’ production plant with 80 percent industry cost-sharing that will

produce ethanol from sugarcane waste. This 20-million gallon facility is scheduled

to come on-line in the year 2000 with initial ethanol production costs of $1.00 per

gallon, putting us well on-track for the program’s 2010 production cost goal of $0.72

per gallon. We are also supporting the development of demonstration plants in California and New York that will use rice straw and municipal solid waste to produce

ethanol. Additionally, we are studying ways to add facilities to existing corn-ethanol

plants to produce ethanol from corn stalks and leaves. R&D on ethanol technology

is very important to our future energy security. By 2020 net U.S. oil imports, which

accounted for about 50 percent of domestic petroleum consumption in 1998, will

grow to 65–70 percent of domestic petroleum consumption—with an annual oil bill

ranging from $130 billion to more than $180 billion in current dollars.

A final example of technological progress involves Superconductivity, a property

of certain special materials allowing them to carry large electrical currents without

resistance energy losses. While we have known about superconductivity for nearly

a century, hurdles such as ultra-low temperature requirements stymied the development of commercial applications. Then Nobel prize-winning discoveries in the late

1980s opened the possibility for practical uses of these technologies to improve the

efficiency and performance of the electricity sector. Through EERE’s innovative industry/laboratory R&D program, High-Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) has

rapidly moved from discovery to utility-scale prototypes that carry 100 times the

current of conventional cable in only ten years. I am pleased to note that the world’s

first superconducting power line will be installed in Detroit in the fall of 2000. Installed more widely, superconducting power lines and equipment would increase capacity, efficiency and reliability during the crucial period ahead when competition

will bring new (and unplanned) stresses on our national electrical system.

While we are making tremendous strides in these technologies, we still have

much work to do. The competitive revolution in the power generation sector has led

to drastic decreases in the price of power from new sources of generation. For example, natural gas-fired combustion turbine technology produces electricity for about

$0.03 per kWh. Given the low domestic market prices of fossil fuels, market penetration of renewable energy technologies is occurring more quickly in remote locations domestically and also overseas where the cost of electricity is generally much

higher than in the U.S. Still, renewable energy is already making market inroads

in many states: the world’s largest wind installation in Iowa; major new commitments to solar energy in at least 15 states ranging from Massachusetts to Illinois

to Arizona; biomass power plants in states such as New York, Ohio, Minnesota,

Vermont and Indiana; and tens of thousands of new geothermal heat pumps in
451

homes, businesses, schools and Federal installations in states as diverse as Indiana,

New Jersey, Kentucky, Nevada and Utah.

We are also aggressively pursuing integration of fossil fuel with renewable energy

technologies. Projects such as hybrid wind/natural gas and co-firing of biomass with

coal demonstrate the opportunities between renewables and fossil fuels.

With this remarkable progress over the past two decades, we have established a

firm foundation for major market success of renewables and advanced power delivery systems in the coming years.

Fiscal Year 2000 Program Focus

Our fiscal year 2000 budget request of $398.9 million—an 18.7 percent increase

over fiscal year 1999—would help us accelerate the market success of renewables

and advanced power delivery systems. The budget request has three central objectives. First, we will accelerate U.S. technological progress by funding, in cooperation

with industry and other partners, a balanced and integrated portfolio of research

and development on renewable energy and power delivery technologies capable of

meeting the diverse needs of the competitive electricity marketplace in the 21st

Century. Second, we will improve environmental quality through increased use of

non-polluting renewable energy technologies and advanced electric power systems.

Third, we will expedite the transfer of technology and manufacturing process improvements to U.S. industries which will enable them to increase the deployment

of their energy systems in the United States and to better compete for expanding

export markets in other countries. The programs will help us achieve two important

goals for 2010: (1) Tripling the installed U.S. electricity generation capacity of geothermal, biomass, wind, and solar; and (2) developing ethanol from wastes and dedicated crops as a cost competitive (less than $0.75 per gallon) domestically-produced

blended transportation fuel.

Some examples of major program activities in fiscal year 2000 that will help us

achieve these objectives include:

Photovoltaics.—The photovoltaic program will initiate development of new highefficiency, multi-junction solar cells to capture and convert 1⁄3 of the sun’s energy

to electricity (the concentrator cell will be 33 and 1⁄3 percent efficient). The program

will also continue efforts to reduce manufacturing costs and increase durability of

PV systems, extending their lifetimes to greater than 25 years by 2004.

Biopower/Biofuels.—In fiscal year 2000, the biopower program will accelerate development of advanced conversion systems such as co-firing with coal that offer economic, near-term reductions in carbon emissions. In addition, the program will also

continue its three highly cost-shared, biomass power projects in Minnesota, Iowa,

and New York that will confirm the economic feasibility of integrated biomass power

projects and provide a vital stimulus to rural America.

The fiscal year 2000 biofuels program will continue its waste-to-ethanol and corn

ethanol projects, and advance its core conversion technology research with universities and the national laboratories through a highly competitive process. It will also

co-fund the regional biomass and feedstock development programs essential for geographically-appropriate, genetically superior biomass material.

Wind.—In fiscal year 2000, the Wind program will place added emphasis on field

testing small wind turbine prototypes to verify performance for remote site, cold

weather, and off-grid energy needs. The first Next Generation Turbine prototypes—

large turbines for major on-grid power production—will also begin testing, a major

step towards achieving the market- driven 2002 goal of 21⁄2 cents per kWh in good

winds.

Geothermal.—The Geothermal program will focus more resources on high-priority

research and technology development for electric power applications. In particular,

the program will initiate a cost-shared enhanced geothermal system (EGS) at an existing geothermal field, putting the U.S. at the forefront of global competition to

achieve the first full-scale EGS capable of sustained operation. Additionally, the program will accelerate work to produce an advanced drilling system capable of economically accessing the vast geothermal resources below 10,000 feet. These initiatives will enable the program to achieve its long-term strategic goals, including the

technology-based cost target of $0.03 per kWh.

Hydropower.—In fiscal year 2000, we are more than doubling our hydropower

budget request to help us maintain and enhance our Nation’s existing hydroelectric

generation which today provides 10 percent of U.S. electricity. With more than 200

hydropower facilities up for relicensing in the next decade, early indicators suggest

that environmental concerns may cause regulators to reduce generation capacities

for relicensed facilities unless fish mortality and water quality concerns are met.

EERE is developing and completing testing of advanced environmentally-friendly
452

hydropower turbine prototypes that will improve water quality and reduce fish kill

so that we can retain our current hydropower capacity of 75,000 MW.

Hydrogen.—In fiscal year 2000, our request will continue a strong core research

and development effort to meet the goals of reducing the cost of hydrogen production, increasing the energy density and efficiency of solid state storage systems, and

developing low-cost, reliable sensors to detect hydrogen leaks for a number of applications. The program will also support the accelerated development of hydrogen vehicle fueling stations in a 50/50 cost-shared venture with industry, vehicle mounted

storage systems, reversible fuel cells that can be integrated with renewable energy

systems and small fuel cells for remote power applications.

Superconductivity.—In fiscal year 2000 US leadership in this critical 21st Century

technology will be visible through several ground breaking program successes. In

addition to the Detroit cable project already mentioned, an advanced and environmentally friendly 10 megavolt ampere transformer will be installed in a Milwaukee

substation—the world’s first to supply power to a manufacturing facility. Also, testing will continue of the world’s largest superconducting motor (1000 horsepower—

installed fiscal year 1999). Superconducting transformers and motors will be half

the size of conventional alternatives and have only half the energy losses. Another

expected breakthrough will be the continuous manufacture of an entirely new type

of superconducting ‘‘tape’’ based on discoveries at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. This new ‘‘tape,’’ which can now only be made in short samples,

offers unprecedented performance potential: two thin one centimeter-wide metal

tapes coated with this new superconducting material will be able to carry the same

electric load as a very large, complex copper cable.

Competitive Solicitation.—In fiscal year 2000 we propose to create an integrated

Competitive Solicitation field validation program that combines the best elements

of the earlier Renewable Indian Energy program and the Federal Buildings and Remote Power programs. Highly cost-shared, and technologically and regionally-diverse projects under this new solicitation will accelerate the development and use

of the most promising renewable and hybrid renewable/fossil energy systems,

leveraging as much as $30 million annually in new renewable energy projects.

Management Improvements

When I became Assistant Secretary seventeen months ago, I realized that EERE

faced many management challenges and committed to fix them. This Subcommittee

also highlighted several issues. We have listened to you—and to industry and other

partners—and we have delivered.

Competition.—This Committee said that EERE was relying too heavily on noncompetitive mechanisms to disburse funds. We listened and we delivered a dramatic

reduction in our use of non-competitive funding mechanisms. As you can see from

the chart below, our use of broad-based solicitations, program management directives, and an increased emphasis on competition for laboratory subcontracts, has

brought our level of competitive awards by the Office of Power Technologies (OPT)

to 93 percent (including Congressionally-directed activities). This represents a reduction in OPT’s discretionary use of sole source mechanisms by almost 60 percent

in one year. Close to 100 activities previously funded by sole-source contracts within

EERE’s Energy and Water account in fiscal year 1998 will be competitively awarded

in fiscal year 1999. This is a major success.

In 1998 we also competed the $1 billion management and operating contract for

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the first time it has been competed in

15 years. The resulting contract with a partnership of three outstanding organizations—the Midwest Research Institute, Battelle, and Bechtel—strengthens the laboratory’s management team and sharpens its mission focus.

Uncosted Balances.—This Committee also said that EERE’s uncosted balances

were too high. Again, we listened and we delivered. Across all of EERE, we have

reduced uncosted balances by more than 58 percent since the beginning of fiscal

year 1996.
453

Within the Solar and Renewables R&D account we have made even greater

progress, reducing uncosted balances by 62 percent since fiscal year 1996. By the

end of fiscal year 1999, we will have reduced these balances by more than $175 million versus the beginning of fiscal year 1996. This Committee also highlighted the

use of support service contractors. We listened and significantly reduced the proportion of funding directed to support service costs and established more streamlined

procurement and business practices.

Management Practices.—While we are proud of the progress we have made, we

realize that our work to improve the management of EERE is by no means complete. For example, I have just established a new Management Improvement Team

composed of senior managers from across the various EERE sectors as well as representatives from our National Laboratories, the Golden Field Office, and various

DOE Offices to improve the corporate management processes and procedures. We

expect recommendations from this team will increase our ability to competitively

award even more funding in fiscal year 2000 on a competitive basis. Also, we are

working with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to undertake

an independent review of our financial management and procurement practices.

This review should be completed by the end of October 1999.
454

Planning and Evaluation.—We are also developing smarter strategies and carefully measuring progress in our core mission. We are developing a new office-wide

strategic plan and using technology ‘‘roadmaps’’—jointly developed with industry—

to ensure we are in step with the needs and goals of the marketplace. We are making greater use of the Government Performance and Results Act and peer-reviewed

measures of our technology progress. For example, we have commissioned the National Academy of Science to conduct an independent peer review of the Office of

Power Technologies R&D programs. These tools and practices will help provide the

data and analysis necessary to help make smart—and sometimes difficult—management choices such as our recent decision to end work on the solar power tower program in fiscal year 2000. Finally, just as any business must do to stay competitive,

we are working with the Department’s Workforce 21 Initiative to ensure we have

the right training, skills, and human resources available to fulfill our challenging

missions.

Program Integration and Expanded Partnerships.—One of our major management

challenges is breaking through the ‘‘stovepipes’’ that often separate our various missions. This is important because the solutions to many of our renewable energy and

energy efficiency challenges cross technology and market lines. For example, in the

biomass area both the private sector industries (i.e., fuels, electric power, and chemical products) and our own power, industrial, and transportation programs have traditionally operated separately from each other. Leading initiatives designed to better integrate our work include those in Bioenergy, EnergySmart Schools, and Distributed Power.

As part of our efforts to integrate our biomass work, we are launching a crosscutting Bioenergy Initiative. Biomass represents a tremendous, untapped, domestic

resource for our energy future, particularly as an alternative to imported oil. By investing in a bioenergy industry today, we can cultivate and harness renewable biomass resources to fuel our cars, power our homes and businesses, and supply our

chemical needs in the 21st Century. The Department of Energy, along with other

federal agencies and private partners, is launching a national partnership to develop

an integrated industry to produce power, fuels, and chemicals from crops, trees, and

wastes. By making a ‘‘ton of biomass’’ a viable market competitor to a barrel of imported oil, this initiative will help grow the U.S. economy, strengthen U.S. energy

security, protect the environment, and revitalize rural America. This effort will integrate the work from existing DOE R&D in transportation biofuels, biomass power

and programs with the forest products and agriculture industries. It is only through

the integration of these efforts that biomass will be an effective competitor to imported fossil fuels.

The EnergySmart Schools initiative is an EERE-led partnership that brings together public and private sector resources to reduce the $6 billion in annual energy
455

bills of our Nation’s schools and redirect the savings to our children’s education.

EnergySmart Schools will help to reduce energy consumption and expand the use

of clean energy technologies in new and existing schools, improve the learning environment, and increase awareness of energy-related issues. It is estimated that this

initiative—which will coordinate and build on the work of existing EERE programs

such as Rebuild America, the State Energy Program, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, Clean Cities, Energy Star, and the and potential projects under the proposed

Solar Program Support/Competitive Solicitation program—will help schools save up

to $1.5 billion in energy costs and lower carbon emissions by 10 million metric tons

by 2010 as they incorporate state-of-the-art energy efficiency and renewable energy

technologies. Through the EnergySmart Schools partnership, we will provide technical assistance, demonstrate renewable and energy efficiency technologies, and

offer guidance on financing and building design.

EERE is also pursuing a new initiative to encourage the development and use of

distributed power technologies—i.e., the generation of power at or near the point of

use. Many technologies can be used in a distributed manner, including wind,

photovoltaics, combined heat and power, concentrating solar power, fuel cells, gas

microturbines, hydrogen production and storage, battery and flywheel energy storage, and hybrid renewable/fossil power systems. The benefits of the distributed approach to power generation include reduced consumer costs through increased system efficiencies, reduced environmental emissions, and increased reliability. Our approach to achieving the benefits is three-pronged: (1) R&D to facilitate introduction

of distributed power applications, such as the development of modular renewable

and fossil energy systems that can be scaled to need; (2) addressing crosscutting regulatory/institutional issues such as our work with the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers (IEEE) to develop consensus-based interconnection standards;

and (3) developing policy options for possible inclusion in electricity restructuring

legislation.

Another challenge we are pursuing is to better leverage our resources and facilitate technology deployment by expanding partnerships with Federal, State, industry, and other entities. These partnerships involve other Offices within the Department of Energy including the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and the Office of Science

(OS) as well as other Federal agencies including the Department of Defense, NASA,

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. For example, we work with FE as we implement our

advanced geothermal drilling and biomass co-firing with coal programs, and OS is

a partner for fundamental research on photovoltaic and superconducting materials

and biomass feedstock genetics.

At the State and regional level, we have developed closer working relationships

with State and tribal organizations including the Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTI), the California Energy Commission (CEC), the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency

(NYSERDA), and the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT). For example, the

Wind Energy program is coordinating R&D with the California Energy Commission

and an industry partner to develop one of EERE’s two Next Generation Turbines.

Of course, in addition to our National Laboratories, our programs will continue

to tap the innovation and expertise available at the many fine universities across

the country. We will also continue to leverage resources and ensure market acceptance of the technologies we develop by pursuing cost-shared partnerships with the

Nation’s industries, utilities and other power providers, and other leaders in the energy field. For example, we are working with 18 universities across the U.S. to research innovative new photovoltaic conversion technologies and we have an extensive research partnership with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to accelerate development of superconducting wire, transmission cables, and motors.

OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUEST FOR SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

TECHNOLOGIES

Our fiscal year 2000 program level for Solar and Renewable Energy Technologies

is $398.9 million—an increase of $62.9, or 18.7 percent million over fiscal year 1999.

The bulk of the EERE Energy and Water Development Appropriation supports the

work of the Office of Power Technologies ($325.2 million). This office works with

electric service providers and related industries to advance clean, competitive and

reliable power technologies. We develop renewable energy technologies that use

solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and biomass energy resources and conduct

R&D that will enable a hydrogen energy infrastructure in the future. Our program

also develops advanced technologies—including high temperature superconducting

materials, real-time power system controls, and energy storage—that will improve
456

the energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the nation’s electric systems. Finally,

the program facilitates the export of renewable energy power generation internationally. Included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriation is $53.4 million for

the Office of Transportation Technologies to support R&D on production of biomassbased transportation fuels. The requested funds also include $19.2 million for Program Direction, which provides the Federal staffing resources and associated funding to support the management and oversight of the Solar and Renewable programs.

Table 1 on the following page summarizes our total fiscal year 2000 budget request, together with the appropriations for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 1997. In

the following sections, I describe the details of the request. For each major line of

the budget, I identify changes relative to fiscal year 1999 appropriations and describe program specifics and reasons for the requested funding change.

SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year

1998 1999 2000 Request

1999–2000

Change

Solar Building Technology Research .................................... 2.6 3.6 5.5 ∂1.9

Photovoltaic Energy Systems ................................................ 64.7 72.2 93.3 ∂21.1

Concentrating Solar Power ................................................... 16.3 17.0 18.9 ∂1.9

Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems—Power Systems ........... 27.8 31.5 39.0 ∂7.5

Wind Energy Systems ........................................................... 32.1 34.8 45.6 ∂10.8

Renewable Energy Production Incentive ............................... 3.0 4.0 1.5 ¥2.5

Solar Program Support 1 ....................................................... ................ ................ 10.0 ∂10.0

International Solar Energy Program2 ................................... 1.4 6.4 6.0 ¥0.4

Geothermal Energy Systems ................................................. 28.7 28.5 29.5 ∂1.0

Hydrogen Research ............................................................... 15.8 22.3 28.0 ∂5.7

Hydropower Development ...................................................... 0.7 3.3 7.0 ∂3.7

Renewable Indian Energy Resources 1 ................................. 3.9 4.8 ................ ¥4.8

Electric Energy Systems and Storage .................................. 42.3 40.1 41.0 ∂0.9

Federal Buildings/Remote Power Initiative 1 ........................ 4.9 4.0 ................ ¥4.0

Power Technologies ................................................. 245.2 272.3 325.2 ∂52.9

Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems—Transportation ............ 30.3 41.8 53.4 ∂11.6

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ................................ 3.2 3.9 1.1 ¥2.8

Program Direction ................................................................. 15.7 18.1 19.2 ∂1.1

Subtotal, Solar and Renewable Energy .................. 294.4 336.0 398.9 ∂62.9

Use of Prior Year Balances .................................................. ¥24.4 ................ ¥0.8 ¥0.8

Total, Solar and Renewable Energy ........................ 269.9 336.0 398.1 ∂62.1

1 The fiscal year 2000 Budget proposes to consolidate the Renewable Indian Energy Resources and the Federal Buildings and Remote Power programs through a competitive solicitation under Solar Program Support ($10.0). This budget line

would also include $2M for electricity restructuring. 2 Excludes funding for international energy efficiency programs under Energy Conservation.

SOLAR BUILDING TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

The request for Solar Building Technology Research is $5.50 million, an increase of $1.90 million from current levels. This funding will be used to make solar water

heaters an economically attractive option for families across the U.S. by 2003. It will

enable the Department to develop a new generation of solar water heaters that is

50 percent less expensive than today’s technology (from $0.08/kWh to $0.04/kWh delivered energy cost). This would enable a family to buy a solar water heater for

about $1,000 and see their investment returned in energy savings within four years.

To accomplish this, the program is divided into three areas: Technology Development ($4.7 million), Field Validation ($0.5 million), and Quality Assurance ($0.3 million).
457

Within Technology Development (up $1.2 million), researchers will select two of

the concepts under study that are most likely to enable the program to reach its

cost goal. Development of these concepts will then become the focus of the program

during fiscal year 2000. It is likely that one or both of these systems will use polymers, including advanced plastics, as a replacement for the steel, glass, and copper

that make up current solar water heaters. Since polymers are inexpensive and light

weight, their use will reduce the cost of the solar collector and lower the cost of installation. Work will include testing to determine performance, ability to withstand

freezing and overheating, and weather degradation. Materials research will be an

important aspect of this work as several polymers formulations will be tested to see

which are best suited to long term exposure to solar radiation.

In Field Validation (up $0.5 million) cooperative projects with utilities and builders will address some of the technical barriers that limit the use of solar water heaters. A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the Salt River

Project (a utility serving the Phoenix region) will be completed that develops a roof

integrated solar water heater that can provide hot water at a levelized cost of $0.06

to $0.07/kWh. This project, as well as projects with the Wisconsin Public Service

and Lakeland Electric, is driven by restructuring of the electric industry as utilities

seek to provide additional products and services to their customers. In addition,

solar technical support will be provided to builders such as Pulte Homes, the second

largest builder of U.S. homes, and CAVCO, one of the largest builders of manufactured homes. All efforts in this portion of the program are limited to R&D activities

that include system evaluation, analysis of system performance, and assistance in

solving problems such as materials degradation and corrosion that industry cannot

address by itself.

Quality Assurance (up $0.2 million) funding will be used to address the reliability

of solar water heaters, a primary customer concern. Performance and repair data

from hundreds of systems that have operated for at least five years will be analyzed

to identify the components and subsystems most in need of improvement. This data

will be used to refine computer models that predict the reliability of solar water

heating systems. This information will help the solar industry improve the reliability of its product and provide guidance to the researchers developing the new

generation of solar water heaters.

PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEMS

The request for Photovoltaic Energy Systems is $93.3 million, an increase of $21.1

million from fiscal year 1999. The Photovoltaic Energy Systems program conducts

a balanced portfolio of R&D activities that help U.S. industry to develop photovoltaic technology as a clean, competitive, reliable energy supply option, and to

maintain technological leadership over strong international competition. The increase in fiscal year 2000 will primarily be used to support basic research to dramatically reduce dollar per watt values for photovoltaics in the long term, and to

support technology development and deployment to incrementally reduce costs in

the near term. Based on a multi-year technology plan that has been developed in

close partnership with industry, this balanced program focuses on three key activities that industry and other stakeholders have cited as the most critical to maintaining and advancing our lead in PV technology and products: Fundamental Research ($20.3 million), Advanced Materials and Devices ($27.0 million), and Collector Research and Systems Development ($46.0 million).

The Photovoltaic Energy Systems program is working hard to increase competition and reach out to a broader cross section of the industry. For example, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative is forming new partnerships all across the country with

builders, solar equipment manufacturers, city planners, financial institutions and

utilities. Furthermore, the fiscal year 2000 increases for basic research will be used

to issue competitive solicitations to a larger section of the research community seeking new ideas on non-conventional, breakthrough technologies.

Today, the U.S. stands as the world leader in photovoltaic technology, with our

industry garnering 35 percent of total sales in 1998. This has not always been the

case, however, nor is it guaranteed to continue. Leadership in photovoltaic technology was lost in the mid 1980’s because of strong international support for PV development. As a result of our expanded support for advanced technology research

and other DOE-industry partnership programs, the U.S. was able to recapture the

lead in global market share for photovoltaic modules in 1993. However, in the past

two years U.S. leadership has eroded, from 44 percent of total sales in 1996 to 40

percent in 1997 to 35 percent in 1998.

The U.S. photovoltaic industry faces intense competition from Japan and Europe,

which are aggressively researching and marketing their PV technology. For exam-
458

ple, Japan’s fiscal year 1999 budget for photovoltaics is 28.54 billion yen (approximately $240 million), which is more than three times our funding level. Half of Japan’s budget is used to subsidize the purchase of residential PV systems. As a result, Japan’s PV industry sales grew 40 percent in 1998 and are on pace to take

over world leadership by the end of this year.

To maintain U.S. leadership—and to penetrate new, larger markets such as energy service providers and building applications—the cost of PV systems must be

more competitive with other sources of electricity. Critical improvements in conversion efficiency, manufacturing, reliability and system life are essential. The increased funding request will enable the PV program, in cooperation with U.S. industry partners, to continue the research needed to resolve these technical problems. Funding for Fundamental Research (up $9.3 million) will continue world-class research at national laboratories and universities on advanced concepts for improved

technology in the post-2000 time frame. Activities will include continued research

on several photovoltaic semiconductor materials to resolve issues that limit current

technology. This work will advance the understanding of new and improved materials, cell structures, layer growth processes, semiconductor theory and material

characterization methods.

Starting in fiscal year 2000 we will begin a High Performance PV Initiative to

support research to substantially increase the efficiency of two key technologies:

large area, single crystal interconnected thin films, and multi junction concentrator

cells made from elemental (III–V-based) materials such as antimony, arsenide,

gallium, phosphorous, indium, or nitrogen. Fundamental research aimed at major

innovations is required to essentially double the conversion efficiency of thin films

from their current 8–10 percent to 15–20 percent, and to increase III–V-based multi

junction cells from 30 percent to 40 percent under 500X solar concentration. Successful development of a 40 percent efficient four-junction laboratory cell will allow

a 33 percent efficient concentrating module under a solar concentration of 500X,

thereby capturing one third of the sun’s energy. Both the enhanced thin film approach and the multi junction III–V approach will yield dramatically reduced dollar

per watt values for terrestrial photovoltaics. Also new in fiscal year 2000 will be a

competitive solicitation on basic R&D for breakthrough, non-conventional PV technologies, such as liquid cells, polymers, biochemical and biomimetic processes, etc.,

aimed at dramatic cost reductions. Both of these new basic research activities will

be core program efforts to meet the Program’s long term goals of $0.06/kWh electricity.

Advanced Materials and Devices (no change) will continue collaborative research

with industry to improve device efficiency and stability, particularly for large-area,

thin-film deposition systems. The centerpiece of this activity is the Thin Film Partnership Program, a government/industry/university partnership program to accelerate development of cost-effective thin film technologies. Photovoltaic devices employing thin-film technology significantly reduce the amount of semiconductor material required for power generation. Also, because such devices are amenable to mass

production, they offer significant potential for cost reduction—which would make

possible widespread use of such technologies as PV shingles. Module reliability research will continue to support testing of modules to improve operational lifetime

in the field.

Collector Research and Systems Development increases (up $11.8 million) will be

used to help reduce manufacturing costs of photovoltaics, develop building integrated products, accelerate electric utility use of photovoltaics, and expand work in

support of the million solar roofs initiative. Key to maintaining U.S. competitiveness

over the next five to ten years, manufacturing process research and development

under the Photovoltaic Manufacturing Technology (PVMaT) partnership will continue cost-shared research with industry to reduce module manufacturing costs, improve module performance, and stimulate investment in new manufacturing production lines. As a result of this cost-shared R&D with industry, average manufacturing costs for DOE partners have declined by 50 percent since PVMaT began and

are expected to decline by another 40 percent by 2004. In fiscal year 2000, a PVMaT

competitive solicitation to develop new in line process diagnostics and state-of-theart measurement and characterization equipment needed for module scale-up will

be issued, resulting in 5–7 new industry cost-shared contracts. A new solicitation

will be issued for highly leveraged utility projects designed to provide utilities with

hands-on experience with PV systems, and validate technical and economic performance in specific high-value applications such as building integrated applications. A

portion of the increase will also be used to fully fund Phase 3 building integrated

contracts under the PV:BONUS program, which supports cost-shared efforts with

industry and others to develop PV products that can be integrated into commercial

and residential buildings.
459

In addition, a part of the increase in Collector Research and Systems Development (up $1.5 million) will be targeted at specific activities that support the million

solar roofs initiative. An important goal of this initiative is to help develop a significant domestic market for U.S.-manufactured solar energy systems, to provide a firm

base for U.S. industry expansion and market competitiveness. Without such a base,

as is being actively pursued in other countries such as Germany and Japan, it is

likely that PV systems will become an example of technology developed here but exploited abroad.

In fiscal year 2000, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative will work with 25 State and

Local Partnerships across the nation which have made preliminary commitments to

install over 750,000 solar energy systems by 2010. These Partnerships work to

eliminate barriers to the use of solar energy and create market demand. The members of the Partnerships often include utilities and energy services companies, builders and developers, financial institutions, solar equipment manufacturers and distributors, local government, state and Federal agencies and other solar energy interests. Work will be expanded that includes development of additional financing

mechanisms, elimination of technical barriers like the safe interconnection of

photovoltaics to the utility grid, technical training and establishment of net metering. Establishment of the national Million Solar Roofs registry to track system installations will also be fully implemented. Additionally, the Initiative will also work

to ensure that solar energy systems meet the requirements and standards of state

and local codes and standards. To ensure that the Initiative is responsive to the

State and Local Partnerships, the DOE Regional Support Offices will coordinate

Federal support and provide technical assistance. As the largest single user of energy in the U.S., the Federal government is committed to installing 20,000 solar energy systems on its own facilities by 2010. In fiscal year 2000, the Initiative has

an interim goal of 2,000 Federal solar energy installations.

CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER PROGRAM

The fiscal year 2000 funding request for the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

Program (formerly the Solar Thermal Energy Systems program) is $18.85 million

(up $1.85 million). The CSP Program leads the national effort to develop clean, competitive, and reliable power options using concentrated sunlight. Ranging in size

from several kilowatts to multi-megawatt installations, CSP systems can satisfy

substantial domestic and international energy needs, contributing up to 20,000 MW

by the year 2020. Consequently, CSP systems are also expected to make a significant contribution to the U.S. effort to reduce carbon emissions in the early part of

the 21st Century. An advantage of concentrating solar power systems is the capability of being deployed as either a distributed power system or as a dispatchable

power system (when hybridized), or both.

In response to the changes brought on by utility restructuring and the resulting

emphasis on competition, the CSP program has revised its focus from developing

specific technologies to providing technology options to U.S. industry that will enable them to compete in near-term renewable energy markets and further reduce

the costs for long-term penetration of broader energy markets. This paradigm shift

has led to the four new program technology paths described below.

Under the first path, Distributed Power Systems, ($6.7 million requested, up $1.4

million) the CSP Program will work with three industry partnerships to develop and

demonstrate reliable dish/engine systems. Under the Utility Scale Joint Venture

Project (USJVP), three 25 kW systems are undergoing intensive reliability monitoring in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, with a near-term goal of reaching

1,000 hours between down times. In order to encourage competition, a second solicitation was issued for alternative designs under the Dish/Engine Critical Components (DECC) Project in fiscal year 1998. Awards were made and operating hours

are being accumulated on this system to prove reliability. Next-generation improvements are being incorporated in fiscal year 1999, with a completely-modernized, fullscale 25 kW prototype system to be installed in fiscal year 2000. A third project was

launched in fiscal year 1999 to field an advanced-technology 10 kW solar dish/engine system at a remote site in the Southwestern U.S. In fiscal year 2000, the offgrid capability of the system will be developed and tested. These systems are equally suited for either stand-alone operation or for being hybridized with natural gas

or diesel fuel.

The focus of the second path is to reduce the costs of Dispatchable Power Systems

($5.34 million, down $0.63 million). Based on the results of an industry-led trough

technology roadmap, a number of component and system improvements were identified as being able to reduce the costs of near-term trough plants from the current

10–12¢/kWh to 6–8¢/kWh. To meet this need, the USA Trough Initiative was
460

launched in fiscal year 1999. Fiscal year 2000 work will focus on optimization of the

collector design, improved system integration with conventional power plants (e.g.,

natural gas combined-cycle). This initiative will reopen a domestic market for trough

systems and provide a leading position for U.S. industry in bidding on projects currently before the World Bank. Additional activities include a SolMaT effort to develop low-cost drives and concentrators.

Path three, Advanced Components and Systems ($5.96 million requested, up $0.97

million), addresses the longer- range R&D required for CSP systems to achieve energy costs in the 4 to 6¢/kWh range, thus allowing penetration of broader domestic

and international markets. In fiscal year 2000, the program will continue current

project work focused on higher-temperature technologies, the development of durable reflective materials, and higher efficiency system designs through the improvement of both solar concentrators and receivers.

The fourth path, Strategic Alliances & Market Awareness ($0.85 million requested, up $0.11 million), covers technology transfer, communications, and technology roadmapping efforts to ensure that the CSP program is focused on the needs

of industry and the realities of the marketplace. Analyses and studies conducted in

fiscal year 2000 by the world-class researchers at SunLab (a ‘‘virtual’’ laboratory

comprised of the CSP researchers at Sandia National Laboratories and the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory) are heavily relied upon by U.S. industry, Federal

and State agencies, and other organizations involved in renewable energy development.

WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS

The fiscal year 2000 funding request for the Wind Energy Systems program is

$45.6 million, an increase of $10.8 million over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.

The mission of the Wind Energy Systems program is to enable U.S. industry to complete the research, testing, and field verification needed to fully develop advanced

wind energy technologies that lead the world in cost-effectiveness and reliability.

Wind energy has been the fastest growing source of energy in the world for the last

decade, with capacity additions worldwide totaling over 2000 MW in 1998 and industry sales of over $2 billion. Wind power stations in Europe and developing countries account for most of the recent capacity increases, using wind turbines supplied

primarily by European companies. While wind power development in the United

States is beginning to recover from several years of stagnation, prospects for sustaining this growth are still highly uncertain as electric power markets deregulate

and place increased emphasis on low cost of energy production. The key to positioning wind as an important U.S. clean energy option for new competitive power

markets, as well as export markets, is the development of innovative, cost-competitive technology that is being carried out under the Wind Energy Systems program.

The program is currently partnering with industry for R&D targeted to reduce cost

of energy from wind to 21⁄2 ¢/kWh at sites with good winds.

In fiscal year 2000, the Wind Energy Systems program will focus on Applied Research ($13.5 million), Turbine Research ($20.2 million), and Cooperative Research

and Testing ($11.9 million).

Applied Research (up $2.8 million) addresses fundamental engineering and technology issues with a broad range of applications, and is carried out at National laboratories and numerous universities. The requested increase will support the Wind

Partnerships for Advanced Component Technologies (WindPACT) project. Under

WindPACT, promising research ideas and concepts generated in Applied Research

will be further developed and tested by a joint team of industry and laboratory researchers on a component and subsystem basis. WindPACT will develop improved

wind technology components such as self-protecting rotors, passive aerodynamic controls, and new generators that can readily be incorporated into new turbine designs

beyond those now included in the Next Generation Turbine project. This competitive

effort is expected to attract new players into the wind industry because partnerships

between new entrants and existing wind companies will be encouraged and previous

technical experience with wind will not be required.

Turbine Research (up $3.8 million) is a cost-shared cooperative program with industry and utilities that supports competitively-selected research, testing, and field

verification needed for advanced technology wind turbines. The requested increase

for Turbine Research will support continuing partnerships with seven companies,

and initiation of several new field verification projects that will be tailored to satisfy

specific regional needs. Two companies are designing turbines under the Next Generation Turbine project, which is targeted to reduce energy costs from wind systems

to 21⁄2 ¢/kWh at 15 mph wind sites by 2002. In fiscal year 2000, these companies

will require increased funding as they enter into a period of peak design activity
461

and hardware procurement for their engineering and manufacturing development

prototype turbines. The Near Term Research and Testing project will be completed

in fiscal year 2000, yielding several technological advancements for a more cost effective 750 kW turbine, to help U.S. industry compete in current world markets.

Testing of prototypes will commence under the Small Wind Turbine project, and

several new field verification projects using small (up to 100kW) wind turbines will

be in operation. The program will also take the lead in completing R&D and field

verification for a wind turbine intended for use in extreme cold environments, such

as Alaska and the Antarctic, as the third phase of a Small Business Innovation Research project begun by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the

National Science Foundation.

Cooperative Research and Testing (up $4.2 million) focuses on near-term R&D

and testing at the world-class National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) in Colorado, which features a user facility that allows U.S. industries to expand testing of

new wind energy technologies. The requested funding increase will launch a new cooperative effort with industry—Hybrid Systems for Village Power—which will build

upon the experience with ongoing wind hybrid power projects in Alaska and provide

opportunities for field verification on new wind control systems and system integration options. In addition, a new Wind Monitoring Network will provide verifiable

data on long-term performance of several large new wind projects. This information

is needed for developing strategies to accelerate the use of wind energy under the

new rules of the emerging competitive power markets. NWTC capabilities for providing accredited certification testing services will be expanded, and efforts will continue in establishing U.S. certification capability for wind turbines in cooperation

with Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL). UL is now offering certification services to

the wind industry—one wind turbine company has already contracted for UL certification—and will begin to work with the NWTC staff to define certification procedures. NWTC staff are presently developing quality assurance, testing, and design

evaluation procedures which will be used to test turbines for UL certification.

BIOPOWER/BIOFUELS

We are requesting $92.4 million for Biopower/Biofuels programs in fiscal year 2000, an increase of 21 percent. This includes $6.0 million to support the Bioenergy

Initiative described earlier in this testimony. The Initiative is an integrated effort

spread among three sectors within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy in partnership with the private sector. The program supports biomass energy projects aimed at three principal markets: electric power; transportation fuels;

and chemicals.

The following is a brief discussion of the Biopower and the Biofuels Programs:

Biopower Program

The budget requests for the Biopower program with the Office of Power Tech- nologies is $38.95 million in fiscal year 2000—an increase of $7.5M over fiscal year

1999. The Biopower Program mission is to integrate sustainable biomass feedstock

production with efficient biomass power generation systems that can provide substantial energy, economic, and environmental benefits. The program focuses on collaborative partnerships between the Department and the private sector to conduct

critical research, development, and cost-shared demonstration activities. Through

the introduction of competition to the generation market, power producers who can

also produce a variety of energy related co-products will capture an increasing volume of electricity sales. These applications will provide broader based, near term

markets for advanced biopower systems. The program’s goal is the establishment of

30,000 MW of renewable biomass capacity installed by 2020. The request includes

$2.7 million for Thermoconversion and $32.15 million for Systems Development.

Also included under collaborative co-funding with biofuels are $3.1 million for feedstock development and $1.0 million for the regional biomass energy program.

Thermoconversion.—The increase in Thermoconversion (up $1.2 million) will support basic research in biomass combustion and gasification characteristics, especially related to cofiring biomass with coal (a major near-term, low-cost market opportunity) and as applied to integrated gasification power producing systems.

Systems Development.—Within the Systems Development activity (up $5.8 million), $5.5 million is requested for the Vermont Gasifier Project, $17.3 million is requested for the DOE/USDA Biomass Power for Rural Development Initiative (an increase of $1.8 million), $5.4 million is requested for the Co-firing Biomass with Coal

Initiative (an increase of $2.9 million), and $4 million is requested for Small Modular Systems Development.

The Vermont Gasifier project will demonstrate a pilot-scale state-of-the-art gasifier combined with an advanced turbine, producing approximately 8–12 MW of elec-
462

tricity from wood. In fiscal year 2000, a hot-gas clean-up unit will be installed and

the integrated combined cycle gasification systems will be operated for 1,000 hours

at double the efficiency of direct- fired biomass units.

The Biomass Power for Rural Development initiative in fiscal year 2000 would

support three projects: (1) co-firing tests of a 35 MW retrofitted plant with

switchgrass in Chariton Valley, Iowa project will begin and up to 3600 acres of

switchgrass will be planted ($1.8 million); (2) cofiring tests of willow and coal will

be conducted along with the completion of retrofit of two additional coal plants and

up to 600 acres of willow will be planted as part of the New York Salix project ($1.5

million); and (3) construction of the 75 MW Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers integrated gasification combine cycle power plant ($14 million).

The Co-firing Biomass with Coal initiative, currently conducting test runs on the

effectiveness of blends of coal and biomass, will expand in scope to additional sites

to include biomass gasification. Sustained operations at selected sites will also be

demonstrated. Modular systems development is funding feasibility studies, prototype demonstrations, and proceeding to full systems integration and development of

smaller gasification units (5kW to 5MW).

Transportation Biofuels

The Transportation Biofuels Energy Systems program within the Office of Transportation Technologies has a budget request of $53.4 million in fiscal year 2000—

an increase of $11.7 million over fiscal year 1999. The mission of this program is

to research, develop, and demonstrate cost competitive technologies for the production of liquid transportation fuels, in collaboration and partnership with industry,

other government organizations, and academic institutions. In support of this mission, the program pursues the development of low-cost biomass energy feedstocks

and cost competitive conversion technologies for liquid fuels production from agricultural residues, forestry wastes, and energy crops. The development and deployment

of biofuels technologies can displace 0.30 quads of primary energy by 2010 and 0.84

quads by 2020, while promoting rural economic development. Since biofuels produce

almost no net carbon on a life cycle basis, they are a very promising supply side

option for reducing carbon emissions in the transportation sector.

The requests of $53.4 million for the Transportation Biofuels Energy Systems Program includes $37.4 million for ethanol production, $1.0 million for biodiesel production, and $6.0 million for integrated bioenergy research and development. The request includes $5.5 million for feedstock development and $3.5 million for the regional biomass energy program (collaborative co-funding with the Biopower program).

Ethanol production (up $1.5 million) is a major focus of the Transportation

Biofuels program, comprising 70 percent of the budget request. Currently, ethanol

is being used as a blend with gasoline in 10 percent ethanol/90 percent gasoline

mixtures, can be used in flexible fueled vehicles (up to 85 percent ethanol blends)

and is being considered for use in fuel cells.

We have established three industrial partnerships for the construction of ethanol

production facilities using waste biomass. These highly leveraged partnerships, with

DOE providing around 20 percent of the costs will result in ‘‘first of a kind’’ commercial technology demonstration plants. We recently attended a ground breaking ceremony for the construction of the first partnership project—a 20 million gallon waste

to ethanol facility in Jennings, Louisiana. The other two partnerships are to build

ethanol production facilities in California and New York. We are also working with

the existing corn (starch based) ethanol industry to demonstrate biomass (cellulose)

technology as add-on facilities using corn stalks and corn fiber to increase production and improve economic viability of the process. At least one feasibility study for

an add-on facility will be completed in fiscal year 1999.

The program will also continue advanced technology research and development at

our National Laboratories will improve energy conversion and integrated process efficiencies and address key cost factors to reach the production cost goal of $0.72 per

gallon by 2010.

The Biodiesel program (up $0.2 million) will continue research and development

of efficient technologies for the production of biodiesel to lower the cost of a biomassbased alternative to diesel fuel. Opportunities for converting low- cost waste oils will

be explored.

Collaborative Funding by Biopower and Biofuels

The $8.6 million Biopower/Biofuels request for Feedstock Development (up $3.5

million) will expand the research and development to increase the number of crop

species for regional diversity and the increase of the number of yearly harvesting

in order to improve the economics utilization of feedstock for production. These feed-
463

stocks will provide a sustainable, reliable supply of biomass which can be used for

the production of fuels, chemicals and power. The Biopower/Biofuels request for the

Regional Biomass Energy Program of $4.5 million (up $1 million) will continue regionally focused activities with State and local governments to increase the development and use of biomass resources for multiple products.

RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM

The request for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program is $1.5 mil- lion, a $2.5 million decrease from fiscal year 2000 funding levels. Annual appropriations provide financial production incentives to stimulate the construction and operation of new, qualified renewable energy facilities owned by state entities, municipal

utilities, and electric cooperatives that produce and sell electricity. We estimate that

fiscal year 2000 payments to qualified Tier I facilities—which use solar, wind, geothermal or dedicated (closed-loop) biomass resources—will require approximately

$0.3 million to pay for electricity generated and sold. Remaining funds will be applied to qualified Tier II facilities, and include non- dedicated (open-loop) biomass

resources (which would not be eligible for renewable energy tax credits if they were

owned by private industry).

A number of very legitimate concerns regarding the proposed cut in REPI funding

have been raised by the public power community. We are carefully revisiting this

issue.

SOLAR PROGRAM SUPPORT

The fiscal year 2000 request for Solar Program Support is $10 million, $8 million

for a Competitive Solicitation which would combine current the current Renewable

Indian Energy Resources and Federal Buildings/Remote Power programs to encourage innovative applications and deployment of renewable electric technologies and

would provide $2 million for Electricity Restructuring.

The $8 million requested for a Competitive Solicitation (down $0.8 million from

the predecessor programs) will speed early deployment of renewable technologies by

seeking technology proposals on the best ways to use renewable technologies, either

singly or in combination with other renewable technologies, or in hybrid configurations with fuel cells, natural gas or energy storage systems.

The two primary objectives of the Competitive Solicitation program are: (1) to

prove the availability of clean, affordable, and reliable electric power supply options

for the many remote and/or economically challenged regions of the Nation; and (2)

to obtain essential data on operational performance, reliability, and benefits of renewable energy and hybrid renewable energy systems in various geographic locations and climatic conditions.

The information and experiences gained through this Competitive Solicitation program will also help overcome specific impediments to more widespread use of renewable electricity technologies. Currently, renewable energy projects are hampered by

the uncertainties of electric utility restructuring, the current low price and perceived

availability of natural gas, and improvements in gas turbine technology. The increasingly competitive restructured electric environment also favors technologies

with low capital costs over technologies with higher capital costs, but lower life cycle

costs. Rather than high project technical or financial risk, the major hurdle often

facing renewable energy projects is identification of project structures in the new

marketplace that would allow acquisition of long term power purchase contracts and

project financing. Such new structures include renewable energy power marketers,

hybrid projects with renewables and natural gas, investments in distributed renewable electricity generation, and customer choice.

This six-year, highly-leveraged program would combine two previous budget

items—the Renewable Indian Energy Resources and Federal Buildings/Remote

Power programs—into a single, integrated, technology-focused competitive field validation program. (Compared to the prior programs, funding is reduced by $0.8 million.) In keeping with the origins of this program, the Solicitation program would

designate two targeted areas for competitive awards—systems benefitting Native

Americans and systems addressing the needs of Federal facilities—in addition to

providing for an ‘‘open’’ solicitation for other applications of these systems. Remote

power needs will continue to be addressed as aspects of all three segments of this

solicitation. Of the $8.0 million proposed for fiscal year 2000, up to $3.0 million of

the solicitation will be dedicated to projects benefitting Native Americans. Native

American projects will require a minimum 20 percent cost-sharing, and the ‘‘open’’

portion of the solicitation will require at least 75 percent non-DOE funding. For a

number of reasons, there are tremendous synergies between renewable energy technologies and the energy needs of Native Americans. Renewable resources such as
464

solar and wind are often abundant on tribal lands. In addition, Native Americans

often have substandard or, in some cases, no electricity service. Renewable energy

technologies can often provide the most cost-effective option for providing electricity

on tribal lands and can also be a source of employment for tribes installing such

systems onsite.

The request for Electricity Restructuring for fiscal year 2000 of $2 million represents an increase of $100,000 over fiscal year 1999 appropriations. The purpose

of the Department’s electricity restructuring activities is to develop a comprehensive

understanding of emerging electricity competition policies across the country and

their impacts on renewable energy and energy efficiency products and services, and

the impacts on various public benefit programs such as low-income assistance.

The program will provide technical assistance and analysis to State, Federal and

tribal decision makers and others to assist them in their efforts to achieve their renewable energy, energy efficiency, and consumer protection goals as the industry is

changed. This work is critical to renewable and energy efficiency technologies because the new electricity market and regulatory rules will have a major impact on

future technology deployment.

Due to the introduction of competition the electricity sector is undergoing the

most significant transformation that has occurred in over 60 years. Fourteen States

have enacted retail competition legislation to permit customers to choose their electricity supplier and four others have issued comprehensive competition orders. Fourteen other States ended their 1998 legislative sessions with comprehensive retail

competition bills pending.

The transition to competition is challenging for a number of reasons including the

technical complexity of the electricity system, the intricate web of Federal, State,

and local law and regulation, and regional differences. As a consequence, policy

makers at all levels of government need analysis and technical assistance on a portfolio of market and policy mechanisms to achieve their restructuring goals. The demand for this assistance is very high. For example, as part of the recent broadbased solicitation, the Department received far more restructuring-related analysis

and technical assistance proposals than our resources can support.

Although each State and region face unique electricity policy challenges, there are

many common issues. Furthermore, many States lack the resources and expertise

needed to address the complexities of electricity restructuring and to keep track of

what other States are doing. Consequently, it is often more cost-effective and efficient for certain technical assistance and analysis to be provided at the federal level

rather than duplicated on a State-by-State basis. In addition, although a plethora

of studies and analyses funded by entities with economic interests in certain restructuring outcomes exist, user-friendly information from independent entities on

key policy issues is often in short supply. The EERE electricity restructuring program works to fill this information gap.

The restructuring program is also important to the development of EERE’s own

research and development agenda. The success of our R&D agenda hinges, in part,

on assuring that the technologies we help develop are compatible with the rapidly

evolving electricity market structure. Thus, the restructuring program informs our

R&D work. For example, the introduction of competition is likely to favor modular,

distributed systems that are less capital intensive than central station plants. In response, many of our R&D programs are increasingly focused on modular applications.

In fiscal year 2000, the Department proposes to expand technical analyses on the

impacts of electricity restructuring on renewable technologies and energy efficiency

technologies. Analyses on market mechanisms such as labeling of electricity products for consumers, ‘‘green’’ certification, and energy services strategies will be completed. The program will provide tools and information for policy makers to develop

legislative and regulatory policies that lead to competitive, reliable electricity markets with a range of energy options including renewable energy and efficiency technologies. To facilitate these efforts, the program will also encourage the States and

others to form regional information exchange networks to share ‘‘lessons learned’’

about what does and doesn’t work.

NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

The fiscal year 2000 request of $1.1 million for the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL), (down $2.8 million), is to provide for maintaining NREL facilities to assure appropriate scientific and technical support for Solar and Renewable

Energy R&D activities. The request will fund infrastructure renovations and upgrades at the NREL sites, including minor modifications, road repair, safety fencing,

roof repairs, and the installation of a 2,000 square foot multi-user prefabricated fa-
465

cility for solar radiation research. In addition, the request will fund acquisition of

a variety of critical multi-program laboratory equipment needed to upgrade or replace old equipment, and also provide for the upgrading of the laboratory’s data system infrastructure.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

The Geothermal Energy request for fiscal year 2000 is $29.5 million, an increase

of $1.0 million over fiscal year 1999 levels. The Geothermal program in the Office

of Geothermal Technologies works in partnership with U.S. industry to establish

geothermal energy as a sustainable, environmentally sound, and economically competitive contributor to the U.S. and world energy supply. These joint efforts sponsor

research and development that leads to advanced technologies to improve reliability,

reduce environmental impacts, and lower costs of geothermal energy systems. The

budget request supports the five goals of the Geothermal Energy Strategic Plan for

2010 which have been endorsed by industry: supplying the electrical power needs

of 7 million U.S. homes; providing the heating, cooling, and hot water needs of 7

million U.S. homes; meeting the basic energy needs of 100 million people in developing countries; ensuring that the United States continues to lead in geothermal

technology; and developing new technology to meet 10 percent of U.S. non-transportation energy needs. In contrast to last year, the budget request is allocated solely

for Geothermal Electric R&D and Development ($29.5 million). No funds are requested for Geothermal Heat Pump Deployment in fiscal year 2000. The $29.5 million request is allocated among: reservoir technology, $8.0 million; exploration, $7.0

million; drilling $7.5 million; and energy conversion, $7.0 million.

The Reservoir Technology program (∂$2.5 million) will perform water injection

tests at a commercial site at Dixie Valley, Nevada, develop a suite of chemical tracers for tracing the flow of injected water, and use field test data to improve reservoir

models. These efforts will lead to proper fluid management practices which could

enable a geothermal field to operate productively for over 100 years. The Enhanced

Geothermal Systems initiative under the Reservoir Technology program will focus

on extending the productivity and lifetime of geothermal reservoirs through rock

fracturing, stimulation, and water injection.

The Exploration program (∂$1.5 million) will collaborate with industry on 3Dseismic techniques to locate and characterize new geothermal fields. Individual geophysical methods will be integrated to develop ‘‘smart’’ systems which will select

more reliable exploration targets. Greater effectiveness in locating geothermal resources will greatly reduce the number of non-productive wells.

The Drilling program (∂$2.5 million) will complete the testing of improved PDC

drill bits, unshielded high-temperature logging tools, and a high-temperature casing

inspection tool. The Geothermal Advanced Drilling System will be initiated which

will give economic access to the extremely large geothermal resources contained in

rocks at great depth. One element of the Geothermal Advanced Drilling System is

a high speed data link that will transmit a variety of real-time drilling data to the

surface for decision making while drilling. About 50 percent of the cost of the high

speed data link will be provided by major private sector partners. In addition, a consortium for high-temperature electronics suitable for applications in geothermal

wells will be formed by the Gas Research Institute, Honeywell, Boeing, other industry leaders, and the Drilling program. Finally, the program will transfer to industry

the technology to acoustically align downhole line shaft pumps which will save industry millions of dollars annually.

In the Energy Conversion program (∂$1.0 million), the Kalina Cycle, a new plant

design for more efficient and cost-effective electricity generation, will be tested in

partnership with industry. The non-Federal cost share of this demonstration project

is over 60 percent. The program will also field test gas monitors and anti-fouling

coatings for heat exchanger tubes which will reduce geothermal power plant operating and maintenance costs. The new Modular Geothermal Power Plant initiative

under the Energy Conversion program will support the design, construction, and

testing of a small (300 to 500 kW) power module for distributed or off-grid sites.

This initiative creates a supply option for developers wishing to install small-scale

geothermal plants which can be used in remote, off-grid, and/or grid-connected locations, providing flexibility in adapting to the changing electric power industry. This

is particularly important because geothermal is emerging as an attractive ‘‘green

power’’ customer choice option as program R&D continues to cut power generation

costs.

Competition is key to the cost-effective management of geothermal R&D activities.

All three geothermal initiatives described above, as well as many other research and

development activities, will be competed through solicitations.
466

HYDROGEN

The request for Hydrogen is $28 million, an increase of $5.7 million from fiscal

year 1999. Industry is investing substantially in both hydrogen production systems

and the development of the Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells that require a hydrogen stream to operate. Buses powered by fuel cells with onboard hydrogen are being tested in metropolitan districts, and residential fuel cell systems

are entering into pre-commercial testing. These ventures portend commercial activities for the distributed production, storage and utilization of hydrogen by 2001 to

2003.

The Hydrogen Program is authorized by the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 to fund

those projects which are evaluated on a competitive basis. In fiscal year 1999, the

Department funded 92 percent of the Hydrogen Program through four competitive

solicitations. The fiscal year 2000 request will support a balanced program to increase market penetration of renewable/hydrogen energy systems and hydrogenpowered vehicles, and long-term research and development in the production of hydrogen from renewable resources through a similar competitive process. The program focuses on three key activities: Core Research and Development ($14.1 million), Technology Validation ($11.4 million), and Analysis and Outreach ($2.5 million).

Core Research and Development (up $5.0 million) supports R&D on hydrogen production, storage and utilization. The increased funding will fully fund thermal conversion processes that produce hydrogen from natural gas with a 25 to 35 percent

decrease in the cost of producing hydrogen over conventional processes. Long-term

research programs will also be enhanced in awarding multiple cooperative agreements for photobiological and scaled-up photoelectrochemical processes. These key

activities, in conjunction with the industrial development of the PEM fuel cell, will

enhance the ability of the industry to consider low-cost hydrogen options for power,

industry and transportation market sectors by 2004.

Storage R&D is focused on developing and demonstrating hydride and carbonaceous materials for the storage of hydrogen at low temperatures for power and

transportation applications. The increased funding will permit the award of one

project to characterize a family of new metal hydride materials and another award

to assemble carbon absorbents into a laboratory system.

Utilization technology is focused on developing and demonstrating end-use power

systems that are safe, and have near-zero or zero emissions with an overall generation efficiency greater than 45 percent. A newly developed solid state hydrogen leak

detector prototype design will be fabricated and field tested. A low-cost 25 kWe fuel

cell will be demonstrated.

Technology Validation (up $0.4 million) supports 50/50 cost-shared ventures with

industry on hydrogen vehicle fueling stations, vehicle-mounted hydrogen storage

systems, reversible fuel cells to operate with renewable systems, and small hydrogen

fuel cell systems for remote power applications. The fiscal year 2000 request supports the operation of a reversible fuel cell with 60 percent round-trip efficiency; the

incorporation of high-pressure hydrogen storage on vehicles; construction of a quickfill refueling station to service Las Vegas shuttle buses and government vehicles;

and the design and construction of small-scale fuel cells for remote applications.

Analysis and Outreach (up $0.3 million) conducts portfolio and technology analyses to determine what steps are required to transition to a hydrogen energy economy. Technology analyses will periodically review specific areas (i.e., thermoconversion, storage, etc.) to ensure that research is of high quality and of significance to the overall objectives of the program.

HYDROPOWER

For fiscal year 2000, the Department is requesting $7.0 million for Hydropower

Development, an increase of $3.8 million over fiscal year 1999 funding. With this

funding, the program will complete proof-of-concept testing of an innovative, nonshearing ‘‘fish-friendly’’ turbine design (competitively selected in earlier activities)

and will provide for the completion of experiments to develop biological performance

criteria for advanced turbine design. The program will also initiate the competitively

selected engineering design of a ‘‘fish-friendly’’ turbine to increase dissolved oxygen.

Once complete, these new turbines can replace equipment at existing facilities

where environmental concerns may cause a reduction in generation. Hydropower

provides approximately 10 percent of the total U.S. electricity generation today; diminished power production from this clean baseload power resource would have serious environmental and economic impacts on our nation. This cost-shared program

with industry would maximize power generation from hydropower facilities and help

develop an important export market for U.S. companies.
467

ELECTRIC ENERGY SYSTEMS AND STORAGE

$41.0 million is requested for the Electric Energy Systems and Storage program in fiscal year 2000, an increase of $0.9 million from fiscal year 1999. The program

is working with partners to develop advanced power systems that will make the delivery of electric power more efficient and cost effective, reduce power sector emissions, facilitate market penetration of renewables, and enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness. The program includes efforts on Transmission Reliability Research

($4.0 million), High Temperature Superconductivity ($31.0 million), Energy Storage

($6.0 million), and Climate Challenge (no funds requested). The fiscal year 2000 budget request for Transmission Reliability Research is $4.0 million, an increase of $1.0 million from fiscal year 1999. Before electric restructuring, vertically integrated utilities sold electricity and reliability services from central station power generators over transmission lines that were constructed to serve

specific load areas. This system was not designed to allow competitive sales of energy and services from any generator to any customer, and the resulting constraints

to this type of operation must be resolved cost effectively to allow full market competition. Transmission Reliability provides Federal support to develop technologies

and policy options that will maintain and improve the reliability of the Nation’s

electricity delivery system during the transition to competitive power markets. The

program is being implemented through a National Laboratory/electricity industry

partnership, and is leveraging funds from other partners. Transmission Reliability

has two key activities: Power System Reliability ($3.8 million) and Distributed

Power ($0.2 million).

Power System Reliability (up $1.3 million) will develop advanced computational

and information systems to monitor and control the power system in real time, and

advanced power electronics to accomplish fast, high-power switching under real time

system control. Reliability technologies and policy options are developed in the context of competitive markets, and research will account for changes in market forces

as rules and restructuring legislation are developed and implemented. Real-time

control of the power system can provide information to remove transmission bottlenecks and operate the system in a way that can turn ‘‘two-lane roads’’ into ‘‘superhighways,’’ releasing capacity for competitive markets.

Distributed Power (down $0.3 million) funding will continue development of technologies, and removal of technical, regulatory, and institutional barriers to enable

the integration of distributed generation and storage into the electric and natural

gas systems. Distributed technologies include renewable resources, fuel cells, microturbines, battery and flywheel storage, and direct load control. Integration of these

technologies offers environmental and economic benefits and extends competition to

the retail customer level.

It is anticipated that the Transmission Reliability program will last approximately

five years and will ensure that research and development for reliable systems and

competitive markets is maintained until new market and/or regulatory structures

are developed that provide the incentives for the private sector to assume this work.

The program will be reassessed each year to determine the need for Federal involvement depending on the nature and implementation needs of new regulations, and

the impact of market forces.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for High Temperature Superconductivity is

$31 million, a decrease of $1.5 million. The funding is divided between the Superconductivity Partnership Initiative ($14.0 million), Second Generation Wire Initiative ($8.0 million) and Strategic Research ($9.0 million). The program is accomplishing two major technological goals: solving the difficult problem of manufacturing electrical wires from the family of brittle ceramic superconducting materials,

while, in parallel creating designs of super-efficient electrical systems. The products

will be resistance-free electrical wires that carry 100 times the current of conventional alternatives and the design of advanced systems that have only half the energy losses and are half the size of conventional alternatives of the same power rating.

The Superconductivity Partnership Initiative (down $0.5 million) will support six

major projects to develop first-of-a-kind electrical systems that can provide quantum

improvements to the efficiency and capacity of the national electrical grid. These include transmission cables, transformers, large motors, flywheel energy systems and

magnetic separation systems that meet required performance goals. The revolutionary equipment emerging from the program in the 2005–2010 timeframe will

have a major role in meeting the new demands of a competitive electricity industry

for increased capacity and reliability. Superconducting cables will relieve congestion

at critical parts of the grid as well as improve delivery efficiency. They will also

allow load growth in urban areas to be accommodated by repowering existing ducts,
468

without the need for acquiring new property. Superconducting transformers will accommodate increased demand for electricity without the need for construction of

new substations and will protect against accidental ‘‘fault currents’’ that now cause

serious damage and power outages. The program’s past success has demonstrated

that this extremely ambitious undertaking is possible within the funding requested

due to careful planning and leveraging of resources. Leveraging includes the 50 percent cost share that the program has been able to attract, even though the projects

are very high risk. Additional leveraging occurs through the project teams being a

vertically integrated consortium of companies containing a future user (an electric

power company), a manufacturer, and a superconducting component supplier. The

funding reduction will result in research being completed in fiscal year 2001 rather

than in fiscal year 2000, but is not expected to impact accomplishment of important

goals.

The Second Generation Wire Initiative (no change) is crucial to producing superconducting wire that meets the program’s performance goals. Four industrial consortia will be working with the national laboratories to scale up recent discoveries

that are the basis for this initiative. Private sector participants’ 50 percent costsharing leverages program funds.

The Strategic Research program element (down $1.0 million from fiscal year 1999)

is the incubator for discoveries and innovations that have characterized this successful program. The activities supported include in-house national laboratory research

and joint research carried out with private companies under 50 percent cost-shared

agreements. The requested level of funding will adequately support multi-disciplinary research teams that have made major breakthroughs in the past, and will also

support a number of cooperative research projects with industry. Important

leveraging is obtained through integrating research funded by the DOE Office of

Science and leveraged research at two NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) laboratories where each program dollar is matched by two NIST dollars.

The $6.0 million request for the Energy Storage Systems program (up $1.5 million) will fund focused research on energy storage technologies which will reduce the

high cost of power outages, improve power quality, and enhance technology choices

in a competitive utility environment. Efficient energy storage is critical for service

reliability and for the success of distributed power generation. In a restructured

electricity industry with many independent power producers, energy storage will

play an increasingly crucial role in combining multiple inputs of varying power quality and matching output to a changing load. Program emphasis will be placed on

battery systems integration and on the development and evaluation of advanced

storage technologies. All projects will be carried out in close cooperation with industry.

No funding is requested for the Climate Challenge program in fiscal year 2000

(down $0.1 million).

INTERNATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAM

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for the International Solar Program is $6.0

million, a slight decrease of $350,000 from $6.350 million in fiscal year 1999. The

mission of the International Solar Energy Program is to encourage acceptance and

use of renewable energy technologies by developed and developing countries in support of U.S. national interests and policies. With World Bank estimates indicating

that developing countries alone will require five million megawatts of new electricity

capacity over the next four decades (the world’s total installed capacity today is

three million megawatts), international markets will provide growing opportunities

for U.S. sales of advanced renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and

job creation. And it is these same technologies that also hold the greatest potential

for mitigating global climate change.

The primary goal of the International Solar Energy Program is to support the expansion of U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency technology exports to help

meet the energy needs of developed and developing countries, reduce the rate of consumption of finite global resources, and address local and transnational environmental issues. The program has been refocused in response to Congressional direction. While the Program will continue to provide support for the U.S. Initiative on

Joint Implementation, all activities will be refocused into three broad program

areas: Emerging Global Environmental and Energy Issues (USIJI), facilitating Market and Trade Development, and advancing U.S. Energy and Environmental Security interests.

The Emerging Global Environmental and Energy Issues will be implemented specifically through and in conjunction with the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation

(USIJI). USIJI is a DOE-led interagency program that supports the development of
469

flexibility mechanisms under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change

(U.N. FCCC) such as Joint Implementation (JI), Clean Development Mechanism

(CDM), and Emissions Trading. This element will also focus on encouraging meaningful participation by developing countries in the effort to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

The Market and Trade Development element will accelerate reductions in U.S.

technology production costs and advance deployment of technologies through overseas market expansion. Activities will focus on stimulating global economic development and regional economic stability, and accelerating domestic economic growth,

market competitiveness, and employment. This element will be implemented in key

regions through bilateral (e.g., Gore-Mbeki in South Africa) and multilateral (e.g.,

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Hemispheric Initiatives and International Energy Agency) technology cooperation activities and information exchange and dissemination. Private sector technology development will be encouraged while seeking

opportunities for leveraging U.S. funds and stimulating deployment in strategic and

emerging markets through project-based activities.

The Energy and Environmental Security element is designed to advance U.S.

strategic interests in bilateral and multilateral energy and environmental security

activities and will provide specialized assistance in the utilization of appropriate

technologies. This element will be implemented in support of existing and emerging

bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements (e.g., U.S.-China Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Protocol). This element will also assist the Department in meeting U.S. obligations and commitments to provide disaster relief and assistance by facilitating private sector technology development and deployment in

strategic and emerging markets.

SOLAR PROGRAM DIRECTION

The fiscal year 2000 Congressional Request for Solar Program Direction is $19.2 million, an increase of $1.1 million. Program Direction provides the staffing resources and associated funding to support the management and oversight of the

Solar and Renewable Energy Programs. It also provides funding for all support services, the Working Capital Fund, and crosscutting requirements.

There are two principal changes in Solar Program Direction this year. First, funding for electricity restructuring, included under this account in fiscal year 1999, is

provided for under Solar Program Support in fiscal year 2000. Second, the request

includes $1.85 million to address anticipated staffing adjustments resulting from

Workforce 21 plans.

Workforce 21 is a Department-wide effort to address unintentional negative impacts resulting from aggressive downsizing in recent years. While the Department

has been able to fill most essential positions through intra-agency transfers and a

very few replacement hires (even as we met or exceeded our reduced workforce targets) some gaps in filling critical technical and professional positions still remain.

The Program Direction request level will enable EERE to fill limited number of key

technical and professional staff positions at DOE headquarters and in the field.

Clerical and administrative positions will remain essentially level.

CONCLUSION

Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee for the

opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2000 budget request. I hope you agree that

the management improvements we have instituted—and continue to refine—are enhancing the value received by American citizens for their investment. We believe

that the technologies our programs are now developing will lead to a clean, costeffective, and secure electric power and transportation fuel system for the United

States. We fully understand that we must set and meet aggressive technology research and performance goals so that the new power generation, power delivery, and

transportation fuel systems we are developing can compete in the marketplace. And

while the task before us is certainly challenging, we are confident that our proven

record of achievement—combined with hard work, careful planning, and adequate

financial and workforce resources—will lead to even more success ahead, enabling

the Nation to respond not only to the important energy and environmental challenges but also to the global market opportunities of the next century.

APPROPRIATE USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDING

Senator DOMENICI. Let me just ask a couple of questions. While

you are there, I will go with you first, and if Senator Reid has any

questions, can you answer them within two weeks?
470

Mr. REICHER. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Last year, we raised concerns about your office, and among those were paying for members of industry associations to attend national and international conferences, publishing

magazine articles, writing op ed-style articles in magazines, and

preparing talking points in support of the Department’s programs.

You have told us about your competitiveness initiative, which is

a great effort. What about this kind of activity, what are you doing

about these sorts of things?

Mr. REICHER. Well, Mr. Chairman, as a part of our push to increase competition, we have encompassed those kinds of activities.

What we basically said to groups of all sorts, from trade associations, to universities, to others, is that if you want to work with

us you are going to have to compete for the dollars.

So virtually all that we are now doing, this sort of public outreach communications, is now being done on a competitive basis,

so I think that should very quickly and very much lead to the end

of those kinds of sole source situations.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I guess what I really need is for you to

be more specific for a minute. We were paying groups to publish

magazines about solar energy. Now, does that come within the definition that you just described, that you may still be doing it, but

it is going to be competitive?

Mr. REICHER. Let me say it this way, Mr. Chairman. We now

compete the dollars for what we call information dissemination and

public outreach. Within that, we fund a variety of mechanisms for

communicating the technology progress of our work. So what I

want to stress to you is that first, these are competitive mechanisms that we are using.

Second, by virtue of the fact that they are competitive, we are

looking very carefully to avoid the kind of funding situations you

are speaking about in the past. So I am quite confident that the

kinds of problems that you have seen, that you have raised, that

you have highlighted for us are no longer the case with what we

are going forward with in terms of our work.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I would like you perhaps by the end of

this fiscal year to give us a report on this new approach that you

have taken—how it has affected the kind of activity that we were

complaining about, what is being done in terms of industry association members being paid to go to international conferences. Do

your Requests for Proposals envision that the Department pay people to go to international conferences that are not part of our government team?

Mr. REICHER. It does not envision that, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

REPORT ON INFORMATION AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES, OFFICE OF ENERGY

EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will provide a report to the

Subcommittee providing details on how financial assistance for Information and Dissemination activities was competed in fiscal year 1999. The report will explain the

process used to compete the financial assistance activities and summarize the types

of activities that were funded. The report will be provided by September 30, 1999.

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. Talking points in support of the Department’s programs, you have outside groups preparing those.
471

Mr. REICHER. Again, that is not the sort of thing that we intend

to be——

Senator DOMENICI. I know this could be, to some, kind of nitpicking, but I do not think it is. I think it is not what the Congress

of the United States thinks we are doing in this area. The committee has an oversight and stewardship responsibility to understand if appropriated funds are being used wisely, so that we do

not end up looking silly about funding a program that does not do

R&D. We need to bring these renewables on board as soon as possible, and make realistic choices with reference to their effectiveness.

That is kind of your job, and, again, I say I think you are doing

very well at it.

KYOTO ACCORD

Do you know very much about the Kyoto Accord in terms of what

it requires and what its goals are, and the like? Are you an expert

on that, or do you know something about this area?

Mr. REICHER. I know something about it.

Senator DOMENICI. Okay.

Mr. REICHER. I do not consider myself an expert.

Senator DOMENICI. So might I ask you, is it possible for the

United States to meet the mission goals of the Kyoto Accord on the

path we are on now?

Mr. REICHER. On the current path we are on now, the business

as usual path, we would not meet those goals.

CARBON FUEL TAX

Senator DOMENICI. A number of groups indicated in order to

meet the goals of the Kyoto Accord that we would have to impose

a substantial tax on carbon fuels, somewhere in the area of $45 per

barrel, if that tax is imposed on oil. Do you anticipate that if we

did that, that would have an effect on the American economy? If

you do not think that is what is required, then just say I do not

think the $45 is what anybody is thinking about.

Mr. REICHER. Let me say it this way, there have been a range

of projections about what it would take to meet the Kyoto goal. The

Council of Economic Advisors has done a study that suggests that

it can be met more cheaply than I believe the figures you are suggesting would indicate, a combination of international emissions

trading and advances in technology to bring prices—to bring the

cost of technologies and the use of clean technologies to market.

Also, five of the national laboratories produced a study a couple

of years ago that also suggested that we could meet much of the

Kyoto goal with only modest increases in terms of the cost of fuel

and energy.

Senator DOMENICI. I think, based on what you read, and you

have just indicated that you read a myriad and a diversity of

things, you would easily recognize that, from an economic standpoint, one of the things that affects the American economy most

significantly and most rapidly on the inflation side is increased

costs of energy to a typical American consumer from his automobile, to the energy source that ultimately heats his home.

Mr. REICHER. Absolutely.
472

Senator DOMENICI. If that goes up 15 or 20 percent, it is pretty

hard to control inflation regardless of the other economic curbs that

we are permitted with in terms of—and you are aware of that.

Mr. REICHER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would just stress that the

other really two-thirds of the office that I run is devoted to, in fact,

improving the efficiency of energy use, so that interestingly, even

if the price of a particular unit of energy were to rise, if we can

use it more efficiently, that can net out at zero or only a modest

increase for consumers.

So one approach is improving the efficiency of energy use, the

others, as you have heard this morning, is developing a very broad

and diverse set of energy resources, and the more that those are

domestic, the better off we will be.

Senator DOMENICI. How are we doing with reference to efficiency? Are we sliding backwards? We were moving ahead rather

wonderfully 8 or 10 years ago. I think we kind of lost our——

Mr. REICHER. We, to some extent, have leveled off, in terms of

the efficiency of use, and that is why, in fact, we feel it is so important to continue to make the strong kinds of pushes that we have

made between industry and government. For example, in the area

of automobiles, we are at a good path now to be producing an affordable 80-mile-per-gallon automobile, U.S. built, in the middle of

the next decade, and obviously, that will have a dramatic impact

on fuel use, production, and U.S. competitiveness.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, let me move to Mr. Magwood for just

a minute. Do you pay for any magazine articles that promote nuclear power?

Mr. MAGWOOD. Do we pay for any magazines?

Senator DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. MAGWOOD. I am a member of the American Nuclear——

Senator DOMENICI. No, no, no, I mean—you personally do pay for

them. I’m asking about your program office.

Mr. MAGWOOD. If you are asking do we fund people to put articles in newspapers and magazines, no, we do not do anything like

that.

Senator DOMENICI. Does your office pay for the preparation of

pamphlets that are put out by pro-nuclear groups?

Mr. MAGWOOD. No.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you pay for editorials to be written by

somebody in the outside that might be promoting nuclear power?

Mr. MAGWOOD. No.

Senator DOMENICI. I raise this, because I actually believe that if

they did, we would just have one firestorm. It would seem to me

that those that are anti-nuclear would talk about this not being the

business of government to be involved in promoting nuclear power,

and frankly I think that is the case for all power.

We either say get government involved in promoting nuclear,

based upon its contribution to the American economic system and

to energy resources in conservation, or we do not do any of it. I feel

rather strongly about that.

I would think if you did that with $300,000 of Office of Nuclear

Energy money it would not take us 1 week from the time it hit the

marketplace, even if it was authentic and true, but just because it

was about nuclear, somebody would be camping over on the White
473

House steps or over at the Vice President’s office saying, what is

this about using money to promote nuclear energy.

NUCLEAR POWERPLANT RELICENSING

Now, having said that, let me ask you, how are we proceeding

with reference to expediting in a rational way, in a healthy way,

relicensing of nuclear powerplants? Can you give us your advice

and update us on where we are?

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think the early signs are very good. I have met

with all of the commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I have met with the senior staff, and I have also met with

the industry to talk about this issue, because I think it is so important. I have been extremely pleased with what I have heard. I am

very encouraged with the attitude and approach the NRC has

taken toward relicensing.

They recognize this as an opportunity to show that they can provide safe regulation of nuclear powerplants, in a manner that is

very efficient and fair. They have worked very closely with the industry to carry out their duties, doing so in such a way that the

process does not drag on for a long time.

Additionally, I met with senior executives from Baltimore Gas

and Electric, and they tell me that they expect to complete their

action with NRC to relicense the Calvert Cliffs nuclear powerplant

about 2 years ahead of schedule.

Senator DOMENICI. Excuse me, I need to take a brief recess.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Senator DOMENICI. Please proceed.

Mr. MAGWOOD. I was just saying that my understanding is that

the first examples of the license renewal process, Baltimore Gas

and Electric’s application and Duke Power’s application have both

gone very well and are well ahead of schedule. It is my understanding that these relicensing actions will be completed almost 2

years ahead of schedule. We are very pleased with what is going

on so far.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE [NERI]

Senator DOMENICI. Last year Congress provided you with $19

million for nuclear energy research initiative. You have requested

$25 million for fiscal year 2000. How much interest have you received from researchers for the $19 million?

Mr. MAGWOOD. There has been a great deal of interest expressed

in NERI. I believe we have received about 308 applications from researchers all over the country, from universities, from industry,

from national laboratories, and combinations, there is a lot of collaboration in that community, which we are very pleased to see,

and they have proposed research over 3 years worth around $300

million for the $19 million.

So the interest has been very high, and in addition to the proposals we have received, as I have indicated earlier, the international community is also very excited. We have been talking with

Europeans, Koreans, the Japanese, and they are all very interested

in working in cooperation with our NERI program. So the interest

is extremely high.
474

Senator DOMENICI. When are you going to award contracts under

that program, Mr. Magwood?

Mr. MAGWOOD. Mid- to late May. We will award the first contracts in the middle of May.

Senator DOMENICI. The middle of May. Will the $25 million simply continue the awards funded in 1999, or will you be able to have

some new ones?

Mr. MAGWOOD. Well, the way we have structured this program,

we allow people to tell us what they think they are going to need

over a 3-year period. We make no commitment beyond the first

year. We can only provide them 1 year of money at a time, but assuming that we actually award a contract, we would not require an

awardee to reapply for the money in the following year; therefore,

a lot of the money that we will use in fiscal year 2000, if we get

the $25 million, will go to simply continue work that is already

started.

I would say probably about $20 million of the $25 million would

go simply to continue work that has already started.

MOLY-99 PROGRAM

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Magwood, I understand that when the

Department submitted its budget for 2000 that the Department

planned to privatize the Moly-99 program at Sandia by September

of this year.

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. I understand that there may be some reluctance by the private sector to assume responsibility. Do you still

plan to privatize this by September?

Mr. MAGWOOD. We had a conference with the private sector at

Sandia National Laboratory I believe just last week, and we are

still having discussions with the industry. It is clear they clearly

would have liked to have seen us go forward with the Food and

Drug Administration approval process for Moly-99 before talking

about privatization, but they have not said at this point that where

we are now is not acceptable. We think there is still some room to

negotiate, and we are still optimistic that we will be able to do this.

Senator DOMENICI. State for the record essentially what the

Moly-99 program is.

Mr. MAGWOOD. Moly-99 is a precursor to Technetium–99m,

which is used by U.S. clinicians in diagnosing all sorts of illnesses,

heart disease, and cancer through imaging processes.

Senator DOMENICI. So it is in the medical field.

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. My understanding is that it is used about

36,000 times a day in the United States.

Senator DOMENICI. If you do not get it privatized by September

as planned, will you need additional funds for the privatization effort?

Mr. MAGWOOD. We have not requested additional funds, anticipating privatization. Our budget is rather limited, so we really

were not able to support both maintaining activities such as placing a new isotope reduction facility at the LANSCE facility in Los

Alamos, while at the same time continuing Moly-99.

So we had to make some tough choices, and the choice we made

was to move forward with the privatization. If we are not success-
475

ful in privatizing we will have to reassess the situation, but there

is no money in our request to support that at this time.

FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY [FFTF]

Senator DOMENICI. Your budget request assumes that a decision

to restart, permanently shut down, or maintain the FFTF in its

current condition will be made this spring.

Mr. MAGWOOD. That is correct.

Senator DOMENICI. Has the decision been made? If the decision

is made to restart it or permanently shut it down, how much additional funds will be necessary?

Mr. MAGWOOD. Our budget, as you indicated, assumes a decision

will be made by the end of April, and Secretary Richardson told me

just yesterday that he fully expects to make that commitment and

make his decision before the end of April.

To answer your question about the funding, we currently have

$30 million requested in the budget. If we continue in standby and

proceed with an environmental impact statement, we will require

about an additional $10 million. If the decision is to shut it down

immediately, it will require I believe about an additional $20 million.

EBR-II

Senator DOMENICI. Now, EBR–II reactor for fuel treatment program at Argonne, that laboratory is expected to encounter a $20

million reduction in this year’s budget. Are you going to make, at

some later date, a decision about whether to use the electrometallurgical process technology to treat the EBR–II and other

fuels?

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. We currently are developing in an environmental impact statement regarding the use of electrometallurgical

technology for treating all of the Department’s sodium-bonded fuel.

This EIS will be completed by the end of the year, and also by the

end of the year we will complete, or rather the National Academy

of Sciences National Research Council, will complete their review

of this technology.

They have had a team that has been looking at this since the beginning of our research program. The Secretary will use this information in making a decision about whether to go forward with the

use of this technology on a production scale, or whether to shut

down the program. I have talked with the Deputy Secretary about

this several times—if we decide to shut it all down, we will not require any new funding, but if we decide to move forward we will

have to seek some sort of new funding, or seek a reprogramming

of some sort.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Senator DOMENICI. I just have two remaining questions. Let me

ask them now while we have you here, even though I am using

considerable time. I think it is good that you have created a Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee. You have indicated

who they are, a few changes, for obvious reasons.
476

Your office uses this group, I assume, to help you with reference

to the direction and focus of your program. Has that committee reviewed your current research program?

Mr. MAGWOOD. That is ongoing right now. There are actually

several activities going on within the advisory committee review of

our research activities. One is being led by Dr. John Ahearne, of

Sigma Xi, who is conducting a long-term research and development

strategy, and he has accumulated a large group that is going to be

studying that over the next several months.

Dr. Richard Reba, from the University of Chicago, who is an expert in nuclear medicine, is analyzing our isotope production research plans. Finally, Dr. John Taylor, who is retired from Electric

Power Research Institute, is leading a group that will be assessing

the near term needs, when I say near term, within 10 years, of research for existing nuclear powerplants. So we have really tried to

cover all the ground in our program, and I think that the NERAC

has been a very valuable contributor to that.

Senator DOMENICI. That kind of an approach that you have just

described and intend to use, would it or could it result in an advisory group telling you where the deficiencies in a research program

are that are imminent or necessary or the like?

Mr. MAGWOOD. Absolutely.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. We spoke a little bit about the nuclear

energy plant optimization program, although we did not call it

that. You and I discussed where we were on relicensing. That is

sort of the same thing. Last year we passed the nuclear energy

plant optimization request in our appropriations and it did not get

out of the full Congress.

I think we need an explanation of the significance and importance of it, so rather than just answer that for me now, would you

supply a succinct answer in writing to why we need it, you and

your experts indicate, so that we can make the case both on the

floor and in the committee.

Mr. MAGWOOD. I would be happy to.

[The information follows:]

NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION

HOW NUCLEAR ENERGY HELPS OUR NATION

A reliable and affordable electric power supply is a prerequisite for a strong economy and sustained growth. The United States has enjoyed such a supply of affordable electricity principally because of the diversity in its fuel mix. Nuclear energy

is an important part of this diversity and since the oil embargo of 1973, it has provided about one-half of the electricity needed to meet demand growth. It has proven

to be an extremely safe and reliable source of electricity supply, e.g., in the winter

of 1996 when rivers were frozen and coal barges could not get to power plants, nuclear power plants continued to operate. Not only are the fuel and technology used

in the nuclear energy completely domestic, but the fuel costs for nuclear are a smaller fraction of the production costs and are far more stable when compared with the

fuel costs for fossil fuels. Therefore, the use of nuclear energy tends to insulate the

economy from fossil fuel price fluctuations.

HOW EXISTING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS HELP THE ENVIRONMENT

Nuclear energy generates electricity without emitting any greenhouse gases or

other harmful air pollutants such as sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxides. It has played
477

an important role in limiting U.S. emissions by avoiding two billion metric tons of

carbon emissions since 1973. The 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. provide approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated and avoid more than 150 million

metric tons of carbon emissions annually. Continued operation of the existing nuclear power plants (75 percent) another 20 years beyond their current license terms

could reduce emissions by 64 million metric tons between 1995 and 2010, 208 million metric tons by 2015, and 2260 million metric tons by the middle of the next

century. Also, with new requirements for lower emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide for fossil plants, particularly in the eastern part of the nation, the contribution of existing power plants in avoiding harmful air emissions becomes even

more important. These plants are critical to achieving our international goals on climate change and to meeting current requirements under the Clean Air Act.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO ENSURE CONTINUED OPERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

In order to ensure a continued high standard of living for the American people,

we need to maintain a diverse, secure energy portfolio of fossil fuels, nuclear energy,

and renewables. Currently solar and wind energy provide less than one tenth of one

percent each of the total energy consumption in the United States. Due to inherent

limitations of energy intensity available for solar and wind power, their share is not

expected to become significant in the near future. The share of electricity generation

from non-hydroelectric renewable electric generators was 1.21 percent for 1997.

Their share including co-generation was 2.1 percent in 1997 and Energy Information

Administration (EIA) projects it to grow to 3.23 percent in 2020 in the reference

case forecast. However, if a state or federal mandated requirement of a renewable

portfolio standard (RPS), which specifies that 5.5 percent of electricity generated (or

sold) in the state must be produced by qualifying renewable power plants (these

generally include all renewable facilities except hydroelectric plants and municipal

solid waste), is achieved, and if we assume that the yields for energy crops grown

on pasture and crop land will be nearly 20 percent higher than expected in the reference case, then by applying the most optimistic assumptions for capital costs, operation and maintenance expenses, and capacity factors for non-hydroelectric renewables, their share of generation is limited to be no more than 6.22 percent of total

electricity generated in the U.S. in 2020.

Hydroelectric power currently supplies close to 10 percent of U.S. electricity needs

but its expansion potential very limited due to a lack of available new sites, high

construction costs, growing environmental concerns, and competing uses of water resources. The share of hydroelectric generation is projected to decline from 9.96 percent in 1997 to 6.7 percent in 2020.

Therefore, despite environmental concerns, use of coal and natural gas to generate

electricity must continue. Nuclear energy generation must continue as well. The

EIA projects that even with aggressive energy efficiency measures, U.S. electricity

consumption will increase by 1.4 percent per year through 2020—the equivalent of

seven large 1,000 megawatt power plants each year. During this same period,

127,000 megawatts of existing electricity generating capacity could be retired because of age, competitive pressures, and as part of U.S. utility measures to meet

clean air standards.

Continued operation of existing nuclear power plants is an important hedge

against uncertainties associated with meeting emission limitations for fossil plants

and is critical to meeting demand in the future and sustaining our energy supply

infrastructure.

ISSUES THAT COULD IMPACT CONTINUED OPERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Deregulation of electricity production in the United States has increased economic

uncertainties in the electricity sector. Existing and proposed environmental laws are

causing the closure of older fossil-fuel plants. Similarly, we are at a critical juncture

with regard to the continued operation of nuclear power plants in the United States.

Licenses for U.S. nuclear power plants will begin to expire in large numbers in

2010; licenses for 13 plants representing some 11,700 MWe will expire in 2014

alone. A few utilities have decided to close older, less efficient nuclear facilities before their license expiration date. Six reactors closed before license expiration with

the resultant loss of approximately 4,000 megawatts of U.S. generating capacity in

the past three years.

However, over the last couple years the strategic landscape has started to change.

Two years ago, with electricity restructuring looming and concerns over regulatory

uncertainty, the prediction was that existing nuclear generation capacity was

doomed—that fewer plants would seek license extensions and that many would shut

down prematurely. Today, with consolidations in ownership occurring and several
478

plants proceeding and making good progress with license renewal, it is clear that

there is a future for the majority of U.S. nuclear plants. However, for these plants

to remain viable beyond 2020, both government and industry must take action—

government reducing regulatory and other barriers to operation and industry, investing capital in upgrading their facilities for the future and investing in shortterm R&D.

Industry must continue to carry the burden of short term research and they are

meeting this challenge very well with an investment approaching $100 million annually. Most of this research is aimed at enhancing day to day operational performance and to respond to regulatory and other relicensing issues. On the other hand,

there is a clear role for the government in filling the void in intermediate term research—research as proposed by the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO)

program to address plant aging issues and to improve safety and reliability of existing nuclear power plants.

INDEPENDENT ADVICE ON NUCLEAR ENERGY R&D

The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Panel

on Federal Energy Research and Development recognized the critical role of nuclear

power in its report of November 5, 1997. The Panel’s report recommended that the

Department work with its laboratories and industry to develop a program jointly

funded with industry, to address the problems that may prevent the continued operation of existing nuclear power plants.

The nuclear industry has consistently urged DOE to assume this important role.

A number of letters to the Secretary of Energy from Kurt Yeager, CEO of Electric

Power Research Institute (EPRI), and from EPRI’s Nuclear Power Council, comprised of the nuclear utility executives who guide the industry’s collaborative R&D

program, were sent to DOE in 1997 and 1998 in support of this role.

THE NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION (NEPO) PROGRAM

Existing nuclear power plants serve the broad national strategic interests of expanding the economy, providing for energy security, and improving the environment. Recognizing these national interests, and consistent with the Comprehensive

National Energy Strategy and recommendations of PCAST, the Department proposes, the NEPO program, beginning in fiscal year 2000. The goal of NEPO is to

ensure that current nuclear plants can continue to deliver adequate and affordable

energy supplies up to and beyond their initial 40-year license period by resolving

open issues related to plant aging, and by applying new technologies to improve

plant economics, reliability, and availability.

As a program that addresses higher risk, more long-term R&D than that performed by industry, and as a program addressing issues associated with existing nuclear power plants, it would be conducted in at least 50–50 cost shared collaboration

with industry and with close coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Senator DOMENICI. Did you have anything else you wanted to

add, sir?

Mr. MAGWOOD. No. I would just like to say that I appreciate your

interest in this issue. It has been gratifying to have Members of

Congress take a leading role and actually pushing us along in some

areas, perhaps areas that we had not even really thought much

about, but I appreciate your interest and involvement.

MICRO-MACHINES PROGRAM AT SANDIA

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Dr. Krebs, let me ask

you about a technology that is not within your jurisdiction, but ask

if you are familiar and if you know about it. Do you visit Sandia

National Laboratory very often?

Dr. KREBS. I have visited Sandia Laboratories several times during my time in this job.

Senator DOMENICI. Are you aware of a research project they have

going in terms of nuclear safety, but it has some very other significant uses called micro-machines?
479

Dr. KREBS. I have seen some of their work in that area and some

of the—they send me pictures and I have gone through that part

of the laboratory.

Senator DOMENICI. The reason I was asking is because I trust

your judgment and I was going to ask if you were as interested in

it as a future technology as I have become, but since you are not

that familiar you would not have an observation on that, would

you?

Dr. KREBS. Not particularly about micro-machines, but as I noted

in my testimony, we are very engaged in exploring the performance

of materials on a nano-scale, and the next step after that is taking

it into technological applications. Now, these small machines are

not quite at nano-scales yet, but nonetheless, you have to start

someplace.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, there is just a gigantic interest in

them——

Dr. KREBS. Right.

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. What they are doing, producing

machines just like you have your microchip, there are machines on

it instead of inactive things, and they are so small, one-tenth of a

hair, a hundredth of a hair, and they could end up being put in

your blood system, and they could attack things like the plaque

that makes heart conditions and the like. Actually, engineers designed them with micro-equipment just like you would design a——

Dr. KREBS. It is very exciting.

SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE [SNS]

Senator DOMENICI. It is kind of interesting. Are you satisfied

that when we go to the House and say we want to continue the

Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge that we are going to have

enough information within the next month or so showing that we

have taken care of most of GAO’s concerns?

Dr. KREBS. I do believe that, yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. I would appreciate your making a note that

as soon as you have the project in a position where you can clearly

state we are on course with an appropriate management team and

it should be built pursuant to specs, and if the specs are right, it

will work, we would like to have that from you.

Dr. KREBS. I think I can have the first installment of that to you

on Thursday, with the report from the—the recent report that is

coming out tomorrow.

Senator DOMENICI. If there is a subsequent installment, would

you get that to us as a matter of course, get it to our subcommittee?

Dr. KREBS. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE PROJECT ASSESSMENT REPORT AND ACTION PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is a $1.36 B project to build what will be

the world’s most powerful research facility for neutron science. As a seven-year construction project supported by the Department of Energy (DOE), the SNS is now in

its first year of congressionally approved line-item funding. In January 1999, the

DOE reviewed the project’s status and recommended that experienced project leadership be recruited to strengthen project performance. With the support of the DOE
480

1The preferred site for the SNS is at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORAL) and essential

technical expertise is being provided by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

and the five national laboratories 1 participating in the project, the new SNS leadership has conducted a thorough project assessment and developed a comprehensive

course of action for completing the project safely, on budget, and on schedule.

The assessment determined that many qualified people and adequate management systems are in place throughout the partner laboratories to support the current R&D activities of the project. The present accelerator concept is sound, uses

existing, low-risk technology, and is highly likely to achieve the desired performance

and reliability. High-quality technical work is ongoing. Planning for safe execution

of the project within the Integrated Safety Management systems of all the partner

laboratories is advanced. The final Environmental Impact Statement has been submitted to DOE and approved, and the Record of Decision is expected in May.

As the project enters the Title I design phase, the primary needs identified by the

project assessment are to recruit additional experienced staff for key positions, optimize and fully integrate the technical design, and strengthen the business and

project management systems to support construction activities. Through prompt implementation of the management action plan developed from the assessment, the

project will establish within the next six months or sooner:

1. An integrated SNS organization with experienced people in key roles, fully engaging the expertise available from the partner laboratories;

2. An optimized project baseline, with adequate contingency, that delivers maximum scientific output within the $1.36 B budget;

3. Strengthened Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) that formalize accountability

for deliverables, ensure project authority over all project personnel at partner labs,

and cap overhead rates; and

4. Fully integrated and efficient project and business management systems to

plan, track and expedite work accomplishment, and effectively control the project.

Completion of the action plan will position the SNS to be constructed safely and

within budget by fiscal year 2006. In full operation the SNS facility will meet or

exceed its performance goals and deliver pulsed neutron beams of unprecedented

power and reliability to a world-class instrument suite.

INTRODUCTION

For 30 years there has not been a major new neutron source commissioned in the

United States. This situation has led to a serious decline in the competitiveness of

U.S. researchers compared to their European and Japanese colleagues. Lacking new

opportunities, successive generations of young neutron scientists have migrated into

other fields of research, significantly depleting the strength of an enterprise in

which North America played the seminal role as recognized by the 1994 Nobel Prize

in Physics. Although decline within the U.S. neutron research community has occurred, global neutron research has expanded its unique role in determining the

structure of critical materials, especially complex magnetic and organic substances

which are essential to our high-technology economy. Given the growing age of existing U.S. facilities and the compelling scientific importance of neutrons, the construction of a leading-edge neutron research facility has become an urgent national priority.

The U.S. neutron research community has now focused on reestablishing world

leadership in this critical field by building the Spallation Neutron Source at the preferred site of ORNL. Using advanced accelerator technology, and at a cost of $1.36

B, this source will be ten times more powerful than any existing facility worldwide

when it is completed in fiscal year 2006. Including new-generation neutron-source

technology and instrument design, the SNS will extend its scientific advantage to

an even greater level. Success in achieving these challenging technical goals can

only be accomplished through exemplary cost, schedule, and safety performance.

The DOE regularly reviews its major construction projects using a comprehensive

approach that has an outstanding reputation for depth and integrity. During January 26–28, 1999, the DOE conducted such a review of the SNS project, which has

its first year of construction line-item funding. The purpose of this review was to

validate the projects proposed Level 1 (Office of Science) cost, schedule, and technical baseline. The review determined that the project planning was not sufficiently

mature to support the validation of the necessary baseline and recommended that

experienced project leadership be recruited to ensure the project could be executed

successfully. In early March, Dr. David Moncton—previously the leader of the re-
481

cently successful Advanced Photon Source project—was appointed. With the support

of DOE (Appendix A) and the five DOE laboratories participating in the project, he

has attracted other experienced managers, enlisted independent specialists, and conducted a rapid assessment of every aspect of the project to determine the assets,

status, and the course of action necessary to establish the baseline and complete the

project successfully. Part of this assessment considered whether the project’s scope

was optimized to provide the greatest capability for neutron science that could be

obtained within the budget of $1.36 B.

Informed by this assessment, DOE review reports, and its collective experience

with major scientific projects, the new SNS leadership developed the action plan

summarized in Section 4 below. This plan contains the actions, milestones, and

strategies needed for the balance of fiscal year 1999 to position the SNS for success

in meeting its performance objectives.

The SNS project has a great deal of work to accomplish in a short period of time.

But there exists within the DOE system, and available to the project through the

five-lab collaboration, expertise sufficient to achieve all the long-range goals of the

project and build a facility that will revolutionize neutron scattering worldwide. This

facility will reestablish the U.S. as the premier center for neutron research, and its

safe construction, on schedule and within budget, will clearly demonstrate the commitment and the capacity of the DOE national laboratories to achieve world-class

management and scientific performance.

PROJECT VISION AND MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

The key element in the SNS project planning is the formation of an effective

multi-laboratory partnership to insure that the best scientists/engineers and the optimum technology are employed in the design and construction phases with followed

by successful commissioning and operation. To execute this project effectively, the

participating laboratories must share a common vision for the facility and embrace

an active management approach that transcends institutional boundaries. Underlying both of these elements must be a strong commitment to attract and support

people who are highly qualified in every aspect of technical and management responsibility.

Vision

By the year 2006, the SNS will have been completed safely, within cost and on

schedule by the multi-laboratory partnership. It will be positioned to meet or exceed

its performance goals within the ensuing few years, delivering pulsed neutron

beams of unprecedented power reliably to instruments with highly advanced designs. Through their involvement in these developments, an expanded user community will advance the frontiers of knowledge in a broad range of scientific fields.

In these accomplishments, the partner laboratories will have met or exceeded

their individual goals and enhanced their reputations in areas important to their

own competencies. But more importantly the people involved will have achieved

something that none of them alone could have done—turning this vision into a reality that will transform many fields of science for decades to come.

Management Principles

Environment, safety and health.—Of overriding importance is the safety of our

people and the protection of the environment. It is our philosophy that accidents

and injuries can be prevented, that we must rigorously adhere to relevant safety

and environmental standards, and that no individual working for the SNS project

should feel compelled to do work he/she believes is not safe. Managers and workers

share this responsibility, and all must work to continuously improve our collective

performance.

High-quality people.—Our next most important principle is that optimum results

will be achieved on this complex project by the best people working in a collaborative and supportive environment.

Integrated, cross-laboratory teamwork.—A major challenge in this project is to

manage effective collaboration among the participating laboratories. We will need

to establish explicit mechanisms to overcome institutional, geographic, and communication barriers and build an integrated SNS team.

Project-based thinking to deliver on time and within budget.—It is essential to recognize that the SNS is first a major construction project with specific deliverables

and a firm cost and schedule. A key principle for a project of this magnitude and

technical complexity is the need to optimize globally—that is, over the entire

project—rather than locally. For every project element, the temptation must be

avoided to optimize local technology, budget or schedule, whenever doing so would

not benefit the project overall.
482

Active management and clear communication.—Management has a fundamental

responsibility to make and communicate decisions in an open and logical manner,

while achieving the highest possible degree of consensus. It is essential that project

employees and managers respect and trust one another, and that the management

team act in a way that is deserving of that trust.

Collaboration Management

The most fundamental issue in collaboration management is the nature of the

‘‘contract’’ between ORNL as the lead lab and the other partner laboratories. Because ORNL has the ultimate responsibility for delivering the SNS project and operating the completed facility, it is imperative that ORNL provide credible technical

and project leadership on behalf of the collaboration. It is incumbent on ORNL to

delegate appropriate authority to the partner labs for execution of their work consistent with their demonstrated performance and the terms of the Memoranda of

Agreement. It is equally important that ORNL have full ability to track and appropriately manage SNS activities at the partner labs. In implementing this trust-butverify approach, it is desirable to have maximally transparent boundaries between

the partner labs, thereby creating an integrated project team with accountability

and communication as clear as if the project were executed in the traditional singlelab approach.

ACTION PLAN

Planned actions developed by the new SNS leadership are grouped within six

principal categories and are summarized below.

People and Organization

The Project Office will be reorganized by July to establish clear responsibility for

each technical and administrative area and increase the number of project-experienced managers (Fig. 1). An accelerator technical staff (led by an experienced Accelerator Systems Division Director) will be promptly established at ORNL to lead integration and review of component and system designs, prepare for facility operations, and guide procurement, fabrication, installation, testing and commissioning

strategies. An integrated project human resources plan will be developed (in phases

and completed by October) to guide the hiring process. Key staffing needs identified

during this project assessment will be filled as soon as possible with qualified and

experienced individuals. The HR plan will include policies and mechanisms for ensuring project input into performance appraisals for people performing SNS work,

position description requirements, staffing levels, and strategies to ensure that

broad diversity in talent is achieved.
483

Technical Concept

By August 1999, a plan for SNS instrumentation will be developed that reflects

the need for best-in-class instruments, involves the user community, capitalizes on

the capabilities of the federally-funded laboratories with substantial neutron science

experience, and includes ongoing instrument development. This plan will propose

mechanisms and incentives for investment by potential investors, a strategy for engaging the scientific community early in the project, and user access policies tailored

to the needs of the neutron scattering community in the U.S. A series of workshops

aimed at outreach to new user communities (e.g., the biological/biomedical community) will be launched. Also, by August 1999, a staffing plan for operations, ongoing

instrument development, and on-site user activities and support will be developed

to optimize the design of the conventional facilities. An R&D program on a backup

solid target will be initiated now.

The present linac/accumulator ring (LAR) concept will be optimized for 2–MW operation by May 1999 and its detailed cost estimate will be reviewed and scrubbed

by the project management in June. This process will strive to identify available

funds to increase project contingency and to provide additional instruments, targets,

and office/laboratory space. This 2–MW LAR design will be reviewed by the Accelerator Systems Advisory Committee and proposed as the project baseline to DOE

in mid-July. In parallel, a study will be started immediately (provided sufficient resources can be identified) to explore modified accelerator designs by June. If modifications are shown to have substantial cost advantages with no loss of performance

or negative impact on the project’s long-range schedule, then their designs, cost estimates, and schedules will be developed by October 1999 and adopted through the

project’s formal change control process.

Conventional Facilities and Site

Full geotechnical qualification of the preferred ORNL site will be pursued aggressively. Innovative technology and a site drilling plan will be employed, and the

three-season surveys for threatened species and endangered plants will be completed by the end of calendar year 1999. Facilities programming will be initiated

now to ensure that adequate requirements to support researchers and operations
484

staff are identified in the design. Systems requirements documents for all facilities

will be completed, and the design requirements and site plan of the Joint Institute

for Neutron Science will be reviewed with the University of Tennessee to ensure

that the SNS site plan and programmed space needs are optimized. Based on the

actions above, the final SNS site qualification will be completed by September 1999.

Project Management

The Memorandum of Agreement with each partner laboratory will be revised by

May 1999 to formalize each laboratory’s accountability for deliverables, strengthen

the authority of the Project Director over SNS-assigned personnel at each location,

and cap overhead rates applied to SNS activities for the duration of the project. The

role of the project Upper Management Council will be developed to provide additional and regular advice and assistance with strategic collaboration management

issues.

Environment, Safety and Health, and Quality Assurance

A focused effort on target radiological issues in the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) will be instituted now to support a project decision in June 1999 on

target hazard classification and potential mitigation proposals. Completion of the

draft PSAR will be expedited to the first quarter of fiscal year 2000. The project

ES&H group will issue a draft plan by July 1999 to establish appropriate projectwide ES&H standards for engineering design. A quality assurance (QA) approach

will be developed and a tailored QA plan will be approved by September 1999. To

facilitate development of this plan and enhance cross-project teamwork, a workshop

including QA specialists and technical managers will be conducted.

Business Systems

A number of actions are planned to improve the project’s management support

systems, including human resources, finance and accounting, and procurement.

With DOE assistance, policies and plans to better facilitate recruitment of experienced personnel will be established to provide continuity of service benefits when

hiring between DOE laboratories. Relocation and family assistance to address recruiting concerns at ORNL (including transfer of ORNL personnel hired at partner

laboratories) will be procured. Routine use of videoconferencing capability available

to SNS project teams at all partner labs will be implemented by July 1999 to reduce

travel costs and enhance communications.

By October 1999, methods to automate the integration of financial and cost performance reporting system information with project schedules will be in place, reducing the manual effort currently required to reconcile these data and to provide

improved contingency control. The project office will conduct a detailed analysis of

overhead rates at all partner laboratories and verify cost estimates during the June

cost estimate scrub. This action will support the establishment of long-term capped

overhead rates as reflected in the strengthened MOA. An SNS project financial

audit plan will be formalized by October 1999, to include plans for regular financial

reviews and guidance for audit activity at partner laboratories.

A project-wide procurement strategy will be developed by July; this strategy will

include advanced procurement planning, guidance for acquisition decisions, reporting requirements and formats, approval levels, and buyer/technical staff roles and

responsibilities. A workshop led by ORNL project procurement will be scheduled to

help develop this strategy, build teamwork, and resolve inefficiencies resulting from

constraints on procurement organizations in the partner laboratories. Based on the

project procurement strategy, the procurement workload and resulting staffing plan

will be developed and in place by October 1999.

CONCLUSIONS

This assessment report and action plan addresses the SNS project’s organization,

technical, and scientific capability, site qualification, project management systems,

business systems, and human resources. The plan focuses on establishing by July

1999:

1. An integrated SNS organization with experienced key staff in place that takes

advantage of the capabilities at the partner laboratories, while building at ORNL

the technical and administrative strength to lead the construction effort and operate

the completed SNS user facility for world-class scientific research;

2. A validated, self-consistent, and optimized technical, cost, and schedule baseline

with adequate cost and schedule contingency and maximized neutron-science capability within the $1.36 B budget;
485

3. Strengthened interlaboratory MOA that formalize accountability for

deliverables, ensure project authority over all project personnel, and cap overhead

rates for the life of the project.

Major objectives to be achieved by October 1999 include:

4. To complete the geotechnical analysis of the preferred site at ORNL to determine that it is acceptable;

5. To establish a firm hazard category for the target facilities to allow optimal design and planning to proceed and ultimately to allow safe and cost effective operation;

6. To implement fully integrated and efficient project management systems to

plan, track, and expedite work accomplishment, and effectively control the project;

and

7. To establish financial, procurement, human resource, and related business systems that are tailored to project needs and linked to the project management databases.

The assessment determined that many qualified personnel and management systems adequate for the R&D phase are in place throughout the partner laboratories.

High-quality technical work is ongoing. Planning for safe execution of the project

within the Integrated Safety Management systems of all the laboratories is advanced. The final Environmental Impact Statement has been submitted to DOE for

approval and the Record of Decision is expected in May. The primary project needs

are to significantly upgrade the capabilities and systems of the central project office

during the design phase, and to fully optimize and integrate the design for construction and operation.

Project management, reporting, business, and human resource systems will also

be tailored to execute the project in the multilaboratory environment. These systems

will become fully mature by October 1999. The critically important task of developing a staffing plan and attracting highly qualified personnel will proceed concurrently. The Upper Management Council, consisting of one senior line manager appointed by each partner laboratory director, will be convened on a regular basis to

assist project management and help refine the collaboration management approach.

Successful completion of the described action plan will position the SNS to be completed safely by the multilaboratory partnership within budget and on schedule.

DOE LETTER OF AGREEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

Washington, DC, February 19, 1999.

Dr. DAVID MONCTON,

Associate Laboratory Director for the Advanced Photon Source,

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL.

DEAR DAVID: Al Trivelpiece told us that the five laboratory directors responsible

for the construction of the SNS met and that you were their enthusiastic and unanimous choice to lead the SNS project. I was very pleased to learn that you are seriously considering this position and that you already have agreed to undertake a personal review of the project. I understand and support your need to review all aspects

of the project and to discuss your findings and recommendations with both the DOE

and the five laboratory collaboration.

We have agreed that you will assemble a Senior Management Team from both

within and outside the present SNS project. The Senior Management Team will conduct a comprehensive month-long asset assessment using a set of teams composed

of outside experts and internal asset owners. Under review will be, among others

things, financial resources, human resources, project management systems, business

management systems, physical assets, and the site itself. Importantly, we have

agreed that your assessment will include the reference design and its associated

costs and schedules. You will prepare a Project Plan containing findings and recommendations by the first week in April and will present this plan to DOE, the directors of the SNS partner laboratories, and the several SNS advisory committees

immediately thereafter. A longer-term goal is to have the project ready for a Level

1 baseline review by July 1999.

I want to assure you that DOE is open to accepting a wide range of recommendations subject only to a very few constraints, which we have already discussed. These

constraints are the following. (1) The Level 0 Baselines (cost, scope, and schedule)

approved by Secretary Pen ̃a in December, 1997, and modified only as a result of the

fiscal year 1999 appropriation must be maintained; within the TPC, there must be

an adequate contingency. (2) The SNS project must continue as a five-laboratory collaboration with ORNL as the preferred site. (3) In accord with the recommendations

of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC) regarding the technical
486

specifications of the SNS, the design must be sufficiently flexible so that the SNS

can be operated at a significantly higher power in a later stage. Furthermore, the

upgrade path must minimize downtime for the users. (4) Finally, it is very important that the design maximize scientific capability through a large and robust initial

suite of instruments and through other accommodations to the needs of the neutron

science user community.

Other recommendations of BESAC were that the design rely on low-risk technology initially, the linear accelerator design not exclude direct injection of long

pulses into a spallation target, and the source have a predictability and reliability

as set forth in the Kohn report and be capable of operating at least 240 days annually. You should consider these recommendations as you undertake your assessment

of the project.

We have also agreed to work with you and the Laboratory to accommodate needs

related to recruitment and retention incentives for the SNS senior management

team and other issues. Please let me know if there is anything that I can do to expedite your review. I look forward to your presentation to me and to the Office of Basic

Energy Sciences. Again, I want to sincerely welcome you into the SNS collaboration

and offer my full support and help during the coming weeks.

Sincerely,

MARTHA A. KREBS,

Director, Office of Science.

Senator DOMENICI. I do not want to burden the record on it, but

I just want to say it concerns me greatly that we are in this position, and it should concern you, concern the Department of Energy.

The Department of Energy does not have the greatest record of getting these kind of major projects through completion. I do not care

to use statistics, but that record is not very good. I would hope that

this Spallation Neutron Source machine, which everybody thinks is

a great tool for science, that we do not mess it up in terms of managing its construction and early operation.

Dr. KREBS. I have a great concern for it, too. I consider this

project to be a critical element of the Department’s role and the Office of Science’s role as a provider of major unique scientific user

facilities. We have paid a lot of attention to the management of the

project.

The difficulties that were discovered were discovered by our process, which is an extremely open one, and we took very strong,

prompt action, and we will continue to do that as the project goes

along.

EMPLOYMENT LEVELS

Senator DOMENICI. The Office of Science, which you head, has

one of the lowest ratios of program direction funds to program

funds. In other words, your office uses very few Federal employees

to oversee a great deal of research funds. Are you able to attract

and retain sufficient employees to do this kind of work, and/or do

you have authority to go outside and contract for them?

Dr. KREBS. This is a hard question to answer. We have some

very dedicated, extraordinarily bright, committed people who work

for the Office of Science. About 50 percent of them are eligible for

retirement, so I have been able to keep them on board, because

they care a great deal about the programs that we support.

Our headquarter’s FTE number has gone down in the last 5

years from 380 to about 270. So as I look forward in the next 2

to 5 years, I think the ability to attract, retain, and compensate the

kind of people we have now is a big concern for me.

Senator DOMENICI. Are you starting to plan now?
487

Dr. KREBS. Sir, the Secretary has engaged in a Workforce-21

planning exercise, by which he has reviewed the commitments that

the Department made, I guess now 3 or 4 years ago, I cannot remember, and there are adjustments being made, so we will be able

within the next year to begin to address some of these issues.

Mr. REICHER. Mr. Chairman, if I could make a brief comment.

Senator DOMENICI. Please.

Mr. REICHER. In line with what Dr. Krebs said, under Workforce21 Secretary Richardson has recognized that under the Strategic

Alignment Initiative, which brought down the FTE levels in the

Department substantially, we do now face a situation where there

are some specific technical and other personnel needed in the Federal ranks to run our programs. In the case of my office, our staff,

our Federal staff, is down somewhere on the order of 27 percent in

the last few years, and our budget is up somewhat.

What we found is that we do not have, in fact, adequate federal

staff to administer the taxpayers’ dollars as well as we think we

need to, and so part of Workforce-21 is designed to address some

of those disconnects in the staffing of the Department of Energy

and a variety of offices. I think all are hopeful that in your consideration of the various budget requests that these targeted increases

in Federal staffing would be supported. Thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. Thanks to both of you. I wonder

if Workforce-21 also reviews the areas where we are not short to

see if there is an excess elsewhere.

Dr. KREBS. I think it looked across all of the organizations in the

Department, and I cannot tell you whether they shifted from one

to the other. I do not know that.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, we get a constant barrage of inquiries

about whether or not the OE, in skinning down, because of budget

restraints, has more people in Washington than they need and reduced forces elsewhere, they reduce jobs elsewhere. I do not know

the answer to that, but——

Dr. KREBS. May I make a comment?

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. I am concerned that we have

such a shortage in these areas, and we have to do some planning,

especially in the one you described, about 50 percent being ready

to retire. I mean you need corporate memory, but you need to have

some talented people.

Dr. KREBS. May I make a comment?

Senator DOMENICI. Sure.

FIELD STRUCTURE

Dr. KREBS. I think that it is important to distinguish the way different programs at the Department of Energy use the field structure. The Environmental Management Program, for example, really operates very strongly in the field and manages their programs

in the field.

For a program like the Office of Science, where we reach across

so many different disciplines in the scientific community, it is very

difficult to reproduce that capability in the field, so that the planning, program execution and oversight in large measure stays at

headquarters rather than being—and some contract management,

some project management for big facilities like the Spallation
488

Source does take place in the field, and so we have a different balance than, for example, the Environmental Management Program

might have. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewables, or our

Nuclear Energy, might be similar in that regard.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you wish to comment on that, Mr.

Reicher?

Mr. REICHER. Yes. We have a mix of both R&D like the Office

of Science, and then some deployment-oriented programs, so what

we are focused on is ensuring we have the core capability at headquarters to manage the cross-cutting R&D, but then we also have

important Federal workers in the field in six different cities who

help us with the deployment of these technologies.

So striking that balance has been a part of the Workforce-21, and

I would also add the Secretary’s review of the whole field structure.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Magwood, I would assume your portion

of the Department got so small that you must have a problem that

everybody is new.

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think that our situation is similar to Dr. Krebs’.

In fact, our outlook for retirement is worse than the Office of

Science. We have one of the older offices in the Department, and

we have already lost a great deal of important talent, partially because of the need to downsize to meet the strategic alignment initiatives, but also, quite frankly, because there is some exacerbation

on the part of some of the professionals in Nuclear Energy about

the direction of the program over the last few years.

We have reversed that, and a lot of people we think are going

to hang on for a while. I really am focused now on trying to bring

some younger people into our office to make sure that the expertise

we have can perpetuate into the future. We are very pleased with

the outcome of the Workforce-21 initiative, and our program direction request reflects our expectations there.

LOW DOSE RADIATION RESEARCH

Senator DOMENICI. Dr. Krebs, everywhere we look in terms of

nuclear waste disposal, any area where we have a potential for

low-level radiation, we are confronted with the fact that almost everybody tells us that we do not know the effects properly, and that

most of them say we overstated the effect of low-level radiation.

We have finally come to a point at which I am very pleased to

be part of, where Congress provided $12 million for a research program to try to help us understand the health effects of low-level

ionizing radiation, that is, whether there is at very low levels a linear relationship between radiation exposure and cancer, which we

have all, based on one major study, accepted the linear relationship, and even a non-scientist can look at an explanation of it and

have some real wonder about whether it truly is scientifically extendable, as it has been.

I understand that in response to that money you have put out

solicitations for a $7 million proposal, and that you received $60

million or $70 million worth of applications.

Dr. KREBS. Correct.

Senator DOMENICI. Are they good institutions and partnerships

that want to do this research? Are they among the best in the

country?
489

Dr. KREBS. Yes. I think they range across all of our laboratories

and all of the major research universities, so we think that we will

be able to run an external peer review process that will assure that

we have the best and the most relevant research to the program

plan, within the program plan.

Senator DOMENICI. Do you share my enthusiasm that the country ought to get this done?

Dr. KREBS. I think that this is a particularly opportune time for

the scientific community to take another look at this problem.

Given the tools that we have developed within the genome program, and since the damage that occurs, that induces any kind of

radiation response arises first at the genetic and genomic level, we

now have the tools so that we can take a look at it, so it is a particularly appropriate time.

Senator DOMENICI. Now, the biological and environmental research advisory committee has helped you develop the research

plan for this effort, is that right?

Dr. KREBS. Correct, sir. I requested last year that they provide

a plan, they have submitted it. I believe that it has been shared

with you.

Senator DOMENICI. Does your budget for 2000 fully fund the program set out by the advisory committee.

Dr. KREBS. It does not, sir, as far as I understand.

Senator DOMENICI. How much are you short?

Dr. KREBS. I would have to provide you, for the record, but my

understanding is that we have $10 million in the budget, and to

completely take advantage of all the opportunities that the scientific community has identified would take more than $20 million.

[The information follows:]

LOW DOSE RADIATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

Senate Report 105–206 dated June 5, 1998, directed the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program to provide the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee a draft plan for the Low Dose

Radiation Research Program. A draft program plan called for the program to spend

$3 million in fiscal year 1998, $5 million in Fiscal year 1999, and $10 million per

year in fiscal year 2000–2007. The fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development

Appropriation provided $8 million for this program ($3 million in the BER budget

and $5 million in the budget for Environmental Management), for a total of $13 million in fiscal year 1999, and called for the development of a long range program

plan. The Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC)

prepared a program plan that was delivered to Congress in March 1999. This plan

called for $22.4 million in fiscal year 2000, in contrast to the fiscal year 2000 request of $10 million.

Senator DOMENICI. More than what?

Dr. KREBS. $20 million.

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. We thought it was about $22 million,

is that about right?

Dr. KREBS. Yes.

Senator DOMENICI. The reason I ask and the reason I will be concerned about documentation and what the advisory group said is

because I do not think you want to do one of these and not get it

right. You must do the peer review, you have to get the right answer so that when we are finished we do not have everybody that

is anti-nuclear questioning the results. They will anyway, therefore, it is critical that we be scientifically sound.
490

Dr. KREBS. You want to do the right science——

Senator DOMENICI. You have it.

Dr. KREBS [continuing]. The fastest way.

HIGH FLUX BEAM REACTOR

Senator DOMENICI. Can we talk a minute about the High-Flux

Beam Reactor?

Dr. KREBS. Certainly.

Senator DOMENICI. The Department intends to decide in June

whether to re-start the High-Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven.

Would your request provide sufficient funds to re-start the reactor

or shut it down, depending on the decision?

Dr. KREBS. Let me provide that for the record. Right now, we are

about to release in late May or early June the draft environmental

impact statement for the future of the high-flux beam reactor. We

can release that draft without a preferred alternative.

If we release the draft that way, then when the final report is

released come next November or December that would be the time

when we would have to finally determine a preferred alternative.

The Secretary has indicated that he is willing to consider an

early decision, but we have not engaged him in the review of the

issues that would lead to that decision that might lead us to have

a preferred alternative with the draft. If the decision were to restart, we would still have a considerable amount of activity to undertake to prepare for actually turning on the reactor.

If the decision were to shut down, we would still need, again, approximately the same amount of funding that is in our 2000 budget

request to prepare the facility for a safe shutdown. A decision, even

an early decision to restart, would require some 16 months before

we could expect the facility to operate again, and the funding in a

shutdown case does not account for any of the decommissioning

and decontamination costs.

[The information follows:]

HIGH FLUX BEAM REACTOR FUNDING

Yes, the fiscal year 2000 funding request for the High Flux Beam Reactor is adequate for restart or shutdown activities.

During the first quarter of fiscal year 2000, before completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the associated Record of Decision, activities

that are common to all of the EIS alternatives will continue. These activities are

part of the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR) Transition Project initiated in 1998.

These include the canal liner, as well as the seismic upgrades to the operations level

crane and the control room, the repiping of the stack drains, the installation of Suffolk County Article 12 leak detection instrumentation, and the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) update implementation.

If the DOE decision is to restart the reactor, restart related activities will start

when DOE authorization is given. It will take about 16 months from the time the

decision is made to restart for the reactor to start operations. These activities include, the secondary water basin, piping, and isolation valve upgrade, canal

internals fabrication, SAR implementation of corrective actions, Operational Readiness Review implementation, and hiring and training of personnel.

If the DOE decision is to shut down HFBR, activities will start to place HFBR

in safe shutdown. These activities include draining and removal of all radioactive

fluids and removal of activated components in the pressure vessel. These activities

will continue throughout fiscal year 2000.
491

BATES LABORATORY FUNDING

Senator DOMENICI. Let me just talk a minute about the MIT

Bates facility. Your budget request includes no funding for the continued operation of that facility at MIT.

Dr. KREBS. Correct.

Senator DOMENICI. After the submission of the request I understand Secretary Richardson committed to submit a budget amendment to provide some continued funding for the Bates facility. Can

you tell us when we will receive that amendment, and what you

would propose to do at MIT next year?

Dr. KREBS. My best understanding at this moment is that an

amendment was cleared by OMB last night. The details of how

that facility will operate in fiscal year 2000 I will have to provide

you for the record. But it would be our intention to complete the

BLAST detector and to operate the facility through the year 2004,

to complete the science that can be obtained from BLAST. We may

be able to operate another detector as well, but we need to look at

that carefully.

Senator DOMENICI. From where are you going to get the money?

Have you decided that yet?

Dr. KREBS. Well, I think that is in the budget amendment, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Oh, good. We will be interested in it. It seems

to me that this facility, I have great respect for MIT, it seems like

it just cannot die. It must have some very excellent supporters

somewhere. Do you have any idea whom they might be?

Dr. KREBS. Well, sir, what I can tell you—certain kinds of support you probably know better than I, but in terms of scientific support, I can tell you that last year we asked the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee to review the medium energy physics program,

and they came in very high on the Bates facility.

So to the extent that the Administration has been able to find

additional funding for this project, it is a good thing to do.

Senator DOMENICI. That would not be the only scientific facility

around that there would be great science support for, would it? I

think that probably you and I could come up with 50 or 60 before

this hearing is over.

Dr. KREBS. I am sure you could.

Senator DOMENICI. In any event, the Secretary made a nice turnaround there, and he is entitled to make a few changes, just so he

cuts the right programs to pay for it. It would be all right with me.

[The information follows:]

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The budget amendment will provide sufficient funding to maintain support of the

staff, operate the accelerator for research, fabricate the Bates Large Acceptance

Spectrometer Toroid detector (BLAST), and develop the capabilities to carry out a

research program using BLAST when it is completed.

The Bates Laboratory will operate 2000 hours for research during fiscal year

2000. This time will primarily be used to pursue new investigations using the recently completed Out-of-Plane Spectrometer System (OOPS). OOPS fabrication has

been supported by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.

The OOPS system will be used with continuous wave (cw) beams extracted from the

new South Hall Pulse Stretcher Ring.

Fabrication of the BLAST detector will continue. BLAST will utilize the very high

current, cw, polarized electron beams which circulate in the new Pulse Stretcher

Ring.
492

Upon completion of BLAST in fiscal year 2001, the Bates scientific program will

shift primarily to BLAST, and it is expected that a three-year program of research

will be carried out with that new detector.

At the end of fiscal year 2004, the Bates Laboratory will begin a planned termination of activities, reaching a Decommissioning and Decontamination (D&D) level

of support in fiscal year 2006.

MIT plans to provide additional support in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001

for enhanced research operations.

CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

Senator DOMENICI. With reference to climate change technology

initiative, I am trying to determine if the climate change technology initiative is a new effort or a relabeling of the current work.

For example, within the geoscience budget, the core program would

drop $6.9 million under your request, but the geoscience climate

change technology initiative would go up 6.8. Is this new work, or

simply relabeling the old program?

Dr. KREBS. There is no question that within the Basic Energy

Sciences Program and some parts of the Biological and Environmental Research Program the climate change technology initiative

begun last year was essentially an extension and expansion of directions that were already being pursued, and it simply allowed us

to engage more fully in opportunities that we had identified.

This year, in order to accommodate the directions of the initiative, we had to make some hard decisions about the activities that

were not necessarily so clearly connected.

Senator DOMENICI. Unless any of you have some comments that

have been provided by either answers or questions, we have completed this round. Yes, Mr. Reicher.

Mr. REICHER. Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Chairman. On the climate change technology initiative, I wanted to echo what Dr. Krebs

said, and that is that I think there has been something of a misunderstanding that the climate change initiative represents a

whole new category of work, but, in fact, it is pulling together a

whole host of activities that have been undertaken by the Department and other agencies for a long period of time that can address

climate change as well as a host of other challenges we faced, and

to that, or added some new activities, but the bulk of the work are

solid existing programs that span all the energy technologies and

efficiency work that we have been doing for a great deal of time.

ACCELERATOR TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE

Mr. MAGWOOD. Just one thing. I mentioned to you that we met

with a large contingent from Japan to talk about cooperation, and

one area that they were very interested in talking to us about was

the accelerator transmutation of waste, a subject I know you are

very familiar with.

We are working closely with the Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management to move forward with the road map to study

accelerator transmutation of waste. After listening to what the Japanese had to say, I think that there is a very significant opportunity to cooperate with them over the long term with this program, and we will be looking forward to doing that. I just wanted

to let you know that that this activity is underway.
493

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. We are going to have

questions that we will send to you that are from Senators Reid,

Craig, and McConnell. Let us use the 2-week return that we had

agreed upon with Senator Reid for all three.

POTENTIAL PROGRAMMIC PROBLEM AREAS

Let me ask each of you, with reference to the things you manage

and things under your control, I will start with you, Dr. Krebs, is

there any program activity, construction project, or the like, that

is in trouble out there that you think a subcommittee ought to

know about, and if something breaks at least we have been informed? It is sort of like asking the Corps of Engineers are your

dams safe.

We have given them money to make sure that they are and they

report every dam is safe. We get surprised frequently on things

that do not turn out exactly as we would like at the Department

of Energy, and I am not referring to the spying or the espionage

issue. Do you understand my question?

Dr. KREBS. I think I do, sir. It is hard for me, when I think about

having to answer this, knowing that, in fact, my colleagues in the

scientific community come in to talk to you on, or talk to any number of people here in Washington on a regular basis, if you want

me to tell you that they have all the money they think they

need——

Senator DOMENICI. Oh, no.

Dr. KREBS [continuing]. They do not. If on the other hand you

want to know that within this budget are we operating our facilities in an at least optimized way, I think I can say that we are.

In terms of facilities that are under construction, there will be no

surprises, because, again, our program reviews and our project reviews are very open, and you hear almost as soon as we do when

there are difficulties, and right now, outside of the Spallation

source, we anticipate no problems.

Senator DOMENICI. You have a lot of nuclear reactors that you

have responsibility for. Are any of them leaking?

Dr. KREBS. One is shut down, namely, the High-Flux Beam Reactor, and the other is being upgraded, namely, the reactor at Oak

Ridge.

Senator DOMENICI. Are there any projects, major projects, that

are running over the cost estimates?

Dr. KREBS. It depends on how you count it, sir. GAO might say

something differently than we would. But right now, we are wrapping up the B factory, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, the

Fermi Main Injector, and the Combustion Research Facility. To my

knowledge, they are pretty much on schedule and on cost.

Senator DOMENICI. Maybe what you ought to do for the record,

and just consider this a question to be answered, maybe you ought

to list all the major projects you have going on, what their estimated costs are, where we are in——

Dr. KREBS. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. The construction phasing, and

where the estimates are.

Dr. KREBS. Okay.

[The information follows:]
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Title, Location and Project Number TEC Appropriation To Date Remaining Approp. Needed Estimated Com- pletion Total Actual Obligations to Date (4/30/99) 

ENERGY SUPPLY—NUCLEAR ENERGY:

TRA LANDLORD:

Fire and Life Safety Improvements Idaho Engineering And Environmental Laboratory Idaho 95–E–201 ............................ 15,446 11,366 4,080 4th Qtr 2001 11,366 Electrical Utility Upgrade Idaho Engineering And Environmental Laboratory Idaho 99–E–200 ........................................... 6,700 341 6,359 4th Qtr 2003 341 

ISOTOPE SUPPORT: Isotope Production Facility, TA–53 Los Alamos, New Mexico 99–E–201 ........................................................ 14,000 6,000 8,000 3rd Qtr 2001 6,000 

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Title, Location and Project Number TEC Appropriation To Date Remaining Approp. Needed Estimated Com- pletion Total Actual Obligations to Date (3/31/99) 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: Spallation Neutron Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 99–E–334 ............ 1,159,500 101,400 1,058,100 1st Qtr 2006 32,835 HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS:

Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Batavia, Illinois 98–G–304 ........................... 76,200 19,800 56,400 2nd Qtr 200 19,800 Wilson Hall Safety Improvements Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Batavia, Illinois 99–G–306 ................................... 15,600 6,700 8,900 3rd Qtr 2002 6,700 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY—CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Title, Location and Project Number

TEC ($000) 1 Appropriations To

Date

Remaining

Appropriations Needed Estimated Com- pletion 1

Total Actual

Obligations

to Date

(3/31/99)

DOE MNVaP

Minnesota Alfalfa Project (MAP) Granite Falls, Minnesota DE–FC36–96GO10147 ................................................................. 49,821 182,179 11,040 ( 2 ) 1st Qtr 2001 11,040 

1 Total Estimated Cost (TEC) and the estimated completion is the original estimated project cost and completion date for the project.2 Due to recent developments, Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers have requested the project be restructured as a co-firing project which will reduce the TEC by not requiring new construction. DOE participation and costs ar

termined.
495

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator DOMENICI. Does anybody else have any comments there?

I think I will ask the same question of each of you. That last one

should apply to each of you, if you would, and also when you leave

during the next—in preparing the answers, if there is something

you think the committee should know about that may not go exactly as planned, or there is evidence that it might not, I would appreciate you telling me about it in the answers that you give us.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MCCONNELL

DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE

Question. How much appropriated funding has the Department requested for the

maintenance of depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinders stored at Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge. Specifically, how much has been allocated to each facility

for fiscal year 2000?

Answer. The Department requested fiscal year 2000 appropriations totaling $10.9

million for depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinder maintenance at the Paducah,

Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge sites. Initial plans call for about $2.8 million to be allocated to Paducah, $2.7 million to be allocated to Portsmouth, and about $3.7 million

to be allocated to Oak Ridge. Approximately $1.2 million will be used in managing

cylinder maintenance at the three sites in an integrated manner. Lastly, about $0.5

million will be used to perform engineering development type work necessary to sustain, optimize and enhance the cylinder storage system. In addition, the Department

will apply funds obtained under the Memoranda of Agreement with USEC to conduct cylinder maintenance activities and to build storage yards associated with accepting USEC-generated DUF6 cylinders.

Question. The Department of Energy entered into two Memoranda of Agreement

with USEC totaling $66 million for the management of cylinders transferred from

USEC to DOE. How will this money be spent and will any of the MOA funds duplicate already appropriated funds or requested funds?

Answer. The Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) funding will not duplicate already

appropriated funding or requested funding. The Department projects the $66 million

will be utilized over the fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2009 time frame for

cylinder maintenance, yard construction, conversion facility preparations, and required near-term activities as shown on the attached table. Approximately $24 million of the $66 million has been earmarked for additional conversion preparation,

and required near-term activities with specific yearly funding levels predicated upon

the Department’s evaluation of the private sector response to the Expression of Interest (EOI) and the need to support the Department’s rapid implementation of the

program. As required under the MOAs, the funds will only be used for purposes that

are attributable to accepting and managing the cylinders received from USEC. However, Memoranda of Agreement funds will be used in conjunction with appropriated

funds for procurement activities, NEPA activities, and other near-term activities associated with the DUF6 program.

Question. Please outline for the Committee the schedule and key milestones DOE

has identified for the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion plan.

Answer. The Department’s current schedule and key milestones are attached (see

attached table). This is an aggressive schedule that should result in the awarding

of contracts in 2000 and the initiation of construction activities in 2002. This schedule would, therefore achieve the goals anticipated in Public Law 105–204 two years

earlier than required by the law.

The Department intends to issue a Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride by the end of May. The Final Plan will reflect the Department’s

review of the responses to the Expression of Interest ideas from affected members

of the local communities, Congress and other stakeholders. This document will provide a more detailed, final schedule for the DUF6 conversion project.

Question. Recently the Department issued an Expression of Interest on the DUF6

conversion plan. Please inform the Committee the number of responses the Department has received and which organizations responded to the Department’s request.
496

Answer. The Department has convened a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to analyze the responses to the EOI, prepared the draft Request for Proposals, and other

acquisition responsibilities associated with contracting for DUF6 conversion. The Department was pleased with the industry’s response to the EOI. The number of respondents to the EOI far exceeded our expectations and we have gained important

insights from the responses. Regarding your specific questions, the SEB considers

the number of EOI’s received and the company names providing the EOI’s to be

Source Selection Sensitive information. Thus, the Department cannot release this

information at this time. However, the Department recognizes Congressional interest in this process and is evaluating whether it can release summary, non-proprietary EOI data to the Congress and public. A determination from the Office of General Counsel is expected soon.

Question. The Department has proposed to use $5 million associated with conversion of depleted uranium cylinders. Please explain for what purpose this funding

will be spent.

Answer. The $5 million will be used for site specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities to enable the Department to begin conversion facilities

construction and begin acquisition activities to meet the schedule anticipated by

Public Law 105–204. It should be noted that the budget request to Congress specified that some of the funds would be used for preparation of a Request for Proposals. The Department currently plans to issue the Request for Proposals prior to

the beginning of fiscal year 2000, enabling remaining funds to be used to accelerate

required NEPA analysis.

MOA FUNDS BY FISCAL YEAR

[In millions of dollars]

Major activities 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2009–

09 Total

Cylinder Maintenance .................... 6.27 6.98 4.38 1.65 1.85 1.65 4.50 27.28

Yard Construction .......................... 7.92 3.50 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 11.42

Conversion Preparation ................. 3.30 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 3.30

Funds Available for Additional

Conversion Preparation, and

Required Near-Term Activities .. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 24.00

Total ................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 66.00

FULL-SCALE DUF6 CONVERSION CAPABILITY SCHEDULE AND KEY MILESTONES

Approximate Dates Key Milestone

First Quarter 1999 .............................................. Issue a request for Expressions of Interest (EOI).

Complete and issue the final PEIS.

Second Quarter 1999 .......................................... Receive EOI responses.

Issue the PEIS Record of Decision.

Issue Final Plan.

Issue draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for conversion

contract.

Third Quarter 1999 ............................................. Receive comments on draft RFP.

Issue final RFP for conversion contracts.

Fourth Quarter 1999 ........................................... Receive proposals.

Begin proposal evaluation.

2000 .................................................................... Award DUF6 conversion contract(s).

2002 .................................................................... Complete design, and start construction of full-scale facilities.

ARMED GUARDS AT THE PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT

Question. In the Energy and Water bill from last year, there was a provision to

restore arming and arrest authority to the security guards located at the Paducah

Gaseous Diffusion plant. The legislation, which was developed in cooperation with
497

your office and USEC, requires that the two parties split the costs appropriately.

Nearly eight months later, this problem has not been resolved and I am told this

problem might not be resolved for another eight months. Please explain why this

problem hasn’t been resolved and when you expect the law to be fully implemented.

Answer. As you know, the Department’s regulatory oversight over the United

States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) ended on March 3, 1997, when the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission assumed oversight authority over USEC. With the enactment of the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, the

Department of Energy and the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) have

been working together and have now established a process to restore the arming,

arrest and use of deadly force authority for the guard force at the Paducah Gaseous

Diffusion Plant consistent with the Act. A conservative estimate of the time needed,

these authorities should be restored to the entire guard force by no later than December 31, 1999. Although the responsibility for rearming the guard force largely

rests with USEC, the Department will take those steps under our control to accelerate this process. We believe based on discussions with USEC and a recently completed assessment of their program, discussed below, that they are well on the way

to restoring these authorities and that by the end of August, there will be guards

at Paducah who have completed the requisite training and qualification and who

have been issued Weapons Authorization Cards by the Department.

There are two major activities that USEC must complete in order for the Department to reissue Weapons Authorization Cards to the guard force: one, demonstrating that pertinent federal requirements for arming, arrest, and use of deadly

force authority have been put into place and following this, training and qualifying

the guard force to meet the regulations. The regulations themselves are extensive,

derived principally from Titles 10 and 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations and

addressing a wide range of topics: physical protection of property, medical fitness

implementation, limited arrest authority, use of force by protective officers, and pertinent regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Meeting these

requirements demands a significant investment of time, resources and infrastructure by USEC (e.g., employing firearm safety professionals, medical professionals,

maintaining a firing range and exercise facilities).

Based on a recently completed on-site inspection by DOE of Paducah, we believe

that USEC has made substantial progress in re-establishing the supporting program

for these authorities and that they should be ready to start training and qualifying

guards by the end of July 1999. To further accelerate this process, DOE will issue

Weapons Authorization Cards to individual guards as they complete their training.

Ultimately, the time needed to fully restore these authorities is under the control

of USEC, who is responsible for training and qualification, including the scheduling

of training.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BURNS

GENERAL

Question. I noticed in your testimony that you state 85 percent of domestic energy

use comes from fossil fuels. And of that, almost 30 percent is from coal. Then you

point out that this level of consumption will not likely change in the coming decades. My state can help here since Montana has the largest coal reserves of any

state in the United States (120 billion short ton). So what are you doing to promote

the development of coal within this country?

Answer. Coal is the most abundant and lowest cost energy form in the United

States. However, there are challenges to using coal cleanly to reduce both traditional pollutants and greenhouse gases. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) role includes meeting the research and development (R&D) challenges of improving the efficiency of the fossil energy cycle in a clean, environmentally friendly manner in

order to continue to benefit the Nation through the economic advantages of coal.

These challenges include further technological improvements to meet new smog and

particulate standards and possibly new requirements for air toxic emissions. Land

constraints will increase the need to reduce solid wastes. Also, pressures will increase to find economically acceptable ways to reduce both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

DOE’s R&D effort is, therefore, aimed at providing a combination of ultra-high efficiency technologies and low-cost carbon capture and disposal technologies could

make it possible to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, these environmental concerns over coal and permit the Nation to continue to prosper from coal’s economic

benefits. Technology now appears within reach that can double today’s power plant
498

efficiencies, virtually eliminate air emissions, release no net carbon dioxide, and still

produce power that is low enough in cost to be competitive with the best of today’s

pulverized coal plants. It may also be possible to use coal as a low-cost resource in

an integrated ‘‘energy complex’’ to produce high-grade, low-pollution transportation

fuels that, coupled with improved engine technology, could double fuel combustion

efficiency and further reduce air emissions from the transportation industry.

While much remains to be done to ensure that coal use remains a domestic energy

option well into the next century, the DOE has already achieved much to enable

‘‘clean’’ coal technologies to be a cost competitive and environmentally superior option in the near term through its successes in the Clean Coal Technology (CCT)

Demonstration Program. For example, barriers to using the Nation’s vast low-sulfur,

but low-energy-density western coal resources are being addressed through two advanced, coal-upgrading projects under this cost-shared program. In the ENCOAL

project in Campbell County, Wyoming, and Rosebud SynCoal Partnership project in

Rosebud County, Montana, a stable coal product is produced which has a low-moisture content, low-sulfur content, and a high heating value (12,000 Btu/lb). Additionally, the ENCOAL project produces a liquid product equivalent to No. 6 fuel oil. The

products from these two projects are being sold to utility and industrial consumers.

Notwithstanding these and many other near-term commercial successes, ongoing

research activities to provide future opportunities for clean coal technologies, advanced power generation systems, and advanced clean fuels are being promoted by

the Department.

Advances through clean fuels research will provide, in the longer term, for coalderived substitutes for traditional petroleum products that have the potential to provide the secure supply of transportation fuels that is needed by major sectors of the

Nation’s economy. Development of such a coal-based fuels industry will positively

affect our balance of payments, create high-paying jobs, and ensure a stable alternative source of supply as increase in demand is expected after 2015. In addition,

these fuels will be more environmentally friendly than petroleum-based products,

while using the Nation’s vast domestic coal resources to provide the necessary level

of energy security. This research is carried out by the Department in partnership

with industry, academia, and other Government agencies and laboratories at the national and state levels.

Question. I understand, from your testimony, that you are focusing on developing

modeling tools to evaluate future combustion systems. What will these modeling

tools do and how will these modeling tools consider different combustion sources

(coal, gas, and oil)?

Answer. A Virtual Demonstration Program, which was recently initiated in Fossil

Energy, will increase the effectiveness of advanced power plant designs by providing

the modeling tools and computational framework necessary to enhance overall predictive capability and process understanding. The result will be to reduce the time

and costs associated with the transition from pilot-to commercial-scale development

of the next generation of combustion systems. It will also help identify the power

and fuel system advanced research needs in power and fuel system r&d. Those r&d

efforts will focus heavily on developing the fundamentally-oriented data and integration tools required to support fuel-flexible (coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, etc.) integrated gasification combined cycle and pulverized coal-based technologies, such as

Vision 21 high performance power and fuels systems.

The modeling tools to be developed will take advantage of the most recent advances in the field of virtual demonstration to include: 3D visualization technology,

integrated information management, process simulation, advanced numerical techniques for control and process simulations, and overall model integration.

Since these models are based on fundamental scientific principles (the laws of

fluid dynamics, chemical kinetics and thermodynamics, structural mechanics, radiation, etc.), their results and their applications will not be limited to one fossil fuel

feedstock but will be applicable to coal, oil and gas as well.

Question. I noticed your fiscal year 2000 budget request is generally increasing.

This reassures me that you recognize the importance of supporting our domestic energy industries. As you know, we are losing much of our domestic production capabilities, such as in the oil and gas industries, due to low energy prices. Even though

I am working to address that problem, development of renewable energy sources in

the United States is another area that I have much interest. However, the fiscal

year 2000 budget is tight as you well know. Since we probably won’t be able to fund

all of your requested increase, what are your priorities in fiscal year 2000?

Answer. Increased investments in technology research, development and pre-commercial deployment are of critical importance to meeting the energy and environmental challenges of our times and of the next century. However, we realize the ex-
499

istence of budget constraints and will work closely with the Committee to identify

priorities.

SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES

Question. You may have heard about a proposed ethanol plant to be constructed

in Great Falls, Montana. This project hasn’t yet be constructed even though it has

all of the necessary permits and plans approved. They are having financial troubles.

This plant plans to convert wheat waste into ethanol. I understand you are developing demonstration plants to convert agricultural products into ethanol such as:

—sugarcane wastes in Louisiana;

—rice straw in California; and

—solid wastes in New York.

What are the Department’s plans to develop other demonstration projects to

produce ethanol from other dedicated crops, such as wheat, and forest waste?

Answer. The Department has requested funds to develop partnerships for commercial scale technology demonstrations, using agricultural residues and forestry

wastes, in industry owned plants to produce ethanol and co-products. These plants

will be ‘‘first-of-a-kind’’ waste to ethanol facilities in the United States. We believe

that these low cost cellulosic waste materials offer opportunities to produce ethanol

at competitive costs in the near term. The Department’s major role with our partners has been to provide technical and engineering assistance in obtaining process

data and engineering warranties. Our industrial partners will obtain private financing to construct, operate, and own these cellulosic-based facilities. The Department’s

approach in developing these new technologies avoids some of the financial difficulties that may be experienced when depending on commodity crops that also supply

higher valued food markets. Our longer term plans call for the use of dedicated

crops (switchgrass, hybrid poplar, willow) which are being developed for high biomass productivity at low cost, in the year 2004. Our understanding is that the facility planned for Great Falls, Montana will use wheat and barley grain, which employs a starch based process that has been used for many years by the corn ethanol

industry. In most cases, there are few, if any, process and engineering technology

or warranty issues requiring resolution.

SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES

Question. I have a keen interest in your biomass/biofuels program given my state

produces a fair amount of agricultural products which could be converted into producing electric power or transportation fuels. I understand that for fiscal year 2000

you will be increasing funding for the development of biomass conversions systems

for:

—wood into ethanol in Vermont;

—alfalfa into ethanol in Minnesota;

—willow and coal into ethanol in New York; and

—switchgrass into ethanol in Iowa.

What other biomass conversion systems, such as wheat into ethanol, have you

considered? How can we help encourage you to consider such conversion systems?

Answer. The Department shares your interest in converting agricultural products

into electric power or transportation fuels. We have requested additional funds

under the Bioenergy Initiative, which will integrate activities critical to the future

viability of a biomass based industry that will produce products such as fuels,

power, and chemicals. Technologies and systems that are developed and demonstrated under the initiative could be applied to a broad range of feedstocks, including those that are grown in Montana. The projects in Vermont, Minnesota, New

York, and Iowa are actually biomass power projects that will demonstrate gasification and biomass co-firing options. Results from these projects will also apply, in

large measure, to Montana. With regard to ethanol, the biomass conversion systems

that the Department is considering will apply to most agricultural residues, including wheat straw.

DOE STRATEGY/PLANS TO DEVELOP CO-FIRING DEMONSTRATIONS

Question. Since it has been shown that biomass can replace up to 15 percent of

the fuels used by existing coal power plants, what are your strategy and plans to

develop cost-sharing demonstrations for such co-fired (biomass and fossil fuels)

plants in fiscal year 2000?

Answer. DOE’s strategy has been to demonstrate co-firing options in a broad

cross-section of boiler types with a variety of dedicated crops and residues in order

to expand the base of utilities employing co-firing in existing generating units. This

is being accomplished on a cost-shared basis with utilities and other partners.
500

To further the commercial application of biomass co-firing, certain issues remain

that need to be addressed. These include examining numerous types of biomass can

be used for co-firing including wood, energy crops such as switchgrass, and agricultural residues. Similarly, coals (which can range from a lignite coal to an anthracite), have varying characteristics that can affect the success of co-firing. Additional

issues that need to be addressed involve materials handling, how materials are delivered into the boiler itself, and boiler design that can vary from either a stoker

design to pulverized coal type. Furthermore, utility restructuring is changing the

ownership profile of utility boilers which will affect the planning and ultimate decision making process by the owners of the generating stations.

With these factors in mind, it is our intent to pursue additional partnerships in

other areas such as rural electric cooperatives, federal facilities, and non-utility generators, including colleges and universities where coal is used to either generate

heat or power. These cost-shared demonstrations are envisioned as part of a new

program element that will round out the examination of the various options and approaches to cofiring in order to resolve any remaining technical barriers and identify

the characteristics that will lead to viable ongoing co-firing operations by the private

sector.

HYDROGEN PROGRAM

Question. Regarding other renewable resources, such as hydrogen, what are the

Department’s plans and funding requests in fiscal year 2000 to develop fuel cells

from hydrogen?

Answer. In support of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology’s report, the Hydrogen Program is collaborating with the other fuel cell programs within the Offices of Transportation Technologies and Building Technologies.

The Hydrogen Program does not independently develop fuel cells, but uses the technology developed by the other programs to support industry apply the technology

for electricity generation. In the fiscal year 2000 budget, the Hydrogen Program has

requested $1.5 million to build prototype 50kW and 25kW Proton Exchange Membrane fuels cells for stationary power in remote villages and battery replacement applications, respectively.

USER FEES

Question. I understand that the Basic Energy Sciences Program involves the use

of major facilities at various national laboratories. And I understand that these national laboratories consume much of the budget for the Basic Energy Sciences Program. What considerations have you made to adopt a user fee concept for these facilities to cover more of their increasing costs since other organizations use these

national labs?

Answer. The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) facilities are part of the Department’s

system of scientific user facilities, the most sophisticated and successful of its kind

in the world. These facilities enable researchers to gain the new knowledge necessary to achieve the Department’s missions and, more broadly, to advance the Nation’s entire scientific enterprise. The magnitude of these user-facility investments

exceeds the resources of all but the federal government. These investments allow

the most promising scientific opportunities to be addressed and attract the world’s

brightest scientists to unlock nature’s most challenging secrets, thus helping the

United States maintain its industrial and technological competitiveness. Access to

these extraordinary tools is provided by DOE on a no-charge basis to all qualified

researchers whose intention it is to publish in the open literature.

The Department’s longstanding user fee policy was formulated to encourage use

of these unique facilities by leading researchers under the following philosophy:

—to promote increased cooperation among Government, industrial, and academic

researchers for the benefit of the entire Nation and to enable the United States

to maintain its industrial and technological competitiveness in the world,

—to encourage industry and academia to conduct basic research of direct programmatic interest to DOE,

—to encourage investment by industry and academia in facilities through the fabrication of instrumentation and beamlines, thus leveraging the Government’s

investment in its facilities,

—to make available the instrumentation and beamlines constructed by participating research teams to general users.

DOE also recognizes that several committees that have considered the issue of

user fees to supplement the base operating expenses of national user facilities have

not recommended implementation of user fees. These studies include the 1991 ‘‘Report to Congress on the Department of Energy’s User Fee Assessment and Collec-
501

tion Practices,’’ the study by the OECD Megascience Forum Working Group on Removing Obstacles to International Cooperation (June 1998 report of the Subgroup

on Access to Large-scale Research Facilities), the November 1997 report of the Basic

Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC) Panel on Synchrotron Radiation

Sources and Science, the report by the OSTP Interagency Working Group on Structural Biology at Synchrotrons (‘‘Synchrotron Radiation for Macromolecular Crystallography,’’ January 1999), and the NAS study ‘‘Developing a Federal Materials

Facilities Strategy’’ supported by the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology

of the Commission on Physical Sciences/Mathematics and Applications.

A few of the reasons that the implementation of a user fee policy may adversely

impact user facilities are:

1. A large amount of cost sharing already occurs at BES user facilities with respect to beam line construction, instrumentation and facility upgrades. Levying user

fees upon NSF and NIH researchers to supplement operating costs may well reduce

these agencies’ support of instrumentation.

2. Sharing base operating expenses among offices/agencies that use a facility has

been shown not to work—such arrangements result in unclear ownership responsibilities and increased funding uncertainties.

3. User fees discourage industrial use of facilities, thus decreasing long-term industrial research and technology transfer activities.

4. Fragile international collaborations relating to user facilities are all based on

DOE’s current policy; if this changes, the U.S. could be forced to pay user fees at

foreign facilities. The adoption of policy to charge foreign users a fee to access U.S.

facilities would open the door for foreign facilities to do likewise. Implications of

such a change could be enormous. For example, it is estimated that the U.S. uses

about 25 percent of CERN (the European Laboratory for Particle Physics). The annual budget for CERN is approximately $600M, so the U.S. could be asked to pay

up to $150M for use of this facility alone. It should be noted that U.S. activities at

CERN and at other European laboratories are now largely balanced by foreign

usage, and in-kind contributions to DOE (i.e., the High Energy Physics facilities for

this example).

5. Since most research (over 75 percent) at the BES facilities is federally funded,

the effect of charging user fees for nonproprietary research would be to transfer

funds from one agency to another.

DOE’s longstanding user fee policy was developed within the framework of OMB

Circular A–25 and was implemented in 1979.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CRAIG

TERMINATION AND ELECTROMETALLURGICAL TREATMENT FUNDING AT ARGONNE

NATIONAL LABORATORY

Question. One of my greatest concerns with DOE’s fiscal year 2000 budget request

is the $20 million shortfall for Argonne National Laboratory-West in the area of

electrometallurgical processing. The funding request for the Termination account is

$20 million lower than the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Finding a remedy for this

shortfall is one of my highest priorities. A cut this deep would result in several hundred layoffs at Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, to minimize the overall impact, the layoffs would have to occur just a few short months from now. Why aren’t

these layoffs mentioned in the DOE budget request?

Answer. The Department’s fiscal year 2000 request will support the continued

work of the Laboratory’s skilled workforce until a decision is made on the future

use of the technology. Their work to investigate the application of electrometallurgical technology to the Department’s spent fuel management challenges is

essential to enabling the Department to make an informed decision on the future

use of this technology. After the Department completes its Environmental Impact

Statement on the use of electrometallurgical technology, it will issue a formal

Record of Decision in January 2000. No lay-offs will occur prior to this decision. If

the Department decides to proceed with the use of this technology, we will seek to

reallocate sufficient Department funds to implement such a decision; if, instead, the

Department decides against using electrometallurgical technology, we will proceed

to terminate program activities.

Question. I understand that the Department plans to complete early next year the

environmental impact statement on the treatment of sodium-bonded spent fuels.

Therefore, assuming a positive outcome to the EIS, funding will be required in fiscal

year 2000 to initiate full-scale treatment of sodium bonded fuels. However, the

budget that the Administration submitted to Congress includes no funding for treat-
502

ment in fiscal year 2000. Does that mean that the Administration is anticipating

a negative outcome from the EIS process?

Answer. We remain optimistic about the application of the electrometallurgical

treatment technology to the Department’s inventory of sodium bonded spent nuclear

fuel. As you know, the demonstration project will be completed in fiscal year 1999.

Additionally, by the end of the calendar year, the National Research Council will

complete their independent technical review of the electrometallurgical treatment

technology. Thus far, the National Research Council has indicated that there is no

other technology sufficiently developed, with the exception of the PUREX process,

that could be used for treatment of sodium bonded fuel. Further, they have indicated that any other technology, including PUREX, would require a significant investment of funds and time for development and demonstration.

We are confident that the EIS and the review by the National Research Council

will provide a strong basis for a decision on whether to use this technology for the

treatment of the remaining sodium bonded fuel. Once a decision is made, the Department will seek appropriate adjustments in its fiscal year 2000 budget.

Question. Is it true that the electrometallurgical technology that is being developed by Argonne has potential application in concepts such as accelerator transmutation of waste, metal cooled reactor systems, and other concepts?

Answer. Electrometallurgical treatment technology development at Argonne National Laboratory is directed only to the Department’s mission of conversion of spent

nuclear fuel into durable high-level waste forms which can be qualified for disposal.

I understand that related, but different, technologies may be applicable to the accelerator transmutation of waste concept. This possibility is part of a roadmap now

being prepared by the Department’s Office of Civilian radioactive Waste Management.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE

Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests only a modest increase in DOE’s

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative—from $19 million this year to $25 million in fiscal year 2000. This does not seem to demonstrate a very strong commitment on the

part of the Administration to support nuclear energy R&D.

The DOE request of $25 million for fiscal year 2000 will allow only about $6 million in new awards in fiscal year 2000; the other $19 million will be required to fund

the second year of projects that will be initiated in fiscal year 1999. By comparison,

for fiscal year 1999 DOE received $19 million for NERI, and received 307 proposals

requesting a total of $300 million dollars.

Do you believe that an increase of $6 million next year is adequate to support

the large number of worthy new proposals anticipated in the next fiscal year?

Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request of $25 million, a $6 million increase over

fiscal year 1999, will allow the start of some new research efforts in fiscal year 2000

in addition to continuation of the second year of research for the awards made in

fiscal year 1999. We believe the modest funding increase from $19 million in fiscal

year 1999 to $25 million in fiscal year 2000 will allow the Nuclear Energy Research

Initiative (NERI) program a controlled growth that will assure effective program implementation and goal achievement. However, as evidenced by the overwhelming response from the nuclear community to the fiscal year 1999 NERI solicitation, the

number of new proposals funded in fiscal year 2000 will likely be significantly

smaller than number of worthy proposals expected to be received. It is our hope that

this program will grow as we demonstrate its value to the Nation.

Question. Given the importance that the Administration has assigned to issues of

climate change, and given the obvious advantages of nuclear power in addressing

climate change, I’m puzzled as to why the Administration has requested a $270 million increase for conservation and renewable energy research programs, but only an

$11 million increase for nuclear energy research programs. In fact, the Administration’s request for nuclear energy research is lower than last year’s request. Can you

explain the logic behind the Administration’s request?

Answer. The Administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes $25

million for NERI, an increase of $6 million, and $5 million for Nuclear Energy Plant

Optimization (NEPO), a proposed new program. The fiscal year 2000 budget request

of $25 million for the NERI program builds on the work started in fiscal year 1999

and funded by the Congress at $19 million. We believe that the moderate increase

in funding we have proposed is appropriate and will provide time to assure that the

program is effectively accomplishing the objectives. It is our hope that the program

will grow as we demonstrate its value to the Nation. With respect to the NEPO Program, we believe that the request of $5 million is sufficient to begin to demonstrate

the benefits of this program. Both the NEPO and NERI programs are essential to
503

retain nuclear energy as a viable option and key component of the Nation’s energy

mix.

Question. With the large number of research proposals that will be funded under

NERI, how does the Department plan to integrate this research into a rational,

long-term nuclear energy research and development program?

Answer. The focus of NERI is the resolution of the longer-term issues affecting

the future use of nuclear energy. These issues, namely proliferation, economics and

waste generation, were clearly identified in the November 1997 Report of the Energy Research and Development Panel of the PCAST. The PCAST report also provided recommendations for research in certain key areas: proliferation resistant reactor and fuel technology, new reactor designs with higher efficiency, lower cost and

improved safety; low-power reactors; and new techniques for on-site and surface

storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. These recommendations are the

focus of the Department’s long-term R&D program and the basis for the fiscal year

1999 and fiscal year 2000 budget requests.

The Department views NERI as a ‘‘birthing place’’ where the scientific and engineering ideas of our Nation’s brightest researchers can be developed into more focused and specific projects that will provide solutions to the nuclear energy issues.

R&D activities under NERI will initially be small to moderate in size and scope,

and typically be conducted over a three-year period. The Department plans to monitor the progress and success potential of each R&D effort. The R&D conducted during the initial three-year period will identify promising scientific and engineering solutions and technological advancements that will require specific project efforts to

achieve R&D objectives necessary to effectively resolve or reduce the effects of the

nuclear issues.

The Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), established by the

Department in 1998, will conduct periodic reviews of on-going R&D programs and

advise the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology on its long range R&D

plans, priorities and strategies.

Question. Will you draw on the facilities and expertise at Idaho’s laboratories for

the integration and conduct of this long-term research and development?

Answer. The Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)

and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL–W) represent the Department’s core nuclear research and development capability. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science

and Technology will continue to depend on assistance from these Idaho national laboratories in crafting our long term nuclear technology research and development

strategy, and to provide key nuclear research. For example, INEEL and ANL–W

were among the many organizations that submitted R&D proposals to the Nuclear

Energy Research Initiative. Both organizations were successful in having several

proposals selected for funding. The INEEL is a participant is five of the proposals

that were funded, and ANL is a participant in 10 proposals that were funded.

UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

Question. DOE has proposed $11.345 million for university reactor fuel assistance

and support in fiscal year 2000, a modest $345,000 increase over fiscal year 1999.

This program is essential to ensuring an adequate supply of nuclear-trained professionals for the nuclear power industry, the national laboratories, the environmental

restoration industry, and a host of other industries. This program also provides

funding to support the operation of the 28 university-based nuclear research reactors in the U.S. Given the importance of university nuclear engineering programs

and university research reactors to maintaining the viability of nuclear power in the

U.S., do you believe this funding level is adequate?

Answer. While the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support Program has

had significant funding increases over the past several years, the need to further

strengthen the nuclear engineering infrastructure remains. Our request of $11.345

million in fiscal year 2000 will continue a level of effort in important areas such

as the Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) initiative. However, as we

enter the next century, there are challenges that must be met to strengthen our

educational infrastructure and train the next generation of nuclear scientists and

engineers. Clearly, more resources from the Department can help assure that the

Nation meets these important challenges. But this work will also require a rededication by the universities, our national laboratories, and particularly industry to modernize research reactors and enhance university nuclear engineering programs.

CLEAN AIR CREDITS AND ATLANTIC COUNCIL REPORT

Question. A report by the Atlantic Council recommended that governments assure

the financial integrity of nuclear power by giving credit to nuclear energy for avoid-
504

ed emissions. This is something that is not currently done under the Clean Air Act

for SO2. What is DOE’s reaction to a proposal such as this in the context of the Administrations electricity restructuring bill? Do you see this as a viable proposal for acknowledging nuclear’s non-emitting contribution to our electricity supply?

Answer. The primary focus of the Administration’s bill on electricity restructuring

is on competition and consistent with that focus, the bill does not include significant

environmental provisions. However, we understand that the type of allocation suggested could be accommodated under the existing law. Several utilities have discussed this issue with the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency,

which has the primary jurisdiction in this area. The matter remains under consideration. The individual states have considerable discretion in how to reach emission

levels specified in their State Implementation Plants.

The Department believes that a reliable and affordable electric power supply is

critical for the U.S. to enjoy a strong economy and sustained growth. Such a supply

of electricity requires diversity in its fuel mix—we need to maintain a diverse, secure energy portfolio of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and renewables. Nuclear energy

has been an important part of this diversity and generates electricity without emitting any greenhouse gases or other harmful air pollutants such as sulfur oxides and

nitrogen oxides. The 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. provide approximately 20

percent of the electricity generated and avoid more than 150 million metric tonnes

of carbon emissions annually. With new requirements for lower emissions of sulfur

dioxide and nitrogen oxide for fossil plants, particularly in the eastern part of the

nation, the contribution of existing nuclear power plants in avoiding harmful air

emissions becomes even more important.

We are at a critical juncture with respect to the continued operation of nuclear

power plants. Many U.S. nuclear plant owners are approaching a key decision point

as to whether their plants should be shutdown at or before their initial license period, or whether they should apply for a twenty-year extension on that license. U.S.

nuclear power plant licenses will begin to expire in large numbers in 2010; licenses

for 13 plants representing some 11,700 MWe will expire in 2014 alone. Faced with

regulatory and economic uncertainties, some utilities already have exercised their

option to close nuclear facilities well before their initial license expiration date. This

trend has resulted in the closing of 6 reactors before license expiration, a loss of approximately 4,000 megawatts of U.S. generating capacity, in the past three years.

Critical issues facing the continued operation of existing nuclear power plants need

to be addressed in the near term so that this trend does not continue.

Production costs (operating and maintenance costs plus fuel costs but excluding

capital costs) for existing nuclear power plants at 1.91 cents per kilowatt-hour [kwh]

are comparable to those for coal at 1.83 cents per kwh and are significantly less

than those for natural gas at 3.38 cents per kwh. An appropriate credit for avoided

emissions would allow existing nuclear plants to better compete in the restructured

market. Continued operation of existing plants is a prerequisite for the Nation to

preserve the option of continued and expanded use of nuclear energy.

PROPOSAL FOR ON-SITE STORAGE OF UTILITY FUEL

Question. With respect to DOE’s proposal to compensate utilities for the on-site

storage of their spent nuclear fuel in lieu of taking possession in response to DOE’s

1998 waste acceptance obligation, as the Director of the DOE program office which

is most familiar with the nuclear power industry, do you foresee any concerns about

the feasibility, safety, licensing or other regulatory issues associated with DOE’s implementation of this on-site storage proposal?

Answer. The Department currently is engaged in discussions with utilities concerning the feasibility of the Secretary’s proposal to take title for on-site storage.

The feasibility of implementing this proposal would depend on the willingness of the

utilities to accept this proposal and the ability of DOE to fund the costs.

Implementation of the on-site storage proposal would not be the long term permanent solution nor will it alleviate the need for additional spent fuel storage capacity

required for continued operation of existing power plants. Although spent fuel may

be safely stored at nuclear power plants under Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, current plants were designed only for short-term storage until spent fuel

could be moved to the permanent repository being built by the Department.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Question. According to DOE’s budget there was over $1 billion in annual U.S. renewable energy technology sales in 1998. Can you tell us how much energy that represented?
505

Answer. The reference to annual renewable energy technology sales was to the

value of equipment sales and related services provided by U.S. industry. The $1 billion consists of approximately $100 million in sales of wind plants (112 MW), $228

million in sales of photovoltaic modules (54 MW), $400 million in sales for geothermal power plants (380 MW) and $450 million in sales of geothermal heat

pumps. These are total sales, both domestic and export, for these U.S. renewable

energy industries. However, if one wanted to look at the sales of electricity produced

by the installed renewable energy power plants in the U.S., the nearly 2,300

megawatts of geothermal power in the states of California, Hawaii, Nevada, and

Utah alone produces 14–17 billion kilowatt-hours per year of electricity, which is

worth about $1 billion in annual utility sales, according to the geothermal industry.

Question. It sounds like this is a rather robust market for renewable energy. We

are also told by the Administration that consumers will be willing to pay more for

so-called ‘‘green power’’. Given this robust market, why should the federal government continue to subsidize renewable power technologies at $325.2 million for fiscal

year 2000?

Answer. While $1 billion in sales may seem to indicate a ‘‘robust’’ market for renewable power technologies, such a market size is still quite small in comparison

to the scale of conventional energy technology markets. For example, the U.S. electric power industry as a whole has annual sales of about $215 billion. As to the market for ‘‘green power,’’ it is difficult to forecast human behavior in future restructured electric markets. It is not plausible at this time to assume with any confidence

that demand for ‘‘green power’’ alone will be sufficient to create a large enough demand for renewable energy (and a corresponding level of profits for the industry to

fully sustain its own R&D) so that the Federal Government should reconsider the

level of R&D commitment to these technologies. In fact, we believe that sustained

and even increased investments in renewable energy R&D are of critical importance

to the nation. These technologies will improve local environmental quality, improve

the diversity and security of our energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

and improve our long-term economic competitiveness. In part due to the past support of this Committee, the U.S. maintains a leadership position in some, but not

all, renewable energy technologies. However, our economic competitors recognize, as

we do, that a massive market for clean energy technologies, especially in the developing world, is emerging. Many studies and industry observers have concluded that

developing these technologies and successfully competing for the global markets in

clean energy technologies is of major importance to the U.S. These technologies are

essential to meeting the energy, environmental, and economic challenges as we

begin the next century.

INTERNATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

Question. Please describe DOE’s international renewable energy technology programs.

Answer. The Solar International Program’s mission is to encourage greater acceptance and private-sector use of U.S. renewable energy technologies in overseas

markets in ways that support U.S. national interests and policies. The primary goal

of the program is to facilitate the expansion of U.S. renewable energy and energy

efficiency technology exports to help meet the energy needs of developed and developing countries, reduce the rate of consumption of finite global resources, and address local and transnational environmental issues.

The International Solar Energy Program addresses specific problems that slow

the acceptance and use of new and existing technologies, and speeds the deployment

of technologies by targeting distinct market barriers. It supports efforts to increase

the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy industry in large and rapidly

growing global energy markets. These efforts also support the U.S. industry’s ability

to make continuing technological improvements and achieve cost reductions that are

critical to enhancing the competitiveness and market penetration of renewables in

the United States. The program works cooperatively with the private sector and by

increasing the in-country understanding of local renewable energy potential, and

promoting dialogue and interaction with U.S. firms.

The program has been redirected in response to Congressional direction to continue support for the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation but also to refocus activities into three broad program areas: Emerging Global Environmental and Energy Issues, Facilitate Market and Trade Development, and Advance U.S. Energy

and Environmental Security Interests.

The Emerging Global Environmental and Energy Issues will be implemented specifically through and in conjunction with the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation

(USIJI). USIJI is a DOE-lead interagency program that supports the development
506

of flexibility mechanisms under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change

(U.N. FCCC) such as Joint Implementation (JI), flexibility mechanisms, and Emissions Trading. This element will also focus on encouraging meaningful participation

by developing countries in the U.N. FCCC.

The Market and Trade Development element will accelerate reductions in technology production costs and advance deployment of technologies through overseas

market expansion. It will stimulate global economic development and regional economic stability, and accelerate domestic economic growth and employment. This element will be implemented in key regions through bilateral (e.g., Gore-Mbeki in

South Africa) and multilateral (e.g., Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Hemispheric

Initiatives and International Energy Agency) technology cooperation activities and

information exchange and dissemination. Private sector technology development will

be encouraged while private sector deployment in strategic and emerging markets

will be stimulated through project based activities.

The Energy and Environmental Security element is designed to advance U.S.

strategic interests in bilateral and multilateral energy and environmental security

activities and will provide specialized assistance in the utilization of appropriate

technologies. This element will be implemented in support of existing and emerging

bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements. This element will also assist the

Department in meeting U.S. obligations and commitments to provide disaster relief

and assistance by facilitating private sector technology development and deployment

in strategic and emerging markets.

Question. Are these programs really an export subsidy?

Answer. The Solar International Program is not an export subsidy program. The

purpose of the program is to stimulate global economic development and regional

economic stability, and accelerate domestic economic growth and employment. One

of the ways this will be accomplished is by facilitating international technology cooperation in bilateral and multilateral discussions, agreements and treaty negotiations. Developing and facilitating the deployment of appropriate technologies offers

U.S. industries the opportunity to adapt existing or emerging technologies to meet

unique needs and conditions of developing and transition countries. Technologies

that may face significant commercial barriers domestically may be readily adaptable

to large and growing markets in the developing world. Thus the program facilitates

private sector technology development and deployment in strategic and emerging

markets through project based activities.

Question. If so, should we be doing the same for export of other non-emitting energy technologies such as nuclear and hydropower?

Answer. Hydropower is a long-standing renewable technology and the International Solar Program is encouraging the acceptance and use of U.S. hydropower

in developing and transition country markets. Additionally, the development of environmentally-friendly hydropower turbines (to mitigate impacts on fish and water

quality) by DOE’s Hydropower Program will help meet critical domestic and international needs at both existing and potential new hydropower sites. With adequate

Congressional support and funding, research and development on these turbines

should lead to commercially available products by about 2010.

The International Solar Program supports the export of renewable energy technologies and nuclear power is not considered a renewable technology. Nuclear energy technologies receive Congressional support independent of the International

Solar Program. Consequently, it is inappropriate for this program to encourage acceptance of U.S. nuclear power technologies in developing and transition countries.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Question. Has DOE developed any analysis regarding the ‘‘credit for early action’’

legislation introduced by Senators Chaffee and Lieberman? If so, could you please

provide a copy of this analysis for the record?

Answer. In an ongoing effort, DOE, together with other agencies, is reviewing the

‘‘early credit’’ legislation introduced by Senators Chaffee and Lieberman to better

understand its provisions. We have begun some exploratory work to assess how an

early action crediting system might affect existing voluntary programs. To date,

however, no report has been produced to analyze the possible efforts of this proposed

legislation.

Question. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council

released a report entitled, ‘‘Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for

the Next Decade.’’ Has DOE factored into its budget and programs the recommendations of this report regarding climate change research priorities? If not, why not?
507

Answer. This important NAS/NRC report contributes to national understanding

of the climate change issue and increasingly, DOE is embracing central themes of

the NAS/NRC report.

The emerging issue of climate change presents a need for more comprehensive integration of the efforts and budgets of multiple federal agencies. For this crosscutting issue, the existing budget process reveals a legacy of funding single issues

and single agencies. We need to work hard to coordinate formerly independent approaches to address the issue of climate change.

Among its many findings, the report discusses a very important national need to

‘‘prepare for surprises.’’ To this end, the report offers the pathway structure noted

above as a way of casting a wide net while maintaining selective depth in important

focal areas.

Scientists believe strongly that unfocused research on the complex and

varied Earth system is unlikely to be productive. On the other hand, scientists who view the world through pinholes are likely to bump into trees

and fall off cliffs. How can needed focus be given to the USGCRP while still

casting the research net sufficiently wide to catch the unexpected?

How to prepare for surprises is a challenge and one of the reasons that the DOE

Strategic Plan is shaped with a central guiding pathway structure:

—Science and Technology Leadership

—Energy Resources /Security

—Environmental Quality

—National Security

With limited federal budgets, there is a need to maintain a focus on important

areas. EERE develops clean and efficient energy technology. We help the US economy by reducing its energy intensity, often measured as energy consumed normalized by economic activity (E/GDP). Even conservative estimates place this improvement at about 1 percent per year. During the decade of oil shocks, energy technologies were improving (becoming more efficient) as measured by this ratio at an

annual rate of about 3 percent or more—which shows the importance of an enduring

signal in sustaining improvements. DOE was heavily involved in this national success, and recently examined only five of several hundred technologies for long-term

performance. Setting aside the considerable environmental benefits of these technologies, DOE worked with GAO to establish their cost-effectiveness. That study

found that these five technologies cumulatively saved more than $28 Billion in

avoided energy costs during the period 1978–1997. This compares quite favorably

with the cumulative total investment in the federal energy efficiency and renewable

energy programs for that same period of about $8 billion.

We will continue to factor into our budget and programs the recommendations of

the NAS/NRC report.

Question. How does DOE set its priorities for climate change research?

Answer. Priorities for the DOE energy technology R&D programs are set on the

basis of projected benefits of these programs in terms of the strategic goals of the

Department, the expected program costs, and likelihood of success. The strategic

goals of the Department are:

—improve the efficiency of the energy system;

—ensure against energy disruptions;

—promote energy production and use in ways that respect health and environmental values;

—expand future energy choices; and

—cooperate internationally on global issues. In order for a technology program to

be funded, it must contribute to multiple DOE goals—not just climate change.

Question. Has DOE participated in United Nations programs associated with the

Global Environment Facility? If so, what projects?

Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), through

the interagency U.S. Country Studies Program (CSP), provides technical assistance

and guidance to some Global Environmental Fund (GEF) funded projects. The intent is to improve the technical quality of deliverables and products from GEF funded activities. Specifically, U.S. CSP provides some technical assistance to improve

the quality of country National Communications to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change.

The following countries are currently receiving technical assistance: Bangladesh,

Bolivia, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Micronesia, Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand and Uruguay.
508

AGRICULTURE

Question. I appreciate DOE’s efforts in implementing the 1995 Memorandum of

Understanding between DOE and the Department of Agriculture by adding Agriculture as one of its Industries of the Future. As you know, I am a signatory to that

MOU and have a long-standing interest in DOE’s agriculture-related activities. The

Administration’s fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the Industries of the Future

program includes $4 million for Agriculture. How would this money be spent? Would

precision agriculture technologies fit into your planned activities?

Answer. We appreciate your support over the years for agriculture-related research and development at the Department. One of our newest efforts to help America’s farmers is the Agriculture Team in the Industries of the Future program,

which received $2 million of funding this fiscal year. The Team recently issued its

first solicitation for projects, targeting two areas of industry’s technology roadmap:

processing and utilization. Product separation and new, more effective catalysts are

examples of high priority topics in the first category; the structure and functionality

of different plant parts are such examples in the second. The selection of winning

proposals for that solicitation will occur in June. Those projects will likely require

at least an equal amount of funds in fiscal year 2000 to complete or continue their

planned work. Assuming the Agriculture Team receives the full funding requested,

that would leave $2 million or less for new project starts in the Team’s request for

proposals for the next fiscal year, which it now plans to issue in mid-summer.

The Team has not yet had full discussions with its industry partners in the agricultural, chemical and forestry communities to learn their views about the focus for

the fiscal year 2000 solicitation. Given the high level of interest in the current solicitation topics; the technical hurdles still to be overcome in just the processing area,

for example, where the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

has historically shown technical expertise; the need to avoid duplicating research

work elsewhere, such as at the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and, the amount

of funding that could be applied to new projects by the Agriculture Team next year,

it seems unlikely that industry leaders would encourage us to broaden our focus to

the other areas of the roadmap, plant science or production, where precision agriculture is included. However, we want to emphasize that no decisions have been

made yet about the specific details of the Team’s fiscal year 2000 solicitation.

FISH FRIENDLY TURBINES

Question. I am pleased to see that DOE’s budget request includes $7 million for

continuation of research into advance—or what are sometimes called ‘‘fish-friendly’’—turbines. I think this research is key to a continued role for emissions-free hydropower as part of our electric generation system. Can you describe the status of

DOE’s work on fish-friendly turbines and how fiscal year 2000 funding would be utilized?

Answer. Competitively-selected advanced turbine conceptual designs with improved environmental performance were completed by Voith Hydro, Inc. and the

Alden Research Laboratory in 1997. Features of an advanced Kaplan-type turbine

design developed by Voith are already being incorporated in the rehabilitation of the

Bonneville Dam hydropower plant. These features include a minimum-gap runner,

low flow turbulence, improved blade design with thicker entrance edges, smoother

surfaces, and oil and grease reduction, all of which reduce injury and mortality to

fish. Voith, teamed with Georgia Tech, will also conduct computer analyses to predict fish behavior in turbines. DOE is initiating pilot-scale proof-of-concept testing

of the innovative Alden design in order to verify predicted biological performance.

Biological studies of shear stresses experienced by fish in the turbine environment

are being completed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and the

results will be factored into design criteria by the DOE program for both engineering design and prototype fabrication.

In fiscal year 2000, DOE program funding will continue the biological studies

being conducted by PNNL, specifically addressing the issues of turbulence, pressure

and gas supersaturation. Proof-of-concept testing for the Alden design will be completed, and a competitive solicitation will be issued to select one or more industry

partners to develop advanced turbine engineering designs, leading to full-scale prototype fabrication and testing at one or more operational hydropower sites.
509

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR REID

FEDERAL RESEARCH INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLE ENERGY

Question. After billions of dollars of Federal Research investments in renewable

energy technologies, these still produce only about 2 percent of U.S. electricity. Can

you tell me why I should continue to support the funding requests for renewable

technologies?

Answer. Although most renewable technologies are competitive in limited market

segments (for example, off-grid photovoltaics; biopower where low cost or negative

cost waste feedstock is available or where cogeneration is appropriate; and geothermal where there are established high quality resources), these technologies have

not yet reached the point where they can capture a large share of the overall electricity market. However, significant progress on technology cost, performance, and

reliability has been made and several technologies are poised to make market inroads over the next decade.

Since the mid-1970s when most of the renewable energy technology R&D pro- grams began in earnest, the total investment has in the range of $5 to $6 billion

(actual dollars). Since then, we have cut costs dramatically. For example, the cost

of electric power from wind turbines which ranged from 30 to 40 cents a kiloWatt

hour in 1980 has now dropped to between 4 and 6 cents a kiloWatt hour because

of aggressive R&D. The next generation of turbines now under development should

bring costs down to as low as 2 and a half cents per kiloWatt hour by 2002. Likewise, the first commercially available photovoltaic (PV) panels in the 1980s produced power at a cost of $1 per kiloWatt hour. Depending upon the materials used

and the technology application, PV systems will be capable of delivering electricity

for as low as 12 to 20 cents per kiloWatt hour, and in the next decade it should

drop to below 10 cents through continued R&D by 2010. By this timeframe, the

price of photovoltaic generated electricity is expected to be competitive with conventional sources of power in remote locations, rural areas where transmission and distribution costs are high, and urban areas where transmission and distribution systems are congested.

While non-hydropower renewables do only provide about 2 percent of our nation’s

electricity today, continuing reductions in technology production and O&M costs—

combined with enhanced efficiencies and extended system lifetimes—will enable

much further domestic market penetration of these clean power technologies.

Though actual market generation rates will be determined by a number of factors

such as growth in consumer electricity demand, competition from other generation

technologies (particularly natural gas), and access to investment financing, we

strongly believe that amount of power generated by renewables will at least triple

by 2010.

Finally, as more clean renewable energy technologies enter the commercial marketplace here in the U.S. and sales of our advanced technologies increase overseas,

our economy will be strengthened as more jobs are created for the people of this

nation. For these reasons, I strongly urge your continued support for the research

and development of these technologies.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

Question. Isn’t it the case that research and development of alternative energy

sources is essential to maintain access to affordable energy for future generations?

Can’t it be said that we are striving to find alternative sources not only because

of environmental issues but for future access?

Answer. Certainly part of the rationale for the Department’s research and development on alternative energy resources is to ensure reliable access to affordable energy for future generations. We want to make sure that our nation’s children—and

all those that follow—continue to have the energy resources available that are essential to a strong economy and the American quality of life.

We also believe, though, that our work on these technologies is already making

significant impacts. For many U.S. citizens living in remote or underdeveloped portions of our country, power supplied by renewable resources can make the difference

between having electric lights, refrigeration, and electronic communications or not.

We strive to find clean and renewable electric power and transportation fuels for

a variety of reasons, including: developing a variety of clean, domestic energy

choices and thereby enhancing our energy security access to these energy resources

in the future; mitigating environmental and human health impacts associated with

energy production, consumption, and use; and to return economic benefits to the

American taxpayer through the creation of skilled, high-wage jobs domestically and

sales of the technologies they produce around the world.
510

USE OF THE NEVADA TEST SITE

Question. Nevada is a prime area for expansion of alternative energy resources.

The Nevada Test Site is an ideal location for test and evaluation of renewable energy and alternative fuel technologies. How do you propose to use the Nevada Test

Site for future research and design efforts?

Answer. There are a number of hydrogen projects which have been discussed with

Nevada personnel and which would be complementary to the Nevada Test Site. One

project which includes a 50kW generation plant that can co-produce hydrogen and

electricity has already been implemented. The Department issued a competitive solicitation in March to develop a prototypical hydrogen refueling station in Nevada.

This fueling station will enable the refueling of either hydrogen or blends of natural

gas and hydrogen into vehicles. As the number of alternatively fueled vehicles increase, a need for additional satellite fueling stations are expected. We anticipate

the Nevada Test Site will be considered as the Department develops this refueling

infrastructure through the competitive process.

In the areas of Photovoltaics, concentrating Solar Power and Energy Storage, with

ample space and excellent solar resources, Nevada is an ideal location for the test

and evaluation of renewable energy and alternative fuel technologies such as storage systems. The Test Site is one possible location, but there are also other locations

in Nevada that might be advantageous. The Nevada Portfolio Standard may provide

an excellent incentive for commercial solar energy deployment in the near-to-mid

term if it is implemented.

WIND ENERGY PROGRESS

Question. What advances have been made regarding wind power? Have any

strides been made toward getting wind power competitive with other technologies?

Answer. We’ve made great progress in improving wind power in the last ten

years. Cost of wind turbine projects has been reduced from 2,000 to $/kW to less

$1,000 while the cost of producing electricity is now in the range of 4–6 center per

kWh. Additionally, rotor size has increased from 15 meters to 40 meters or more,

generator size from 100 kW to 750 kW or larger, and capacity factors from 0.2 to

0.35 to 0.40. Total capacity installed in the United States will increase to over 2,000

MW this year, as the world total increases to over 10,000MW. We’ve also made

major strides in understanding the physics of wind energy technology. These improvements, together with industry’s experience in manufacturing and operating

new turbines, are being applied in design of advanced wind turbines. Within the

Next Generation Turbine project, seven conceptual designs of advanced turbines

have been completed, and two projects are moving forward. The Next Generation

Turbine effort, together with several other ongoing and planned joint projects with

U.S. manufacturers, should substantially upgrade U.S. industry’s wind technology

capabilities and narrow the gap between wind and other competing forms of electric

generation. These turbines are expected to bring costs down to as low as 21⁄2 cents/

kWh in good wind sites.

SOLAR CELLS DEVELOPMENT

Question. Solar cells that produce electricity directly from sunlight have been

under development for a long time. Your program is trying to develop a solar cell

that is only 40 percent efficient, so that’s less than half of the solar energy would

be converted to electricity. Why would such an inefficient power source be valuable?

Answer. A 40 percent solar cell is not inefficient. Quite the contrary, development

of a 40 percent solar cell would be a significant scientific accomplishment. When

solar cells were first developed by RCA Bell Laboratory in the 1960s, efficiencies

were in the 4 percent to 6 percent range. The Department of Energy began an earnest R&D program in the mid-1970s, and over the past two decades has made dramatic improvements in the technology. Today, multijunction cells under concentrated sunlight can routinely achieve efficiencies in the 28 percent to 32 percent

range. Efforts to develop a four-junction device that could achieve 40 percent efficiency would yield dramatically reduced dollar per Watt values (greater than 50 percent) for terrestrial photovoltaics. It should be noted that the efficiency of the average automobile gasoline engine is less than 25 percent, yet everyone values the

transportation they provide. Furthermore, coal fired plants are less than 40 percent

efficient.

A conservative estimate of the average residential roof size in the U.S. is 200

square meters (10 meters by 20 meters). The amount of energy in sunlight is 1000

Watts per square meter, which means 200,000 Watts, or 200 kilowatts, strike the

average residential roof in the U.S. (enough for 50 homes). Using a solar cell system
511

that is just 10 percent efficient would produce 20 kiloWatts of electricity, which is

more than five times the amount of energy the home needs. Therefore, typical photovoltaic systems for residential use take up only a fraction of the space on the roof,

and, at 10 percent, 20 percent or someday 40 percent efficiency, add significant

value to a home’s energy needs.

Photovoltaic technology adds value to the nation’s energy mix. Photovoltaic solar

cells are a versatile electricity technology that can be used for any application, from

the very small to the very large. It is a modular technology that enables electric

generating systems to be incrementally built to match growing demands. It is a

technology in which systems are easy to install, maintain, and use. And it is a convenient technology that can be used anywhere there is sunshine and that can be

mounted on almost any surface, from rooftops, to roadsides, to mobile units, virtually anywhere there is sunshine.

Photovoltaics (PV) also offer additional benefits. For example, PV presents a domestic reserve of energy that will never be depleted and makes the U.S. less vulnerable to international energy politics and volatile fossil fuel markets. Photovoltaic

solar cells are made from materials, such as silicon, which are domestically abundant.

Finally, PV systems produce no greenhouse gases, so their use can help offset carbon dioxide emissions and their possible consequences. Consequently, building a

photovoltaic infrastructure would provide an insurance policy against global warming and climate change.

With so many positive attributes, photovoltaic energy is clearly a valuable natural

resource.

Question. The United States is not alone in solar cell development. Can you compare the budgets and progress of our efforts in this country with solar cell research

and development programs in Europe and Japan?

Answer. The European and Japanese R&D programs are very strong and aggressive, resulting in a recent upsurge of competition to the U.S. photovoltaic industry.

The Japanese budget alone is over three times the U.S. R&D budget in fiscal year

1999 ($230M vs $72.2M). Both the Japanese and German governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars on subsidies for their residential roof programs, which

have dramatically increased sales for their industries. For example, Japanese PV

manufacturers reported shipment increases of 41 percent, from 35 megaWatts in

1997 to 49.2 megawatts in 1998. In the same time period, U.S. shipments rose only

5 percent, from 51 megaWatts in 1997 to 53.7 megaWatts in 1998. If this trend continues, Japan may well surpass the U.S. next year and become the world leader,

a position the U.S. has held since 1993. Overall, in both the U.S. and in foreign

countries, the efficiency of commercial solar cells has increased by about 30 percent

in the last 20 years. However, production costs have steadily fallen I all countries,

so that the cost per unit power ($/Watt) is now about 1⁄4 of what it was 20 to 25

years ago.

1999 PHOTOVOLTAIC R&D BUDGETS BY COUNTRY

[In thousands of dollars]

United

States Japan Germany

Total R&D Program ..................................................................................... 72,200 230,000 180,000

Million Solar Roofs 1 .................................................................................... 1,500 130,000 100,000

1 Japan has a residential solar roof program that installs 10,000 PV roofs per year which subsidizes one third of the

cost of the PV system, and Germany just approved a six-year, 100,000 PV roof program to be funded at one billion

Marks, or $600M.

WORLD PV CELL & MODULE SHIPMENTS

[MW]

1997 1998

United States ......................................................................................................................... 51.0 53.7

Japan ...................................................................................................................................... 35.0 49.2

Europe .................................................................................................................................... 30.4 30.1
512

WORLD PV CELL & MODULE SHIPMENTS—Continued

[MW]

1997 1998

Rest of World ......................................................................................................................... 9.4 18.7

4Total ........................................................................................................................ 125.8 151.7

PROVIDING DISPATCHABLE SOLAR POWER

Question. Solar power is produced only when the ‘‘sun is shining’’ so that some

means of providing power after sunset must be developed. What concepts and research efforts are being developed to solve this dilemma?

Answer. Both the Photovoltaic (PV) and Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Programs at the Department are pursuing various methods of harnessing the sun’s energy for use after sunset. This ability to dispatch solar power when it is needed

greatly enhances the economic value and broadens the application of solar technologies.

The simplest and most practical approach for PV energy storage is by using batteries. The battery of choice is the deep-cycle flooded lead-acid battery. Other battery types are being investigated, particularly nickel-cadmium batteries for use in

inaccessible environments (e.g., microwave repeater stations on mountain tops).

These batteries are more expensive but have a longer lifetime and less sensitivity

to deep discharge. Most stand-alone PV systems use flooded lead-acid batteries for

energy storage. R&D is being conducted to improve the integration of batteries with

PV to optimize system performance and battery life. Other storage research is focused on improved batteries and advanced storage technologies (e.g. flywheels) that

are lower cost, longer life, and more robust in the rigorous standalone application

environment. In longer-term R&D, energy storage through the electrolysis of water

and subsequent production of hydrogen is being investigated. After sunset, the hydrogen can be combined with oxygen in the air to yield electric power through a fuel

cell.

Another concept to eliminate the need for storage in some photovoltaic applications is to tie the PV system to the utility power grid. When the sun is out, the

PV system provides power to the application, such as a home or business. If there

is excess electricity being produced by the PV system, the solar system will run the

utility meter backwards and the user gets credit for the electric power delivered to

the grid. At night, the home or business is powered by the grid, thus eliminating

the need for storage batteries. In this sense, the utility grid is the storage.

For CSP technologies—dishes, troughs, and towers—there are different approaches depending on the type of system. Because CSP systems generate heat to

produce power, all three technologies may be hybridized with fossil fuels (e.g., diesel

fuel for dishes; natural gas or coal for troughs and towers). The 354 MW of trough

plants operating in the California desert are a fine example of a solar/natural gas

hybrid system. For stand-alone CSP systems, one option under investigation is a

solar dish/hydrogen fuel cell combination, where the high-temperatures generated

by solar dish systems produce power during the day and electrolyze water to

produce hydrogen for use in a fuel cell to provide power at night. Like PV, dish systems can also use conventional battery storage. While efficient thermal storage is

being considered for trough technology. This storage mechanism has been successfully demonstrated for power tower systems using molten-salt technology. In a test

last summer, Solar Two produced power for 153 consecutive hours (over 6 days)

using only sun and salt.

SOLAR POWER VS. STORAGE

Question. Is energy storage technology ahead of solar power technology, or is solar

power ahead of storage?

Answer. An argument could be made that solar power systems are more commercially developed than efficient storage methods for kW-scale power. This is due to

the expense and (in the case of lead-acid batteries) the relatively short life of deepcycle batteries. However, energy storage in PV systems today makes use of commercially available battery technologies that are produced in large-scale for solar and

many other applications. Both PV and energy storage technologies have made significant advances in recent years in terms of cost reduction and improved life. Improved durability of batteries continues to be researched while large-scale manufac-
513

turing processes are being developed for PV. Better system integration of these technologies is another focus of research that is expected to pay large dividends in the

coming years.

LOCATIONS RECEIVING FEDERAL R&D FUNDS FOR SOLAR POWER

Question. Solar power production is more effective in some areas of the country

than in others. Do you think there is any relationship between the areas of most

valuable solar resource and locations of Federal R&D in solar power?

Answer. In the case of both solar photovoltaic and concentrating solar power,

there is a close relationship between areas of high yearly insolation and the location

of R&D facilities. Although photovoltaic systems have been tested in many sites all

across the country and under almost all environmental conditions, all five research

facilities within the Photovoltaic Program are located in areas of high insolation.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is located in Denver, Colorado;

Sandia National Laboratories is located in Albuquerque, New Mexico; the Southwest

Technology Development Institute is located in Las Cruces, New Mexico; the

Photovoltaics for Utility Scale Applications (PVUSA) test site is located in Sacramento, California; and the Florida Solar Energy Center is located in Cocoa, Florida. The first four facilities are located in dry, very sunny areas, and the last facility

is located in a sunny, but very humid area. The CSP Program uses the labs at

Sandia and NREL (combined to form ‘‘SunLab’’) and has directed most of its R&D

efforts in the U.S. Southwest where the solar radiation is ideal for CSP systems.

LOCATING SOLAR R&D IN AREAS OF HIGH SOLAR RADIATION

Question. Can you make a case for co-location of solar technology test and evaluation in areas of maximum solar power potential?

Answer. As stated above, in the case of both solar photovoltaic and concentrating

solar power, there is a close relationship between areas of high yearly insolation and

the location of R&D facilities. Most of the R&D funded by both the PV and CSP

Programs is conducted in the U.S. Southwest. Though more so for CSP than for PV

technologies, co-locating solar technology test and evaluation in areas of high solar

radiation allows for optimal test results and more closely emulates the environment

where these technologies will be used in commercial applications.

HYDROGEN PROGRAM

Question. What are the expected benefits of systems that are powered by hydrogen?

Answer. There are multiple benefits that are accrued by using hydrogen fuel cells.

Hydrogen fuel cells are expected to improve the efficiency of energy systems by making more productive use of energy resources that protect the environment and enhance national security. For electric generation systems, the hydrogen fuel cell can

be better integrated at the site of electric power utilization as a distributed system

that can provide both electricity and heat, and thereby achieve an overall efficiency

of 80 percent. For transportation applications in non-attainment areas there would

be a significant improvement in the air quality due to the fuel-cell exhaust being

primarily water. Also, natural gas or renewable/electrolysis of water can be substituted for petroleum as the source of hydrogen, which would decrease global

warming emissions and decrease the Nation’s reliance on imported oil.

Question. The deployment of a ‘‘hydrogen infrastructure’’ is frequently referred to

as a major obstacle to hydrogen-powered vehicles. What is the Federal Government’s role in overcoming this obstacle? What are your plans and progress for developing a hydrogen infrastructure?

Answer. There are several barriers that need to be overcome in order for the public to accept hydrogen-powered vehicles. There is an issue associated with the establishment of a sufficient number of hydrogen stations that can dispense a fuel at

competitive prices to today’s petroleum-based fuels. There is also the need to provide

the cost for the infrastructure to support those stations. The Department has issued

a solicitation for a refueling station in Las Vegas, NV that will co-produce electricity

from a stationary fuel cell and hydrogen for dedicated vehicles. It is expected that

this option will lower the cost of both producing the electricity and the hydrogen

fuel to levels that will enhance the commercial deployment. As a distributed system

that uses natural gas as the feedstock, it is expected to have a lesser impact on supporting infrastructure requirements. As advanced reformer and fuel cell technology

becomes available from 2001 to 2004, future refueling stations will be considered as

cost-shared joint ventures with industry.

In addition, there is the need to ensure that the public will be able to fuel their

vehicle safely and in a reasonable amount of time. The Department is working with
514

the industry, the National Hydrogen Association and the International Safety Organization on the development of an appropriate set of codes and standards. The Department is also supporting the development of safety plans and testing for projects,

and the deployment of pre-commercial systems in public environments. It is expected that the automobile industry will first develop hydrogen fuel cell buses and

fleet vehicles for niche markets that will facilitate further deployment of these systems in the marketplace prior to requiring an infrastructure to support the general

public’s personal vehicles.

Question. Fiscal year 1999 Appropriations for hydrogen research directed completion of a facility in Nevada that would produce and store hydrogen and use a pathbreaking fuel cell to supply power. What is the status of that facility?

Answer. A solicitation was issued on March 18, 1999 with a closing date of May

14, 1999 for a 50/50 cost-shared project to build and operate a 50 kW stationary

fuel cell electric generation system and hydrogen/natural gas quick-fueling station

at a site near the Nevada Operations Office in northern Las Vegas. It is expected

that this station will be built and operational by September 30, 2000.

NEVADA TEST SITE

Question. Nevada is primed and ready for implementation of alternative energy

resource facilities. A majority of the State is Federally owned and unsettled. Additionally, the Nevada Test Site is available for use. What are your plans for constructing facilities or using existing facilities in Nevada?

Answer. As you have asserted, Nevada is blessed with numerous renewable energy resources and is primed for the use of alternative energy resources. To facilitate the increased use of solar energy in Nevada, the Office of Power Technologies

awarded a $183,000 grant to the Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable

Resources (CSTRR) September 1998. CSTRR joined with Pulte Home Corporation

to develop a strategy for the wide scale installation of solar water heating systems

in Nevada and Arizona. To help them, they formed a team which includes Nevada

Power Company, University of Nevada Las Vegas , University of Nevada Reno, and

the Nevada State Energy Office. The team augmented the DOE grant with $297,000

of its own. Through this grant, they have evaluated a number of solar water heaters

and selected two systems that best fit Pulte’s performance and reliability requirements. They have been integrated into the design of Pulte’s homes and have been

installed on several model homes in Las Vegas. Educational materials are being developed by Pulte, as is a marketing strategy. Las Vegas’ abundant solar resource

and rapidly growing population makes it an ideal location to show that solar technology can be an inexpensive energy option. The goal of the project is to develop

a sustainable market that results in solar water heaters on thousands of buildings

and facilities throughout Nevada and the rest of the Southwest.

Within the Photovoltaic Program, the State of Nevada is a Million Solar Roofs

(MSR) partner and has made a commitment to install up to 10,000 solar roofs. The

Photovoltaic Program is also providing financial support to several utility companies

within the state to install grid-tied PV systems. UtiliCorp United and the Nevada

Power Company are teaming on a project to install kW PV systems on residences

to examine their contribution to voltage stability, harmonics and power quality. Sierra Pacific Power is part of a team led by Central and South West Services to purchase in volume and install 180 PV powered fluid handling systems. Finally, the

Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable Resources (CSTRR) is located in

Las Vegas and the Program has worked with CSTRR to identify PV projects in Nevada.

In the area of the Geothermal Energy Program, today there are 14 power plants

in Nevada with a capacity of about 208 MW. Using current technology and known

resources Nevada has a potential of up to 500 MW, although there are no known

plans to commercially develop these additional resources. Two geothermal power

companies, Oxbow Geothermal and Ormat are headquartered in Reno and Sparks,

respectively. Both companies have major projects within Nevada, and the Department has partnered with them in developing improved geothermal technology. In

addition, there are 80 MW thermal installed at 34 sites for direct use applications

such as space heating and industrial processes. Another 31 sites have a potential

for development of almost 1400 MW thermal, mainly for space heating.

The State of Nevada may also be a candidate for an alternative energy test bed

to assess various renewable energy and power delivery technologies, especially in a

distributed power mode. DOE is considering development of such a site through a

competitive process in the fiscal year 2001 time frame.
515

RANKING THE VALUE OF MAJOR RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES

Question. Looking into the future, can you rank in order the overall value of the

major renewable technologies?

Answer. Unfortunately, there are too many variables to look into the future to

rank the overall value of the major renewable energy technologies in any meaningful way at this time. Factors such as domestic market utilization rates, the level

of international sales of domestically-produced technologies, private sector investment, consumer preferences, the value of environmental (e.g., emission) benefits,

foreign competition, foreign market barriers and subsidies, resource availability, and

the great variances among emerging State laws and regulations make such

rankings essentially impossible.

Certainly, it appears that some technologies will enter the marketplace in a substantial manner sooner than others, but this is not an accurate indicator of their

eventual value ranking. In fact, this would merely be an estimate of market penetration and the cumulative benefits provided at a given point in time. Other technologies may require a somewhat longer research and development process, but may

eventually be more suitable to wider market penetration and greater overseas sales

and thus surpass their market entry predecessors. Finally, while oftentimes the various renewable technology resources complement each other (e.g., when the sun goes

down, the wind oftentimes increases, yielding opportunities for hybrid renewable energy technology supply systems), there may well be some level of competition among

the technologies in certain geographic regions that will be decided by consumers and

the marketplace itself.

USE OF HYDROGEN AND HYDROGEN RESEARCH

Question. You say your mission hasn’t changed and that it includes developing energy technology options. My understanding is that your office is pursuing the use

of Hydrogen as an optional technology. Efficiency requires coordination with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office. What steps are you taking to ensure

that appropriate communication is taking place between your staff and Dr. Reicher’s

staff?

Answer. I agree that coordination between the Office of Science (SC) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE) is critical. The largest activity

that supports hydrogen research within the Office of Science is in the Energy Biosciences subprogram of the Basic Energy Sciences program. In addition to one-onone meetings between program managers, there are several other coordination activities. For example, one of our program staff has served as a reviewer of the EE

Hydrogen program; and currently, the Director of our Energy Biosciences Division

participates in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Bioenergy

Energy weekly staff meetings, thus providing both EE and SC with unique perspectives of each others problems and opportunities.

Question. What do you see in the future for Hydrogen Technologies? Are we looking at decades of research before this technology becomes effective and efficient?

Answer. Hydrogen can be used by many energy technologies, from combustion to

fuel cells. The impediments are, however, two fold. The first is one of infrastructure.

Our fuels infrastructure is based on transporting and distributing hydrocarbons.

This infrastructure depends on pipelines and trucks eventually leading directly to

our homes and places of work for heat or distribution centers. Much of this infrastructure, perhaps even the majority, is not suitable to handle hydrogen safely. The

second is one of efficiency in production of hydrogen. There are current technologies

for converting hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and hydrogen. However, they are not

yet economically competitive. There are some new ideas being developed and explored both at university and government laboratories and in industry that have the

potential to solve this problem. Longer term research is going to be needed to enable

the splitting of water as a source of hydrogen using solar energy, either by artificial

or natural photosynthetic processes.

Question. What amount of the fiscal year 2000 budget request within Energy Research will be directed to hydrogen research?

Answer. The Office of Science is responsible for broad support of the science base

for all the technology offices within the department. The mechanism by which this

is accomplished is competitive peer review of all applications. In fiscal year 1998,

we provided $2.3 million in support of meritorious applications for research on hydrogen. In fiscal year 1999, we are currently providing $2.2 million and have received applications in the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) that are relevant to hydrogen. Because the review of the CCTI applications has not been completed, it is not possible to provide an exact number for fiscal year 1999. The same

is true for fiscal year 2000. There will be a solicitation in fiscal year 2000 for the
516

CCTI that will address among other relevant issues, hydrogen. In addition, applications relevant to hydrogen are submitted to the base programs; and selection is done

on the basis of peer review. The amount that will be funded in fiscal year 2000 will

depend on the applications submitted and the outcome of the peer review. We anticipate the fiscal year 2000 funding will approximate the fiscal year 1999 funding.

OBJECTIVES OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS

Question. I see that the objectives of your ‘‘Fueling the Future’’ and ‘‘Protecting

our Living Planet’’ goals are to 1) find energy systems that are more efficient and

environmentally sound and 2) to determine how our energy use affects environmental systems. Will you be addressing the environmental issues of nuclear energy,

especially waste management and disposal, as a part of these?

Answer. The Office of Science will soon release its new Strategic Plan to guide

its research through the next 25 years. Much of this research, because it is basic,

has broad potential applications, some presently understood and some not. Having

said this, there are areas of basic research which will have relevance and benefit

for nuclear waste management and disposal. For example, programs in materials

sciences will investigate materials used to contain waste (such as metals, glasses,

ceramics and polymers), and the corrosion, welding properties, fracture behavior,

and radiation resistance of such materials. Chemical Sciences projects will explore

the molecular level reactions of actinide compounds necessary for the safe handling,

storage, and disposal of radioactive wastes. Geoscience investigations will examine

the transport of contaminants in porous media and the transformation of wastes by

the subsurface environment. And, programs in plant and microbial sciences will

study how these biological systems interact with nuclear waste products, leading to

potentially new or improved remediation strategies and technologies.

NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECTS IN THE BUDGET REQUEST

Question. The budget request includes $411.2 million for Biological and Environmental Research and $342.9 million for Nuclear Physics. Are any of these projects

focused on storage of nuclear waste?

Answer. There are no projects in the budget request for either of these programs

that are focused on storage of nuclear waste.

ACCELERATOR TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE (ATW)

Question. I understand that there are feasible techniques to reduce the hazardous

lifetimes of radioactive wastes. Is your Office doing research on these techniques ?

Answer. The Office of Science is not doing research on these techniques directly,

but accelerator technology developed by the Office of Science, et al, is the focus of

a $4 million DOE R&D roadmap for one of these techniques: the accelerator transmutation of (radioactive) waste (ATW). The roadmap is due to be completed and

submitted to Congress by October 1, 1999. The effort is being led by the DOE Office

of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW), with participation by the DOE Offices of Defense, Nuclear Energy and Science. Four technical working groups have

been formed, in addition to a group of international experts.

OVERSIGHT OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH FACILITIES

Question. Isn’t the Office of Science responsible for providing research and oversight of major construction of research facilities? Do you have plans for constructing

facilities or using existing facilities in Nevada?

Answer. The Office of Science is only responsible for the construction oversight

of Office of Science funded research facilities.

The BER Program is currently supporting a research project that is using the

Desert Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE) facility. The project, ‘‘Effects

of Elevated CO2 on Root Dynamics and Root Function in a Mojave Desert Ecosystem,’’ is undergoing peer review for continued support. The site is located outside

of Las Vegas, Nevada, at the Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site.

COMPETITIVENESS OF NUCLEAR POWER

Question. You say that nuclear energy is essential in reducing carbon dioxide

emissions. There are many other ‘‘green’’ technologies that could also reduce carbon

dioxide emissions. At this time, these other technologies are not competitive on the

open market. My impression is that nuclear energy is also not competitive on the

open market. No new reactors have been built in more than 20 years. Many of the

old reactors are being decommissioned.
517

Public distaste for nuclear power incurs hidden costs that can be offset only by

real reductions in capital and operating expenses for nuclear power facilities. Otherwise, the industry will continue to turn to other opportunities. How do you plan to

decrease the costs associated with nuclear energy (including waste disposal) in order

to make it competitive on the open market and attract industrial power advocates?

Answer. Nuclear power plants are among the most efficient sources of baseload

electricity available today, with operating costs averaging at about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Rather, the unacceptably high costs historically attributed to nuclear

power plants are from the high costs and long lead times associated with construction and licensing of these plants. Since the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of

1992, much has changed that would make economics associated with building and

operating new plants more economic. We believe that nuclear energy is and will continue to be an important source of electricity for the nation and with the right strategies by industry and government to address barriers to use of nuclear energy, both

existing and new nuclear plants will be competitive with other energy sources in

the next century.

A few years ago, with the shut down of several older, smaller nuclear power

plants, and with electricity restructuring looming, many believed that existing nuclear power plants could not compete in the electricity supply market. However, this

has not proven to be the case. Today, the trend is toward consolidation of ownership

of nuclear plants as states favorably address stranded costs, as we see a growing

recognition of the importance of nuclear to meeting international commitments on

climate change, and as we see that these plants can be operated efficiently, reliably,

and safely. Already, several plants are proceeding well ahead of schedule with license extension and others have expressed their intent to proceed with license extension. We believe that the majority of existing plants will continue to operate well

into the next century. To support their continued operation, the Department is proposing to launch the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program, in fiscal

year 2000. With a modest level of funding, leveraged with industry funding, we believe we can begin addressing important issues that can remove barriers to extended operation of the existing plants. This program conducted in at least 50–50

cost-shared cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and with

coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), would seek to increase plant capacity from 71 percent in 1997 to 85 percent in 2010 by addressing

issues such as materials degradation, plant aging, and other issues affecting plant

reliability, economics, and safety.

In the 1980’s and mid-1990’s the Department and industry funded and completed,

the Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) program. This program is the foundation for restoring favorable economics and increased confidence in nuclear power in

the United States. Three improved, simplified U.S. plant designs were submitted for

NRC Design Certification in cooperative, cost-shared programs of DOE and the U.S.

industry: the General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and ABBCombustion Engineering System 80∂ large plants (1350 MWe), and the smaller

Westinghouse AP–600 (600 MWe) simplified passive plant. The ABWR and System

80∂ received NRC Design Certification in May 1997. The AP600 received NRC

Final Design Approval in September 1998, and should receive Design Certification

in 2000. We believe that design certification, coupled with the latest NRC one step

licensing process, reduces the uncertainty and risk that characterized many nuclear

plant projects in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In addition, the significant improvements

and simplification of these plant designs, will reduce the time and cost required to

construct nuclear power plants.

In fiscal year 1999, with advice from the President’s Committee of Advisors on

Science and Technology, the Department proposed and Congress funded $19 million

for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. This program is specifically aimed at

conducting new and innovative research to address barriers to long term use of nuclear energy, such as waste, proliferation, and economics. As an investigator-initiated, peer reviewed research program, proposals were solicited from universities,

national laboratories, and industry in the following general areas:

—Proliferation resistant reactor and fuel technology

—New reactor designs to achieve improved performance, higher efficiency and reduced cost; also, low output power reactors.

—Advanced nuclear fuels

—New technologies for nuclear waste management

—Related fundamental science and technology.

We received over 300 proposals in response to the solicitation and in May 1999,

the Department awarded grants to the top 45 research projects. The majority of

these awards were for collaborative research among universities, laboratories, and

industry, including significant collaboration with international R&D organizations.
518

The NERI program is expected to produce significant innovative research and development that will contribute to the reduction of nuclear plant costs and construction

schedules and to improvements in proliferation resistance, nuclear waste technology, and other promising areas of nuclear energy development.

In the final analysis, the long-term use of nuclear power in the United States will

depend on economics. This in turn will depend on the efficacy of the R&D that is

conducted, on demonstrating the benefits of nuclear power, and on restoring and

maintaining a sufficient infrastructure of the needed technical qualifications in industry, universities and laboratories.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Question. It is the focus of Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) to determine how, if possible, nuclear energy can be used over the long term as an environmentally responsible and reliable energy source. You are requesting an increase of

$6 million over fiscal year 1999 funding to address obstacles affecting the future of

nuclear energy in the U.S. Do these obstacles include nuclear waste management

and storage?

Answer. Yes. Nuclear waste, principally spent fuel is one of the five main research

areas of the fiscal year 1999 NERI research program. The focus of the NERI nuclear

waste research is to address issues related to the management and interim or onsite

storage of commercial spent fuel. The fiscal year 1999 NERI research solicitation

identified waste research needs in the following specific areas: new concepts for onsite or interim storage of spent fuel; strategies and technology for the reduction of

high level waste volume; and fundamental research to eliminate storage corrosion

processes. The NERI nuclear waste research effort is being coordinated with other

Department offices including the Offices of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,

Science, and Environmental Management to avoid duplication of research.

Question. How will these additional funds be used to address waste disposal uncertainties?

Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology plans to utilize approximately $19 million of the requested $25 million in fiscal year 2000 to fund the

second year of the R&D proposals awarded in fiscal year 1999. The additional $6

million will be used to fund new research in several key areas, including nuclear

waste management, proliferation resistant reactor and fuel technologies, new reactor designs, and advanced nuclear fuels. The Department is seeking new alternatives and technological solutions to minimize the impact of spent fuel-nuclear

waste while maintaining compatibility with the policy for ultimate disposal in a geological repository. NE will select and fund the best scientific and engineering research proposals received from U.S. universities, national laboratories and industry

based on a competitive, peer reviewed selection process.

NUCLEAR ENERGY—SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY AND COST

Question. How will the Department address what could be the two biggest obstacles to nuclear energy—social acceptability and cost?

Answer. The Department recently completed the Advanced Light Water Reactor

Program (ALWR) which produced three advanced nuclear power plant designs that

have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The General

Electric Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and the ABB-Combustion Engineering System 80∂ received NRC Design Certification in May 1997. Design Certification of

the Westinghouse AP600 is expected in 2000. These ALWR designs have made significant advancements in the already robust safety features and life cycle cost aspects of nuclear energy.

In order to keep the nuclear energy option viable for the United States, the Department has proposed in its fiscal year 2000 budget, research and development activities under the Nuclear Plant Optimization (NEPO) program. NEPO is a new initiative proposed in fiscal year 2000, to cooperate with the industry to develop key

technologies that can help assure the long-term viability of our nation’s existing nuclear power plants. This initiative is particularly important as utilities deal with uncertainties associated with electricity restructuring. NEPO seeks to develop and

apply new technologies to improve plant economics, reliability and availability, and

resolve issues related to plant aging while maintaining a high level of safety.

The proposed NEPO program would help reduce the production costs of existing

plants because the R&D conducted: (1) would provide a better understanding of material degradation mechanisms and how they occur, enabling development of costeffective aging management strategies which will provide capabilities to easily prevent, detect, or repair the degradation; (2) would improve equipment reliability,

lower operating costs, and increase power output while maintaining high level of
519

safety; and (3) would optimize power generation through efficiency and productivity

improvements by making use of technology advancements in computers, communications, materials, sensors, digital electronics, and artificial intelligence.

Nuclear energy can become competitive for new capacity additions, if its capital

costs can be reduced. Reduction in capital costs can be achieved through the application of advanced technologies in all phases of design, licensing, fabrication, construction and operation; through the use of tools such as probabilistic risk assessment

to simplify designs; and by the application of risk-based regulations as a means to

streamline the regulatory requirements and process. NERI focuses in part on developing technologies which would make the option of nuclear energy more competitive

in the future.

The NERI program, which was initiated this year, will address the principal obstacles to expanded future use of nuclear energy—proliferation, economics and nuclear waste management. NERI research is focused on improved proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel technologies; new reactor designs and technologies to improve

efficiency, enhance safety and reduce cost; advanced nuclear fuels to improve fuel

economics and reduce waste by-products; and new technologies to manage and temporarily store spent nuclear fuel. NERI complements NEPO by addressing our nation’s long term nuclear energy future by funding investigator initiated research and

development at universities, national laboratories, and industry to advance nuclear

power technology.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE AND NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION

FUNDING

Question. I am impressed that NERI and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization

(NEPO) program are so successfully coordinating with outside industry, national

labs, and universities. Where do the Federal dollars allocated to these programs go?

Answer. There was an overwhelming response by the science and technology community to the fiscal year 1999 NERI solicitation; 308 researcher-initiated R&D proposals were received from 68 different institutions including 40 universities, 9 national laboratories and 19 industry companies totaling over $100 million in firstyear funding and a total of $353 million for the three-year period. Over 210 of the

proposals involved collaborations among several R&D institutions, particularly with

universities, to foster and maintain a nuclear energy R&D infrastructure. In May

1999, the Department selected the top 45 projects for award of fiscal year 1999

funding. The projects selected will involve 21 universities, 8 national laboratories,

16 private sector organizations and with a substantial level of interest and collaboration with international R&D organizations. Funding for NERI is used to fund new

and innovative research at the universities, national laboratories and industry.

The proposed NEPO program would involve the nation’s national laboratories,

universities, and industry in addressing issues associated with operating nuclear

power plants in cost-shared cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI) and in coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The research and development program is cost-shared with industry providing a minimum

of 50 percent of the cost. The Department, national laboratories, and EPRI have developed a Joint DOE–EPRI Strategic Research and Development Plan to Optimize

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. This plan was issued on March 20,1998 and was based

on inputs from the national laboratories, NRC, universities, and other key stakeholders. This plan, which will be updated in fiscal year 1999, identifies critical R&D

needs which are not currently being addressed or planned to be addressed by the

industry, NRC, or others. The plan also defines a process for selection of the highest

priority projects based on available funding. Project selection will be guided by the

Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC). The federal dollars would

fund the organizations which are best suited to conduct the research and development selected for funding. It is expected that efforts at national laboratories, universities, and industry will be funded.

Question. Are they provided as grants to universities and national labs?

Answer. NERI awards to universities and industry will be in the form of grants

or cooperative agreements. Funding for the national laboratories will be provided

using the standard DOE work authorization process.

The proposed NEPO program is a collaborative cost-shared program with industry

providing a minimum of 50 percent of the cost. The government and industry,

through EPRI, will identify and prioritize work and use an independent peer review

process to select performing organizations. We expect that universities, national laboratories and industrial organizations will all be involved in NEPO R&D activities.

Question. Are any of these funds provided to Nevada researchers?
520

Answer. Selection of proposals for funding was completed and awards were announced in May 1999. Although no proposals were submitted from researchers in

State of Nevada, there is substantial nuclear-related expertise in Nevada, at the

universities and industry, and we look forward to receiving future proposals from

your State for participation in NERI, and if appropriated by Congress in fiscal year

2000, for participation in NEPO.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR STEVENS

LOW INCOME WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM

Question. The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy focuses its research, development, and deployment efforts on transportation,

industry, buildings and the federal government. In transportation, DOE focuses on

cleaner fuels and great fuel efficiencies. It has highlighted nine industries that account for more than 75 percent of industrial energy use, including forest products,

petroleum refining, and mining. For buildings, DOE tries to reduce the $220 billion

of energy consumed in homes and offices each year through R&D in lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation, as well as better construction practices and energy delivery systems. Through the Federal Energy Management Program, DOE seeks to

reduce the $8 billion the federal government spends annually on energy through

cost-saving incentive programs. The President has proposed a 3.4 percent reduction

from fiscal year 1999 in the energy conservation budget.

The fiscal year 2000 weatherization assistance program will provide federal assistance to more than 76,900 low-income homes. There are Alaskans living in third

world conditions above the Arctic Circle who pay more than 50 cents per kilowatt

hour for energy. In much of my state, more than half of a family’s annual income

goes to energy in much of my State. Is this program scaled towards those poor families with the lowest incomes AND with the highest energy costs?

Answer. The mission of the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance

Program is to reduce the energy costs of low-income families, especially those with

children, persons with disabilities, and the elderly, while ensuring their health and

safety. Each state’s annual Weatherization program plan lays out how priorities will

be determined by the local agencies which perform the weatherization service

throughout the state. Energy burden is a factor that is considered by weatherization

agencies in Alaska, in prioritizing homes for Weatherization service.

In Alaska’s case, however, many families living in remote areas have homes which

need far more assistance than is either allowable or affordable within the national

Weatherization program’s legislative constraints. Many rural Alaskan homes need

major repair or rehabilitation before energy efficiency measures make sense. Furthermore, the expense of delivering energy efficiency measures to these remote communities is so high that the average cost per home far exceeds the maximum average allowable under DOE’s program, which in 1999 is $2,032. As a complement to

the DOE Weatherization program, the state of Alaska provides for these homes by

allocating state funds (about $3 million in the current year) that can be used for

repair and rehabilitation as well as energy efficiency improvements. The cost per

home averages between $5,000 and $14,000. Unlike the DOE funds, there is no cap

on the amount of state funds that can be used for each residence.

EFFICIENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS IN REMOTE VILLAGES

Question. Your budget proposal includes funding for a number of advanced fuel

technologies. However, most rural Alaskan communities rely on diesel generators

for their power. Clean, efficient, modern technology is not yet an option for many

of these folks. What can your agency do to help make the existing energy delivery

systems in our villages more efficient?

Answer. Since fiscal year 1996 the Department has been engaged in efforts to assist rural Alaskan communities to integrate wind energy systems with existing diesel generation units to increase the efficiency, and reduce the cost of operating those

diesel systems. In the village of Kotzebue, for example, approximately $4.5 million

of DOE funds have been made available to date to install a 1.5 to 2.0 megaWatt

wind energy system to augment an existing 11.3 megaWatt diesel system. When

fully operational, the wind energy system at Kotzebue will be able to provide as

much as 25 percent to 30 percent of annual electricity requirements, and reduce diesel fuel costs by a similar 25 percent to 30 percent figure. The Kotzebue project,

with ten 66 kW wind turbines currently installed, is serving not only as a model

to reduce dependence on expensive and difficult to maintain diesel generation systems, but also as a ‘‘center of excellence’’ to share lessons learned with other com-
521

munities in the state to help them harness wind resources available to them. In addition to the Kotzebue project, the Department is also supporting a high-penetration

130 kW wind energy system at the Village of Wales. This system, to be installed

in the Summer of 1999, will in periods of high winds have the ability to provide

all of the electricity required by the village, and will serve as a model for wind energy installations in other small villages in the state. Further, the Department is

working with the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA)

to help the villages of Gambell, Mekoryuk, Point Hope, St. Michael, and Unalakleet

to perform detailed measurements of their wind resources as a first step leading to

the possible installation of wind energy systems in those communities. In support

of DCRA the Department also funded a market assessment of the potential for wind

energy use in approximately 80 rural Alaskan communities. DCRA and the Institute

for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska -Anchorage are now

analyzing that data to determine additional rural communities that might be candidates for wind energy installations to augment their existing diesel generation

systems.

A multi-year program that was initiated as part of the hydrogen program in the

fiscal year 1998 budget concerned the development of 3 to 5 kW fuel cells for residences and buildings that could operate with a diesel fuel. The fuel cells can be deployed within or next to the building and be used to co-produce heat as well as

power. Overall efficiencies for these systems are anticipated to be in the 80 to 90

percent range, and can thereby decrease the fuel requirements by half. Also, if several of these systems were to operate in a village environment as a distributed network, then it is expected that the reserve requirements for backup systems will be

less. A demonstration of a fuel cell system in an arctic climate is planned to be operated by the end of 2000.

In addition, hybrid systems of diesel generators with batteries have been shown

to enhance diesel efficiency by as much as 50 percent while leveling out fluctuating

load patterns. Several such systems are being studied along the Alaskan coast in

cooperation with Chugach Electric and the State of Alaska. Installation and field

testing of a prototype generator/storage system is scheduled for fiscal year 2001.

Funded by DOE, a 1.4 MWh energy storage system now operates on the remote

Metlakatla island in southeastern Alaska. The state-of-the-art system is charged by

hydropower and is expected to pay for itself within three years. The hybrid system

eliminates the use of a noisy, polluting 3 MW diesel engine and handles large load

spikes caused by the lumber mill that is also the main employer on the Indian reservation. Data collected on the performance of this system could be used by other

Alaskan sites to improve their power supply and power quality situations.

Finally, in the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Department has asked for

funding for a Competitive Solicitation Program (one of the two programs in the solar

Program Support line item) that could be of assistance to communities in Alaska

and other states seeking to improve their energy delivery systems. (This program

is a proposed integration of two previous lie items: the Renewable Indian Energy

Resources Program and the Federal Buildings/Remote Power Program.) Through

competitive awards, the Department would carry out targeted field validation

projects that prove the availability of clean, affordable, and reliable electric power

supply options in remote and/or economically challenged areas of our Nation. These

projects would not only benefit the requirements but also provide essential data on

operational performance, reliability, and benefits of renewable energy and hybrid renewable energy generation/cogeneration systems in various geographic locations and

climatic conditions.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DORGAN

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Question. Could you comment on the progress being made to make renewables

competitive relative to other more established fuels. How long is it going to take to

get a mature technology? I’m especially interested in progress with wind.

Answer. Research and development has significantly reduced the cost of producing

electricity from renewable resources over the last twenty years. For example, in the

early 1980’s the cost of producing power from the first photovoltaic (PV) systems

was more than $1.00 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while today’s PV technology can

produce electricity from sunlight at less than a quarter of that cost. By fiscal year

2000 we expect PV systems to be able to deliver electricity for as low as $0.12–$0.20

per kWh. The cost of electricity from wind turbines in 1980 ranged from $0.30–$0.40

per kWh, while today it is between $0.04 and $0.06 per kWh. Although many re-
522

newable technologies are competitive in limited market segments (for example, offgrid photovoltaics, biomass where low cost or negative cost waste feedstock is available or where cogeneration is appropriate, geothermal where there are established

high quality resources), they have not yet reached the point where they can capture

a large share of the overall electricity market. Concurrent with the impressive reductions in the cost of producing electricity from renewable resources, for a number

of reasons (including deregulation of the natural gas and oil industries and the railroads) the price of fossil fuels has fallen significantly, which, together with improvements in conventional power generation technology, has lowered the cost targets at

which renewable technologies become competitive with conventional fuels in a significant portion of electricity markets. Assuming success in meeting the technology

cost and performance goals for our R&D programs—and we believe we will continue

to be successful and meet these goals—a number of the renewable technologies will

become competitive in the 2010 to 2020 time frame. Wind is expected to achieve

costs of between $0.025 and $0.03 per kWh by 2010, somewhat lower than today’s

average costs for electricity from fossil plants. The cost of electricity from photovoltaic systems is projected to be under $0.10 per kWh in 2010, decreasing to about

$0.065 per kWh by 2020. This should allow photovoltaics to be competitive with

electricity delivered from the grid in at least some retail commercial and residential

markets.

Both technology improvements and market penetration typically follow an ‘‘S’’

curve, with slow progress initially, followed by accelerated developments for a period

of time and then, finally, slow progress again when the technology matures. Generally it takes decades after a technology is introduced into the market place for the

technology to mature with respect to technology improvements or market penetration; however, we expect the Federal R&D role to be completed long before the technologies reach ‘‘full maturity’’ and that the marketplace will provide most of the incentives for incremental technology improvements during this ‘‘full motivation’’

phase.

PROSPECTS FOR WIND

Question. What are the prospects for wind generally, especially in remote locations? Do you see a time when wind could help these areas reduce their electricity

costs?

Answer. In remote villages without connection to a central grid and where the

cost of diesel fuel is often one to two dollars per gallon or more, use of wind energy

appears very competitive. What is still necessary is to develop control strategies and

retrofit packages to join wind power with existing diesel power systems or other

technologies such as fuel cells. To that end, the Department is working on three

projects in Alaska to evaluate the performance of wind/diesel hybrid systems and

to establish the performance of wind turbines in the Arctic climate. Moreover, we

are proposing an expansion of this effort through the Hybrid Systems for Village

Power project in the fiscal year 2000 request.

Over 800 MW of wind technology will be installed in 1998 and 1999 in the United

States, largely because of the purchaser’s desire for clean, green energy and because

of the temporary production tax credit. The pace of wind development for windfarms

thereafter depends on a great many factors. The Administration has proposed a fiveyear extension of the temporary production tax credit and that would provide a

major economic motivation to overcome the initial higher cost of wind projects. In

addition, we would expect wind energy to capture a significant share of a renewable

portfolio standard if the Congress enacts the Administration’s proposal. There is

also inherent demand for green power although we do not have a good handle on

its size. For wind farm applications, if environmental and other factors are not included, the cost of wind energy is not yet competitive with that from new natural

gas plants. New wind technologies under development will narrow the gap between

wind and natural gas technologies.

CO-FIRING BIOMASS WITH LIGNITE

Question. What are the prospects for co-firing biomass with lignite? In other

words, could biomass be burned along with liginte to improve its efficiency and air

quality characteristics?

Answer. The prospects for co-firing biomass with lignite appear promising. An assessment of co-firing alternatives was conducted at the coal-fired boilers of Central

& South West Utilities. One of the conclusions drawn from this assessment is that

biomass and lignite are very similar, in terms of fuel characteristics. There is very

little difference between the energy content of biomass and the lignite coal; lignite
523

generally has a heating value of 6,400 BTU/lb and biomass fuel 5,000 BTU/lb. Both

can be readily fired in coal-fired boilers with minimum modifications.

Question. If current biomass technologies aren’t appropriate, do you see some

other kind of technology that would be compatible with lignite?

Answer. As stated in the previous question, current biomass technologies are appropriate for co-firing biomass with lignite. In fact, the differences between biomass

and lignite are less than those between coal and biomass, due to the high moisture

content and low BTU of lignite relative to coal. In general, lignite has low BTU content and an ash that tends more to slag than coal ash and, therefore, is fired in

boilers with larger size and larger gas flow passages to prevent clogging due to the

slag. Hence, in some ways the co-firing prospects for lignite seem more promising.

Question. Could co-firing with lignite be done at EERC?

Answer. We are aware of the Energy & Environmental Research Center’s (EERC)

capabilities in the field of energy, particularly fossil energy. We are also aware of

the EERC’s experimental capability to conduct co-firing tests with lignite.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator DOMENICI. We stand in recess. Thank you. The subcommittee stands in recess.

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., Tuesday, April 13, the subcommittee

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

(525)

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

[CLERK’S NOTE.—At the direction of the subcommittee chairman,

the following statements received by the subcommittee are made

part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act.]

CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. MADIGAN, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA WATER

COMMISSION

The California Water Commission is an official agency of the State of California.

It is composed of nine representative citizens from throughout the State. The Commission is charged by statute with representing State of California and local interests before your Committee. The Commission is coordinating the filing of the statements of a number of State and local agencies. On behalf of the California Water

Commission, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for the support this

Committee has given California water, fishery and flood control appropriations over

the years. I am privileged to submit to you the official recommendations of the State

of California for fiscal year 2000 appropriations and request it be included in the

formal hearing record along with the testimonies listed on the attached Statement

List.

The Commission would like you to know that it supports projects as shown on

the attached document entitled, California Water Commission—Final Recommendations for fiscal year 2000 Federal Appropriations for California Water, Fishery and

Flood Control Projects, March 5, 1999. That document contains recommendations

adopted by the Commission at its March 5, 1999 meeting in Sacramento, California,

where individuals from throughout the State testified on individual projects.

This year the recommended add-ons to the President’s budget for the Corps of Engineers are not as extreme as last year. However, the proposed amounts in some

of the large ongoing flood control construction projects are inadequate to maintain

the construction schedule. Stopping and starting construction projects can significantly increase the cost, as well as putting the respective project areas in jeopardy

of severe damage from flooding of a partially completed project. The Commission

has supported projects over the years that are funded under ‘‘Continuing Authorities’’, such as Sections 205, 206, 503 and 1135. These projects compete for very limited funds. This year the Commission voted to request Congress consider increasing

the funding in these Authorities, so more of the needed projects in these categories

can be funded.

The California Water Commission has long recognized water recycling as an important element in the management of California’s water resources. It is the Commission’s view that water recycling projects should be supported in concert, within

the limitations of available federal funds, giving due consideration to other potential

sources of funds that could be available to effect their implementation. The Commission agreed to work with USBR on language which will give the local sponsor greater assurance of future year support. This will also encourage sponsors to go ahead

with expanded facilities with greater expectation of out-year funding.
526

SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDS

The Commission recommends that special consideration be given for appropriation

of funds for projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as shown in the following table. The Commission believes that these

projects merit special consideration for the reasons set forth in the information

shown on the tables on the following page.

CWC No. Project and county

Presidents budget fiscal year

2000

CWC final recommendation

fiscal year 2000

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

90 Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration ............................................. $500,000 $1,000,000

110 Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study ........ 2,000,000 3,000,000

210 American River Watershed ........................................................ 5,000,000 5,000,000

238 Arroyo Pasajero .......................................................................... 150,000 2,685,000

302 Sacramento River Restoration at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District ....................................................................................... 3,000,000 6,000,000

333 Kaweah River (Tulare) ............................................................... ........................ 2,500,000

381 Los Angeles County Drainage Area Project ............................... 30,000,000 50,000,000

382 Santa Ana River Mainstem ....................................................... 20,000,000 28,000,000

387 Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization Santa Ana River .................... ........................ 2,200,000

400 Flood Control Act of 1948, Section 205 Flood Damage Prevention .................................................................................. 26,000,000 50,000,000

420 Water Res. Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic

Ecosystem Restoration .......................................................... 4,500,000 10,000,000

430 Water Res. Development Act, 1996, Section 503, Watershed

Mgt. Restoration & Development .......................................... 15,000,000 30,000,000

440 Water Res. Development Act, 1986, Section 1135, Project

Modification for Improvement of the Environment Program ...................................................................................... 8,500,000 20,000,000

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

500 Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration ............................................. 95,000,000 95,000,000

612 Coleman National Fish Hatchery Modification .......................... 1,500,000 1,500,000

621 Winter-Run Chinook Salmon, Captive Broodstock Program ..... 520,000 520,000

622 Hamilton City Pumping Plant Fish Facility ............................... 2,250,000 3,750,000

663.

Arroyo Pasajero Studies Cantua Creek Strm Group-EIS ........... ........................ 920,000

701 Central Valley Project ................................................................ 72,617,000 72,617,000

900 Public Law 102–575, Title XVI and Amended by Public Law

104–266 (Mid-Pacific Region) ............................................. 3,000,000 3,000,000

1000 Public Law 102–575, Title XVI and Amended by Public Law

104–266 (Lower Colorado Region) ....................................... 26,100,000 26,100,000

1108 Salton Sea Research Project ..................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000

1302 Title I Division (Lower Colorado) ............................................... 13,092,000 13,092,000

1304 Basin-wide Program .................................................................. 12,300,000 17,500,000

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CWC 90—Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration.—The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is

an open collaborative, state-federal-stakeholder effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to restore ecosystem health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. The Program is developing a comprehensive package of Program elements that, together, must:

—Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological

functions in the Bay-Delta to support sustainable populations of diverse and

valuable plant and animal species.

—Provide good water quality for all beneficial uses.

—Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta system.

—Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities, water supply infrastructure, and the ecosystem from catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.
527

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a cooperative effort among State and Federal

agencies and the general public to ensure a healthy ecosystem, reliable water supplies, good water quality, and stable levees in California’s Bay-Delta. The Corps of

Engineers is an official part of the ongoing effort and needs to be adequately funded

to allow the Corps’ experts to officially participate in CALFED activities.

CWC 110—Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study.—In January of 1997, the Central Valley of California was confronted with the largest and

most extensive flood disaster in the State’s history. The Sacramento River and its

tributaries sustained two major levee breaks. In the San Joaquin River Basin, extensive damages resulted from over two dozen levee breaks, sedimentation, and deposition of sand and silt in the fields where flood water poured through the levee

breaks. As a result, Congress appropriated $3 million in fiscal year 1998 and $3.5

million in fiscal year 1999 to initiate a comprehensive flood damage reduction and

environmental restoration assessment for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River

Basins.

The State of California and the Army Corps of Engineers have initiated a four

year Comprehensive Study. The Comprehensive Study will build on existing data

outlined in investigations such as the Sacramento River Watershed Management

Plan, the State’s San Joaquin River Management Program, the Central Valley

Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), and integrated with these and other existing programs. The first phase of the Comprehensive Study is 18 months long. This interim

report is nearing completion and will be sent to Congress in April of 1999.

Phase II will result in full development and calibration of basin-wide hydrologic

and hydraulic models. Phase II report will include a programmatic EIS/EIR which

describes a broad range of potential flood damage reduction measures and integrated ecosystem restoration measures. Some ‘‘early implementation projects’’ will

be identified, developed, and to the extent possible recommended for authorization

and implementation. Early implementation projects must (1) address identifiable

flooding problems, (2) be consistent with the strategy, (3) be singularly effective in

achieving program goals, (4) demonstrate broad acceptability, and (5) be readily

implementable.

CWC 210—American River Watershed.—Recently the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers said, ‘‘Sacramento has one of the lowest levels of flood protection of any U.S.

city its size.’’ Located at the confluence of two major rivers, a large portion of the

Sacramento area is threatened by flooding from the American River and the Sacramento River. The area of risk covers over 100,000 acres and consists of over

160,000 homes and structures, 400,000 residents and over $37 billion in developed

property.

The Reclamation Board supports at a minimum Congressional Authorization of

Folsom Dam modifications as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.

This would increase the level of protection from 1 in 77 to about 1 in 110. The Folsom modifications are common to all plans currently under consideration by Congress.

CWC 238—Arroyo Pasajero.—At present, DWR, USBR, and the Corps are only a

few months away from completion of the Draft Feasibility Investigation Report,

which will identify two candidate alternatives that show a federal interest in a

Corps flood control project. The two projects, the enlarged Westside Detention Basin

and the Pasajero Gap Detention Dam, are estimated to cost approximately $260 and

$229 million with benefit cost ratios of roughly 1.7:1 and 1.1:1, respectively. While

both plans provide significantly improved flood protection to the Aqueduct where the

overwhelming majority of the flood control benefits are accrued, the Gap Dam provides roughly double the level of protection to most of the Arroyo Pasajero flood

plains that cover nearly 100,000 acres within Westlands Water District and the

Tulare Lake Basin.

Severe flooding has been experienced five times at the Arroyo between 1969 and

1993. On March 10, 1995, during the largest Arroyo Pasajero flood on record, a section of Interstate 5 upstream of the Canal collapsed when flood flows peaked on the

Arroyo. Seven people lost their lives and there was substantial local property damage. Flood damage claims filed by private landowners adjacent to the Canal have

exceeded $12 million from this one flood alone.

CWC 302—Sacramento River Restoration at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.—

Finding a solution to the fish passage problem at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s

Pump Station is an important element to Central Valley fish restoration. The agencies that have worked cooperatively to develop the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s

Fish Screen Improvement Project include Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the

United State Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers,

the Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
528

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Water Resources and

the Reclamation Board.

The project consists of two important elements, the fish screen facility and the

gradient facility. Construction began on the approximately 600-foot extension to the

existing flat-plate fish screen in May of 1998.

The second critical element of the Fish Screen Improvement Project is the design

and construction of the gradient facility in the mainstem of the Sacramento River.

It is designed with the characteristics of a natural riffle, providing a ‘‘hard point’’

in the river that will stabilize the Sacramento River in the project reach, and restore the minimum water surface elevations at the fish screen to provide adequate

water speed for efficient screen and fish bypass performance. Construction of the

gradient facility is expected to begin subsequent to the fish screen construction in

2000 and be completed by 2001.

CWC 333—Kaweah River (Tulare).—Terminus Dam was authorized by the 1944

Flood Control Act and was constructed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in

1962. Since construction of Terminus Dam, damaging floods have occurred in many

years. Downstream communities and areas adjacent to the flood plain are at risk

of future flooding.

Initially, various alternatives were evaluated, including alternative storage sites,

detention basins, construction alternatives, and nonstructural measures. Based on

technical, economical, and environmental criteria, the only feasible alternative is to

raise and widen the spillway at Terminus Dam. The Corps’ Authorized Plan includes raising the elevation of the existing Terminus Dam spillway. Reservoir storage capacity would be increased by 42,600 acre-feet (about 30 percent). This feature

will save an estimated seven million dollars of the approximate 40 million dollar

Project cost.

The State of California sponsor is The Reclamation Board and the local sponsors

of the Project are the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (lead agency), City

of Visalia, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, Tulare County, and Kings

County.

CWC 381—Los Angeles County Drainage Area Project (LACDA).—The Los Angeles

County Drainage Area, current population of over 9 million, is partially protected

by an urban flood control system which includes Corps flood control structures consisting of 5 major reservoirs, 22 debris basins, and 470 miles of channel improvements. The existing system, protecting the second largest urban metropolitan area

in the United States, has prevented over $3.7 billion in damages since construction.

However, the flood of 1969 in Los Angeles County caused widespread damages of

over $12 million, $56.5 million at 1996 prices.

The LACDA Project involves raising of 21 miles of existing levees which were

originally built 40–50 years ago and modifying 21 bridge crossings. The Project was

authorized by Congress in 1992. Construction began in February 1996. Six construction contracts which included 4.5 miles of levee raising and modifications to seven

bridges have been completed.

The President’s Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $30 million for this

Project, and if not increased, would delay the completion of the project by at least

one to two more years. This will prolong the risk of flooding and continue to jeopardize the safety of those living in the 75-square-mile overflow area. Such a condition is unacceptable.

CWC 382—Santa Ana River Mainstem (Includes San Timoteo).—The project is located along a 75-mile reach of the Santa Ana River in Orange, Riverside, and San

Bernardino counties southeast of and adjacent to metropolitan Los Angeles, California. Construction of this project will primarily provide protection to lands and improvements within Orange County downstream of Prado Reservoir. A severe flood

threat exists in this area, which could cause damages in excess of $15 billion and

could endanger and disrupt the lives of over three million people living or working

in the floodplain.

The $28 million request includes $20 million dollars to continue construction on

Seven Oaks Dam and the Lower Santa Ana River plus $8 million to begin construction (a new start appropriation is required) at Prado Dam. Commencement of construction on improvements to Prado Dam is very important. This feature of the SAR

Project is the key link in providing the level of flood protection envisioned by Congress when it authorized the SAR Project in 1986.

CWC 387—Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization-Santa Ana River.—The study area is

located approximately 40 miles southeast of Los Angeles in the City of Norco along

the south bank of the Santa Ana River. Flood induced migration of the main channel of the Santa Ana River to the base of the bluffs has resulted in undercutting

and subsequent bank de-stabilization which threatens residential development along

the edge of the bluffs.
529

The purpose of this project is to protect a susceptible 65 foot high bluff in Norco

from further retreat into the residential neighborhood. Severe bank sloughing results when flood flows within the Santa Ana River attack the toe of the bluffs.

Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Section 101b(4), provided for the authorization of the project based on a Chief’s Report dated December 23, 1996 that recommended the project for construction. Certain geotechnical design considerations

have resulted in an increased cost for the project, and the Commission is therefore

seeking supplemental funding in the amount of $2,200,000 in fiscal year 2000 for

completion of construction of the Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization Project.

CWC 400—Flood Control Act of 1948, Section 205, Flood Damage Prevention.—

The California Water Commission heard testimony at its March 5, 1999 meeting requesting support on individual projects. Each of these projects have merit and are

needed to prevent recurring flood damages in the local areas. The Commission supports these projects for funding from this Continuing Authority for small projects.

The Commission has witnessed many successful projects in California over the

years that have been funded from this Authority. However, the list of project requests are exceeding the funding level. The Commission voted to support a request

to Congress to increase the nationwide funding level from the present $26,000,000

to $50,000,000.

CWC 420—Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.—The California Water Commission heard testimony at its

March 5, 1999 meeting requesting support on individual projects. The Commission

supports these projects to improve the quality of the environment. Section 206 directs the Secretary of the Army to carry out such projects if the Secretary determines that the project will improve the quality of the environment and is in the

public interest; and is cost-effective. The cost-sharing provisions state that the nonFederal interests shall provide 35 percent of the cost of the construction of any

project carried out under this section, including provision of all lands, easements,

rights-of-way, and necessary relocation.

The Commission voted to support a request to Congress to increase the nationwide funding level from the present $4,500,000 to $10,000,000.

CWC 430—Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 503, Watershed Mgt.

Restoration & Development.—The California Water Commission heard testimony at

its March 5, 1999 meeting requesting support on individual projects. The Commission supports fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the projects. This provision gives

the Secretary of the Army the authority to have the Corps provide technical, planning and design assistance to nonFederal interests for carrying out watershed management, restoration and development projects at locations listed in Section 503,

Water Resources Development Act, 1996.

The Commission voted to support a request to Congress to increase the nationwide funding level from the present $15,000,000 to $30,000,000.

CWC 440—Water Resources Development Act, 1986, Section 1135, Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment Program.—The California Water Commission heard testimony at its March 5, 1999 meeting requesting support on individual projects. The Commission supports fiscal year 2000 appropriations for each

of these projects. Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Section 1135, directs

the Secretary of the Army to review the operation of water resources projects constructed before the date of the Act to determine the need for modifications in the

structures and operations of such projects for the purpose of improving the quality

of the environment in the public interest. The Commission voted to support a request to Congress to increase the nationwide funding level from the present

$8,500,000 to $20,000,000. Additional funds are needed as this list of important

projects increase.

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CWC 500—Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration.—At the confluence of California’s

two largest rivers, the Sacramento and San Joaquin, the San Francisco Bay and adjoining Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) together form the largest estuary

in the western United States. The Bay-Delta is a haven for plants and wildlife, supporting over 750 plant and animal species. The Bay-Delta supplies drinking water

for two-thirds of California’s citizens and irrigation water for over 7 million acres

of the most highly productive agricultural land in the world.

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an open collaborative, state-federal-stakeholder effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to restore ecosystem health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta

system. The Program is fundamentally different from previous efforts because it
530

seeks to address ecosystem restoration, water quality, water supply reliability, and

levee and channel integrity as co-equal program purposes.

On December 18, 1998, CALFED released the Revised Phase II Report which outlined the draft preferred alternative for solving the problems in the Bay-Delta system. The CALFED Program expects to release a Revised Draft EIS/EIR in the

spring of 1999. This release will be followed by a public comment period and further

refinement of the proposed plan. The goal is to have a final EIS/EIR certified by

December 1999 with implementation of the plan to begin in the year 2000.

CWC—612—Coleman National Fish Hatchery Modification.—The Coleman National Fish Hatchery was built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) on Battle

Creek in 1942 to mitigate damages to salmon spawning areas in the Sacramento

River system caused by the construction of Shasta and Keswick Dams. Federal custody and operation were transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

in 1948. Title 34 of Public Law 102–575 (Central Valley Project Improvement Act)

specifies that USBR provide funding for completion of the rehabilitation of the Coleman National Fish Hatchery: 50 percent will be reimbursable from water and power

users and 50 percent non-reimbursable.

Remaining rehabilitation facilities are additional water treatment facilities which

include one sand filter, an air compressor, and one ozone contact/stripper capable

of treating 15,000 gallons per minute and installation of various ozone equipment.

Also, installation of a 54-inch pipeline from the ozone treatment plant to the large

raceways. The replacement of facilities for administration, the fish health laboratory

and public contact area will be the final items to complete the modifications at Coleman NFH.

CWC 621—Winter-Run Chinook Salmon, Captive Broodstock Program.—The captive broodstock program arose from shared concerns for the fate of the Sacramento

River winter-run chinook salmon. Active participants have included representatives

of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation, Bodega Marine Laboratory of the University of California, Steinhart

Aquarium of the California Academy of Sciences, California Department of Fish and

Game, California Department of Water Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Tyee Club and California Water Commission.

The program has promoted the genetic conservation of winter-run chinook salmon.

Analyses of the effective size of the winter-run stock showed that a properly managed artificial propagation program to which the captive broodstock program contributes gametes is not likely to have a negative effect and may, instead, be helping

to maintain or slightly increase the genetic diversity of the stock.

The captive broodstock program was initiated as a rapid response to the

endangerment of the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. To date, the program has realized many of its objectives. Gametes from captively reared broodstock

have contributed to artificial propagation of the winter-run population. In each year

since its inception, the program has provided progressively better spawners, gamete

quality, fertilization and production of juvenile fish. The artificial propagation program is actively pursuing improvements to rearing facilities and genetics and mating protocols to eliminate concerns about hybridizing Spring run. The recently completed Livingston Stone NFH below Shasta Dam is expected to successfully imprint

the young fry on Sacramento River water. Most important, the scientific and technical advances by the program will provide an important legacy to salmon biology.

CWC 622—Hamilton City Pumping Plant Fish Facility.—Finding a solution to the

fish passage problem at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s Pump Station is an important element to Central Valley fish restoration. The agencies that have worked

cooperatively to develop the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s Fish Screen Improvement Project include Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the United State Bureau of

Reclamation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Fish

and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Water Resources and the Reclamation Board.

The project consists of two important elements, the fish screen facility and the

gradient facility. Construction began on the approximately 600-foot extension to the

existing flat-plate fish screen in May of 1998. Included in the screen structure are

three internal bypasses that will allow for reduced fish exposure to the screen. The

bypasses will exit the fish into the lower oxbow channel. Significant improvements

are being made to the lower oxbow channel and training wall to meet hydraulic criteria past the facility. In addition, a water control structure (weir) with a removable

bridge to allow access to Montgomery Island for routine dredging operations has

been designed by Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and constructed under Reclamation’s contract.
531

Adequate funding for completion of construction is essential to meeting the important goals of a long-term fish passage solution at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District’s

main pump station and to assist with Central Valley fish restoration.

CWC 663—Arroyo Pasajero Studies—Cantua Creek Strm Group-EIS.—The

Cantua Creek Stream Group consists of seven western San Joaquin Valley ephemeral streams, as well as several smaller unnamed drainages located west of the San

Luis Canal segment of the California Aqueduct extending between 20 and 50 miles

north of the Arroyo Pasajero.

Flood water overtopped the western embankment of the Canal in 1969 and 1995,

causing extensive damage to the concrete lining. Since the 1960s, over 40,000 acrefeet of Cantua Creek Stream Group flood water and an estimated 2.5 million cubic

yards of sediment have entered the Canal from overtopping or through the drain

inlets. These streams have also deposited as much as 2.9 million cubic yards of sediment upslope of the Canal, eliminating 1,600 acre-feet (about 50 percent) of the

original impounding capacity. The Cantua Creek Stream Group poses a flood risk

with a potential to breach the Canal and disrupt water service to millions of people

in southern California and the southern San Joaquin Valley. In addition, the cost

associated with the degradation to water quality from uncontrolled flood inflow is

a substantial expense to both the Canal operators and water customers. The situation is continually worsening as additional sediment is deposited along the west side

of the Aqueduct.

The Department of Water Resources, with cost sharing by USBR, is completing

a reconnaissance study of these drainage and sedimentation problems and will be

performing feasibility level investigations during fiscal year 2000 to seek solutions.

In addition, interim improvements to restore diminished impounding capacity and

improve sediment decanting capabilities for smaller flood flows will extend into fiscal year 2000. Under the San Luis Unit Joint-Use Facilities Agreement, USBR is

responsible for 45 percent of the cost of this work.

CWC 701—Central Valley Project.—The Nation’s public works infrastructure is

aging. We must ensure that adequate levels of funding are provided to protect the

public’s investment in facilities which we rely upon daily to provide water supply,

flood protection, public safety, and other benefits. California’s population of 32 million people depends upon a network of local, state, and federal infrastructure developed over the past decades. Today, governments at all levels are finding it increasingly difficult to find funds to properly maintain existing facilities. The competition

for funding raises important public policy questions about the relationship of funding for new projects and programs as opposed to funding to maintain and rehabilitate existing infrastructure.

Too often, the temporary solution used by all levels of government to meet budgetary constraints is to defer maintenance funding. However, deferred maintenance

does not come without a price.

Given the increasing competition for federal dollars, we must be prepared to make

the difficult choice of deferring studies and new projects until we are assured that

existing federal facilities are receiving appropriate levels of safety review and maintenance.

CWC 900—Public Law 102–575, Title XVI and Amended by Public Law 104–266

(Mid-Pacific Region); CWC 1000—Public Law 102–575, Title XVI and Amended by

Public Law 104–266 (Lower Colorado Region).—The California Water Commission

has long recognized water recycling as an important element in the management

of California’s water resources, both for cleanup of municipal, industrial and agricultural discharges and to improve the quantity and quality of water supplies. The Department of Water Resources’ Bulletin 160–98, California Water Plan Update, January 1998, identifies up to 800,000 acre-feet of total potential additional water recycling in California by the year 2020.

It is the Commission’s view that both water recycling programs and the other ongoing USBR programs are highly important and that they should be supported in

concert, within the limitations of available federal funds, giving due consideration

to other potential sources of funds that could be available to effect their implementation. The Commission agreed to work with USBR on language which will give the

local sponsor greater assurance of future year support. This will also encourage

sponsors to go ahead with expanded facilities with greater expectation of out-year

funding.

CWC 1108—Salton Sea Research Project.—Over the last several decades there has

been concern over the increasing salinity of the Salton Sea and the impacts it has

had on the Sea’s ecology. Increasing salinity and other water quality issues are

threatening biological values and recreational uses of the Sea. An additional concern

is the rising water surface elevation. The raising water surface has flooded much

of the developed area and the shoreline wildlife habitat used by a number of dif-
532

ferent bird species. The rising sea also has inundated much of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge at the south end of the sea. The full impacts of increasing

salinity, the decline in other water quality attributes, and water surface elevation

on endangered species that inhabit the sea are unknown, but studies are presently

ongoing. In order to identify and evaluate possibilities for improving the condition

of the sea, a program of additional planning, research, and environmental impact

analysis are needed.

The objectives of this program are to identify and evaluate alternatives to: improve water quality conditions; maintain quality habitat for migratory birds and endangered species; enhance the fishery; and protect human recreation values in and

around the Salton Sea. Environmental scoping and scientific research of remediation alternatives currently is underway.

CWC 1300—Colorado River Salinity Control Program; CWC 1302—Title I Division

(Lower Colorado).—The California Water Commission heard testimony at its March

5, 1999 meeting requesting support for federal funding levels that are required to

meet the numeric criteria and standards that have been established for salinity on

the Colorado River.

The Commission supports fiscal year 2000 appropriations of $13,092,000 for Title

I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, which covers delivery of water

to Mexico, pursuant to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty and Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission.

CWC 1304—Basin-wide Program.—The California Water Commission heard testimony at its March 5, 1999 meeting requesting support for federal funding levels for

water quality programs under Title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control

Act. The Commission voted to support a request to Congress to increase the Basinwide funding level from the present $12,300,000 to $17,500,000. The Commission

believes that this increase is necessary to meet the established numeric criteria and

standards for salinity in the Colorado River.
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA LEVAKE, PRESIDENT, AND PETER D. RABBON,

GENERAL MANAGER, THE RESOURCES AGENCY AND THE RECLAMATION BOARD,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RECLAMATION BOARD FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS—

FISCAL YEAR 2000 SUMMARY

[Dollars in thousands]

Corps of Engineers’ projects Page President’s

budget

Board

recommends

I. GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—SURVEYS

Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive

Study ................................................................................ 1 $2,000 $3,000

Northern California Streams.

—Middle Creek .................................................................... 1 150 300

San Joaquin River Basin.

—Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211) ....................... 1 200 380

—West Stanislaus County ................................................... 2 250 400

Sutter Basin (Sutter) ............................................................ 1 60 100

PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

American River Watershed ................................................... 4 5,000 5,000

Yuba River ............................................................................ 4 150 700

South Sacramento County Streams ..................................... 4 500 4,000

San Joaquin River Basin.

—Tule River ......................................................................... 4 150 800

Arroyo Pasajero ..................................................................... 4 150 2,685

Kaweah River (Tulare) .......................................................... 4 582 582

III. CONSTRUCTION—GENERAL

Sacramento River Bank Protection ...................................... 5 7,000 7,000

Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction ................................. 5 4,000 4,000

Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction .......................... 5 300 300

West Sacramento Project ..................................................... 5 7,700 7,700

American River Watershed (Common Elements) ................. 5 17,000 17,000

Kaweah River (Tulare) .......................................................... 5 ........................ 2,500

Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction .................... 5 2,317 2,317
543

THE RECLAMATION BOARD FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS—

FISCAL YEAR 2000 SUMMARY—Continued

[Dollars in thousands]

Corps of Engineers’ projects Page President’s

budget

Board

recommends

Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction .................... 5 3,055 3,055

American River Watershed (Natomas) ................................. 5 4,000 7,900

Merced County Streams ....................................................... 5 500 500

THE RECLAMATION BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS

The Reclamation Board, as the State agency which furnishes required local assurances for a majority of the federal flood control projects in California’s Central Valley, respectfully submits this statement of support for U.S Army Corps of Engineers

flood control projects.

The Board in general supports the President’s budget for federal flood control

projects in the California Central Valley. The projects described below are of particular importance to the health, safety, and well-being of Central Valley residents

and are especially important to The Reclamation Board that they are started and/

or kept on schedule.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—SURVEYS

Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study

The study area includes the entire Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin

River Basin in Northern and Central California, respectively. Local, State and federal water resources agencies support a coordinated multiobjective investigation to

balance flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and other water resources proposed along the Rivers. The Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement was executed in February 1998. An interim status report will be released in April 1999. The

Board recommends funding to continue this study.

Northern California Streams

This survey, authorized in 1962, is a study of the Sacramento River and its tributaries in regard to flood control measures. The following is an interim study proposal.

Middle Creek.— A reconnaissance study which evaluated several alternatives near

Middle Creek’s confluence with Clear Lake in Lake County was completed in 1997.

Existing levees which do not provide adequate flood protection need to be repaired

and upgraded. The Board supports funding to continue the feasibility study.

San Joaquin River Basin

This survey, authorized in 1964, is a study of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries in regard to flood control measures. The following are interimstudy proposals.

Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211).—Construction to protect the urban

areas of Stockton has been completed. This feasibility study will evaluate alternatives for protecting the rural areas. The Board recommends funding to complete

this study.

West Stanislaus County.—A feasibility study is ongoing to evaluate flood control

alternatives for the westside communities in Stanislaus County. The Board recommends funding to complete the feasibility study.

Sutter Basin (Sutter)

A reconnaissance study is being conducted to evaluate increased flood protection

for Sutter County which has repeatedly sustained flood damage. The Board recommends funding to initiate the feasibility study.

PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

American River Watershed

The Sacramento urban area has only a 77-year level of protection from flooding

by the American River. Although incremental actions have occurred, a long-term

plan for high levels of protection must be developed and implemented. The Board

recommends funding to continue long-term planning and preconstruction engineering and design.
544

Yuba River

The Marysville and Yuba City areas have experienced seven major floods. A feasibility study was completed in April 1998. The Board recommends funding to continue preconstruction engineering and design.

South Sacramento County Streams

The completed feasibility report recommends levee and channel improvements to

protect the urbanized area of south Sacramento. The Board recommends funding for

continued PED.

San Joaquin River Basin

Tule River.—The proposed enlargement of Success Dam on the Tule River will improve flood protection for the City of Porterville and surrounding community. The

Board recommends funding to continue PED.

Arroyo Pasajero

Flood protection is inadequate for the California Aqueduct (a major water transfer

facility) and two communities located 50 miles southwest of the City of Fresno. The

Board recommends funding to continue PED.

Kaweah River (Tulare)

This project would provide flood protection to the communities of Visalia, Farmersville, Tulare, Ivanhoe, and Goshen. The project was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The Board recommends funding to continue PED.

CONSTRUCTION—GENERAL

Sacramento River Bank Protection

The project, authorized in 1960, is a long-range federal/State effort to preserve the

existing project levee system along 192 miles of the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River Bank Protection Project work consists of providing some form of bank

stabilization at those points which are identified each year as the most critical. The

Board recommends funding to continue construction.

Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction

An evaluation of about 240 miles of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project

levees in the Sacramento Mid-Valley area identified about 20 miles of levees that

are structurally deficient and require reconstruction. The Board recommends funding to continue construction.

Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction

This program will reconstruct 44 miles of the 134 miles of federally authorized

levees which protect the Marysville/Yuba City area. The first of three construction

contracts was awarded in July 1995. Flooding in 1997 demonstrated the need to extend the work sites, modify the design, and investigate new sites in the project area.

The Board recommends funding to continue construction.

West Sacramento Project

The Board is the nonfederal sponsor for the West Sacramento Flood Control

Project which was authorized for construction by WRDA 1992. The Board supports

funding to continue construction.

American River Watershed (Common Elements)

The Common Elements Project was authorized in WRDA 1996. This Project consists of features that would be common to any long-term project selected for the

American River. The Board recommends funding to continue construction.

Kaweah River—discussed in PED

The Board recommends funding to initiate construction.

Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction

An evaluation of about 295 miles of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project

levees in the lower Sacramento Valley area identified about 47 miles of levees that

are structurally deficient. The project includes reconstructing about 2 miles of these

levees. The Board recommends funding for construction.

Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction

Federally authorized flood control levees in the upper Sacramento Area were evaluated and 12 miles were determined to be deficient and requiring reconstruction.

The Board recommends funding for construction.
545

American River Watershed (Natomas)

The project was authorized but not funded in 1992. The local flood control agency

proceeded with the work. The Board recommends funding to reimburse the federal

cost-sharing portion to the nonfederal sponsor.

Merced County Streams

This project provides increased levels of flood protection to the Cities of Merced

and Atwater and associated urban areas. First phase of construction has been completed. The Board recommends funding to continue construction.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAYE LOPEZ, MANAGER, COLUSA BASIN DRAINAGE

DISTRICT

USBR Fiscal Year 2000 Request: $1,000,000

The Colusa Basin Drainage District requests the Committee’s support for

$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. This amount will allow the District to begin the final

design and preparation of plans and specifications for Phase I reservoir projects, the

acquisition of rights of way, the installation of a water stage and quality monitoring

system, the clearing of the Colusa Basin Drain, studies of feasibility of catchment

basins and other innovative facilities and the planning/implementation of nonstructural flood control and water quality/environmental measures.

The Colusa Basin Drainage District appreciates your past support for our Integrated Resources Management Plan for water management that addresses flooding

and that provides opportunities for future conjunctive use of water resources to

meet the diverse needs of agricultural, urban and wildlife interests in the Colusa

Basin.

Each of the three phases of the District’s Plan consists of three components: structural facilities, improved O&M of existing facilities, and new nonstructural and environmental enhancements. Phase I of the Program includes 3,000 acres of wetland

and streambank restoration.

Background

The 650,000 acre Colusa Basin Drainage District, located on the west side of the

Sacramento River, serves a large watershed exceeding one million acres. It covers

all or part of Glenn, Colusa and northern Yolo Counties. It not only is a rich agricultural area, but a rich wildlife area as well, including three national wildlife refuges.

Over the decades, devastating floods have repeatedly struck the Colusa Basin resulting in costly damages to public and private property and loss of life. In 1995,

these three counties suffered an estimated $100,000,000 in damages and 1 death

due to flooding; in 1998, these three counties suffered an estimated $40,000,000 in

damages due to flooding. In November 1995, a majority of landowners voted to implement the District’s Integrated Resources Management Plan to address flood damage while obtaining the other benefits of increasing groundwater supplies, surface

water storage, and improved environmental and wildlife uses in the watershed.

Through a stakeholder/local, state and federal agency collaborative process, four

projects have been initially selected to be developed to serve as a demonstration of

the integrated resources management approach to resolving the Basin’s flooding

problems. Hydraulic studies on proposed facilities were completed in 1998. The

preparation of Basin-wide programmatic environmental documentation commenced

during 1998 and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1999. Project specific environmental documentation will begin later this year.

This request is for an appropriation of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2000; however,

the District has the capability and need for $2,000,000 to put this project more on

the schedule earlier submitted to your Committee. The $2,000,000 would not be

used for construction, but we believe would be sufficient to complete all necessary

pre-construction tasks for one or more reservoir projects.

We believe our Integrated Resource Management approach to solving a number

of problems across a large area with the same dollar is a wise expenditure of public

funds.

Thank you for your continued support.

US Army Corps of Engineers Fiscal Year 2000 Request: $500,000

The Colusa Basin Drainage District is requesting $500,000 in funding for fiscal

year 2000 for use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin the design, planning, and environmental review associated with a 3,000 acre wetlands project. The

project will be located in the southern portion of the Sacramento Valley, California.
546

The District—in conjunction with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers and a number of state and local agencies—is using the technique of integrated resource management in order to provide

flood protection and environmental restoration to the Colusa Basin, which is located

on the west side of the Sacramento Valley. The Colusa Basin Watershed Program

includes structural flood protection measures (small off stream detention basins on

ephemeral streams that lack anadromous fisheries), improved operation and maintenance of existing flood control facilities, and nonstructural flood protection measures

(creation of wetlands, riparian and upland habitats and the introduction of best

management practices to control erosion and sedimentation). One of the goals of the

Program is to create 10,000 acres of habitat in the Colusa Basin over the next 20

to 30 years. The Program is fully compatible with the ecosystem restoration projects

being proposed and implemented by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

The site of the proposed wetlands will be northern Yolo County and southern

Colusa County, in the midst of the Pacific Flyway. These lands are located adjacent

to the Colusa Basin Drain and have regularly been flooded in past years. The

project would involve constructing one or more detention basin(s) that would store

floodwaters and so create seasonal wetlands. The proposed site of the project also

contains groundwater wells, which may permit the creation of permanent wetlands

or other habitat. In order to reduce the costs of operation and maintenance, agricultural activities that are consistent with the use of the property as habitat may be

permitted during the summer months on portions of the property.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

Subject: Contra Costa Canal Fish Screen fiscal year 2000 Appropriation

The Contra Costa Canal (Rock Slough) intake of the Central Valley Project (CVP)

is the largest urban water intake in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The

intake is the primary source of water for 400,000 people in Central and Eastern

Contra Costa County.

Because this 60-year-old intake is not screened, its impact on the aquatic life of

the Delta has been a subject of concern for many years as local, state and federal

interests work together to restore the health of Bay-Delta estuary. Under provisions

of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act [PL 102–575, Sec. 3406 (b) (5)], the

Secretary of Interior is required to screen the Contra Costa Canal intake, which is

owned by the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).

Over the past five years, the relevant federal, state and local agencies have

worked together to develop a plan to screen the intake, have completed the permitting, and have completed the design for the fish screen that will protect threatened

and endangered species in the vicinity of the Contra Costa Canal intake. The project

went to bid in February.

Appropriations have been requested for the fish screen in each of the past four

years. In response, the Congress has appropriated $4,330,000 to the Department of

Interior for the fish screen. A final appropriation of $5,000,000 is critical, because

construction is scheduled to begin this summer. If additional funds are provided by

the State of California, the level of Congressional appropriation could be reduced.

Completion on the current schedule is critical to the Contra Costa Water District’s

continued ability to draw water for its 400,000 customers. The US Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS), requires that the Rock Slough screen be completed and provided

authority for USFWS to shut down all pumping if the screen is not completed in

a timely manner. Thus, it is essential that the remaining construction funds be provided in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.

The fish screen is one element of a larger program to mitigate fishery impacts in

the Delta. The progress to date on the Contra Costa Canal Fish Screen is a success

story both for this facility and in the broader context of the multi-party effort to restore the deteriorated Bay-Delta estuary, the largest estuary on the West Coast.

Your active support for this essential appropriation is appreciated. It will complete a congressionally mandated facility, protect Delta fisheries, and insure that

water supplies for 400,000 people served by the Contra Costa Water District are not

jeopardized.
547

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL W. MOSHER, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

My name is Carl W. Mosher, and I am Director of Environmental Services for the

City of San Jose, California. I am testifying on behalf of the San Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, now known as South Bay Water Recycling. San Jose

is the lead agency of a joint powers authority which owns and operates the San

Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, a regional wastewater treatment

facility serving more than 1,200,000 residents, businesses and industries in Silicon

Valley. South Bay Water Recycling, which recycles effluent from the treatment

plant, is the largest urban water recycling project in northern California.

We are requesting your assistance in increasing the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

funding for South Bay Water Recycling from the $3,000,000 in the President’s budget to $10,000,000. The first phase of the program, completed in 1998, will deliver

up to 15,000,000 gallons of water per day. It was financed by the cities of San Jose ́,

Santa Clara and Milpitas and five other agencies, in cooperation with the Santa

Clara Valley Water District. The City is now planning a second phase to double recycled water use at a cost of an additional $100,000,000.

As you know, Title XVI of the CVPIA (Public Law 92–575) authorizes the Bureau

of Reclamation to contribute up to 25 percent of eligible project costs. However, due

to competing demands, BOR’s Mid-Pacific Region has budgeted less than half of the

$35,000,000 authorized by Congress. The Bureau has indicated that they will be unable to participate in future planning or construction until Congress appropriates

sufficient funds to meet their existing obligations. The President’s fiscal year 1999/

00 Budget includes a request for SBWR for $3,000,000. At the current rate of funding, that will not occur until 2007.

Through the efforts of San Jose ́, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other

Silicon Valley cities and agencies, our region is becoming a leader in sustainable

water use, integrating water supply and wastewater discharge through innovations

in water recycling and conservation. Long-term local plans anticipate up to

100,000,000 gallons of reuse per day by 2020, through projects coordinated with our

regional effort, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program.

If sufficient federal funds are not available to leverage local funding, Silicon Valley and other California communities will not soon achieve sustainable water use.

Given the need for water in the environment, competing demands of agriculture and

cities, and the constant threat of drought, water recycling just makes sense. The

California Department of Water Resources projects a deficit of six million acre-feet

of water during a critical dry year. During the 1970’s and early 80’s, the federal government spent tens of billions of dollars to fund facilities so we could stop treating

our rivers and lakes as sewers and cesspools. Certainly this smaller investment is

justified to use water more wisely and more often, and restore our environment.

In order to obtain funding authorized by Congress and allow Bureau participation

in future phases, the City is seeking a write-in appropriation for SBWR for

$10,000,000 next fiscal year. We appreciate your support for this level of funding

during upcoming committee hearings.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD BRANSFORD, PRESIDENT, GLENN-COLUSA

IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Don Bransford. I am

a rice farmer from Colusa County, California, and I am President of the Board of

Directors of the GlennColusa Irrigation District (GCID or District).

I appreciate the opportunity to provide you this statement regarding the federal

funding priorities for GCID. I also appreciate the Subcommittee’s past efforts to address our concerns.

GCID is the largest and one of the oldest diverters of water from the Sacramento

River. The District delivers water to approximately 1,200 families who have about

141,000 acres of land in cultivation in Glenn and Colusa Counties. More than

$270,000,000 in agricultural products are produced annually on GCID farms, helping to sustain an estimated 12,000 jobs in the region.

The District is also the sole source of surface water for three wildlife refuges—

the Sacramento, Delevan and Colusa National Wildlife Refuges—that cover some

20,000 acres in the heart of the Sacramento Valley. The District and the United

States Bureau of Reclamation have negotiated an agreement that provides for longterm conveyance of water to these refuges as well as cost sharing. Winter water

supplied by GCID to thousands of acres of rice land also provides a rich oasis for

migrating waterfowl.
548

The District is firmly committed to obtaining lasting protection of the winterrun

salmon and other fishery resources at the Hamilton City Pump Station. Over the

last several years, the District has invested over $3,000,000 in the construction of

an interim flatplate fish screen and other improvements to provide immediate protection to the endangered winterrun chinook salmon and other fish species, and on

biological monitoring. In addition, GCID has deposited $5,500,000 into an account

to be used solely for the purpose of design and construction of the new fish screen

extension and gradient facility, known as the ‘‘long term solution’’ for the fish passage problems at the Hamilton City Pump Station. Finally, GCID has spent an additional $5,500,000 on environmental review, land acquisition, environmental mitigation and downstream channel improvements, design and construction of the long

term fish passage solution.

While the interim flatplate screen, installed in late 1993, has been very effective,

it is only an interim solution. In order to provide this permanent protection of the

fisheries resources, the permanent fish screen has been under construction since the

spring of 1998, and completion is anticipated in late 1999. Construction of the gradient facility portion of the project is scheduled to begin in 2000 and be completed

in 2001. Until completion of the fish screen extension, the gradient facility, and testing of the performance of the structures, the District will continue to face restrictions which result in pumping only 75 percent of the District’s full water entitlement.

Unlike some other projects, the availability of nonfederal costsharing is not in

doubt at GCID. The District has, in addition to the funds already invested in the

fish screen project, set aside $5,500,000 to date to help pay for the nonfederal, 25

percent costshare of a new permanent fish screen. California voters have approved

almost a billion dollars for projects like the GCID fish screen to help restore fisheries throughout the Central Valley. We are ready and able to costshare any federal

funds provided by this Committee.

On behalf of GCID, the fishery and all of those whose economic fate is tied to the recovery of the winterrun salmon, I respectfully request that you provide $3,750,000

for the Bureau of Reclamation in fiscal year 2000 to continue work on a permanent

new fish screen at the Hamilton City Pump Station. The President’s Budget includes $2,252,000 for the fish screen extension portion of the project. GCID urges

an increase because construction of the fish screen extension is approximately one

year ahead of schedule, resulting in an accelerated schedule of biological and

hydrological testing that must occur after completion of construction to verify that

the structure meets the resource agencies’ fish screening criteria. Specifically, an allocation of $3,750,000 is needed to allow completion of construction and initiation

of testing of the facility in 2000.

Without such a commitment of funds, construction may be delayed, and testing

of the facility will be delayed. That will mean less water for the farmers and a less

speedy recovery of the fishery. Failure to provide the funds necessary to complete

the project represents a lose-lose proposition. It is bad for the farmers and it is bad

for the fishery resource. Again, I urge you to provide an allocation of $3,750,000 to

keep the project moving forward on an optimum schedule.

For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, GCID requests the Committee’s support

of an appropriation of $6,000,000 to the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the

Sacramento River gradient or riffle restoration project. Construction of the gradient

restoration project will stabilize the river elevation and improve the effectiveness of

the new fish screen built at the District’s pumping plant. In addition, the gradient

facility is critical to ensuring the long-term viability of the new fish screen structure

under changing river conditions. The President’s Budget includes $3,000,000 for the

gradient facility. GCID urges the increase to $6,000,000 because preliminary estimates from the Corps indicate that $3,000,000 is far short of what is needed. The

Corps currently anticipates that the construction of this element of the project could

begin in 2000 and be completed in 2001. Thus, GCID is concerned that the amount

presently in the President’s Budget will not be adequate to allow the Corps to award

a construction contract for the gradient facility in the fall of 1999, as this low level

of funding will not allow for completion of the construction in the one year timeframe.

In addition to the budget impacts of the short construction schedule, GCID is currently requesting that Congress increase the cost ceiling for the gradient facility

from $20,700,000 to $26,000,000. The original cost estimates were based upon a 30

percent basis of design. Further design work and other factors indicate that the

total cost of the gradient facility will exceed the $20,700,000 ceiling. GCID is also

seeking a post-authorization change to the gradient facility to expand the scope of

work to include bank stabilization work at approximately River Mile 208, north of

the fish screen project. Geomorphological studies indicate that flood damage at
549

River Mile 208 potentially puts the entire project at risk. These post-authorization

changes also indicate an increase of the fiscal year 2000 budget for this element of

the project.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, GCID requests that the Subcommittee earmark, from

within the funds made available for refuge water supply, $2,400,000 for fiscal year

2000 to continue work on the upgrade of GCID canal facilities necessary to make

refuge deliveries. The President’s Budget request includes $4,500,000 for all central

valley refuge conveyance projects, and GCID requests that $2,400,000 be earmarked

for the District’s project designed to expand water service to the Sacramento Refuge

complex. In addition, GCID requests that the budget for all Central Valley refuge

supply projects be increased to $6,900,000 to assure that the necessary funds will

be available for completion of the GCID Refuge Conveyance Project. Preliminary estimates by Reclamation indicate that the proposed budget of $4,500,000 for refuge

supply projects is far short of the total amount actually needed for completion of

the GCID Refuge Conveyance Project and the initiation of work on the other supply

projects in the Central Valley. A shortfall in the refuge supply budget could adversely impact the GCID Refuge Conveyance Project by interfering with the completion of construction in progress. Thus, GCID urges an increase in the overall budget

for refuge supply projects, which would assure that the funds earmarked for the

GCID Refuge Conveyance Project will be available, and may alleviate funding problems associated with other Central Valley refuge supply projects which are also essential.

GCID’s Refuge Conveyance Project will enable the District to make year-around

water deliveries to the three National Wildlife Refuges in the GCID service territory

(the Sacramento, Delevan and Colusa National Wildlife Refuges) as well as make

Stony Creek available for possible fish restoration activities. It will also allow water

deliveries during the winter for crop diversification and to expand the acreage flooded for rice straw decomposition and wildlife habitat. This project is the most efficient and least costly way to provide expanded water service to the Sacramento Refuge complex, as required by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of GCID, I would like

to express my appreciation for your past support of our efforts to address the fish

bypass problem at the Hamilton City Pump Station and our refuge water supply

project, and I respectfully request your support once again in the fiscal year 2000

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.

Thank you for your consideration.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with the Coachella Valley Water District as

local sponsor, is nearing completion of the feasibility study for the Whitewater River

Basin flood control project. This statement provides a brief status report on this important project.

The Whitewater River Basin feasibility study is defining a flood control project in

the northern portion of the Coachella Valley in the low desert area of Southern California. This area is subject to alluvial fan type flooding originating from sources as

far north as Joshua Tree National Park. This area has existing businesses and residences and is forecast to be a potential growth area.

The feasibility study is formulating a plan which will have a favorable benefit cost

ratio for the flood control project. The feasibility study is also identifying a major

environmental restoration component. The study will identify nonstructural flood

control components which will enhance the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard

Preserve, protecting the endangered Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard as well as

providing a multispecies habitat area protected from development. Without this

flood control project, protecting the sand source for the dune environment of the preserve could be very difficult to achieve.

The local community supports the flood protection goals of this project and the

local environmental community supports the project as well.

Thank you for the continued funding of the feasibility study. The project proposed

in the feasibility study will be put forward for your consideration for the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, if possible. Your careful consideration of this important flood control/environmental enhancement project will be appreciated.
550

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSS ROGERS, GENERAL MANAGER, MERCED IRRIGATION

DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Ross Rogers, General

Manager of the Merced Irrigation District. I am respectfully submitting this statement on behalf of the County of Merced, the City of Merced, and the Merced Irrigation District, which jointly form an informal coalition commonly known as the

Merced County Streams Group for the purpose of performing maintenance functions

along portions of the Merced County Streams Project. The County of Merced, together with the State of California, is the sponsor of the Merced County Streams

Project. The El Nido Irrigation District and the Le Grand Athlone Water District

are also concerned in this matter.

Federal authorization for the project construction was granted as part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985. Authorized facilities include constructing dry

dams on Canal (Castle Dam) and Black Rascal Creeks (Haystack Mountain Dam),

enlargement of the existing Bear Creek Dam, and modifications of levees and channels along more than 25 miles of Fahrens, Black Rascal, Cottonwood, and Bear

Creeks. The completed project will provide flood protection worth more than

$10,000,000 per year to 263,000 acres of urban and agricultural lands. Total project

cost is currently estimated to be $133,000,000 of which $40,000,000 or roughly 31

percent will be paid during construction by the local beneficiaries.

When completed, more than 240,000 residents occupying 55,000 housing units

within the greater metropolitan Merced area will live with assurance of 125-year

flood protection, while the lower rural area will receive 25-year protection.

The first component of the project, Castle Dam, was completed in 1992. This component was constructed under budget, ahead of schedule, and without a lost-time

accident. Without Castle Dam during the intense storms of January, February,

March 1995, January 1997 and January, February, March, 1998, the city of Merced

would have been partially inundated.

As a result of a request by the County of Merced, the Corps of Engineers has reevaluated project components and will extend the boundaries of the levee and channel portion of the project to better match growth that has taken place in the city

of Merced. This willingness to remain flexible throughout the lengthy planning and

design process is also a credit to the Corps and its staff.

The Merced County Streams Project is a modification and expansion of an earlier

flood project constructed between 1948 and 1957. It has undergone considerable review and modification since first authorized as part of the Flood Control Act of 1970.

Approximately $18,000,000 has been spent to date on the Merced County Streams

Project. This has been matched with local contributions of approximately

$3,000,000. As partners in the construction of this project, the local agency sponsors

have worked closely with the Corps to establish an economic balance between costs

and benefits. As a result of this combined effort, nonessential project components

were first scaled back and eventually eliminated. This scaling to fit the economic

reality resulted in substantial federal and local savings.

On January 15, February 3 and March 25, 1998, due to El Nin ̃o-driven storms,

Bear Creek overtopped its banks in several locations within and downstream of the

city of Merced, flooding 33 homes, county, city and Merced Irrigation District infrastructure, and thousands of acres of prime agricultural land, with total damages in

the millions of dollars. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, with input from the National Weather Service, estimates that the January 15th and March 25th events

were both one-in–100 year events, unprecedented for the area. The greatest storm

intensity in both storms centered in northeastern Merced County in and around the

watershed of Black Rascal Creek, tributary to Bear Creek, upstream of the Merced

County Streams Project’s proposed Haystack Mountain Dam site. According to

Corps of Engineer’s rating tables for the Black Rascal Creek Bypass gaging station,

January flows reached 4,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) in a channel with a rated

maximum capacity of 3,000 cfs, 143 percent of channel capacity. March flows exceeded 4,700 cfs, or 157 percent of channel capacity. Had the Merced County

Streams Project’s Haystack Mountain Dam been in place, no flooding would have

occurred along Bear Creek during the January, February or March events.

Due primarily to the New Years, 1997 devastating California flood, the U. S. Congress and the California legislature authorized a four year study, identified as: ‘‘Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study.’’ The study was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Sacramento River) and the 1964 Congressional Resolution (San Joaquin River). According to a brochure distributed by

The Reclamation Board of the State of California and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, the study:
551

‘‘. . . will initially identify problems, opportunities, planning objectives,

constraints, and measures to address flooding and ecosystem problems in

the study area. It will ultimately develop a strategy for flood damage reduction and integrated ecosystem restoration along with identification of

projects for early implementation. Solutions will include consideration of

both structural and non-structural measures . . .’’

According to the study timeline, in April, 1999, an interim report will be presented to Congress. In 2001, a Draft Strategy for Flood Management and Related

Environmental Restoration will be completed. By the Spring of 2002, the final Strategy and EIS/EIR, including an implementation plan will be completed.

There is great concern on the part of the City of Merced, County of Merced and

the Merced Irrigation District officials that the Merced County Streams Project will

be ‘‘swallowed up’’ by the Comprehensive Study, becoming one of many new flood

control projects that have not yet received Congressional authorization. The Merced

County Streams Project has been authorized by Congress. This important and urgent Project must not lose its priority for Congressional funding or be further delayed while the Comprehensive Study is undertaken.

The project has the support of state and local authorities and funding of the nonfederal portion has been addressed.

We request the Committee’s support for the inclusion of $500,000 in the 1998/99

budget, as recommended by the California Water Commission and the Corps of Engineers, for the orderly progress of the Merced County Streams Project, which is so

vital to the community, state, and the nation.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MILTON LOSOYA, MAYOR, CITY OF WOODLAND

The City of Woodland requests Congressional support for adding $750,000 to the

fiscal year 2000 federal budget, to enable the Corps of Engineers to begin the Cache

Creek Flood Protection Feasibility Study in fiscal year 2000. The study, estimated

to cost $2,500,000 million over a 2–3 year period, will be 50 percent federally funded, 50 percent state and local funded. The City Council has approved the City funding for the local share.

FEMA has recently completed a new Flood Insurance Study for the Woodland

area, showing approximately a 600 percent increase in the area of the city in the

100 year flood plain. This creates a significant impact to existing residences and

businesses, and a virtual building moratorium on new industrial development,

which is now predominately in an unnumbered A zone. This will have major economic impact on the City of Woodland if not addressed in an expeditious and

proactive manner.

The Corps of Engineers has completed two Reconnaissance Studies (Reconnaissance Report, Westside Tributaries to Yolo Bypass, CA June 1994, and Northern

California Streams Reconnaissance Report, Cache Creek Environmental Restoration, California, December 1995) which address structural solutions to this problem.

The Corps studies show a benefit cost ratios of between 1.3 and 1.8 depending on

the solution selected. Analysis indicates that the flood threat has been intensified

by the construction of Interstate Highway I–5, which diagonally bisects the community. Considering projected damage estimates for the 100 year flood, the project

shows a 1.8 benefit cost ratio. The annualized cost for flood protection is about half

the annualized cost of damages from a 100 year flood. With the receipt of the proposed revisions to FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps, there is clear community

support to proceed with a structural fix to the flood protection system.

The next step is completion of a Corps feasibility study to determine the optimum

solution for the community, so that design can begin. Given the impacts to the community, a two year schedule for the study is desired so that we may proceed as soon

as possible with a structural fix (costs of which are estimated by the Corps to range

from $42,000,000 to $84,000,000).

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE PETTYGROVE, MAYOR, CITY OF

FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is George Pettygrove. I

am the Mayor of the City of Fairfield, California. The City of Fairfield requests

$400,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill to continue

funding for the Ledgewood Creek Section 205 Small Flood Control Project.

In fiscal year 1999, Congress provided $300,000 to begin study of flooding on

Ledgewood Creek. The requested appropriation in fiscal year 2000 will complete the
552

feasibility study necessary to determine appropriate flood control measures for this

area of the City.

When the Corps of Engineers studied Ledgewood Creek in preparation for the design of the Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project improvements, the Corps predicted

that Ledgewood Creek, within the unincorporated area of Solano County, could bifurcate and flood Interstate Highway 80 (I–80). On Tuesday, February 3, 1998, the

prediction came true. Runoff from the Ledgewood Creek drainage basin could not

be contained within the unimproved creek channel and the creek overflowed. At 7:44

a.m. all four westbound lanes of I–80 and three of the four eastbound lanes were

closed. Within an hour after the closure, the freeway became a giant parking lot,

spanning nearly 15 miles east to Interstate 505. At its worst, 18 inches of water

covered four westbound lanes for roughly 600 feet. Caltrans reopened the freeway

at 12:38 p.m., the result of naturally receding water, lighter showers, and Caltrans’

crews pumping water back into the creek. The five hour closure of I–80 caused some

commuters to be three hours late to work, as well as trucking delays in delivery

of goods.

Due to a combination of the construction of the Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project

and the construction of developer improvements, a portion of Ledgewood Creek has

been improved to carry a 100-year storm water event from the Fairfield City limits

to the Suisun Marsh. The solution to the flooding problem on I–80 is to extend the

100-year improvements to the north to include an upper reach of Ledgewood Creek

from the Fairfield City limits to Abernathy Lane. If the Abernathy Lane crossing

and the downstream channel of Ledgewood Creek are improved, bifurcation will be

eliminated and so will the flooding of I–80. Also, the Corps of Engineers could submit their design with calculations to FEMA and obtain a letter of map revision to

remove all of the properties below I–80 that are within the AO flood zone. The benefit to the community is not only the prevention of the I–80 flooding, but the removal of approximately 300 acres of residential, commercial, and industrial property

from the FEMA flood zone, thereby eliminating the need to buy flood insurance.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the City of Fairfield,

and I urge your support for this priority project for our region.

PREPARED STATEMENT JON D. MIKELS, CHAIRMAN, SUPERVISOR, SECOND DISTRICT,

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, State of California, appreciates the opportunity to bring the following flood control and water conservation

projects to your attention for consideration in the fiscal year 1999–2000 Federal

Budget.

Corps of Engineers:

Santa Ana River Mainstem—Construction of Seven Oaks Dam,

San Timoteo Creek Reach 3B and Lower Santa Ana River

Reaches 8 & 9. New construction start for Prado Dam. .......... $28,000,000

Upper Santa Ana River Watershed—Reconnaissance Study ..... 100,000

Orange County, Santa Ana River Basin—Feasibility Study ...... 100,000

Mojave River Forks Dam—Feasibility Study ............................... 300,000

San Bernardino County Feasibility Studies—a. Lytle Creek, b.

Wilson, Potato and Wildwood Creeks ........................................ 100,000

Mission Zanja Creek—Feasibility Study ...................................... ( 1 )

Bureau of Reclamation: San Sevaine Creek Water Project—Public

Law 84–984 Small Reclamation Projects Act Loan Program ......... 10,180,000

1Support.

The Board, once again, wishes to express its deep appreciation for your past and

present support of these priority programs in San Bernardino County.

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM PROJECT

Project Description

The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project includes seven interdependent features:

Mill Creek Levee, Oak Street Drain, San Timoteo Creek, Lower Santa Ana River,

Seven Oaks Dam, Prado Dam and Santiago Creek. Mill Creek Levee, Oak Street

Drain, San Timoteo Creek Reaches 1, 2 and 3A and the Lower Santa Ana River

Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 are complete. Completion of all of the features

will provide (a) the necessary flood protection within Orange, Riverside and San

Bernardino Counties; (b) enhancement and preservation of marshlands and wetlands for endangered waterfowl, fish and wildlife species; (c) recreation amenities;
553

and (d) floodplain management of the 30 miles of Santa Ana River between Seven

Oaks Dam and Prado Dam.

San Bernardino County Features Status

Seven Oaks Dam: Intake structure excavation, abutment stripping and outlet

works/diversion tunnel contract is complete. Embankment and spillway construction

contract was awarded in March 1994. Construction is progressing satisfactorily and

is 91 percent complete as of January 1999. Construction can be completed in fiscal

year 1999/2000.

San Timoteo Creek: San Timoteo Creek/Reach 1 construction was completed in

September 1996. Construction on Reaches 2 & 3A was completed in April 1998.

Overall, construction is approximately 60 percent complete.

Funding Required

The funding amount required exceeds the President’s proposed budget by

$3,000,000 due to necessary studies and mitigation for endangered species. In addition, $5,000,000 is requested for Design and Construction start for Prado Dam. To

continue construction of the Mainstem Project on schedule in fiscal year 1999/2000,

federal funding in the amount of $28,000,000 would be required as follows:

Seven Oaks Dam: Construction and Mitigation .................................. $3,000,000

Lower Santa Ana River:

Construct Reaches 8 & 9 ................................................................ 13,000,000

Landscaping and Sediment Removal ............................................ 5,000,000

Engineering Design ........................................................................ 2,000,000

Prado Dam: Design and Construction start ........................................ 5,000,000

PROJECT AUTHORIZED: Public Law 94–587, Section 109, Approved October 22,

1976, Public Law 99–662, Water Resources Development Act of 1986

TOTAL PROJECT COST: $1,400,000,000—Includes $473,000,000 local share

PRESIDENT’S BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 .......................... $20,000,000

FUNDING SHORTFALL FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 .......................... 8,000,000

REQUIRED FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 ............................ 28,000,000

REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $28,000,000 for Santa Ana River Mainstem,

F.Y. 1999/2000.

SAN TIMOTEO CREEK

Project Description

The San Timoteo Creek is a major tributary to the Santa Ana River in the east

San Bernardino Valley. A large watershed of approximately 126 square miles drains

into the creek which flows through the cities of Redlands, Loma Linda and San

Bernardino before discharging into the Santa Ana River. The existing creek, in all

three cities, has an earthen bottom and partially improved embankments reinforced

with rail and wire revetments.

Major storm flows along the creek in 1938, 1961, 1965, 1969 and 1978 caused considerable damage to the creek itself as well as overtopping the banks and causing

loss of life and severe property damage.

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1988 authorized improvement of San Timoteo Creek as part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project.

The improvements include the construction of approximately 5.5 miles of concretelined channel from the Santa Ana River upstream through the cities of San

Bernardino, Loma Linda and Redlands plus the construction of debris retention facilities at the upstream end of the project in the form of in-channel sediment storage

basins.

Project Status

Overall project construction is 60 percent complete. An alternative has been developed for Reach 3B that will include the construction of approximately 1300 feet of

improved channel and 18 in-channel sedimentation basins. Plans for the final phase

will be developed during the remaining 1998/1999 fiscal year with completion anticipated during the mid 1999/2000 fiscal year.

Completed Phases

Reach 1: 0.7 Mile of Channel, COMPLETED, September 1996; Waterman Avenue

Bridge, COMPLETED, September 1996.

Reach 2: 1.9 Miles of Channel, COMPLETED, December 1997; Redlands Boulevard Bridge, COMPLETED, March 1998.

Reach 3A: 0.8 Mile of Channel, COMPLETED, May 1998.
554

Remaining Construction and Schedule

Reach 3B: 0.2 Mile of Channel and 18 Sedimentation Basins along 2.2 Miles of

channel. Plans and Specifications: June 1998–December 1999; Right-of-Way Acquisition: April 1999–December 1999; Construction Start: April 2000; and Construction

Completion: September 2001.

Estimated Project Cost

The total estimated project cost is approximately $67,000,000 with the federal

participating cost at 75 percent or $50,250,000 and the local participating cost at

25 percent or $16,750,000. The cost of the remainder of the project is estimated to

be $35,000,000, with the Federal share at $26,250,000 and the local share at

$8,750,000

REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of continued funding for the San Timoteo Creek

Project.

UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED RECONNAISSANCE STUDY

The area will focus on the watershed of the Santa Ana River and tributaries located above Prado Dam and primarily in San Bernardino County. The study is to

describe all watershed characteristics and uses to define problem areas under

present and future conditions and assist county and local interests in developing a

long term master plan for watershed management in the interest of improving specific water resource uses including environmental preservation and restoration, urbanization water supply and conservation and water-related recreation activities.

The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the reconnaissance

study for management of the upper Santa Ana River Watershed.

REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $100,000 for upper Santa Ana River Watershed, F.Y. 1999/2000.

ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY (CHINO AGRICULTURE

PRESERVE AREA)

The Chino Dairies are located in a 30 square mile area immediately north of

Prado Dam reservoir, in the unincorporated portion of San Bernardino County, California. The study provides information on the following elements: operations of

Chino Dairies, water conservation in Chino Groundwater Basin, flood control facilities to relieve runoff from upstream development in the City of Ontario, water quality concerns of Orange County residents and the regulatory enforcement of the

Chino Dairies. The Chino Dairies provide 25 percent of all the milk consumed in

California and it is a one billion dollar industry.

The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the feasibility study

to help with flood control facilities, water conservation and keep the dairies maintain their viability.

REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $100,000 for Orange County, Santa Ana

River Basin, F.Y. 1999/2000.

MOJAVE RIVER FORKS DAM FEASIBILITY STUDY

The Mojave River flows north out of the San Bernardino Mountains into the

desert communities of Victorville and Barstow. The Mojave River Forks Dam (Dam)

is an ungated facility designed and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to alleviate flooding. Since that time, environmental regulations such as the

Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and the recent water rights adjudication

have changed the River’s uses. The study will consider factors such as the current

water rights adjudication while facilitating balance among the River’s competing

uses and diverse interest. Alternatives include modification of the Dam’s operation

and outlet works, construction of a release tower and operable gates and construction of one or more off-line detention basins.

The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports this feasibility phase

study to evaluate viable water conservation alternatives while optimizing the balance between environmental, flood control and water supply needs.

REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $300,000 for Mojave River Forks Dam, F.Y.

1999/2000.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDIES (LYTLE CREEK AND WILSON, POTATO &

WILDWOOD CREEKS)

The Lytle Creek drainage basin comprises 173 square miles in the north-central

part of the Santa Ana River Basin, San Bernardino County, California. The purpose

of the study is to conduct an investigation of the Lytle Creek watershed to deter-
555

mine opportunities for water quality/flood control enhancement, sediment/erosion

control and environmental restoration. Sand and gravel operations along the Creek

have resulted in damages to the drainage patterns, sediment movement and the riparian habitat. In addition, a high rate of urbanization in the ‘‘Inland Empire’’ region has led to increased runoff. These factors pose an increase flood risk in the

basin.

Wilson, Potato and Wildwood Creeks originate in the San Bernardino Mountains

and flow in a south and southwesterly direction through the city of Yucaipa, San

Bernardino County. The study would investigate methods to control erosion and reduce the impacts to the downstream open space areas, residences and commercial

areas within the watershed. The runoff creates a large volume of debris and sediment within the City of Yucaipa. Flooding along these creeks is threatening to damage residential and commercial development and infrastructure facilities.

The San Bernardino County Flood Control District is requesting these feasibility

studies to evaluate the systems and determine appropriate methods of protection

through new facilities and management of the existing floodplain.

REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of $100,000 for San Bernardino County, F.Y.

1999/2000.

MISSION ZANJA CREEK FEASIBILITY STUDY

The area is located in the City of Redlands, San Bernardino County. The Mission

Zanja Creek (Creek) project begins at about 2,000 feet east of Interstate 10 to the

Reservoir Canyon Drain, just west of 8th Street. Floods of 1965, 1976 and 1980

caused about $4,300,000 million (1988 price level) in damages. Frequent flooding

along the Creek is caused by inadequate capacity of the existing inlet to the covered

channel near 9th Street. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study indicates that expansion of inlet on the Creek will result in a small increase in the level of protection, but will increase flooding the areas surrounding Reservoir Canyon Drain. Even

though, this project will cause flooding at the downstream area, but it will be much

smaller.

The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the feasibility study

to improve the inlet of Mission Zanja Creek to reduce flooding area.

REQUESTED ACTION: Support of Mission Zanja Creek, F.Y. 1999/2000.

SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT

Project Description

The San Sevaine Creek Water Project includes ten recharge facilities, two miles

of levees; construction of seven miles of drainage ways to convey runoff to the recharge facilities; six miles of linear parkways; and the preservation of 137 acres of

sensitive wildlife habitat. This project will provide water conservation and flood protection to a drainage area of approximately 51 square miles within the cities of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario as well as San Bernardino and Riverside

Counties. There will be an average of approximately 25,000 acre-feet per year of

groundwater recharge from the San Sevaine and Etiwanda Creeks’ tributaries in

the project area.

Project Status

The Loan Application was signed by the Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner

Eluid Martinez on April 11, 1996, approved by the Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt on May 9, 1996. As of July 15, 1996, the San Sevaine Creek Water Project completed 60-day congressional approval process. On December 17, 1996, the project Repayment Agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino

County and approved on January 8, 1997 by Robert Johnson, Regional Director of

the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has indicated an eight-year construction

schedule with project completion by the Year 2006.

Although considerable levee, channel and interim basin work has already been

completed at various locations of this major water project, continued federal assistance from this Small Reclamation Project Act loan and grant are required to complete the project’s construction. Without these funds it will be decades before local

interests can accrue sufficient funds to construct this vital water project. To date,

the Bureau of Reclamation has provided approximately $10,500,000 million towards

construction of the project.

The California Water Commission has consistently, since the late 1980’s, supported the construction of this project.

Public Law 84–984,

Federal Authority as amended in 1956

Bureau of Reclamation grant contribution approximately ................. $27,400,000
556

Public Law 84–984,

Federal Authority as amended in 1956

Bureau of Reclamation loan contribution approximately ................... 19,200,000

Total B of R project (not additive) Approximately ................... 52,900,000

Total Local Contribution Approximately ............................................. 33,700,000

1997/98 fiscal year Federal Budget (New Project Start) .................... 1,333,000

1998/99 fiscal year Federal Budget ...................................................... 1,177,000

President’s Budget fiscal year 1999/2000 ............................................ 10,180,000

The District and County have coordinated with the Bureau of Reclamation and

the National Water Resources Agency in a cooperative effort to obtain the continued

funding for this project. The District and County appreciate the continuing support

provided by the Bureau of Reclamation towards this project.

REQUESTED ACTION: Support President’s proposed F.Y. 1999/2000 budget in

the amount of $10.18 Million.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH E. BEIER, MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY OF ESCONDIDO,

CALIFORNIA, AND MARIE WALDRON, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the seventh straight year,

we are pleased to have the opportunity submit this testimony in support of continued funding for the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program, including the Escondido portion. Let us say again how much we appreciate what you have done for

the people of Escondido.

Last year, the Congress provided $13,000,000 for this project, as requested by the

Administration. And, as we reported to you last year, with the support we had received through fiscal year 1999 from Congress and the Administration, we were able

to move the project forward in full compliance with our agreement with the Bureau

of Reclamation. We hope you will be able to provide $10,600,000 for the total

project, fully funding the President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget Request. We know that

the budget caps and the other priorities in the President’s budget request place you

under enormous fiscal pressure, but we feel confident in asking for full funding because the people of Escondido still need usable water and it is still a fact that our

surrounding area is a desert with increasing dependence on reusable water. Let us

again point out that we will reclaim and reuse a large amount of the wastewater

that we now pump into the Pacific Ocean at a rate of 14,500,000 gallons per day.

THE ESCONDIDO WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM

As we must continue to report to you, San Diego County, especially the North

County where Escondido is located, continues to experience a tremendous population influx that has gone on since the early 1960s. With the population growth

that Escondido continues to experience, has come dramatic new economic development, both in the number of new businesses and our existing, historical agriculture

industry. All place new demands on our infrastructure and our water supply—both

potable and nonpotable. Through local planning and leadership, Escondido continues

to attempt to meet the challenge of maintaining a high quality of life for its people,

and, with this subcommittee’s continued support, can make it a reality.

While our specific program is important to the citizens of Escondido, we remain

a key part of the overall water planning effort of San Diego County. As part of the

San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program, we are pleased with the increased

amount of water that will be made available to the county as a result of this program.

COST AND FUNDING DATA

With respect to the Escondido portion of the project, we are please to report that,

through fiscal year 1999, Escondido has spent more than $14,000,000 on design,

preliminary studies, environmental documents, right of way purchases and construction of improvements at the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility (HARRF) and

reclaimed water pipelines. With your approval, since fiscal year 1994, Bureau of

Reclamation funding has reached $3,485,649. Phase I improvements to the HARRF

construction is well under way, and Phase II, which includes completion of the im-
557

provements at the HARRF and construction of the reclaimed water pipelines, pump

stations and reservoir, will commence construction in early fiscal year 2000.

We would be remiss in our stewardship of your support if we did not report to

you that the cost of the Escondido Regional Water Reclamation Program in 1999

dollars has increased to $76,575,000. This is a sharp increase in the project costs

and is a reflection of a robust construction economy in southern California. Region

wide construction costs have increased by a magnitude of 20 percent in the last two

years.

We are pleased that the California Water Commission again has supported our

program as a recommended program, and continue to be thankful for the support

of our sister agencies that comprise the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program. This program has been favorably reviewed by this subcommittee and your

counterpart in the other body, the Bureau of Reclamation, the California Water

Commission, and regional officials back home in San Diego County.

In closing, we are at the point of making large financial commitments to our

water reclamation and redistribution program and would not be able to do so without the past and present support of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water. And, as our fiscal commitments increase, our dependence upon support from Congress and the Bureau of Reclamation funding increases. Let us again express our thanks and our appreciation for the support you

have provided. We respectfully request your continued support, and would be delighted to respond to any questions the Subcommittee may have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN AND THE SAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

San Joaquin County, located in the heart of California’s central valley, has both

a vibrant agricultural economic base and a burgeoning metropolitan growth. Both

of these vital elements are vulnerable to the forces of nature. The 1997 flood inundated thousands of acres and threatened our major urban areas. The actual economic loss to the County in 1997 was staggering ($100∂ million) and the potential

loss due to flooding is enormous. The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency

(SJAFCA) has been formed and construction is nearly complete (a $70,000,000 investment) to restore the Stockton Metropolitan Area to a 100-year level of flood protection. We have aggressively moved ahead with this work to protect our people in

anticipation that a credit for our work would be forthcoming against a Corps-developed project. We are anxiously waiting for the Corps’ completion of the Section 211

reimbursement study.

At the other extreme of the weather spectrum, San Joaquin County is very vulnerable to drought-induced water shortages. Due to the export of our water by East

Bay Municipal Utility District to the Oakland area and by the Bureau of Reclamation to the CVP, San Joaquin County is deficient of an adequate water supply in

quantity and quality. Our groundwater levels dramatically drop during a less-thanaverage water year. During these drops, the threat of salt water intrusion in our

groundwater basin from the Delta is a major concern. Our local water district

(Stockton-East Water District) has invested $65,000,000 to allow transfer of

Stanislaus River flows to supplement our water supplies, but this project is dependent on the coordinated operation of New Melones Reservoir and local storage capability during wet years. We need to have the Corps complete the feasibility study

of the Farmington Dam recharge project in order to increase the yield of the severely limited Stanislaus River supply.

As you can see, we are willing to invest in our future and we will continue to do

so. The timely funding of these important studies is crucial to the economic wellbeing of San Joaquin County. These projects represent studies that need to be conducted in order to resolve problems on flood control, water supply, water quality,

groundwater and the environment in San Joaquin County. We need Federal help

in several of these projects and we request Federal appropriations during fiscal year

2000 for the following Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects:

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers—General Investigations-Surveys:

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study ................ $3,000,000

Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Investigations ............................... 200,000

San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211)

Requesting an Additional $180,000 ..................................................... 380,000

San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area (Farmington

Dam) ...................................................................................................... 150,000

San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers ............... 50,000

Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel Deepening .............. 150,000
558

Bureau of Reclamation:

South Delta Barriers ................................................................................ 20,000

Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration—CALFED ........................................ 95,000,000

DETAILED COMMENTS

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study ....................... $3,000,000

The San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study is an ongoing $9,000,000 study of

the water resources needs of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. Flood control

and environmental needs will receive equal consideration. We expect setback levees,

dredging and re-operation of existing reservoirs will receive a careful review in this

study. A status report to Congress is expected to be released this April, which will

outline $16,000,000 to $20,000,000 of studies to be performed in future years. The

President approved $3,500,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $2,000,000 for fiscal year

2000 for the collective San Joaquin and Sacramento River Basin Studies. At this

time, we do not know the exact allocation between each of the basins, although 50–

50 seems likely. The State is the cost-sharing partner in these studies.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Investigation ............................................... $200,000

This is a special study and a regional planning report which addresses multiple

resource needs, including flood control, recreation, environmental restoration, navigation, water supply, etc. The California Department of Water Resources is the costsharing partner with the CALFED process. To date, field test levee-strengthening

methods have been pursued and the study provides input to the CALFED process.

The President’s budget for this investigation for fiscal year 2000 is $200,000.

San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area ................................. $380,000

Before Federal dollars can be appropriated to reimburse the local agency (up to

75 percent reimbursement), a Section 211 Report must be approved by the Secretary

of the Army. The 211 Report should be completed later this year or early next year.

The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget of $200,000 is adequate to complete the required 211 Report, but an additional $180,000 is required to adequately proceed

with the Feasibility Report addressing rural flood control improvements. The Corps’

Draft Feasibility Report is due in August 1999 and the Final Feasibility Report is

due in March 2000.

San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area Farmington Dam $150,000

The study costs for this investigation will determine if a Federal interest may

exist for a groundwater recharge project and environmental enhancements. The

President has included $150,000 in his fiscal year 2000 budget. The current fiscal

year 1999 budget includes $400,000. Since this is a feasibility study, all Federal

funds must be matched by local funds. The local cost-sharing sponsor for this study

will be the Stockton East Water District.

San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers ...................... $50,000

A Reconnaissance Study of ecological restoration and non-structural flood control

improvements is being performed on the Mokelumne and Cosumnes Rivers. The current fiscal year 1999 funding is $18,000 and the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget

is $50,000. Separate studies and reports are being prepared by April 1999 for the

Cosumnes River (between the Delta and Michigan Bar) and the Mokelumne River

(between the Delta and Camanche Reservoir).

Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel Deepening ..................... $150,000

This is an ongoing feasibility study which is being performed for dredging and

deepening the San Joaquin River channel through the Delta to the port of Stockton

to depths of 40 feet. Greater depths will enhance navigation through the Delta to

and from the Port. A fiscal year 2000 budget of $150,000 has been proposed to perform the surveys. Please note that this project is not included on the California

Water Commission’s project listing because it is included in the California Marine

Affairs and Navigation Conference (CMANC) listing of projects.

Bureau of Reclamation

South Delta Barriers ....................................................................................... $20,000

The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to improve water quality. The fiscal year 1999 Budget includes funding for $200,000 and the President’s
559

fiscal year 2000 Budget includes funding for $20,000. In order to maintain the temporary program, $20,000 is needed and the California Water Commission may be

requested to recommend an increase in funding.

Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration ........................................................ $95,000,000

Current year funding is for $143,300,000 and the President’s fiscal year 2000

Budget has included $95,000,000. Funds for this program have been used primarily

for acquisition of lands, development of habitat, and fishery enhancement/protection

improvements. Although we support CALFED’s assistance with Woodbridge Irrigation District’s efforts of enhancing the Mokelumne River, we are concerned that the

overall CALFED program is overlooking the need of surface and groundwater supply requirements within the County of San Joaquin. The CALFED program does not

recognize county area of origin protections; and there are no water quality improvement objectives to improve the water quality of San Joaquin County water supplies.

There is no documentation of the benefits that will be derived from the expenditure

of funds, particularly to displace agricultural lands.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, SAN JOSE,

CALIFORNIA

CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

Background.—In an average year, half of Santa Clara County’s water supply is

imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary (BayDelta) watersheds through three water projects: The State Water Project, the federal Central Valley Project, and San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally-developed water, this water supply supports nearly 1,700,000 residents in the Santa Clara County, the most important high-tech center in the world.

In average to wet years, there is enough water to meet the county’s long-term needs.

In dry years, however, the county could face a water supply shortage of as much

as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or roughly 20 percent of the expected demand. In addition to shortages due to hydrologic variations, the county’s imported supplies have

been reduced due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation of the state and

federal water projects.

There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-Delta water as

a drinking water supply. Organic materials and pollutants discharged into the

Delta, together with salt water mixing in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection-by-products that are carcinogenic.

Santa Clara County’s imported supplies are also vulnerable to extended outages

due to catastrophic failures such as major earthquakes and flooding. And as demonstrated by the recent flooding in Central Valley, the levee systems can fail and

the water quality at the water project intakes in the Delta can be degraded to such

an extent that the projects cannot pump from the Delta.

Project Synopsis.—The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an unprecedented, cooperative effort among federal, state, and local agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With

input from urban, agricultural, environmental, fishing, and business interests, and

the general public, CALFED is developing a comprehensive, long-term plan to address ecosystem and water management issues in the Bay-Delta.

Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability for millions of Californians and the state’s

$700,000,000,000 economy and job base.

Although the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a long-range planning process, ecosystem restoration is an immediate priority because of the substantial lead time

needed to produce ecological benefits. Species in the Bay-Delta continue to be proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Recovery efforts cannot begin

until adequate funding becomes available to implement the array of critical ecosystem restoration and water quality projects.

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.—$75,000,000 was authorized in fiscal year 1999 for

CALFED Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the Congressional Committee support $95,000,000 in the Administration’s fiscal year 2000

Budget to finance early implementation of ecosystem restoration in the Bay-Delta,

provide critical improvement in water supply and water quality, and the continuance of final programmatic EIS/EIR.
560

GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT

Background.—The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing through a highly

developed area of San Jose, California. Historically, the river has flooded downtown

San Jose and Alviso beyond local prevention capabilities. According to the 1991 General Design Memorandum, estimated damages from a 1 percent flood in the urban

center of San Jose are over $526,000,000. The Guadalupe River overflowed in February 1986, January 1995, and March 1995, damaging homes and businesses in the

St. John and Pleasant Street areas of downtown San Jose. In March 1995, heavy

rains resulted in four separate breakouts along the river, inundating close to 300

homes and business.

Project Synopsis.—In 1971, the local community requested that the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (Corps) reactivate its earlier study. Since 1972, substantial technical and financial assistance has been provided by the local community through the

Santa Clara Valley Water District in an effort to accelerate the project’s completion.

To date, more than $70,500,000 in local funds have been spent on planning, design,

land purchases, and construction, and projects in the Corps’ project reach, as well

as in reaches downstream of the Corps’ limits, have been completed through the

local community’s efforts.

The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction under the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the final General Design Memorandum

was completed in 1992; the local cooperative agreement was executed in March

1992; construction of the first phase of the project was completed in August 1994;

construction of the second phase was completed in August 1996. Completion of the

last phase in 2002 is dependent on federal funds and mitigation issue resolution.

To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental impacts, and project maintenance

cost, a multi-agency ‘‘Guadalupe Flood Control Project Collaborative’’ was created in

1997. A key outcome of the collaborative process was the signing of the Dispute Resolution memorandum in 1998, which resolved major mitigation issues and allows

the project to proceed.

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.—$7,000,000 was authorized in fiscal year 1999 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.—Based upon the need to continue

construction to provide critical flood protection for downtown San Jose and the community of Alviso, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support

$5,000,000 in the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget for the continuance of

construction and mitigation work on the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.

UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT

Background.—The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways flowing

through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County, California. Historically, the

river has flooded the central district of San Jose and southern areas beyond local

prevention capabilities. According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998

feasibility study, severe flooding in the Upper Guadalupe River’s densely populated

residential floodplain south of Interstate 280 could potentially cause $280,000,000

in damages.

The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of flood prevention measures is high. The Upper Guadalupe River overflowed in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995, and February 1998, causing

damage to several residences and businesses in the Alma Street and Willow Street

areas. The 1995 floods in January and March, as well as in February 1998, closed

Highway 87 and the parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.

Project Synopsis.—In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District requested the

Corps to reactivate its earlier study. From 1971 to 1980, the Corps established the

economic feasibility and federal interest in the Guadalupe River only between Interstate 880 and Interstate 280. In light of the 1982 and 1983 floods, the Santa Clara

Valley Water District requested that the Corps reopen its study of the Upper Guadalupe River upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a reconnaissance

study in November 1989, which established an economically justifiable solution for

flood prevention in this reach. The report recommended proceeding to the feasibility

study phase, which began in 1990. In January 1997, the Corps determined that the

National Economic Development Plan would be sized to only provide a 2 percent or

50-year level of flood protection rather than the 1 percent or 100-year level. The

Santa Clara Valley Water District strongly emphasized overriding the development

plan’s determination, providing compelling reasons for the higher 1 percent or 100-

year level of protection. In 1998, the Acting Secretary of the Army did not concur

to extend the National Economic Development Plan’s 50-year plan to 100 years, re-
561

sulting in a project that will provide less flood protection, and therefore, be unable

to reduce flood insurance requirements and reimbursements, as well as eliminate

recreational benefits and increase environmental impacts. The Santa Clara Valley

Water District has requested that the costs of providing 50-year and 100-year flood

protection be analyzed again during the preconstruction /engineering design phase

and figured into the determination of the National Economic Plan.

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.—$575,000 was authorized in fiscal year 1999 for the

Upper Guadalupe River Project to proceed with preconstruction engineering and design.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.—Based upon the high risk of flood

damage from the Upper Guadalupe River and the need to continue preconstruction

engineering and design, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support

$300,000 in the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget for the Upper Guadalupe

River Flood Protection Project. Statement of

UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK PROJECT

Background.—The Upper penitencia Creek Watershed is located in northeast

Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San Francisco Bay.

In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in 1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and

1998. While the January 1995 flood damaged a commercial nursery, a condominium

complex, and a business park, the February 1998 flood damaged many homes, businesses, and surface streets.

The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of San Jose and Milpitas.

The watershed is completely urbanized; undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) 1995 reconnaissance report, 4,300 buildings are located in the flood prone area, 1,900 of which will have water entering

the first floor. The estimated damages from a 1 percent or 100-year flood exceed

$121,000,000.

Study Synopsis.—Under authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83–566), the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

completed an economic feasibility study (Watershed Plan) for constructing flood

damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia Creek. Following the 1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill, the NRCS watershed plan stalled due to the

very high ratio of urban development compared to agricultural development in the

project area.

The Santa Clara Valley Water District requested that the Corps proceed with a

reconnaissance study in April 1994 while the NRCS plan was on hold. Funds were

appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October 1994. The reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995,

with the recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The feasibility

study, initiated in February 1998, is scheduled for completion in 2001.

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.—$250,000 was authorized in fiscal year 1999 for the

Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for project investigation.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.—Funding Recommendation. Based

upon the high risk of flood damage from the Upper Penitencia Creek and the need

to proceed with the feasibility study, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support $250,000 in the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 Budget for the

Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project. Statement of

LLAGAS CREEK PROJECT

Background.—The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern Santa Clara

County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Martin.

Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in 1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982,

1986, 1996, and 1997. The January 1997 flood damaged many homes, businesses,

and a recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan Hill and San Martin

areas where protection is proposed. Overall, the proposed project will protect the

floodplain from a 1 percent flood affecting more than 1,100 residential buildings, 500

commercial buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land.

Project Synopsis.—Under authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL 83–566), the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) completed an economic feasibility study in 1982 for constructing flood damage reduction

facilities on Llagas Creek. The NRCS completed construction of the last segment of

the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing protection to the project area

in Gilroy. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is currently updating the 1982 en-
562

vironmental assessment work and applying for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps) 404 Permit for the project areas in Morgan Hill and San Martin.

Until recently, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the traditional PL–

566 federal project funding agreement with the NRCS paying for channel improvements and the Santa Clara Valley Water District paying local costs including utility

relocation, bridge construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to a steady decrease since 1985 of annual PL–566 appropriations, the Llagas Creek Project has

not received adequate funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture to complete the

PL–566 project. To remedy this situation, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has

been working with congressional representatives to legally transfer the construction

authority from the Department of Agriculture to the Corps. In order for Congress

to support this authorization transfer, the Corps must prepare a decision documents

to accompany the request. Using available fiscal year 1999 general investigation

funds, the Corps will initiate and complete a Limited Re-evaluation report, which

will function as the decision document.

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.—No federal appropriation received in fiscal year 1999.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.—Based upon the high risk of flood

damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support the addition of $880,000 in the Administration’s budget to continue construction of the Llagas Creek Project.

SANTA CLARA BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE

Background.—The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative was

spearheaded in 1996 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water

Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for the purpose of establishing a practical management process to oversee

the effort to balance natural systems with urban development in the Santa Clara

Basin. Recognizing the importance of quality of life and diversity, the initiative’s

goal is to establish an on-going process of managing activities and natural processes

to maximize benefits and minimize adverse environmental impacts for the benefit

of the community as a whole. The Santa Clara Basin Watershed includes areas in

northern Santa Clara County which drain into San Francisco Bay, and portions of

Alameda and San Mateo counties.

The initiative will address the integration of activities within the watershed while

focusing on water quality protection. Some of the specific issues being addressed include land use and development, water supply, flood management, environmental

restoration, and the regulatory process.

The Santa Clara Valley Water District is one of many stakeholders who continue

to demonstrate commitment to this multi-year effort by providing funds and actively

participating with the initiative’s Core Group and Working Group. Providing the initiative’s direction, the Core Group includes representatives of the business community, local government, environmental groups, agriculture, resource and regulatory

agencies, and other interested stakeholders.

The Initiation phase was completed in December 1996, and the 4-year planning

phase has commenced with a watershed assessment report that provides a preliminary assessment of the watershed’s condition based on available data. The assessment report is scheduled to be completed in March 2000. A state of the watershed

report describing alternatives to managing the watershed is scheduled to be completed in December 2000. The final product of the planning phase will be a comprehensive watershed management plan, incorporating stakeholder input and extensive public outreach, intended to guide watershed activities into the next century

as the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative moves into its implementation phase.

Section 503 of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, authorizes the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide technical and planning assistance in the

development of a watershed plan for the Santa Clara Valley. The Watershed Management Initiative has progressed to the point where the Corps’ participation is now

necessary for continuing the watershed assessment and addressing pressing regulatory issues.

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.—No federal appropriation was authorized in fiscal

year 1999 for the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.—In order to continue the initiative’s

progress to date, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support the addition of $300,000 in the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget to cost-share Santa

Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative work, including conducting a watershed assessment, developing a data management system, identifying project alternatives, and directing stakeholder meetings.
563

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

Background.—The San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project is located near Los

Banos on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Fresno, Kings, and Merced

counties. The San Luis Unit is an integral part of the Central Valley Project, delivering water and power supplies from the American, Shasta and Trinity rivers to

users located in the service area.

Specific facilities of the San Luis Unit are owned, operated, and maintained jointly with the state of California. These Joint Use Facilities consist of O’Neill Dam and

Forebay, San Luis Dam and Reservoir, San Luis Pumping-Generating Plant, Dos

Amigos Pumping Plant, Los Banos and Little Panoche reservoirs, and the San Luis

Canal. These facilities are essential to the State Water Project’s ability to serve numerous agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Funding for the Joint Use Facilities are divided to 55

percent state and 45 percent federal, under provisions of Federal-State Contract No.

14–06–200–9755, December 31, 1961.

Within the Central Valley Project, the Joint Use Facilities of the San Luis Unit

are an important link to the San Felipe Division, which serves as the largest source

of water imported into the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Benito

County Water District. All of the Central Valley Project water delivered through the

San Felipe Division must be pumped through O’Neill Dam and Forebay and San

Luis Dam and Reservoir.

Project Synopsis.—Annual invoices from the state of California for the federal

share of operation and maintenance costs average approximately $10,000,000. For

several years, federal funding was inadequate to cover the pro-rated federal share

of Joint Use Facility costs. The Santa Clara Valley Water District intervened by

using the contributed Funds Act to direct a $20,000,000 advance payment of its

Central Valley Project capital costs toward an operations and maintenance payment.

As a contractor of both the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project,

the Santa Clara Valley Water District hopes to expediently resolve the issue of unreimbursed operations and maintenance expenses. These expenses are carried by

the state without interest, seriously impairing the cash flow and financial management of the State Water Project.

In fiscal year 1998, an agreement was reached between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and project contractors to provide direct funding for project conveyance

and pumping facilities, reducing annual appropriations from approximately

$10,000,000 to $3,500,000.

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.—$3,500,000 was authorized in fiscal year 1999 for operations and maintenance of the San Luis Joint Use Facilities.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.—Based upon past expenditures, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support $4,525,000 in the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget to continue operations and maintenance of the San

Luis Unit Joint Use Facilities.

SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM

Background.—The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, also

known as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the city of San Jose

and its tributary agencies of the San Jose /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control

Plant to protect endangered species habitat, meet receiving water quality standards,

supplement Santa Clara County water supplies, and comply with a mandate from

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Water Resources Control Board to reduce wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay.

The Santa Clara Valley Water District is participating with the city of San Jose

in the development of the reclamation and reuse program. Toward this end, the

Santa Clara Valley Water District is assisting the city of San Jose by providing financial support and technical assistance, and acting as a liaison for water retailers.

The design, construction, construction administration, and inspection of the program’s transmission pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline was performed by the Santa

Clara Valley Water District under contract to the city of San Jose.

The city of San Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1, consisting of almost 60

miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, pump stations, and reservoirs.

Completed at a cost of $140,000,000, Phase 1 is scheduled for full operation in May

1999 with expected deliveries of 5,000 acre-feet per year of recycled, nonpotable

water.

Phase 2 planning is now underway. A study, to be completed in 1999 at a cost

of approximately $3,500,000, will provide a master plan for the years 2005 and

2020. Phase 2’s near-term objective is to increase deliveries by the year 2005 to

15,000 acre-feet per year.
564

In 1992, PL 102–575 authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the city

of San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to plan, design, and build

demonstration and permanent facilities for reclaiming and reusing water in the San

Jose metropolitan service area. The city of San Jose reached an agreement with the

Bureau of Reclamation to cover 25 percent of Phase 1’s costs, or approximately

$35,000,000; however, federal appropriations have not reached the authorized

amount.

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.—$3,000,000 was authorized in fiscal year 1999 for

project construction.

Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Recommendation.—It is requested that the Congressional Committee support an additional appropriation of $7,000,000 to the

$3,000,000 included in the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget, for a total of

$10,000,000 to fund the Phase 2 study and cover congressionally authorized appropriations for Phase 1 work.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION

PROGRAM

The City of San Diego provides water service as well as wastewater collection,

treatment and disposal service to a growing metropolitan area of two million people.

The City receives 90 percent of its water supply from Colorado River and northern

California sources, hundreds of miles distant from the City. Located at the tail end

of this extensive aqueduct supply system, San Diego is most vulnerable to outages

or reductions in supplies from these sources. In conjunction with its wholesale water

supplier, the San Diego County Water Authority, the City is engaged in a long-term

effort to reduce regional reliance on imported water supplies. The San Diego Water

Reclamation Program is critical to the success of this effort.

The City will have invested over $365,000,000 in water reclamation facilities

through this fiscal year, and has programmed another $70,000,000 in fiscal year

2000 to continue these efforts. Upon completion of the water reclamation and recycling projects in the next 20 years, the City will have well over $1,000,000,000 of

capital investment in this program. The City’s projects include 4 new and one expanded water reclamation plants with a combined capacity of 70,000,000 gallons per

day. The 30 mgd North City Water Reclamation Plant has been in operation and

delivering reclaimed water to customers since September 1997, and the 7 mgd first

phase of the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant is currently under construction.

Also included are over 125 miles of reclaimed water distribution system pipelines,

and a groundwater project providing for conjunctive use of reclaimed water and

other sources of supply.

Section 1612 of Public Law 102–575, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,

authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Interior to provide financial support

for water reclamation projects in the San Diego area. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to participate in the planning, design and construction of water

reclamation projects serving the San Diego area at a federal cost-share of up to 25

percent. Based on the criteria established by the Bureau of Reclamation regarding

funding eligibility, approximately $168,000,000 through this fiscal year, and

$193,000,000 of the projected expenditures through fiscal year 2000 are eligible for

federal funding. Nearly half of the $1,000,000,000 of projected expenditures over the

next 20 years would be eligible for the 25 percent federal funding.

These costs represent a heavy financial burden for the City to bear alone. Federal

participation will help make this innovative water supply program a reality. Therefore, the City of San Diego respectfully requests the Committee to recommend appropriating funds in the amount of at least $10,600,000 in fiscal year 2000 for the

San Diego region through the Bureau of Reclamation program.

San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program

The San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program is an ambitious, long-term program designed to decrease regional reliance on imported water supplies. The Program is a cooperative effort by the cities of San Diego, Escondido, and Poway; the

Otay Water District; the Padre Dam Municipal Water District; the Sweetwater Authority; the Tia Juana Valley County Water District; and San Diego County Water

Authority. Together, these agencies have developed a system of interconnected

water reclamation projects that will make the best use of existing and planned

water reclamation facilities and result in a cost effective and efficient use of local

water resources.

When completed, the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program will serve an

area of more than 700 square miles, from the agricultural valleys near the City of
565

Escondido in the north to the expanding business centers along the international

border with Mexico in the south. Ultimately, over 27,000,000,000 gallons (83,000

acre-feet) will be added annually to the region’s scarce local water supply, more than

doubling the current average local water supply. Facilities to be constructed include

up to ten new or expanded water reclamation plants, hundreds of miles of reclaimed

water delivery pipeline, and a groundwater project providing for conjunctive use of

reclaimed water and other sources of supply.

Implementation of the San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program will produce

both economic and environmental benefits. The development of local reclaimed

water supplies will provide opportunities for environmental enhancement projects

within San Diego County and reduce the demand for imported water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, an environmentally sensitive water body of national significance. The availability of a reliable local water supply is also critical

to the region’s long-term economic health and its ability to attract and retain employers. In the near-term, construction of the reclamation facilities will stimulate

the local economy by creating jobs in construction-related industries. After the facilities are completed, many high-wage, high-skill jobs will be created in the operation

and maintenance fields.

Construction is already under way or completed for a number of these reclamation

facilities. The City of San Diego has completed the construction of its flagship reclamation facility, the 30 mgd North City Water Reclamation Plant. Reclaimed water

has been delivered to numerous customers in the North City area and the City of

Poway since September 1997. And construction of the City of San Diego’s 7 mgd

first phase of the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant is under way.

With an annual cost in the range of $900-$1,200 per acre-foot, the San Diego Area

Reclamation Program is competitive with the development of new imported or other

local water supplies. However, the level of capital investment makes it a heavy financial burden for the local agencies. The vast majority of the capital costs would

have to be funded by local ratepayers. The financial feasibility of this ambitious

water supply development project, if funded solely with local resources, is questionable. Federal participation would provide the means to ensure the project is constructed and the benefits realized.

City of San Diego Regional Water Reclamation Project

The City of San Diego is undertaking a regional water reclamation program which

will ultimately provide over 19,600,000,000 gallons (60,200 acre-feet) of reclaimed

water annually to users within the City of San Diego and surrounding communities.

The proposed regional reclamation system will include four new and one expanded

water reclamation plants: two in northern San Diego, one in central San Diego, and

two in southern San Diego near the international border with Mexico. These water

reclamation facilities will serve agricultural, commercial, industrial and residential

customers through a network of over 125 miles of distribution pipeline, as well as

a groundwater recharge and extraction project providing for conjunctive use of reclaimed water and other sources of supply.

Northern/Central Regional Water Reclamation System

The City of San Diego completed construction of its flagship reclamation facility,

the 30-million-gallon-per-day (mgd) North City Water Reclamation Plant (North

City WRP), in April 1997. The North City WRP could ultimately provide up to

9,800,000,000 gallons (30,000 acre-feet) of reclaimed water annually to meet commercial, industrial and landscape irrigation demands in northern and central San

Diego and the southern portions of the neighboring City of Poway. Reclaimed water

will be delivered to over 750 user sites via an extensive network of pump stations

and pipelines. The City of Poway has completed a portion of its southern reclaimed

water distribution system and has been taking deliveries from the North City WRP.

Initial users in San Diego include the internationally known Torrey Pines Golf

Course, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, and CalTrans, as well as numerous

schools, parks, nurseries and residential homeowner associations. The existing

North City reclaimed water distribution system could be extended to the north and

the south, and various alternatives are being investigated to replace the previouslyplanned Water Repurification Project, which has been discontinued by the City.

Construction of the North City WRP created badly needed jobs in San Diego’s construction-related industries. The City estimates that this project alone generated

4,400 job-years of work for the local community. Construction of the northern/central distribution system is expected to generate an additional 4,200 job-years of

work. Now that the plant is completed, many high-wage, high-skill jobs have also

been created in the operation and maintenance fields. The development of a reliable
566

local water supply will improve the long-term health of the San Diego economy by

enhancing the region’s ability to attract and retain employers.

A future reclamation plant is planned for the commercial center of San Diego to

supplement reclaimed water from the North City WRP. The proposed 8-mgd Mission

Valley Water Reclamation Plant (Mission Valley WRP) could provide 1,300,000,000

gallons (4,000 acre-feet) of reclaimed water annually for the irrigation of schools,

parks, commercial and tourist facilities, cemeteries, nurseries, golf courses, freeway

embankments and street medians. This supplemental source of reclaimed water

would allow the North City WRP to serve new customers in the developing communities in northern San Diego.

South Bay Regional Water Reclamation System

Construction of the North City WRP has been followed by the construction of the

7-mgd first phase South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (South Bay WRP) near the

international border with Mexico. The Phase I South Bay WRP will provide almost

2,300,000,000 gallons (7,000 acre-feet) of reclaimed water annually to commercial,

industrial, and agricultural users in Southern San Diego County. The South Bay

WRP and southern distribution system, currently scheduled for completion by 2001,

will complement reclamation projects proposed by Otay Water District, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Tia Juana Valley County Water District, as well as potentially providing reclaimed water to Mexico. A future 8 mgd Phase II of the South

Bay WRP could provide an additional 2,600,000,000 gallons (8,000 acre-feet) of reclaimed water annually.

A future 12 mgd Otay Valley Water Reclamation Plant is also planned to provide

additional reclaimed water supplies for the southern service area.

San Pasqual Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Project

The City of San Diego recently completed a comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan for the San Pasqual Valley. The San Pasqual Valley (Valley) is an

agricultural preserve located within the incorporated limits of the City of San Diego.

The majority of the land is owned by the City of San Diego and is located between

the City of Escondido to the north and the community of Rancho Bernardo and City

of Poway to the south. Based on recommendations resulting from the Management

Plan, San Diego plans to upgrade the existing 1 mgd San Pasqual Reclamation

Plant to 5 mgd. The reclaimed water from the treatment facility would provide a

reliable and noninterruptible water supply for agricultural irrigation purposes within the Valley and residential and commercial markets within the surrounding community of Rancho Bernardo and the northern region of the City of Poway. The reclaimed water would also be recharged into the 50,000 acre-foot alluvial groundwater basin within the Valley. Groundwater would then be extracted and used as

peaking water for the reclaimed system in the summer months, as well as for domestic potable water supply.

The expanded San Pasqual Water Reclamation Plant would include advanced

water treatment in addition to tertiary treatment. Injection of the high quality

water from the plant would reduce the salinity of the groundwater within the basin.

This will enhance sensitive environmental habitats as well as help farmers reliant

on groundwater supplies remain economically viable and maintain the San Pasqual

Valley’s agricultural identity. This groundwater/reuse regional project will add approximately 2,600,000,000 gallons (8,000 acre-feet) annually to local water supplies.

Implementation of the project will be subject to funds being made available.

The estimated costs (in 1999 dollars) which are eligible for Bureau of Reclamation

Title XVI funding for the City of San Diego Water Reclamation Program are as follows:

Northern/Central Regional Water Reclamation System:

North City WRP ............................................................................. $52,379,000

North City WRP Demineralization Facilities ............................... 10,500,000

Mission Valley WRP ....................................................................... 25,541,000

Northern/Central San Diego Distribution System ....................... 233,914,000

Subtotal Northern/Central Regional System ........................ 322,334,000

South Bay Regional Water Reclamation System:

South Bay WRP .............................................................................. 33,990,000

Southern San Diego Distribution System .................................... 25,768,000

Otay Valley WRP ............................................................................ 14,880,000

Subtotal South Bay Regional System .................................... 74,638,000
567

San Pasqual Regional Water Reclamation/Groundwater Project ...... 63,854,000

Total City of San Diego Water Reclamation Program ......... 460,826,000

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIB BELZA, CHAIRMAN, YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY

Request

Please appropriate $700,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for preconstruction engineering and design for the Yuba River

Basin, California, levee flood protection improvements.

Issue

The USACE has completed the Draft Feasibility Report, Yuba River Basin Investigation, California, January 1998. The report identifies federal interest in approximately $26,000,000 of improvements to existing levees. To keep the effort to provide

critically needed higher levels of flood protection for the area moving forward, the

USACE has identified that they need $700,000 of federal funding in fiscal year

2000. The California State Reclamation Board is on record as supporting this levee

improvement work, and the Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) Board has committed money that is in hand for the local share of this critically needed flood protection work.

Identified Levee Improvements that are Needed

The USACE recommended plan involves constructing or deepening 6.7 miles of

slurry walls, deepening 9 miles of interior toe drains and constructing or modifying

9.5 miles of berms along section of the Yuba and Feather Rivers and constructing

about 5 miles of slurry walls and berms along the ring levee around the City of

Marysville. The proposed work has an overall benefit-cost ratio of 2.6.

Flood Protection Need

The City of Marysville is located at the confluence of two major California Rivers,

the Feather and the Yuba. Historically the area on the average has been subject

to major floods about every 8.5 years. During the the past 50 years, the area has

had five major river floods, resulting in a total of 43 deaths and an estimated total

damage cost of $818,000,000 when brought to 1997 dollars. None of these floods

have been from levee overtopping, all have been the result of levee failures. The

most recent major Yuba County flood in January 1997, took 3 lives, destroyed in

excess of 800 homes, flooded 16,000 acres and resulted in the largest evacuation in

California history. An estimated 100,000 people were evacuated as a result of this

flood. The environmental damage was enormous, including vast destruction of designated habitat for endangered species.

Yuba County has probably done more to provide flood protection for itself than

any County in California. Unfortunately Yuba County is consistently in the bottom

three counties for per capita income in California. Substantial efforts are continuously being undertaken to bring economic development to the area, but each time

progress is being made, another flood occurs, scaring away potential investors.

Congressional Support Leading to Where We Are

In 1988 Congress appropriated $500,000 for a USACE Yuba River Basin Flood

Control Reconnaissance Study. The Reconnaissance Study identified federal interest

in levee improvements and recommended a Feasibility Study. In 1991 the USACE

undertook a $2,100,000 Feasibility Study that ultimately cost $2,600,000. Half the

cost of the Feasibility Study was non-federal. The Feasibility Study has identified

federal interest in approximately $26,000,000 in levee improvements. The $700,000

being requested is part of the federal share of levee improvement work identified

in the recently completed Feasibility Study that has been underway since 1991.

Since 1988, $1,800,000 in federal funds and a total of $3,100,000 have been spent

identifying the problem. It is now time to move forward with some fixes on the

ground.

On behalf of the flood devastated people of Yuba County, I urge that you find a

way to provide the USACE with the $700,000 they have identified is needed to keep

urgently needed flood protection improvements for our County moving forward. We

are grateful for the financial assistance Congress has provided in the past. Thank

you.
568

PREPARED STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NUISANCE FLOODING NEAR THE 3B’S POR- TION OF THE BUTTE BASIN OVERFLOW, SACRAMENTO RIVER, BUTTE COUNTY, CALI- FORNIA

Gentlemen: This project directly affects properties in Butte, Glenn and Colusa

Counties, as well as the Butte Basin Overflow flood relief structure for the Sacramento River.

Nuisance flooding near the 3B’s structure, on the Sacramento River north of Ord

Ferry Road, has been reported for more than 15 years. Butte County has noted a

multiplicity of flooding problems in the area, bounded by the Sacramento River Big

Chico Creek, River Road, Little Chico Creek and Ord Ferry Road. Unfortunately,

we do not have the resources to define the source of all of the problems or to provide

solutions.

The most notable and destructive problem is nuisance flooding that crosses Ord

Ferry and River Roads, when the Ord Ferry Gage on the Sacramento River reads

between 110, and 114 feet. The Butte Basin flood relief facilities are designed to

overflow when the Ord Ferry Gage exceeds 114 feet. This flooding interrupts interstate commerce closing and damaging roads, as well as damaging crops and prohibiting their planting/harvesting in all three counties. This also fills the Butte Basin

Overflow facility, which reduces its flood holding capacity when the real flood hits.

Butte County is requesting a Section 205 Reconnaissance Investigation by the

Reclamation Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to define the problems and

solutions.

If you have any additional questions please contact Stuart Edell, Butte County

Public Works, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965, Telephone (530) 538–

7266, FAX (530) 538–7683.

PREPARED STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CHEROKEE CANAL, SEDIMENT REMOVAL

AND STREAMBED ALTERATION PROJECT, BUTTE COUNTY

Gentlemen: This project affects properties in central Butte County, between Highway 70 at Pentz Road and Highway 162 at Butte Creek.

Changes in environmental policies in the last 10 years have severely attenuated

the mining practices, which have abated the excess sediment transport, which is the

source of the problem. The sediment is the remains of the hydraulic mining operations by the Cherokee Mine in the late 1800’s. Winter storms transport this sediment from the foothills to the flat valley floor where it is deposited in the Cherokee

Canal Flood Control Project. The excess sediment fills the flood control facilities,

which reduces their capacity and endangers the lives and properties of the resident

of Butte County.

The potential loss of prime agricultural land combined with the loss of the Agricultural Experimental Station (the primary source of rice seed in California), and

the potential pollution from inundation fertilizers is too great of a hazard to ignore.

Re-institution of environmentally sound mining practices upstream, combined

with a downstream excess sediment removal program, is a potential solution. It

should reduce the maintenance costs and resolve the downstream problem of repeated disturbances to habitat for excess sediment removal.

Butte County’s goal is to request a Reconnaissance Investigation by the Reclamation Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, looking toward an 1135 study.

If you have any additional questions please contact Stuart Edell, Butte County

Public Works, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965, Telephone (530) 538–

7266, FAX (530) 538–7683.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, CITY OF LOS

ANGELES

The Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles (Department) is

the largest municipal utility in the United States serving a city of 3,700,000. The

Department has traditionally relied heavily on imported sources of water to meet

the City’s needs. Imported water continues to be a primary supply. However,

drought conditions, increased environmental concerns, and limitations on the development of additional supplies have led Los Angeles and other cities to utilize water

conservation and water recycling as alternatives to importing more water. The Department’s goal is to displace up to 10 percent of the city’s water supply needs with

recycled water by 2010.

In support of this goal the Department respectfully requests the subcommittee’s

approval and support of an appropriation of $7,500,000 for the Los Angeles Area
569

Water Reclamation Program as contained in the President’s budget for fiscal year

1999–00. The budgeted amount for the city’s East Valley Water Recycling Project

(reference Grant Agreement No. 1425–5–FG–30–00070) and for the Terminal Island

(Los Angeles Harbor) Water Recycling Project ( reference Draft Cooperative Agreement No. 1425–8–FC–30–00031) is $6,580,000. These projects were authorized pursuant to Section 1613 of Public Law 102–575, the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. Included within this budget is $920,000 for the

West Basin Municipal Water District.

The East Valley project will utilize recycled water to recharge a local groundwater

basin to supplement the city’s drinking water supply. About 10 of the 13 miles of

pipe and over 95 percent of the pump station have been constructed. Over

$47,000,000 of the total estimated $55,000,000 have been spent. Construction is

scheduled to be completed in April 1999. Project commissioning and testing will

start at this time. This is the city’s largest water recycling project and the cornerstone of the city’s water recycling program.

The Terminal Island (Los Angeles Harbor) Water Recycling Project will provide

advanced treatment of tertiary wastewater and a distribution system to deliver recycled water for groundwater recharge, and to industrial and irrigation customers.

The treatment plant has been awarded and construction will begin in May 1999.

Design of the distribution system is nearly complete. Pipeline construction is scheduled to start in March 1999. The total project cost is estimated to be $52,000,000.

The project will begin supplying water to customers by February 2001.

Mr. Chairman, the Department appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement. Thank you for your longstanding support of water recycling projects in Southern California.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. L. SCHAFER, SECRETARY/WATERMASTER, TULE RIVER

ASSOCIATION, PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Tule River Association hereby request your consideration of an appropriation of $800,000 in the fiscal year 2000

Federal budget for the United States Army Corps of Engineers for preconstruction

engineering and design (PED) of the Tule River, Success Reservoir Enlargement

Project. The President’s budget for this line item contains $150,000 which is inadequate for an orderly continuation of design of the project.

The Draft Success Reservoir Enlargement Feasibility Study and EIS/EIR are complete, in reproduction and will be issued to the public later this month, March 1999.

A public hearing has been scheduled in Porterville, California on April 22, 1999 and

a Chief’s report to the Congress is scheduled in September 1999. The Success Reservoir Enlargement Project is simplistic in design involving raising of the existing

spillway 10 feet and widening the spillway 165 feet.

The enlargement project would provide 28,000 acre-feet of additional storage

space in Success Reservoir and increase the flood protection from a 1 in 47 year

event to a 1 in 100 year event for the City of Porterville and downstream agricultural lands.

The Corps intends to commence PED in June 1999 and the fiscal year 1999 appro- priation bill contains $100,000 for PED. The estimated Corps cost for PED is

$1,200,000 which is cost shared 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal, and

results in a Federal cost of $900,000. The Corps has the capability, and as the

project is readily designed, PED could be completed in fiscal year 2000 with adequate funding. The Association urges the subcommittee to support an appropriation of $800,000

in fiscal year 2000 for Corps preconstruction engineering and design of the Success

Reservoir Enlargement Project.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. L. SCHAFER, DISTRICT ENGINEER CAWELO WATER

DISTRICT, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The County of Tulare, Cawelo

Water District, North Kern Water Storage District and Semitropic Water Storage

District request your consideration of an appropriation of $500,000 in the fiscal year

2000 Federal budget for the United States Army Corps of Engineers for feasibility

studies for the Poso Creek Stream Group (Deer Creek, White River, Rag Gulch and

Poso Creek). The President’s budget for the Poso Creek Stream Group Corps general

investigation for fiscal year 2000 contains $60,000 which is inadequate.

The Corps of Engineers are currently developing a reconnaissance study of the

four streams of the Poso Creek Stream Group for flood control, and it is the opinion
570

of the local sponsors, identified above, that the Corps will determine that at least

two of the stream studies will indicate a Federal interest for continuation of a 50/

50 cost sharing feasibility study.

Poso Creek, White River and Deer Creek are uncontrolled streams that continue

to devastate agricultural lands and flood the communities of Earlimart, McFarland,

Alpaugh and Allensworth. The major arterials State Route 99 and SR 43 have been

closed, resulting in the disruption of commerce by time delaying detours for several

days, during the past two years due to flooding from the streams under investigation by the Corps.

Since the Corps of Engineers typically expend up to $1,000,000 over a two year

period for a feasibility study, the fiscal year 2000 federal appropriation for the Poso

Creek Stream Group needs to be $500,000 for an orderly continuation of flood control investigations by the Corps.

The local sponsors urge the subcommittee’s appropriation of $500,000 in fiscal

year 2000 for Poso Creek Stream Group feasibility studies by the Corps.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ED HENDERSON, CHAIRMAN, NAPA COUNTY FLOOD

CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

NAPA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Background

The Napa River is the main waterway into which all tributaries on the Napa Valley flow. The river reaches its highest flow and the main point of concentration of

storm water in the heart of the downtown city of Napa. The original town of Napa

was established at the head of the navigable Napa River channel in 1848 as its only

port for transportation and commerce until the railroad extended from Benicia to

Napa in 1902.

The project is located in the city and county of Napa, California. The population

in the city of Napa, approximately 67,000 in 1994, is expected to exceed 77,000 by

the year 2000. Excluding public facilities, the present value of damageable property

within the project flood plain is well over $500,000,000. The Napa River Basin, comprising 426 square miles, ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain, is

subject to severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower reaches of the

river, flood conditions are aggravated by high tides and local runoff. Floods in the

Napa area have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1986 (flood of record), 1995 and

1997. Last February, the river rose just above flood stage on three occasions, but

subsided before major property damage occurred.

Over the years, the community has expressed a strong desire for increased flood

management. Since 1962, twenty-seven major floods have struck the Valley region,

exacting a heavy toll in loss of life and property. The flood of 1986, for example,

killed three people and caused more than $100,000,000 in damage. The town of

Napa is particularly vulnerable to floods: during a typical 100-year flood, more than

325,000 gallons of water flow through the downtown river area per second, with the

potential of inundating 2,000,000 square feet of businesses and offices and nearly

3,000 homes.

Flood damage in downtown Napa has recurred in January 1993, January and

March 1995, January 1997 and February 1998, resulting in disaster declarations

and Damage Survey Reports filed with FEMA, reaffirming the urgent need to implement the cost-effective project. In March 1995 and January of 1997, additional flood

disasters occurred and FEMA is reviewing the damage claims.

Damages throughout Napa County totaled about $85,000,000 from the January

and March 1995 floods. The floods resulted in 27 business and 843 residences damaged countywide. Almost all of the damages from the 1986, 1995 and 1997 floods

within the project area would have been prevented by the project; this was just the

latest in a long history of flooding disasters. During the past 36 years of flooding,

Napa County residents have suffered devastating loss of lives and livelihoods, and

over $542,000,000 in property damage alone. According to the most up-to-date models, uncontrolled flooding over the next 100 years will likely cause $1,600,000,000

worth of property damage.

Locally developed flood measures currently in place provide minimal protection

and include levees, floodwalls, pump stations, upstream reservoirs, restrictive flood

plain management ordinances, and designated flood evacuation zones. Vast areas of

flood plain are restricted to agricultural and open space uses, precluding development that would be damaged by flooding. These local measures still leave most of

the city of Napa vulnerable to frequent damaging floods. Congress has authorized

flood control projects since 1944, but due to their expense, lack of public consensus
571

on the design and concern about environmental impacts, a project has never been

realized. The most recent Corps of Engineers project plan consisted of a deepening

and channelization project. In mid-1995, federal and state resource agencies reviewed the plan and gave notice to the Corps that this plan had significant regulatory hurdles to face.

REVISED PLAN—PROJECT OVERVIEW

In an effort to identify a meaningful and successful plan, a new approach emerged

that looked at flood control from a broader, more comprehensive perspective. Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was formed, bringing together a diverse

group of local engineers, architects, aquatic ecologists, business and agricultural

leaders, environmentalists, government officials, homeowners and renters and numerous community organizations.

Through a series of public meetings and intensive debate over every aspect of

Napa’s flooding problems, the Citizens for Napa River Flood Management crafted

a flood management plan offering a range of benefits for the entire Napa region.

The Corps of Engineers served as a partner and a resource for the group, helping

to evaluate their approach to flood management. The final plan produced by the

Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was successfully evaluated through the

research, experience and state-of-the-art simulation tools developed by the Corps

and numerous international experts in the field of hydrology and other related disciplines. The success of this collaboration serves as a model for the nation.

Acknowledging the river’s natural state, the project utilizes a set of living river

strategies that minimize the disruption and alteration of the river habitat, and

maximizes the opportunities for environmental restoration and enhancement

throughout the watershed. This strategy replaces the former project and now entails

flood plain acquisition and restoration, restoration of a geomorphically stable river

channel, replacement of bridges and environmentally sensitive stream bank treatment in the urban reaches of the city of Napa.

The revised plan, which provides 100-year protection, has been developed by the

Corps with the assistance of the community and its consultants into the Supplemental General Design Memorandum (SGDM) and its accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/EIR). These reports

were released for public comment in December of 1997 and are now under final review by Corps Headquarters. Land acquisition is planned to begin this spring with

a goal of a new construction start in the summer of 2000.

The coalition plan now memorialized in the Corps draft SGDM includes the following engineered components: lowering of old dikes, marsh plain and flood plain

terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek flood plain terrace, upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa Creek, new dikes, levees and flood walls, bank stabilization, pump stations and detention facilities, and bridge replacements. The benefits the plan will provide include reducing or elimination of loss of life, property

damage, cleanup costs, community disruption due to unemployment and lost business revenue, and the need for flood insurance. The plan will protect access to businesses, public services, and create opportunities for recreation and downtown development, boosting year-round tourism. As a key feature, the plan will improve water

quality, create urban wetlands and enhance wildlife habitats.

The plan would protect over 7,000 people and over 3,000 residential/commercial

units from the 100-year flood event on the Napa River and its main tributary, the

Napa Creek, and the project has a positive benefit-to-cost ration under the Corps

calculation. One billion in damages will be saved over the useful life of the project.

The Napa County Flood Control District is prepared to meet its local cost-sharing

responsibilities for the project. A countywide sales tax, along with a number of other

funding options, was approved last year by a two-thirds majority of the county’s voters for the local share. Napa is California’s third highest repetitive loss community.

This plan is demonstrative of the disaster resistant community initiative, as well

as the sustainable development initiatives of FEMA and EPA.

PROJECT SYNOPSIS

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding

The 1999 budget included $744,000 to prepare plans and specifications and finalize the Project Cooperation Agreement for the project.

Necessary fiscal year 2000 Funding

Funding for the Napa River Project during 2000 in the amount of $6,500,000 is

needed to initiate construction of the project.
572

Recommendation

Based on continuing high flood risk and severe damage from the Napa River, we

request that the Committee support $6,5000,000 to initiate construction of the Napa

River Flood Control Project.

PROJECT ELEMENTS

March 1999

The current plan, which is the result of the Coalition effort in concert with the

Corps of Engineers, includes land acquisition for river widening, levee and flood wall

construction, recreational facilities, open space and an oxbow dry bypass, among

other items. The Corps has incorporated the refined design into its key

preconstruction documents. Design documents are under final review and the construction drawings are being prepared. The County is negotiating the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the Corps and is planning to begin acquiring lands

this spring. The County is working to ensure that construction of the project will

start in fiscal year 2000.

PROJECT COMPONENTS

The following redesigned project components were developed by the Community

Coalition, incorporated by the Corps and listed here with a brief description. These

components are included in the Corps’ final design plan.

Marsh Plain and Flood Plain Terraces

Providing room for rising floodwaters, terraces are natural attributes of all river

systems. Two types of terraces are included in the project, beginning near Kennedy

Park and extending to the southern end of the oxbow. Marsh plain terraces are submerged during the twice-daily high tide cycles, creating a diverse wetland habitat.

Elevated slightly from the marsh plain terraces, flood plain terraces are inundated

by floods every several years, providing room for large floods.

New and Restored Wetlands

Through concerted planting efforts and the removal and lowering of levees, the

project will create over 650 acres of new wetland habitat, including emergent marsh,

riparian and seasonal wetlands.

Bank Stabilization and Protection

Bank stabilization techniques combined with native vegetative cover in both

marsh and flood plains; maintenance of existing trees; planting of new trees; the addition of rock bank toe protection and a grade control structure are all included in

this component.

Napa Creek Conveyance

Napa Creek conveyance will be increased by the construction of a flood terrace

on the north bank of the creek, removal of a number of bridges and the construction

of culvert dry bypasses.

Napa River Dry Bypass

A dedicated dry bypass allows the safe flow of excess water and serves as recreational and open space during normal flows, when the river returns to the meandering oxbow.

Napa Creek Bypass Culverts

Two concrete dry bypass culverts will be constructed, each designed to convey

100-year flood flows.

Roadway Bridge Reconstruction

Overall, a total of seven bridges will be removed and replaced to allow the safe

passage of water and debris during a 100-year flood.

Pump Stations and Detention Facilities

During large events, the new floodwalls and levees will trap local storm water.

The project includes the construction of three pump stations to safely return this

water through the floodwall into the Napa River.

Floodwalls

Located at the tops of the riverbanks, floodwalls offer substantial protection from

large floods.
573

NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Background

The Napa Valley watershed faces many challenges and stresses to its environmental health and flood management abilities. From a healthy river point of view,

the Napa River has been on a recovery path since its low point in the 1960’s, when

the last of the native salmon were taken from the system by severe water pollution

and habitat destruction. Steelhead trout have survived as a remnant population of

two hundred that is presently in need of higher quality and more extensive spawning areas for recovery to a significant population. Beginning populations of fall run

Chinook salmon have taken up residence in the watershed in those few areas available for spawning. While the chemical and wastewater pollution of earlier years has

been effectively dealt with, excess sediment is still a critical stress on the salmon

population, as it is to the spawning and rearing areas of the river in the estuarine

zone upstream of San Pablo Bay, populated by delta smelt, splittail, green sturgeon

and striped bass.

The River has been prioritized as an impaired water body by the U.S. EPA and

Region II Water Quality Control Board because of the sediment production. The excess sediment generated in the watershed suffocates spawning areas, reduces the

stream’s flood-carrying ability, fills deep pools, increases turbidity in the stream and

estuary, carries with it nutrients that bring significant algae blooms during the

summer and fall, and changes the morphological balance of the streams and river

toward more unstable conditions.

Over time, both private and public diversions and levees have been constructed

in a chaotic way. The accumulated encroachment has constrained the river and its

riparian corridor to approximately one third of its optimum morphological width for

much of its length. The Napa Valley has also been extensively drained in the last

century, eliminating nearly all of the sloughs and extensive wetlands that once covered the valley floor. Combined with increasing agricultural and urban development,

the narrowed channel and loss of wetlands has greatly changed the river and its

major tributaries, limiting its flood management capabilities. The river now regularly scours extensively on both bed and banks, generating large amounts of sediment that settle in the lower river and estuary, only to be stirred and moved by

the tides during the dry season. Loss of tidal wetlands in the lower river due to 70

years of dike construction has resulted in a much smaller area to disperse sediment,

exacerbating losses in all types of riverine and estuarine-related complex habitats

in the system.

In an effort to address these conditions and to develop local tools for improving

natural resource management, Napa County Resource Conservation District is proceeding with a local effort entitled the Napa River Watershed Stewardship program.

This project, which has recently received funding through the CALFED Category III

Program, is intended to address a broad range of ecological and biological values in

the Napa River watershed, including steelhead and salmon populations, and improved wetlands and flood plain functions.

One of the key elements of the program, from the Napa County Flood Control District’s perspective, is the watershed monitoring and computer modeling of watershed

functions. Their goal is to use these modeling and monitoring efforts to form strategies in developing flood management and restoration approaches for the upper Napa

Valley watershed. The overall project is intended to extend the implementation of

the recommendations included in the Napa River Watershed Owner’s Manual, a

framework for watershed management for the Napa River basin. It will address the

issues of habitat and fishery degradation, and will enhance and expand riparian,

riverine, estuarine, and freshwater aquatic habitats for species. It will provide services to the project collaborators in the form of training, education, computer-assisted

design and modeling of enhancement projects, and financial assistance for implementation. It will also provide training in specific project monitoring, as well as general watershed monitoring, to be included in the database and GIS at the Resource

Conservation District. Services will be delivered through work with existing and

new local tributary stewardship groups throughout the Napa Valley.

The approach to implementation is the Stewardship Watershed Management,

which relies on a large degree of participation by landowners and residents of tributary and mainstream regions. The stewardship process has been very successful in

developing and supporting local responsibility for natural resources management,

with a heavy emphasis on monitoring and adaptive management of the resources

based on monitoring feedback. Planning is done using interest-based consensus,

with implementation from a wide variety of partners that may vary from one specific project to another. Watershed education exchange typically takes place through

existing groups. Project implementation is commonly done by the landowner, wheth-
574

er public or private with support from the District, rather than by the district on

behalf of the landowner.

REQUEST

In an effort to develop a complementary approach to this total effort, the Napa

County Flood Control District is seeking that the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study be continued by the Corps of Engineers. The authority for this study

is the Northern California Streams Study Authority stemming from the Rivers and

Harbors Act of 1962, Public Law 87–874. Specifically, the Napa County Flood Control District is beginning to work closely with the Corps in examining the watershed

management needs, including flood control, environmental restoration, storm water

retention, storm water runoff management, water conservation and supply and wetlands restoration in the Napa Valley, including the communities of Yountville, St.

Helena and Calistoga in Napa County. To ensure maximum utility, the District has

requested the Corps to work closely in this effort with the Napa County Flood Control District, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Napa County Resource Conservation District, the Napa County Farm Bureau, the California Department of Fish and Game, the local communities, and the Napa River Watershed Task

Force, which was recently appointed by the Napa County Board of Supervisors to

develop a collaborative process to assess the watershed management needs of the

Napa Valley. In particular, the County is requesting the Corps to examine the following issues: Up-Valley communities flood protection strategies;Hillside erosion

mitigation strategies in conjunction with the agricultural industry and Groundwater

preservation and water supply issues

The study must be conducted in close coordination with the Napa County Resource Conservation District’s on-going Napa River Watershed Stewardship Program.

PROJECT SYNOPSIS

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding

Congress appropriated $100,000 to initiate the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study.

Necessary Fiscal Year 2000 Funding

Funding for the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study during fiscal year

2000 in the amount of $100,000 is needed to have the Corps of Engineers continue

the study to examine watershed management needs.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

The City of Stockton supports the following Corps of Engineers and Bureau of

Reclamation water, flood control and fishery projects:

Stockton Metropolitan Area ............................................................................ $200,000

Farmington Dam ............................................................................................. 150,000

San Joaquin Watershed .................................................................................. 2,000,000

Cosumnes and Mokelumne River ................................................................... 50,000

Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem

Restoration, Stockton Waterfront ............................................................... ( 1 )

Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel ........................................ 150,000

South Delta Barriers ....................................................................................... 20,000

1 No additional funds requested.

U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Stockton Metropolitan Area—$200,000

This project was analyzed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps)

1997 Reconnaissance Report, which concluded that there was a Federal interest in

a flood project for the Stockton area. During this same period, a levee project was

authorized under Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for

the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) levee project. Before Federal

dollars can be appropriated to reimburse SJAFCA (up to 75 percent reimbursement), a Section 211 Report must be approved by the Secretary of the Army. The

requirements of this Report, since the project is essentially complete, and the funding of the report (potentially 100 percent local with reimbursement upon completion), are currently under negotiation. The President’s budget of $200,000 is adequate to complete the required study if it is determined that the study can be cost-
575

shared. The local view is that the Reconnaissance Report by the Corps found the

project to be highly beneficial and that additional expenditures on studies of nearly

constructed projects are unwarranted. The United States Army Corps of Engineers

proposes $1,000,000 of additional studies to secure approval of the existing project

and to analyze the rural areas for a feasible project. The funding in the President’s

budget is adequate to allow completion of the studies required. The San Joaquin

Area Flood Control Agency will provide local funding for this study. The Corp’s draft

feasibility report is due in August 1999, and the final feasibility report is due in

March 2000.

Farmington Dam—$150,000

The study costs for this investigation will determine if a Federal interest may

exist for converting Farmington Dam into a multiple purpose reservoir inclusive of

flood control, water supply, groundwater recharge, and environmental enhancement.

The President has included $150,000 in his fiscal year 2000 budget. The current fiscal year 1999 budget includes $500,000. Since this is a feasibility study, all Federal

funds must be matched by local funds. The sponsor for this study is the Stockton

East Water District.

San Joaquin River Watershed—$2,000,000

The San Joaquin River Comprehensive Study is an ongoing $9,000,000 study of

the water resource’s needs of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. Flood control

and environmental needs will receive equal consideration. We expect setback levees

and reoperation of existing reservoirs will receive a careful review in this study. A

status report to Congress is expected to be released this April, which will outline

$16,000,000 to $20,000,000 of studies to be performed in future years. The President

approved $3,500,000 million for fiscal year 1999 and $2,000,000 for both the San

Joaquin and Sacramento River Basin studies. At this time, we do not know the

exact allocation between each of the basin, although 50–50 seems likely. The State

is the cost sharing partner in these studies.

Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers—$50,000

A reconnaissance study of ecological restoration and non-structural flood control

improvements is being performed on the Mokelumne and Cosumnes Rivers. The current fiscal year 1999 funding is $18,000, and the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget

is $50,000. Separate studies and report are being prepared by April 1999 for the

Cosumnes River (between the Delta and Michigan Bar) and the Mokelumne River

(between the Delta and Camanche Reservoir).

Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration—Stockton Waterfront—No additional funds

The City of Stockton, CalTrans and the Port of Stockton have combined to initiate

a study to restore the aquatic ecosystem of the Stockton Waterfront. The assistance

of the Corps of Engineers to study, plan and eventually construct improvements will

expedite this restoration project. An essential element of the study will be the development of a model of the channel to determine the appropriate level of oxygen required to restore aquatic life and improve water quality conditions in the channel.

The channel is currently a dead-end slough, contaminated by urban storm runoff

and boating discharges. Potential solutions include the installation of pumps to create flow and/or aeration devices to oxygenate the water. This project will not only

improve water quality but significantly complement economic development in downtown Stockton. Additionally, restoring this segment of the lower San Joaquin River

is consistent with the objectives of American Heritage Rivers program, a designation

recently given by the President to the lower San Joaquin River.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

South Delta Barriers—$20,000

The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to improve water qual- ity. The fiscal year 1999 budget includes funding for $16,000 and the President’s

fiscal year 2000 budget includes funding for $20,000.

The City of Stockton conditionally supports the following project:

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration—$95,000,000

Current year funding is for $143,000,000 and the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget has included $95,000,000. Funds for this program have been used primarily

for acquisition of lands and development of the habitat. We are concerned with the

loss of agricultural lands and the lack of accountability with the funds. No docu-
576

mentation of benefits will be derived from expenditure of funds. This program does

not help with water supply. There are no water quality improvement objectives and

the program does not recognize area of origin protections.

RESOLUTION NO. 99–0108 STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

WHEREAS, during the week of March 22, 1999, appropriate committees of the

Congress of the United States will conduct hearings to consider federal appropriations for water, flood control, and fishery projects for fiscal year 2000; and

WHEREAS, several projects to be considered at said Congressional hearings will

directly impact the City of Stockton and its environs; and

WHEREAS, the expeditious construction of said projects is required to protect the

health, welfare and safety of the residents of this area; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City of Stockton does hereby support the appropriation by the Congress of the United States of funds for fiscal year 2000 for the planning, continuation and completion of flood control and reclamation projects, namely: a. Stockton

Metropolitan Area, $200,000; b. Farmington Dam, $150,000; c. San Joaquin River

Watershed, $2,000,000; d. Consumnes and Mokelumne Rivers, $50,000; e. Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration-Stockton Waterfront, No additional funds requested; f. Port of Stockton and San Joaquin

River Channel, $150,000; and g. South Delta Barriers, $20,000.

2. That the City of Stockton does hereby support the appropriation by the Congress of the United States of funds for fiscal year 2000, with conditions, namely: a.

Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration, $95,000,000.

(1) The City of Stockton is concerned that the CALFED Program continues to

overlook the need of surface and groundwater supply requirements within the County of San Joaquin.

(2) The City of Stockton is concerned that the CALFED Program does not recognize County area of origin protections and there are no water quality improvement

objectives to improve the water quality of San Joaquin County water supplies.

(3) The City of Stockton is concerned that the CALFED Program does not provide

documentation of the benefits that will be derived from the expenditure of funds,

particularly to displace agricultural lands.

3. That the Statement by the City of Stockton, California, before the Committee

on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Senate

and House of Representatives, is hereby approved as the official Statement of the

City Council. A copy of said document is attached as Exhibit ‘‘A’’ and incorporated

by this reference.

4. That the Mayor is hereby directed to forward a copy of said Statement to the

appropriate Congressional Committees and to the City of Stockton’s representatives

in the Senate and House of Representatives, and the City Manager will monitor and

initiate proper follow-up communication and correspondence to reflect the City

Council’s position.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED March 2, 1999.

GARY A. PODESTO,

Mayor of the City of Stockton.

ATTEST:

KATHERINE GONG MEISSNER, City Clerk of the City of Stockton

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM VENABLE, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 99–5 SUPPORTING FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Sub-Committee on Energy and Water Development, and the United States

Senate Committee on Appropriations, Sub-Committee on Energy and Water Development are holding hearings to consider appropriations for Flood Control and Reclamation Projects for fiscal year 2000 and have requested written testimony to be

submitted to the committees prior to March 31, 1999; and

WHEREAS, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

supports the completion of construction for the project to reduce flooding and bank

destruction along the Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs, California; the completion

of a feasibility study and initiation of design efforts for a flood control project on
577

Murrieta Creek, a sub basin of the Santa Margarita River watershed in Riverside

and San Diego Counties, California; the initiation of a flood control reconnaissance

study for the San Jacinto River; the continuation of construction of the Santa Ana

River Mainstem project; and the initiation of construction at Prado Dam; now,

therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County Flood

Control and Water Conservation District in regular session assembled on February

16, 1999, that they support appropriations by Congress for fiscal year 2000 for the

following projects:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs: Construction—General ................. $2,200,000

Murrieta Creek:

Feasibility Study—Flood Control .................................................. 232,000

Preconstruction Engineering & Design ........................................ 100,000

San Jacinto River: Reconnaissance Study—Flood Control & Other

Purposes .............................................................................................. 100,000

Santa Ana River Mainstem: Construction—General .......................... 23,000,000

Prado Dam: Construction—General ..................................................... 5,000,000

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager-Chief Engineer is directed to distribute certified copies of this resolution to the Secretary of the Army,

Members of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations and SubCommittee on Energy and Water Development, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Sub-Committee on Energy and Water Development, and the District’s

Congressional Delegation—Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congressmen Ron Packard and Ken Calvert, and Congresswoman Mary Bono.

Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs

The Santa Ana River passes along the northerly border of the City of Norco. The

southerly bank of the river is a bluff varying in height from 46 to 96 feet above the

streambed, atop which is a residential neighborhood. The floods of January and February 1969 caused flow impingement on the riverbank, which undermined the toe

of the slope, causing severe bank sloughing. Although 50 to 60 feet of the bluff retreated to the south, and no improvements were lost, the threat to improvements

from future river actions became apparent. The floods of 1978 and 1980 impinged

further, causing another 30 to 40 feet of bluff retreat, and the loss of a single family

residence.

Section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 provided for

the authorization of the project, dependent upon the project receiving a favorable

Chief’s Report. On December 23, 1996, the Corps’ Chief of Engineers issued a

Chief’s Report recommending the Norco Bluffs project for construction.

Design of the project by the Corps is nearly complete, and is fully funded. Certain

geotechnical design considerations have resulted in an increased cost for the project.

We, therefore, are now seeking the Committee’s approval of supplemental funding

in the amount of $2,200,000 in fiscal year 2000 for completion of construction of the

Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization Project. The Riverside County

Flood Control and Water Conservation District is fully prepared to meet its costsharing obligation.

Santa MargaritA Watershed—Murrieta Creek Feasibility Study

The Santa Margarita Watershed lies in the south and northwesterly areas of Riverside and San Diego Counties, respectively. Murrieta Creek passes through the cities of Murrieta and Temecula in Riverside County, then confluences with Temecula

Creek to form the Santa Margarita River which flows into San Diego County,

through the Camp Pendleton Marine Base, and into the Pacific Ocean.

Murrieta and Temecula experienced severe flood damage in January 1993, estimated in excess of $10,000,000, from Murrieta Creek overflow. Camp Pendleton also

suffered extensive flood damage, estimated at $88,000,000, to facilities and aircraft

due to overflow of the Santa Margarita River. For the past several years, a coalition

of local citizens, community leaders, environmentalists, and developers have worked

closely with the District to identify solutions to the flooding problems within the

Murrieta Valley.

A U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study addressing flood control, environmental enhancement, and recreation for Murrieta Creek was initiated in April

1998. We request that the Committee approve $232,000 in fiscal year 2000 appropriations to complete the Feasibility Study for a flood control project on Murrieta

Creek within the Santa Margarita Watershed.
578

Murrieta Creek—Preconstruction Engineering & Design

The District anticipates the Corps completing the Murrieta Creek Feasibility

Study in February 2000, and issuing a favorable Chief’s Report in May 2000. The

Corps will then be in a position to initiate the detailed engineering design necessary

to develop construction plans and specifications for a Murrieta Creek Flood Control

Project. The District respectfully requests that the Committee approve a fiscal year

2000 appropriation of $100,000 for the Corps to initiate the Preconstruction Engineering and Design phase for a Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project.

San Jacinto River

The 730-square mile San Jacinto River watershed drains into Lake Elsinore in

western Riverside County. The San Jacinto River originates in the San Jacinto

Mountains and passes through the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, Canyon Lake and

Lake Elsinore. The only major flood control structures on the river are levees in the

City of San Jacinto built by the Corps of Engineers in the early 1960’s. In the 30-

mile reach of the river between Lake Elsinore and the City of San Jacinto, only

minor channelization exists as the river is characterized by expansive overflow

areas, including the Mystic Lake area. The San Jacinto River has caused major

flooding damage to agricultural areas and rendered Interstate 215 and several local

arterial transportation routes impassable. However, the river is an important resource that provides water supply, wildlife habitat, drainage and recreation values

to the region.

The District is requesting that the Corps of Engineers conduct a reconnaissance

study of the San Jacinto River between the City of San Jacinto and the City of Lake

Elsinore to investigate whether there is a Federal interest in flood control, environmental enhancement, water conservation and supply, recreation and related purposes.

We wish to request that the Committee approve $100,000 in fiscal year 2000 appropriations to undertake a Reconnaissance Study on the San Jacinto River. In fiscal year 1999 the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure through

Docket No. 2588, directed the Corps to undertake the study, however, the necessary

funding was not provided as a part of that Resolution.

Santa ANA River—Mainstem

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662) authorized

the Santa Ana River All River project which includes improvements and various

mitigation features as set forth in the Chief of Engineers’ Report to the Secretary

of the Army. The Boards of Supervisors of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino

Counties continue to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to

Congress.

The Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) was signed in December 1989 by the

three local sponsors and the Army. The first of five construction contracts started

on the Seven Oaks Dam feature in the Spring of 1990. Significant construction has

been completed on the lower Santa Ana River Channel and on the San Timoteo

Creek Channel. Construction activities on Oak Street Drain and the Mill Creek

Levee have been completed. The Seven Oaks Dam construction effort is over 90 percent complete, and proceeding on schedule. We anticipate construction on Seven

Oaks Dam to be completed in August of 1999. For fiscal year 2000, an appropriation

of $3,000,000 is requested to address various endangered species issues, including

that of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, in the Santa Ana River wash in the vicinity of the damsite.

An appropriation of $8,000,000 is being sought to complete construction of ‘‘Reach

8’’, the last remaining segment of the lower Santa Ana River Channel. An appropriation of $5,000,000 is requested to initiate construction of ‘‘Reach 9’’ (immediately

downstream of Prado Dam), a section of streambed to receive some floodwall/slope

revetment work to protect existing development along its southerly bank. The removal of accumulated sediment within an already completed section of the Santa

Ana River Channel near its outlet to the Pacific Ocean, along with much delayed

landscaping work, will necessitate a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $7,000,000

which includes engineering and project management support.

The Prado Dam feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project continues to

move closer to an eventual construction start. Engineering design for the dam embankment and outlet works is approximately 90 percent complete. Design work has

been initiated on the various interior dikes included in the project, and additional

design contracts are ready to be let for the balance of engineering work necessary

prior to construction. A fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $5,000,000 would allow the

Corps to complete its design efforts on the Prado Dam project, including construction plans and specifications in advance of awarding construction contracts.
579

We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support an overall

$28,000,000 appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year 2000 for the Santa Ana

River Mainstem project.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL L. BLUM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WORKS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Background

Floods are a part of the history of the Los Angeles area. Widespread floods have

periodically devastated vast areas of the region and were responsible for taking

lives, damaging property and interrupting commerce and trade.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and County of Los Angeles, acting on behalf

of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, have built one of the most extensive flood control systems in the world. Construction of the major elements of the

system began in the 1920s and consisted of 20 major dams, 470 miles of open channels, and many other appurtenant facilities. Fifteen of these major dams are owned

and/or operated by the County while the remaining five dams (Hansen, Lopez,

Santa Fe, Sepulveda and Whittier-Narrows), are owned and operated by the Corps.

Since the major segments were completed, it is estimated that the system has prevented $3,600,000,000 in potential flood damage.

Development which occurred after World War II exceeded the projections the

Corps used in the 1930s and has increased runoff to the point where, even in a moderate storm, the runoff could exceed the design capacity of portions of the system.

For example, the lower Los Angeles River in the City of Long Beach came close to

overtopping in 1980 from a 25-year flood. A storm of greater magnitude would have

a tremendous impact, both personal and economic, on Los Angeles County, the nation’s second largest metropolitan area.

At the request of the County of Los Angeles, the Corps analyzed the adequacy

of the existing major flood control facilities serving the Los Angeles basin in the

LACDA Review study. In 1990, a project to upsize a portion of the LACDA system

received Congressional approval subject to a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers (received in 1995), and signature of the Record of Decision by the Secretary

of the Army, which was obtained in July 1995.

The final report by the Corps identified 100-year flood damages totaling

$2,250,000,000 covering an 82-square-mile area which houses over 500,000 people.

These damages would occur in the heavily-urbanized Los Angeles basin, where adequate protection from a 100-year flood was previously provided.

The LACDA project is a critical modification to existing facilities. Obtaining funds

to do the modification is critical for two reasons: The threat of flooding to over onehalf million people and the large economic impact FEMA’s final Flood Insurance

Rate Maps (FIRMs) have on the overflow area that became effective July 6, 1998.

Until the project is completed, any delay in construction will cause great financial

hardship on thousands of people, who thought the existing river provided adequate

protection and now need to buy flood insurance (an impact as high as $65,000,000

annually).

This project, currently estimated to cost approximately $240,000,000, is scheduled

to be completed within the next three years, pending adequate funding. The following table shows the history of federal funding for the project:

Federal fiscal year Federal funding Expenditure of federal funding

1994–95 ....................... $500,000 Initiation of first construction contract awarded in September

1995

1995–96 ....................... 11,300,000 Continuation of first contract

1996–97 ....................... 14,400,000 Completion of first contract and initiation of two contracts

awarded in August and September of 1996

1997–98 ....................... 20,700,000 Completion of contracts awarded in August and September

1996, and initiation of one contract awarded in February

1998

1998–99 ....................... 50,000,000 Completion of contract awarded in February 1998, and initiation of two new contracts awarded in September and December 1998

Three additional construction contracts will be ready for advertising later this fiscal year and design of the entire project should be completed by the end of 1999.
580

In order to complete the project within an appropriate schedule in light of the serious flood threat and the devastating financial impacts of the mandatory flood insurance premiums, it is critical to maintain the level of construction activity at

$50,000,000 this upcoming fiscal year. As a result, we strongly support the California Water Commission’s recommendation for $50,000,000 of Federal funds to continue construction of the LACDA Project.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DICK LYON, MAYOR, CITY OF OCEANSIDE, CA

The City of Oceanside is pleased to submit this request for appropriation for the

City’s Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development

Project. We would greatly appreciate your assistance in funding this important facility.

The existing Mission Basin Groundwater Desalting Facility has been an unqualified success. Since its completion in 1994, the facility has produced 2,000,000 gallons per day of superior-quality water from previously unusable brackish groundwater. This represents seven percent of the City’s daily water supply needs—enough

water to serve 4,000 Oceanside households. As our only water source that does not

cross major earthquake fault lines, it is also a critically-needed emergency water

supply.

The Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development

Project will be a genuine win-win project. It will expand the capacity of the facility

to 6,200,000 gallons per day, serving twenty-two percent of Oceanside residents. By

reducing our dependence on imported water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Oceanside will be part of the solution to California’s water supply dilemma. Closer to home, the project will significantly increase

the reliability of our water supply—an essential ingredient in the long-term health

of our regional economy. When the facility expansion becomes a demonstrable success, the City will explore the use of reclaimed water injected into the groundwater

basin to increase its capacity to 20,000,000 gallons per day.

The cost of the expansion is estimated at $11,600,000. The authorization for this

project recommends funding for twenty-five percent of 3,000,000 gallons per day of

the 4,300,000 gallon per day expansion. It is estimated that the 3,000,000 gallon per

day expansion will cost $8,100,000. Therefore an appropriation of $2,030,000 for the

3,000,000 gallons per day authorization from the Bureau of Reclamation will enable

the City to complete the project while reducing the financial impact on rate payers,

and will advance the City towards our ultimate goal of producing 20,000,000 gallons

per day. The funding will create a ripple effect in Southern California and beyond

by demonstrating the efficient use of groundwater desalting technology, stimulating

other agencies to develop their own projects. Ultimately, appropriating funds to the

City of Oceanside will provide some much-needed relief to the water supply crisis

affecting the entire Southwestern United States. Construction is due to begin in

mid-1999, and to be complete in 2001.

The City of Oceanside respectfully requests that you appropriate $2,030,000 in the

fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriation bill for this project.

The City of Oceanside is requesting appropriations of $2,030,000 in the fiscal year

2000 budget for the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and

Development Project.

APPROPRIATION REQUEST 1999

The City of Oceanside is requesting appropriations of $2,030,000 in the Fiscal

Year 2000 budget for the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research

and Development Project.

Construction cost estimate is $11,600,000.

Benefits to the City of Oceanside and the Southern California Region include the

following:

—Provides an emergency water supply for the City and the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.

—Creates a highly reliable water supply, which is critical to the region’s longterm economic health and its ability to attract and retain businesses.

—Provides benefits to California and the rest of the nation by reducing the region’s demand for imported water from the Colorado River and the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The existing Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Facility.
581

Background

The City of Oceanside owns and operates a 2,000,000-gallon-per-day facility that

recovers and desalts brackish Groundwater from the San Luis Rey Mission Groundwater Basin. Oceanside proposes to expand this facility to 6,300,000 gallons per day.

Water from the Mission Basin was previously considered unusable as a municipal

water source due to its high salinity and mineral content.

The current desalting facility produces 2,200 acre-feet of potable water annually—

enough water to meet the annual needs of 4,000 households.

Oceanside’s local water supply development has received support from many

agencies including the State of California, which loaned the City $5,000,000 to build

the initial small-scale demonstration project.

PROPOSED BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

The project will increase production capacity of the existing desalting facility to

6,300,000 gallons per day, or 6,400 acre-feet per year. This new water supply will

be sufficient to meet 22 percent of the City’s average annual water supply needs.

The project will benefit Oceanside and the larger San Diego region by creating

a local, highly reliable water supply. Unlike imported water, this local water supply

does not cross major earthquake fault lines to reach consumers. A reliable water

supply is critical to the region’s long-term economic health, and its ability to attract

and retain businesses.

The project will also serve as a model for other groundwater desalting projects in

San Diego County and elsewhere in Southern California. The proposed expansion

involves the use of Energy Saving Polyamide (ESPA) reverse osmosis membrane elements. The membranes offer significant savings in both investment and operation

expenses that exceed other membrane elements currently on the market.

The Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development

Project will use reverse osmosis technology to produce potable water of higher quality than the City’s imported water supply.

The reverse osmosis process involves pumping water at high pressure through

semi-permeable membranes. Membrane pores are large enough to let water molecules through, but small enough to remove salts, metals, and other dissolved impurities.

—Groundwater pumped from the basin is treated first with chemicals to optimize

membrane operations, then filtered.

—The pretreated water then is pumped through the reverse osmosis membranes

to remove all but the smallest molecular compounds. Dissolved minerals and

other impurities removed by the reverse osmosis membranes are discharged to

the City’s ocean outfall for disposal.

—The water receives additional chemical treatment to meet drinking water standards before it is added to the City’s potable water system.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD R. KENDALL, PH.D., P.E., GENERAL MANAGER,

CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

submit this written testimony on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation appropriations for

fiscal year 2000. The Calleguas Municipal Water District is listed in the Bureau’s

budget as a ‘‘new start’’ for Title XVI water recycling funding ($1,500,000).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Main Features

The Calleguas Municipal Water District proposes to implement a regional water

reuse program. The principal objectives of the proposed program are: Increase the

reliability of water service within the District’s service area; Assist in achieving regional solutions to meeting wastewater discharge requirements; Provide necessary

facilities to achieve long-term salt balance in the region; and Implement the

Calleguas Creek Watershed Plan.

The program is made up of several water recycling projects which include wastewater reclamation and groundwater recovery projects which will use reverse osmosis

(RO) technology for demineralization. The treatment facilities will be connected by

a Brine Disposal Pipeline designed to collect the concentrated effluent from the various demineralization facilities which are planned.
582

The source of water for the water recycling projects are eight wastewater treatment plants located throughout the District’s service area. The source water for the

RO plants will be local brackish groundwater high in total dissolved solids (TDS).

Most of the area is underlain by two aquifer systems and generally the upper aquifer system is high in TDS as a result of over extraction, the concentration effects

of agricultural use, and discharges from the local publicly owned treatment works

(POTW) that percolate to the upper aquifer system.

The water which will be developed through this program will provide a wide

range of beneficial potable and non-potable uses and will substantially reduce the

region’s demand for additional imported water supplies. The time frame for project

implementation extends through the year 2020. The individual projects which make

up the program include:

Simi Valley Wastewater Reclamation Project.—The project will construct distribution and related facilities to enable the use of recycled water produced at the Simi

Valley Water Quality Control Plant. Ultimate project yield is 5,000 AF.

Conejo Creek Diversion Project.—This project will construct distribution and related facilities to enable the reuse of secondary treated wastewater from the City

of Thousand Oaks Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The secondary effluent

is currently discharged into Conejo Creek, a tributary of Calleguas Creek. The

project will construct a diversion structure on Conejo Creek which will be used to

diver the treated wastewater for deliveries to Pleasant Valley County Water District

and Camrosa Water District. The two Districts will in turn deliver the reclaimed

water to their customers for use in agricultural and landscape irrigation applications. The two Districts, which produce a good portion of their supply from the

Pleasant Valley Groundwater Basin, will use the recycled water in-lieu of pumped

groundwater. In exchange, the groundwater will remain in storage. The ultimate

yield of the project is 14,000 AFY.

Camarillo Wastewater Reclamation Project Expansion.—The project will expand

the reuse of recycled water form the Camarillo Wastewater Treatment Plant. Recycled water will be used for agricultural and turf irrigation. The ultimate yield of the

project is 2,840 AFY.

Oak Park/North Ranch Wastewater Reclamation System Expansion.—The proposed project will expand an existing recycled water distribution system to enable

the additional use of recycled water produced at the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility in Los Angels County. The proposed expansion will construct facilities to expan

d service to an additional 200 acres within the North Ranch area of Ventura County

and will serve recycled water to a 27 hold golf course, two public parks, and about

35 landscape irrigation customers. The additional amount of recycled water which

will be used is 750 AFY.

South Las Posas Brackish Groundwater Recovery Project.—This project will construct wells, treatment and distribution facilities to enable the recovery and use of

groundwater from the south Las Posas Groundwater Basin. The project will entail

the extraction of groundwater, desalination, and the conveyance of the product

water to the Calleguas MWD potable water distribution system for further deliver

to Calleguas’ retail water customers. The ultimate project yield is 5,300 AFY,

West Simi Valley Brackish Groundwater Project.—The project will construct facilities to enable the recovery of groundwater from the western portion of the Simi valley Basin. The extracted and demineralized groundwater will be delivered to

Calleguas’ potable water distribution system for delivery to C alleguas’ retail water

customers. The project will convert five existing wells, drill and equip three new

wells, construct well collection and transmission pipelines, a reverse osmosis treatment facility and related transmission distribution facilities. The ultimate project

yield is 3,400 AFY.

Thousand Oaks Brackish Groundwater Recovery Project.—The proposed project

will construct distribution and related facilities to enable the recovery of groundwater from the Thousand Oaks Groundwater basin. This groundwater currently

cannot be used either for potable or agricultural applications due to its poor water

quality, mostly due to the high mineral content. The project will entail the extraction of groundwater, blending the groundwater with imported water which is of better quality, and the conveyance of the product water to Calleguas’ distribution system for further deliver to their retail water customers. The ultimate project yield

is 900 AFY.

Regional Brine Line Disposal Facility.—The proposed project will construct facilities to dispose of brine which will be generated through the demineralization of recycled water and brackish groundwater. The proposed pipeline will be a regional facility which will collect the brine from six exi sting major wastewater treatment

plants and two proposed groundwater desalination facilities within the Calleguas
583

service area. The brine will be conveyed via the regional brine line for disposal to

the Pacific Ocean via an ocean outfall.

B. Operational Aspects

The Calleguas Recycled Water Program is a series of projects involving wastewater treatment facilities, recycled and potable water distribution facilities, brackish groundwater treatment facilities and a regional brine line. All of these agencies

are participating in this regional program: Ventura County Waterworks District No.

8 and No. 1, Southern California Water Company, City of Simi Valley, Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California, Pleasant Valley County Water District,

Camrosa Water District, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Camarillo, Camarillo Sanitary District, City of Oxnard, Oceanview Municipal Water District, United Water

conservation District, City of Port Hueneme, Ventura County Public works Agency,

Construction Battalion Center at Port Hueneme, California Water Service Company,

Las Virgenes Municipal Water district, Triunfo County Sanitation District, City of

Moorpark, and California American Water Company.

C. Schedule

The Recycled Water Program is comprised of several projects most of which will

be implemented in phases. It is anticipated that all or most of the projects will be

implemented by the year 2010. Three of the projects are in the advanced stages of

implementation. For these project, feasibility studies and CEQA compliance documentation have been completed and can, therefore, be implemented in 2000.

D. Project Costs

The capital costs of the proposed program is estimated at $161,350,000 million.

Table 1 delineates the program cost by project. A summary of the project cost is as

follows:

Simi Valley Wastewater Reclamation Project ..................................... $18,600,000

Conejo Creek Diversion Project ............................................................ 23,900,000

Camarillo Wastewater Reclamation Project ........................................ 4,400,000

Oxnard Wastewater Reclamation Project ............................................ 97,700,000

OakPark/North Ranch System Expansion ........................................... 2,200,000

Moorpark Wastewater Reclamation Project ........................................ 2,400,000

South Las Posas Groundwater Recovery Project ................................ 9,100,000

West Simi Valley Groundwater Recovery Project ............................... 6,900,000

Thousand Oaks Groundwater Recovery Project .................................. 1,500,000

Regional Brine Line ............................................................................... 24,100,000

E. Sources and Status of Nonfederal Funding

The potential funding sources which have been identified to finance the implementation of the water recycling program include: $20,000,000 USBR Grant;

$20,000,000 Proposition 204 Water Recycling Loan; Recycled Water Sales—Wholesale; Metropolitan Local Projects Program ($35,000,000); Calleguas rates and

charges (e.g., connections fees, new demand charges); Certificates of Participation or

Water Revenue Bonds; and POTW’s contributed funding to avoid nitrification expenses.

WATER SUPPLY

A. Amount of Recycled Water Put to Beneficial Use.

Total ultimate project yield is 54,000 AFY. The recycled water produced from

these projects will either be utilized for; agricultural purposes, landscape irrigation,

groundwater recharge or direct consumptive use. The irrigation components of the

projects increase the overall water supply to the region. In-lieu groundwater replenishment components of the projects will serve two purposes. First, the replenishment of the groundwater basin will aide in the correction of the existing groundwater overdraft problem. Secondly, the groundwater placed in storage will be subsequently recovered and used as a potable supply. The groundwater recovery projects

will be put to beneficial use groundwater that would otherwise be unusable due to

poor water quality and will therefore, increase the availability and reliability of the

region’s sources of supply.

B. Describe and Quantify the Demands That Will Be Met With the Recycled Water.

Calleguas is primarily dependent upon the Metropolitan Water District for its

water supply. In fact, the District’s entire drinking water supply is provided by the

California State Water Project.

Since 1964, the Districts population has quadrupled from 138,000 to 520,000 in

1996 (roughly 75 percent of Ventura County’s population. Rapid population and eco-
584

nomic growth has placed additional demands on the District resulting in an increase

in annual deliveries from 9,000 AF to in excess of 95,000 AF in the same period.

The projected demand for imported supplies in 202 is 148,000 AFY if no additional

recycled water projects are implemented and 120,000 AFY if a majority of the proposed projects are implemented. If the proposed projects are fully implemented then

Calleguas MWD does not need any additional imported supplies from MWD (e.g.,

Colorado River and SWP). This is very significant given the issues with the California 4.4 Plan and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

C. How Would the Project Reduce Demand on Existing Federal Water Supply Facilities?

Calleguas’ only other water supply alternative is the Metropolitan Water District.

Metropolitan has two sources of imported supplies, the Colorado River and the Sacramento Bay-Delta. In both watersheds the Federal government through the US Bureau of Reclamation is the primary stakeholder. To the extent Calleguas can lessen

its demand for imported water from Metropolitan by developing local supplies, Metropolitan will correspondingly reduce is demand for Federal water through the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Sacramento Bay-Delta.

D. Regional or Watershed Perspective?

The program provides the following water supply and management benefits:

—Enhanced Reliability: By enhancing and preserving the local sources of supply,

the program will provide an increased measure of water supply reliability in the

event of curtailment of imported water deliveries due to drought or earthquake.

This reliability will ensure adequate supplies for thousands of area families and

that the region will continue to meet the water needs of various industries.

Moreover, the program will guarantee a long-term water supply for agricultural

operations in the region.

—Resource Conservation: Groundwater replenishment of the various aquifer systems underlying the Calleguas’ service area will alleviate the prevailing overdraft condition and will also aide in the mitigation and prevention of further

seawater intrusion.

—Increased Level Of Independence: Since the early 1960’s, much of urbanized

Ventura County has become exceedingly reliant upon imported water deliveries.

The program will assist the region in maximizing beneficial use of local water

resources thereby decreasing the region’s precarious dependence on unpredictable, imported water deliveries.

—Delta Protection: Development of the program will benefit biological resources

in the Sacramento bay-Delta due to reduced demands for imported water. To

the degree that recycled water is utilized to supplant imported deliveries, an

equivalent amount of water could remain in the Delta to aid in sustaining sensitive species and habitat.

TABLE 1.—CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY OF WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM,

YIELDS AND CAPITAL COSTS

Project Name/Phase Project Code Project Yield

(AFY)

Estimated

Project Capital

Costs

WASTEWATER RECLAMATION

Simi Valley Wastewater Reclamation Project:

Phase I ..................................................................... RW.01.01 250 $1,500,000

Phase II .................................................................... RW.01.02 3,250 $15,000,000

Phase III ................................................................... RW.01.03 1,500 $8,500,000

Subtotal ................................................................ N/A 5,080 25,000,000

Conejo Diversion Project (Hill Canyon Wastewater Reclamation Project):

Phase I ..................................................................... RW.02.01 6,000 $16,500,000

Phase II .................................................................... RW.02.02 8,000 $9,500,000

Subtotal ................................................................ N/A 14,000 $26,000,000
585

TABLE 1.—CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY OF WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM,

YIELDS AND CAPITAL COSTS—Continued

Project Name/Phase Project Code Project Yield

(AFY)

Estimated

Project Capital

Costs

Camarillo Wastewater Reclamation Project:

Phase I ..................................................................... RW.03.01 1,710 $1,200,000

Phase II .................................................................... RW.03.02 1,130 $3,000,000

Subtotal ................................................................ N/A 2,840 $4,200,000

Oxnard Wastewater Reclamation Project:

Phase I ..................................................................... RW.04.01 5,000 $45,000,000

Phase II .................................................................... RW.04.02 5,000 $10,000,000

Phase III ................................................................... RW.04.03 10,000 $5,000,000

Subtotal ................................................................ N/A 20,000 $60,000,000

Oak Park/North Ranch Wastewater Reclamation System

Expansion: Phase II ...................................................... RW.05.02 750 $1,750,000

Moorpark Wastewater Reclamation Project:

Phase I ..................................................................... RW.06.01 757 $3,000,000

Phase II .................................................................... RW.06.02 953 $3,000,000

Subtotal ................................................................ N/A 1,710 $3,000,000

Total Wastewater Reclamation ............................ N/A 44,300 $119,950,000

BRACKISH GROUNDWATER RECOVERY PROJECT

South Las Posas Brackish Groundwater Recovery Project ................................................................................ GW.01.01 5,258 $11,500,000

West Simi Valley Brackish Groundwater Recovery Project ................................................................................ GW.02.01 3,382 $7,100,000

Thousand Oaks Brackish Groundwater Recovery Project .. GW.03.01 900 $300,000

Total Brackish Groundwater Recovery Projects ... N/A 9,540 $18,900,000

REGIONAL BRINE DISPOSAL

Regional Brine Disposal Pipeline:

Phase I ..................................................................... BD.01.01 N/A $18,250,000

Phase II .................................................................... BD.01.02 N/A $4,250,000

Total Regional Brine Disposal Pipeline ............... N/A N/A $22,500,000

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. ARMSTRONG, GENERAL MANAGER, MONTEREY

COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY (MCWRA)

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for inclusion

in the hearing record of the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. The people of the Salinas Valley in California’s 17th Congressional

District appreciate your willingness to accept our statements in support of the

Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project. I would further like to express our deep appreciation for this Subcommittee’s efforts on past Energy and Water Development

Appropriations bills. I am pleased to report that the project is complete and operational.

As with the past five years the Monterey County Water Resources Agency has

worked diligently to present the Subcommittee with an fiscal year 2000 funding request that is supported by the Administration as well as all the other Small Rec-
586

lamation Loan Program participants. Through close consultation with the Bureau

of Reclamation and other Program participants, we have developed the funding

plans that were included in the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget for the Public

Law 84–984 Small Reclamation Loan Program. I therefore respectively request that

the Subcommittee provide the full Administration request for the project of

$2,600,000.

This is the sixth year of an eight year fiscal strategy designed to meet the requirements of all the projects in the Program while recognizing the fiscal constraints facing all levels of government. Originally, the Program was to provide all appropriations ($16,500,000) over a three year period. During the past five years this Subcommittee provided $9,264,000 for our project. The current appropriation amount of

$2,600,000, when combined with other federal funding which is available from the

U.S. Treasury in the amount of $4,550,000 pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform

Act of 1990, should yield a total loan amount of $7,150,000 for fiscal year 2000 that

will allow the project to proceed on schedule.

The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) is a local government

entity formed under the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act. It is an

agency with limited jurisdiction involving matters related primarily to flood control

and water resources conservation, management, and development. The Salinas Valley is a productive agricultural area that depends primarily on ground water as a

water supply. The combination of the Valley’s rich soils, mild climate, and high

quality ground water makes this Valley unique among California’s most fertile agricultural lands and has earned the Valley the distinction as the ‘‘Nation’s Salad

Bowl’’. As agricultural activity and urban development have increased in the past

forty years, ground water levels have dropped allowing seawater to intrude the

coastal ground water aquifers. Seawater intrusion is extensive adjacent to the coast

near the town of Castroville. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project will provide

19,500 acre-feet of recycled water annually for agricultural irrigation to over 12,000

acres and help solve the seawater intrusion problem by greatly reducing groundwater pumping in the project area. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project is an

essential component in the MCWRA’s plan to deal with basin-wide ground water

overdraft and seawater intrusion.

The amount requested in fiscal year 2000, when combined with the additional

Treasury portion, is intended to fulfill the Bureau’s sixth year loan commitment for

assistance to construct the project. As stated above, the funding request that we anticipate is the result of a lengthy and complex financial agreement worked out with

the other Loan Program participants and the Bureau. The agreement recognized the

tight federal budgetary constraints and represents the absolute minimal annual

amount necessary to proceed with the project. The MCWRA has been extremely accommodating of the Bureau’s budgetary constraints and has agreed to expend considerable local funds to bridge the federal government’s budgetary shortfall. Any additional cuts in federal funding will jeopardize the complex financing plan for the

project.

In August 1992, the original loan request was submitted to the Bureau. Subsequent approval was received from the Secretary of the Interior in May 1994.

Through extensive discussion and negotiations between the MCWRA and the Bureau, a project financing plan was created. The Bureau made it quite clear that the

original provisions in the loan application of full disbursement during the three

years of construction could not be met due to federal budget shortfalls. As defined

in the repayment contract, the Bureau will disburse funds to the MCWRA over an

eight-year period. This means that the MCWRA will receive these funds for five

years after the project is operational. The fiscal year 1999 funding provided monies

for the second year after completion of the project. The MCWRA had to acquire

‘‘bridge financing’’ to meet the needs of the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project

construction costs. Even though the additional private debt service has increased

the project costs, the critical problem of seawater intrusion demanded that the

project proceed. The Bureau loan is a crucial link in project funding, and it is imperative that the annual appropriations, even at the planned reduced rate over eight

years, continue. Federal appropriations have been received in fiscal years 1995,

1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 as shown in the table below and must continue in subsequent years in accordance with the negotiated agreement in order for the projects

to be successful. The federal funds requested under the Public Law 84–984 program

will be repaid by landowners in the Salinas Valley with assessments that are currently in place. The MCWRA has spent approximately $36,000,000 of its own funds

getting to this point.
587

FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS 1

[Millions of dollars]

Received

in 1995

Received

in 1996

Received

in 1997

Received

in 1998

Received

in 1999

Requested

for 2000 Total

CSIP ........................ 1.064 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.6 11.864

1 Does not include Treasury portion of $9.092 for CSIP.

Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the members of the Subcommittee to give your

continued support to the Small Reclamation Program and we urge the inclusion of

funds for the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project. Without your continued support, we will not be able to realize the benefit of the work completed over the past

several years and the Salinas ground water basin will continue to deteriorate, creating a significant threat to the local and state economies as well as to the health

and welfare of our citizens.

Again, thank you for your support and continued assistance.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH ISRAEL, GENERAL MANAGER, MONTEREY REGIONAL

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MRWPCA)

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity today to provide this testimony for

inclusion in the hearing record on the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. But most importantly, let me express my sincere appreciation for your continued support for the Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program,

and specifically, the funding for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project. During the

past five years, this subcommittee provided $6,500,000 for our project. I am pleased

to report that the funds appropriated thus far have been well spent on our project,

which began construction in August 1995. The new facility was dedicated in October

1997 with full operation beginning in April 1998, and since full operation, the plant

has produced somewhat over 5,000 acre-feet (AF) of recycled water.

The project will ultimately provide 19,500 acre-feet of recycled water per year to

land south and west of Castroville where abandonment of wells threatens agricultural production and the loss of a portion of rural America. It will also reduce discharge of secondary treated wastewater to the recently created Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. In addition, the California State Water Resources Control

Board specifically indicated its strong support for the Salinas Valley Reclamation

Project in a prior letter to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), a joint-powers entity formed under the laws of the State of California, was created in 1971 to

implement a plan that called for consolidation of the Monterey Peninsula and northern Salinas Valley wastewater flows through a regional treatment plant and an outfall to central Monterey Bay. The plan also required studies to determine the technical feasibility of using recycled water for irrigation of fresh vegetable food crops

(artichokes, celery, broccoli, lettuce, and cauliflower) in the Castroville area. These

studies were initiated in 1976 and included a five-year full-scale demonstration of

using recycled wastewater for food crop irrigation. California and Monterey County

health departments concluded in 1988 that the water was safe for food crops that

would be consumed without cooking. Subsequently, the Salinas Valley Seawater Intrusion Committee voted to include recycled water in their plan to slow seawater

intrusion in the Castroville area.

In addition, a supplemental water testing program (October 1997 through March

1998) was initiated to confirm the new plant’s removal of what are termed ‘‘emerging pathogens.’’ These organisms, which include Cryptosporidium, Giardia,

Cyclospora, and E. Coli, were not evaluated in the original five-year field study. The

results of the follow-up testing program again verified that the water is safe for irrigation of food crops.

As in the past, we have been in close consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation

and the other Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program participants in an attempt

to provide the Committee with a consensus budget request that has the support of

the Administration and the Loan Program participants. Based on these discussions,

the Administration requested, with our support and endorsement, sufficient funding

for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project as part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s

Public Law 84–984 Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program for continuation of

loan obligations. This appropriation amount, $1,700,000, when combined with other

federal funding which is available from the U.S. Treasury pursuant to the Federal
588

Credit Reform Act of 1990, will yield a total loan amount that we believe will meet

the federal government’s commitment for fiscal year 2000. The amount requested,

when combined with the additional Treasury portion, is intended to fulfill the Bureau’s sixth-year loan commitment for assistance to construct the project.

As I indicated, the funding request is the result of a lengthy and complex financial agreement worked out with the other Loan Program participants and the Bureau. The agreement represents the absolute minimum annual amount necessary to

continue with the project. The MRWPCA worked under the premise of accommodating the Bureau of Reclamation’s budgetary constraints and is expending considerable local funds to bridge the federal government’s budgetary shortfall. Any additional cuts in federal funding will jeopardize the complex financing plan for the

project.

The MRWPCA has received Federal Grant and Loan Funds in Federal fiscal year

1995, fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999

through February 4, 1999, as follows:

FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS 1

[Millions of dollars]

Received in

1995

Received in

1996

Received in

1997

Received in

1998

Received in

1999

Requested

for 2000 Total

SVRP ....................... ................ 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.7 8.2

1 Does not include Treasury portion of $6,205,000 for SVRP.

Even though the additional private debt service and bridge financing will increase

the project costs, the critical problem of seawater intrusion demands that the project

be continued. The Bureau of Reclamation loan is a crucial link in project funding,

and it is imperative that annual appropriations continue, even at the planned reduced rate over eight years. The federal funds requested under the Public Law 84–

984 program will be repaid by landowners in the Salinas Valley with assessments

that are currently in place. Local funds totaling $21,200,000 have already been

spent getting to this point.

Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the members of the subcommittee to give your

continued support to the Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program, and specifically, funding for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project. Your support and continued assistance for this critical project is greatly appreciated.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE GEORGE, MANAGER, KAWEAH DELTA WATER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bruce George, and

I am the Manager of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District in the eastern

San Joaquin Valley of California. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000 budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Corps of Engineers includes $582,000 to complete pre-construction engineering and design (PED) of a

project to increase the water storage capacity of Terminus Dam at Lake Kaweah

in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The project would add approximately 43,000

acre-feet of flood control and conservation storage space to Lake Kaweah by raising

the Terminus Dam spillway by 21 feet. The estimated total first cost of the project

is $35,000,000.

The President’s budget also provides $1,680,000 for ongoing operation and maintenance of Terminus Dam in fiscal year 2000. The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation

District and its project cosponsors support these PED and operation and maintenance requests.

In addition to the amounts proposed in the President’s budget, we respectfully request a General Construction appropriation of $2,500,000 to initiate construction of

the Terminus spillway project in fiscal year 2000 and keep the project on schedule.

The Corps of Engineers has been actively studying and planning this modest

project for more than 10 years. During that time, the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and other local authorities have invested $1,800,000 of their owns

funds in the planning and development process. The State of California is committed to be the lead non-federal sponsor of the project. Other local sponsors are

the counties of Kings and Tulare, the City of Visalia and the Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District.
589

Under the Corps’ current schedule, pre-construction engineering and design will

be completed in the spring of 2000. With an additional appropriation of $2,500,000,

the Corps could begin construction work in the early summer. A commitment of construction funding for fiscal year 2000 would save time and money for all parties by

allowing formal cost-sharing agreements to be signed sooner, clearing the way for

the expenditure of state and local funds for the acquisition of real estate and valuable environmental mitigation lands.

The California Water Commission supports a $2,500,000 General Construction appropriation for the Terminus Project in addition to the amounts requested in the

President’s fiscal year 2000 budget for pre-construction and operation and maintenance. The State of California has already appropriated funds for the purchase of

mitigation lands, and the state and other non-federal sponsors have budgeted their

required funds for fiscal year 2000.

BACKGROUND

The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District was formed in 1927 to conserve

and protect the surface and groundwater of the Kaweah delta. The District serves

337,000 acres, which include the cities of Visalia and Tulare and several other incorporated and unincorporated areas in Kings and Tulare counties. Those two counties

consistently rank among the most productive agricultural counties in the nation.

Terminus Dam and Lake Kaweah, located on the Kaweah River three and onehalf miles east of the District, was completed in 1962 by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. The purpose of the project is to provide storage space for flood protection

and irrigation on the Kaweah River. The Conservation District manages the irrigation and flood control releases for Lake Kaweah, as well as assisting in the conjunctive use of the surface and groundwater of the Kaweah delta.

Flooding downstream from the dam occurs when flows from individual creeks

blend together and form a sheet flow through urban and agricultural areas. Included in the flooded areas are the communities of Visalia, Farmerville, Tulare,

Ivanhoe and Goshen. Since construction of Terminus Dam, 10 damaging floods have

occurred, the most recent in 1997 and 1998.

Inadequate flood protection and a long-term groundwater overdraft in the region

have created a need for greater reservoir storage space for flood control and irrigation storage. With a maximum capacity of 143,000 acre-feet, Lake Kaweah currently

provides a less than 50-year level of flood protection for communities downstream.

Raising the spillway at Terminus Dam (by the installation of fuse gates) would increase the reservoir storage capacity by 30 percent, thus providing a much higher

level of flood protection for the region.

California’s growing population will place ever-increasing demands on its water

supply and flood control infrastructure. Improving existing facilities such as Terminus Dam is one of the most economical and environmentally sensitive ways to

meet those new demands. It is important for Congress to encourage such projects.

We are grateful for the Committee’s continued support of the Terminus project.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DI GIORGIO, MAYOR, CITY OF NOVATO,

CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Michael Di

Giorgio, and I am the Mayor of the City of Novato, California, located 20 miles

north of San Francisco. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000 budget for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The City of Novato requests $600,000 in fiscal year 2000 for Phase II of the

Novato Urban Flood Control Project, a Section 205 small flood control project on

Rush Creek. Phase II improvements are necessary to maximize the value of the

Phase I work, for which Congress earmarked $350,000 in fiscal year 1999.

Once completed, the Rush Creek project will resolve chronic flooding in the downtown area of the City of Novato. Flooding has occurred on Rush Creek in three of

the last four rainy seasons, damaging residential and commercial property, local infrastructure, and jeopardizing public safety.

Included in the City’s scope of work for Phase II of the Novato Urban Flood Control project is a new culvert under Olive Avenue, flood flow pipes from Olive Avenue

to Golden Gate Place, and earth channel dredging from Golden Gate Place to the

Caltrans U.S. Highway 101 right-of-way. The City is prepared to cost share this

project consistent with the authorization.

The City is optimistic that only one additional year of funding will be necessary,

beyond the requested appropriation for fiscal year 2000, to bring Rush Creek flood
590

flows under control. The total cost for this project is estimated at $2,000,000, including the local share.

BACKGROUND

In the past, the City of Novato has spent over $9,000,000, from property assessments, to pay for local creek improvements and other flood control measures. In

1985, a local election approved benefit assessment funds to finance flood control improvements for the City of Novato. These funds are completely expended with a portion of the work left uncompleted. Until the fiscal year 1999 appropriation, no federal funds had been utilized for those channel improvements in the City. Currently, the community pays more than $100,000 annually in flood insurance,

and 2,958 parcels are located within the special flood hazard area, based on the

flood insurance rate maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA). Following completion of the Rush Creek improvements, it is expected that

a re-mapping of the FEMA flood insurance maps would reduce the community outlay for flood insurance.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE SERNA, JR., MAYOR, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

On behalf of the City of Sacramento, I would like to thank you for the opportunity

to provide testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and

Water Development in support of fiscal year 2000 funding for flood control protection projects in Sacramento. First, I would like to express my appreciation to the

Subcommittee for its efforts in past years to fund flood protection measures for the

City. Sacramento, California, continues to face the highest flood risk in the nation.

During the past several years, the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee

has recognized the dire need for flood protection in and around the Sacramento area

and has provided funds for a variety of previously authorized projects. In order to

continue our efforts, we must once again request your support for funding vital Sacramento area flood control projects in fiscal year 2000. This year, the City of Sacramento is seeking $43,100,000 in federal funding

through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to finance ongoing projects,

which are described below and in the enclosed chart. The projects include the socalled ‘‘common elements’’ authorized in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act

as well as other projects previously authorized. The Clinton Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget provides $34,000,000 for these projects, which is $9,100,000 less than the City’s request. The major difference

is that the Corps of Engineers did not include construction money for the South Sacramento Stream Group Project. If the Congress authorizes a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) this year, construction money could be used for this important

project in fiscal year 2000. The City urgently needs the Subcommittee’s leadership

and support to obtain our full funding request in order to move forward with these

previously authorized projects.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed budget for fiscal year 2000 recently

submitted to Congress provides $17,000,000 for continuation of construction of the

Common Elements Project. This level of funding is necessary to keep the project

moving forward and we support the Administration’s request. The Common Elements Project is a vital first step in our flood control efforts and full funding to keep

this project on track is essential.

The City of Sacramento has been working in cooperation with the Sacramento

Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) on the construction of bank protection improvements which are vital to correct harmful erosion along the banks of the American

River which threatens the integrity of our existing levees. Additional improvements

will be needed over the next several years to prevent erosion at other American

River sites. This work is already authorized under the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project which is used to fund erosion control projects throughout the Sacramento River System. The President’s budget proposes $7,000,000 for the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, which we fully support and urge the Subcommittee to support.

Due to the significant flood risk along creeks in the South Sacramento area, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, submitted the South Sacramento Streams Group

Chief’s Report to Congress for inclusion in WRDA 1998. We urge the Subcommittee

to fund design and construction for this project in the fiscal year 2000 Corps of Engineers’ budget.

Under the Corps’ Section 205 program, a feasibility study and environmental documentation have been completed for a project that would provide a high degree of
591

flood protection on Magpie Creek. This year the President has requested

$26,900,000 for all Section 205 flood control projects. We urge the Subcommittee to

support Section 205 funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget and recommend that the

Corps of Engineers be directed to provide sufficient funds for completion of the Magpie Creek project in its distribution of Section 205 funds.

For the American River Watershed (Natomas) improvements which were authorized by Congress in 1992, we are seeking continued construction appropriations in

the amount of $4,000,000 for reimbursement to SAFCA for the Federal share of the

flood control improvements, as well as $3,900,000 in construction appropriations to

complete the Ueda Parkway recreation elements of the project.

The President’s Budget for fiscal year 2000 provides for $5,000,000 in

Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) funds for the American River Watershed comprehensive plan. The City, SAFCA, and the Reclamation Board and

members of our congressional delegation are working diligently on congressional authorization of additional improvements on the American River system as part of the

1999 Water Resources Development Act. Once authorized, the Corps of Engineers

will need significant funds to proceed with meaningful design in 2000 and not lose

a year in the schedule to implement these improvements. Therefore, we urge the

Subcommittee to support $5,000,000 in PED funds for the American River Watershed comprehensive plan.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement and for your

consideration of the funding that the City of Sacramento needs to protect its residents. Adequate flood protection is essential in this most flood-prone of American

cities. We thank you again for the Subcommittee’s commitment in previous years

to providing this vital protection, and we ask for your renewed support in assuring

its continuation.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL

[In millions of dollars]

Project Fiscal year 1999

enacted

Fiscal year 2000

city/SAFCA

request

Fiscal year

admin. request

American River Comprehensive Plan: Funds to continue the planning and design of Sacramento flood

protection projects ...................................................... 0.05 5.0 5.0

American River Common Elements: 24 miles of levee

improvements along the American River and 12

miles of improvements along the Sacramento River

levees, flood gauges upstream of Folsom Dam, and

improvements to the flood warning system along

the lower American River ........................................... 15.0 17.0 17.0

South Sacramento Streams: Prevention of flooding of

portions of Sacramento from the south, where four

creeks convey foothill runoff through urbanized

areas into Beach Lake and the Delta ........................ 0.9 1 4.0 0.5

Mapgie Creek: Authorized under the Corps’ Section 205

program, this project will provide a high degree of

flood protection on Magpie Creek .............................. 1.65 1.7 2 (26.9)

Sacramento River Bank Protection: Will correct harmful

erosion along the banks of the American River

which threatens the integrity of the existing levees 10.08 7.0 7.0

American River Watershed (Natomas): Reimbursement

to SAFCA for the Federal share of the flood control

improvements undertaken by the local project sponsor ............................................................................... 9.0 4.0 4.0

American River Watershed (Natomas Recreation, Ueda

Parkway): A waterway, bike and pedestrian path

that connects all of Sacramento as the recreation

component of the recently-completed Natomas Flood

Control Project (see above) ........................................ 0.0 3.9 0.0
592

FISCAL YEAR 2000 SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

Project Fiscal year 1999

enacted

Fiscal year 2000

city/SAFCA

request

Fiscal year

admin. request

Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (DO5 Pump

Station): a feasibility study to restore 100-year level

of flood protection to Chicken Ranch Slough drainage to the American River ......................................... N/A 0.5 0.5

Total ................................................................... 36.68 43.1 34.0

1 Construction funds assume passage of WRDA in 1999.

2 Total request for the Corps of Engineers Section 205 programs. No specific earmark is available for Magpie Creek.

This funding level is therefore not included in the total.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA

Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee. The Metropolitan Water

District of Southern California (MWD) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) and the Army

Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) fiscal year (fiscal year) 2000 budget, for the Hearing on

Energy and Water Appropriations. MWD is a public agency created in 1928 to meet

the supplemental water demands of those people living in what is now portions of

a six-county region of Southern California. Today, the region served by MWD includes 16,000,000 people living on the coastal plain between Ventura and the international boundary with Mexico. It is an area larger than the State of Connecticut

and, if it were a separate nation, would rank in the top ten economies of the world.

Included in our region are more than 225 cities and unincorporated areas in the

counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide more than half the water consumed in our 5,200-square-mile service area. MWD’s water supplies come from the Colorado River via the district’s Colorado River Aqueduct and from northern California via the State Water Project’s

California Aqueduct.

INTRODUCTION

Our testimony focuses on Reclamation’s water resources management and ecosystem restoration programs that are of major importance to MWD and other Southern California water supply agencies. Specifically, MWD strongly recommends your

approval of a Reclamation fiscal year 2000 budget that includes full funding for San

Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary restoration activities, as requested in the President’s budget. We also recommend your approval of the full

budget request for Corps participation in these Delta restoration activities. MWD

urges your support for adequate federal funding for Reclamation’s Colorado River

Basin Salinity Control Program that will ensure protection of water quality for this

important source of water supply. MWD also urges your support for Reclamation’s

Endangered Species Conservation/Recovery projects that will provide for conservation of endangered and threatened species and habitat along the lower Colorado

River, and provide mitigation for impacts associated with Reclamation’s projects. Finally, MWD urges your full support for Reclamation programs that will help stretch

existing water resources, such as water reclamation and groundwater recovery

projects for Southern California agencies. These programs are essential for regional

water supply reliability.

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BUDGET

California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration

In 1996, Congress passed the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act, which authorized $430,000,000 over three years for ecosystem restoration

and water management improvements in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The

Bay-Delta serves as the hub of California’s water system, fueling the State’s

$750,000,000,000 economy, supplying more than two-thirds of the State’s 33,000,000
593

residents with a portion of their drinking water and irrigating 45 percent of the nation’s produce.

Recognizing the importance of the Bay-Delta to California’s economic and environmental health, the California voters approved a $1,000,000,000 general obligation

bond in November 1996, which contains $600,000,000 for improvements in the estuary.

In 1999, $75,000,000 was appropriated for environmental restoration activities in

the Bay-Delta. The Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget request of $95,000,000

represents the first year of broad program implementation for the CALFED BayDelta Program. This federal money for the Bay-Delta will fund an array of critical

improvements, including habitat restoration, watershed protection, fishery enhancement, water supply reliability and water quality improvement. MWD strongly urges

your support for the restoration of one of the largest estuaries in the nation by ensuring the appropriation of these critically-needed funds.

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control

The Colorado River is a large component of the regional water supply and its relatively high salinity causes significant economic impacts on water customers in the

MWD’s service area, as well as throughout the Lower Colorado River Basin. For this

reason, MWD and the Bureau of Reclamation are currently conducting a Salinity

Management Study in Southern California. The first phase of the study (completed

in February 1997) concluded that the high salinity from the Colorado River causes

significant impacts to residential, industrial and agricultural water users. Furthermore, high salinity adversely affects the region’s progressive water recycling programs, and is contributing to an adverse salt buildup through infiltration into

Southern California’s irreplaceable groundwater basins. The second phase of the

study is scheduled to be completed in July 1999. Based on a 1988 study, Reclamation estimated that water users in the Lower Basin were experiencing in excess of

$750,000,000 in annual impacts from salinity levels in the river in 1995, and that

impacts would progressively increase with continued agricultural and urban development upstream of California’s points of diversion. As part of the Salinity Management Study, the economic impacts have been refined for MWD’s service area and

have been submitted to Reclamation for its use in updating its Lower Basin estimate. Droughts will cause spikes in salinity levels that will be highly disruptive to

Southern California water management and commerce. The Salinity Control Program has proven to be a very cost-effective approach to help to mitigate the impacts

of higher salinity. Continued federal funding of the program is essential.

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states’ salinity control efforts, issued

its 1996 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1996

Review) in June 1996. The 1996 Review found that additional salinity control was

necessary beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria in the water quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and approved by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water supply conditions. For the last

four years, federal appropriations for Reclamation have not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for the portion of the program the Federal Government has the

responsibility to implement. It is essential that implementation of Reclamation’s

basinwide salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric criteria to

be met again under average annual long-term water supply conditions, making up

the shortfall. To assist in eliminating the shortfall, the Forum once again recommends that Reclamation utilize upfront cost sharing from the Basin states to

supplement federal appropriations. This concept has been embraced by Reclamation

and is reflected in the President’s proposed budget.

The President’s proposed fiscal year 2000 budget contains funding of $12,000,000

for implementation of the basinwide program. MWD requests that Congress appropriate $17,500,000 for implementation of the basinwide program, an increase of

$5,500,000 from that proposed by the President. This level of funding is necessary

to meet the salinity control activities schedule in order to maintain the state adopted and federally approved water quality standards. The Forum supports this level

of funding. MWD as well as the Forum supports the level of funding proposed by

the President for operation and maintenance of the salinity control units already

constructed, and investigations.

Endangered Species Conservation/Recovery

MWD is presently engaged in an innovative partnership with Reclamation and

other Department of the Interior agencies, as well as other water, power, and wildlife agencies, environmental organizations, and Indian Tribes in the states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, to develop a multi-species conservation program for
594

the Lower Colorado River. The program will address the conservation, enhancement, and recovery needs of a broad suite of more than 70 listed and sensitive species and their associated aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats in the three states,

while providing long-term regulatory certainty for all parties. An effort of this nature can only succeed through the development of innovative voluntary public-private partnerships.

MWD encourages your support for Reclamation’s participation in the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. Reclamation’s participation in this

program has been a valuable asset to the partnership. Funds provided under this

project will in part help fund critically needed interim conservation measures for endangered species and their habitats, as well as planning under the long-term conservation program. The President’s budget requests $15,118,000 for fiscal year 2000 to fund programs under the ‘‘Endangered Species Conservation/Recovery’’ activity and $13,540,000 to

fund programs under the ‘‘Lower Colorado River Ops Program’’ activity. Included in

the former amount are funds to support preservation, conservation, and recovery of

native and endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species in the Lower

Colorado River region. Included in the latter amount are funds to implement measures required by the interim biological opinion on Reclamation’s lower Colorado

River operations, and develop the multi-species conservation program. MWD strongly supports funding at the requested levels.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) facilitates implementation of fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement programs associated with Reclamation’s projects through cost-sharing partnerships with local, state, tribal, and/

or nongovernmental organizations. The Foundation is able to leverage federal dollars on at least a 1:1 matching basis.

The Foundation’s support for programs like the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program is extremely important to the development of comprehensive solutions to these complex endangered species issues. An effort of this

nature can only succeed through the development of innovative voluntary public-private partnerships. The President’s budget requests $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2000, which anticipates

a two dollar nonfederal match for each federal dollar. MWD strongly supports the

President’s requested level of funding.

Water Recycling and Groundwater Recovery

Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and

Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–575) and the Reclamation Recycling and

Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–266) as well as the Bureau’s Loan

Program will greatly improve Southern California’s water supply reliability and the

environment through effective water recycling and recovery of contaminated groundwater. Implementation of such projects is difficult without combined federal, state

and regional assistance for planning, design and construction. MWD expects to contribute about $20,600,000 in fiscal year 2000 to recycled water and groundwater recovery projects in the region, and the State is assisting with low-interest loans.

Funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget for previously unfunded projects as well as

the continued support for previously-funded projects is a positive step toward realizing regional water supply reliability. MWD urges your full support for the

$31,514,000 for Title XVI and $12.425 for the Loan Program in the President’s fiscal

year 2000 budget, as well as future funding for all Southern California projects that

might move forward under the jointly-funded Southern California Comprehensive

Water Reclamation and Reuse Study.

Brackish Water Desalination

Metropolitan requests for federal funding, appropriations for desalination activities aimed at developing new and innovative technologies. Technologies to be investigated include innovative pretreatment options such as nanofiltration, ultra low

pressure reverse osmosis membranes, and carbon aerogel capacitive deionization

(CDI). Brackish water desalination represents a potentially viable alternative to reduce reliance on imported water supplies and minimize the economic impact associated with high salinity water. Current salinity removal technologies are energy-intensive and expensive. Treating Colorado River water to the secondary total dissolved solids (TDS) standard, using conventional membrane technology, can cost

$300 or more per acre-foot. These high costs have precluded the widespread implementation of brackish water desalination technologies, especially for large-scale applications. Breakthroughs in desalination technology will offer potential benefits to

water utilities with sources impaired by high salinity levels. It is estimated that
595

$2,000,000 will be required to continue this research being sponsored by Metropolitan and its member agencies.

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) comprehensive civil works program has the

capability to contribute to the social, economic, and environmental well-being of

California. MWD is primarily interested in the Corps’ environmental restoration

studies and projects that address the needs of the Bay-Delta Estuary.

The President’s proposed fiscal year 2000 budget includes numerous programs in

the Corps’ South Pacific Division, which includes California. Several ecosystem restoration studies and projects specifically address significant habitat issues at various locations in the Bay-Delta watershed. These ecosystem restoration and flood

prevention programs, and the Corps’ full participation in CALFED Bay-Delta efforts, represent an important opportunity in the process of developing and implementing a solution to the water resources and environmental problems facing the

Bay-Delta Estuary. Corps programs that will contribute to the long-term Bay-Delta

solution include environmental restoration studies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds, habitat conservation and mitigation elements of flood damage prevention projects, and ecosystem restoration programs.

MWD urges Congress to fully support these Corps programs as the fiscal year

2000 federal appropriations process moves forward.

Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for Reclamation and Corps’ water resources management and ecosystem restoration programs that are critical for water

supply reliability in Southern California.

LETTER FROM LAWRENCE M. LIBEU, PRESIDENT, WESTERN COALITION OF ARID

STATES

EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,

Perris, CA, March 22, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Chairman Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, on Energy and Water Development,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN DOMENICI AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: As the President of the Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) and as Chairman of the

National Water Resources Association’s (NWRA) Water Resources Management

Committee, I am writing to urge your support for the $12,425,000 contained in the

President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the five projects in the Bureau of

Reclamation’s Small Reclamation Loan Program. The funding that would be provided will move these projects closer to completion in a timely manner so the Federal Government and the local districts can see a return on the investment regarding this vital infrastructure program.

I appreciate that under the Balanced Budget Agreement between the Congress

and the President that every program and the dollars for those programs are looked

at with a critical eye in terms of the worthiness of the investment. This is why I

am concerned with the trends that I have seen regarding the overall Bureau of Reclamation budget. I believe the Bureau’s budget needs to be focused and increased

to place a greater emphasis on completing the authorized project and programs that

are already on the books.

I want to thank your subcommittee for its past support and would ask that your

subcommittee continue to support this valuable program.

Sincerely,

LAWRENCE M. LIBEU,

WESTCAS President.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE MIKLOS, MAYOR, CITY OF FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA

SECTION 503 WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Steve Miklos and

I am the Mayor of the City of Folsom, California, located approximately 25 miles

east of Sacramento. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding

the fiscal year 2000 budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The City of Folsom is an historic gold rush town, dating back to the mid-1800s.

As such, the storm drainage system in the original portion of the city is inefficient
596

and unsophisticated at best. The untreated storm runoff from this area flows directly into Lake Natoma and the American River. To study and address needed

water quality-related improvements and restoration of the City’s urban watershed,

the City of Folsom requests $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 to continue a Section 503

Watershed Restoration Project.

The Section 503 funding is necessary for technical, planning and design assistance

with the City storm drainage system, which directly impacts water quality in the

American River and the Sacramento River watershed. The Sacramento River watershed is specifically authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to

receive funding under this program. Recent hydrology studies suggest that the existing storm drainage systems in Folsom should be upgraded to handle heavier and

sustained water runoff. Left unresolved, these storm drainage problems will continue to pose a threat to water quality in the American River and the Sacramento

River watershed. Analysis of the current drainage system will help us determine

how to minimize these problems.

Historic Folsom drains by a system of roadside ditches, swales, street culverts,

and urban streams that traverse through the area. The hills are steep, and the

ground is a mixture of gravels, soils, and granite outcroppings. One major urban

stream system has become so interlaced with the above, that it flows under structures, is intertwined with pipes and culverts and, under flood conditions, impacts

several properties. This creates problems during heavy rains for numerous residents, businesses, and vehicular traffic, conveying sediment into the river, flooding

roadways and neighborhoods. This system drains into Lake Natoma through the

historic Powerhouse State Park. Constant erosion has been an ongoing problem in

these roadside ditches and yards. Another section of Historic Folsom drains overland through our City Corporation Yard, which includes a landfill, and into Lake

Natoma.

In fiscal year 1999, Congress earmarked $100,000 to initiate a Section 503 Watershed Study on these storm drainage problems. Staff has met several times with

Corps staff to identify the problem and investigate solutions. The 905b study is underway and is expected to be completed in the summer of 1999.

The City of Folsom has committed over $2,000,000 in local funds for watershed

study and storm drainage improvements throughout the community. While this

work has greatly improved storm drainage in certain areas, additional work is still

needed to restore the urban watershed, so that sediment does not continue to impact the system or Lake Natoma, and provide increased security against water quality degradation by contamination from urban uses.

The City proposed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue technical,

planning and design assistance on a Section 503 Watershed restoration project for

the city’s storm drainage system for urban watershed restoration and water qualityrelated improvements. The City is prepared to cost-share work on this project, consistent with the authorization.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAYOR GEORGE PETTYGROVE, CITY OF FAIRFIELD,

CALIFORNIA

SECTION 205—LEDGEWOOD CREEK PROJECT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this opportunity to

speak before you today in support of the City of Fairfield’s Ledgewood Creek project.

The City of Fairfield appreciates this committee’s continuing support for our flood

control efforts over the years, and we look forward to working with the committee

to continue to improve our flood control infrastructure.

The City requests that this committee provide an earmark of $400,000 for the continuation of the Section 205 Ledgewood Creek Project. This project received

$300,000 in funding for fiscal year 1999.

When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied Ledgewood Creek in preparation

for design of the Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project improvements, the Corps predicted that Ledgewood Creek could bifurcate and flood Interstate 80 (I–80). On February 3, 1998, the prediction came true. Run-off from the Ledgewood Creek drainage

basin could not be contained within the unimproved creek channel and the creek

overflowed. From approximately 7:45 a.m. until 12:45 p.m. (roughly five hours), all

four westbound lanes of I–80 were closed. Within an hour after the closure, a logjam

of cars backed up over 15 miles. Three of the four eastbound lanes were also closed

for a portion of the morning due to the flooding. In addition to preventing flooding

in I–80, the improvement of Ledgewood Creek from Abernathy Road to the Fairfield
597

city limits will remove approximately 300 acres of residential, commercial, and industrial property from the FEMA AO flood zone.

The City of Fairfield appreciates the committee’s continuing assistance on the

Ledgewood Creek project. As you know, our city is one of the fastest growing communities in California. Fairfield’s population continues to grow rapidly, and we continue to attract major corporate and industrial development. Fairfield faces new and

difficult flood control challenges. Your assistance is greatly appreciated on all of

these projects. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAYOR STEVE MIKLOS, CITY OF FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA

HIGHWAY 50 POND STUDY AND REMEDIATION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this opportunity to speak before you today in support of the City of Folsom’s request for a $100,000 earmark for the Bureau of Reclamation to study and remediate the possibly dangerous

situation at the Highway 50 Lake Natoma Pond.

Lake Natoma, created by Nimbus Dam and a part of the American River Watershed, is located at Folsom, California. The southern shoreline of the lake crosses beneath Highway 50 and creates a small ‘‘pond’’ south of the highway. This ‘‘pond’’

is actually a relatively still backwater of the lake and apparently suffers from very

poor circulation. The Highway 50 pond is in full view of all traffic on the highway

and is an unsightly introduction to the Folsom community for residents and visitors.

Scum, floating trash and other debris are constantly present on the surface of the

water. Further, the pond’s status with respect to contaminants, disease, and other

water quality threats to both Lake Natoma and the American River are unknown

at this time.

This project will provide funding to the Bureau of Reclamation for purposes of investigating the current status of the pond area, causes of the apparent contamination of the pond, and identifying and undertaking remedial work. Without this earmark, it is likely that the pond will continue in its current state or further deteriorate, with unknown effects on Lake Natoma and the American River. I should also

point out that the Nimbus Fish Hatchery, the main hatchery on the Lower American River, is located less than a half mile downstream from this obviously contaminated pond.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify regarding the City

of Folsom’s three important projects before your committee, and I request that the

committee view favorably this very important project.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KARAN MACKEY, CHAIR, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY

OF LAKE, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Karan Mackey,

and I am the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors in Lake County, California.

I appreciate this opportunity to present to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee an urgent request for federal assistance.

The County of Lake requests $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to construct the next

phase of the Clear Lake Basin 2000 project, a Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration project. Clear Lake in Lake County experiences serious water quality problems as a result of both sewage and sediment discharge directly into the Lake.

Phase II of Basin 2000 will improve the quality of water flowing into Clear Lake,

Cache Creek-the only outlet for Clear Lake-and, ultimately, the Sacramento River

and the delicate Bay-Delta ecosystem.

Lake County has designed and partially implemented the Clear Lake Basin 2000

Initiative. Basin 2000 is a multi-phased watershed restoration effort that recycles

wastewater effluent to create wildlife habitat, improve Clear Lake’s water quality,

and generate geothermal power. The initiative’s first phase became operational in

1997.

Lake County has completed has completed a Section 503 Watershed study, include all planning and design work for development of a series wetland sites that

will cleanse the water flowing into Clear lake and completely eliminate the discharge of sewage into the Lake. The requested $2,000,000 will begin construction

of 300 acres of wetlands out of the 1,000 acres ultimately planned for the project,

a wetlands effluent pipeline, and flow control facility to feed water into the wetlands.

With the completion of Phase II, the Clear lake basin 2000 Initiative offers the

following benefits: restores 20 percent of the watershed’s lost wetlands; eliminates
598

the last potential wastewater discharge to the Sacramento River, protects local ratepayers from quadrupling of rates that would be needed without wetlands recycling;

provides multiple environmental and economic benefits from recycling that would be

lost if traditional disposal methods were used instead; and insures compliance with

a state-ordered deadline for a new disposal method.

Lake County received funding from the Corps in the last two fiscal years to complete a Section 503 Watershed Study and initiate a Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem

Restoration Project to improve the water quality of Clear Lake. The County contributed significantly to this process, funding much of the engineering and design work

with non-federal monies. The Corps of Engineers Preliminary Restoration Plan

(PRP) for this restoration project will be completed shortly; the final PRP is expected to follow approximately two months later. Construction could proceed in September 1999 and be in ‘‘full swing’’ next Spring. The total cost of Phase II is $36,100,000. Seventy-five percent of the funding will

come from Lake County, State partners and non-governmental partners. The other

25 percent will come from federal funds through EPA and the Corps of Engineers.

Lake County urgently needs a federal commitment in fiscal year 2000 of $2,000,000.

Communities in Lake County, represented by Congressman Mike Thompson, and

communities in Yolo County, represented by Congressman Doug Ose, will directly

benefit from federal funding for Phase II of the Basin 2000 Initiative. Cache Creek

is mostly in Yolo County and it receives the benefits of treated effluent because situated downstream of the constructed pipeline that was the successful result of Phase

I.

I thank the Subcommittee for its attention to this urgent request.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM HOLLINGSWORTH, MAYOR, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS

VERDES, CALIFORNIA

As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2000 Energy and

Water Resources Appropriations bill, I would like to bring a very important environmental restoration project to your attention.

The Corps of Engineers and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes have been working

on a cost-sharing feasibility study to investigate Federal improvements to restore

pristine environmental areas along the Pacific coastline since 1995. The President’s

fiscal year 2000 Budget Request does not contain enough money to perform both

pre-construction design and modeling tasks.

I would like to take this opportunity to request that your distinguished Subcommittee include $400,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the continuation of the pre-construction engineering and design. The addition of $200,000 to the

proposed budget will allow the modeling to take place in conjunction with preliminary engineering. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is prepared to commit their portion of the cost-share to complete the study next year.

The area along the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline that is being studied has been

severely degraded as a result of landslide movement of material and coastal erosion

causing sediment and continuous turbidity that has buried sensitive habitat. The

study involves investigations to define landslide and erosion relationships, impacts

on the environment and potential restoration benefits. This project should be considered as essential mitigation for large local port projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this request.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD AKIN, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF SUTTER,

CALIFORNIA

FISCAL YEAR 2000 ENERGY & WATER APPROPRIATIONS SUTTER BASIN STUDY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this opportunity to

speak before you today in support of the Sutter Basin Study. The County of Sutter

appreciates this committee’s continuing support for our flood control efforts over the

years, and we look forward to working with the committee to continue to improve

our flood control infrastructure.

The County of Sutter requests a $300,000 earmark in the fiscal year 2000 Energy

& Water Appropriations bill to proceed with the Army Corps of Engineer’s General

Investigation Reconnaissance Study for the Sutter Basin in Sutter County, California.

Between the west bank of the Feather River, the Sutter Bypass, and the east

bank of the Sacramento River, Sutter County contains approximately 220 miles of

floodwater retaining levees. The County has repeatedly sustained damages due to
599

flooding. This area has a long history of flooding which supports the perception that

a serious threat to lives and property exists. The County’s economy is depressed,

at least party due to the reluctance of businesses to locate in an area they perceive

to be prone to flooding.

The US Army Corps of Engineers is currently conducting a General Investigation

Reconnaissance Study for the Sutter Basin in Sutter County, California, for which

Congress provided $100,000 in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Sutter County requests an earmark of $300,000 in the fiscal year 2000

Energy & Water Appropriations bill to proceed with the Sutter Basin Feasibility

Study. The Study is required to provide an in-depth evaluation of flood control capability and needs, and to identify projects needed to achieve a specified level of protection.

Mr. Chairman, the County of Sutter appreciates the committee’s continuing assistance related to flood control in our region. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee.

NATIONWIDE WATER RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WATERWAYS ALLIANCE

As members of the National Waterways Alliance, we appreciate the opportunity

to submit this statement in support of adequate funding for the Army Corps of Engineers’ civil works program. The Alliance is a coalition of waterway-related associations, industries, and organizations in the agricultural, aluminum, building materials, chemical, coal, fertilizer, iron and steel, paper and wood products, petroleum,

and other sectors shipping or receiving products by water transportation. It also includes both shallow- and deep-draft ports, river valley associations, shippers, flood

control interests, water recreation and coastal entities, electric utilities, agricultural

and electric power cooperatives, maritime labor, dredging operators, shipyards and

repair facilities and other waterways services, all serving many millions of producers, customers, and consumers across the country.

As a coalition of waterways interests, we are well aware of the Subcommittee’s

strong commitment to meeting the Nation’s water resources needs, as evidenced by

the level of funding provided for civil works programs in the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Your commitment to a program

of adequate investment in the waterways infrastructure is deeply appreciated, and

we urge you to continue to invest the necessary funds to sustain waterways programs in a realistic, responsible manner.

We are concerned, however, with the lack of necessary support for civil works evidenced in the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request. The great stride forward

taken by your Subcommittee last year in providing a more reasonable funding level

would be erased should the fiscal year 2000 budget request be adopted. The proposed level of funding of $3.9 billion assumes collection of some $950 million from

the still-to-be-submitted Harbor Services Fund proposal. This is a budgetary gimmick relying upon a legislative measure yet to be revealed—a dangerous assumption

that poses a substantial threat to fulfillment of civil works missions.

AN IMBALANCED FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Most of the increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget request is earmarked for deepdraft port maintenance and construction, which is dependent upon revenue to be

transferred from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, contingent upon enactment

of the proposed Harbor Services Fee. Other civil works missions, principally inland

navigation and flood control, are funded at roughly two-thirds of what is needed for

efficient program operation.

The level of funding requested for civil works activities would endanger our ability

to continue an effective waterborne transportation system. The construction program, for instance, is funded at $1.239 billion, which is some $200 million below

fiscal year 1999 appropriations. This downward trend in spending would stretch out

construction schedules, adding to project costs and delaying the realization of project

benefits, and also increase the already substantial backlog of necessary rehabilitation. Lack of a modern, first-class navigation system already places agricultural producers, miners, and forestry workers, among others, at risk of losing global markets.

Although budgeted at a higher level, the operations and maintenance program is

still underfunded, with a backlog of at least $1.5 billion in deferred maintenance.

Also, many worthy flood control projects would see reductions in funding or simply

cease to be funded, a dangerous gamble with billions of dollars of potential damages.
600

Of additional concern is the general investigations category, the vehicle through

which new projects are considered and studied. The President’s budget request reduces this category by $20 million from last year’s appropriated level and only recommends one new reconnaissance study. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Administration witnesses

stated that the Army Corps of Engineers had recommended 90 new starts in the

general investigations category! Without this critical step, many meritorious new

projects may never be considered.

REALISTIC CIVIL WORKS FUNDING

Waterways-related industries strongly support a more realistic funding level of $4.7 billion for civil works activities in fiscal year 2000. This level would continue

the progress made by this Subcommittee in its fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999

appropriations and allow the Army Corps of Engineers to honor its commitments

to local communities, ports and harbors, inland navigation and other water resources interests. Most of these demands are imposed by legislation and by costsharing commitments with non-Federal sponsors. Further, a $4.7 billion program

can be fully justified as a prudent investment in helping the Corps of Engineers to

maintain navigation, prevent floods, ensure dependable water supplies, facilitate

water recreation, promote environmental restoration and meet other program needs.

Adequate investment in civil works programs positively impacts the country’s economic development and global competitiveness. The U.S. waterways system includes

1,500 miles of deep-draft channels with 300 ports capable of handling ocean-going

vessels along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts as well as the Great Lakes. In

addition, the inland waterways consist of 12,000 miles of mainstem navigable waterways. This vast network of shallow-and deep-draft navigation channels provides a

reliable and efficient water transportation system that, in 1997, carried 2.3 billion

tons of domestic and foreign commerce including 60 percent of U.S. grain exports,

23 percent of chemical movements, and 20 percent of coal shipments. These and

other commodities that move on the waterways are the building blocks of our economy. Water transportation supports the economies of many regions of the country

and keeps U.S. products competitive in international markets.

Also, in the last half-century, Corps of Engineers’ flood control projects have pre- vented nearly $500 billion in river and coastal damages. In 1997 alone, these

projects saved an estimated $45.2 billion in flood damages. The investment made

by Congress in these programs has been critical in protecting life and property. The

civil works program also funds over 4,000 water recreation sites as well as coastal

protection programs, bank stabilization, hydropower, and municipal and industrial

water supply.

We respectfully urge you, therefore, to consider the diverse public benefits of civil

works programs and the tremendous return on Federal investments that they provide. We request that you allocate sufficient funds to meet civil works needs as we

prepare to enter the next millennium. In the case of waterways programs, adequate

investment now will be a much lower price to pay than dealing with the consequences later of delaying needed maintenance and modernization.

We thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this statement, which

we hope you will consider in marking up your fiscal year 2000 bill.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

The American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates the opportunity to submit

this statement in support of adequate funding for the Army Corps of Engineers civil

works program. The American Farm Bureau Federation is the nation’s largest general interest organization for farmers and ranchers. American Farm Bureau represents 4.9 million Farm Bureau families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Farm

Bureau’s members grow all commercially produced agricultural commodities cultivated in the United States.

Farm Bureau compliments the Subcommittee on its strong commitment to meeting the nation’s water resources needs, as evidenced by the level of funding provided

for civil works programs in the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Act. Farm Bureau and its members appreciate the Subcommittee’s

commitment to a program of adequate investment in the waterway infrastructure.

We urge you to continue to invest the necessary funds to sustain waterways programs in a reasonable manner.

Farm Bureau is concerned by the lack of commitment to civil works demonstrated

in the administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget request. The Subcommittee’s effort

to provide adequate funding for civil works last year would be lost should the fiscal
601

year 2000 budget request be adopted. The proposed level of funding of $3.9 billion

assumes collection of some $950 million from the as yet undefined Harbor Services

Fund proposal. Relying upon this $950 million assumption is dangerous and poses

a substantial threat to fulfillment of civil works programs.

Most of the increase in the fiscal year 2000 budget request is earmarked for deepdraft port maintenance and construction, which is dependent upon revenue to be

transferred from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund which itself is contingent

upon enactment of the proposed Harbor Services Fund. Other civil works missions,

principally inland navigation and flood control, are funded at roughly two-thirds of

what is needed for efficient program operation.

One of the most important things Congress can do to help farmers is to provide

a low-cost, efficient transportation infrastructure. An important part of that infrastructure was initially created decades ago with the inland waterways transportation system, featuring a series of locks and dams on the Mississippi between Minneapolis-St. Paul and St. Louis.

The inland waterway system is absolutely critical to American agriculture. About 1⁄3 of American agricultural production is exported; about 60 percent of those exports

move down the Mississippi River system to our ports on the Gulf of Mexico. As

these barges return upriver, they often bring agricultural inputs like fertilizers into

the interior regions of the Midwest. This barge traffic has been estimated by Price

Waterhouse to support between 300,000 and 450,000 jobs in the ten-state region of

the Mississippi River Valley. These jobs generate about $4 billion in income.

For farmers in midwestern states, the ability to use the river to transport what

they produce is critically important. Farmers in Minnesota shipped an average of

195 million bushels of corn, 64 million bushels of soybeans, and 26 million bushels

of wheat on the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers every year during the 1990’s. This

is equivalent to 1⁄4 of the total corn crop grown in Minnesota, and these corn ship- ments were worth over $470 million in 1997. In other Midwestern states, river

transportation is as important as it is to Minnesota, or more so. Missouri farmers

shipped an average of 52 million bushels of corn, 30 million bushels of soybeans,

and 42 million bushels of wheat annually in the 1990’s. Iowa farmers shipped an

average of 203 million bushels of corn annually, and 66 million bushels of soybeans

annually on the Mississippi River system in the 1990’s. Illinois farmers shipped a

whopping 591 million bushels of corn (about 1⁄3 of the state’s total corn crop), 170

million bushels of soybeans, and 26 million bushels of wheat on the Mississippi and

Illinois rivers annually in the 1990’s. Clearly, the Mississippi, Missouri, Minnesota,

and Illinois Rivers are key transportation arteries that carry the massive agricultural production of the Midwestern states to their export markets.

Unfortunately, as the system ages, it is increasingly taxed and is less able to meet

the demands placed on it. Many of these facilities are 60 years old and are inadequate to meet modern navigation needs. Many of these locks are only 600 feet long,

when the average tow in use today is 1,100 feet long, inclusive of barges and

towboat. You can imagine the back-ups that often occur during peak shipping seasons as each tow must stop, be broken into two parts, pushed separately through

the lock, and reassembled on the other side. This is a process that takes about ninety minutes for each tow; this creates delays that cost the entire economy money and

reduces the per-bushel price farmers earn for their produce. This congestion is costing our economy millions of dollars annually in lost time and productively that a

comparatively small federal investment in improved infrastructure could recover.

River congestion on the Mississippi equals lost income to farmers who can’t afford

to forgo any income with commodity prices so low. Inefficient water transportation

will result in further lost export market share for U.S.-grown grains and less income

for farmers. Preliminary results from a Texas A&M study indicates that producers

could lose between $100 million and $150 million a year if bottlenecks on the Mississippi continue to reduce the efficiency of our inland waterway system.

At Farm Bureau, we believe that farmers are the first environmentalists because

we depend on the land to earn a living. There will also be environmental benefits

to improving the navigation infrastructure on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

Moving bulk freight is the most efficient and safest means available. The movement

of 100 million tons of bulk commodities on the Mississippi River system (an average

year’s bulk freight on the rivers now) keeps 1 million rail cars or 4 million trucks

available for other movements of grains or other commodities and keeps these rail

cars and trucks off the roads and away from road crossings in rural communities,

according to the Iowa Department of Transportation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency laboratory tells us that towboats emit 35–60 percent fewer pollutants

than railroad locomotives or trucks. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, a gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry a ton of freight 2.5 times farther than

rail and 9 times farther than a truck. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently
602

suggested that anywhere from $100 million to $300 million is saved annually in air

clean-up costs due to usage of the river system that might otherwise have to be

spent if river freight had to move on other modes.

Farm Bureau policy #117 (Waterways), as approved by the AFBF’s voting delegate body at the Farm Bureau convention in January 1999 says, in part:

Public policy should encourage expansion of inland water transportation

since it represents the most efficient mode—We encourage a Midwestern,

multi-state effort to review results of existing river and related studies and

identify impacts of associated state and federal regulation. Based on that

review, we will propose a multiple-use strategy for the Upper Mississippi

River and its tributaries that serves agriculture, industry, transportation,

and the environment—We support the Corps’ (of Engineers) efforts in updating locks and dams and cleaning of channels in the Mississippi River

system to accommodate new, larger barges.

Farm Bureau requests that Congress increase the appropriation for the Army

Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 2000 for improvements for the Mississippi River

system. This appropriations increase should include $9 million in additional funds

to conduct pre-engineering and design studies for lock chamber extensions and

guide wall extensions for Locks 25, 24, 22, and 21 on the Mississippi and the LaGrange and Peoria locks on the Illinois River; $5 million to meet dredging shortfalls

on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterways, and $17 million in funding for

major maintenance on the Mississippi River system.

The level of funding requested for civil works activities would endanger our ability

to continue an effective waterborne transportation system. The President’s request

would fund construction program is funded at $1.239 billion, $200 million less than

the fiscal year 1999 appropriations. This downward trend in spending would stretch

out construction schedules, adding to project costs and delaying the realization of

project benefits, and also increase the already substantial backlog of necessary rehabilitation. Lack of a modern, first-class navigation system already places agricultural producers, miners, and forestry workers, among others, at risk of losing global

markets. Also, many worthy flood control projects would see reductions in funding

or simply cease to be funded, a dangerous gamble with billions of dollars of potential

damages.

The waterways industry strongly supports a more realistic funding level of $4.7

billion for civil works activities in fiscal year 2000. This level would continue the

progress made by this Subcommittee in its fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 appropriations and allows the Army Corps of Engineers to honor its commitments to

local communities, ports and harbors, navigation and other water resources interests. Most of these demands are imposed by legislation and by cost-sharing commitments with non-Federal sponsors. Further, a $4.7 billion program can be fully justified as a prudent investment in helping the Corps of Engineers to maintain navigation, prevent floods, ensure dependable water supplies, facilitate water recreation,

promote environmental restoration and meet other program needs.

Adequate investment in civil works programs positively impacts the country’s economic development and global competitiveness. The U.S. inland waterways system

includes 1,500 miles of deep-draft channels with 300 ports capable of handling

ocean-going vessels along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts as well as the Great

Lakes. In addition, the inland waterway system consists of 12,000 miles of

mainstem navigable waterways. This vast system provides a reliable and efficient

water transportation system that, in 1997, carried 2.3 billion tons of domestic and

foreign commerce including 60 percent of U.S. grain exports, 23 percent of chemical

movements, and 20 percent of coal shipments. These and other commodities that

move on the waterways are the building blocks of our economy. Water transportation keeps U.S. products competitive in international markets and supports the

economies of many regions of the country.

We respectfully urge you, therefore, to consider the many public benefits of civil

works programs and the tremendous return on federal investments that they provide. We request that you allocate sufficient funds to meet civil works needs as we

prepare to enter the next millennium. In the case of waterways programs, adequate

investment now will be a much lower price to pay than dealing with the consequences later of delaying needed maintenance and modernization.
603

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. RON ALLEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF

AMERICAN INDIANS

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Domenici, Vice-Chairman Reid and distinguished members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Thank you for the

opportunity to present this statement regarding the President’s Budget Request for

fiscal year 2000 Indian programs and services specifically in the Department of Energy. My name is W. Ron Allen. I am President of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and Chairman of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe located in

Washington State.

NCAI views the fiscal year 2000 federal budget process as an opportunity to begin

to set a better course for federal Indian policymaking in the next century. Tribal

governments have found themselves in an increasingly defensive posture in the development of federal Indian policy over the last four years, and budget cuts and

budget riders have been the point of attack on tribal self-determination.

Tribal leaders have set as an important goal that the tribal budget must become

a higher priority within the appropriations process. The federal government has

treaty and trust obligations to support Indian tribes that it is simply not meeting.

Also, tribal citizens pay federal taxes but receive little support from federal funds

that go to states. Programs serving the American Indian and Alaska Native population have rarely received the federal funding required to fulfill even the most basic

needs and funding for Indian programs has lagged far behind the funding of nonIndian programs. Compared to all other sectors of the American populace, American

Indians and Alaska Natives most often rank at or near the bottom or top of most

social and economic indicators, whichever is worse. Of the 558 federally-recognized

Indian tribes, a great majority of their populations are characterized by the most

severe unemployment, poverty rates, ill-health, poor nutrition and sub-standard

housing in the U.S. In an era of federal budget surpluses, there are no excuses for

failing to meet the federal obligation to remedy the human tragedy behind the statistics.

The solution for the poor conditions in Indian Country must be a reinvigorated

approach to economic development. The federal budget for fiscal year 2000 can do

much to build the necessary infrastructure of roads, schools, housing, child and

elder care, hospitals, clinics, technology, law enforcement, courts and other critical

elements of any functioning economy in the United States. The United States has

an obligation to help rebuild the shattered infrastructures of Indian Nations and

create the opportunity for economic prosperity that will benefit not only Indian people, but the entire American economy. It should also be noted that the conversion

of welfare entitlement funds into state discretionary funding has added to the urgency felt throughout Indian Country to boost economic development.

Also, the use of appropriations riders to ambush tribal self-government has become more and more frequent. Tribal self-government is recognized in the United

States Constitution and hundreds of treaties, federal statutes and Supreme Court

cases and is deserving of serious consideration by the Congress. At the very least,

if the federal government is going to contemplate legislation affecting tribal self-government, the legislation should be considered in the authorizing Committees, given

opportunity for consultation with the affected tribes, and taken up as stand-alone

legislation where Members of Congress can know and understand what they are

voting on. We have been made aware of the introduction of Senate Resolution 8 by

Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd. S. Res. 8 would amend the Senate rules to

reinstate a former rule which prohibited legislative riders on appropriations bills

and which would require a three-fifths vote to waive a point of order under the rule.

NCAI would surge the members of this Sub-committee to support S. Res. 8.

As Congress begins to shape the fiscal year 2000 budget, the NCAI urges an increased investment in Indian programs and tribal government infrastructure. We

believe that the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request has taken a very positive step in that direction. The following testimony is an overview of the recently

released President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request that provides NCAI’s viewpoint

on sections of the budget that are most critical to tribal governments.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my testimony by providing a general context

regarding federal funding for Indian programs. Unfortunately it has been a rare occasion indeed, if ever, that programs serving the American Indian and Alaska Native population have received the federal funding required to fulfill even the most

basic needs of tribal members. Of the 558 federally-recognized Indian tribes, a great
604

1See generally ‘‘Indian-Related Federal Spending Trends. FY 1975–1999’’, Congressional Research Service (CRS), February 1998.

majority of our populations are characterized by severe unemployment, high poverty

rates, ill-health, poor nutrition and sub-standard housing. Historically, funding for

Indian programs has lagged far behind the funding of many non-Indian programs

and this gap only continues to grow.

Compared to all other sectors of the American populace, American Indians and

Alaska Natives most often rank at or near the bottom or top of most social and economic indicators, whichever is worse. When comparing trends between fiscal year

1975–1999 for the total BIA budget and the federal non-defense budget as a whole,

federal spending as a whole increased at a rate of $41 billion a year, with an average level of $669.8 billion, while when corrected for inflation, the BIA budget actually declined by $10 million a year, on an average spending level of $1.7 billion.

Throughout the entire fiscal year 1975-fiscal year 1999 period, per capita spending

on the U.S. population as a whole consistently increased, whereas per capita spending on Indians through major Indian-related programs began to fall after fiscal year

1979.

Furthermore, in fiscal year 1996, federal funding for Indian programs fell short

13 percent or $581 million from the President’s budget request for that fiscal year.

This was mostly seen in dramatic cuts in funding for the BIA ($322 million less),

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) New Indian Housing ($134

million less), and the Indian Health Service (IHS) ($80 million less). In fiscal year

1997, funding for these programs fell short 4.1 percent or $175 million below the

President’s request. And in fiscal year 1998, there was a 1.2 percent or $52 million

shortfall from what the President requested. In fiscal year 1999, this unfortunate

trend continued with a $100 million shortfall.1 Mr. Chairman, in a year when the

U.S. economy is booming and the federal government is expecting over seventy billion dollars in surplus funds, the federal government should not be cutting funds

to American Indians, this nation’s poorest people.

As you are well aware, in recent years tribes have faced extraordinary challenges

throughout the appropriations process. Unprecedented reductions in federal Indian

program funding left many tribes facing extreme circumstances. Non-funding ‘‘riders’’ attached to Interior Appropriations bills reached well past the scope of the appropriations process and were interpreted by Indian Country as an attempt to diminish tribal sovereignty and change the basic fabric of the federal-tribal relationship. While we appreciate the commitment to balance the federal budget and reform

the welfare system, we maintain that such laudable initiatives do not and should

not preclude the federal government from fulfilling its trust responsibilities to Indian tribes throughout this great nation. In short Mr. Chairman, extraordinary

budget reductions in federal Indian programs have created a state of emergency for

many tribal governments. NCAI is encouraged, however, with the Administration’s

fiscal year 2000 commitment to begin addressing some areas of priority concern to

Indian Country.

As Congress begins the appropriations process for fiscal year 2000, NCAI aggressively seeks support from this Subcommittee in reversing the decline in funding for

federal Indian programs that we have experienced since fiscal year 1996. In general,

we believe that the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request has taken a very

positive step in this direction. We are concerned, however, that even the Administration’s request for certain essential tribal programs and services remain seriously

inadequate. Accordingly, tribal budgets are insufficient to meet the most basic needs

of tribal populations.

The following testimony is an overview of the recently released President’s fiscal

year 2000 budget request that provides NCAI’s viewpoint on sections of the budget

under the Department of Agriculture that are most critical to tribal governments.

As more specific information is released from the Administration regarding the details of the budget request, NCAI will provide further information regarding the priorities of the tribal government members of NCAI.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The Department of Energy (DOE) manages programs to mitigate and remediate

Indian lands including ceded and former Indian lands contaminated by the Cold

War legacy. Inadequate funding is detrimental to programs that institute: tribal involvement in decision-making processes; shipping of high and low level radioactive

waste through Indian Country (whose jurisdictions do not have adequate emergency

response programs in place to protect people, lands and resources); and, the siting

of permanent repositories for spent nuclear waste on former traditional lands (under
605

an arbitrary policy which inequitably supports non-Indian state and county governments for oversight activities, but does not involve tribes in geographical proximity

and indigenous to the area).

The Nevada Test Site is within the traditional homelands of the Shoshone and

Paiute peoples whose culture, environment, and health has been already impacted

by federal government-sponsored atomic testing and other activities. The DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) has performed scientific

and technical studies at Yucca Mountain on the Nevada Test Site for a proposed

high-level spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste permanent repository. The 16-

year compilation of the Yucca Mountain study, the Yucca Mountain Viability Assessment, was released in December 1998. However, the Indian nations indigenous

to the area do not have the technical staff to analyze the massive data.

Last year’s DOE-OCRWM budget did not provide funding for oversight activities for the tribes indigenous to this area. However, $16 million was given to the state

of Nevada, nine Nevada counties, and one California county (designated local units

of government under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987, as amended) for oversight activities at Yucca Mountain. This year, $10.2 million has been requested for

non-Indian governments. NCAI asks that this committee end the disparate treatment of tribal governments by earmarking $5 million for tribal involvement in the

Yucca Mountain area. By funding the impacted tribes, Congress will transform the

DOE-OCRWM’s arbitrary policy of ignoring the tribes who remain in their homelands but are left out of the oversight process at Yucca Mountain.

The NCAI Nuclear Waste Program, funded through a DOE-OCRWM cooperative

agreement, is a national information dissemination effort to provide tribal governments with updates on the implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,

as amended. The long-range issues and impacts to Indian Country are significant

and national in scope, but tribes do not have adequate staff or resources to track

this program. The current NCAI Nuclear Waste Program year is the second under

a renewed five-year cooperative agreement period. The Program budget is at its lowest funding level since its inception in 1982, and DOE-OCRWM did not request

funding to continue this highly successful program and important link to Indian

Country. In order to sustain a viable program to provide tribal leaders with relevant

and current information and assist in the interactive DOE process, the NCAI requests the Congress to direct the DOE-OCRWM to provide annual funding to the

NCAI cooperative agreement in the amount of $300,000 as part of its trust responsibility toward keeping tribes informed on programmatic impacts and maintaining

open dialogue with impacted tribal communities.

The NCAI is making an effort to inform tribes located near nuclear utilities that the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology budget contains $10 million for research and development collaboration to refurbish and upgrade those nuclear utilities whose licenses will soon expire and will have to apply to the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission for relicensing. This budget reflects a 44 percent increase

in nuclear energy research and development. We request the DOE direct a portion

of this funding to be shared with tribes within the 10-mile Emergency Planning

Zone and the 50-mile Ingestion Pathway Zone around commercial nuclear reactors.

Under the DOE Office of Environmental Management Office of Public Accountability (EM–22), ten tribes have cooperative agreements to participate in site cleanup and waste management oversight activities. The DOE-EM program fiscal year

2000 budget request does not provide an increase for critical tribal program continuity. Adequate tribal program funding always has been a problem, despite the

fact many federal sites slated for cleanup are former tribal lands or ceded territory

and contain significant cultural sites. DOE-EM officials have suggested they are

working to avoid negative impacts on tribal budgets, however their budget does not

reflect this assertion. We request the Congress provide increased tribal funding for

a total of $6 million for the cooperative agreements so as not to undermine tribal

cleanup programs, and to provide funding for Indian outreach by organizations including NCAI.

Funding for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project comes primarily through DOE-EM.

We are aware that DOE-EM has lowered funding allocation for emergency preparedness, public information, and accident prevention activities in the fiscal year 2000

budget. The tribes on the WIPP transportation corridor in the designated corridors

do not have adequate emergency response capability in the event of a radiological

transportation accident. Emergency response organizations require several years to

develop. In the interest of protecting tribal communities, NCAI requests that the

DOE-EM’s WIPP emergency preparedness funding be increased to $1 million.

NCAI also supports funding for the following tribal programs: (1) Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy—provides grants and technical assistance to tribes for

weatherization, wind energy systems, hydropower, photovoltaic, and renewable en-
606

ergy technologies, $5 million; (2) Fossil Energy—supports oil exploration and drilling research which is beneficial to tribes, $540,000; (3) Defense Programs—educational and scientific outreach by national laboratories, $750,000; (4) Economic Impact & Diversity—support for small business and educational grants $200,000; and,

(5) Bonneville Power Administration—cultural resources for Pacific Northwest

Tribes, $5 million.

Non-Indian organizations are being provided funding to conduct forums and policy

analysis about tribal government participation and impacts. Tribal businesses and

Indian organizations are capable of doing this work, probably at a more reasonable

cost. We reject the notion that outside consulting and convener groups like Aspen

and Keystone are receiving funding to delve into American Indian and Alaska Native issues while they remain largely ignorant of tribal sovereignty and cultural

matters. We believe such funding should be made available to tribes and Indian organizations, such as NCAI. A tribal organization will also protect tribal integrity,

maintain confidentiality, and prevent breaches of protocol. NCAI respectfully requests this committee recommend to the DOE the need change this outdated and

unproductive practice of non-Indian intrusion.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, we urge the Congress to fulfill its fiduciary duty to American Indians and Alaska Native people and to uphold the trust responsibility as well as preserve the Government-to-Government relationship, which includes the fulfillment of

health, education and welfare needs of all Indian tribes in the United States. This

responsibility should never be compromised or diminished because of any Congressional agenda or party platform. Tribes throughout the nation relinquished their

lands as well as their rights to liberty and property in exchange for this trust responsibility. The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request acknowledges the fiduciary duty owed to tribes. We ask that Congress maintain the federal trust responsibility to Indian Country and continue to aid tribes on our journey toward self-sufficiency. This concludes my statement. Thank you for allowing me to present for the

record, on behalf of our member tribes, the National Congress of American Indians’

initial comments regarding the President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The fiscal year 2000 budget proposal for Civil Works Appropriations of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers is $4.2 billion, of which $3.9 billion is requested in appropriated funds and $0.3 billion would be financed through non-Federal funds and

trust fund receipts. The budget proposal reflects continued commitment to proper

management of our natural resources, through dedication of $687 million to environmental programs (a $56 million increase over fiscal year 1999) and through $258

million in contributions to intergovernmental environmental programs. The Association appreciates the fact that many of our recommendations from recent fiscal years

have been maintained by the Corps in their succeeding year’s budget request.

We continue to encourage the Corps to expedite design and grant administration

associated with Section 1135 projects as provided for within the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986. We urge the Corps to continue to take steps to expedite

the approval process for those projects.

The Association encourages the Corps to cooperate, coordinate, and develop civil

works and restoration activities with State fish and wildlife agencies. The State fish

and wildlife agencies are generally aware of where Corps projects could most effectively enhance the status of fish and wildlife resources through improvements to

habitat. We are especially interested in the new ‘‘Challenge 21 Initiative’’ which will

result in development of partnerships to restore riverine ecosystems to address flood

prevention through non-structural alternatives.

Our Association particularly appreciates the leadership of Congress in providing

funding for mitigation projects. We are especially pleased that the Corps is requesting, and the Association supports, $100 million for Columbia River Fish Mitigation

in Washington. The Association also strongly encourages Congress to appropriate

necessary funding within the Corps budget to facilitate the mitigation feature of the

West Tennessee Tributaries Project, which is needed to satisfy legal constraints to

enable initiation of river restoration work within this significant watershed. We recommend that the Congress explore the need for generic legislative direction to the

Corps to ensure that the older projects include the authority for fish, wildlife, water
607

quality, and sustained minimum flow mitigation and enhancement, and if legislation is necessary, to act on that need. Further, the Association recommends that

mitigation funding for ongoing projects be listed as a separate line item within the

Civil Works Appropriations. This action would separate the funds from routine operations and maintenance and better facilitate the separate states’ ability to identify

the funds and seek support for the projects. The Association urges the Corps to work

with those States interested in transferring mitigation properties in fee simple for

management by the state. Such transfers should result in an overall savings to the

Corps.

The Association is also generally supportive of the funding requested for some of

the large river restoration projects. The Association supports the fiscal year 2000

request of $39.8 million for restoration of meanders and wildlife habitat on the

Kissimee River and $75 million to restore water flows through the Everglades and

other areas in Florida. It is in the best interest of the country to restore the habitat

and hydrologic components of these rivers that have been significantly altered under

previous Corps projects.

With regard to the Corps’ regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act of

1972, we strongly support the request of $117 million for implementation of a

streamlined program to process, review, issue permits and provide an appeals procedure for the committing of activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands associated permits and jurisdictional determination.

Furthermore, the Association believes a strong partnership program with state

agencies affords the best opportunity for balanced conservation of aquatic resources.

The Association recommends that the Corps continue in partnership with State

fish and wildlife agencies to initiate applicable restoration, mitigation and conservation projects. For example, we request the Corps continue to participate with State

agencies and non-Federal interests in the North American Waterfowl Management

Plan through wetlands conservation and wetlands identification.

The Association is excited by the potential for significant environmental accomplishments in restoration, conservation, and sustainable management of water, fish,

and wildlife resources through the Administration’s Clean Water Initiative. The Association is especially pleased with Federal plans to partner with local, state and

tribal agencies and with the watershed management emphasis. The States are interested in forging a true partnership through sharing ideas, plans, design, implementation structure and enforcement in establishing a unified, cooperative approach

to improving water quality.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)

The Association supports the President’s budget request for TVA to receive $7

million in appropriations to fund operations of Land Between the Lakes (LBL) National Recreation Area. The LBL requested appropriation is the same level of funding enacted for the area in fiscal year 1999. Four million dollars in proceeds are expected from user fees and other sources for a total operating budget of approximately $11.0 million. LBL’s operation is vitally important to boating, fishing, hunting, camping, wildlife observation and other conservation-oriented activities in the

southeastern U.S.

Other funding for traditional TVA stewardship programs will be attained through

monies obtained by restructuring of TVA’s debt. These programs will be paid for

with power revenues using the flexibility provided by refinancing of the debt. No

other appropriations are proposed for TVA.

TVA’s new approach to funding of other stewardship programs places these programs in a precarious position for future years. The Association strongly urges TVA

to continue to fund these vital programs using power system revenues. TVA has

previously utilized appropriated dollars to improve the quality of life in the Tennessee Valley. TVA is requested to keep the Association and member organizations

apprised of significant changes in the delivery of these traditional services.

TVA has established itself as a global leader in tailwater restoration and technology and has established the national standard for such activity. The Association

commends TVA for these efforts. The Association also supports TVA’s efforts to implement new comprehensive shoreline management policies and urges TVA to work

closely with member states within the Tennessee Valley. Water level management

and aquatic vegetation management programs remain important issues to the member states and we urge TVA to continue to work closely with States on these issues.

The Association is concerned about the status of the navigation lock at Chickamauga Dam. TVA is requested to work closely with the U.S. Corps of Engineers to

determine best construction options and strategies for obtaining federal funding.
608

The Association urges Congress to appropriate funding to address this critical problem.

The Association recommends that TVA continue to actively support and participate in the States’ Clean Streams Initiative with the Office of Surface Mining

(OSM) to complete projects in the TVA service area. These state-Federal-private cooperative projects are engaged in restoring fish, aquatic life, recreational and economic opportunity in watersheds damaged by acid mine drainage from past coal

mining activities.

We are encouraged that TVA has undertaken a serious review of public lands

along TVA reservoirs and rivers to insure these properties are not utilized in such

a manner as to exclude reasonable public use. Further, we support current and future planning efforts that insure conservation and protection of riparian habitat.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)

The Association recommends Congress appropriate $7.5 million to allow FERC to

reimburse state fish and wildlife agencies for studies and reviews associated with

hydropower relicensing activities. Section 1701 of the Federal Power Act was

amended in 1992 specifically to authorize reimbursement to states for this work.

FERC has never sought appropriated funds for this purpose. If appropriated funds

cannot be provided, FERC should be instructed to require reimbursement for this

work by the licensee. Otherwise, projects will be proposed for relicensing without

adequate studies of appropriate fish and wildlife licensing requirements. This invites conflict and possibly more stringent requirements, including water releases,

than would be needed if more adequate studies were made.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (BOR)

Over its 97-year history, the BOR has played a vital role in harnessing and managing water resources for a young and growing Western United States. The fulfillment of those high national priorities has not always been accomplished with a

long-term vision for the health of fish and wildlife resources within BOR project design, construction and operational practices. Thus, the development of high priority

public services has sometimes proven highly detrimental to other public values, including certain fish and wildlife resources. The agency’s publicly stated policy is to

sustain the health and integrity of ecosystems and protect the environment as it

goes about the important work of providing dependable sources of water. The agency

has embarked upon refreshing new goals that better balance these sometimes competing uses of limited natural resources. It is, therefore. eminently satisfying to the

Association to witness and strongly support BOR’s efforts to refocus considerable financial resources on ameliorating historical water development-related damages to

fish and wildlife and their habitats.

California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration.—The BOR seeks $95 million to continue this work, which has never been funded at the full authorization level of $143

million per year. This authorization expires in 2000, and the Association supports

legislation extending the authorization to 2003 to allow for funding the entire $403

million authorized program. This program, which responds to Congressional direction through the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act, provides vital Federal cost-sharing dollars for ecosystem restoration in

California’s Bay-Delta. This effort is based on collaborative efforts among several

federal agencies and the State of California. Restorative efforts such as fish screening, flood plain habitat restoration, instream flow provisions and watershed management, typify the work being accomplished. The Bay/Delta system provides habitat

for 120 fish and wildlife species. The Association fully supports BOR’s request for

$95 million for this work for fiscal year 2000, and would encourage Congressional

extension of the authorization until 2003.

Central Valley Project.—Created by Congress in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the CVP Restoration Fund is expected to collect just over $49 million from rate payers for fish and wildlife management and development work in

the Central Valley Project area of California. The BOR is seeking a Congressional

appropriation of $47.3 million from the Fund to undertake important anadromous

fisheries habitat work, water acquisition, fish screening and other works that are

necessary to continue efforts to restore the fish and wildlife-related damages created

by this federal project. The Association encourages the Congress to fully fund this

work at the requested level of $47.3 million, and to make the CV Project Restoration

fund a Permanent appropriation.

Endangered Species Recovery Implementation.—The BOR is requesting a total of

$15 million for endangered species recovery work spread among four BOR Regions.

This is six percent above the 1998 appropriation. This represents a modest increase,
609

particularly when viewed in the context of the geographical areas affected by prior

BOR activities and the complex of imperiled fish, wildlife and essential habitats that

need attention as a consequence of these earlier actions. A significant proportion of

the BOR’s request for work in the Upper Colorado Region and Lower Colorado River

Region is directed at endangered species recovery. As just one example of the important projects planned for fiscal year 2000, in this instance in the Upper Colorado,

is the work on the Platte River. This multi-agency cooperative program is essential

to restore endangered and threatened species and the requested $2.5 million would

allow implementation activities such as water conservation and critical habitat restoration. The request for $15 million for endangered species recovery projects, proposed by the BOR for fiscal year 2000, is deemed essential by the Association and

is strongly supported.

Pacific Northwest.—As reported by the BOR, ‘‘perhaps the region’s largest and

most visible challenge is the restoration of the anadromous fishery.’’ The Association

concurs with this assessment and strongly supports the request of $13.1 million for

Pacific salmon recovery.

Water Reclamation and Reuse.—As the population of the West continues to grow

at remarkable rates, competition will continue to intensify among the many important uses of water. Renewable natural resources, including fish and wildlife, are directly dependent upon the availability of water. To meet citizens’ demands for water

and water-related public services, including healthy natural resources, will require

intelligent use, conservation and reuse of the limited water supplies. The Association is pleased to support efforts designed to conserve and reuse water and supports

the BOR’s fiscal year 1999 request for $31.5 million for these purposes.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY OFFICIALS

The Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) strongly supports full

funding, as authorized in the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996 (Public Law

104–303), for the National Inventory of Non-Federal Dams in fiscal year 2000. Full

funding is $500,000. This critical database of state- and federally-regulated dams,

administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has provided vital information

on dams in the country. The timely information provided by the National Inventory

of Dams is essential in our ongoing efforts to mitigate dam failures.

ASDSO is a national organization of more than 1,600 state, federal, and local dam

safety officials and private sector individuals dedicated to improving dam safety

through research, education, and communication. ASDSO is based in Lexington,

Kentucky.

The National Inventory of Dams is one part of a continuing effort by federal and

state dam safety officials to identify and mitigate the risk associated with dams and

to preserve the nation’s investment in its water control infrastructure. It is an essential tracking tool, which has revealed pertinent statistics on a national level

while, at the same time, providing critical data needs to state dam safety regulators.

The funding provides for updating, transmittal, compilation and distribution of information to the national database. The funding also gives the Corps the ability to

continually upgrade the system to maintain its technological validity.

THE DATABASE

This computer database houses vital information on federally and state-regulated

dams across the nation. The database tracks information about the dam’s location,

size, use, type, proximity to populations, hazard classification, regulatory facts, and

other technical data. It can be used by the dam safety community to access comprehensive statistical information and to integrate effects of dams within Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the state-of-the-art technology in tracking lifeline systems and responding to emergency events.

The database can be used by policy makers as a tool when dam safety issues are

under consideration. For instance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency uses

the data to determine State Dam Safety Assistance Grants awarded annually under

the National Dam Safety Program. It is essential that the National Inventory data

is current to make equitable and accurate decisions about these grant determinations. Another example: data indicates that a majority of non-federal dams do not

have emergency action plans in place something important to policy officials not

only as it concerns dam safety, but also as it affects emergency preparedness. The

inventory is a critical database for emergency managers during severe weather,

earthquakes or other natural events that threaten dams.

To date, detailed data on approximately 75,000 dams is housed in the inventory.

Of this number, about 9,500 dams are termed high-hazard, meaning they threaten
610

human life and could cause significant downstream damage should they fail. Reports generated from the Inventory have highlighted the fact that about 1,800 of

these high-hazard structures are within one mile of a downstream city a statistic

not known before the database was in place.

The National Inventory has determined that dams are built primarily for recreation, flood control, irrigation, water supply, fire and farm ponds, mine tailings impoundment, and hydroelectric power generation. States regulate about 71,000 of

these structures; the federal government owns or regulates the remaining 4,000.

NEED FOR CONTINUED FUNDING

An inventorying system, such as this one, was determined by dam safety administrators and federal legislators in the 1980’s to be one of the primary objectives in

a national program to improve dam safety in this nation. A priority which was paramount on the minds of the public after several devastating failures had occurred:

—The Buffalo Creek Dam failure of 1972 killed 125 in West Virginia.

—The Teton Dam failure in 1976 caused the deaths of 14 and $400 million in

property damage.

—The Laurel Run Dam failure in 1977 killed 40 in Pennsylvania.

—The Kelly Barnes Dam in Taccoa Falls, Georgia killed 39 and caused $2.5 million in damages in 1977.

As a result of these disasters and the clear recognition of the tremendous potential for more failures, Congress passed the National Dam Safety Program Act of

1986 and re-authorized and updated this law with the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996. Through these laws, Congress and has been very clear, in recent

years, that it recognizes the need to mitigate disasters from dam failure. This recognition of the need for a national dam safety program, accompanied by funding,

must continue to advance the programs now in place to reduce risks from dam failure.

Although we have not seen a dam failure to match the ones mentioned above, failures and devastation continue to occur and still threaten this nation as dams continue to age and deteriorate and as downstream populations grow. In the past year

alone, approximately 88 documented failures have occurred across the nation. A

woman was killed in New Hampshire two years ago as a direct result of dam failure. Dam and downstream repair costs resulting from failures in 23 states reporting

in a recent year totalled $54.3 million. Failures can affect large populations, may

flood into neighboring states and may cost millions of dollars in federal disaster relief spending.

Most failures occur at dams that are determined to be deficient or unsafe. There

are over 1,800 unsafe non-federal dams in the United States including: 3 unsafe

dams in New Mexico; 8 unsafe dams in Nevada; 49 unsafe dams in West Virginia;

41 unsafe dams in Utah; and 13 unsafe dams in Washington.

The priority on rehabilitating our aging and deteriorating national infrastructure

must include dams. Dams provide people with tremendous everyday benefits such

as drinking water, electricity, protection from floods, wetlands areas, recreation and

irrigation.

To measure our progress toward assuring the safety of all dams, a centralized,

accurate database of information on dams is essential. The National Inventory of

Dams can supply this necessary statistical data. But, this type of data is only as

good as its last update. The database must be continuously updated and the system

upgraded as the vital information on dams changes.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the data in the National Inventory of Dams is important to federal

and state dam regulators to have access to accurate, current information on dams

that impact the safety of communities, other dams, flood prone areas and future

projects. In addition, the data is essential to managers of the National Dam Safety

Program at FEMA, who requires the data to make accurate and equitable determinations of annual state dam safety assistance grant awards. Emergency managers need the data in disaster mitigation and response, as do policy makers who

constantly need to know the ‘‘state of America’s dams.’’ Continual updating of this

data is imperative to the value of the National Inventory of Dams.

ASDSO strongly urges this Subcommittee to continue funding in the amount of

$500,000 in fiscal year 2000 to the Corps of Engineers for the National Inventory

of Dams.
611

PREPARED OF LISA S. HOLLAND, CHAIR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN

MANAGERS, INC.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers appreciates the opportunity to express support for fully funding several programs of the Army Corps of Engineers

which can significantly expand the Corps’ ability to reduce losses due to flooding.

We have found that Planning Assistance to States (Section 22) and Flood Plain

Management Services provide for important elements of effective floodplain management. Challenge 21, the proposed Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard

Mitigation Initiative, offers new opportunities for use of non-structural options to

achieve flood loss reduction. These are all elements of the Corps’ activities that are

especially helpful to communities and states around the country in reducing flood

losses.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers is an association of over 3,500 state

and local officials and other professionals engaged in floodplain management, flood

hazard mitigation, flood preparedness, warning and recovery and in working with

the National Flood Insurance Program. Our members have expertise in the fields

of engineering, planning, community development, hydrologic forecasting, emergency response, and water resources.

The three programs we are discussing, PAS, FPMS and Challenge 21, are all programs which directly support the two major themes identified by Assistant Secretary Westphal in his testimony before the Subcommittee as important to the way

the Corps should formulate and implement Civil Works policy. He said it should be

based on building strong partnerships with states and local communities as well as

other federal agencies. Additionally, he stated that Civil Works policy should help

economic growth and prosperity by ‘‘combining sound infrastructure management

and development with environmental protection and ecosystem restoration’’. We full

support these strategies for the Corps.

Under General Investigations, ‘‘Coordination Studies With Other Agencies’’ includes $6.5 million for Planning Assistance to States in the budget request for fiscal

year 2000. As you know, the fiscal year 1999 budget provided $6.3 million for this

program. This amount, which was 1 million over the budget request, was provided

by the Congress to help to reduce the work backlog and meet the growing need of

localities and local and regional governmental entitles for technical assistance from

the Corps. The Senate provided $7.5 million in recognition of the backlog and the

$6.3 was agreed to in Conference. The situation has, of course, been helped by the

Congressional effort this fiscal year, but a significant backlog remains. Further, increasing federal efforts to encourage cooperation and capability building among federal agencies and state and local governments have produced more demand for the

Corps’ guidance and assistance. We hope that the Committee will approve funding

at least at the budget request and, hopefully, above the budget request.

Also under General Investigations, Flood Plain Management Services, $9 million

is requested for fiscal year 2000. This is the funding level for fiscal year ‘‘99, although last year’s budget request sought $9.4 million. The Floodplain Management

Services Program funds specific technical assistance requests from states, local governments and tribes. Generally, these address needs for identification of flood hazards in communities under growth pressure, assessing and taking steps to assure

the safety of dams and providing the technical information to identify appropriate

flood mitigation options, floodproofing, flood warning and hurricane evacuation studies. Without the technical assistance the Corps provides, structures may be built at

risk, exposing citizens and the nation’s taxpayers to future costs. Clearly, projects

funded under FPMS work tangibly to reduce flood losses and costs to the federal

government and support the partnership and economic growth/infrastructure management strategies above.

The Corps is requesting $25 million for its Challenge 21 initiative. While authorization is not yet in place for this promising program, the Senate version of this

year’s Water Resources Development Act does including authorizing language. Challenge 21 would provide the Corps with a full-range toolbox to help communities and

states. It offers essential flexibility such as the ability to accommodate smaller

projects for communities where a traditional structural project might not be justified

or the ability to mix structural and non-structural elements to better design an

overall project. The continuing authorities nature of the proposed program is important because confidence in a sustained federal commitment is important to communities for development and implementation of these smaller projects. It is probable

that hundreds of communities in the nation have the potential to benefit substantially from this innovative initiative. We hope that the Committee will provide the

nation’s communities with the valuable tools of Challenge 21.
612

It is a pleasure to share our views on the effectiveness and usefulness of these

programs in the achievement of flood loss reduction. Thank you for the opportunity

to present testimony. We are always ready to respond to your questions. Please contact ASFPM Executive Director, Larry Larson, at (608) 274–0123 if further information is needed.

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS

LETTER FROM PHILIP BEACHEM, CHAIRMAN, NEW JERSEY MARITIME ADVISORY

COUNCIL

MARCH 26, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: New Jersey relies heavily on waterfront and coastal commerce to maintain its healthy economy. New Jersey’s deep draft commercial waterways handle in excess of a quarter billion tons of cargo a year, producing more than

$1 billion in customs revenue for the Federal Government. In addition to our ports,

New Jersey’s $50 billion maritime industry includes more than $1 billion in commercial and recreational fishing activities on our inland waterways and rivers. The

continued partnership between the Corps of Engineers and the State of New Jersey

is crucial to our local, regional, and national economy.

Shore protection and flood control projects are equally important to the economy

of our State and the health and safety of our citizens. These projects protect vital

infrastructure and reduce storm damage to personal and public property.

In addition to this testimony on behalf of the sixty-two corporate, government,

and academic members of the New Jersey Maritime Advisory Council, we have also

provided technical data for the benefit of the members of your Subcommittee.

We respectfully request your favorable consideration. New Jersey is prepared to

move resolutely ahead in partnership with the Federal Government.

Respectfully submitted,

PHILIP BEACHEM,

Chairman.

SUMMARY OF THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK NEW JERSEY FEDERAL CIVIL WORKS

APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2000

President’s

Budget

Sponsor Recommendation

CONSTRUCTION

Kill van Kull—Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ ............................................ $60,000,000 $60,000,000

NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & NJ ....................................................... ........................ 2,000,000

NY & NJ Channels: Port Jersey, NJ ................................................................ 2,000,000 2,000,000

NY Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift, NY & NJ ...................................... ........................ 1,000,000

Subtotal ............................................................................................ 62,000,000 65,000,000

STUDIES

Arthur Kill Channel Extension ........................................................................ 100,000 100,000

NY Harbor & Red Hook Flats Anchorages ..................................................... 300,000 300,000

NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study ................................................................. 884,000 884,000

NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study—PED ...................................................... 2,534,000 2,534,000

NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & NJ ....................................................... 1,312,000 1,312,000

NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Study ............................................................... ........................ 100,000

NY Harbor & Adjacent Channels: Claremont Channel, NJ ............................ ........................ 1,500,000

Subtotal ............................................................................................ 5,130,000 6,730,000
613

SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY FEDERAL CIVIL WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2000

President’s

Budget

Sponsor Recommendation

FLOOD CONTROL

Green Brook .................................................................................................... $1,000,000 $1,000,000

MillBrook ......................................................................................................... ........................ 2,200,000

Molly Anns Brook ............................................................................................ ........................ 1,000,000

Passaic River Flood Storage .......................................................................... 1,800,000 1,800,000

Passaic River Minish Park ............................................................................. ........................ 8,000,000

Poplar Brook ................................................................................................... ........................ 250,000

Ramapo River-Oakland .................................................................................. 1,300,000 1,300,000

Raritan River-South River .............................................................................. 569,000 569,000

Upper Passaic-Long Hill ................................................................................ 200,000 200,000

Upper Rockaway River ................................................................................... 200,000 200,000

Woodbridge & Railway River .......................................................................... 100,000 100,000

Shrewsbury River ............................................................................................ ........................ 100,000

Subtotal ............................................................................................ 5,169,000 16,719,000

SHORE PROTECTION

Barnegat Bay ................................................................................................. 400,000 400,000

Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet .................................................................. ........................ 700,000

Brigantine Inlet-Great Egg Inlet-Absecon ...................................................... ........................ 14,300,000

Brigantine Inlet-Great Egg Inlet-Brigantine .................................................. ........................ 337,500

Cape May Inlet to Lower Township ................................................................ 1,700,000 2,000,000

Delaware Coastline-New Jersey & Delaware .................................................. ........................ 850,000

Great Egg Inlet and Peck Beach ................................................................... 419,000 419,000

Great Egg Inlet to Townsend Inlet ................................................................. ........................ 226,000

Lower Cape May Meadows-Cape May Point .................................................. ........................ 523,000

Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet ............................................................... ........................ 300,000

Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Cliffwood ..................................................... ........................ 275,000

Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Highlands ................................................... ........................ 200,000

Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Keyport ........................................................ ........................ 200,000

Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Leonardo ..................................................... 225,000 225,000

Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Port Monmouth ........................................... ........................ 400,000

Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Union Beach ............................................... 320,000 320,000

Raritan Bay & Sandy Hook Bay-Section 934 ................................................ ........................ 200,000

Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet ........................................................................ 9,000,000 18,000,000

Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet ................................................................. ........................ 1,250,000

Subtotal ............................................................................................ 12,064,000 41,125,500

DREDGING

New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway Environmental Restoration ..................... 519,000 519,000

New York Collection & Removal of Drift ....................................................... ........................ 5,500,000

Dredging in Support of OpSail 2000 ............................................................. ........................ 1,000,000

Subtotal ............................................................................................ 519, 000 7,019,000

PLANNING ASSISTANCE

Section 22, Public Law 93–251 .................................................................... ........................ 300,000

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Barnegat Inlet ................................................................................................ 1,270,000 1,580,000

Cold SpringInlet ............................................................................................. 545,000 545,000

NJ Intracoastal Waterway ............................................................................... 1,854,000 1,854,000

Salem River .................................................................................................... ........................ 1,200,000
614

SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY FEDERAL CIVIL WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2000—

Continued

President’s

Budget

Sponsor Recommendation

Subtotal ............................................................................................ 3,669,000 5,179,000

SUMMARY OF PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FEDERAL CIVIL WORKS

APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2000

President’s

Budget

Sponsor Recommendation

PROJECT

Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea Construction & Maintenance of

Disposal Areas ........................................................................................... $3,660,000 $4,160,000

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHARPE JAMES, MAYOR, CITY OF NEWARK, NEW

JERSEY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the

opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your jurisdiction which is

very important to the people of Newark, New Jersey and the surrounding region.

The Passaic River Streambank Restoration Project, known as the Joseph G. Minish

Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area, is an important part of the overall

economic, land use and transportation development plan of the City of Newark. The project was authorized at a level of $75 million in the 1996 Water Resource

Development Act, and has been fully planned by the Army Corps of Engineers. The

streambank restoration and bulkhead replacement, which is the first phase of the

overall project, is set to begin in the summer of 1999 two months utilizing last

year’s appropriation of $3,000,000, which also brought the project to final design.

Prior appropriated funds have been utilized to fully design the bulkhead, a segment

of naturalized streambank, and a system of walkways and public open spaces. Adjacent, currently dormant, sites will become desirable locations for development of

commercial properties. However, the fiscal year 1999 funding will only take us

through the construction of five hundred feet of bulkhead and some of the mud flats

restoration, not to a usable facility.

A supplemental appropriation of $15 million is requested so that this integral element in Newark’s revitalization can move from partial construction to the beginning

of full project build-out. This investment in Newark’s future will help us to improve

the economic status of our nation’s third oldest major city. The development of the

riverfront now is a critical element in the overall plan for Newark’s downtown revitalization. This linear park will serve as a visual and physical linkage among several key and exciting development projects. It is adjacent to one of the oldest highways in the nation, Route 21, which is undergoing a multi-million dollar realignment and enhancement. A light rail system, the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, which

will connect Newark’s two train stations, and ultimately, Newark International Airport and the neighboring City of Elizabeth, will provide users with access to mass

transportation. Conversely, the riverfront will become a destination served by that

system, providing an important open space and waterfront opportunity for residents

of one of the most densely populated cities in the nation.

The environmental benefits of the project include flood control, riverbank and wetlands restoration, creation of urban green space, and enhancement of water quality

in the Passaic River. These improvements will allow the Passaic River to be converted from one of the nation’s most troubled waterways to a cultural and recreational asset. Ongoing and planned greenway projects will provide pedestrian and

bicycle access to the waterfront from Newark’s residential neighborhoods as well as

the City’s five major institutions of higher learning.

The riverfront development will complement and provide a visual and physical

connection with the new, $170 million New Jersey Performing Arts Center, which

opened in the Fall of 1997 and has been incredibly successful. Further north along

the riverfront, also accessible from the riverfront walkway when it is fully built, the

City of Newark and Essex County are constructing a minor league baseball facility
615

along Route 21, which will be open for use this July. On the eastern portion of Minish Park, residents of a crowded community, Newark’s Ironbound, will have direct

access to the river and its streambank for active and passive recreation for the first

time. The development of the Passaic Riverfront is also a driving consideration in

the planned construction of a major downtown sports and entertainment venue to

house major events and competitions.

The riverfront will be the nexus of these activities, creating a vibrant downtown

center that will provide economic development opportunities for the citizens of Newark and our region. Visitors from throughout the nation are expected to come to

visit our revitalized city, and participate in the exciting growth and development

taking place. There is tremendous potential for Newark’s riverfront to mirror the

success of other riverfront developments throughout the country, and Newark

stands ready to accept the challenges such developments present.

The City of Newark currently is conducting a master plan study for the entire

riverfront area, which will guide us in tying together these incredibly exciting, and

challenging, projects. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to coordinate several

major development activities into a virtually seamless development plan. The appropriation of $15 million which I am requesting will serve to incorporate the Army

Corps of Engineers’ construction into our overall economic development plan to reinvigorate Newark. I urge you to support this appropriation request.

In closing, I would like to extend my thanks to the entire New Jersey delegation

for its ongoing support. The time and attention of this subcommittee are deeply appreciated.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN S. CORBETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT AUTHORITY AFFAIRS STATE OF NEW YORK, EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION;

FRANK M. MCDONOUGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY MARITIME RESOURCES STATE OF NEW JERSEY, COMMERCE & ECONOMIC GROWTH COMMISSION;

AND LILLIAN C. BORRONE, DIRECTOR, PORT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT THE PORT

AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY

On behalf of the Port of New York and New Jersey, we wish to thank you for

the support you have shown for the navigation and water resources programs in recent years.

Herein, we offer our comments on the US Army Corps of Engineers’ fiscal year

2000 budget request. We fully support the proposed funding for the construction of

the Kill van Kull-Newark Bay Channels to 45 feet. However, we believe that funding is also required for the deepening of the Arthur Kill Channel to 41 feet. In order

for the benefits of these and other projects to be realized as soon as possible, and

to avoid unnecessary project cost increases, we request that the subcommittee appropriate funds at the levels described in this statement. These funds will ensure

that essential navigation infrastructure will be in place to accommodate postPanamax ships currently deployed in international commerce. Using a conservative

estimate for future cargo volumes, we believe that our Port will grow in excess of

three percent per year—which equates to cargo volumes doubling by 2015. Accommodating the deep draft vessels that will move this cargo is critical to not only the

Port’s vitality but also to the nation’s commercial competitiveness. The Administration’s proposal, enhanced by our requests for additional funds, will keep this critical

work on track to the benefit of the regional and national businesses that utilize the

East Coast’s largest international gateway.

Listed below are the projects and appropriation amounts that we request for the

Port of New York and New Jersey. Those projects displayed in bold are our additional requests.

Port Request

Construction:

Kill van Kull—Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ ........................ $60,000,000

NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & NJ .................................. 2,000,000

NY & NJ Channels: Port Jersey, NJ ............................................ 2,000,000

NY Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift, NY & NJ .................. 1,000,000

Studies:

Arthur Kill Channel Extension ..................................................... 100,000

NY Harbor & Red Hook Anchorage .............................................. 300,000

NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study .............................................. 884,000

NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study—PED .................................. 2,534,000

NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY & NJ .................................. 1,312,000

Flushing Bay and Creek, NY ......................................................... 600,000
616

Port Request

NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Study ........................................... 100,000

NY Harbor & Adjacent Channels: Claremont Channel, NJ ....... 1,500,000

A brief description of each of these activities follows.

CONSTRUCTION

Kill van Kull—Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ (Phase II).—The Kill van KullNewark Bay Channels project—deepening to 45 feet—was authorized for construction in the fiscal year 1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 99–88) as

well as the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The channel serves the

busiest and largest container facilities on the Atlantic seaboard. The terminal operators and ocean carriers that call on the Port Newark and Elizabeth Marine Terminals, as well as the harbor pilots, have insisted that rapid completion of the 45 foot

deepening project is essential if the port is to efficiently serve major carriers that

call in the port. It is imperative to the continued navigational safety and economic

vitality of the port region, and its ability to accommodate projected commerce, that

the construction to 45 feet below MLW be completed as soon as possible. With the

funding provided for fiscal year 1999 and the proposed funding for fiscal year 2000,

the project has been given a good start.

The Corps’ current schedule forecasts that the project will be finished no earlier

than 2005. The Port Authority, as local project sponsor, is prepared to provide the

non-Federal cost-share, estimated at $256 million. The Port Authority is working in

cooperation with the Corps to accomplish the project several years sooner than originally planned and bring the project in under its authorization level by providing an

optimum dredged material disposal solution. We appreciate the Administration’s

second year budget for fiscal year 2000 of $60,000,000.

NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ.—The Arthur Kill Channel,

NY & NJ, Howland Hook Marine Terminal (HHMT) project was authorized in the

1986, 1992 and 1996 WRDA’s. The project’s controlling depth is currently 35 feet.

The proposed channel improvements include: (1) deepening the existing 35-foot

channel to 41 feet below MLW from its confluence with the Kill van Kull Channel

to the HHMT; (2) deepening to 40 feet below MLW from the HHMT to the Petroport

and Tosco facilities in New Jersey; and (3) selected widening and realignment of the

channel to ensure safe navigation. The Port Authority has invested $35 million to

date to modernize the HHMT and has spent, along with the City of New York, approximately $18 million for the berth dredging required to return this terminal into

active service. The HHMT currently employs 275 people on peak days and is expected to increase to a range of 650 to 800 employees by the year 2000. In addition,

HHMT is the Northeast Strategic Port of Embarkation in the event of a national

emergency. Finally, the City, the State of New Jersey and the Port Authority are

working to augment operations by re-establishing rail service to the terminal in late

1999.

In addition to the benefits that will accrue to the HHMT and the petroleum facilities along the Arthur Kill, implementation of this deepening project is vital to the

Port’s future capacity to grow. The HHMT is the largest marine terminal in New

York City and has significant potential for expansion. The deeper channel will not

only improve container movement but also will enhance petroleum vessel transit in

the harbor’s waterways, minimizing lightering and reducing the chances of oil spills

or accidental pollution of the harbor due to groundings. We, therefore, respectfully

request that the fiscal year 2000 appropriations include $2,000,000 to initiate channel improvements in the Arthur Kill Channel. We would prefer a greater amount

to shorten the construction time frame for the 41-foot project but recognize the

budgetary constraints you currently face.

New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels: Port Jersey, NJ.—The 1986 WRDA authorized construction of the Port Jersey Channel to 41 feet. The Port Jersey Channel, located in Bayonne, NJ, presently serves approximately one half dozen shipping

lines calling at Global Marine Terminal. In addition, the channel provides access for

the U.S. Military Ocean Terminal (MOTBY) as well as the Port Authority Auto Marine Terminal. MOTBY (which will remain in service under Army control until mid1999 and then be turned over to the City of Bayonne except for a portion used by

the U.S. Coast Guard) has been approved by the Local Re-use Authority (LRA) for

a number of maritime and commercial re-uses, including a 125 acre plus container

terminal. As the only privately owned terminal in the port, Global pays approximately $10,000,000 in Federal, state, and local taxes annually. More than 300 vessels, carrying approximately 280,000 twenty-foot equivalent units, call annually

upon the terminal. Well over 600 terminal employees, with an annual payroll of $25

million, and 3,000 indirect jobs depend on this facility for their livelihood. Recog-
617

nizing the demand of ocean carriers and responding to a critical need to provide

deeper water on an emergency basis, the State of New Jersey in 1997 constructed

a 38-foot channel leading to Global at a cost of $10,000,000. The Federal cost-share

for construction of this channel would have been $6,500,000, using the standard 65/

35-project cost share formula. We support the Administration’s request of

$2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 to initiate construction plans and specifications, and

to implement the deepening and disposal required to improve the Port Jersey Channel.

New York Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift, NY & NJ.—The Harbor Collection & Removal of Drift Project removes sunken hulls and dangerous, decaying

shoreline structures, which are sources of drift, jeopardize the smooth and safe flow

of maritime traffic, and foul the region’s beaches. The Corps has estimated that

nearly 18,000 commercial, public and recreation vessels collide annually with harbor

drift, causing damage to propellers, shafts and hulls. The annual associated repair

costs and other economic losses average greater than $53,000,000. Ample opportunities exist for advancing this project, particularly within the Arthur Kill (NY/NJ),

Shooters Island, NY & NJ, and Kill van Kull (NY) reaches. This project was authorized under the 1988 WRDA with an annual authorization of $6,000,000. Although

the project’s benefits are primarily navigational and safety related, the Shooter’s Island NY & NJ reach has significant environmental benefits for migratory birds as

a rookery. We are, therefore, respectfully requesting a total of $1,000,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget to complete design and initiate the Shooter’s Island Reach.

STUDIES

NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, Extension to Perth Amboy.—The Port is the busiest petroleum-handling harbor in the nation. An average of 30 billion gallons of

product is transported annually. Much of this activity and chemical shipping activity is centered along the Arthur Kill. In order to adequately assess the navigation

needs of the petroleum industry located on the lower Arthur Kill, an assessment is

needed to evaluate channel improvements south along the Arthur Kill Channel

below the current 41-foot project to Howland Hook Marine Terminal and Petroport

facilities previously discussed. The State of New Jersey has indicated that it would

support the study and provide the non-Federal cost share. We support the Administration’s request for $100,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget to complete the study.

New York Harbor & Red Hook Anchorages, NY.—The Red Hook Anchorage is part

of the New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels project. The anchorage was designed and constructed by the Corps in the early 1960’s for ocean going cargo ships

and tankers averaging 525 feet in overall length and with 30-foot drafts. Today, the

dimensions of the anchorage are inadequate to accommodate modern, ocean-going

vessels that are 1,000 feet long with drafts of 40 feet or greater. Therefore, to ensure

safe navigation and maintain the Port’s capability to accommodate current and future vessel needs, we support the Administration’s request for $300,000 in fiscal

year 2000 to initiate a feasibility study for the deepening of Red Hook Anchorage.

The Corps has the authority to undertake this study under a congressional resolution adopted by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on December 5, 1980. The States of New York and New Jersey support this project; and they

have agreed to fund the non-Federal cost equally.

NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study.—In the reconnaissance study, authorized by

the 1996 WRDA, the Corps determined that evaluation of the channel deepening

needs of the NY & NJ Harbor to 50 feet below MLW, or greater, is in the national

interest. The States of New York and New Jersey and the Port Authority are the

local sponsors. As part of the ongoing $18 million feasibility study, scheduled for

completion in December 1999, the Corps will make recommendations for future

navigation infrastructure improvements for the Port, in the context of a National

Economic Development Plan. These recommendations will facilitate the Port’s ability to continue to serve the nation’s marine transportation needs based upon anticipated trade growth demands on shipping. The ocean carrier industry has made it

clear that their future container vessels will require navigation channels dredged to

depths that exceed the depths found currently in the Port. To complete the Feasibility Study, we support the Administration’s request to fund the remaining Federal

share of $884,000. Upon completion of the feasibility work, the Corps is prepared

to enter the pre-construction engineering and design (PED) stage of the project. We

support the Administration’s request for $2,534,000 to initiate these activities.

NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ.—As we noted earlier, the

controlling depth for the Arthur Kill is 35 feet. Even as construction hopefully will

commence in fiscal year 2000 for the 41-foot project, planning for an ultimate depth

of 45 feet should continue. The 1996 WRDA authorized the project depth to as much
618

as 45 feet. Although new congressional authorization is needed to increase the Section 902 funding cap, a preconstruction, engineering and design effort will be needed

for construction of the 45-foot channel. The Corps has estimated the cost of this

study to be $3 million, with the local share provided by the State of New Jersey

and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Port supports the Administration’s request for $1,312,000 in fiscal year 2000.

Flushing Bay and Creek, NY.—The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of providing environmental restoration to the Flushing Bay and Creek project

vicinity. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection provided a

letter of support for this study in 1996. Funds will be used to continue the feasibility

phase of the study that will be shared on a 50–50 percent basis by Federal and nonFederal interests. We support the budget request of $600,000.

NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Project.—As part of the Harbor Navigation Study,

investigations on upland improvements including terminal expansion are being conducted by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in cooperation with the

States of New York and New Jersey and the Corps of Engineers. These activities

have culminated in the development of a business investment plan for future port

development and improvement. Proposed harbor improvements may include activities beyond construction of navigation infrastructure. For example, the implementation of a restoration and remediation plan for the New York/New Jersey Estuary

is also a significant part of any future strategy for the harbor. To assess Federal

participation in such a program, it is important for the Corps of Engineers to prepare a reconnaissance study to make a determination as to Federal interest in such

an effort. To that end, we respectfully request that funds in the amount of $100,000

be appropriated for the Corps of Engineers to conduct the necessary assessment.

New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels: Claremont Channel, NJ.—Located on

the Hudson River in the State of New Jersey, Claremont Channel currently has an

average depth of 27 feet below MLW. Section 202(b) of the 1986 WRDA authorized

federalization of the channel to 41 feet. The State of New Jersey, the Port Authority,

and the region’s pilots have identified optimal designs for the channel, with depths

ranging from 34 to 38 feet. This deepening project will support current shipping activities in the channel. Two scrap metal exporting companies and a crushed stone

aggregate terminal are the major users of the Claremont Channel. Scrap metal exports have averaged over 1.5 million long tons per year and are our region’s number

one export. Meanwhile, crushed stone transshipments approach 4 million tons annually. Combined, these three firms employ 300 persons directly and provide nearly

3,000 indirect jobs through suppliers as well as support to longshore services. New

Jersey will invest $21,000,000 in construction activities in 1999. We respectfully request that $1,500,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2000 to complete the study of

this currently inadequate channel.

CONCLUSION

For the first time in a while, the budget request comes close to resembling the

annual funding levels approved by Congress for deep draft navigation projects. The

fiscal year 2000 budget for ports is of marked contrast to those of recent years, especially last year when the harbor construction budget totaled $40 million. The difference is partly explained by the Administration’s proposal that Congress enact a

new user fee scheme to replace the constitutionally crippled Harbor Maintenance

Tax. Judging by the controversy surrounding the proposal and the difficulty Congress had in enacting the HMT in 1986, there is pessimism as to how quickly Congress will be able to come to a decision on a new fee. There is sufficient funding

available in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to support channel maintenance

for the next few years. We ask that even as the authorizing committees consider

this new fee proposal, your committee again provide sufficient appropriations to

meet the needs for the deep draft navigation program. We believe that the budget

levels proposed by the Administration for the Kill van Kull-Newark Bay and Port

Jersey channels are sufficient to meet the demands of current navigation requirements. However, we believe that the Arthur Kill Channel to Howland Hook project

should be constructed starting no later than fiscal year 2000. The Howland Hook

Marine Terminal is growing rapidly and is key to our Port accommodating projected

trade growth in the near term; hence, we urgently request that it be considered a

priority under new starts for construction funding. (We also respectfully request

that funds be appropriated to complete a feasibility study to deepen the Claremont

Channel.) Lastly, we appreciate the Energy & Water Development Subcommittee’s

diligence in providing for the nation’s water resource needs. Thank you, and we

hope that you will have the opportunity to visit our Port in the very near future.
619

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNON A. NOBLE, CHAIRMAN, GREEN BROOK FLOOD

CONTROL COMMISSION

SUMMARY

The Commission requests that the Congress appropriate $1,000,000 for the

Project in fiscal year 2000, to continue construction of the Project in 2000.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Vernon A. Noble, and I am the Chairman of the Green Brook Flood

Control Commission. I submit this testimony in support of the Raritan River

Basin—Green Brook Sub-Basin project, which we request be budgeted in fiscal year

2000 for $1,000,000 in construction general funds.

The Commission was established in 1971, pursuant to an Act of the New Jersey

Legislature, following disastrous flooding which took place in the Green Brook Basin

in the late Summer of 1971. That flood caused $304,000,000 in damages (April 1996

price level) and disrupted the lives of thousands of persons.

In the late Summer of 1973, another very severe storm struck the area, and once

again thousands of persons were displaced from their homes. $482,000,000 damage

was done (April 1996 price level) and six persons lost their lives.

Thanks to the efforts of New Jersey’s Representatives and Senators in Congress,

the Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress in 1986 to design a solution to

this problem of flooding. The floods of 1971 and 1973 were only the most recent in

a long series of severe floods. Flooding in this Sub-Basin dates back to the late

1800’s when they were first recorded, and has become more damaging as the population of the area has grown.

The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is made up of appointed representatives from Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties in New Jersey, and from the

13 municipalities within the Basin. This represents a combined population of almost

one-quarter of a million (248,084) people.

The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 28 years have served,

without pay, to advance the cause of flood protection for the Basin. Throughout this

time, the Corps of Engineers, New York District, has kept us informed of the

progress of the project, and a representative from the Corps has been a regular part

of our monthly public meetings.

Thanks to the vigorous support of New Jersey’s Congressional Delegation, the

Congress in 1986 authorized a comprehensive flood control project for the protection

of the entire Green Brook Basin at a then established estimated cost, in 1985 dollars, of $203,000.000

In the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 1988, Congress included a provision making it clear to the Corps of Engineers that protection is to be designed for

the entire Green Brook Basin, rather than only the lower portion of the Basin, as

had at one time been studied by the Corps of Engineers.

During 1998, the Congress, with the agreement of the President, appropriated

$9,900,000 to initiate construction of the project. Final preparations are now underway, and it is expected that actual construction will begin in Bound Brook Borough

and in western Middlesex Borough this year.

We believe that it is essential that the Green Brook Flood Control Project be carried forward, and pursued vigorously to achieve protection at the earliest possible

date. This project is needed to prevent loss of life and property, as well as the trauma caused every time there is a heavy storm.

The General Reevaluation Report of the Corps of Engineers dated 1997 points out

some sobering facts. It shows that the damages which would occur in a repetition

of the flood experienced here in 1973, measured in 1996 dollars, would be

$582,700,000.

New Jersey has programed budget money for its share of the project for fiscal

year 2000.

Actual construction will begin this year. We believe that your decision of last year

to authorize the initiation of construction was a wise and prudent decision. It is essential that construction be continued in fiscal year 2000.

We urgently request an appropriation for the project in fiscal year 2000 of

$1,000,000, as proposed by the Administration.

The more quickly the construction of this project is completed, the less will be the

total cost, and the sooner the project will provide protection.

Economics and costs are of course important, but personal human tragedy, and

the loss of life, is more important.

As you may know, in 1998 an independent Task Force, consisting of representatives appointed by the affected municipalities and counties, examined alternative

possibilities for providing flood protection for the upper portion of the basin.
620

In late 1998, after regular meetings throughout the year, the Task Force reached

a unanimous conclusion. They recommended that the Corps of Engineers study a

specific new possible site for a detention basin. They also recommended that the

Corps of Engineers review another site which had been considered some years ago.

Both of these sites are in the Watchung Mountains, where flood water must be detained to provide protection for the densely populated areas at the foot of the mountains.

Actual construction work in the upper-most portion of the Basin does not need

to begin for a number of years, and accordingly we are confident that acceptable and

workable project plans can be developed in ample time to meet the approximate ten

year construction schedule.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for your vitally important past support for the Green Brook Flood Control Project; and we thank you

for the opportunity to submit this testimony to you.

SOUTHEASTERN U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHELDON L. MORGAN, PRESIDENT, WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE

WATERWAY ASSOCIATION

HISTORICAL

The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association represents a broad cross-section of

shippers, carriers, and the general business community in the Warrior-Tombigbee

basin in Alabama, and users in nine southern states. The Association began in 1949

to work for the redevelopment of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System. Construction of its original 17 locks and dams began in the late 1870’s, and completed

in 1915. The navigation system provided by these locks and dams had gradually deteriorated and, following World War II, the annual tonnage had leveled off at 2.5

million tons, due to the condition and limited capacity of the obsolete locks. The Association began in 1950 to work with Alabama’s Congressional Delegation and the

Army Corps of Engineers to plan for modernization. Five new locks were built between 1954 and 1975. The last remaining old structure (Oliver Lock and Dam) was

replaced in 1992—the first under the Water Resource Development Act of 1986. The

Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway now has modern and standard sized locks throughout

its length. These six new locks replaced the seventeen old, turn-of-the-century locks,

and today, this system represents a most noteworthy example of the positive impact

of the Federal water resource development program. The most persuasive evidence

of the validity of this project and the wisdom of those who made it possible comes

from the record compiled during and following the investment in its redevelopment.

During the economic studies which justified these investments, it was projected that

by 1980, the Waterway would carry some eight million tons annually, producing a

positive benefit to cost ratio. These levels were reached in 1966 and, by 1980, twice

the projected tonnage was being moved. Traffic has since reached 25 million tons

annually, a level three times that which had been projected. Clearly this has been

a valid investment in infrastructure.

Subsequently, due in large part to the federal investment in this waterway, several billion dollars have been invested by industry, agriculture and other non-Federal agencies, providing thousands of jobs. For example, the Alabama State Docks,

as a result of a $300 ∂ million expansion program, now offers the most advanced

export coal handling technology available in this country, along with similar improvements for handling grain, bulk materials, steel and forest products. It is interesting to note that the investment by this one local agency exceeds the total Federal

investment in building all the locks and dams on the entire waterway, including the

new Oliver Lock. The Alabama State Docks is once again embarking upon a multimillion dollar improvement and expansion program.

DEVELOPMENTS BY USERS

This Waterway must continue to be efficient and reliable if its users are to remain

competitive in world markets. Shipments of ore, steel, and related products have increased because of the new and modern U.S. Steel facilities in Birmingham, and a

new British Steel mill at Tuscaloosa and Mobile. The efficiency and modernization

of the waterway have been important factors in U.S. Steel’s continuing investments

to modernize its Fairfield mill. Fairfield is now again one of the bright stars in the

USX crown. Recent investments substantially exceed $1 billion. The new British

Steel mill surpassed $100 million in initial investment, and an additional $154 million is now underway. This mill utilizes the river southbound for export, as well as
621

northbound for raw materials and domestic sales of finished product. Hence there

is a favorable impact on the balance of payments which will be further enhanced

by the current expansion. British Steel has recently completed a $100 million Direct

Reduction Iron Plant at Mobile to ship production on the Black Warrior-Tombigbee

to Tuscaloosa Steel.

Major facilities for mining interests, forest products and marine equipment account for well over another $1.5 billion in recent investment. Coal comes out of Kentucky to electric generating plants on the BWT. There are new facilities at the Port

of Mobile, which handle more forest products than the total handled by all other

Gulf Coast ports. The efficiency and reliability of the waterway are key factors in

the development and competitiveness of these facilities, upon which thousands of

jobs depend.

These are but examples of how this waterway is so central to the economy of this

entire region, impacting both domestic and international markets. Attached with

this statement are letters further highlighting this importance. These represent a

broad cross-section of the economic heartbeat of an entire region. Throughout these

statements you will find repeated references to the importance of confidence in the

waterway to the willingness of business and industry to continue to invest in our

area and of their customers to depend on its reliability for the movement of their

products. Please note the wide range of interests represented by these statements:

financial institutions; public utilities; port facilities; coal mining; manufacturers;

suppliers; marine interests; petroleum and chemical processors and general business.

BUDGET REQUESTS

We support the President’s recommendation for O&M funds and ask for add-ons

of $3 million for additional capability be provided for the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway to help catch up on deferred projects. This would be realistic funding which we

will support as absolutely essential to day to day activities of the O&M program,

and with good management it will allow for the continuation of several on-going

projects which are near the point of culmination, following several years of investigation, design and now beginning the actual work. These projects address longstanding problems and have required extensive research and coordination and reflect excellent teamwork by the Corps and the industry. But for the support of this

committee, they would not be nearing reality. We wish to emphasize that this level

of funding is the minimum essential level.

From this have come both short and long range programs which have provided

a basis for orderly progress toward keeping the Waterway efficient and reliable. The

funding requirements to which I have referred stem from work we need to continue

now under these programs. I respectfully repeat that the performance of this waterway in successfully handling a level of tonnage some three times the projections

made during its design, attest to foresight of this Committee.

To summarize, the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway is a classic example of the positive aspects of the Civil Works Program. The Congress has seen its potential and

has supported its development. And now the project continues to demonstrate its

worth. Investment and expansion continue locally.

The Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association request for Operations & Maintenance funding in fiscal year 1999 for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway in

the amount of $16.0 million. This is level funding for the normal O&M work, and

is the minimum to keep navigation capability at a nominal level. However, additional capability of the Corps is important to the continuing improvements that

have been deferred. These include upland disposal sites, mooring cells, rock removal, a long range study of future needs and demands and other vital improvements totaling $3.0 million. Therefore, our total request is for a total of $19,025,000

for fiscal year 2000.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The following is a summary of the funding items for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2000 to meet the needs of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway,

and which we ask the Committee to approve:

Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway:

Operations & Maintenance Funds for Corps’ Budget fiscal year

2000 (level funding) .................................................................... $16,000,000

Funds for Additional Capability not included in Corps’ O&M

Budget Request 1 ......................................................................... 3,000,000
622

For General Investigations (Long Range Study) ......................... 250,000

Total Funds Required ................................................................. 19,250,000

1Funds for Additional Capability items are not included in the Corps’ Budget request, so it

is not likely that the committee has been informed of the need of funding for this particular

Additional Capability. We are requesting the additional funds for continuing projects and emphasize the need for additional O&M capability funds if we are to have an adequate current

year program, and to support on-going projects designed to improve safety and efficiency and

to reduce future costs to the Federal Government. O&M projects to be funded from this request

are continuing projects under the 20 year long range plan for improving the BWT, including

remaining vital upland disposal sites and recycling three that are filled (these substantially reduce annual dredging costs) rock removal and stop log replacement (equipment needed for lock

maintenance). General Investigations funds would be used to continue long range studies for

further modernization of the waterway.

Other needs allied to the Warrior-Tombigbee are:

Mobile Harbor:

Operations & Maintenance Funds, for Corps’ Budget fiscal

year 2000 1 ................................................................................... $20,200,000

Construction .................................................................................... 700,000

Total Funds Required ................................................................. 20,900,000

1 Requested funds for Mobile Harbor are 2.5 million more than the President’s budget. Historically, this is the level of funding required to maintain the harbor.

Written statements of support are attached.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES A. VANN, JR., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ANDALUSIA, AL

On behalf of Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AEC) and its member owners,

I respectfully request your support for the Corps of Engineers fiscal year 2000 funding request for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and Mobile Harbor. The enclosed statement explains AEC’s interest in these projects which are vital to our

business. The benefits of low-cost coal transportation afforded by these projects are

enjoyed by our member systems and their individual electrical customers’ accounts,

which number approximately 325,000.

Please give your support to the Corps of Engineers’ budget requests for these

projects. We sincerely appreciate your continued support in this matter and in other

issues related to the rural electric program.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AEC) is a wholesale power supplier for 21

member-owners located in central and south Alabama and northwest Florida. The

member-owners serve over 325,000 customer-members. AEC operates the Charles R.

Lowman Power Plant, located at Milepost 89.5 on the Tombigbee River, a coal-fired

power plant which burned 1,557,404 tons of coal in 1998. Also, AEC has a site on

the Black Warrior-Tombigbee River which is a possible location for a future baseload fossil fired generating plant.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST AND SUPPORT

AEC joins the collective effort to improve the efficiency and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway because of the lower fuel transportation costs which the

waterway provides to AEC’s Lowman electric generating plant. The Black WarriorTombigbee Waterway (BWT), the Tenn-Tom Waterway, and the Port of Mobile are

vital to our delivery of coal economically and efficiently to this plant, which is located on the Tombigbee River near Jackson, Alabama. During calendar year 1998,

we received 938,483 tons of coal via the BWT which accounts for over 60 percent

of total coal received.

Because delivered coal cost is such an important factor in our ability to maintain

competitive rates to our member systems, AEC supports the Black WarriorTombigbee project and level funding for the Corps of Engineers’ fiscal year 2000

budget. In addition, AEC supports the critical needs identified by the Corps which

have been deferred over the past three years.
623

In addition to the dependency which AEC has upon the BWT, there are benefits

to our region and our end-consumers as a direct result of a viable BWT waterway

and the Port of Mobile. These systems provide an invaluable link between our region and the world markets. As such, they stimulate the region’s economy, provide

jobs, and help reduce the trade deficit.

SPECIFIC BENEFITS OF THE WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY AND THE PORT OF MOBILE

TO AEC

The amount of coal moved to AEC’s Plant Lowman by barge on the BWT for the

past six years is as follows:

Year Tons

1993 .................................................................................................................. 866,731

1994 .................................................................................................................. 1,077,485

1995 .................................................................................................................. 874,044

1996 .................................................................................................................. 1,103,919

1997 .................................................................................................................. 1,052,575

1998 .................................................................................................................. 938,483

Total ....................................................................................................... 5,913,237

The savings in transportation costs represented by the above tonnage exceeds $30

million compared to AEC’s next viable option of delivery via rail.

AEC plans to continue to move the majority of its coal via the BWT in 1999 and

beyond. We have utilized the Port of Mobile for transloading a small test shipment

of foreign coal, and have made further plans to accept more of this coal for testing

in 1999.

STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO APPROPRIATION AMOUNTS

AEC supports near level funding ($16 million) for Operation and Maintenance in

the Corps of Engineers’ Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We view this as a minimum requirement in that this level of O&M funding is necessary to cover the minimum expected needs within the Mobile District for fiscal year 2000. In addition, there are

vital improvements which would bring the waterway efficiency to a higher level, totaling $3,000,000.

AEC also supports the appropriation of adequate O&M funds of $20,200,000 for

Mobile Harbor.

Lastly, AEC supports an amount of $250,000 for General Investigations, as identified by the Corps in cooperation with the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association.

CONCLUSION

We appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of our member

owners in central and south Alabama and northwest Florida pertaining to the benefits of the BWT waterway and the Port of Mobile. AEC and its member-owners fully

support the Corps of Engineers’ 2000 budget request for $16 million in operations

and maintenance funds for the BWT waterway, the appropriation of an additional

$3 million in funds for deferred projects, as well as $250,000 for General Investigations, and $20.2 million for Mobile Harbor O&M. While we are well aware of budget

constraints, we believe these projects should be funded at these levels to assure a

viable transportation system. With the money that has already been spent in construction of the BWT transportation system, proper funding for operations and

maintenance is, in our view, prudent management of what is undoubtedly a national

asset.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNN SHERRILL, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS, CROUNSE

CORPORATION, PADUCAH, KY

Maintenance and improvements to the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterways and Mobile

Harbor are a matter of vital interest to our Company. Crounse Corporation has,

since 1990, barged approximately one million tons of coal per year from the Upper

Ohio Valley to locations on the Black Warrior River and Mobile, Alabama area.

We have found the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway to be our highest cost operating

area, and can ill afford to have the system deteriorate below its present level, because of reduced maintenance funding.
624

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES STORY, VICE PRESIDENT GOVERNMENTAL &

PUBLIC AFFAIRS, DEGUSSA-HU

 ̈

LS, THEODORE, AL

Degussa-Hu ̈ls Corporation is pleased to have the opportunity to express our sup- port for the $16 million Corps of Engineers’ Operations and Maintenance Budget for

the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and for the $3 million additional funding necessary to complete badly needed projects which have been delayed due to the lack

of funding. The Port here in Mobile is very crucial to the economic well being of

our entire Community, and we also strongly support an appropriation of $20.2 million for the Mobile Harbor.

Our Company has invested over $1.5 billion in the Mobile Area, and employ over

1500 employees from this area. As such we are one of the largest employers in south

Alabama. Our Company as well as many other companies in the area who are part

of the Chemical Industry are heavily dependent on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System and the Harbor facilities here in Mobile. Our industry each year moves

a tremendous amount of raw materials and finished products through the Port and

the Waterway System. The increased efficiency which we would experience as a result of these appropriations would directly benefit our Company and our industry,

and lay the ground work for even more growth in an industry which has contributed

greatly to the sound economy which we enjoy here in south Alabama.

Degussa-Hu ̈ls which is German owned selected Mobile 25 years ago partly because of the good transportation infrastructure which we have here in the Port of

Mobile. The Port and the Waterway System are a vital link in this infrastructure.

We have had a number of expansions here in Mobile (in competition with other sites

in Europe) which were made possible by transportation advantages that we enjoyed

in this area. Maintaining and improving this infrastructure and its efficiency with

adequate appropriations will provide significant benefits for the entire south Alabama Area.

We urge you to support these appropriations, and thank you for your consideration of our request.

LETTER FROM JOSEPH H. LANGJAHR

FOSS MARITIME,

Seattle, WA, February 18, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN DOMENICI: The purpose of this letter is to express our support

of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway project and, in particular, our support of the

Corps of Engineers O&M budget of $16.0 million for this waterway, together with

additional critical needs.

Foss Maritime Company began providing marine transportation services in the

Pacific Northwest in 1889. During the past 110 years, Foss Maritime has developed

a complete waterborne tug and barge transportation system that currently operates

throughout Puget Sound, Washington; Alaska; Columbia/Snake Rivers, Oregon; San

Francisco and Southern California. We deploy over 200 tugs and barges in order to

perform a multitude of commodity movements, vessel-related harbor services and

international and coastwise ocean towing. During the past decade, Foss Maritime

has invested more than $100 million in vessel conversions and new construction to

rebuild and modernize its fleet of marine equipment. We employ about 1,300 people

throughout our operating area.

Recently, Foss Maritime was selected by The Boeing Company to design, build

and operate a roll-on, roll-off ship to transport Boeing-built Delta IV rocket boosters

from Decatur, Alabama, to space vehicle launch sites at Cape Canaveral Air Station,

Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The 310-foot ship, to be owned

and operated by Foss Maritime or one of its subsidiaries, under Boeing time charter,

will carry three common booster cores and associated containerized cargo. At a light

operating draft of eight feet, the ship will be capable of navigating the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway and Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway from Boeing’s rocket booster factory being built in Decatur.

This Foss Maritime ship is scheduled to enter Boeing service by July 1, 2000. We

have awarded a contract to Halter Marine, Inc., Gulfport, Mississippi, to construct

the ship, along with an option for a second vessel, and it is being built in Halter

Marine’s shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

The primary operating route of this ship will be through the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway and Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway from Decatur to Mobile,
625

Alabama; from Mobile through the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic to Cape Canaveral; and from Mobile through the Caribbean Sea, Panama Canal and the Pacific

to Vandenberg. Therefore, maintenance of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and

strict compliance with regulated pool depths is absolutely essential to the success

of this entire Boeing project.

Last year the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers for WarriorTombigbee Waterway Operations & Maintenance was $16.0 million. The Waterway

will need at least level funding for fiscal year 2000. However, the Corps has additional capability for certain projects such as upland disposal programs, rock removal

and stop log replacement. These are vital to the continuing improvements year to

year which ultimately will bring the Waterway efficiency to an expected level. We

encourage your committee to provide an additional $3.0 million in O&M capabilities

for these projects.

Finally, Mobile Harbor is an important component of our project and we support

the appropriation of funds in an amount of $20.2 million.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views and our concerns to you and

your committee on these vitally important projects.

Very truly yours,

JOSEPH H. LANGJAHR,

Vice President & General Counsel.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEN HENRY, PRESIDENT, HENRY MARINE SERVICE, INC.,

SPANISH FORT, ALABAMA

We join in the collective effort of the Warrior Tombigbee Waterway because of

lower costs, energy efficiency, all are important to local, national, and international

commerce.

Henry Marine Service, Inc. operates out of the Mobile, Alabama area offering support services to the larger inland barge lines serving the states of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana. We employ approximately 25 employees on a full

time basis in the repair service for towboats and barges. In addition, I own three

towboats providing towing in the Mobile harbor for the inland towing companies requiring smaller towing vessels to deliver their barges dockside and shipside in the

Mobile area.

Additionally, smaller tugboats normally service the barge lines by towing their

barges to locations in the tri-state area where it is not possible to navigate with the

larger towboats used by the major barges lines. This service requires me to employ

about thirty pilots and deckhands full time, in addition to my shipyard employees.

The Warrior Tombigbee Waterway, Tennessee Tombigbee, and Alabama River are

very important to the viability of my company. Therefore it is very important that

the Corps of Engineers continue to receive maximum funding for the fiscal year

2000.

We cannot emphasis enough how important it is for the level of funding of 16 million dollars, additional O&M capabilities of 3 million dollars, and general investigation funding of .25 million dollars be approved for fiscal year 2000.

Also, we strongly endorse and support the appropriation of funding for the Mobile

harbor in the amount of 20.2 million dollars in fiscal year 2000.

If these annual appropriations for funding of waterway projects do not continue,

then companies like Henry Marine Service, Inc. will disappear

Thank you very much for your efforts.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. TIM WILK, HUNT CRUDE OIL SUPPLY CO., TUSCALOOSA,

AL

Hunt Refining Company presently employs approximately 250 residents of West

Alabama and has been an important participant in the local economy since 1946.

Curtailment of our use of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System (WTWA) would

have a long-term impact on employment at Hunt Refining Company and ultimately,

the surrounding counties.

The WTWA system and the Port of Mobile are critical to the operation of our Refinery in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. We barge over 40 percent of our crude oil and over

25 percent of our refined products using both the Port of Mobile and the WTWA

system. We use the Port of Mobile as a starting point to pipeline or barge foreign

and domestic crude north at the rate of approximately 12 million barrels per year.

Hunt Refining Company supports the Warrior-Tombigbee project and joins the

collective effort to improve the efficiency and reliability of the WTWA system. We
626

are currently limited by draft restrictions most of the year, high river the other part

of the year, and to a special combination of two-barge tows all year. Through improvements, we can avoid significant increased costs during periods when the river

is above flood stage or at very low levels. Increased navigability of the waterway,

increases our transporter choice, ultimately keeping costs competitive.

The corps of Engineer’s 1999 Budget for the BWT Operations and Maintenance is $16.0 MM. We believe the BWT needs at least level funding to cover the minimum expected needs for fiscal year 2000. The Corps has several projects, which

have been deferred over the last three years that can now get underway. These include the upland disposal programs, rock removal and stop log replacement. These

deferred projects as well as funding for several studies will cost an additional $3.25

MM. We are asking for your support for a total of $19.25 MM for fiscal year 2000.

We further support the funds needed for the Mobile Harbor in the amount of $20.2 MM.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES M. DECOSMO, MANAGER OF LANDS, RESEARCH AND

PROCUREMENT, SOUTHEAST TIMBERLANDS, KIMBERLY-CLARK, MOBILE, AL

Kimberly-Clark (K–C), began operations in Mobile following its merger with Scott

Paper in December of 1995. Including the acquisition cost, K–C has invested over

$2 billion in the Mobile Plant and support operations. These investments represent

an average annual capital investment of $50 million in Mobile.

For the past sixteen years, Kimberly-Clark has continuously utilized the WarriorTombigbee Waterway, Coosa-Alabama River System, as well as the Port of Mobile.

In 1983, the first year K–C shifted from truck and rail to river transportation, some

1.06 million tons of forest products were transported with two tugboats and forty

barges. Due to the efficiencies and reliability of the Waterways, K–C transported in

excess of 3.5 million tons of forest products in 1998, 1.0 million of which was exported to International Markets. To sustain marine operations at this level requires

over 20 tugboats, 150 barges and over 250 jobs directly related to operations and

maintenance.

For K–C to operate on the Waterway requires operating expenses in excess of $13.5 million. These operating expenses are required to support a $28 million capital investment in wholly owned woodyards and joint venture wood processing facilities.

With this investment in Kimberly Clark’s Southern Operations and the dependence on the Waterways, it is critical that the river channels, locks & dams, bridges,

harbors and all other elements of navigation be adequately maintained, upgraded

and funded to meet the existing and future demands of the waterways, particularly

the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.

In consideration of the value of the river system and the importance of operational

reliability, Kimberly-Clark unanimously supports and recommends a minimum of

$16.0 Million for the fiscal year 2000 Operations and Maintenance budget for the

Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and $20.20 Million for Mobile Harbor.

K–C is a multi-billion dollar packaged products company strategically focused on

diapers, personal care products, consumer tissue and away-from-home products. To

continue to be the market leader, all facilities and operations throughout the world

must remain competitive, from the procurement and transportation of raw materials

to the satisfaction of each and every customer.

The Mobile operation has been and is committed to being a leader in World markets. To maintain a position of leadership and a viable operation, all facets of manufacturing must continually improve. To remain a competitor in a highly competitive

industry, it is imperative that the waterways continue to be adequately maintained

and upgraded to meet the challenges tomorrow brings. The Warrior-Tombigbee and

Coosa-Alabama River waterways are the ‘‘Main Artery’’ that support the Mobile

Harbor, Kimberly-Clark’s Southern Operations and the thousands of jobs directly

and indirectly related to its business. These waterways and ports will play a significant role in K–C’s future success.

With these considerations in mind, we ask that you give the requested budgets

and appropriations your full support.

Thank you for your help, consideration and support in this matter.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN S. MCCLELLAND, JR., MIDSTREAM FUEL SERVICE,

INC., MOBILE, AL

As a member of the Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development, your active

support is requested for fiscal year 2000 projects designated by the Army Corps of
627

Engineers for the Port of Mobile and the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. The

crucial projects designated by the Army Corps of Engineers for these strategic waterways are necessary to sustain normal operations and to provide for regular maintenance.

The Port of Mobile is a vital link for the Southeast region of our nation to trading

partners both domestic and foreign. Multiplying the effectiveness of the Port of Mobile is the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway which links the harbor to 16,000

miles of the inland waterway system. The efficiencies of these waterways will continue to enhance economic opportunity and prosperity in the Southeast region.

Our company, Midstream Fuel Service, Inc., with headquarters in Mobile, Alabama, is an ardent supporter of the efforts of the Army Corps of Engineers to operate and maintain these assets. Growth and maintenance of these waterways have

allowed our company to grow from a one-boat, one-barge harbor operation to a dynamic petroleum supply and support company. We operate towboats, tank barges

and marine terminals which all rely on these waterway systems to service the marine needs of our customers. Our service reaches deep into Alabama on the Black

Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, allowing our inland customers to ship bulk petroleum products in an efficient, cost-effective manner. In the Port of Mobile, we supply

fuel to ships, tugs and inland vessels that are transiting the region. Vessels employed in offshore oil production use our Mobile harbor base for support services.

The level of our commercial success has been and will continue to be highly dependent on the efficiency of these waterways.

For fiscal year 2000, the Army Corps of Engineers will need a level funding of

$16 million for operation and maintenance of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. An additional $3.0 million will be requested for improvement projects that

have been deferred during the past three years but are ultimately needed. These

projects include upland disposal programs, removals and stop log replacement.

There is also a need for general investigations with required funding of $.25 million.

The fiscal year 2000 funding requirement for operation and maintenance of the

Mobile Harbor is $20.2 million. Continued O&M funding for the Mobile Harbor is

critical to the Port of Mobile and the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.

The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association will present statements of support

for the Army Corps of Engineer’s funding proposal to your Subcommittee during the

first week of March. Midstream Fuel Service, Inc. enthusiastically supports their

testimony as representative of those who depend on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile for our commercial success.

Thank you for the work you have done in the past to keep these waterways navigable. We look forward to continued successful navigation in the Port of Mobile and

on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. DUFFY, PRESIDENT, NAVIOS SHIP AGENCIES,

INC., MOBILE, AL

We request that you support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Operations and

Maintenance Budget for $19,000,000 and General Investigations funding of $.25

million for the Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers.

Our vessels and our principal’s vessels carry 3.4 million tons of iron ore and 1.8

million tons of furnace coke per year with the majority bound for industries in the

State of Alabama. The Port’s ability to maintain its present draft has enabled us

to remain competitive on the world market. The continued dredging of the WarriorTombigbee allows this cargo to go through the waterway system of the Tombigbee.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has done an outstanding job maintaining this

system.

A large portion of this cargo is for steel operating in the Birmingham, Alabama

area. These import raw materials enable the steel mills to supply steel for various

supplies to this nation. Some of these cargo products from the steel mills are reexported through the Port of Mobile, which helps to reduce our trade imbalance. The

efficiency and reliability of waterways commerce is essential for us to provide the

raw materials necessary for our principals to meet the demands of the various markets within the State of Alabama and the United States.

We have been in operation since 1957 utilizing the Port of Mobile, the WarriorTombigbee and the Black River systems. We realize the importance of tight budget

control, yet the benefits on industry, commerce and trade as well as job return must

be recognized. Therefore, we solicit your support. We join in the collective efforts of

all those affiliated companies who realize the importance of maintaining this waterway system so that we may continue to bring in the necessary raw materials for

our manufacturing industries within the State of Alabama. For these reasons, we
628

request you to support the $19,000,000 for the Operations and Maintenance programs for fiscal year 2000.

LETTER FROM M. DEAN WHITE

ORSOUTH MIDLAND ENTERPRISES,

ORSOUTH TRANSPORT CO.,

Mobile, AL, March 1, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DOMENICI: I am writing to express my support for the continued

maintenance and improvement of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System.

Orsouth Transport Co. is one of the largest regional carriers by water in the Warrior-Tombigbee System. Last year we transported approximately 2.0 million tons of

commodities on this waterway, and an additional 2.8 million tons through the Port

of Mobile, including coal, scrap metals, direct-reduced iron, and aggregates. These

tonnages are significant to the economies of the states in that region, from the

points of view of both producers and consumers. Barging is a very low-cost method

of transportation, responsible for moving more than 15 percent of all of the United

States total freight for less than 2 percent of the nations total transportation costs.

This translates into savings for the consumer, such as lower rates for electricity.

Another important aspect of the Warrior-Tombigbee System is that it provides the

only alternative to the Mississippi River to move product to the Gulf Coast. This

was extremely important during the drought year of 1988, when the lower portion

of the Ohio River was closed for an extended period, and the lower Mississippi River

was severely restricted for approximately five months. The availability of the Warrior-Tombigbee System allowed us to continue to serve utility and industrial customers, and keep those customers from having to shut down operations because

they could not receive raw material. Orsouth Transport Co. fully supports and recommends appropriation of $16 million for operations and maintenance of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee System for fiscal year 2000. Furthermore, we recommend additional funding to permit the Corps

of Engineers to proceed with some of the projects that have been deferred over the

past three years, which total $3 million. These projects include upland disposal programs, rock removal, and stop log replacement. Another $.25 million is being requested for General Investigations, vital to long-term planning. All of these funds

are necessary to assure that the Warrior-Tombigbee System remains an important

part of the Inland Waterway System. Finally, we support an appropriation of funds

in the amount of $20,200,000 for Mobile harbor. The Port of Mobile is an integral

part of the waterway system, especially as an alternative origin to the Port of New

Orleans. Improvement of the Mobile harbor will increase utilization of the WarriorTombigbee System overall, and generate significant additional monies for the states

in this region. We request your support in reviewing and approving these project

funding limits for fiscal year 2000.

Sincerely,

M. DEAN WHITE,

Port Captain.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. HAUN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, PARKER

TOWING COMPANY, INC., TUSCALOOSA, AL

My name is Charles A. Haun and I am Executive Vice President for Parker Towing Company of Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

We are a full service marine transportation company operating a fleet of boats

and barges and twelve ports on the southern portion of the U.S. Inland Waterways

System. We are involved in the transportation of all types of commodities including

coal, coke, ores, stone, forest products, steel, and manufactured products. We have

been in operation for over fifty years and our approximately 200 employees are entirely dependent upon the efficiency of the waterway.

Parker Towing Company endorses and supports fully the efforts of the WarriorTombigbee Development Association to improve the overall operation of this vital

waterway system. The Warrior-Tombigbee System and the Port of Mobile are of

great importance to our company and the industries we serve. Proper and adequate

funding of the waterway project will ensure that more industries can rely on this

energy efficient delivery system. The region’s employment and economic well-being
629

could be adversely affected to a great degree should the efficiency of the waterway

be degraded.

As a member of the Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association, Parker Towing Company emphatically supports an appropriation of $16 million for the Corps of Engineers for operation and maintenance of the Warrior-Tombigbee System for fiscal

year 2000, additional capability funding of $3.0 million, and general investigations

of $0.25 million, for a total of $19.25 million. In addition, we support the Corps’ request for operation and maintenance funds for Mobile Harbor in the amount of

$20.2 million.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE L. MERRIHEW, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, REGIONS BANK, MOBILE, AL

The economies of Alabama and the U.S. Gulf Coast are greatly impacted by the

Port of Mobile and the inland waterways serving these areas. The Black WarriorTombigbee Waterway is also a vital factor in this respect. It serves manufacturing,

mining, and the agricultural areas, as well as industrial production facilities in

western Alabama. The waterway has served as an economic stimulant for over 100

years and receives periodic improvement, bringing it to the point today, that it is

a modern system linking vital areas of the economy.

There are so many vital materials that are shipped on the Black WarriorTombigbee Waterway that its overall impact is sometimes not adequately considered. For instance, most of the coal exported from Mobile is shipped down this very

waterway. Therefore, it is important that the amount needed, as requested by the

Corps of Engineers for Operations & Maintenance (O&M) of $16.0 million, be appropriated for fiscal year 2000. This level of funding is necessary to support the day

to day O&M program, and to continue ongoing channel improvement projects that

will maintain the waterway in its current state. In addition, there is a request for

$3.0 million to continue projects that have been on hold for the past three years (upland disposal programs, rock removal, and stop log replacement). We desperately

need your support for these projects also.

We also request support of the appropriation of adequate O&M funds for the Mobile Harbor in the amount of $20.2 million.

An efficient and reliable waterway system is important to all of us, and most certainly is a justifiable investment by the federal government. The cost benefit ration

will be matched many times over by the local investment.

LETTER FROM JERRY L. STEWART

SOUTHERN COMPANY GENERATION,

Birmingham AL, February 19, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOMENICI: On behalf of Alabama Power Company, Gulf

Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company, I am writing to express our support for the Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association and its president in their

efforts before your committee. Because of the importance of the Warrior-Tombigbee

Waterway to local, national, and international trade, the Southern electric system

joins with the Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association in an effort to improve

the efficiency and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.

Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company

have used the Warrior-Tombigbee to transport coal to their respective electrical generating plants at Demopolis, Alabama, West Jefferson, Alabama; Mobile, Alabama;

Pensacola, Florida; Sneads, Florida and Biloxi, Mississippi. In 1997, through the use

of contracted barge carriers, these companies moved over 10.3 million tons of coal

by way of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. All of this coal would have required

a longer move down the Mississippi River through New Orleans. The WarriorTombigbee Waterway allows the barges to move down the Warrior-Tombigbee River

to Mobile and other destinations. The significant importance of this capability to our

system is obvious from a transportation flexibility standpoint. Additionally, the Port

of Mobile is the hub of the Central Gulf Coast and the continued development of

its facilities and support services is critical to the economy of the tri-state area

served by the Southern electric system.

Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company

utilize water transportation because of the economic advantage to our millions of
630

customers. Any expenditures for maintenance or upgrading which improve the efficiency and reliability of the waterway will have a positive impact on our customers.

At the same time, higher cost resulting from inefficiency or the unreliability of the

Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway will have a direct and adverse effect upon our customers.

It is imperative that there be a continuous program for maintenance and upgrading of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway channels and locks. We support the proposed budget request for $16.0 million in Operations and Maintenance funds for the

Black Warrior-Tombigbee River for the fiscal year 2000. Additionally, we support

the earliest completion of the capital projects (upland disposal programs, rock removal an stop log replacement) that have been deferred over the past three years

in the amount of $3.25 million, as well as the appropriation of funds for Mobile Harbor in the amount of $20.2 million.

Adequate funding of programs required to maintain the efficiency and reliability

of our nation’s waterways is critical to its superior economic health and welfare. I

strongly urge and solicit your support.

Sincerely,

JERRY L. STEWART,

Vice President Fuel Services.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARLTON J. MELTON, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, GULF &

INLAND REGION, STEVEDORING SERVICES OF AMERICA, MOBILE, AL

Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), is a 50 year-old stevedoring and marine

terminal operating company that utilizes the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and

Port of Mobile, AL in our daily operations. We handle approximate annual tonnage,

via the Tombigbee Waterway and Port of Mobile as follows: 1.7 million tons of forest

products, 1.5 million tons of bulk cargo (coal) through Mobile and 270,000 tons of

bulk and breakbulk products through the Port of Columbus, MS. This business results in direct employment of sixty (60) people and an additional 300,000 man hours

per year for four (4) local International Longshoremen Association unions generating an annual total of over $12.5 million in wages and benefits.

SSA fully supports the collective effort to improve the efficiency and reliability of

the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway (BWT). The waterway is a vital national transportation artery providing access to low cost, energy efficient, environmentally safe

barge transportation. Moreover it is critical to SSA’s business, to maintaining international commerce at the Port of Mobile and growing our local, state and national

economy. Maintaining and improving the efficiency and reliability of the waterway

is essential to protect and grow SSA’s business.

SSA’s supports the position that the Corps’ submitted budget for the BWT should

be at least level funding ($16.0 million) for fiscal year 2000 and that the Corps has

the additional capability ($3.0 million) for fiscal year 2000 to get underway those

projects which have been deferred over the past three years (upland disposal programs, rock removal and stop log replacement). We also support $0.25 million for

general investigations.

Maintaining the Mobile Harbor is critical to our business, and the Alabama State

Docks. Therefore, we urge your support for appropriation of funds ($20,200,000) for

maintaining and improving the Mobile Harbor.

We strongly urge you to support the aforementioned budget request. The BWT is

an important segment of our national transportation infrastructure. After all, our

nation’s transportation infrastructure is what keeps America moving and competitive in the global economy.

We very respectfully appreciate your consideration of this matter.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT, THOMPSON POWER

SYSTEMS, BIRMINGHAM, AL

We are pleased to express our support of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and

the Port of Mobile. These natural resources provide a vital economic link for many

communities along the Birmingham and Mobile corridor. Thompson Power Systems

has benefited from the strong growth of the Southeast’s economy. Our marine business has grown and we expect growth to continue. The continued reliability of the

Waterway and the Port of Mobile are paramount to our company’s success and the

long term expansion of our regional economy.

The Port of Mobile is the gateway to international markets for many U.S. products. Likewise, the Waterway network that serves the inland states provides effi-
631

cient transportation of bulk cargoes that fuel our heartland’s economy. Thompson

Power Systems joins in an industry-wide effort to improve the efficiency and maintain the reliability of the waterways and ports through which we provide our business. Therefore, we support the following appropriation of funds:

Warrior-Tombigbee Operations & Maintenance ................................. $16,000,000

Study for General Investigations ......................................................... 250,000

Funds for Mobile Harbor ....................................................................... 20,200,000

Corp of Engineers Deferred Projects .................................................... 3,000,000

As noted, we encourage the Corps of Engineers to commence the projects that

have been deferred. Projects such as the construction of upland disposal dikes and

mooring cells are vital to the steady use of the waterways systems.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue which greatly impacts our company

and region.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH H. JANSEN, DIRECTOR, RAW MATERIALS PLANNING

PROCUREMENT DISTRIBUTION AND SALES, U.S. STEEL, PITTSBURGH, PA

USX Corporation is heavily involved in the transportation of raw materials for

steel making throughout the United States. Due to the fact that transportation

rates are such a large part of raw steel costs, and, imported steel has been given

an unfair advantage, it is vital that the Federal Government maintains the transportation infrastructure of this country in preserving the ability of the steel industry

to remain competitive. It is with this in mind, that we request the United States

Senate fully support the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System. Water borne transportation is by far the lowest cost mode, as it affords USS Fairfield Works in Birmingham Alabama the opportunity to move raw materials inbound and steel outbound by water at a cost that assists in preserving the economic viability of that

plant.

It is for this reason that we offer our support to the Corps of Engineers in their

request of level funding ($16 million) for fiscal year 2000. Additionally we support

the Corps for funding ($3.0 million) of those projects, which would enhance the

present waterways capabilities and the maintenance of the Mobile deep water harbor ($20,200,000). Obviously the Warrior-Tombigbee is essential in the continued industrial development of the entire southeastern region and remains an integral

transportation cog in the wheel of commercial success.

We do appreciate the support that you and your colleagues have provided in the

past and look forward to your continued support in preserving a strong domestic

economy.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF T. KEITH KING, P.E., PRESIDENT AND CEO, DAVID

VOLKERT & ASSOCIATES, INC., MOBILE, AL

David Volkert & Associates, Inc. (Volkert) is an engineering/architectural/planning firm which employs 450 people and maintains Alabama offices Birmingham,

and Gulf Shores. Volkert strongly supports funding for the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile for fiscal year 2000.

We believe the proposed $16 million for Operations and Maintenance funds is justified since this level funding amount is necessary to cover the known and reasonably expected needs for fiscal year 2000, support the day-to-day O&M program, and

continue on-going channel improvement projects. In addition, we support an additional $3,000,000 needed by the Corps to continue on projects which have been deferred for the past three years (upland disposal programs, rock removal and stop

log replacement). We also support appropriating $250,000 for general investigative

studies, which ultimately will bring the waterway efficiency to the expected level.

Since the City of Mobile’s largest industry is her Port and the City’s present economy and future progress depends upon her Port, Volkert also supports the $20.2

million funding for Mobile Harbor.

Confidence in the Waterway and its efficiency and modernization are important

in bringing much needed new industry to Mobile and to the State of Alabama.

Lower operating costs to users of the Waterway and Port of Mobile are essential

in obtaining a reasonable balance of the international export market allowing the

U.S. to continue to reduce our trade deficit. Increases in shipping and commerce result in opportunities for many companies, similar to Volkert, to obtain business and

offer meaningful employment to citizens of the State of Alabama and other parts

of the U.S.
632

Volkert appreciates this opportunity to express our support of Chairman Charles

A. Haun and President Sheldon L. Morgan, of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association, and the testimony to be given by them before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and House. We are proud to join in the collective effort to improve the efficiency and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port

of Mobile.

LETTER FROM GEORGE R. RICHMOND

JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC.,

Brookwood, AL, February 26, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DOMENICI: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make

a statement to your Subcommittee. Please accept this letter as my statement.

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. currently mines 8 million clean tons of coal per year.

Of that amount, nearly 60 percent of our production is exported. All of our export

production goes through the Port of Mobile. Our payroll for 2,100 employees last

year was in excess of $107,000,000 and taxes withheld and/or paid were in excess

of $33,000,000. It is obvious from these facts and figures that this Company relies

heavily on our port facilities and that they are of the utmost importance to this

Company, its employees and the economy of the State of Alabama. I strongly support the Corps of Engineers budget request for $16.0 Million in Operations and Maintenance funds for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee for fiscal year

2000, along with the request for $3.0 Million for the Corps to undertake projects

which have been deferred over the past three years and $250,000 for general investigations. I also support the appropriation of funds for Mobile Harbor, in the amount

of $20.2 Million. Our waterways and port facilities provide economic prosperity to

Alabama that is worthy of your support. Further, I support the statements and testimony to be given by Mr. Sheldon L. Morgan, President of the Warrior-Tombigbee

Waterway Association. I believe that the value of improved efficiency and reliability

of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and Port of Mobile cannot and must not underestimated.

The world coal business is at its most competitive level in history. News of any

problems, especially transportation and delivery problems, is quickly spread by

other coal producers around the world to the buyers to discourage purchases here.

A blemish on our delivery record can have devastating, long-term effects from which

we might never fully recover. Buyers lost today may never return tomorrow. important matter.

Again, thank you for this opportunity to give my comments on this very important

matter.

Sincerely,

GEORGE R. RICHMOND,

President and Chief Operating Officer.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. CRAIG STEPAN, GENERAL MANAGER, WARRIOR & GULF

NAVIGATION COMPANY, CHICKASAW, AL

I am J. Craig Stepan, General Manager of Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company.

Our company is an active member of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association

and wholly supports the testimony to be presented by Mr. Sheldon Morgan as President of the Association. I wish to take this opportunity to highlight the impact that

the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile have on the success

and development of our Company.

Warrior & Gulf is a barge line and terminal operator headquartered in Chickasaw, Alabama, and owns 20 towboats and 240 barges, moving approximately 9 million tons of bulk materials on the Black Warrior-Tombigbee River System. This

makes WGN the dominant water carrier operating in the region. Additionally, we

own and operate two (2) bulk and general cargo terminals at Port Birmingham and

Mobile, Alabama, providing storage, transloading and intermodal services for truck,

rail and water transportation. Our total employment is 235 people.

Warrior & Gulf has provided barge transportation on the Black WarriorTombigbee River Systems since 1940 for export and domestic coal, iron ore, coke,

import and export steel products, export and domestic wood chips, and several other

types of bulk commodities. An efficient and properly maintained waterway system
633

integrated with the Port of Mobile is vital to Warrior & Gulf and its customers. This

waterway system has made the entire region world competitors through the reliable,

efficient movement of raw materials and finished products both for domestic and

overseas consumption. In order to encourage continued economic development along

this great waterway we must continue in our efforts to ensure this viable low cost

transportation alternative remains in place. The continued efficiency of this waterway is extremely critical to the viability of the industries it serves and helps to develop. This waterway system and harbor hold great opportunity for developing trade

initiatives with Mexico, South America and the world.

Historically, our shoaling problems vary greatly from year to year dependent upon

the length of our high water season (December-April) and the amount of flooding

that occurs. This winter we have been placed on notice by the U.S. Corps of Engineers that normal spring and summer river operations will be jeopardized due to

severe shoaling at Buena Vista, Little McGrews, St. Elmo, Jackson and East

Bassetts. The full extent of the economic impact of this problem is difficult to estimate, but clearly all the river carriers and their customers will suffer a negative

financial impact.

We have worked closely with the Corps of Engineers and wholeheartedly endorse

their budget request of $16.0 million in O&M funds for the Black WarriorTombigbee system for fiscal year 2000 to ensure continued transportation operations.

An additional $3.0 million is required to fund necessary deferred projects including channel rock removal, upland disposal site management and stop log replacement. Beyond that $.250 million is required to fund a study essential to planning

the effective long term use of the waterway.

Lastly, it goes without saying that the maintenance of the Mobile harbor is vital

to our waterway and the entire southern region. We, therefore, support the appropriation of $20.2 million to adequately fund Mobile harbor’s O&M needs.

Our company and its employees respectfully request your continued support and

assistance as your subcommittee considers appropriation of funds for these very important issues concerning the Black Warrior-Tombigbee System, the Port of Mobile

and those they serve.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK E. RAVAN, DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, ALABAMA STATE DOCKS DEPARTMENT, MOBILE, AL

The State of Alabama, as a result of the strategic location of the Port of Mobile

on the Gulf of Mexico and its extensive inland waterway system, is one of the major

maritime states within the continental United States. The State, primarily through

the facilities of the Alabama State Docks in Mobile, conducts maritime trade with

more than 125 nations worldwide. The Port of Mobile, which consistently ranks in

the top 15 deep water Ports in the Untied States, annually services an equal proportion of domestic and foreign cargoes.

The Alabama State Docks, a state owned revenue based business, serves as the

local cost-sharing partner of the Mobile Harbor Federal Project. A recent analysis

of the impact of the State Docks on the State of Alabama identified that every county in the state benefited from the services provided by the Port of Mobile. The analysis identified approximately 120,000 employees statewide that benefit directly and

indirectly from the State Docks. Wages received by these employees were estimated

at over $3 billion. Therefore, it is easily understood why full and timely support by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its navigation operations and maintenance programs for Mobile is critical to the state’s economy.

For the past several years, our communications with your committee have portrayed a solid partnership with the Corps in maintaining a highly functional project.

This has been possible not only because of the federal funding provided, but also

because of the Port’s willingness to modify operational procedures when less than

full project dimensions exist. Our communications have also noted the risk of hurricanes to the project. Unfortunately, in the last eighteen (18) months, the Port has

experienced two hurricanes. When combined with less than full dimensions at the

time of the most recent storm, severe shoaling of the project resulted. The Port has

been operating at a significantly reduced capacity for the last six months and recovery is not anticipated for the next four to six months. The last time such conditions

existed was in 1979 when a more severe hurricane hit the Port. As a matter of history, it only took three months to restore the Port to full operation on that occasion.

The Administration’s budget for fiscal year 2000 identifies $17.562 million for operation and maintenance of the Mobile Harbor Federal Project. The average annual

expenditure for the past three fiscal years has been approximately $20.133 million.
634

The proposed budget will once again place the project in a state of risk in the event

of another hurricane. Therefore, it is requested that $20,812,000 be appropriated for

the Mobile Harbor Federal Project for fiscal year 2000. This amount also includes

$750,000 in Construction General funds required to evaluate future operational expansion requirements.

As addressed earlier, approximately one half of the cargo transiting the Port of

Mobile is domestic. This cargo flows through Mobile as a result of the existence of

six waterway systems servicing Alabama, the southern United States and the states

bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Again, the economic viability of this region and its

ability to compete in both the domestic and world market place is dependent upon

the Corps of Engineers navigation operation and maintenance programs. Therefore,

we request that your committee support these waterway systems at the levels indicated.

Coosa-Alabama ....................................................................................... $31,556,000.00

Tennessee-Cumberland ......................................................................... $38,320,000.00

Tennessee-Tombigbee ............................................................................ $23,900,000.00

Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint ...................................................... $7,510,000.00

Black Warrior-Tombigbee ..................................................................... $19,250,000 00

Gulf Intercoastal Waterway .................................................................. ( 1 )

1 As requested by GICA.

Your consideration and support is greatly appreciated.

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND LETTERS SUPPORTING APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2000 FOR PROJECTS ON THE ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER SYSTEM

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH O. CLEMENS, JR., PRESIDENT, COOSA-ALABAMA

RIVER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman & distinguished Committee members: This statement includes the

following:

(A) A plea to recognize and maintain our Nation’s inland waterways system as

a vital part of the national transportation infrastructure;

(B) A request for support in the following areas:

(1) O&M funding for federal projects in the Coosa-Alabama Basin as well as Mobile Harbor;

(2) Funding for feasibility phase investigation of alternatives to improve the reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on the Alabama River;

(3) Reopening the Coosa Navigation Project;

(4) Resisting any attempt to raise user fuel tax on the Inland River navigation

industry;

(5) Supporting the Sturgeon Conservation Plan in the Mobile River Basin as developed by the Alabama-Tombigbee River Coalition and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

EXPANDED STATEMENT

Thank you for the opportunity to present to this Subcommittee my perspective on

several topics relating to our Nation’s waterways system in general, and to the

Coosa-Alabama River Basin in particular. As President of the Coosa-Alabama River

Improvement Association, I speak for a large and diverse group of private citizens

and political and industrial organizations that sees the continued development of

the Coosa-Alabama Waterway as an opportunity for economic growth in our region

as well as the Nation.

Our membership reflects a broad range of callings and professions, including shippers and tow operators, businessmen, bankers and private individuals who have a

stake in future economic development for their firms and successors to enjoy. Then

there is a larger group of elected officials and their constituents typical of the twenty-three municipalities and nineteen counties along the waterway who are members

of this association. Spurred by a desire to promote economic growth through enhanced waterway transportation, these members work diligently to develop our waterway into a productive part of the river infrastructure of the State and Nation.

We are concerned about the deteriorating waterway infrastructure throughout the

nation. Our inland waterways are vital to this Nation’s welfare. America’s ports,

navigable waterways, flood protection, water supply, environmental restoration, hydroelectric, and other water resources programs enhance economic development, na-
635

tional security, and general well being. These programs serve the national interest

in countless ways, returning far more in public benefits than they cost. A top-notch

navigation system able to meet the demands of both domestic and international

commerce is a driving force behind the national economy, transporting annually almost 15 percent of the nation’s commodities, one out of every eight tons. The waterways are vital to our export and import capability, linking our producers with consumers around the world. It is incumbent upon the Federal Government to maintain

and improve this system of interstate commerce. Therefore, we ask Congress to appropriate enough funds for required maintenance and construction to keep the waterways the economic multiplier it is. The Civil Works budget in fiscal year 2000

must be approximately $4.7 billion to maintain the system and allow for modest

growth. The Federal government must make this commitment to improve the water

transportation network or risk facing serious economic consequences and jeopardizing tremendous public benefits.

Some think tanks are advocating turning the Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program over to state or private managers. We urge caution and due deliberation in

such a move. Having one agency responsible for maintaining water projects on the

Alabama River, for example, provides benefits that can’t be measured in dollars and

cents. Security, responsiveness and historical knowledge are incalculable to users of

the river. The Corps’ experience is a public investment. The O&M funding appropriated annually is a public investment. Slashing that investment does not automatically translate into private prosperity.

We are concerned that any budget strategy that reduces funding for the operations and maintenance of inland and intracoastal waterways will have a detrimental effect on the economic growth and development of the river system. We cannot allow that to happen. In the Alabama-Coosa River Basin, we must be able to

maintain the existing river projects and facilities that support the commercial navigation, hydropower and recreational activities so critical to our region’s economy.

The first priority then must be the O&M funding appropriated to the Corps of Engineers to maintain those projects. Budget requests for the individual projects follow:

Project President’s

budget

Association’s

budget request

Alabama-Coosa River, AL 1(AL River incl Claiborne L&D) ............................. $5,185,000 $5,185,000

Miller’s Ferry L&D ........................................................................................... 5,560,000 5,560,000

Robert F. Henry L&D ...................................................................................... 6,183,000 6,183,000

Lake Allatoona, GA ......................................................................................... 6,328,000 6,328,000

Carters Lake, GA ............................................................................................ 8,150,000 8,150,000

Lower Alabama Navigation Study (AL River south of Claiborne) feasibility

study .......................................................................................................... 150,000 150,000

Totals ................................................................................................ 31,556,000 31,556,000

1 Includes dredging from the mouth of the Alabama River through Claiborne L&D to Miller’s Ferry. Coosa River not included.

We also support funding O&M for Mobile Harbor at $20,200,000, an increase of

$3,038,000 over the President’s Budget amount of $17,162,000. The $20.2 million

represents an historical average of costs just to maintain the Harbor and does not

include funding for new construction. We cannot allow Mobile Harbor infrastructure

to deteriorate because not enough funds were appropriated.

To attract new business into the Alabama River Basin, we must improve the infrastructure of the river itself, specifically the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam. Increased reliability is the only way prospective investors will entertain

establishing an industry that uses river transportation. The Corps of Engineers currently maintains 65–70 percent reliability through training dikes, reservoir management, and dredging. Of these measures, dredging is the most effective, but we can

do more.

The most affordable and most environmentally friendly solution to increasing

navigation reliability on the Lower Alabama River is to improve the training dikes.

(Training dikes are levees or barriers built out from river banks to direct the water

flow into the navigation channel, thus aiding in scouring the bottom and decreasing

dredging costs.) Mobile District has begun a feasibility study to determine the interest of the Federal Government in such a project. Without an improvement in the

navigation reliability on the Lower Alabama River, we cannot hope to attract new

river-related industry into the Basin. We ask Congress to appropriate $150,000, as
636

requested, to enable the Mobile District to continue the feasibility study already underway.

A major objective of our association is to complete a navigable waterway from Mobile to Rome, Georgia. The history of the Coosa River Project is well known by this

committee, but the proposal reflects our emphasis on infrastructure investment and

the creation of jobs and economic opportunity throughout our region. The Pre-design

Engineering Surveys are complete, so one of the most time-consuming requirements

of the project is done. We are well aware of the restrictive funding for such an undertaking in the current environment, but ask the Committee to recognize that a

Coosa-Alabama waterway would be one of the largest and most rapid generators of

jobs currently available. We owe it to the people of the Coosa-Alabama River Basin,

the states of Alabama and Georgia, and the entire region to maintain the vision of

completing this waterway.

Another mechanism to make the river system attractive to potential users is to

keep the cost of shipping via waterways down. The President’s Budget for fiscal year

2000 does not currently include a proposal to increase a user’s fuel tax, but some

in the administration think such a tax is a good idea. We have in the past listed

some of the negative aspects of such a proposal. Suffice it to say here that an increase in user fuel tax will have detrimental effect in the short run on consumer

prices and trade balance, and in the long run on the federal-private partnership and

maintenance of the waterways system. As one of the most efficient modes of transportation this country possesses, the waterway system needs more incentives for investment, not obstacles and disincentives.

The last issue I wish to address is a plea based on our experiences over the past

several years with attempts by the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Alabama

Sturgeon as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. As you know,

in December of 1994, the Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt, decided not to list the

Alabama Sturgeon, citing a lack of scientific evidence that the fish was a separate

and distinct species or even currently existed in the habitat scrutinized. Now, the

Fish and Wildlife Service sees fit to again propose listing the fish, despite a clear

alternative to saving the fish that has been underway for several years now, an alternative outside the confining restrictions of the Endangered Species Act.

The Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Alabama-Tombigbee River

Coalition, developed a Sturgeon Conservation Plan that has strong potential to propagate the Sturgeon population in the Mobile River Basin. The State of Alabama,

charged with the execution of the Plan, currently has three sturgeons in a hatchery

in Marion, Alabama, ready for propagation. Congress has appropriated over one million dollars to this effort so far. Listing the fish as an endangered species under the

ESA means the sturgeon would have to compete with other listed species for money

to complete a recovery plan, jeopardizing funding already available as well as the

work done on the Conservation Plan to this point. We strongly support the Sturgeon

Conservation Plan as an example of the compromise required in the environmenteconomic debate. We ask the Congress to fully fund and support the Sturgeon Conservation Plan as the best way to save sturgeon in the Mobile River Basin.

In summary, we request your support in the following areas:

(1) Sufficient funding of the US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works budget to

maintain and enhance the U.S. inland waterways system;

(2) O&M funding for the Coosa-Alabama Basins and Mobile Harbor;

(3) Funding for investigating the feasibility of improving the reliability of the

navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on the Lower Alabama River;

(4) Reopening the Coosa Navigation Project;

(5) Resisting any attempt to raise user fuel tax on the Inland River navigation

industry;

(6) Supporting the Sturgeon Conservation Plan as developed through the cooperative efforts of the Alabama-Tombigbee River Coalition and the Fish and Wildlife

Service.

Thank you for allowing us to present our views and for your strong support of

the Nation’s waterways.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP A SANGUINOTTI, PRESIDENT, THE ANNISTON STAR,

ANNISTON, AL

As a part of a collective effort to maintain and extend the Coosa-Alabama waterway, I wholeheartedly support the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association’s

funding request for fiscal year 2000.

I strongly believe in and support the regional effort to improve and extend the

Coosa-Alabama Waterway. This would include improving the navigational reliability
637

below Claiborne Dam, maintaining and improving training works and dredging,

which would enhance economic development of the river basin between Mobile and

Montgomery.

Also, I believe that lowered freight rates would provide a better export market,

thus helping the trade business. I also urge the Senate to support the Interstate

Compacts to resolve the two-basin water disputes among Alabama, Georgia and

Florida, as well as amend the Endangered Species Act to include reasonable, balanced measures between environmental concerns and economic development.

Any support you and your committee can give the Association will be greatly appreciated by everyone involved.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OTHA LEE BIGGS, JUDGE OF PROBATE & PRESIDENT,

MONROE COUNTY COMMISSION, MONROEVILLE, AL

The Monroe County Commission, Monroe County, Alabama, respectfully request

support for the President’s Budget for funding of River Projects in the AlabamaCoosa River Basin for fiscal year 2000, in the amount of $31.556 million as well as

$20.2 million for Mobile Bay.

There is great economic need to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway System from Rome, Georgia to the Port of Mobile. Included in the funding request is $150,000.00 for the second year of a feasibility study of ways to improve

the navigational reliability below the Claiborne Lock & Dam which is the first Dam

along the Alabama-Coosa River System and is located in Monroe County, Alabama.

Unless navigational reliability is stabilized from below the Claiborne Lock & Dam

to the Port of Mobile, the full and positive economic benefits cannot be realized in

the Southeastern part of the United States. One mile from the Claiborne Lock &

Dam is located the largest Pulp and Paper complex of its kind in the world and the

efforts of your Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development in the past toward the development of this great waterway system was instrumental in bringing this $1.5 billion investment to Monroe County, Alabama, as

well as other major industries that have located in this river basin.

We again respectfully request approval of the Association’s funding request for fiscal year 2000.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SANDY SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MONROEVILLE AREA

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MONROEVILLE, AL

Our organization is in support of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association’s request for fiscal year 2000 funding.

We support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway, and the need to improve the navigational ability below the Claiborne Dam.

Lower freight rates provide a better export market, thus helping our area manufacturers. In this regard, we also ask that you provide $150,000 in funding for a

feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers on ways to improve navigation reliability

below Claiborne Dam.

Please support our request! Thank you in advance.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. JOSEPH, JR., CHAIRMAN, MONTGOMERY

COUNTY COMMISSION, MONTGOMERY, AL

The Montgomery County Commission has a vital interest in the development of

the Coosa-Alabama River project which was originally authorized by the Congress

in 1945. The benefits which accrue to the citizens of this region, and to the nation,

fully justify the complete construction and operation of this economical waterway.

We fully support the testimony provided by the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association. For many years this group has represented us and they accurately reflect our feelings of support for this waterway project.

Of particular interest to us is funding to operate and maintain (O&M) water

projects in the Alabama-Coosa River Basin.

Also, we feel that the requested appropriation to fund a feasibility study of ways

to improve the navigation reliability below Claiborne Dam will enhance the economic development of river basin between Mobile and Montgomery. Additionally, we

believe that the requested appropriation to continue the operation and maintenance

of the entire system directly relates to lowered freight rates and improves the export

market and creates a positive improvement on our nation’s trade balance.
638

We urge your favorable consideration of the recommended appropriations for fiscal

year 2000. Adequate funding as requested is necessary to insure that progress is

made for further development of the system and to properly operate and maintain

the existing portion. Similar information has been sent to Honorable Randall Packard, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, regarding this matter.

LETTER FROM JAMES T. JORDAN

J.T. JORDAN COTTON, INC.,

Centre, AL, March 15, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DOMENICI: This letter is to let you know that I strongly support

the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association’s funding request for fiscal year

2000.

I also support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway which needs to be much improved for navigational reliability below the Claiborne Dam. There is also a need to maintain and improve training works and dredging because the economic development of the river basin between Mobile and Montgomery depends on these improvements.

If freight rates are lowered, this will provide a better export market, thus helping

the trade business.

I also support funding of $5,185 million for the Alabama-Coosa; $6,183 million for

RF Henry; and $20.2 million for Mobile Bay.

Anything you can do to help the above will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

JAMES T. JORDAN,

Director, CARIA.

LETTER FROM MAYOR DAVID D. WHETSTONE, JR.

CITY OF PRATTVILLE,

Prattville, AL, March 15, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DOMENICI: I write to support the fiscal year 2000 budget request

for continued improvements to the Alabama-Coosa Waterway. I have had the pleasure to serve on the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association (CARIA) for a

number of years and have personally seen the progress that has been made on this

waterway, thanks to the support of your subcommittee and subsequent federal funding.

Based on the past improvement efforts, I would urge you and your subcommittee

to allow the progress to continue with an appropriate allocation for fiscal year 2000.

We need to improve the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam and we need

to maintain and improve training works and dredging.

As Mayor of one of the fastest-growing cities in Alabama, I know firsthand how

important this river basin is to the continued economic development of our State

from Mobile to Montgomery. With our City’s industrial growth, we too are seeing

an increased need for improved waterway transportation.

Thank you for your continued support of CARIA and for your subcommittee’s consideration of the fiscal year 2000 funding request.

Sincerely,

DAVID D. WHETSTONE, JR.,

Mayor.
639

LETTER FROM W.O. PACE

AUTAUGA COUNTY COMMISSION,

Prattville, AL, March 15, 1999.

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations For Energy and Water Development,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DOMENICI: This letter is to inform you that the Autauga County

Commission, Autauga County, Alabama, supports the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

request for funding fiscal year 2000 to operate and maintain water projects in the

Alabama-Coosa River Basin. There is a definite need to improve navigation reliability on the lower Alabama River for economic development reasons, i.e., decreasing tonnage on the river because of the meandering of the river, sharp turns and

low water below Claiborne Dam; also, there has been a dearth of industries seeking

to relocate within the River Basin. Therefore, we need to improve the navigational

reliability below Claiborne Dam and maintain and improve training works and

dredging. Economic development between Montgomery and Mobile depends on these

improvements. The Corps is able to maintain an authorized nine foot channel 65

to 70 percent of the time, but major problems occur during July through September.

Barge costs on the Alabama River are higher than other waterways. Shippers use

barges in one direction only, but pay for travel both ways because there is no

backhaul available and there is not enough industry in the Basin to warrant twoway shipping. Ninety four percent of tons moved on the Alabama River are

downbound. For these reasons, shippers have found other modes of transportation

or left the Basin altogether.

Adding to the costs the shippers have faced are delays caused by the shallow

water depth. Also, after 1991, environmental attacks on sand and gravel businesses

shipping by barge were so costly, a lot of these businesses closed. Lowered freight

rates provide a better export market, thus helping the trade business. Waterways

provide efficient transportation that tends to lower inflation. Congress must support

the Interstate Compacts to resolve the two-basin water disputes among Alabama,

Georgia, and Florida. Also, if Congress would amend the Endangered Species Act

to include reasonable, balanced measures between environmental concerns and economic development instead of such stringent regulations, this would greatly improve

economic development.

We would sincerely appreciate your help in this matter that is so vital to the

State of Alabama.

Sincerely,

W.O. PACE,

Chairman, Autauga County Commission.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. WALLACE, PRESIDENT, SELMA AND DALLAS

COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SELMA, AL

It is my privilege to represent a rural city and county in Alabama which has suffered through many economic nightmares not of their own making. So, it is incumbent on me to always seek our projects which we believe will be helpful in pulling

this area out of its economic dilemma and into the mainstream of development.

Our people are a wonderful, dedicated hardworking lot, but they need to have the

same opportunities as many of the much more developed areas of these United

States.

One of our hopeful signs through the years has been the proposed development

of our waterways not only for industrial tonnage, but also for outdoor recreation and

the clean economic dollars it brings into a community.

The proposals supported by the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association

are aligned with our thoughts on what will be in the best interest of the slow, but

continued improvement to our waterways. This has been a painfully slow, but ongoing process and we are hopeful that Congress will continue to give fiscal support

to this area.

The Coosa-Alabama System forms a corridor from Georgia through Alabama, ending up in Mobile Bay. One part of the system is dependent on the other so all the

pieces of the puzzle are in need of funding support.

We applaud you for supporting us in the past and are hopeful you will continue

to do so.
640

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL MORGAN, PRESIDENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY, SELMA, AL

We at the Selma and Dallas County Economic Development Authority as well as

representatives from the city of Selma, Alabama, wish to convey our support of the

funding request for fiscal year 2000. It is imperative to the economy of Alabama

that every effort is made to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway. Enhancing the navigational reliability of the waterway below the Claiborne Dam and

maintenance of the training works and dredging is also vital to the economic development of the river basin between Mobile and Montgomery.

Alabama’s waterways have always been of the utmost importance. Cahaba, the

first capital of the state, was located between two rivers and as a result industries

who enjoyed this advantage thrived. Although over one-hundred and fifty years

have passed and steamboats no longer traverse the rivers as they once did, Alabama’s waterways remain crucial to economic development today.

Within the last six months, businesses which could supply more than 2,500 jobs

to the residents of Dallas County have visited the community. One major criterion

has continued to be river access in relation to any sites under consideration. Several

of our existing industries utilize the Alabama River on a daily basis and would not

be able to continue to produce without this resource. For this reason, we are asking

you to help our residents by voting to approve the funds requested and as noted

below:

Alabama-Coosa ................................................................................................ $5.185

Miller’s Ferry ................................................................................................... 5.560

RF Henry .......................................................................................................... 6.183

Allatoona .......................................................................................................... 6.328

Carter’s Lake ................................................................................................... 8.150

Feasibility study of Lower AL River .............................................................. 0.150

Total ....................................................................................................... 31.556

In addition, we support funding $20.2 million for Mobile Bay.

Obviously, increased user fees and taxes stifle waterway commercial development.

Without a doubt, lowered freight rates provide a better export market. Ultimately,

well-maintained waterways provide efficient transportation which then lowers inflation.

We need this legislation in order to help the citizens of Alabama and especially

river towns such as Selma survive.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD G. WALDON, ADMINISTRATOR, TENNESSEETOMBIGBEE WATERWAY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COLUMBUS, MS

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit our recommendations concerning

the funding needs for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and related projects in

fiscal year 2000 for your consideration.

The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority is an interstate compact comprised of the States of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

Governor Paul Patton of Kentucky is chairman of the compact, which promotes and

markets the waterway and it’s economic and trade potential to the region and the

nation.

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY FUNDING

We are very concerned about the continued deterioration of the waterway caused

by under funding during the past few years. Over $8 million of essential and critical

repairs to the waterway will be indefinitely postponed beyond fiscal year 2000 unless the Congress restores the cutback in its funding as proposed by the Administration. The following table briefly demonstrates the recent decline in funds and shows

that amount needed to adequately maintain the waterway.

TENN-TOM FUNDING HISTORY

Millions

1997 .................................................................................................................. $22.4

1998 .................................................................................................................. 19.5

1999 .................................................................................................................. 20.2

2000 Request .................................................................................................... 19.9

2000 Recommendation .................................................................................... 23.9
641

The Authority’s recommendation of $23.9 million will fund some $4 million of important O&M work that will not be accomplished if the President’s budget is approved. It is most imperative that these additional funds are provided to ensure the

continued safe and efficient operation of the project. The requested increase in funds

will address the following needs: —$1,500,000 for additional dredging and spoil containment to ensure unimpeded

commercial navigation. —$850,000 to help correct a potentially unsafe navigation condition at Bevill

Lock.

—$800,000 of additional funds provided to the Alabama and Mississippi conservation agencies that are needed to better manage some 140,000 acres of federally

owned wildlife mitigation lands. —$750,000 thousand for urgently needed repairs to structures along the 234-mile

waterway.

The Corps of Engineers has already undertaken measures to reduce operating

costs of the waterway. For example, some campgrounds and other recreation facilities are now closed earlier in the season because of lack of operating funds. It is

a travesty to curtail public access to these waterway attractions. About $50 million

have been invested in these facilities that are very popular with the public, attracting some 6 million visitors annually. The Tenn-Tom is the 4th best Corps project

in the nation for generating income from recreational use and funding cuts are hurting receipts. Regrettably, those revenues collected from recreational users are deposited in the Treasury and not provided directly to the waterway to help finance its

operations.

Unless the Congress addresses this growing problem of indefinitely deferred maintenance and repairs of the Tenn-Tom, the physical integrity of the waterway will

continue to erode and its ability to generate expected economic benefits will greatly

diminish. The Congress has invested nearly $2 billion in the waterway and non-federal interests have committed an additional $4 billion in port facilities, industries,

and other capital investments on the assumption the federal government will fulfill

its responsibilities to maintain the project. It would be ‘‘penny wise and pound foolish’’ not to do so.

The $500-million Boeing rocket plant now under construction at Decatur, AL,

must have a dependable and adequately maintained navigation channel to ship its

rockets for launching. Starting in 2000, the rockets will be transported on a specially built ship to launching sites in Florida and California via the Tenn-Tom. Boeing officials have begun to question the reliability of the waterway because of its

under funding. The plant will employ some 2,000 workers.

We, therefore, respectfully request that you and your committee approve $23.9

million for the operation and maintenance of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway,

a budget that will help correct the malign neglect of the past that has hurt the waterway’s performance.

KENTUCKY LOCK

The Authority recommends that $15 million be appropriated in fiscal year 2000

for the continued construction of a new lock at Kentucky Dam on the Tennessee

River. This project is one of the most critically needed improvements to the nation’s

waterway system. The recommended funding is necessary to ensure the new lock’s

completion by 2008 before the existing lock is closed for an extended period and

commerce is halted.

The existing 60-year old lock is a bottleneck to commerce, costing shippers and

industries millions of dollars in additional transportation costs. The average delay

to transit the antiquated lock is more than 6 hours. Over 43 million tons of U.S.

products and commodities pass through this part of the nation’s inland waterway

system each year. The new lock will return $2.50 in economic benefits (mainly savings in transportation costs) for each dollar spent. This is an excellent investment

for the future economy of the nation.

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK

We request that $3 million be provided to the Corps of Engineers to continue

major repairs to the Chickamauga lock and Dam on the Tennessee River near Chattanooga. This project is over 50 years old and has serious structural problems. The

Corps began repairs to the project this year that when completed will extend the

physical life of the lock and dam to about 2010. Without these repairs, the lock will

permanently close to traffic due to safety precautions in 2005.

Permanent closure of the lock to commerce would landlock east Tennessee, seriously crippling several major industries that are dependent on barge transportation
642

and hurting that region’s economy. According to the U.S. Department of Energy,

closing Chickamauga will also have significant adverse impacts on national missions

conducted at its Oak Ridge, Tn. facilities. These repairs will extend the life of the

antiquated lock until the Congress can decide whether to replace it or close the waterway.

In that regard, we recommend that the Corps be given the necessary funds to expeditiously conduct a study of the feasibility of replacing this out-moded structure

with a new project.

OTHER PROGRAMS

In closing, the Authority supports the proposed budget of $7 million for TVA’s

management of the Land Between the Lakes recreation area. We also support those

funds requested for the Appalahian Regional Commission, an agency that greatly

influences our region’s economy and quality of life.

Thank you for your careful consideration of our requests for the continued funding

of these most important projects and programs.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. HODGES, GOVERNOR, STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA, COLUMBIA, SC

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee; on behalf of the citizens of the Palmetto State, thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record

comments regarding the fiscal year 2000 Water and Energy Appropriations Bill.

I’m extremely proud to report to you that the historical, positive partnership

South Carolina enjoys with the Federal Government and particularly the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (USAGE), is as strong as ever, and if possible, growing stronger.

We appreciate your support of our efforts to maximize the value of South Carolina’s

natural resources, upon which our state’s economic well-being is so very dependent.

Our lakes and reservoirs are critical to hydroelectric power production; intracoastal waterways and ports are key economic development components; and beaches and shoreline essential to recreation and tourism. Protection of the natural environment is key to South Carolina’s varied ecosystems and habitats, and integral to

its unspoiled beauty.

At the outset, I wish to express our gratitude for this Committee’s interest in, and

support of, our prior years’ testimonies. With your help, South Carolina is moving

forward on major USACE projects having national implications, such as the deepening and widening of Charleston Harbor and the protection of our famous Myrtle

Beach Grand Strand area, one of America’s most popular vacation destinations.

While there certainly remains work to be done, I am enthusiastically encouraged

with our ‘‘partnership’s’’ measurable progress and tangible results.

Sharing in the nation’s current economic prosperity, South Carolina is moving

ahead with progressive economic development, job creation, and environmental protection. We are a leader in the South in terms of economic growth, and are below

the national average in unemployment rate. We are, however, a small state and our

relative prosperity is very dependent upon funding such as this Appropriations Bill.

It’s obvious that its contents, and the actions of this Committee, have widespread

implications for the state as a whole.

With regard to the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriation Bill specifically, I note with pleasure the relative ‘health’ of this Bill as compared to recent

years’ submissions, particularly funding for the Corps of Engineers. My comments

for the record reflect input from, and the concerns of, the principal State Agencies

that work most closely with the USACE Charleston District Office; namely the SC

State Ports Authority; the SC Department of Natural Resources; and the SC Department of Health and Environmental Control/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Attached to my testimony as ‘‘Supporting Documents’’ are individual descriptions of the approved and on-going, USACE projects throughout South

Carolina.

In commenting on this legislation, it’s my intention to convey to this Committee

the value of our partnership, and highlight those areas both where we can further

the Administration’s goals, and where we need Federal assistance sustaining critical

project/program implementation. I’m confident through our mutual support South

Carolina will effectively cross the ‘‘Bridge to the 21st Century’’.

SOUTH CAROLINA’S HARBORS AND PORTS

Our significant harbor and port assets continue to be the fuel of our economic engine. The great Port of Charleston, a national asset, is now in the execution phase
643

of a fully funded, $138.7 million deepening and widening project; a project whose

reality is the product of this Committee’s commitment and the state of South Carolina’s significant investment. The benefits to be realized will transcend the obvious

as creative collateral activities such as using the dredge material to build berms for

fish habitat, are pursued; a Win-Win for economists and environmentalists alike.

Likewise, our smaller, but equally important, ports of Georgetown and Port Royal

are principal players in the industrial shipping arena. Dredging and dike maintenance projects are critical to the effectiveness of these waterways, and South Carolina stands ready to support any project requirements necessary to utilize existing

USACE capabilities should additional Federal funds be identified. I’ll elaborate on

this area later.

I would like to comment on the three principle appropriation accounts within the

USACE (Civil Works) fiscal year 2000 budget proposal that have direct impact on

South Carolina and its quality of life: General Investigations (Studies); Construction

General; and Operations and Maintenance (O&M).

STUDIES

We are appreciative of budgeting provided for general investigations related to

Congaree, Santee, Cooper, and Yadkin-Pee Dee rivers, which are essential to overall

water resources evaluation. There are, however, two additional reconnaissance studies in need of Committee support: the Broad River Basin, NC & SC; and the

Charleston Harbor Extension (Please note: the Charleston Harbor Extension study

will require a Committee Resolution for study authorization). The only funding required is $100,000 to initiate each study, and the definitive insights gained are certainly worth the minimal cost. Study descriptions are provided in the Supporting

Documents.

In a related issue, there are growing concerns with regard to contamination of

sediments in the greater Charleston Harbor and Estuary. In a cooperative effort, the

University of South Carolina and the SC Department of Natural Resources have approached the USACE Charleston District Office about conducting such a study in

an effort to pro-act to the obvious hazard associated with dredging and spoil disposal of contaminated sediments. The SC Legislative Delegation has keen interest

in this initiative, and I am fully supportive of any solution that can be implemented

to assist in bringing such a study to fruition. Your support would be greatly appreciated.

CONSTRUCTION GENERAL

As alluded to earlier, we are pleased to finally have our major Charleston Harbor

Deepening/Widening project funded and underway, and to be nearing completion of

the Myrtle Beach Storm Damage Reduction project. Adequate funding is also in

place to carry out USACE Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) projects. This essential, cost shared program, has been, and continues to be, well managed and implemented under USAGE Charleston District Office cognizance, as is considered by

state planners to be invaluable to effective resource planning.

Also funded within the Construction account is the Aquatic Plant Control (APC)

Program. Control of noxious aquatic plants continues to be a matter of serious concern to South Carolina. Productivity of our waterways and hydro-electric dams are

essential to our economy. Millions of dollars have been spent to date to research,

eradicate, and control destructive weeds in our lakes and reservoirs, and we have

made measurable progress. The downside is that in order to secure our gains, continued control activities must take place or re-growth will occur and we’ll be back

to ‘‘square one’’. Unfortunately, despite this Committee’s adding funds to the Aquatic Plant Control Program last year, all of it was funneled into research and none

made available to states for control activities. Again this year there are no funds

in the Administration’s budget for APC, and I respectfully request you reexamine

this ‘‘pay me now or pay me later’’ scenario, and specify $250,000 for South Carolina

in order to keep this serious problem at bay. Details can be found in the Supporting

Documents.

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M)

Nowhere are there greater implications for funding than in the O&M account.

Maintenance of the nation’s navigable waterways and existing infrastructure is critical to the economic viability and safety of both the State and its citizens. There

are shortfalls in the O&M area that I would like to highlight and seek your support

in alleviating.

Dredging and Diking are critical to the overall navigability of our waterways.

Murrells Inlet is home to an active commercial fishing fleet and several marinas
644

housing significant numbers of commercial and private recreational vessels. Current

navigability is being compromised due to shoaling and sediment overflow from the

upstream deposition basin. Inaccessibility of this channel will result in virtual collapse of local economic livelihood. This O&M project calls for maintaining .6 miles

of the entrance channel; three miles of inner channel; one turning basin; deposition

basin; and two stone jetties, but received zero funds this year. There has not been

dredging activity since 1988 and there is an immediate need in order to keep the

channel at the required depth of 12 feet. USAGE capabilities are consistent with

the estimated $1.48 million project cost, and can support this critical activity.

While Georgetown Harbor has current maintenance funds allocated, additional

funds are necessary to control harbor depth, which is not an activity currently funded. Passage of larger ships is important to the harbor’s viability and failing to

dredge this year will denigrate this harbor’s capability to support commercial shipping. An estimated $2.8 million is necessary to restore Georgetown harbor to navigable depth.

As mentioned earlier, dikes along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway are in serious disrepair. Existing O&M funds are inadequate to accomplish the needed dike

repair necessary to ensure adequate dredge disposal areas in the near future. $1.5

million is necessary to execute minimum dike repair and undertake systematic erosion control.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, we in South Carolina recognize that despite the current

positive economic climate and budget surpluses, resources are not unlimited and priorities must be established. But South Carolina also occupies a unique position in

our national interest. Key military installations, coastal geography, interstate trade

routes, and international commerce are all dynamics at work within our boarders.

We consider ourselves good stewards of taxpayer resources and a responsible partner in the prudent expenditure of valuable funds. I urge you to favorably consider

our reasonable requests for fiscal assistance, and furthermore, to think of your commitment as an investment, not an expense.

We look forward to continuing our partnership in the collective pursuit of excellence for our deserving constituents.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CYRUS M. JOLLIVETTE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am privileged to have the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.

Respectfully, the University, joined by the City of Miami Beach, Florida seeks

your support for the establishment of a demonstration project in Miami Beach which

could arrest the continuing problem of coastal erosion, particularly in the cities of

Miami Beach, Surfside, and Bal Harbour, Florida. This demonstration project would

focus on the 12 miles of sandy beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government Cut.

By the mid-seventies, this beach segment had severely eroded, leaving only a

small area of dry beach during low water. To prevent loss of land and to prevent

damage to existing structures from storm surge, many of the adjacent properties

had to be protected by sea walls and revetments. Because of the lack of sufficient

dry beach, tourism declined, which has adverse effects on the economy of the region.

To remedy some of these problems, in 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(ACOE), in partnership with Miami-Dade County, initiated the Miami-Dade County

Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Project. At that time, Miami-Dade

County and the ACOE entered into a 50-year contract for the joint management of

Miami-Dade’s sandy beaches. During the period 1979–1982, the ACOE constructed

a hurricane dune and nourished the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and

Government Cut. A total of 60 million cubic yards of sand was placed on the beach

thereby increasing its width to 300 feet. The implementation of the beach nourishment has had a tremendously positive effect on the economy of the region.

In judging the performance of the project, it should be realized that beach nourishment is a repeat process and, based on experience with other beaches, should be

carried on the average of every 5 years. The Miami Beach Nourishment, has a considerable better track record. Only after some 15 years were there areas that needed

to be renourished. However at this time, 20 years after the start of the original

nourishment, the beach as a whole has eroded to an extent that a large scale renourishment seems unavoidable unless a return to the situation in the mid 1970s

is accepted. The major problem is where to find sand in sufficient quantities to re-
645

supply the beaches, as the near-shore deposits of sand which have been the source

for the nourishment project have been exhausted.

The erosion along the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government

Cut is not uniform. Since the implementation of the nourishment during the period

1979–1982, the northern two-third has steadily eroded whereas the southern onethird has accreted. Furthermore, in the erosional part there are ‘‘hot spots’’ where

the erosion is much more severe than in others. The reason for this situation is not

directly obvious and has to do with the local off-shore bathymetry, wave climate,

and sediment characteristics. In addition, Bakers Haulover Inlet plays an important

role in the erosion along the beaches of Bal Harbor and Surfside. The present shoreline is irregular in plain view—rather than a smooth curve between the two inlets—

and is characterized by indentations and protrusions.

Although there is some transfer of sand across the inlets, to a first approximation

the area between the two inlets can be considered a self-contained littoral cell. The

seaward boundary of that cell is not known and the big question is how much sand

is lost to the offshore. The remaining sand is redistributed in the cell by waves.

From a recent study, it is known that sand eroded from the northern two thirds

of beach can be traced to the southern one-third of the beach. Also, bathymetric surveys show that the beach does not conform to the straight design slope of 1:40. The

actual beach slope is gentler and the underwater beach shows a bar. This leads to

a loss of dry beach.

As suggested earlier, the causes of the irregular appearance of the shoreline, the

presence of erosional ‘‘hot spots’’ and the shape of the beach profile are related to

offshore bathymetry, wave climate, and the characteristics of the beach sand. Therefore, to identify the cause(s) of erosion, to explain the presence of the erosional ‘‘hot

spots’’ and to predict the anticipated beach profile, information is needed on bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics.

None of this information is in sufficient detail and will require measurements, the

results of which would be interpreted using computer models. Deep-water waves

will be carried inshore to calculate the wave characteristics at breaking. From this

information, long-shore currents, sediment transport and changes in bathymetry, including the position of the shoreline will be calculated. The measurements will allow

construction of an improved sediment budget. For this effort, the beach would be

divided into compartments, both in the long-shore and cross-shore direction. The

principle of conservation of sand would be applied to each compartment, i.e., the

rate of change of the sediment volume in each compartment would equal the volume

of sediment in minus the volume of sediment leaving the compartment. Comparison

with observed changes in bathymetry, including changes in beach profile, should

identify the causes of erosion and erosional ‘‘hot spots’’ as well as the shape of the

beach profile.

The City of Miami Beach remains committed to identifying outside sources of

sand and expediting the evaluation of the environmental, physical and economic viability of the potential sources, to ensure that sufficient quantities of beach-quality

sand are available to fulfill future needs. However it is realized that continuing to

pump sand to the beaches without addressing the underlying causes of erosion, will

lead to an endless cycle of needing more, increasingly expensive sand.

Another possible solution is to transfer sand from the southern accretional part

to the northern erosional part of the beach. Recycling will reduce the dependence

on outside sources of sand.

Although presently beach nourishment is the accepted way to combat erosion, the

lack of sand sources requires us to rethink the process. It could well be that for

Miami Beach a combination of beach nourishment and hard structures (e.g., offshore breakwaters) is a more desirable solution. The hard structures would reduce

the sand losses and more importantly when located properly, would concentrate the

sand that has eroded from the beaches in places where it can be retrieved by

dredges.

The measurements and subsequent analysis referred to in the previous section

should help to optimize the use of outside sand sources and the recycling technique

and provide the necessary knowledge to properly design combined measures of nourishment and hard structures.

To arrive at a solution to the erosion problem, the City of Miami Beach in cooperation with the University of Miami is suggesting a two-prong approach consisting of the development of a long-term beach management plan and the implementation of two demonstration projects.

Combating beach erosion takes a regional (the beach area between the two inlets)

rather than a local (‘‘hot spots’’) approach. The first order of business in establishing

a beach management plan is to identify the causes of the beach erosion and to determine whether there exists an equilibrium shoreline position and equilibrium beach
646

profile. After that the questions of how, where and when to combat erosion can be

addressed. This includes the question whether hard structures should be included.

An important item in arriving at answers to these questions is the development of

an improved sediment budget. In view of the necessary field measurements, the development of the beach management plan is expected to take 5 years.

Mr. Chairman, the University of Miami is pleased to be an active partner of the

City of Miami Beach, Florida in an effort to provide an efficient, cost-effective remedy for the continuing coastal erosion problems along the southeast Atlantic Coast.

We are convinced that the results of this proposed demonstration project will make

an important contribution to gaining a permanent solution to the problem.

To accomplish this important program the University of Miami seeks $2 million

from the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee through the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Your support would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman.

My colleagues and I at the University of Miami thank you for the opportunity to

present these views for your consideration.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

On behalf of our citizens and fishermen, Volusia County, Florida, is requesting

that the Subcommittee appropriate $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Construction account to fund, in part an 1000 foot

oceanward extension of the South Jetty of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. This funding is

essential to protect the Inlet, along with the existing North Jetty and its landward

extension funded by this committee in fiscal year 1999. A more detailed case history

and description of the situation and project follow below.

The Ponce DeLeon Inlet is located on the east coast of Florida, about 10 miles

south of the City of Daytona Beach in Volusia County. The Inlet is a natural harbor

connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Halifax River and the Indian River North.

The Ponce DeLeon Inlet provides the sole ocean access to all of Volusia County.

Fishing parties and shrimp and commercial fisherman bound for New Smyrna

Beach or Daytona Beach use the Inlet, as well as others entering for anchorage.

Nearby fisheries enhanced by the County’s artificial reef program attract both commercial and sport fisherman. Head boat operators also provide trips to view marine

life and space shuttle launches from Cape Canaveral. In addition, there is a U.S.

Coast Guard Lifeboat Station on the east shore of the Indian River less than a mile

south of the Inlet.

Unfortunately, the Inlet is highly unstable and, despite numerous navigation

projects, continues to threaten safe passage for the charter boat operators and commercial fisherman who rely on the access it provides for their livelihood. Recreational boaters and Coast Guard operations are also at risk passing through this

unstable inlet. The shoaling of the channels in the Inlet so restricts dependable

navigation that the Coast Guard no longer marks the north channel in order to discourage its use. The Coast Guard continues to move the south and entrance channel

markers and provides warnings that local knowledge and extreme caution must be

used in navigating the inlet. More seriously, the Coast Guard search and rescue

data for fiscal years 1981—1995 show that 20 deaths have resulted from vessels

capsizing in the Inlet, the direct result of the Inlet’s instability. 147 vessels capsized

and 496 vessels ran aground in the Inlet during the same period.

The Federal interest in navigation through the Ponce DeLeon Inlet dates back to

1884 and continues to the present. The existing navigation project was authorized

by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965. The construction authorized by that Act,

including ocean jetties on the north and south sides of the Inlet, was completed in

July 1972. It became evident soon after completion of the authorized project that

the project did not bring stability to the Inlet. A strong northeaster in February

1973 created a breach between the western end of the North Jetty and the sand

spit the Jetty was connected to inside the Inlet. The breach allowed schoaling to

occur that was serious enough to close boat yards and require almost $2 million

worth of repairs, including extending the western end of the North Jetty.

Under the existing maintenance agreement entered into upon completion of the

construction, the COE periodically performs maintenance on the Inlet. Maintenance

projects have included several dredging efforts, adding stone sections to the south

side of the north jetty, extending the westward end of the North Jetty for the second

time, and closing the North Jetty weir. The COE’s last maintenance was dredging,

completed on the entrance channel in January, 1990.

In fiscal year 1998, the COE received a $3,500,000 appropriation for emergency

maintenance on the North Jetty. Migration of the entrance channel undermined the

North Jetty, seriously threatening its structural integrity. The fiscal year 1998
647

funds will be used to construct a granite rock scour apron for the 500 to 600 feet

of where the Jetty is undermined.

In the current fiscal year, the COE received $4,034,000 from the Operations and

Maintenance account to extend the North Jetty of the Inlet landward by 800 feet.

This maintenance project is underway and intended to be completed as soon as possible to prevent the erosion that will cause outflanking of the North Jetty. Continued outflanking of the west end of the North Jetty could create a new inlet for the

Halifax and Indian Rivers resulting in major changes to the Ponce DeLeon Inlet.

The resultant shoaling of both the north and south channels, as well as changes to

the entrance channel, would make passage through the inlet extremely dangerous

and unpredictable.

Volusia County is requesting that the COE receive the South Jetty construction

funds in anticipation of the project’s authorization in the next Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). S. 507, as reported by the Senate Environment and Public

Works Committee includes a contingent authorization for the South Jetty project,

estimated to cost $5,454,000, of which $2,988,000 allocated to as the federal cost.

We understand that the South Jetty project is included in the WRDA language the

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is currently drafting. We also

understand that the Jacksonville District Engineer and the Atlanta Division Engineer have forwarded a positive recommendation to COE headquarters on the

project. The COE anticipates that the construction of the jetty extensions will help

stabilize the Inlet and reduce future maintenance costs.

The Ponce DeLeon Inlet presents a serious engineering challenge; the success of

which is measured in terms of human life and vessel damage. The existing project

has failed to stabilize the Inlet. Extending the North Jetty was the first step toward

correcting the failure and meeting the challenge. Funding the beginning phase of

the 1000 foot oceanward extension of the South Jetty in fiscal year 2000 is the next

critical step toward providing safe passage for the commercial and recreational boaters in Volusia County. In addition, providing these funds at this time is likely to

prevent the need to a much more substantial maintenance project in the near future.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement regarding the

fiscal year 2000 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The Tribe asks that

Congress provide $21.1 million in the COE’s construction budget for critical projects

in the Florida Everglades, as authorized in section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. The Tribe’s Everglades restoration project on our

Big Cypress reservation is a highly ranked critical project that the Tribe and the

COE have worked cooperatively on for over two years. The Tribe’s critical project

includes a complex water conservation plan and a canal that transverses the Reservation. The Tribe has invested a significant amount of funds to support the conceptual planning and design of this project, as well as for the environmental analysis required by federal law. The Tribe firmly believes that the federal government

should provide the funds authorized by WRDA and relied upon by local sponsors,

including the Seminole Tribe, for Everglades restoration projects that will benefit

federal lands and the highly sensitive and nationally-valued Everglades ecosystem.

The Tribe’s critical project is a part of the Tribe’s Everglades Restoration Initiative, which includes the design and construction of a comprehensive water conservation system. This project is designed to improve the water quality and natural

hydropatterns in the Big Cypress Basin. This project will contribute to the overall

success of both the federal and the state governments’ multi-agency effort to preserve and restore the delicate ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. In recognition

of this contribution, the Seminole Tribe’s Restoration Initiative has been endorsed

by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and has been found to be

consistent with the recommendations of the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida.

THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress Reservation

is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal members with their livelihood.

Our traditional Seminole cultural, religious, and recreational activities, as well as

commercial endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
648

the Tribe’s identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal members believe that

if the land dies, so will the Tribe.

During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found protection in the

hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida would not exist today. Once in the Everglades,

we learned how to use the natural system for support without harm to the environment that sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of

cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the sun and rain,

while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a chickee has outlived its

useful life, the cypress and palmetto return to the earth to nourish the soil.

In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our Tribal elders

for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land, for when the land was ill,

the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man

on this natural system. At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve the land and

the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain themselves. We need

to protect the land and the animals, but we must also protect our Tribal farmers

and ranchers.

Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land and water systems within

the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will allow Tribal members to continue their farming and

ranching activities while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod

to large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately, positively

effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park.

The Seminole Tribe’s project addresses the environmental degradation wrought by

decades of federal flood control construction and polluted urban and agricultural

runoff. The interrupted sheet flow and hydroperiod have stressed native species and

encouraged the spread of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the

rapid spread of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and sawgrass

necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports the wildlife of the Everglades.

The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration project to allow the Tribe

to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the Everglades. The Seminole Tribe

is committed to improving the water quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already committed significant resources to the design of this project

and to our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are willing to

continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our cultural survival is at

stake.

SEMINOLE TRIBE’S BIG CYPRESS CRITICAL PROJECT

The Tribe has developed a conceptual water conservation plan that will enable us

to meet new water quality standards essential to the cleanup of our part of the Everglades ecosystem and to plan for the storage and conveyance of our water rights.

The Tribe’s Everglades Restoration Initiative is designed to mitigate the degradation the Everglades has suffered through decades of flood control projects and urban

and agricultural use and ultimately to restore the nation’s largest wetlands to a

healthy state.

The Seminole Tribe critical project provides for the design and construction of

water control, management, and treatment facilities on the western half of the Big

Cypress reservation. The project elements include conveyance systems, including

major canal bypass structures, irrigation storage cells, and water resources areas.

This project will enable the Tribe to meet proposed numeric target for low phosphorus concentrations that is being used for design purposes by state and federal

authorities, as well as to convey and store irrigation water and improve flood control. It will also provide an important public benefit: a new system to convey excess

water from the western basins to the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water

is vitally needed for rehydration and restoration of lands within the Preserve.

CONCLUSION

Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big Cypress National

Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to restoring the Everglades for

future generations. By granting this appropriation request, the federal government

will be taking a substantive step towards improving the quality of the surface water

that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate Everglades eco-
649

system. Such responsible action with regard to the Big Cypress Reservation, which

is federal land held in trust for the Tribe, will send a clear message that the federal

government is committed to Everglades restoration.

The Seminole Tribe is ready, willing, and able to begin work immediately. Doing

so will require substantial commitments from the Tribe, including the dedication of

over 2,400 acres of land for water management improvements included in the critical project. However, if the Tribe is to move forward with its contribution to the

restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a substantially higher level of federal

financial assistance will be needed as well.

The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the federal government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not just The Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend

on a reliable supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all

Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the Seminole Tribe of

Florida. The Tribe will provide additional information upon request.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

The City of Miami Beach appreciates the opportunity to submit for the record (1)

testimony on an innovative new beach erosion control initiative, and (2) testimony

in support of the request by Miami-Dade County for beach renourishment funds.

COASTAL EROSION PREVENTION INITIATIVE

The City of Miami Beach, Florida, in conjunction with the University of Miami

seeks your support for the establishment of a demonstration project in Miami Beach

which could arrest the continuing problem of coastal erosion, particularly in the cities of Miami Beach, Surfside, and Bal Harbour, Florida. This demonstration project

would focus on the 12 miles of sandy beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and

Government Cut Inlet.

By the mid-seventies, this beach segment had severely eroded, leaving only a

small area of dry beach during low water. To prevent loss of land and to prevent

damage to existing structures from storm surge, many of the adjacent properties

had to be protected by sea walls and revetments. Because of the lack of sufficient

dry beach, tourism declined, which has adverse effects on the economy of the region.

To remedy some of these problems, in 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(ACOE), in partnership with Miami-Dade County, initiated the Miami-Dade County

Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection Project. At that time,

Miami-Dade County and the ACOE entered into a 50-year contract for the joint

management of Miami-Dade’s sandy beaches. During the period 1979–1982, the

ACOE constructed a hurricane dune and nourished the beaches between Bakers

Haulover Inlet and Government Cut. A total of 20 million cubic yards of sand was

placed on the beach thereby increasing its width to 300 feet. The implementation

of the beach nourishment has had a tremendously positive effect on the economy

of the region.

In judging the performance of the project, it should be realized that beach nourishment is a repeat process and, based on experience with other beaches, should be

carried on the average of every 5 years. While Miami Beach has had a better track

record, the beach as a whole has eroded to an extent that a large scale renourishment seems unavoidable, in spite of the completion of three renourishment efforts

over the past 15 years. The major problem is where to find sand in sufficient quantities to re-supply the beaches, as the near-shore deposits of sand which have been

the source for the nourishment project have been exhausted.

The erosion along the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government

Cut is not uniform. Since the implementation of the nourishment during the period

1979–1982, the northern two-third has steadily eroded whereas the southern onethird has accreted. Furthermore, there are ‘‘hot spot areas’’ where the erosion is

much more severe than in others. The reason for this situation is not directly obvious and has to do with the local off-shore bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment

characteristics. In addition, Bakers Haulover Inlet plays an important role in the

erosion along the beaches of Bal Harbor and Surfside. The present shoreline is irregular in plain view—rather than a smooth curve between the two inlets—and is

characterized by indentations and protrusions.

Although there is some transfer of sand across the inlets, to a first approximation

the area between the two inlets can be considered a self-contained littoral cell. The

seaward boundary of that cell is not known and the big question is how much sand

is lost to the offshore. The remaining sand is redistributed in the cell by waves.
650

From a recent study, it is known that sand eroded from the northern two thirds

of beach can be traced to the southern one-third of the beach. Also, bathymetric surveys show that the beach does not conform to the straight design slope of 1:40. The

actual beach slope is gentler and the underwater beach shows a bar. This leads to

a loss of dry beach.

As suggested earlier, the causes of the irregular appearance of the shoreline, the

presence of erosional ‘‘hot spots’’ and the shape of the beach profile are related to

offshore bathymetry, wave climate, and the characteristics of the beach sand. Therefore, to identify the cause(s) of erosion, to explain the presence of the erosional ‘‘hot

spots’’ and to predict the anticipated beach profile, information is needed on bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics.

None of this information is in sufficient detail and will require measurements, the

results of which would be interpreted using computer models. Deep-water waves

will be carried inshore to calculate the wave characteristics at breaking. From this

information, long-shore currents, sediment transport and changes in bathymetry, including the position of the shoreline will be calculated. The measurements will allow

construction of an improved sediment budget. For this effort, the beach would be

divided into compartments, both in the long-shore and cross-shore direction. The

principle of conservation of sand would be applied to each compartment, i.e., the

rate of change of the sediment volume in each compartment would equal the volume

of sediment in minus the volume of sediment leaving the compartment. Comparison

with observed changes in bathymetry, including changes in beach profile, should

identify the causes of erosion and erosional ‘‘hot spots’’ as well as the shape of the

beach profile.

To arrive at a solution to the erosion problem, the City of Miami Beach in cooperation with the University of Miami is suggesting a two-prong approach consisting of the development of a long-term beach management plan and the implementation of a demonstration project.

Combating beach erosion takes a regional (the beach area between the two inlets)

rather than a local approach. The first order of business in establishing a beach

management plan is to identify the causes of the beach erosion and to determine

whether there exists an equilibrium shoreline position and equilibrium beach profile. After that the questions of how, where and when to combat erosion can be addressed. This includes the question whether hard structures should be included. An

important item in arriving at answers to these questions is the development of an

improved sediment budget. In view of the necessary field measurements, the development of the beach management plan is expected to take 5 years.

The City of Miami Beach remains committed to identifying outside sources of

sand and expediting the evaluation of the environmental, physical and economic viability of the potential sources, to ensure that sufficient quantities of beach-quality

sand are available to fulfill future needs. However it is realized that continuing to

pump sand to the beaches without addressing the underlying causes of erosion, will

lead to an endless cycle of needing more, increasingly expensive sand.

Another possible solution to be investigated is to transfer sand from the southern

accretional part to the northern erosional part of the beach. Recycling will reduce

the dependence on outside sources of sand.

Although presently beach nourishment is the accepted way to combat erosion, the

lack of sand sources requires us to rethink the process. It could well be that for

Miami Beach a combination of beach nourishment and hard structures (e.g., offshore breakwaters) is a more desirable solution. The hard structures would reduce

the sand losses and more importantly when located properly, would concentrate the

sand that has eroded from the beaches in places where it can be retrieved by

dredges.

The measurements and subsequent analysis referred to in the previous section

should help to optimize the use of outside sand sources and the recycling technique

and provide the necessary knowledge to properly design combined measures of nourishment and hard structures.

Mr. Chairman, the City of Miami Beach is pleased to be an active partner with

the University of Miami in an effort to provide an efficient, cost-effective remedy for

the continuing coastal erosion problems along the southeast Atlantic Coast. We are

convinced that the results of this proposed demonstration project will make an important contribution to gaining a permanent solution to the problem.

To accomplish this important program the City of Miami Beach seeks $2 million

from the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee through the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
651

SUPPORT FOR MIAMI-DADE CONSTRUCTION REQUEST

The City of Miami Beach would first like to thank the members of the subcommittee for all their efforts in the past to provide support for the State of Florida’s beaches and in particular, those of Miami Beach.

Beaches are Florida’s number one tourist ‘‘attraction.’’ Last year, beach tourism generated more than $16 billion dollars for Florida’s economy and more tourists visited Miami Beach than visited the three largest national parks combined.

In addition to their vital economic importance, beaches are the front line defense

for multi-billion dollar coastal infrastructure during hurricanes and storms. When

beaches are allowed to erode away, the likelihood that the Federal government will

be stuck with astronomical storm recovery costs is significantly increased. The Army

Corps of Engineers estimated that more than 70 percent of the damage caused to

upland properties in Panama City Beach by Hurricane Opal could have been prevented if their pending beach renourishment project had been completed before the

storm.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that at least 276

miles (35 percent) of Florida’s 787 miles of sandy beaches are currently at a critical

state of erosion. This includes the entire six miles of Miami Beach. As a result of

the continuing erosion process and more dramatically, recent intense storms which

have caused tremendous damage to almost all of the dry beach and sand dune

throughout the middle segment of Miami Beach. Two years ago, most of the Middle

Beach dune cross-overs were declared safety hazards and closed, as the footings of

the boardwalk itself were in immediate jeopardy of being undercut by the encroaching tides. If emergency measures, costing approximately $400,000 had not been

taken by the City, there would have been considerable risk of coastal flooding west

of the dune line in residential sections of Miami Beach. As you can see, this example

points to the commitment we as a beach community have to our beaches, but federal

assistance remains crucial. While we are thankful of the substantial commitment

made by the subcommittee in the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Conference Report, there is still much work to be done. Our beaches must be maintained not only

to ensure that our residents and coastal properties are afforded the best storm protection possible, but also to ensure that beach tourism, our number one industry,

is protected and nurtured.

In 1987, the Army Corps of Engineers and Metropolitan Dade County entered into

a fifty year agreement to jointly manage restore and maintain Dade County’s sandy

beaches. Since then, Metropolitan Dade County has been responsible for coordinating and funding the local share of the cost for the periodic renourishment of our

beaches.

In order to ensure that adequate funding will continue to be available, the City

of Miami Beach supports and endorses the legislative priorities and appropriation

requests of Metropolitan Dade County, as they relate to the restoration and maintenance of Dade County’s sandy beaches. Specifically, the City respectfully adds their

strong support for the efforts of Miami-Dade County and wholeheartedly supports

their fiscal year 2000 request for $7.3 million in beach renourishment funds.

Your support would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman. The City of Miami Beach

thanks you for the opportunity to present these views for your consideration.

OHIO RIVER VALLEY INLAND NAVIGATION PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. BARRY PALMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DINAMO

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Barry Palmer, Executive

Director of DINAMO, the Association for the Development of Inland Navigation in

America’s Ohio Valley. DINAMO is a multi-state, membership based association of

business and industry, labor, and state government leaders from throughout the

Ohio Valley, whose singular purpose is to expedite the modernization of the lock and

dam infrastructure on the Ohio River Navigation System. Largely through the leadership of this subcommittee and the professional efforts of the US Army Corps of

Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to see the results of 18 years of continuous hard work in improving our river infrastructure.

Lock and dam modernization at Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Grays Landing

Locks and Dam, Point Marion Locks, and Winfield Locks are largely complete.

These projects were authorized for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The immediate problems really are focused on completing in a

timely manner lock and dam modernization projects authorized by the Congress in

subsequent water resources development acts. Substantial problems remain for adequate funding of improvements at the Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/KY;
652

Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA; McAlpine Locks and Dam,

Ohio River, IN/KY; Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV; and for the Kentucky Locks,

Tennessee River, KY. The construction schedules for all of these projects have been

severely constrained, and we are requesting increased funding for these construction

projects at an ‘‘efficient construction rate.’’ Following is a listing of the projects and

an efficient funding level determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers to advance these projects, in order to complete construction by 2008 or earlier:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

1. For the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam modification project, formerly the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/WV, about $7,150,000 for continued

construction.

2. For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV, $1,400,000 for

continued construction of the lock and relocations related to environmental mitigation.

3. For the Olmsted Locks and Dam, replacing Locks and Dams 52 and 53 on the

Lower Ohio River, IL/KY, $56,100,000 for continued construction of the twin 110

foot × 1,200 foot locks and design of the new gated dam.

4. For improvements to Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA,

$53,00,000 for continued construction of Dam 2, for relocations related to the construction project, and continued design of Lock 4.

5. For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY, $10,800,000 to continue design of the new 110 foot × 1,200 foot lock addition and for continued construction of the new 110 foot × 1,200 foot lock.

6. For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV, $11,350,000 for

real estate acquisition and for continuing Plans and Specifications on the main construction contracts.

7. For the Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY, $15,000,000 to

continue design on the new highway and bridge work and for relocation and construction of the TVA tower.

8. For the Ohio River Mainstem Study, including studies related to modifications

of John T. Myers, Greenup, Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery Locks and

Dams, $9,600,000. This level of funding is needed to complete for WRDA 2000 and

WRDA 2002, respectively, the studies leading to interim feasibility reports (construction authorization documents) for additional capacity at these five lock and

dam locations. Also the Corps of Engineers needs additional funding to complete the

Ohio River Main Stem Study to determine where additional improvements may be

needed in future years on the Ohio River Navigation System.

For the five projects identified in Points 3–7, the fiscal year 2000 Civil Works

Budget of the US Army Corps of Engineers allocates only $70,584,000, when the ‘‘efficient’’ construction level for fiscal year 2000 identified by the Corps is

$146,250,000. This difference is that an additional $75 million for these five projects

is needed in fiscal year 2000. Attached is a chart outlining fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 appropriations, fiscal year 2000 budget requests by the Administration, and fiscal year 2000 efficient funding levels for Ohio Valley lock and dam modernization projects. The information related to efficient funding levels was provided

to DINAMO by the Commander, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, US Army

Corps of Engineers.

Completion dates for the Lower Mon project have been delayed 7 years from 2003

to 2010. For McAlpine Lock the completion date has been delayed five years from

2002 to 2007. The current completion date for the Marmet Lock project is 2009, but

this project with adequate funding could be completed two years ahead of current

schedule and fully operational in 2006. For the Kentucky Lock addition, we have

seen three different construction schedules. Two completion date schedules would

complete this project in 2012 or in 2017. In fact if the Kentucky Lock project was

on an ‘‘efficient,’’ or ‘‘optimum’’ schedule, the project could be completed by 2008.

All of these construction projects, in addition to the Olmsted Locks and Dam,

could be completed by 2008 or earlier. Also, monies from the Inland Waterways

Trust Fund could finance 50 percent of the costs of these projects while keeping the

Trust Fund in the black. Additionally it should be noted that there are about $340

million in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The real challenge then is to complete

these lock and dam construction projects by 2008 or earlier by putting them on an

‘‘efficient’’ construction schedule.

Delaying the construction of these vitally needed infrastructure investments is a

terribly inefficient practice. Inefficient construction schedules cost people a lot of

money. A recent study by the Institute for Water Resources concluded that $1.02

billion of cumulative benefits (transportation savings) for the aforementioned five
653

lock and dam modernization projects on the Ohio River Navigation System and the

Inner Harbor project in New Orleans harbor on the Lower Mississippi River have

been lost forever. The benefits foregone represent the cumulative annual loss of

transportation cost savings associated with postponing the completion of these

projects from their ‘‘optimum,’’ or ‘‘efficient’’ schedule. In addition, this study concludes that $682 million of future benefits that will be foregone based on fiscal year

1999 schedules could be recovered if funding is provided to accelerate design and

construction activities in accordance with ‘‘efficient’’ schedules.

Expenditures for lock and dam modernization are an investment in the physical

infrastructure of this nation. The Corps of Engineers construction budget of $1.24

billion for fiscal year 2000 is about $300 million less than the $1.52 billion Congress

provided for fiscal year 1999. Mr. Chairman, we have great confidence in the Corps

of Engineers and urge your support for a funding level more in line with the real

water resources development needs of the nation. For lock and dam modernization

on America’s inland navigation system, targeted construction funding ought to be

at a level of about $250–300 million annually. Last year Congress provided about

$4.1 billion for the Corps of Engineers program and about $125 million for lock and

dam modernization on America’s inland navigation system. It is reasonable that

funding for the Corps program should be increased to levels closer to $4.4 billion.

With this kind of increased funding, as amply supported in both the House and Senate appropriations committee report language last year, it is clear that a national

lock and dam modernization program could be sustained at a level commensurate

with the needs for improving the nation’s inland navigation system.

We thank you for the opportunity to present this request and our thoughts on

these matters.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING OF OHIO VALLEY LOCK AND DAM MODERNIZATION PROJECTS

Fiscal year—

Funding at Efficient Level of

Construction

1998 Energy &

Water Development Appropriation Act

1999 Energy &

Water Development Appropriation Act2000 Budget Request

Construction:

Robert C. Byrd Locks & Dam, Ohio River,

OH/WV ....................................................... $5,356,000 $8,000,000 $7,150,000 $7,150,000

Grays Landing Locks and Dam,

Monongahela River, PA ............................ 2,900,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Point Marion Locks & Dam ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Winfield Locks & Dam .................................. 8,500,000 4,500,000 1,400,000 1,400,000

Olmsted Locks & Dam1 ................................ 98,400,000 54,500,000 28,634,000 56,100,000

Locks & Dams 2, 3, & 4 1 ............................ 18,200,000 26,500,000 21,600,000 53,000,000

McAlpine Locks & Dam, Ohio River,

IN/KY 1 ....................................................... 6,720,000 5,300,000 2,800,000 10,800,000

Marmet Locks & Dam1 ................................. 1,830,000 6,500,000 9,800,000 11,350,000

Kentucky Lock Addition, Tennessee River,

KY 1 ........................................................... 4,000,000 8,500,000 7,750,000 15,000,000

London Locks & Dam2 ................................. 1,000,000 .......................... 600,000 600,000

Surveys: Ohio River Main Stem Study (John T.

Myers/Newburgh) ............................................... 8,800,000 10,150,000 7,157,000 9,600,000

Totals ........................................................ 155,746,000 123,950,000 86,891,000 165,000,000

1 Targeted priorities by DINAMO.

2Major rehabilitation of London L/D would require a ‘‘new construction start,’’ included in the fiscal year 2000 budget.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. LEMA, VICE PRESIDENT, MANUFACTURERS AND

SERVICES DIVISION, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION

The National Mining Association (NMA) urges inclusion of funding in the fiscal

year 2000 budget for construction and rehabilitation of inland waterways navigation

lockage facilities at selected sites on the Ohio, Monongahela, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers, and for expeditious completion of the ongoing Ohio River Main Stem

Study being performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

NMA member companies produce two-thirds of the coal mined in the United

States and most of the other nonfuel metallic and nonmetallic minerals. Producers

of coal and many other nonfuel minerals rely on safe, efficient, and competitive in-
654

land barge transportation services for intermodal rail/barge, truck/barge, and conveyor/barge shipments to utility plants, agriculture, construction, and metals production sites, and port terminals on the Gulf of Mexico from which mining commodities are shipped in coastal commerce and international trade.

NAVIGATION PROGRAM

The Ohio River from Pittsburgh to its juncture with the Mississippi River at

Cairo, Illinois, and the interconnecting Monongahela, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers are a major component of the nation’s bulk freight transportation network which

links commercial centers in the east and the midwest and, through its connections

with the Tennessee River and the Mississippi River, most of mid-America from the

upper east and midwest to the Gulf of Mexico. Added to their proven effectiveness

in carrying bulk commodities, barge operations are fuel efficient and free of conflicts

with other ground transportation modes, thereby reducing emissions which otherwise would be encountered if trucks were to be utilized in place of barges resulting

in higher levels of traffic congestion. One typical barge tow on the Ohio River can

accommodate two trainloads of coal, and can handle freight tonnage which would

require 900 truck movements, clearly showing the economic and environmental advantages of barges.

Underscoring the importance of moving forward swiftly with construction and rehabilitation projects to replace obsolete facilities and to increase lockage capacities

on the Ohio, Monongahela, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers is the breakup of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) in 1999 by the purchase of Conrail’s trackage

by two mega-rail-carriers in the east, thereby reducing from three to two the number of major, line-haul railroads providing service in the east. Railroad restructuring

in the east through consolidation of line-haul trackage makes the effectiveness of

the inland waterways particularly strategic and critical as fiscal year 2000 begins.

From year to year, and currently, NMA has applied a systems approach toward

analyzing inland waterways problems and needs in our appearance before this Subcommittee, NMA’s involvement with the Inland Waterways Users Board, our communications with representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and NMA’s

participation in meetings with shippers, carriers, terminal operators, and others

such as the Marine Transportation System (MTS) Task Force organized under the

leadership of the Secretary of Transportation to develop an MTS Strategy for our

nation. In continuation of NMA’s systems approach employed for many years of concerted effort in support of assuring the viability of the inland waterways system

through funding approved by this Subcommittee, a process which has demonstrated

important benefits by virtue of budget approvals by this Subcommittee since the

mid-1980’s, NMA urges the Subcommittee to approve the budget items presented

below for funding in fiscal year 2000.

Budget Item1 Description

Ohio River Main Stem Systems Study (KY, IL, IN, PA, WV and

OH), with priorities for John T. Myers, Newburgh,

Cannelton, Emsworth, Dashields and Montgomery sites.

Complete feasibility level engineering designs and NEPA

studies for priority lockage improvements, and expedite

similar activity for other sites.

Marmet Locks and Dam on the Kanawha River (WV) ............. Construction to replace obsolete structure and increase lockage capacity.

Locks and Dams, 2, 3 and 4 on the Monongahela River

(PA).

Construction to replace three obsolete L&D’s with two L&D’s.

Kentucky Lock and Dam on the Tennessee River (KY) ............ Construction to add a 1,200-ft × 110-ft lock chamber.

Olmsted Locks and Dam on the Ohio River (IL & KY) ............ Construction to replace obsolete L&D’s 52 & 53 at new L&D

site.

McAlpine Locks and Dam on the Ohio River (IN & KY) .......... Construction of a new, second 1,200-ft X 110-ft lock chamber.

John T. Myers Locks and Dam on the Ohio River (IN & KY) ... Preconstruction engineering and design for addition of a

second 1,200-ft × 110-ft lock chamber.

Greenup Locks and Dam on the Ohio River (KY & OH) .......... Preconstruction engineering and design for addition of a

second 1,200-ft × 110-ft lock chamber.

London Locks and Dam on the Kanawha River (WV) .............. Major rehabilitation of aging structure.

1 Except for the John T. Myers and the Greenup Locks and Dams, each of the budget items presented above presently are authorized. The

two sites yet to be authorized justifiably warrant addition of second 1,200-ft × 110-ft lock chambers to accommodate existing traffic.

These fiscal year 2000 budget recommendations for navigation project construction and rehabilitation arise from a systems approach to identification of problems

and needs on the Ohio River System summarized by the following points:

—Locks and Dams 2, 3 and 4 on the Monongahela River near Pittsburgh typically

are transited by commercial barge tows requiring passage through each of those
655

sites as they navigate that segment of the River, which can be accomplished

better by the removal of Lock and Dam 3 and uniformly upgrading obsolete

Locks and Dams 2 and 4.

—The Marmet Locks and Dam on Kanawha River should have a new 800-ft × 110-ft lock to match the new lock built at the Winfield Locks and Dam downstream near Charleston to effectively accommodate barge tows which originate

in the Marmet pool and must transit Marmet before arriving at the Winfield

site as barge tows flow toward the Ohio River.

—Locks and Dams on the Lower Ohio River below Huntington should have twin

1,200-ft × 110-ft locks to accommodate heavy barge traffic characterized by

towboats pushing 15 jumbo barges that require such lock chambers to transit

sites in a single pass without breaking up the tow. In addition, the second

chamber becomes especially critical at times when lock closures are required for

repair and maintenance operations, leaving a single lock in service. For the past

10 years, barge tonnage on the Ohio River has increased at an average annual

rate of two percent, reflecting a 22 percent increase in 1996 over 1986, a rate

which is expected to continue especially in line with growth in the demand for

electricity fueled by coal.

—The Kentucky Lock and Dam should have a new 1,200-ft × 110-ft lock chamber

to handle a modern 15-barge tow from the Lower Ohio River which must transit

the site to proceed on the Tennessee River just above Paducah in proximity to

the junction of the Lower Ohio River and the Tennessee River, matching Ohio

River locks.

—The first three locks and dams on the Upper Ohio River below Pittsburgh are

obsolete, aged and deteriorated, requiring modernization through replacement

and/or major rehabilitation.

—The London Locks and Dam on the Kanawha River above the Marmet Locks

and Dam is aged and deteriorated, requiring early major rehabilitation.

—The Ohio River Main Stem Study underway for several years should be expedited at least to the point where interim reports on engineering feasibility of

improvements at key lock and dam sites will be issued in fiscal year 2000, and

accompanying preconstruction engineering and design work can be initiated for

priority construction and rehabilitation projects during fiscal year 2000 and the

years 2000 to 2003.

The Ohio River System is a principal corridor for distributing coal and other commodities via intermodal truck-barge and rail-barge routes in eastern and midwestern states. The corridor is especially expansive by virtue of the Ohio River’s

connections with other rivers, in particular the Monongahela, Kanawha, Big Sandy,

Green, Cumberland, Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers, furnishing continuity of

barge traffic to the southern states and the Gulf of Mexico. Table 1 shows how barge

freight has been growing on selected rivers in the Ohio River System from 1987 to

1996.

TABLE 1.—BARGE FREIGHT TRAFFIC 1

[Millions of tons]

River

Coal All Commodities

1987 1996 1987 1996

Ohio River Mainstem 2 .......................................... 115 134 197 237

Kanawha River ...................................................... 12 16 19 25

Monongahela River ............................................... 29 33 33 37

Tennessee River .................................................... 20 18 42 46

1 Source: Estimated Waterborne Commerce Statistics for Calendar Year 1996, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, October

1997. 2 Includes traffic utilizing all, or part, of the Ohio River. Much Ohio River barge freight traffic originates or terminates

on other rivers in the Ohio River Basin, including those shown.

The inland waterways, in particular, the Ohio River and its Ohio River Basin tributaries and its waterways connections to points outside of the Basin, contribute to

many key objectives. They:

—provide that ‘‘shippers and consumers realize over $2.2 billion annually in savings as a result of using the waterways of the Ohio River System over more

costly modes of transportation’’ Commerce on the Ohio River and Its Tributaries, Ohio River Navigation System Report, 1996, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
656

—are responsive to energy and environmental goals, e.g., ‘‘as a consequence of

being less energy intensive than other modes, on a ton-mile basis water transport also produces less air pollution,—and is usually quieter.’’ ‘‘The less energy

used, the less air pollution produced.’’ Environmental Advantages of Inland

Barge Transportation, August 1994, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration; and,

—‘‘enhance our Nation’s status in relation to international commerce, i.e., our

ability to compete in the global economy is contingent upon our ability to efficiently transport raw and finished products and commodities.’’ ‘‘We have the

best, most efficient waterways system in the world.’’ Inland Waterways Users

Board Eleventh Annual Report to the Secretary of the Army and the United

States Congress, August 1997.

The replacement of Locks and Dams 52 and 53 with new twin 1,200 foot × 110

foot locks at a new site located between the Ohio River junctions with the Mississippi River and the Tennessee River will reduce the number of controlling lock

and dam sites on the Ohio River to 20. This will furnish a significant improvement

for barge traffic in the river segment just above the mouth of the Ohio River. Barge

tows utilized for moving Ohio River commerce perform most efficiently when they

consist of 15 barges lashed together with three-barge widths and five-barge lengths

in tows pushed by towboats. Lock chambers 1,200 feet long by 110 feet wide are

required in order to accommodate such barge tows, enabling single passes by the

barge tows through each of the sites.

Barge traffic passing through eight lock and dam projects between Huntington,

West Virginia and Paducah, Kentucky is exceptionally heavy. Of those eight sites,

Smithland now has twin lock chambers which are 1,200 feet by 110 feet and

McAlpine is scheduled for similar locks to be built under previous project authorization. It is timely to schedule construction projects at the remaining six sites in the

Lower Ohio River, specifically at the J.T. Myers, Newburgh, Cannelton, Markland,

Meldahl, and Greenup sites, which each have 1,200-foot main chambers and 600-

foot auxiliary chambers, whereas twin 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chambers are justified in order to accommodate existing and projected barge traffic. NMA urges the

Subcommittee to consider these needs as high priorities for funding navigation construction in fiscal year 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM

The NMA is proud of its leadership in initiatives to restore ecosystems degraded

by mines abandoned prior to the passage of the Surface Mining and Reclamation

Act. With respect to hardrock mining, NMA recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Western Governors Association for the Abandoned Mine Lands

Initiative which provides an effective framework for partnership for environmental

restoration between the industry and the states. NMA is pleased that the Corps of

Engineers is partnering with the Office of Surface Mining, other Federal agencies,

state agencies, and universities to restore streams that have been impacted by acid

drainage from abandoned mines. The Corps has responded enthusiastically to this

mission with the broad authority for aquatic ecosystem restoration granted by Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and other project specific

authorities. Corps partnerships are already working in the Appalachian region and

new partnerships are forming with state governments for restoration of streams in

several western states. In H.R. 4060, the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations bill (Public

Law 105–245), the Subcommittee recognized the expertise and capability of the ‘‘the

Corps to participate meaningfully in acid drainage remediation efforts.’’ Further, the

Subcommittee directed the Corps of Engineers to assume a participatory role in the

National Mine Land Reclamation Center . . . ‘‘using available funds and to the extent authorized by law.’’ Since the enactment of this funding measure, the Corps

has not complied with this directive. The NMA urges the Subcommittee to pursue

this issue with the Corps and request a status report on its effort to participate in

the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative.

MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD T. BOLLINGER, CHAIRMAN, LOUISIANA

GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE ON MARITIME INDUSTRY

1. Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA (construction general).—Recommend Corps be funded to full capability in fiscal year 2000 to perform

required work on the saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and complete design studies for potential phase III 55-foot channel.
657

2. Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, maintenance dredging.—Recommend approval of President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget of $64,430,000 under O&M

General to construct new anchorages and maintain new and existing anchorages.

3. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), LA, maintenance dredging.—President’s

fiscal year 2000 Budget is $14,989,000 under O&M General. Recommend that Corps

be funded increased capability for bank stabilization.

4. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA.—President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget only includes $13,000,000 in construction funds for the IHNC New Ship

Lock. Recommend that Corps be funded to full capability to continue lock construction and fully fund the community impact mitigation plan.

5. Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.—Recommend approval of the Presi- dent’s fiscal year 2000 Budget of $2,743,000 under O&M General.

6. Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.—Recommend approval of the President’s fis- cal year 2000 budget of $700,000 in GI funds to continue the feasibility study and

to develop plans for replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock on the GIWW, Morgan Cityto-Port Allen alternate route.

7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX.—President’s fiscal year 2000 budget is $12,506,000 under O&M General. Recommend that Corps be funded increased capability for a new crane at the IHNC Lock and the construction of two miter gates

for the Port Allen lock.

8. Calcasieu Lock, LA.—Recommend approval of President’s fiscal year 2000 budg- et of $541,000 in GI funds to continue the feasibility phase of the study to replace

Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.

9. Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.—President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget is $7,560,000 under O&M General. Recommend the Corps be funded increased capability to provide additional advanced dredging maintenance; to provide rockwork at

Dugas Landing; to fully fund contracts to dredge the bar channel and miles 5–14;

and to renovate disposal areas.

10. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA.—President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget is $21,113,000 in Construction General and

$8,781,000 for O&M General. Recommend that Corps be funded to full capability

to complete work already under way.

As Chairman of the Louisiana Governor’s Task Force on Maritime Industry, I

hereby submit testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development on behalf of the ports on the lower Mississippi River, the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and the Calcasieu River waterway and the maritime interests related thereto of the State of Louisiana relative to Congressional appropriations for

fiscal year 2000.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 1997 a total of 420.7 million

tons of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce moved through the consolidated

deepwater ports of Louisiana situated on the lower Mississippi River between Baton

Rouge and the Gulf of Mexico. The deepening of this 232-mile stretch of the River

to 45 feet has been a major factor in tonnage growth at these ports. Thanks to the

efforts of Congress and the New Orleans District of the Corps, Louisiana’s ports and

the domestic markets they serve can compete more effectively in an increasingly

global marketplace. Ninety-one percent of America’s foreign merchandise trade by

volume (two-thirds by value) moves in ships, and more than 20 percent of the nation’s foreign waterborne commerce passes through Louisiana’s ports. Given the role

foreign trade plays in sustaining our nation’s growth, maintaining the competitive

posture of Louisiana’s ports is essential to our economic well-being.

In terms of transportation services and global access, Louisiana ports enjoy a distinct competitive advantage. Hundreds of barge lines accommodate America’s waterborne commerce on the lower Mississippi River. The high level of barge traffic on

the river is indicated by the passage of more than 236,000 barges through the Port

of New Orleans annually. In 1997, 2,371 ocean-going vessels operated by more than

80 steamship lines serving U.S. trade with more than 150 countries called at the

Port of New Orleans. The Port’s trading partners include: Latin America (34.8 percent); Asia (27.5 percent); Europe (26.6 percent); Africa (9.5 percent) and North

America (1.6 percent). During the same year, more than 5,900 vessels called at Louisiana’s lower Mississippi River deepwater ports.

While the foreign markets of Louisiana’s lower Mississippi River ports are worldwide, their domestic market consists primarily of mid-America. This heartland region currently produces 60 percent of the nation’s agricultural products, one half of

all of its manufactured goods and 90 percent of its machinery and transportation

equipment.

The considerable transportation assets of Louisiana’s lower Mississippi River

ports enable them to play a vital role in the international commerce of this nation.

In 1997, the region’s ports and port facilities handled 212 million tons of foreign wa-
658

terborne commerce. Valued at $38.9 billion, this cargo accounted for 18 percent of

the nation’s international waterborne trade and 23.9 percent of all U.S. exports.

Bulk cargo, primarily consisting of tremendous grain and animal feed exports and

petroleum imports, made up approximately 92 percent of this volume. More than

41 million tons of grain from 17 states, representing 50.9 percent of all U.S. grain

exports, accessed the world market via the 10 grain elevators and midstream transfer capabilities on the lower Mississippi River. This same port complex received 82.2

million short tons of petroleum and petroleum products, approximately 16 percent

of U.S. waterborne imports of petroleum products.

In 1997, public and private facilities located within the jurisdiction of the Board

of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, the fourth largest port in the United

States, handled a total of 74 million tons of international cargo worth $18.7 billion

(included in lower Mississippi River statistics). General cargo totaled 10.3 million

tons. Although statistically dwarfed by bulk cargo volumes, the movement of general

cargo is of special significance to the local economy because it produces greater benefits. On a per ton basis, general cargo generates spending within the community

more than three times higher than bulk cargo. Major general cargo commodities

handled at the Port include: iron and steel products; coffee; forest products; copper;

aluminum products; and natural rubber.

Fostering the continued growth of lower Mississippi River ports is essential to assure the competitiveness of our nation’s exports in the global marketplace and, consequently, the health of our national economy. Assuring deep water access to ports

has been a priority of our trading partners around the world. Moreover, an evolving

maritime industry seeking greater economies of scale continues to support construction of larger vessels with increased draft requirements. Because it facilitated the

provision of deepwater port access, passage of the Water Resources Development Act

of 1986, played a most significant role in assuring the competitiveness of ports on

the lower Mississippi river and throughout the U.S.

By December, 1994, the Corps completed dredging of the 45-foot channel from the

Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, LA (Mile 233 AHP). Unfortunately, mitigation features associated with the first phase of the channel deepening project, completed in

1988, have yet to be accomplished. The absence of funding for this vitally important

project in the President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget was most disappointing. We urge

the inclusion of funding and support for this effort in the budget, which will include

part of approximately $15 million in payments to the State of Louisiana for construction of a pipeline and pumping stations to deliver potable fresh water to communities affected by saltwater intrusion. We further urge that the Corps be provided funding to proceed with design studies for Phase III which will allow deepening of the river to the 55-foot authorized depth.

Along with the Port of New Orleans, the Port of South Louisiana, the nation’s

largest port with 183.6 million tons of foreign and domestic cargo in 1997, and the

Port of Baton Rouge, the nation’s sixth largest port with 84 million tons of foreign

and domestic cargo in 1997, and other lower Mississippi River ports are dependent

upon timely and adequate dredging of Southwest Pass to provide deep draft access

to the Gulf of Mexico. Based on past experience—spring thaws bringing higher river

stages and higher siltation rates—we strongly urge full funding of the President’s

fiscal year 2000 Budget amount of $64,430,000 under O&M General for maintenance of the 45-foot project channel. Funding includes monies for both dredging and

repairs to foreshore dikes; repairs to lateral dikes; and jetty repairs. Revetment construction has reduced the number and size of deep draft anchorages. To mitigate

this loss, we recommend that the Corps be authorized under the O&M General appropriation to construct new anchorages and maintain new and existing anchorages

to accommodate increased ship traffic.

Maintenance of adequate depths and channel widths in the Mississippi River Gulf

Outlet Channel (MRGO) is also of great concern. This channel provides deep draft

access to the Port of New Orleans’ principal container terminals and generates an

annual economic impact of nearly $800 million. In 1997, 530 general cargo vessels

calling on the MRGO Tidewater facilities accounted for 26.6 percent of the general

cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port of New Orleans and 85.1

percent of Louisiana’s containerized cargo.

Because of the MRGO’s demonstrated vulnerability to coastal storm activity, annual channel maintenance dredging and bank stabilization are essential to assure

unimpeded vessel operations. In 1998, heavy shoaling related to Hurricane Georges

resulted in the imposition of a draft restriction from the project depth of 36 feet to

25 feet. The President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget amount is $14,989,000 under O&M

General. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded increased capability for north and south bank stabilization projects.
659

The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and provides a connection between the Port of New

Orleans’ Mississippi River and IHNC terminals. In 1998, the Corps approved a plan

for replacement of this obsolete facility. The Corps estimates that the lock replacement project will have a cost-benefit ratio of 1.7 to one and will provide $110 million

annually in transportation cost savings. In addition to minimizing adverse impacts

to adjacent neighborhoods, the project includes a $33 million Community Impact

Mitigation Program. The President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget amount of $13,000,000

for the IHNC New Ship Lock will pay for continued engineering and design work,

construction, and partial funding of the mitigation program. We, therefore, recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability to enable construction and mitigation program implementation. In particular, we recommend that the mitigation

program be fully funded.

The operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, La. are

essential to providing safe offshore support access to energy-related industries. In

1997, these channels accommodated cargo movements exceeding 3.5 million tons. In

addition to routine traffic, Baptiste Collette Bayou is used by shallow draft vessels

as an alternate route between the MRGO, GIWW and the Mississippi River. The

President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget amount is $2,743,000 under O&M General.

More than 84.9 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New Orleans

District annually. The President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget for Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana and Texas is $12,506,000 under O&M General. In addition, we

recommend that the Corps be funded increased O&M capability for a new crane at

the IHNC lock, two miter gates at the Port Allen lock and continued maintenance

of the Louisiana and Texas sections of the GIWW.

To assure the efficient flow of commerce on the GIWW, approval is urged for the President’s budget of $700,000 in fiscal year 2000 GI funds to continue the feasibility study to develop plans for replacing Bayou Sorrel Lock, Morgan City-to-Port

Allen alternate route. Also we recommend approval of the President’s budget of

$541,000 in GI funds to continue the feasibility phase of the study to replace

Calcasieu Lock.

The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu River, which is

often below project depth and width. This Port is one of Louisiana’s major deepwater ports, benefiting the economy of the state and the nation. In 1997, the Port

handled 33.1 million tons of import cargo and 16.7 million tons of export cargo. The

Port and private facilities along this waterway provide thousands of jobs for the

Lake Charles area. In 1997, 945 ships and 6,834 barges used the Calcasieu River

waterway. The Port area’s growth and continued success depends on the provision

of a reliable and safe channel at full project dimensions. Project deficiencies necessitate one-way traffic for many ships, which results in delays and disrupted cargo

operations that are costly and inefficient to industry. We request the Corps be funded increased capability to provide additional advanced dredging maintenance and

rockwork at Dugas Landing. In addition, we request full funding of contracts to

dredge the bar channel, dredge miles 5–14, and renovate disposal areas.

One additional project warrants consideration. The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, La. Project provides 236 miles of navigation

improvements, 225 miles of channel stabilization works and various recreational facilities. Project completion will stimulate economic growth along the Red River

Basin and increase cargo flows through the deep draft ports on the lower Mississippi River. The President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget includes $21,113,000 in Construction General for substantial project completion and $8,781,000 for Operations

and Maintenance. We recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability for this

project.

The need and impetus to reduce the Federal budget is certainly acknowledged;

however, reduced funding on any of the above projects will result in decreased maintenance levels which will escalate deterioration and, ultimately, prevent them from

functioning at their full authorized purpose. Reduction in the serviceability of these

projects will cause severe economic impacts not only to this region, but to the nation

as a whole that will far outweigh savings from reduced maintenance expenditures.

Therefore, we reiterate our strong recommendation that the above projects be funded to their full capability.

Supporting statements from Mr. J. Ron Brinson, President and CEO of the Port

of New Orleans; Mr. Gary P. LaGrange, Executive Director of the Port of South Louisiana, Mr. Roger Richard, Executive Director of the Greater Baton Rouge Port

Commission, Mr. Glenwood Wiseman, Executive Director of the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District, Mr. Benny Rousselle, President of Plaquemines Parish,

Mr. Channing Hayden, President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana; Capt.

John Levine, President of the Associated Branch Pilots and Capt. Mark
660

Delesdernier, President of the Crescent River Port Pilots Association are attached.

Please make these statements along with my statement part of the record. Supplemental graphics relating to my statement have been furnished separately for staff

background use. Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the subcommittee on

these vital projects.

Congressional Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 for Ports on the Lower Mississippi

River, J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and Calcasieu River Waterway

Amount in

fiscal year 2000

budget

President’s fiscal

Project year 2000 budget

Mississippi River Ship Channel Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA. (Construction General) .............................................................................. ...........................

Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging,

& Stabilization (O&M General) ........................................................ 64,430,000

Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA. (O&M General) ........... 14,989,000

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock LA. (Construction General) ... 13,000,000

Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA. (O&M General) .................. 2,743,000

Intracoastal Waterway Locks (GI Funds) ............................................ 700,000

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway LA. & TX. (O&M General) .................... 12,506,000

Calcasieu Lock, LA. (GI Funds) ............................................................ 541,000

Calcasieu River and Pass, LA. (O&M General) .................................. 7,560,000

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway:

(Construction General) ................................................................... 21,113,000

(O&M General) ............................................................................... 8,781,000

Total J. Bennett Johnston Waterway ........................................ 29,894,000

Total ............................................................................................. 146,363,000

Lower Mississippi River—Foreign Waterborne Commerce

[Calendar Years: 1985–1997]

Percent

1997 ......................................................................................................................... 18.0

1996 ......................................................................................................................... 16.6

1995 ......................................................................................................................... 18.6

1994 ......................................................................................................................... 17.8

1993 ......................................................................................................................... 18.1

1992 ......................................................................................................................... 18.2

1991 ......................................................................................................................... 16.6

1990 ......................................................................................................................... 17.6

1989 ......................................................................................................................... 16.9

1988 ......................................................................................................................... 15.9

1987 ......................................................................................................................... 18.2

1986 ......................................................................................................................... 15.1

1985 ......................................................................................................................... 14.8

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 1

[Calendar year 1997]

World Area Dollar

value Tonnage

Europe .................................................................................................................................... 26.2 20.9

Asia ........................................................................................................................................ 31.6 34.8

Africa ...................................................................................................................................... 10.5 12.4

N. America .............................................................................................................................. 0.6 0.7

Latin America ......................................................................................................................... 31.1 31.2

1 Foreign Waterborne Commerce.
661

Lower Mississippi River

[In millions of dollars]

Principal Countries Dollar value

Japan ................................................................................................................ 3,345

Saudi Arabia .................................................................................................... 2,852

Venezuela ......................................................................................................... 2,429

Mexico ............................................................................................................... 1,995

Netherlands ...................................................................................................... 1,640

All others .......................................................................................................... 26,666

Total ....................................................................................................... 38,927

[Thousands of short tons]

Principal countries Tonnage

Saudi Arabia .................................................................................................... 23,975

Japan ................................................................................................................ 19,951

Venezuela ......................................................................................................... 18,380

Mexico ............................................................................................................... 15,160

Colombia ........................................................................................................... 8,580

All others .......................................................................................................... 126,019

Total ....................................................................................................... 212,065

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 1—PRINCIPAL COMMODITIES—CALENDAR

YEAR 1997

[STONS]

Petroleum & Petroleum Products ......................................................... 82,186,500

Iron & Steel ............................................................................................ 9,594,101

Metalliferous Ores ................................................................................. 7,168,299

Fertilizers ............................................................................................... 6,648,718

Nonmetallic Mineral Manuf .................................................................. 2,033,539

Coal, Coke & Briquettes ........................................................................ 1,518,558

Chemicals ............................................................................................... 1,128,575

All Others ............................................................................................... 3,572,351

IMPORTS TOTAL ....................................................................... 113,850,641

Cereal & Cereal Products ..................................................................... 41,340,365

Oilseeds & Oleaginous Fruit ................................................................. 20,102,971

Animal Feeds ......................................................................................... 13,727,175

Coal, Coke & Briquettes ........................................................................ 7,820,702

Petroleum & Petroleum Prods .............................................................. 7,019,284

Chemicals ............................................................................................... 2,203,473

Vegetable Fats & Oils ........................................................................... 1,704,335

All Others ............................................................................................... 4,296,467

EXPORTS TOTAL ...................................................................... 98,214,772

1FOREIGN WATERBORNE COMMERCE.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET FACTS AND COMPARISONS—CALENDAR YEAR 1997

Responsible for 2.7 million tons of international general cargo.

Represents 26.6 percent of general cargo handled over public facilities at the Port

of New Orleans.

Responsible for 85.1 percent of all container cargo in the State of Louisiana.

Represents approximately 22.3 percent of the Port of New Orleans’ vessel calls.

Cargo handled at public facilities via the MR–GO had an estimated economic impact of $793 million to the State of Louisiana.

The economic activity resulting from the MR–GO supported an estimated 12,075

jobs in the New Orleans metropolitan area.

Sources: Port of New Orleans UNO Economic Impact Study.

Calendar year STONS

1975 .................................................................................................................. 5,386,800

1976 .................................................................................................................. 6,970,600

1977 .................................................................................................................. 8,780,700
662

Calendar year STONS

1978 .................................................................................................................. 9,411,100

1979 .................................................................................................................. 8,227,200

1980 .................................................................................................................. 5,541,500

1981 .................................................................................................................. 5,794,800

1982 .................................................................................................................. 5,571,800

1983 .................................................................................................................. 5,435,000

1984 .................................................................................................................. 8,034,500

1985 .................................................................................................................. 6,916,000

1986 .................................................................................................................. 8,145,000

1987 .................................................................................................................. 7,703,000

1988 .................................................................................................................. 7,687,000

1989 .................................................................................................................. 7,289,000

1990 .................................................................................................................. 7,059,000

1991 .................................................................................................................. 6,094,000

1992 .................................................................................................................. 6,444,000

1993 .................................................................................................................. 7,160,000

1994 .................................................................................................................. 5,586,000

1995 .................................................................................................................. 5,700,000

1996 .................................................................................................................. 5,042,000

1997 .................................................................................................................. 5,253,000
663

MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET

[1997 Commodity profile]

Percent

Food & Farm Prods ............................................................................................... 17.2

Petro/Petro Prods ................................................................................................... 2.2

Crude Mat’ls ........................................................................................................... 36.9

Cola ......................................................................................................................... 0.2

Chemical ................................................................................................................. 18.9

All others ................................................................................................................ 0.2

Primary Mfgr Goods .............................................................................................. 16.9

Mfr Equipment ....................................................................................................... 7.6

Note: Foreign Waterborne Commerce

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engrs & Port of New Orleans.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHANNING F. HAYDEN, JR., PRESIDENT, STEAMSHIP

ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA

Summary of testimony of Channing F. Hayden, Jr., President of the Steamship

Association of Louisiana (formerly known as the New Orleans Steamship Association), for the record of the Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on

fiscal year 2000 Appropriations in reference to projects of public interest that affect

Louisiana’s deep-water ports.

1. MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL. GULF TO BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (CONSTRUCTION GENERAL).—We recommend continuation of the work

on the saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and the design studies for Phase III of

the 55-foot channel. Funding to full capability in fiscal year 2000 is necessary for

this required work.

2. MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FROM BATON

ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO.—We urge approval of the $64,430,000 in the

President’s fiscal year 2000 budget under O&M General.

3. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND

BANK STABILIZATION.—In addition to the $14,989,000 in the President’s fiscal

year 2000 budget under O&M General, we urge that the Corps be funded an increased capability in fiscal year 2000 to maintain this channel, which includes bank

stabilization on both banks and jetty maintenance.

4. NEW INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL SHIP LOCK.—Recognizing that

only $13,000,000 is included in the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget for construc-
664

tion funds, we urge that the Corps be funded to full capability in fiscal year 2000

for this project, which is essential to advance the engineering, design, and construction and to continue the community impact mitigation plan.

5. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS. LOUISIANA.—We urge approval of the $7,560,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget under O&M General and recommend that the Corps be funded an increased capability in fiscal year 2000 to provide additional advance maintenance dredging, to maintain rock protection at Dugas

Landing Embankment, as well as fully fund contracts to dredge the bar channel,

to dredge Miles 5–14, and to renovate disposal areas.

6. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.—Recognizing that $21,113,000 is in the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget to substantially complete this vital project and $8,781,000 for O&M in

fiscal year 2000, we urge that the Corps be funded to full capability for fiscal year

2000. This project will result in stimulating economic growth along the Red River

Basin and increase cargo movements through Louisiana ports. Funding is essential

to complete the work already under way.

7. THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED HARBOR SERVICE FEE.—We do not support the President’s proposed fees to replace the Harbor Maintenance Tax. The

strength of our nation’s transportation system is its foreign and domestic waterborne commerce. It benefits the entire nation through the revenue and jobs it provides the country. Therefore, the maintenance of our nation’s ports should be handled through the general fund and not by placing another tax burden on this vital

industry, which serves the country well.

Testimony of Channing F. Hayden, Jr., President of the Steamship Association of

Louisiana (formerly known as the New Orleans Steamship Association), for the

record of Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on fiscal year 2000

Appropriations in reference to projects of public interest affecting Louisiana’s deepwater ports.

Mr. Chairman: I am President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana. Our Association represents ship owners, operators, agents, and stevedores that represent

the majority of the approximately 9,000 deep-draft vessels in waterborne commerce

that call Louisiana’s deep-water ports each year. We are dedicated to the safe and

efficient movement of maritime commerce through the state’s deep-water ports. We

endorse the testimony of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of the Governor’s Task

Force on Maritime Industry, and the statements of the other organizations attached

to his testimony.

Channel stabilization and maintenance dredging in Southwest Pass (SWP) are

critical to keep project draft. Project draft ensures the Mississippi River’s deepwater ports will handle the country’s foreign and domestic waterborne commerce in

the most cost-effective way possible.

For years we have urged this Committee to provide funds to maintain project

draft at SWP. You have responded, and your wisdom has benefitted the entire

American heartland served by the Mississippi River system. SWP was greatly restricted throughout the 1970s. From 1970 to 1975, the channel was at less than

project draft 46 percent of the time. In 1973 and 1974, the channel was below the

40-foot project draft 70 percent of the time. During some periods, drafts were limited

to 31 feet. Fortunately, those conditions heave not recurred because of a combination of factors: Your help, and the constant vigilance of the Pilots, the Corps, and

the maritime community. The years 1990 through 1997 show a tremendous improvement in channel stability. We have only been below project draft 3 percent of

the time for vessels under 100,000 deadweight tons and 8 percent of the time for

vessels 100,000 deadweight tons or greater. The funding you provided was money

well spent. The repairs to the jetties and dikes and the Corps’ ability to rapidly respond to shoaling have been instrumental in maintaining project dimensions. However, the lack of available hopper dredges is jeopardizing the stability of the channel.

To enhance the safe and efficient movement of ships and cargo, we recommend

mining sediment from the Pilottown Anchorage to create and enhance wetlands.

Each 800,000 cubic yards of dredged material creates 115 acres of wetlands and enhances 256 more. In the process, much-needed Pilottown Anchorage at fog-prone

Head of Passes would be dredged to accommodate the increasing number of deeplyladened ships attracted by the 45-foot channel. Dredging Pilottown Anchorage would

also mitigate anchorage space lost in this area to the proposed environmentally beneficial West Bay Diversion Project, which we fully support.

The Pilots have taken advantage of tidal flows and other factors to recommend

the maximum draft possible consistent with safe navigation. This stability represents additional sales and increased competitiveness for U.S. products on the

world market. Industry’s partnership with you has kept Mississippi River ports com-
665

petitive and attractive to vessels. Twelve inches to a large vessel with a loading capacity of 250 tons per inch is an additional 3,000 tons of cargo. As of this writing,

freight rates for grain moving from the Mississippi River to the Far East and Europe are ranging from $15.30 per ton to $10.28 a ton. Using the average, $12.79,

each foot of draft represents an additional $38,370 in vessel revenue, or $191,850

for the five additional feet over the old 40-foot project draft.

The funds we request for maintenance dredging and other works are essential for

the Corps to maintain a reliable channel and respond rapidly to potential problems.

This builds the confidence of the bulk trade in a reliable Mississippi River draft,

which is critically important. Much of Louisiana’s bulk trade is export agricultural

products and coal. These commodities are neither captive to Louisiana nor the

United States if they can be shipped from competing countries at a consistently

lower cost.

The deeper the channel, the more important channel stabilization is. Adequate

channel stabilization work minimizes the maintenance cost of the deeper channel—

a cost-effective investment. The faster the project is stabilized, the faster and greater the benefits of reduced O&M costs will be realized. Also, we recommend that the

Corps conduct research on prototype dredging techniques. Experimental dredging

would not replace routine dredging but would permit, for example, testing dustpan

dredges in SWP and the water injection dredges at the crossings above New Orleans. Funds are also needed for dustpan dredges to work the crossings above New Orleans. These crossings control the draft to eight of our ten major grain elevators, plus

many mid-stream and other bulk cargo facilities. This area caters to the bulk trade

and must have a stable channel depth consistent with the depth at SWP. Only two

dredges in the world are available to maintain the deep-draft crossings between

New Orleans and Baton Rouge. There are times when a high river is followed by

a rapid drop in the river’s stage. In such cases, the dustpan dredges may not be

available, or both dredges may not be capable of restoring the 12 crossings within

a reasonable time. When this happens, hopper dredges are used to assist in the

work.

The Corps is studying the makeup of their ‘‘minimum fleet’’—the number of

dredges the Corps owns and operates. Corps-owned dredges working the lower Mississippi River are the hopper dredges WHEELER, MACFARLAND, and

ESSAYONS, and the dustpan dredge JADWIN. The WHEELER and

MACFARLAND, and from time to time the ESSAYONS, provide much-needed capacity and immediate response to keep SWP open, especially when the river is abnormally high. The action by Congress to reduce the government hopper fleet has

drastically diminished the Corps’ ability to maintain reliable project dimensions and

adversely affect our country’s standing in world bulk markets. We urge Congress

to reconsider its decision to place the WHEELER on stand-by status. Even when

the WHEELER is available, the combined Corps/private fleet does not have enough

Mississippi River-qualified hopper dredges to meet peak dredging requirements. The

Corps’ Minimum Dredge Fleet studies, we feel, neither justify a reduction in the

fleet nor the lay-up/stand-by status of the WHEELER or any other Corps-owned

dredge. The Corps’ records show there was a shortage of hopper dredges for the

1997 highwater season, and this year is no different. Two hoppers were needed to

begin work in SWP, but none were available. The Corps, through a test program,

has employed two dustpan dredges to try to keep the channel open. This is not efficient because the silt is only moved to the edge or side of the channel and can fall

back into the waterway. In fact, the situation became so difficult that ships were

taking about eight hours to transit a two-mile reach at the jetty end of SWP. Normally it takes about two and one-half hours to transit the entire 20 miles of the

SWP. This serious situation resulted in the WHEELER being released from Mobile

to work the troubled SWP area. Besides the Mississippi River ports, this shortage

of dredges also impacts many of our nation’s deep-draft ports and is particularly disruptive to the Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, where dredging suffers practically

every year.

For all of the above reasons, we request full funding for the mitigation features

of the O&M General, 45-foot Mississippi River project.

In December 1994, the Corps completed the 45-foot deep channel to Baton Rouge.

Proper maintenance now provides uniform drafts for all the ports on the lower Mississippi River. This makes U.S. exports through Louisiana more competitive, and

adequate federal maintenance funds to keep the channel open must be available. In

addition, the Corps needs authorization to construct and maintain anchorages to improve safety. Over the years, revetment work and changes in the river itself have

caused serious negative impacts on our anchorages. Therefore, we encourage full

funding capability in fiscal year 2000 to complete the reconnaissance study of navi-
666

gation needs on the Mississippi River and its outlets between Baton Rouge and the

Gulf.

We also support Phase III of the Mississippi River channel deepening project and

urge that the Corps be funded to proceed with design studies for the 55-foot channel, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico.

The growth of the Port of New Orleans depends, in large measure, on the Port’s

container and other facilities on the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR–GO). The

funds you provided in past fiscal years have allowed the Corps to improve the channel considerably. However, the channel width has remained limited primarily because of erosion. For safety reasons in this narrow channel, one-way traffic restrictions apply to vessels with a draft of 30 feet or more, causing delays to the tightlyscheduled container traffic using the MR–GO. These specialty vessels serving the

Port’s facilities are becoming larger. This channel, with less than stable full project

dimensions, causes problems for larger vessels, reducing our ability to grow with the

trade. Hurricane Georges compounded the MR–GO problems by causing severe

shoaling in the channel restricting the project depth of 36 feet to as low as 25 feet.

Restoration has been ongoing for over five months. Initially the lack of available

hopper dredges curtailed work. The highest wages under the International Longshoreman’s Association’s contract ($24 per straight-time hour) is paid for work at

the MR–GO container facilities. Anything that threatens the MR–GO jeopardizes

these high-paying jobs, which are held mostly by minority workers.

To improve safety on the MR–GO and protect Louisiana’s container trade (and the

well-paying, minority employment it produces), we request that the Corps be funded

to an increased capability for the MR–GO in fiscal year 2000. This will allow annual

maintenance dredging, north and south bank stabilization, and jetty maintenance,

which is essential to provide the stability needed for vessel and port operations.

With facilities located on both the MR–GO and the Mississippi River, an adequate

route between the two is essential for efficient transit between these facilities. The

shortest route is the inadequate, antiquated Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC)

Lock built in the 1920s with a width of 75 feet and limited depth of 30 feet. Its

maximum capacity has long been exceeded. The average waiting time for passage

through the Lock has increased from 81⁄2 hours in 1985 to about 12 hours at

present; however, we understand that waiting time can be more than a day in some

instances. A much larger ship lock is necessary to accommodate today’s traffic.

The replacement project for the IHNC Lock is important to the ports on the lower

Mississippi River and to the nation’s commerce since it is on the corridor for east/

west barge traffic. The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget of $13,000,000 is not sufficient. Without full funding, the project will be delayed and increase the overall cost

of the project. We urge Congress to provide the Corps’ full fiscal year 2000 capability

for this important project to insure its completion. Delays are unthinkable since the

new lock is long overdue.

The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu River, which is

often below project depth and width. This is another of Louisiana’s major deepwater ports that benefits the economy of the state and the nation. According to the

Port’s rough figures, their import and export tonnage is up from 49.8 million tons

in 1997 to over 50.1 million tons for 1998. The public and private facilities along

this waterway provide thousands of jobs for the Lake Charles area. In 1998 there

were 1,150 ships and 6,999 barges that used the waterway. While cargo tonnage

and barge traffic is only up slightly, it should be noted that ship traffic up from 945

in 1997 to 1,150 in 1998, a 21.69 percent increase. Part of this increase in ship traffic is due to ships calling with less cargo because of the channel deficiencies. This

channel, because of its project deficiencies, requires one-way traffic for many ships,

causing delays that disrupt cargo operations. This is costly and inefficient for industry. Last year, because of channel deficiencies, we know at least one major tanker

service that calls at one of the area’s major refineries reduced their operating draft

by two feet in order to meet their company’s safety and environmental policy requirement. This draft reduction reduces the delivery capacity to the facility, causing

a less efficient plant operation and increasing the operating costs of the ships serving the plant. In just this one specific case, over the course of a year, the ship and

refinery costs will increase by $4.7 million. The added costs have the potential of

eventually causing a shift of the cargo currently destined for Lake Charles to other

ports. This will reduce jobs in the area and disrupt the economy of the community.

The Port area’s growth and continued success depends on a reliable and safe channel that should be at full project. We request funding to the full capability of the

Corps to maintain this channel at its project dimensions.

The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana,

Project is directly related to our deep-water ports. The continuation and completion

of this work will stimulate the economy all along the Red River Basin with jobs and
667

additional international trade. This stimulated trade will service the Port of Shreveport and the ports on the lower Mississippi River, providing needed growth and benefitting the states of Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which are served

through the Shreveport distribution center. Therefore, we strongly recommend that

the Corps be funded to full capability for fiscal year 2000.

The proposed Harbor Service Fee (HSF) in the President’s budget, which would

replace the Harbor Maintenance Tax, is ill-advised. What it fails to recognize is that

there is no equitable way in which the cost can be spread fairly among the shipping

community. Whether the HSF is to the cargo or to the ship, the fee will change

trade patterns and even jeopardize our trading position in the world market. The

proposal will disrupt jobs and the economies of port areas. It will circumvent the

normal, healthy competition among U.S. ports. Ships carrying low-valued cargo, primarily bulk cargoes, operate on a very low profit margin; therefore, cargoes like

grain and coal can least afford the tax. The end result could well be that the U.S.

could lose its ability to compete in the world market for the export of these cargoes.

This impact on bulk trade will be particularly detrimental to Louisiana because of

the high volume of such cargoes that move through our state. We encourage Congress to fund the maintenance of our nation’s ports through the general fund. After

all, it is our nation (the people) that benefit from a strong U.S. position in world

trade, not the shipping industry. If our nation is to remain competitive in the world

market, we must maintain and improve our waterways and deliver U.S. goods at

the lowest possible price to foreign markets.

Thank you for allowing the Association to submit testimony on the Corps’ funding

needs.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. RON BRINSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, PORT OF NEW ORLEANS, NEW ORLEANS, LA

The Port of New Orleans is located at the terminus of the most extensively developed waterway system in the world, the 14,500 mile inland waterway system of the

United States. The Port, via the Mississippi River and the Mississippi River Gulf

Outlet, serves as the gateway between America’s heartland and the global marketplace.

We fully support the March 26, 1999 statement of the Louisiana Governor’s Task

Force on Maritime Industry on behalf of the ports and related maritime interests

on the lower Mississippi River, J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and the Calcasieu

River Waterway.

We greatly appreciate the outstanding support and cooperation received over

many years from you and your subcommittee.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY P. LAGRANGE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO, PORT OF

SOUTH LOUISIANA, LAPLACE, LA

The South Louisiana Port Commission very much appreciates being given the opportunity to submit this statement and supportive material to signify its endorsement of the statement of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of the Louisiana Governor’s Task Force on Maritime Industry.

The Port of South Louisiana is comprised of nearly 54 miles of Mississippi River

north of New Orleans and south of Baton Rouge, with more than fifty private and

public docks and wharves. The Port of South Louisiana is the largest tonnage port

in the United States and third largest in the world, handling more than 216 million

short tons of cargo during 1998. Of this total tonnage, more than 100 million tons

are shipped in international trade by deep water vessel and 116 million tons are

shipped in domestic trade by vessels and barges. Each year more than 100,000

barges transport cargo at the Port of South Louisiana and more than 4,000 ships

call at the public and private wharves of our Port.

A recent study by Dr. Tim Ryan of the University of New Orleans indicates that

nearly 20 per cent of the domestic gross product of the State of Louisiana is dependent upon the maritime industry and one of twelve jobs is created from the economic

activity of the maritime industry. Attached you will find statistics which have been

developed from the records of the South Louisiana Port Commission.

The Port of South Louisiana strongly urges the Congress to fund all of the following projects.

1. Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA (Construction General)

2. Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging and GI

Funds For Navigation Study
668

3. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR–GO), LA., Maintenance Dredging

4. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA

5. Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA

6. Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA

7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX

8. Calcasieu Lock, LA

9. Calcasieu River & Pass, LA

10. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport

The Port of South Louisiana strongly believes that the funding and completion of

the above maritime projects will enhance the ability of the ports in the region to

be competitive in the global economy and will enhance the ability of domestic industry and agriculture to compete in the export of its products.

If we can provide any further information, please feel free to call upon me.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER P. RICHARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF

GREATER BATON ROUGE, PORT ALLEN, LA

The Port of Greater Baton Rouge respectfully requests that your committee give

favorable consideration to the following projects.

1. Mississippi River Ship Channel—Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana.—We support

full funding in fiscal year 1998–99 to the Corps of Engineers General Construction

Budget. This will allow for the completion of the saltwater intrusion mitigation plan

and the design studies for the fifty-five foot channel.

2. Mississippi River—Baton Rouge to the Gulf—Maintenance Dredging and GI

funds for navigation study.—We support maximum funding for maintenance dredging on this stretch of the river and for the navigation improvement study to reduce

long term maintenance cost.

3. Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.—Recommend approval of the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget of $700,000 in GI funds to continue the feasibility study and

to develop plans for replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock on the GIWW, Morgan City

to Port Allen alternate route.

As stated in previous correspondence, these two projects are vital not only to the

Port of Greater Baton Rouge but to the entire nation. The great Mississippi River

is the premier national waterway, providing accessibility to and from foreign countries for the transportation of goods and services used by countless numbers of U.S.

companies and individual citizens. The channel must be properly designed and

maintained for the benefit of all ports.

We also earnestly request your support for funding of the other projects included

in testimony prepared and submitted by Mr. Donald T. Bollinger. A summary of Mr.

Bollinger’s statement is attached. These projects are also extremely important to the

overall viability of the Mississippi River system and its tributaries. We must properly maintain our waterway infrastructure if we are to increase trade and have the

confidence of our trading partners around the world. Your cooperation and support

of these important projects for the Mississippi River are greatly appreciated.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLENWOOD W. WISEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAKE

CHARLES HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT, LAKE CHARLES, LA

The Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District respectfully requests favorable

consideration from you and your committee for the following projects.

1. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.—The District supports full funding for

the O&M general and supports additional funding for advanced maintenance dredging, disposal area renovations and bank stabilizing rock.

This project is vital not only to the Port of Lake Charles, but to many parts of

the nation. The Calcasieu River provides a route for oil and gas to enter the country’s 15th largest port and ultimately be distributed to the Midwest and Northeast

areas. The Port also provides a route for exports such as bagged grains, wood and

paper products, dry bulk materials and other commodities which originate from as

far as the Pacific Northwest.

The District also requests support for funding of the other projects included in the

testimony of Mr. Donald Bollinger. These projects are extremely important to Louisiana ports as well as the nation.

Your assistance with these matters are most appreciated.
669

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENNY ROUSSELLE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH GOVERNMENT, BELLE CHASSE, LA

In my official capacity as Parish President of Plaquemines Parish Louisiana, I am

herein requesting the following appropriations be made for fiscal year 2000:

1. MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (CONSTRUCTION GENERAL).—We recommend that the Corps be funded

to full capability in fiscal year 2000 to perform required work on the saltwater intrusion mitigation plan.

2. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF, MAINTENANCE

DREDGING.—We recommend that approval of the President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget of $64,430,000 under O&M General.

3. MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LOUISIANA.—The President’s

fiscal year 2000 Budget is $2,743,000 under O&M General. Recommend that Corps

be funded increased capability for repair of jetty-breakwater at Baptiste Collette.

We would certainly appreciate your consideration and all the assistance you can

give us in those projects.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. LEVINE, JR., PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED BRANCH

PILOTS, METAIRIE, LA

The Associated Branch Pilots is an Association of Pilots that have been guiding

oceangoing vessels into the entrances of the Mississippi River system for over 125

years. We are called Bar Pilots because we guide the ships past the constantly shifting and shoaling sand bars in the area.

Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River is the main entrance for deep draft oceangoing vessels entering the Lower Mississippi River System. It is the shallowest

stretch of the Lower Mississippi River System and the area that requires the greatest effort by the Corps of Engineers to maintain project depth.

In 1998, the Associated Branch Pilots made 12,697 transits on oceangoing vessels

through Southwest Pass. Of these ships, 3,252 were of 50,000 deadweight tons or

greater and 475 had a draft in excess of 40 feet.

This number of heavily laden vessels calling on the Lower Mississippi River System is a direct result of the completion by the Corps of Engineers of the deepening

of the channel from 40 feet to 45 feet.

This first phase has proven to be extremely well designed and well maintained

by the fact that the maximum draft recommended by my Association for vessels

using Southwest Pass has been 45 feet or greater, except for periods of extremely

high water that caused shoaling that overwhelmed the dredging efforts. This is in

stark contrast to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s when we often had to recommend

drafts less than the project depth due to shoaling.

To the world shipping community, this means that calling at ports on the Mississippi River system will be more profitable because larger ships can enter and

carry greater amounts of cargo.

This is beneficial to the entire United States because it makes the large quantities

of petroleum, agricultural, and manufactured products shipped from the Mississippi

Valley more desirable due to increased profitability.

I would also like to comment briefly on the East-West navigation channels near

Venice, Louisiana. Tiger Pass and Baptiste Collette provide a shorter, more direct

route to Breton Sound and the Gulf of Mexico for offshore supply boats and small

tugs and barges. These channels not only represent a savings in time and money

for these vessels, but reduce the traffic in the main shipping channel, the Mississippi River and its passes, which is one of the most congested waterways in the

country.

The dredging and maintaining of South Pass would contribute to the safety of the

overall waterway and, in my opinion, be of greater value than the much

The Associated Branch Pilots also pilot vessels in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a man-made tidewater channel 75 miles long, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico

to an intersection of the Intercoastal Waterway in New Orleans.

This channel leads to the Main Container Terminals for the Port of New Orleans,

the Roll On, Roll Off Terminal, the Port of New Orleans Bulk Handling Plant, and

additional General Cargo Docks. For the Port of New Orleans to remain competitive

in the ever growing container trade, the continued maintenance of this channel is

crucial. In 1998, 542 ships called on the port using the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

Much is being said pro and con concerning the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

There is, admittedly, an erosion problem in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, but

any curtailment of shipping traffic in the channel without regard to the long term
670

effect upon the Port of New Orleans would be disastrous. I strongly support approval of funding for both the maintenance dredging/jetty repair project and the erosion/rip rap study for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

I would also like to make a brief statement on behalf of the Mississippi Valley

Coal Export Council. Over 62 million tons of coal have been exported using the Mississippi River System during the past five years. Coal miners, tugboat captains,

barge owners, shippers and many other coal related workers have benefited by

using the consistent and efficient Mississippi River System. This also represents a

significant contribution towards the trade balance between the United States and

other industrialized nations.

Funding of the Corps of Engineers’ projects in the Lower Mississippi River System

has proven to be money well spent. It has increased exports and imports that have

benefited the entire United States. I urge your support of the funding requested to

enable the Corps to continue to maintain and improve the most efficient and productive waterway system in the country.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPT. MARK DELESDERNIER, JR., PRESIDENT, CRESCENT

RIVER PORT PILOTS’ ASSOCIATION, BELLE CHASSE, LA

Mr. Chairman: I have served as President of the largest pilot association in the

United States for the past seventeen (17) years. The Crescent River Port Pilots furnish pilots for ships destined to the Port of Baton Rouge, Port of South Louisiana,

Port of New Orleans, Port of St. Bernard, and the Port of Plaquemines.

The Crescent River Port Pilots piloted and shifted over seventeen thousand

(17,000) ships during 1998. We pilot deep draft vessels on more than one hundred

(100) miles on the lower Mississippi River and thirty five (35) miles on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

The lower end of our route on the Mississippi River has a shoaling problem starting with the high water season each year. The shoaling requires daily attention by

the United States Army Corps of Engineers to maintain project depth.

Heavy laden vessels call on the lower Mississippi River system as a direct result

of the completion by the Corps of Engineers of the deepening of the channel from

forty feet (40) to forty five (45) feet.

For several years now, we have had extraordinary success in keeping the river

dredges to project depth. This success is a direct result of an experienced and vigilant Corps of Engineers that, through experience, is able to timely bid in dredges

to avoid extra dredging cost by waiting to long to start maintenance dredging.

Channel stability sends a positive message to the world’s shipping community

that schedule cargo for deep draft vessels months in advance is reliable. This makes

the port call on the Mississippi River very profitable since the ships can lift greater

tonnage.

Keeping project depth is beneficial to twenty seven states that are directly tied

to the Mississippi River Port Complex.

Additionally I would like to comment on the east and west navigation channels

near Venice, Louisiana. Baptiste Collette and Tiger Pass provide a shorter and more

direct route to Breton Sound and West Delta in the Gulf of Mexico for oil field support vessels.

The Crescent River Port Pilots also pilot ships in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. A man-made channel approximately 75 miles long starting in Breton Sound in

the Gulf of Mexico and ending in New Orleans where it intersects with the Intercoastal Waterway.

The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet feeds the main container terminals in the Port

of New Orleans. Additional docks such as Bulk Terminal and general cargo facilities

depend on this channel which handled approximately 700 ship calls last year.

The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has been a controversial channel since its inception, but being an integral part of the Port of New Orleans, it would be a disaster

if it is not kept at project width and depth. The Crescent River Pilots strongly support approval of funding for both the maintenance dredging, jetty repair projects.

Funding of the United States Army Corps of Engineers projects in the lower Mississippi River system which includes the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Tiger Pass,

Baptiste Collette and Southwest Pass has proven to be money well spent.

I urge your support of the funding requested to allow the Corps of Engineers to

continue to maintain and improve the most productive waterway system in the

world.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to submit my comments

to your subcommittee.
671

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GOV. M.J. ‘‘MIKE’’ FOSTER, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF PUBLIC

WORKS AND INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office of Public

Works and Intermodal Transportation, is the agency designated to represent the

State of Louisiana in the planning and orderly development of its water resources.

This statement is presented on behalf of the State of Louisiana and contains recommendations for fiscal year 2000 appropriations for work in Louisiana under the

Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.

Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, which has the third

largest drainage basin in the world, exceeded only by the watersheds of the Amazon

and Congo Rivers. The Mississippi River drains 41 percent, or 11⁄4 million square

miles, of the contiguous United States and parts of two Canadian provinces. All of

the runoff from major river basins, such as the Missouri and Upper Mississippi, the

Ohio including the Tennessee and others, and the Arkansas and White, flow into

the Lower Mississippi, which empties into the Gulf of Mexico through Louisiana.

The jurisdiction of levee boards in Louisiana includes one-third of the State’s total

area. However, the importance of this one-third of the State can be seen by the fact

that it contains nearly 75 percent of the State’s population and about 90 percent

of the State’s disposable personal income. Traditionally, the levee district areas are

water rich and have fallen heir to industrial development that ranks high in the

nation. It has been estimated that about 60 percent of the State’s agricultural products come from levee district areas. So you can see why Louisiana and its twenty

levee districts are so interested in seeing the completion of the Mississippi River

and Tributaries Project.

In making the following recommendations regarding construction, studies, and

some selected operation and maintenance items, the State of Louisiana would hope

that Congress and the Administration will honor their prior commitments to infrastructure development and fund our requests.

The following Louisiana projects are those for which we are requesting an increase to the President’s budget request. For those Louisiana projects not listed we

agree with the President’s budget request. See the attached ‘‘Summary of Recommended Appropriations’’ for a complete listing.

Operation and Maintenance Request

Atchafalaya Basin .................................................................................. $19,125,000

Old River ................................................................................................ 8,110,000

Bonnet Carre .......................................................................................... 1,068,000

Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant (Lower Red

River, South Bank Levees) ................................................................ 2,950,000

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System ................................................... 1,702,000

The operation and maintenance of completed works are essential to achieving the

full benefits of the projects. In times of budget constraints it is essential that operation and maintenance not be delayed which would hamper the effectiveness of the

projects and cause more expensive maintenance at a later date. Specifically, there

are six levee slides at five locations along the West Atchafalaya Basin Protection

Levee which require immediate attention. We are requesting an additional $4.2 million to be designated for this purpose in the Atchafalaya Basin O&M account.

The Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant Project is authorized

under the Lower Red River, South Bank Levees of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. This project is considered major maintenance and additional funds of

$2.95 million are urgently needed to construct this project. We urge your support

for funding and request that specific language be included in the appropriations bill

to earmark the funds and direct the Secretary of the Army to construct this project.

All the above listed projects have reached a point where delayed maintenance is

now essential and we urge you to fund these projects in the amounts requested.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES (LA ONLY)—Request: $17,320,000

The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project above Louisiana is about 90 percent

complete, but to a much lesser extent in Louisiana. Because of the improvements

upstream, increased flows are a major problem in Louisiana where the project is

lagging behind the construction in the upper valley. We request funds for levee enlargement work within the Fifth Louisiana Levee District where there is a deficiency of 4 to 7 feet on mainline Mississippi River levees. It is also requested that

Federal funds be provided to purchase rights-of-way for this critical work as the
672

Levee District is in an economically depressed area and does not have a tax base

capable of producing the funds necessary for both maintenance and rights-of-way.

LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE—Request: $9,000,000

The Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee is the only section of Mississippi River

levee in Louisiana that is not currently constructed to Federal standards. It was authorized under the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project in 1986 and re-authorized in 1990. We urge your support in funding this project and request that specific

language be included in the appropriations bill to direct the Secretary of the Army

to construct this project before an emergency situation arises during a major river

flood. We also request authorization for credit for work accomplished by non-Federal

interests.

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN—Request: $27,750,000

This project is a main stem component of the flood control plan for the Mississippi

River and Tributaries Project. The Mississippi River can safely carry only one-half

of the project flood, or 1,500,000 cubic feet per second, below Old River; the other

1,500,000 cubic feet per second must be discharged through the Atchafalaya Basin.

The levees which must confine this flow to the basin are now deficient because they

have settled below original design grade due to consolidation of the underlying soils,

and the design has been revised upward. This places the lives and welfare of approximately 650,000 people and their property and improvements in 13 parishes in

the immediate vicinity of the Atchafalaya Floodway in jeopardy each flood year. The

tax assessment records indicate the value of potential flood losses to be approximately $8 billion, not including public improvements. Over the past half century,

we have supported the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and have agreed

that construction of flood protection works should start upstream and progress

downstream. As a result, the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project is now more

than 90 percent complete in sites upstream from Louisiana, while the levees in the

Atchafalaya Basin can contain approximately only 90 percent of the project flood.

Work on this project has been underway since 1928 and isn’t scheduled for completion until the year 2031—a date that continually keeps moving further into the future. With the reduced budgets being enacted, Louisiana may never realize the full

benefits of this project before the dreaded project flood occurs. We urge your support

for funding this effort to the full capability of the Corps.

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT (LA ONLY)—Request: $23,604,000

Channel improvements and stabilization provide protection of the levees and the

development behind them, as well as preventing unsatisfactory alignment where the

river’s bank is unstable. We are requesting an additional $2,500,000 for the Vicksburg District for fiscal year 2000 to keep the program moving forward. The funds

we are requesting will provide for the dredging and revetment work necessary to

accommodate increased flows caused by upstream improvements.

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER AREA (Sicily Island Area Levee

Project)—Request: $9,930,000

The funds for fiscal year 2000 are to be used to continue construction of levee

Items 2A and 2B, complete the HaHa Pumping Plant, Item 1E, levee Item 3B and

Fool River pumping plant. An additional $1 million is requested to advance the

award of Item 1C and 1D and acquisition of lands.

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM—Request: $8,000,000

The project consists of acquiring real estate interests, excluding minerals, in the

lower floodway for flood control, environmental protection, and public access purposes. The timing of the acquisition of land necessitates the increased funding request.

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION PROJECT, DAVIS POND—Request: $11,884,000

Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion Project is necessary to aid in the fight against

coastal erosion and land loss. The State of Louisiana’s commitment to this project

is demonstrated by our agreement to provide 25 percent of the cost of construction,

as well as operation and maintenance, of the Davis Pond structure despite Congressional project authorization at 100 percent Federal cost.

LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS

Historically, Louisiana has always done its part in cooperation with the Federal

agencies concerned with flood control. The Louisiana State Board of Engineers, the

forerunner of the Department of Transportation and Development, Office of Public

Works and Intermodal Transportation, was created in 1879, the same year as the
673

Mississippi River Commission, to coordinate the planning and construction of the

required flood control facilities to protect the State. Since that time, local expenditures for flood control have exceeded $730,000,000. This amount adjusted to 1979

dollars represents expenditures in excess of $5.3 billion. Nearly one-half of the potential flooded area of the Lower Mississippi River Valley lies in Louisiana. Local

expenditures for flood control have increased with the growth of the valley. This

record not only meets, but exceeds any National Water Policy local participation requirement ever put into practice.

CONCLUSION

The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has been underway since 1928 and

isn’t scheduled for completion until the year 2031—a date that continually keeps

moving further into the future. We understand the need for budget constraints, but

the President’s budget request of $280,000,000 for the total MR&T Project is not

adequate. We endorse the recommendation of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control

Association in their request for a minimum of $335,000,000 MR&T budget for funding to the full capability of the Corps throughout the whole valley.

The State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Office of

Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, in particular, wishes to commend the

Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development, and express our

appreciation for the foresight and understanding exhibited for water resources

projects which are vital to the national interest. We solicit your further consideration of the recommendations presented herein.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2000

Louisiana projects Budget request Louisiana

request

Operation and Maintenance:

Mississippi River Levees (LA only) ....................................................... $2,092,000 $2,092,000

Atchafalaya Basin ................................................................................. 10,560,000 19,125,000

Channel Improvement (LA only) ............................................................ 31,291,000 31,291,000

Old River Control Structure ................................................................... 4,027,000 8,110,000

Bonnet Carre Spillway ........................................................................... 1,068,000 1,068,000

Lower Red River, SOL—Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure & Pumping Plant ........................................................................................... ........................ 2,950,000

Tensas Basin:

Boeuf & Tensas Rivers, (LA only) ................................................ 1,406,000 1,406,000

Red River Backwater Area ........................................................... 2,927,000 2,927,000

Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System, LA ............................................. 644,000 1,702,000

Baton Rouge Harbor—Devil Swamp, LA .............................................. 157,000 157,000

Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries ............................................................ 101,000 101,000

Mississippi Delta Region, Caernarvon, LA ............................................ 436,000 436,000

Lower Red River—South Bank Levees ................................................. 84,000 84,000

Construction:

Mississippi River Levees (LA only) ....................................................... 13,020,000 17,320,000

Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee ....................................................... 3,000,000 9,000,000

Atchafalaya Basin ................................................................................. 19,750,000 23,750,000

Channel Improvements (LA only) .......................................................... 21,104,000 23,604,000

Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater Area ............................................ 8,903,000 9,930,000

Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System .................................................. 7,500,000 8,000,000

Mississippi Delta Region, Davis Pond .................................................. 10,400,000 11,884,000

Mississippi & Louisiana Estuarine Area (Bonnet Carre) ...................... 100,000 100,000

General Investigations:

Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico ........................................................... 700,000 700,000

Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico .......................................................... 700,000 700,000

Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico .................................................... 250,000 250,000

NOTE: The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana and directly affecting the State. We realize that there are

other projects in these areas. We endorse the recommendations of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association.
674

PREPARED STATEMENT OF M.V. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, WEST TENNESSEE TRIBU- TARIES ASSOCIATION, FRIENDSHIP, TN AND CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is M.V.

Williams and my home is in Friendship, Tennessee between the Middle and South

Forks of the Forked Deer River. I am the President of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association. It is also my pleasure to serve as Chairman of the Executive

Committee of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association with headquarters in

Memphis, Tennessee. This statement on behalf of the Association presents their

views on fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.

I will present several items of general interest to all our Membership. Other Members of the Association will present statements that will concern specific items of

interest.

Since there are new members of the Sub-Committee I will briefly discuss the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association which is an Agency composed almost entirely of public bodies having local responsibility for flood control, drainage, bank

stabilization and navigation improvements in parts of Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana. Our members are public officials who for the most part are elected by the people. The Association represents

practically all of the levee and drainage districts, municipalities, port and harbor

commissions and other state agencies in the Mississippi Valley, extending from Burlington, Iowa to the Gulf of Mexico. These organizations and agencies are political

subdivisions of the various states in which they are organized and function. We provide an agency through which the people of the Mississippi Valley may speak and

act jointly on all flood control, navigation, bank stabilization and major drainage

problems. We have appeared before the Sub-Committee and served the people in the

Mississippi Valley for well over sixty years.

Our Association is comprised of a very large group of individuals who are businessmen, property owners, conservationists, farmers, attorneys, doctors, wildlife enthusiasts, engineers, accountants, environmentalists, civil servants and elected officials from all political parties.

Our Objectives simply stated are:

To seek Congressional authorization for, and adequate annual appropriations for

the early completion of all flood control projects necessary for the protection of the

Lower Mississippi Valley against the maximum probable flood.

To secure prompt initiation of, and early completion of existing project for the stabilization of the banks of the Lower Mississippi River, in order to assure the integrity of the Main River Levee System; to provide increased flood discharge capacity,

permanency of location for harbor facilities and industrial sites, and to obtain deeper and more reliable navigation channels.

To support channel and major drainage improvements throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley to provide protection against headwater flooding, and to provide adequate outlets for local and state drainage projects.

To cooperate in every proper way with the Department of the Army, the Chief

of Engineers of the United States Army, the Mississippi River Commission and

other agencies to hasten the accomplishment of flood control in the Mississippi Valley.

We submit this testimony this year in support of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project which was established by the Flood Control Act of 1928.

Our Executive Committee is composed of business and professional men. They are

men of wide experience in business, professional and civic life. They are mature in

their judgment and responsible in their actions. It, therefore, has been no easy task

for that Committee to arrive at an asking figure based on urgent needs and yet tempered in the light of the grave fiscal problems which face the Federal Government.

I say these things to emphasize that our asking was not arrived at by whim and

fancy.

We have closely examined the President’s Budget Request for fiscal year 2000 and

find that it is completely inadequate for the Mississippi River and Tributaries

Project. The $280,000,000 that the President has requested is the same amount that

was requested last year, fortunately for the Nation the Congress in it’s wisdom increased that amount. We request that this Committee strongly consider a minimum

appropriation for fiscal year 2000 for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project

of $335,000,000.

In requesting that such moneys be appropriated for flood control and navigation

works of the Lower Mississippi Valley, we are not unmindful of the fact that in

these critical times our Nation is being called upon to rectify an economic condition

that needs immediate attention. We feel that we are justified in urging appropria-
675

tions for our project for the reason that the assets and resources of this great nation

must not be neglected during these times. We know of no other appropriation which

contributes as much to national wealth and resources as flood control and navigation for the major rivers of this country. Millions of acres which were overflow lands

decades ago are now highly productive and contributing to our national wealth.

These lands by reason of their geographic location are the most fertile of the nation.

They produce an abundance of food and fiber for the general welfare and prosperity

of the country. The inland waterways of the nation provide the cheapest and in

some cases the only method to move bulk commodities that are also absolutely essential to the general welfare and prosperity of the country. Moneys appropriated

by Congress for flood control and navigation has and will augment our national resources and improve our economic well-being. The appropriations made by Congress

for the Mississippi River and Tributaries project are investments in this nation’s future.

In closing let me reemphasize that federal works projects with proven merit such

as the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project represent a sound federal investment which will return to the tax payers of this country generous dividends. Such

federal investments contribute to the economic well being of the Nation by reducing

unemployment; adding to the stability and economic growth of agriculture and industry; and providing a flood free environment for the welfare of the people of the

Mississippi Valley.

We reaffirm the position we have always held that the physical geography of the

Mississippi River is such that flood control interests do not stop at the main river

but extend upstream along the adjacent tributary streams and valleys. The Flood

Control plan on the Mississippi River therefore cannot be considered adequate or

complete until the flood control plans for these valleys, authorized as a part of the

Mississippi River and Tributaries project, are completed.

Under our Constitutional form of Government the Citizens as the final authority

and for whose protection and welfare our Government exists, are entitled to the best

protection from Floods our Nation is capable of devising. We would respectfully request that this committee consider that during it’s deliberations of the Corps of Engineer’s fiscal year 2000 Appropriations.

We have attached a sheet to this statement that reflects the President’s Budget

Request and the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association’s request for Appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project for fiscal year 2000.

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 CIVIL WORKS BUDGETMISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS

Project and State Budget request MVFCA request

Surveys, continuation of planning and engineering & advance engineering

& design:

Mississippi River, Alexander Co., IL & Scott Co., MO .......................... $30,000 $30,000

Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS ............................................................ 675,000 675,000

Reelfoot Lake, TN .................................................................................. 318,000 318,000

Wolf River, Memphis, TN ....................................................................... 525,000 525,000

Bayou Meto Basin, AR .......................................................................... 1,767,000 1,767,000

Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico ..................................................... 700,000 700,000

Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico .................................................... 700,000 700,000

Donaldsonville LA to the Gulf of Mexico .............................................. 250,000 250,000

Collection & Study of Basic Data ......................................................... 365,000 365,000

Subtotal—Surveys, continuation of planning & engineering & advance engineering & design ........................................................ 5,330,000 5,330,000

Construction:

St. John’s Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO ........................................ 7,800,000 9,800,000

Eight Mile Creek, AR ............................................................................. 700,000 700,000

Helena & Vicinity, AR ............................................................................ 2,190,000 2,190,000

Grand Prairie Region, AR ...................................................................... 21,900,000 21,900,000

West Tennessee Tributaries, TN ............................................................ 2,398,000 2,398,000

Nonconnah Creek, TN ............................................................................ 2,500,000 2,500,000

St. Francis Basin, MO & AR ................................................................. 4,350,000 4,350,000

Yazoo Basin, MS ................................................................................... 24,279,000 40,985,000
676

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 CIVIL WORKS BUDGETMISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS—Continued

Project and State Budget request MVFCA request

Atchafalaya Basin, LA ........................................................................... 19,750,000 21,750,000

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System .................................................... 7,500,000 8,000,000

MS Delta Region, LA ............................................................................. 10,400,000 10,400,000

MS & LA Estaurine, Area, MS & LA ...................................................... 100,000 100,000

Louisiana State, Penitentiary, LA .......................................................... 3,000,000 7,400,000

Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, LA .............................................. 8,930,000 8,930,000

Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA ........................ 37,865,000 43,165,000

Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA ...................... 23,250,000 32,750,000

Subtotal—Construction .................................................................... 176,732,000 217,318,000

Subtotal—Maintenance .................................................................... 117,500,000 131,914,000

Subtotal—Mississippi River & tributaries ....................................... 299,652,000 354,562,000

Less reduction for savings & slippage ............................................ ¥19,562,000 ¥19,562,000

Grand total—Mississippi River and tributaries .............................. 280,000,000 335,000,000

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUBREY GRAVOIS, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

LAFOURCHE BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT, VACHERIE, LA

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES

Although there are no current or scheduled contracts within the jurisdiction of the

Lafourche Basin Levee District for levee enlargements and slope paving, we still

have a few areas which are below grade which needs to be elevated and slope paved.

Therefore, we are requesting that these small reaches be considered in future appropriations.

The Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District urges the subcommittees to appropriate as much funds as possible for the continuation of the

levee enlargement and concrete sloped pavements through out the State of Louisiana.

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS

The revetment construction program must be funded annually to prevent future

levee failures, land losses and relocations. The Lafourche Basin Levee District has

several areas of continued caving banks which concern us. Some of these banks are

along reaches where there are extremely very narrow battures and further these

areas are in locations where high tourism exist such as Oak Alley and Laura Plantations. The Lafourche Basin Levee District urges the committee to continue to appropriate as much funding as possible for the continuation of strong Channel Improvement Program. If caving banks are not controlled, the only answer is ‘‘set

back’’. There is very little room remaining available for levee setbacks in the jurisdiction of the Lafourche Basin Levee District.

DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO RECONNAISSANCE STUDY

The Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District is grateful for

the funding already submitted and received towards this very important study. For

years now we have been deeply concerned with the drainage and back water flooding problems that have been and is continuing to occur in this basin which covers

the jurisdictional boundaries of our levee district. The benefits from this study will

hopefully become a massive project which will be of great benefit and assistance to

the Lafourche Basin Levee District with regards to flood control efforts which will

include wetlands hydrology, conservation, restoration, and wildlife habitat. The

Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District has taking on the

responsibility of being the Local Sponsor of this subject study and we are urging

the committee to commit to additional funding to the amount of $500,000 for fiscal

year 2000. Budget contains $250,000.
677

THE LEVEE DISTRICT

The Lafourche Basin Levee District extends downstream from the City of

Donaldsonville to the Jefferson-St. Charles Parish Line area, a distance of 63 miles,

it includes the west (right descending) bank of the Mississippi River, and is comprised of portions of the following parishes: Ascension, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Charles, Lafourche, and Assumption. The Mississippi River westbank levee

is continuous through out the Parishes of Ascension, St. James, St. John the Baptist, and St. Charles Parishes.

Major industries have developed in the Lafourche Basin Levee District. One of the

largest is the Nuclear Power Plant or Energy in Taft, Louisiana. Others such as

ADM/Growmark, Agrico Chemical, CF Industries, Monsanto, Occidental Chemical

Corp., Shell Chemical Co., Triad Chemical, Union Carbide and others all reap the

benefits of being protected from the flooding of the Mississippi River through the

assets and contributions received for the MR&T Projects. Along with industrial

growth, our Levee District is continuing to experience an increase in residential and

urban expansions. A great portion of the rich land and soil in our levee district is

used for agricultural purposes.

Without the protection of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Flood Control

Project, the continued flood control and maintenance improvements of the Lower

River Valley Levees would not exist. The project is a necessity for us to be able to

continue to serve the national needs of our economy and continued growth of our

areas.

COMMENTS

The Lafourche Basin Levee District plans to continue to advise this subcommittee

of our current and future needs. We understand that all of the items of the MR&T

Flood Control Project are of extreme importance. We also understand that this year

we may not be able to submit oral testimony before the subcommittees as we have

done so in the past. We hope that we can return to this type process, so that we

can verbally voice our concerns in person for the problems which occur in the Lower

River Valley. Four representatives from the Lafourche Basin Levee District are here

today desiring to present views to the subcommittee and they are President Aubrey

Gravois, Commissioner Lloyd Becnel, Attorney Joseph C. Wiley, and Administrative

Manager, Randy Trosclair.

CONCLUSION

The Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District realizes that

the funding being discussed for water resources must be increased for the well being

of our country. The improvements received from the funds for the MR&T Flood Control Projects are the wealth of the country, and they pay back their cost several

times over and over. We must continue to protect our future. We along with many

other levee districts endorse the recommendations presented by the Association of

Levee Boards of Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association and the Red River Valley Association.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILLY J. FELTY, CHIEF ENGINEER, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE

DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

My name is Bill Felty. I am Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District of

Arkansas. I live in West Memphis, Arkansas which is located on the West side of

the Mississippi River in the St. Francis Basin.

The St. Francis Basin extends from the foot of Commerce Hills near Cape

Girardeau, Missouri to the mouth of the St. Francis River seven miles above Helena, Arkansas, a distance of 235 miles. It extends to the West to the uplands of

Bloomfield and Crowley’s Ridge, having a maximum width of 45 miles. The Basin

is comprised of an area of 3,500 square miles.

Within the St. Francis Basin and the Lower Mississippi Valley, we are witnessing

a great industrial expansion and the economy in the area is improving rapidly

throughout the entire basin especially along the Mississippi River. This industrial

growth and prosperity could not exist without the drainage and flood control protection made possible by the appropriations from your Committee for the Mississippi

River and Tributaries Project (MR&T). Since 1928, the MR&T Project has prevented

flood damages in the Lower Mississippi Valley totaling $231 billion at an investment of $9.9 billion. Additionally the MR&T Project has resulted in an annual

transportation savings on the Mississippi River totaling $1 billion.
678

As your Subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget for fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the MR&T Project, please consider the importance of this project to the

Lower Mississippi Valley and to the Nations economy and infrastructure. The

amount of $280,000,000 in the President’s Budget for use in the MR&T Project

throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley is far below the amount needed to keep

vital projects on schedule. Considering the impacts that the Lower Mississippi Valley has on the nations economy and infrastructure, it is essential that we keep this

project on track and complete it in a timely manner.

Therefore, we support the amount of $335,000,000 as requested by the Mississippi

Valley Flood Control Association for the fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Budget, Mississippi River And Tributaries Appropriations as shown on the enclosed Budget Request sheet. This is the minimum amount that the Executive Committee of the Association feels is necessary to adequately fund the projects and maintain the proposed schedules during the coming fiscal year.

The amount of $4,350,000 included in the President’s Budget for Construction on

the St. Francis River Basin Project in Arkansas and Missouri is sufficient to allow

for adequate progress on the projects within the Basin. However, the amount of

$6,300,000 included in the President’s Budget for Maintenance within the St.

Francis Basin is not sufficient to adequately maintain the existing projects and keep

them in a good state of repair. Therefore, I am requesting an additional capability

in the amount of $3,250,000 be added to the budget to provide for a total of

$9,550,000 in maintenance funds for the fiscal year for use in the St. Francis Basin

Project. The amounts requested are part of the total Mississippi River and Tributary

Appropriations of the Civil Works Budget.

I feel the Subcommittee will give fair consideration to the needs of the Mississippi

River and Tributaries Appropriations. I appreciate the time given and the work you

do to advance the development of the water resource projects.

We have a large number of members from the St. Francis Levee District here

today to attend the Appropriations Hearings. They have come to show their support

for the St. Francis Basin Project and the Mississippi River and Tributaries Projects.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE ORILLION, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT, PORT ALLEN, LA

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT

The Atchafalaya Basin Levee District was created in 1890 by the Louisiana Legislature and is the largest levee district in the State. The flood protection system

within the District includes levees on the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River,

Morganza Lower Guide and East and West Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levees.

The District is charged with the obligation of securing and clearing interfering facilities for rights-of-way for levee and levee drainage purposes, routine levee maintenance, borrow pit maintenance, and land management including oil, gas, mineral,

campsites, hunting, and other leases.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA PROJECT

The Atchafalaya River Basin, in south-central Louisiana, originates at the confluence of the Mississippi, Red, and Atchafalaya rivers near Simmesport. The basin

extends in a north-south direction from the latitude of Old River and Bayou Des

Glaises to the Gulf of Mexico.

The Atchafalaya River is the largest of all distibutaries of the Mississippi. Improvements in the Atchafalaya River Basin have been authorized by Congress and

constructed primarily under the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project.

Basin flood protection works are an integral and extremely important part of the

lower Mississippi River. The project allows one-half of the project design flood (1.5

million cubic feet per second) to be introduced into the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway

while the other half is allowed to continue down the main Mississippi River channel.

Floodways follow opposite sides of the Atchafalaya River to the end of the levee system along the river. There they merge into a single broad floodway that discharges

into the Gulf of Mexico through Wax Lake Outlet and the Lower Atchafalaya River.

Features of the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana project include levees, channel

dredging, locks, floodgates, control structures, Morganza Floodway and Control

Structure, pump stations, drainage structures, and drainage canals and enlargements.
679

LEVEE SLIDES, WEST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN PROTECTION LEVEE

A levee slide is a partial levee failure brought on by the soil’s properties of shrinking and swelling. This condition is affected by the soil’s moisture content and results

in a reduced shear strength. As the shear strength is reduced, the levee’s ability

to hold itself up is reduced until a portion of the levee breaks off.

There are currently six levee slides at five locations along the West Atchafalaya

Basin Protection Levee. Each slide area is shown in the table below.

Item Levee stations Slide length (Ft.)

W–46 .......................................................................................... 2552∂27 to 2573∂38 2,111

W–52 .......................................................................................... 2800∂00 to 2900∂00 10,000

W–58 .......................................................................................... 3047∂00 to 3054∂00 700

W–64 .......................................................................................... 3416∂00 to 3424∂00 800

W–64 .......................................................................................... 3499∂00 to 3503∂00 400

W–74 .......................................................................................... 3923∂00 to 3927∂00 400

These slides are of great concern to the Levee District and are in need of immediate attention. Traditionally, the levee district repairs minor slides in its normal

maintenance program. However, the larger failures which involve engineering expertise and funding beyond the means of the levee district are the responsibility of

the Corp of Engineers. In some cases the slides occur partially due to lack of proper

compaction during the original construction process. The estimated cost to repair

the slides is $4.2 million.

The Board of the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District respectfully requests that the

funds presented in the President’s budget for the Flood Control, Mississippi River

and Tributaries, Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana project, Operation and Maintenance

be increased by $4.2 million and that this $4.2 million be designated for the levee

slide repairs.
680

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REYNOLD S. MINSKY, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS, FIFTH LOUISIANA LEVEE DISTRICT, TALLULAH, LA

As each spring passes, the people of Louisiana sigh with relief. Another ‘‘high

River’’ season is over and all is well, yet each spring draws the region closer to the

inevitable, ‘‘Project Flood.’’ That surge of water flowing south, down the Mississippi

River Channel, draining 41 percent of the United States at a level not experienced

since 1927.

If it were to happen this spring, Louisiana and Mississippi would not be prepared.

Levees insufficient in height would give way to the force beyond their capabilities

to constrain. Lives would be lost and livelihoods destroyed that would take decades

to restore. The cost of restoring and rebuilding would be unequaled by any natural

disaster America has suffered.
681

Funding for adequate flood control in the Mississippi Valley now will be minimum

compared to the potential that exists if flood control projects are not completed as

currently planned.

The fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) Appropriations includes a total of $23,250,000 for ‘‘Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA.’’ Insufficient to divide among seven states and

be able to show significant improvement in flood control.

To guarantee that the Vicksburg District, Corp of Engineers is able to maintain

the level of progress needed to ensure MR&T construction schedules are met, it is

imperative that an additional $5,500,000 above the $9,750,000 proposed budget be

allocated for construction in the Vicksburg Corp District. Another $400,000 will be

necessary for proper levee maintenance.

The Mississippi River Levee System in Louisiana and Mississippi must be brought

to heights and capabilities equal to that of the levees stretching northward; otherwise, upper reaches of the Mississippi River Levee System will become a funnel,

protecting states to the north while directing havoc southward. Increased funding

for MR&T levee improvement projects in Louisiana and Mississippi is the only

means to eliminate this possibility.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDREY J. LAPLACE, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS, PONTCHARTRAIN LEVEE DISTRICT, LUTCHER, LA

These three items are of indispensable importance to the State of Louisiana.

There are serious project deficiencies in the Pontchartrain Levee District. Federal

appropriations must continue at adequate levels to move forward.

$42,000,000 for Mississippi River levees (Budget contains $23,250,000)

In the Pontchartrain Levee District several reaches of main line levee must be

enlarged and slope paved to advance from the current status of partial flood protection. During the 1997 high water an emergency levee cap was constructed at

Marchand to prevent overtopping and a possible crevasse. Enlargement and Slope

Pavement construction for the levee reach Marchand to Darrow is now completed,

as are two other items, Romeville to Remy and Remy to Garyville; all three items

accomplished while the Sierra Club’s consent decree has been in effect. This is a

credit to the Corps of Engineers. After slipping out of the program for the past two

years, funds are now badly needed for construction of the levee from Carville to

Marchand.

Future levee enlargements and slope paving are required in the Levee District.

The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District, urges the Subcommittees to appropriate $42,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 for Mississippi River levees.

$50,000,000 for channel improvement (Budget contain $37,685,000)

Main line levees must be protected from caving banks throughout this lower river

reach where extremely narrow battures are the last line of defense against levee

crevasses and failures. If caving banks are not controlled the only answer is ‘‘setback’’. Simply stated there is no room remaining for levee setbacks in the Pontchartrain Levee District. Revetment construction must be annually funded to prevent levee failures, land losses and relocations. This item also benefits the 55-foot

depth navigation channel. The Pontchartrain Levee District recommends at least

$50,000,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

$10,000,000 for Louisiana State Penitentiary (Budget contains $3,000,000)

Angola, Louisiana’s State Penitentiary, has been under River attack for more than

ten years, lost its front line levee and hundreds of acres agricultural areas to caving

banks. The Setback levee is extremely unstable, likely to fail under stress of the

next high water. Warden Burl Cain describes the situation as an acute emergency.

Inside the prison the City of Angola does exist, has its own Post Office, a population

of 627 tax paying citizens, and 138 residences. With a levee failure potential damages amount to $500,000,000. Currently, the only alternative is to move the 5,000

maximum security inmates into tents on higher ground. It is urgently recommended

that $10,000,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

$325,000,000 minimum recommended for all items of the MR&T flood control project

THE LEVEE DISTRICT

The Pontchartrain Levee District extends downstream from the City of Baton

Rouge to the New Orleans area, a distance of 115 river miles, includes the east (left

descending) bank of the Mississippi River, and is comprised of portions of East
682

Baton Rouge, Iberville, Ascension, St. James, St. John the Baptist and St. Charles

Parishes. The Mississippi River east bank levee is continuous throughout the Levee

District, including the Bonnet Carre Floodway. We serve as the local sponsor for the

St. Charles Parish Hurricane Protection Levee, now in the eighth year of construction, designed to protect the Parish, a portion of New Orleans and its International

Airport from hurricane tides. The West Shore Hurricane Protection Project, St. John

the Baptist Parish, is now involved in a Feasibility Study and this Levee District

is again serving as Local Sponsor.

Extensive development of major industries has taken place in the Pontchartrain

Levee District and is continuing. Along with industrial growth, our Levee District

is experiencing dramatic increase in residential and urban expansions. Substantial

portions of the Levee District area are used for agriculture. Three nationally ranked

deep-water ports are companions to the Pontchartrain Levee District—the Baton

Rouge Port, South Louisiana Port, and New Orleans Port. A portion of the New Orleans International Airport is also located within the district.

All these features and many other improvements along with more than one million residents are protected by the Mississippi River and Tributaries Flood Control

Project in this Levee District. Only through continuous, effective flood control improvements and maintenance can this area and the Lower River Valley meet requirements to serve national needs for its economy and continued growth.

COMMENTS

The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the necessity of keeping

this Subcommittee advised of current and future needs for federal monetary support

on vital items of the MR&T Flood Control Project. In 1995, 1996 and 1997 the Subcommittees refused to give audience to the Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control

Association seven (7) state delegation. This year we have been advised that no oral

testimony will be heard. Again, this is a great travesty of justice. Such actions seriously erode the partnership that has been built between the Corps of Engineers and

local sponsors. We trust that this pattern will revert back to the sixty-three year

practice of hearing our delegation. Four representatives from the Pontchartrain

Levee District are present today desiring to present views to the Subcommittees—

they are Commissioner Joseph Gautreau, Vice President; Commissioner LeVerne B.

Brown; Commissioner Michael Reames; and Gerald Dyson, Executive Assistant.

NEAR FUTURE IS UNCERTAIN—ITS UP TO CONGRESS

In the search for new ways to accomplish required flood control and other water

resources projects, Congress must remain mindful not to jerk the rug out from

under its own feet and our own. Without protection there will be few jobs, farms,

industries, businesses, voters and related activities. Congress should know that we

in the Lower Mississippi Valley do not have the option to say ‘‘No’’. Also it stands

that Congress should not have the option to reduce, remove or stop federal responsibility for controlling national water, whether in flood or drought. With respect to

Louisiana most of its runoff is generated outside the State area for all its main carrier rivers, including Mississippi, Red, Ouachita, Black, Atchafalaya Floodway, Pearl

and Sabine Rivers. In Louisiana we have a comprehensive flood control plan sponsored, operated and maintained by some 23 Levee Districts to handle and provide

for safe passage of almost one half the nation’s waters. This invokes federal involvement, don’t mess up the system.

CONCLUSION

The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District, compliments the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for its keen understanding of real

needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project and efficient, alert actions taken to appropriate funds for its many complex requirements. We endorse recommendations

presented by the Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana, Louisiana Department

of Transportation and Development, Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association

and Red River Valley Association.
683

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUBREY J. LAPLACE, PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS, PONTCHARTRAIN LEVEE DISTRICT, LUTCHER, LA

IN SUPPORT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN & VICINITY HURRICANE

PROTECTION, LOUISIANA—ST. CHARLES PARISH AND WEST SHORE

THE PROJECTS

These recommendations are limited to two separable items under the project

‘‘Lake Pontchartrain & Vicinity, Hurricane Protection, Louisiana’’, (1) St. Charles

Parish authorized in 1965 and (2) West Shore, St. John the Baptist Parish, authorized in 1974. Federal funding is required for construction on (1) St. Charles Parish

and Feasibility Study on (2) West Shore.

Funding requirements, fiscal year 2000

St. Charles Parish, Construction .......................................................... $6,000,000

West Shore, Feasibility Study .............................................................. 600,000

OBJECTIVES

St. Charles Parish.—The Accelerated Plan has been developed in conjunction with

the Corps of Engineers whereby the ten mile levee system first lift and drainage

structures can be completed in a five year period, providing a closed system and protection from hurricane tides to elevation 9.0. We are now entering the second year

of the five year plan. Additional levee lifts will be added to raise the levee system

to elevation 13.5 as consolidation will allow.

West Shore.—The Feasibility Study is moving satisfactorily and must be completed on schedule, two more years. Local 50 percent funding has been deposited

in an escrow account, matching federal funds are now required.

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

The St. Charles Parish Hurricane Protection Levee is ten miles in length, has five

drainage structures, extends from the Bonnet Carre Floodway to New Orleans International Airport and is situated about four hundred feet north of U.S. Hwy. 61. Construction cost is estimated at $99,000,000 financed at 70 percent Federal and 30

percent Local (Pontchartrain Levee District). Project is now 30 percent complete.

Local contributions have been deposited in an escrow account and now exceed the

30 percent local funding requirement compared to federal funds. When the first lift

and structures are completed, immediate protection to elevation 9.0 will be in place,

whereas now there is nothing to prevent extensive, devastating flooding in St.

Charles Parish, a portion of Jefferson Parish and New Orleans International Airport. Then additional lifts will be added to raise the levee to elevation 13.5 as consolidation will allow.

The West Shore Hurricane Protection Levee will provide tidal flooding protection

to the Town of LaPlace and vicinity, St. John the Baptist Parish. Other improvements to be protected are reaches of I–10 and I–55 along with U.S. Highways 61

and 51, and State Highways. These are designated evacuation routes for New Orleans metro area. The Benefit/Cost ratio is 2.1, and estimated construction cost is

$60,000,000. The Pontchartrain Levee District is serving as Local Sponsor in partnership with St. John the Baptist Parish Council.

These are two critical emergency projects, we have local funds now available, and

the next move is in the hands of Appropriation Subcommittees on Energy and

Water Development. You must act now.

Representatives of the Pontchartrain Levee District appeared at the Subcommittee Staff Office to submit this statement and answer any questions. They are

Commissioners Joseph Gautreau, Vice President, Commissioner Michael Reames,

Commissioner LeVerne B. Brown and Gerald Dyson, Executive Assistant. You may

call either of them or the undersigned at any time for information, (225) 869–9721.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. WEILAND, P.E., CEO AND CHIEF ENGINEER,

YAZOO-MISSISSIPPI DELTA (YMD) LEVEE BOARD

This statement has been prepared by Kenneth L. Weiland, P.E., CEO and Chief

Engineer for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta (YMD) Levee Board. It is submitted today,

March 23, 1999, on behalf of the entire Levee Board and the citizens we represent

in the Mississippi Delta, which includes the Yazoo and Sunflower River Basins. In

addition to the funding request contained herein, the YMD Levee Board also supports the general funding testimony for fiscal year 2000 as submitted by the Mis-
684

sissippi Valley Flood Control Association. As members of this Association, we join

in their praises of your continuing support for the important flood control projects

within the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) Project.

We are very concerned about the Administration’s continued submittal of budgets

containing severely inadequate funding levels for flood control projects within the

MR&T project. Consequently, both Levee Boards in Mississippi are making efforts

to address these concerns with key Administration officials as well as our Congressional delegations. It is our desire to facilitate better support and understanding of

the importance of the MR&T project by policy and budget decision makers within

the Administration to reduce or eliminate the complete Congressional overhauls of

the MR&T budget that have been required in recent years.

After careful consultation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials, the YMD

Levee Board continues our support and request for a minimum annual funding level

of 335 million dollars for the timely completion and maintenance of the MR&T

project. Following the devastating flood of 1927 on the Mississippi River, the Flood

Control Act of 1928 verified the national priority placed on the development of a

comprehensive flood control plan (the MR&T project) to minimize the likelihood of

such devastation occurring again in the lower Mississippi valley. The wisdom of this

Act is obvious today, seventy-one years later, by the fact that the project has yielded

20 dollars of benefits for every dollar invested in the project. Unfortunately, however, a substantial amount of work is still uncompleted on the project that exposes

many areas to the risk of flood devastation. The YMD Levee Board makes its most

urgent and ardent appeal that proper funding be provided by Congress for the

MR&T project. Your past support of this vital work verifies your recognition of the

consequences to the nation that would result from allowing the MR&T project to become vulnerable to a catastrophic failure of any one of its major components due

to delays and neglect caused by inadequate funds.

The following paragraphs identify certain projects within our Levee District that

merit special mention. For your convenience, we have provided a detailed, tabular

listing of key components of our funding request for fiscal year 2000 at the end of

this statement. As you will note, the requested funding levels in the table are supported jointly by both Levee Boards in Mississippi.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES AND CHANNELS MAINTENANCE

As stated above, there can be no question of the importance of the continued construction and maintenance of the mainline levee system and channel protection on

the Lower Mississippi River. The YMD Levee Board is proud of our long record of

protection of the mainline levee in our District and understands that your generous

funding to insure adequate major maintenance of these features of the project is the

key to preventing a catastrophic failure of the system. Again we emphasize the importance of adequate funding of the MR&T project, especially with respect to maintenance of the mainline levees and the Mississippi River channel.

UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS

Following the destructive flood of 1932, Congress authorized the formulation of a

plan that would reduce the risk of flooding of the Mississippi Delta from the uncontrolled release of headwater out of the hills in north central Mississippi. The original plan, released in 1936, included a system of flood control reservoirs that would

discharge into a system of channels and levees that could safely convey the headwater from the hills to the Mississippi River. In the late 1980’s, this project was

forced into reformulation under the guise of environmental concern. Reformulation

of the Upper Yazoo Project (UYP) was completed in late 1993. Construction was immediately resumed on the project, and outstanding progress has been made since.

The tabular funding request attached to the end of this statement reflects a request

for the funding necessary to assure that progress on the UYP continues. The requested funding will support the necessary work to complete the UYP to the city

of Greenwood, MS, long considered a milestone in the overall completion of the

project. The YMD Levee Board is very appreciative of the Congressional support of

this project in past appropriations and respectfully requests funding as shown to assure that construction on this project can proceed as rapidly as possible to completion.

YAZOO HEADWATER FLOOD CONTROL RESERVOIRS

As mentioned above, four major flood control reservoirs exist in Mississippi to control the release of headwater into the Yazoo River system. These reservoirs are

Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada. The reservoirs have prevented an enormous

amount of flood damages by allowing drainage from the hills to be released into the
685

Delta at a rate that prevents flooding. The proper maintenance and operation of

these reservoirs is therefore critically important to all citizens living downstream of

them in the Delta. The YMD Levee Board has specified a reasonable request for

maintenance funding of the infrastructure associated with these reservoirs. Providing the requested funding will allow the Corps to make the necessary repairs and

operational improvements consistent with the critical role these reservoirs play in

protecting the Mississippi Delta.

SUNFLOWER RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PROJECT

Over time, all streams in the Delta lose their capacity to convey design discharges

due to siltation in the bottom of the streams. In the month of July, 1989, sections

of the Mississippi Delta along the Sunflower River system experienced significant

flooding over half grown row crops of food and fiber. In response to this devastation,

the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners (MLB), located in Greenville, MS, requested a study by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine whether the reduction of the Sunflower River system flow capacities had contributed to the flooding,

and thus, whether the Corps should begin its obligatory maintenance of the channels in this system. Subsequent surveys by the Corps reflected loss of channel capacity from the original design of approximately forty (40) percent. Studies were

made and plans completed by the Corps for the work necessary to perform this

major maintenance. The YMD Levee Board, whose District shares in the damages

resulting from the overflow of the rivers in this area, and the MLB serve as the

local sponsors of this project and have joined as intevenors on behalf of the Corps

to defend this work from litigation that has been filed to delay this important work.

We are very optimistic that all legal roadblocks will be removed and urge the requested funding levels be provided so that no delays occur once these litigation matters have been resolved.

DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL PROJECT

In past years, Congress has provided funds for the continuation of construction

of measures to control erosion and sedimentation in streams located primarily in the

headwater area of the Yazoo Basin. Though most of this work is located outside of

the physical limits of our District, the YMD Levee Board supports your continued

funding of these projects due to the fact that substantial amounts of the sediments

controlled by the projects would eventually end up in the Coldwater-TallahatchieYazoo River system. Such sedimentation would result in significant additional maintenance on this system to prevent the loss of capacity of these rivers to carry the

design discharges from the four major flood control reservoirs. (Arkabutla, Sardis,

Enid, Grenada)

YAZOO TRIBUTARIES STUDY

The Yazoo Tributaries Study is the last phase of the MR&T project in the Yazoo

Basin. This study will identify work necessary for proper drainage and flood control

on the major tributaries to the Yazoo River system. Upon completion of the before

stated UYP, construction on these tributary streams can begin. The YMD Levee

Board therefore urges Congress to provide adequate funding for the timely completion of this study.

Project

Fiscal year 2000—

President’s

submitted

budget

MLB Levee

Board, YMD

Levee Board

funding request

Requested

congressional

add-ons

Yazoo Basin

Construction:

Upper Yazoo Project ................................................. $11,620,000 $13,700,000 $2,080,000

Upper Steele Bayou .................................................. 3,915,000 4,500,000 585,000

Tributaries ................................................................ 340,000 340,000 ........................

Yazoo Backwater ...................................................... 520,000 1,000,000 480,000

Reformulation (backwater & tributaries) ................. 1,570,000 1,570,000 ........................

Demonstration Erosion Control ................................. 6,294,000 20,000,000 13,706,000

Maintenance:

Big Sunflower River .................................................. 209,000 4,800,000 4,591,000
686

Project

Fiscal year 2000—

President’s

submitted

budget

MLB Levee

Board, YMD

Levee Board

funding request

Requested

congressional

add-ons

Tributaries ................................................................ 1,269,000 1,300,000 31,000

Arkabutla .................................................................. 3,265,000 4,900,000 1,635,000

Sardis ....................................................................... 4,334,000 7,300,000 2,966,000

Enid .......................................................................... 3,214,000 4,400,000 1,186,000

Grenada .................................................................... 4,280,000 6,600,000 2,320,000

Mississippi River Levees

Construction:

MS Valley Division .................................................... 23,250,000 35,750,000 12,500,000

Memphis District ............................................. 7,500,000 13,500,000 6,000,000

Vicksburg District ............................................ 9,750,000 15,300,000 5,550,000

Maintenance:

MS Valley Division .................................................... 3,736,000 4,686,000 950,000

Memphis District ............................................. 1,460,000 2,410,000 950,000

Vicksburg District ............................................ 1,269,000 1,700,000 431,000

The figures provided in the table above are based on our assessment of projected

Corps capabilities using the best information available as of 17 March, 1999. The

YMD Levee Board and the MLB Levee Board support funding at the full capability

of the Corps in order to complete our important flood control projects in a timely

and effective manner. Please do not hesitate to call us if you have questions or comments regarding this information.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES E. WANAMAKER, CHEIF ENGINEER, BOARD OF

MISSISSIPPI LEVEE COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am James E. Wanamaker, Chief

Engineer for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Greenville, Mississippi,

and I have the privilege of presenting this statement on behalf of this Board and

the Citizens of the Levee District. Our Levee District consists of the counties of Bolivar, Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren in the

Lower Yazoo Basin in Mississippi.

As in past years, we remind you that the Mississippi River and Tributaries

Project is one of if not the most cost-effective projects ever undertaken by the United

States. The foresight used by the Congress in their authorization of the many features of this project is exemplary. Annual funding for this project needs to be

$350,000,000 for construction to stay on schedule. We continue to be aware of the

desire of the Congress to balance the Federal budget and appreciate the effort made

by the Congress to provide the maximum funding available for this work. The Congressional adds for fiscal year 1999 have kept construction moving in the Basin at

an acceptable pace. The Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association will be

submitting a general statement in support of the appropriation of $335,000,000 for

fiscal year 2000 for the construction, surveys, advanced engineering and the operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. The Lower

Mississippi River receives flood water from 41 percent of the continental United

States and has experienced water levels above flood stage for the past 6 years.

The President’s Budget request again falls far short of the needs and capabilities

of the Corps of Engineers for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project that includes work on the Mainline Mississippi River Levees and the Yazoo Basin Projects.

The following table outlines what the Congress appropriated last year, the President’s Budget request and our request for your consideration while deliberating the

appropriation for this year.
687

YAZOO BASIN FLOOD CONTROL FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY

Project

Fiscal year—

1999

Appropriations

2000 President’s

Budget Request

2000 Levee

Board (Local

Sponsor)

Construction:

Yazoo Backwater ...................................................... $500,000 $520,000 $1,000,000

Upper Steele Bayou .................................................. 4,500,000 3,915,000 4,500,000

Demonstration Erosion Control ................................. 13,500,000 6,294,000 20,000,000

Tributaries ................................................................ 200,000 340,000 340,000

Upper Yazoo Project ................................................. 10,000,000 11,620,000 13,700,000

Maintenance:

Big Sunflower ........................................................... 2,500,000 209,000 4,800,000

Arkabutla .................................................................. 3,700,000 3,265,000 4,800,000

Enid .......................................................................... 3,270,000 3,214,000 4,400,000

Grenada .................................................................... 4,330,000 4,280,000 6,600,000

Sardis ....................................................................... 5,300,000 4,334,000 7,300,000

Tributaries ................................................................ 1,238,000 1,269,000 1,300,000

Total ..................................................................... 49,038,000 39,260,000 68,740,000

Mississippi River Levees

Construction:

Vicksburg District 1 ................................................... 14,850,000 9,750,000 15,300,000

Lower MS River Valley Division 2 .............................. 30,750,000 23,250,000 35,750,000

Maintenance:

Vicksburg District 1 ................................................... 2,251,000 1,269,000 1,600,000

Lower MS River Valley Division 2 .............................. 6,500,000 3,736,000 4,686,000

1 Vicksburg District includes portions of the states of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

2 Lower MS Valley Division includes portions of the states of Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

It is imperative that the work on the Mainline Mississippi River Levee Enlargement Project move forward as fast as funding will allow. We are requesting an appropriation for mainline levees of $35.75 million, which will allow the continuation

of two construction contracts enlarging 18 miles of the most deficient levee in Mississippi near Mayersville. These additional funds will also allow the initiation and

completion of relief wells on the Magna Vista to Brunswick Item protecting our area

of greatest underseepage problems during the recent high waters.

The Reformulation of all remaining work in the Yazoo Basin has delayed construction for as much as 5 years on the Upper Steele Bayou and Upper Yazoo

Projects. Our request includes additional funding necessary to assure that construction continues on the remaining projects in the Yazoo Basin.

Our request includes $4.5 million for the Upper Steele Bayou Project which will

allow the Vicksburg District to complete Main Canal Item 2 which comes up

through the City of Greenville and also Item 2 on Black Bayou. This funding increase will also allow for the award of Black Bayou Item 3 which also provides

drainage to Greenville, Mississippi. The Vicksburg District will be able to complete

phase 4 on Item 66–A at Swan Lake as part of the ongoing work at the Yazoo Wildlife Refuge.

One million dollars is requested for the Vicksburg District to initiate the design

for the project in anticipation of the completion of the Reformulation Report. Preliminary information indicates that there will be an alternative with a positive benefit cost ratio. The Mississippi Levee Board is currently scheduling meetings with

public and private environmental groups in an effort to arrive at a plan for this

project to provide flood protection and environmental benefits to the South Delta

area.

We are requesting $4.8 million to initiate construction of Items 2 and 3 on the

Big Sunflower Maintenance Project. The Big Sunflower River is the outlet for a

major portion of the Mississippi Delta, including parts of 10 Counties. This is also

the outlet relied upon for 60 Drainage Districts in the Mississippi Delta. The two

Mississippi Levee Boards are currently intervenors in both the State and Federal

litigation involving the work planned for this project. It is our opinion that the
688

Corps of Engineers has made a strong argument in both cases and with out these

funds construction will be delayed at least a year with the successful out come of

this litigation.

Our request also includes additional funding for the Upper Yazoo Project and

maintenance of the Mississippi Reservoirs that provide protection to the eastern

portion of the Mississippi Delta. The increased funding will allow the Upper Yazoo

Project to continue upstream to Greenwood and the reservoir funding will allow the

Corps to complete long awaited maintenance on our four lakes and Dams. Demonstration Erosion Control and Tributaries features of the Yazoo Basin Appropriation will reduce sediment to the Delta streams reducing long term maintenance

needs.

We are grateful for the consideration given to us each year by the Committee and

appreciate the opportunity to present our requests to you at this time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF A. LYNN LOWE, PRESIDENT, RED RIVER VALLEY

ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION

The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens banded together

to advance the economic development and future well-being of the citizens of the

four state Red River Basin area in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.

For the past 74 years, the Association has done notable work in the support and

advancement of programs to develop the land and water resources of the Valley to

the beneficial use of all the people. To this end, the Red River Valley Association

offers its full support and assistance to the various Port Authorities, Chambers of

Commerce, Economic Development Districts and other local governmental entities

in developing the area along the Red River.

The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association during its 74th

Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February 18, 1999, and represent the

combined concerns of the citizens of the Red River Basin area as they pertain to

the goals of the Association, specifically: Economic and Community Development;

Environmental Restoration; Flood Control; Bank Stabilization; A Clean Water Supply for Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Agriculture Uses; Hydroelectric

Power Generation; Recreation; and Navigation The.

Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the federal budget,

and has kept those restraints in mind as these Resolutions were adopted. Therefore,

and because of the far-reaching regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects covered in these Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review the materials contained herein and give serious consideration to funding the

projects at the levels requested.

RRVA TESTIMONY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Lynn Lowe, and I am pleased

to represent the Red River Valley Association as its President. Our organization was

founded in 1925 with the express purpose of uniting the citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to develop the land and water resources of the Red

River Basin.

We appreciate the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget submission of $3.9 billion

from his fiscal year 1999 submission of $3.3 billion (21.5 percent increase); however,

we take exception to the programs earmarked for the increase. Most all of it will

go to deep-draft ports and channels and environmental programs. The traditional

programs, inland waterways and flood protection remained at the low, unacceptable

level as last year. These traditional civil work projects are the backbone to our nation’s infrastructure for waterways, flood control and water supply. We remind you

that these projects are a true ‘jobs program’ in that 100 percent of the construction

is contracted to the private sector as is much of the architect and engineer work.

Not only do these funds provide jobs, but provide economic development opportunities for our communities to grow and prosper.

The civil works program is a catalyst that is responsible for the great economy

we now experience. It would be irresponsible to allow our nation’s infrastructure to

deteriorate, or worse, stop its growth in a time when America must be the leader

in the world market. Our inland waterways is the key to our dominance in world

trade. This is a pivotal budget year where critical decisions must be made which

will determine our future economic strength.

We ask you to correct this imbalance in distribution of funds within the Corps

and to fund the Corps of Engineers at the level of $4.7 billion which will realistically
689

fund the ongoing programs. We also request you place in your budget language that

recognizes the importance of our nation’s waterways and the positive economic impact civil work activities have to our citizens.

I would like to comment on our specific requests for the future economic wellbeing of the citizens residing in the four state Red River Basin area.

Navigation.—The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the expectations

of the benefits projected. The average tonnage moved in 1995 through 1997 was 3.1

million tons and the projected tonnage to justify the project is 3.3 million tons. Estimates for 1998 are 3.4 million tons. We are extremely proud of our public ports,

municipalities and state agencies who have created this success. New facilities

opened in 1998 included a fertilizer terminal at Alexandria and stone distribution

at the Port of Shreveport-Bossier. Liquid petroleum shipments increased in 1998 as

did commercial stone operations. Currently under construction, at our ports, are a

wood chip barge loading system, new liquid petroleum tank farm, fertilizer facility

and two general cargo warehouses. You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete, ten percent remains, $200 million. We appreciate the President’s budget level

of $21 million; however, we respectfully request the expressed Corps capability of

$25.1 million. In order to keep the waterway safe and reliable we must continue at

a funding level higher than the President’s Budget. The RRVA formed a Navigation

Committee for industry, the Corps and Coast Guard to partner in making our Waterway a success. This effort has reaped many benefits. We can not sacrifice what

has been accomplished by inadequate funding levels.

In fiscal year 1999 you reprogrammed funds to initiate the feasibility study to extend navigation from Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana into the State of Arkansas.

It is imperative that you continue funding this important study and reprogram the

remaining $582,600 from the ‘Daingerfield Reach’ study. Many areas continue to

suffer major unemployment, and the navigation project, although not the total solution, will help revitalize the economy in this region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service ‘Planning Aid Report’ indicated minimal impact and most probably an enhancement to environmental value. Last summer colonies of least terns (an endangered species) were found on stabilized sandbars in the Waterway in Louisiana as

well as increased migratory birds due to the newly formed pools. This will be a multipurpose project addressing navigation, hydropower, bank stabilization and environmental restoration. I want to stress that the local sponsor, the Red River Commission of Arkansas, has available their 50 percent cost share for the complete feasibility study. Few local sponsors have funds ‘in the bank’ and are also willing to

fund additional studies to insure a complete analysis is made.

Bank Stabilization.—One of the most important continuing programs on the Red

River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North Louisiana. We must stop the loss

of valuable farmland that erodes down river and interferes with the navigation

channel. In addition to the loss of farmland is the threat to public utilities such as

roads, electric power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in the

navigable waterway. These revetment projects are compatible with subsequent navigation and we urge that they be continued in those locations designated by the

Corps of Engineers to be the areas of the worst erosion. We appreciate Congressional funding in fiscal year 1999 and request you again fund this project at a level

of $17 million.

It is essential to protect the banks from caving and erosion along the Red River

below Denison Dam, Texas to Index, Arkansas along the Texas/Oklahoma border.

The Federal Government constantly encourages its farmers to protect their lands

against all forms of erosion, so it only makes sense to be consistent. An authorized

project exists; ‘Red River Waterway, Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX, Bank Stabilization’, so the issue lies with the benefit/cost ratio. We believe that the authorized,

on going ‘Sediment Transport Study’ will identify benefits due to reduced dredging

cost to the navigable Waterway in Louisiana.

There is a new technique for bank stabilization which could be tested as a demonstration project under this authorization. This new technique, underwater

bendway weirs, has proven to be less expensive than conventional methods and

more efficient in controlling the energy of the river as well as providing environmental benefits. Much prime farmland in Oklahoma and Texas is lost each year to

river erosion and we must investigate all avenues to correct this problem. You funded the initiation of this project last year and we request you continue that funding

this year at a level of $5.8 million, the expressed Corps capability.

Flood Control.—You will recall that in 1990 major areas of northeast Texas,

Southwest Arkansas and the entire length of the Red River in Louisiana were ravaged by the worst flooding to hit the region since 1945 and 1957. More than 700,000

acres were flooded with total damages estimated at $20.4 million. However, it could

have been much worse. The Corps of Engineers estimates that without the flood
690

control measure authorized by Congress over the past several decades an additional

1.3 million acres would have been flooded with an estimated $330 million in additional flood damage to agricultural and urban developments.

We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request you continue

funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in Arkansas and Texas. Four of

eleven items have been completed and levees rehabilitated to meet federal standards. $5 million will construct two more items; completing Miller County, AR and

starting levees in Lafayette County, AR.

In addition, Bowie County levee, in Texas, is crucial to the integrity of the Arkansas levee system. Should the Bowie levee fail flood waters will inundate behind the

just completed Miller County levees in Arkansas. It is important to have this projected funded for $900,000, for the ‘locally preferred’ option, according to cost sharing under the Flood Control Act of 1946 not withstanding economic justification.

Clean Water.—Nearly 3,500 tons of natural salts, primarily sodium chloride, enter

the upper reaches of the Red River each day, rendering downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The Truscott Brine Lake project, which is located on the

South Fork of the Wichita River in King and Knox Counties, Texas became operational in 1987. An independent panel of experts found that the project not only continues to perform beyond design expectations in providing cleaner water, but has

an exceptionally favorable cost benefit ratio. $16 million dollars was appropriated

in fiscal year 1995, by the Administration, to accelerate engineering design, real estate acquisition and initiate construction of the Crowell Brine Dam, Area VII and

Area IX. Due to a conflict over environmental issues, raised by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, completion of the SFEIS was delayed pending further study to determine the extent of possible impacts to fish and wildlife, their habitats and biological communities along the Red River and Lake Texoma. In an effort to resolve

these issues and insure that no harmful impact to the environment or ecosystems

would result, a comprehensive environmental and ecological monitoring program

was implemented. It evaluates the actual impacts of reducing chloride concentrations within the Red River watershed. This base line data is crucial to understanding the ecosystem of the Red River basin west of Lake Texoma and funding

for this must continue.

Dr. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in October 1998

agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River Basin. Completion of this

tributary will reclaim Lake Kemp as a usable water source for the region. We request the expressed Corps capability of $2.1 million to continue this important

project.

Operation & Maintenance.—We appreciate the support of your subcommittee to

support the completion of navigation to Shreveport/Bossier City which is now providing an increase to our industrial base, creating jobs and providing economic

growth. We request that O&M funding levels remain at the expressed Corps capability to maintain a safe, reliable and efficient transportation system. As experienced this past year failure to maintain a revetment for $500,000, when the problem

was first identified, resulted in a catastrophic failure of the revetment and adjacent

levee. This led to an emergency repair of $5 million which could have been prevented. The President’s level of $8.8 million does not address the backlog of maintenance at the five lock and dams or deteriorating dikes and revetments. The Corps

capability of $14 million is required to maintain a safe waterway. Full O&M funding

levels is not only important for the Waterway Project but for all our Corps projects

and flood control lakes.

We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have given our various

projects. We hope that we can count on you again to fund our needs and complete

the projects started that will help us diversify our economy and create the jobs so

badly needed by our citizens.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project details of the

Red River Valley Association on behalf of the industries, organizations and citizens

we represent throughout the four state Red River Valley region. We believe that any

federal monies spent on civil work projects are truly investments in our future and

will return several times the original investment in benefits that will accrue back

to the federal government.

I am always available to provide you and your staff additional information or clarification on any issue presented.

GRANT DISCLOSURE

The Red River Valley Association has not received any federal grant, subgrant or

contract during the current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
691

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUESTS RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION

[NOTE.—Projects are NOT in any order of priority. Project number correspond to

the backup information in Section V.]

A. Studies (General Investigations)

1. Navigation on the Red River in Southwest Arkansas: WRDA 96 authorized a

feasibility study for this project. Funding was reprogrammed in fiscal year 1999 to

continue the study. The Project Study Plan (PSP) is complete and the Feasibility

Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) will be signed in March 99. The study will commence with full participation from the communities in the project area which include counties and parishes of Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. It is imperative that this study continue to be funded and the remaining funds in the

‘Daingerfield’ study be reprogrammed for this study in Bill language.

[NOTE.—The local sponsor is prepared to cost share the study, 50 percent and has

funds available.]

‘‘Request that the Secretary of the Army is directed to use $582,600 of the funds

appropriated in Public Law 102–377 for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana, to Daingerfield, Texas, project for the feasibility phase of the Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, study.’’

2. Grassy Lake, AR: Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment

(Section 1135). The Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers is

requested to expend, within the funds provided for the Section 1135 Program;

$300,000 for a feasibility study of modifications to restore the environmental quality

of Grassy Lake, Hempstead County, Arkansas, degraded by the construction of

Millwood Lake, Arkansas. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $300,000.

3. Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas: Provided further, that the Secretary of the

Army is directed to initiate a reconnaissance study in Southwest Arkansas utilizing

$300,000 appropriated herein to develop an ecosystem restoration plan that integrates flood control, water supply, releases for navigation and wildlife habitat. The

study will investigate adverse results caused by construction of Millwood, DeQueen,

Dierks, and Gilham Lakes. Navigation has been extended to Shreveport/Bossier

City, Louisiana, on the Red River, and water releases of these four lakes could be

used to aid navigation. Flooding remains a problem and the lakes’ water supply is

not being utilized to its full benefits. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $300,000.

B. Construction

4. Red River Waterway Project, LA:

a. We support the $21,113,000 included in the President’s budget and items of

work proposed by the Corps.

b. In addition, to insure that the integrity and safety of the Red River navigation

channel is maintained for reliable barge transportation we request additional funding, at the Corps expressed capability, to accelerate construction on Cognac Reinforcement ($1,250,000) and Poisson ACS ($1,250,000). These sites have been identified by industry as problem areas. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $2,500,000.

c. Mitigation: We support all efforts to meet this obligation of the project. Existing

funds must be carried forth to continue land purchase actions.

d. Request the Corps cost share in the design and construction of boat launch facilities in Pool 3; one at Hampton’s Lake Recreation site and one at Colfax, LA.

There is limited access to the Red River in Pool 3 and as commercial traffic increases it is imperative that there be access for safety. Two important municipal

riverfront projects are the Teague Parkway Trails in Bossier City and Shreveport

riverfront development. These sites will be cost shared 50/50 with the Red River

Waterway Commission who has their funds on hand to participate.

Total Funds Requested .......................................................................... $3,000,000

Fiscal year 2000 Federal Share ............................................................ 1,500,000

Local Sponsor Share .............................................................................. 1,500,000

e. Following is the total Federal requirement for the Red River Waterway Project

(a thru d above):

President’s Budget ................................................................................. $21,113,000

Navigation Construction Adds .............................................................. 2,500,000

Public Recreation Sites ......................................................................... 1,500,000

Mitigation ............................................................................................... ...........................

Total Requested for fiscal year 2000 ......................................... 25,113,000

5. Red River Chloride Control Project:
692

a. In October 1998 the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) agreed to

support a thorough re-evaluation of the Wichita River Basin features. Three out of

four options have a positive benefit to cost ratio. He reprogrammed funds so that

work could continue in fiscal year 1999. We are disappointed there were no funds

in the President’s budget.

b. Many of the features in the Wichita River basin have been constructed and

completion of this system would reclaim Lake Kemp which would become a major

water source for the region.

c. It is extremely important that the ongoing water quality and environmental

monitoring continue. This is critical to establishing a baseline in which to evaluate

the effects of the project. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $2,100,000.

6. Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas Levees: Continue funding levels to

fully fund construction and restoration of Levee Item #5 (Miller County Levee District) and Levee Item #9A (Red River Levee District in Lafayette County). This completes all Miller County Levees and starts the Lafayette County Levees. Funds are

to ‘‘remain available until expended’’. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $5,000,000.

7. Bowie County Levee, TX: The plans and specifications have been completed. We

request construction funding for the ‘locally preferred’ option under the cost sharing

requirements of the Flood Control Act of 1946 not withstanding economic evaluation. Assurances of support and maintenance have been obtained from the local

sponsor. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $200,000.

8. Red River Emergency; Bank Protection; AR & LA: Fully fund construction on

Black Lake Phase II ($2.0 mil), Hunters Island Revetment ($7.1 mil), Pleasant Valley Revetment ($4.9 mil) and design Bois D’Arc Revetment. These are the most critical sites that require reinforcements as soon as possible. Funds requested include

engineering, design and construction management and are to ‘remain available until

expended’. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $17,000,000.

9. Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, Texas (Bank Stabilization): We request the following items be funded at full federal expense.

a. Phase II of the Sediment Transport Study will cost $275,000. This will determine the quantity and types of sediments entering the Red River, along Texas and

Oklahoma, that are being deposited in the Red River Waterway navigation channel

and creating dredging costs.

b. To initiate construction and a monitoring program for a Bendway Weir ‘demonstration project’ located at US Highway 271 bridge between Hugo, Oklahoma and

Paris, Texas. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested for a and b: $5,800,000.

10. Aloha-Rigolette Project, LA: Construction is underway and the funding should

continue at full Corps capability to complete the project in fiscal year 2000.

President’s Budget ................................................................................. $581,000

To Complete the Project ........................................................................ 519,000

Total Requested for fiscal year 2000 ............................................. 1,100,000

11. McKinney Bayou, AR: The reconnaissance study was completed and determined to be economically feasible. This project will go directly into PED and cost

shared with the local sponsor (Federal—75 percent; local sponsor 25 percent) over

a three year period; as soon as the local sponsor commits to the cost share requirement.

12. Ogden Levee, Little River County, AR: This levee was authorized to be incorporated into the Federal Levee System by the Flood Control Act of 1946. The levee

is in need of rehabilitation and has yet to be incorporated into the Federal Levee

System. A reconnaissance report completed in November 1991 found that flood control levees along the Red River in Little River County were justified and not environmentally objectional. The Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers is directed to perform preconstruction engineering and design (PED) for the

Ogden Levee. PED costs shall be initially 100 percent Federally funded and shared

in the same percentage as the project purposes. The Ogden Levee is to be designed

to the same specifications as the opposite bank levees in Bowie and Miller Counties.

A sponsor has been identified and provided a letter of intent.

Total PED Funds Requested ................................................................. $400,000

Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested ....................................................... 340,000

13. Bossier Levee System, LA: Direct the Corps to clear and snag the channel of

Loggy Bayou from its confluence of the Red River for 7.8 miles. This channel has

a serious impact on flooding in the upstream reaches which includes the southern

parts of Bossier City. Fiscal year 2000 Funds Requested: $500,000.
693

C. Operation and Maintenance

14. Red River Waterway, O&M:

a.The President’s budget included $8,781,000 for the O&M of this project which

falls short of capability and needs. Maintaining existing navigation structures is

crucial to the safety of this new waterway. As experienced in 1998 failure to spend

$500,000 to maintain the Dismall Swamp Revetment, when the problem was first

identified, resulted in a catastrophic failure of the revetment and adjacent levee

which cost $5,000,000 in emergency repairs.

b. WRDA 96 authorized the Corps to insure the oxbows remain accessible to the

Red River for environmental purposes. The O&M funding level must be adequate

to address this issue each year.

c. Currently there appears to be a failure in the Cupples Landing Revetment, at

the center of the Port of Shreveport-Bossier complex. Continued erosion of this revetment will threaten existing port structures. The Corps must be directed to investigate this and repair the revetment at full federal expense.

d. Approximately 90 dikes and revetments are in need of repair in order to maintain the integrity and safety of the channel. We request funds for the Corps expressed capability of $2.5 million to repair Cupples and Grand Bend revetments;

however, the priority of revetments can change due to changing river conditions. e. We request the Corps expressed capability of $2.8 million to complete the backlog of maintenance at the five locks and dams. If not funded this maintenance will

cost more in the future or become an emergency, shutting down the Waterway.

Fiscal year 2000 President’s Budget .................................................... $8,781,000

Revetment Repair .................................................................................. 2,500,000

L&D Backlog Maintenance ................................................................... 2,800,000

Total fiscal year 2000 O&M Funds Requested ......................... 14,081,000

15. Operations & Maintenance at Corps Projects: Request that all O&M funded

projects be funded at the level of ‘expressed Corps capability’. A serious backlog of

maintenance will create more expensive problems in the future.

BACKUP INFORMATION FOR REQUESTS

Following is backup information and a historical perspective on each project request. They are numbered to correspond to each numbered project in the Summary

of Request, Section III.

1. NAVIGATION ON THE RED RIVER IN SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS

Twenty-one years ago the Arkansas General Assembly created the Red River

Commission upon the recommendation of Governor Dale Bumpers, now the Senior

United States Senator for the State of Arkansas. The Commission was vested with

the authority to furnish the local cooperation necessary for the construction and

study of projects and to coordinate with the Corps of Engineers and the Congress

to develop the water resources of the Red River in Arkansas. With navigation now

a reality to Shreveport, Louisiana, we are prepared to extend water transportation

into Arkansas. Southwest Arkansas and East Texas are economic depressed regions.

This project would provide multi-purpose opportunities for industries and increased

employment. A regional impact study recently completed clearly demonstrates the

benefits this project would have in the region. The local sponsor, Red River Commission of Arkansas, initiated and fully funded this Regional Economic Impact Study

which showed benefits greater than 2.0 to 1.

There is no doubt that this project is feasible and only a full feasibility study will

prove that. Most importantly, the local cost share, 50 percent, is available now for

this study. The feasibility study was funded in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999

with reprogrammed funds from another Red River Study. It is imperative to continue that funding.

2. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

3. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

4. RED RIVER WATERWAY PROJECT; NAVIGATION TO SHREVEPORT-BOSSIER CITY

The Red River Valley Association and Louisiana delegation are appreciative for

the completion of Locks and Dams 4 and 5. Navigation to Shreveport-Bossier City

has significantly boosted the economy throughout the river basin.

There is still work ahead of us to maintain and develop the navigation channel.

It is also imperative that funds be appropriated to continue construction on navigation structures for this waterway to insure reliable, safe commercial navigation.
694

This project is NOT complete, $200 million, remains to be constructed. The Red

River Valley Association encourages and supports the continuation of the mitigation

commitment for the whole project. These are important environmental projects for

the overall system of the Red River.

Recognizing that recreation is an integral component of the Red River Waterway

Project, the Red River Valley Association supports the development of recreational

facilities as a part of the overall project construction. The Master Plan for Recreation has been submitted to the Mississippi Valley Division for final review and approval. We support approval of this re-evaluation and funding to construct the recommended sites.

5. RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL PROJECT

Natural mineral pollutants in the upper reaches of the Red River Basin are rendering downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The primary pollutants are

chlorides and sulfates.

The U.S. Public Health Service initiated a study in 1957 to locate the natural pollution areas and determine the contribution of pollutants from the individual areas

to the Red River. It was determined that 10 natural salt source areas located in the

basin contribute a daily average of about 3,600 tons of salt (as NaC1) to the Red

River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, entered the study in 1959

to recommend measures to control the natural pollution. Structural measures were

recommended for 8 of the 10 salt source areas.

An experimental project at Area V near Estelline, Texas was authorized by the

Flood Control Act of 1962. The project consists of a 9-foot-high by 340 foot diameter

earthen dike encompassing a brine spring and a 4-foot-wide concrete outlet flume

with stoplogs to control flow. With the project in operation since January 1964, surface flow from the spring has been suppressed, thus preventing over 240 tons of

chlorides per day from entering Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River.

Structural measures for chloride control at Areas VII, VIII, and X in the Wichita

River Basin above Lake Kemp were authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1966

(PL 89–789), and structural measures for Areas VI, IX, XIII, and XIV were authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1970 (PL 91–611). Actual construction, however,

was not to be initiated until approved by the Secretary of the Army and the President. The Flood Control Act of 1970 was amended by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 to eliminate the required approval of the President to initiate construction.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (PL 93–251), specifically authorized construction of chloride control measures at Area VIII, located on the South

Fork of the Wichita River in King and Knox Counties, Texas. The project includes

a low-flow dam with a deflatable weir to collect brine flows emitting from the area,

Truscott Brine Reservoir, located near Truscott, Texas, for brine storage, and a

pump station and pipeline to deliver the brine to the impoundment. Construction

began in the fall of 1976 and the project was placed in operation in May 1987. Area

VIII continues to exceed design specifications and currently controls over 168 tons

of chlorides daily.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL 99–662) required that a special panel evaluate the improvement in water quality downstream of Area VIII to

determine its consistency with the water quality assumed in the development of

project benefits. A favorable report was submitted to the Assistance Secretary of the

Army (Civil Works) and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the

Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of

Representatives in August of 1988. PL 99–662 authorizes 100 percent federal funding and construction of the remaining control features contingent upon the favorable

evaluation of the panel.

Congress appropriated $5 million in fiscal year 1991, $3 million in fiscal year

1992, $6 million in fiscal year 1993, $4 million in fiscal year 1994 and $16 million

in fiscal year 1995 which was in the President’s Budget for the first time ever.

These funds were to continue design and construction of Areas VI, VII, IX and X

and the Crowell Brine Reservoir. Construction of part of the brine collection facilities (pump station and low flow dam) at Area X was initiated in September 1991

and is complete. Accelerated design of the remaining chloride control features was

approved in fiscal year 1994 to permit construction as additional funds become

available.

Real estate acquisition for Area VI, VII, IX, and the Crowell Brine Reservoir was

scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1993, but was postponed pending the outcome of

the economic re-evaluation report ordered by the Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Civil Works which was subsequently approved in November 1993 and further

instructed the Corps of Engineers to complete all remaining areas of the project.
695

As part of the process to complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) USFWS objected to the project in August 1994. This was unexpected

by the Corps of Engineers since they had been coordinating with USFWS since 1991

and there was no indication they would deliver a negative opinion. This has stopped

all construction work and effectively delayed the project.

The SFEIS was completed in August 1996; however, Dr. Zirschky, Acting

ASA(CW), directed that a Supplement Assessment Report (SAR) be completed by

February 1997. The ASA(CW) in November 1997, directed the Corps to proceed with

the Wichita River Basin features of the project. In October 1998, Dr. Westphal, ASA

(CW), reprogrammed funds and continued support for the Wichita River. Continued

funding is needed to maintain the environmental monitoring program in place and

to initiate work on the Wichita River portion of this project.

6. RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, ARKANSAS LEVEES

The facilities constructed under this authorization are the first lines of flood protection for the Red River Valley and its citizens. Accelerated and new caving of the

river banks of the Red River continue to endanger existing flood control structures

and levees as well as valuable agricultural lands, highways, railroads, utilities,

home and other valuable resources and improvements within the Red River Valley.

Following the disastrous flood of May 1990, there can be no doubt of the importance of properly maintained levees. All areas not protected by properly maintained

levees were flooded and the only protection from enormous bank caving was where

revetment projects had been constructed by the Corps.

The Red River Levees Below Denison Dam Project is the only comprehensive flood

control program on the Red River containing authorization for construction of a variety of flood control measures, levees and other flood control works. Some of the

projects planned in the original authorization project have not been completed and

these must be constructed in order for the citizens of the Red River to derive necessary flood protection. Only minimal funds have been appropriated by Congress for

the Red River Levees in recent years.

Another example of flood control work needed is levee rehabilitation along the

main stem of the Red River in the state of Arkansas. Many of these levee sections

were severely tested by the May 1990 flood, and it is apparent that rehabilitation

is needed to increase their integrity, substantially reduce maintenance costs, and

provide additional structural strength at appropriate elevations needed to protect

citizens, agricultural land and transportation systems. The Corps has completed an

engineering study of the Levees on the Red River from Index, AR to the Louisiana

State Line to establish and prioritize levee locations that have deficient grades,

slopes and crown. This report included the recommendations with construction costs

for all identified area. The first item of construction on the Miller County Levee System was completed in 1995 and three more items will be completed by the end of

fiscal year 1998.

It is imperative that Red River Levees continue as authorized by Congress and

that adequate funding be appropriated to accomplish the construction of this needed

protection. There are eleven construction items to be constructed with four completed to date.

7. BOWIE COUNTY LEVEE, TX

Major flooding along the Red River in May 1990 severely tested the integrity of

the Bowie County Levee located along the right bank of the Red River north of Texarkana, Texas. Had it not been for emergency measures taken by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and local interests, the levee would have been destroyed during

the flood. It is the opinion of the Corps that the levee would fail if subjected to another flood of the magnitude encountered in May 1990. Replacement or restoration

of the levee is necessary to protect approximately 7,000 acres of prime agricultural

land as well as residential and farm structures.

Additionally, this levee system protects the land side of the Miller County levees

in Arkansas. The Arkansas levees are being rehabilitated at full federal expense;

therefore, a case has been made that the Bowie County levee should be funded the

same as Arkansas levees. Again, the Arkansas levees would not be of any value

should the Bowie County levee fail.

In fiscal year 1997 Congress directed the Corps to complete designs and specifications for two options; federally preferred and locally preferred options. It is our intention to have a fully funded federal project for the locally preferred option in accordance with cost sharing guidelines in the Flood Control Act of 1946.

8. RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION; AR & LA

Although Federal projects have been authorized for flood control and navigation,

many active caving banks cannot be stabilized because they are not yet sufficiently
696

advanced or not included in earlier authorizations. The result is continuing, rampant destruction of valuable lands, threatening vital flood control facilities and endangering high-cost improvements such as bridges, pipelines, highways, railroads,

utilities, cities and towns.

It is urgent that adequate funding under the authority ‘‘Emergency Bank Protection’’ be continued to construct bank stabilization work as early as possible in the

most critical locations instead of waiting several more years and experiencing the

loss of land and economic benefits due to damages. Further, continued neglect of

these caving banks will substantially worsen alignment of the River, making future

navigation realignment and stabilization much more costly and difficult. Many caving banks have an existing alignment that is usable for the navigation channel and

should be preserved now.

9. RED RIVER WATERWAY; INDEX, ARKANSAS TO DENISON DAM

Widely fluctuating stages and high flows during the past several years have

caused sharp increases in bank caving along the Red River from Index, AR to

Denison Dam. This accelerated bank caving has caused the loss of valuable, vital

improvements and non-replaceable prime agricultural lands. Flood control structures and levees which protect the Valley from disastrous floods are also endangered. These disastrous losses can be stopped by a systematic program of bank stabilization. Progressive construction of such a program is absolutely essential to the

safety growth and well-being of the Red River Valley. To further delay this vitally

needed protection would be short-sighted.

In view of the fact that construction of bank stabilization is so important to the

citizens along the Red River boundary of Oklahoma and Texas we strongly recommend allowing the Corps of Engineers to proceed with a ‘‘demonstration project.’’

There are new techniques which we believe are less expensive with better results

than the traditional methods. One new technique is the underwater bendway weir.

This demonstration project will be evaluated along with the ongoing ‘sediment

transport’ study to determine the potential for a large scale bank stabilization

project.

A ‘sediment transport study’ completed in 1998 demonstrated that 1.6 million tons

of sand sediments from this stretch of river are entering the navigation channel in

Louisiana. A second phase of this study is required to determine what benefits can

be realized from reduced dredging costs as well as the quantities of clay, silt and

sand, NOT considered, in the completed study.

Funds were appropriated in fiscal year 1999 to complete the design of the demonstration project. It is critical to continue this funding to construct and monitor the

project as well as to continue with the ‘sediment transport study’.

10. ALOHA-RIGOLETTE PROJECT

This project, initially authorized in 1941 and constructed during the 1948–54 period, provides for the protection during high stages of the Red River of some 58,000

acres of alluvial land. Drainage from 340,000 acres that must flow through protected areas during lower river stages is disposed of by gravity flow through two

10 foot by 10 foot gated concrete drainage structures in the levee at the lower end

of the project. This protected area has continued to develop agriculturally since construction of the project and now additional gates are needed to allow adequate gravity drainage during low river stages. As a result, local interests requested that additional studies be made of the project, paying particular attention to the adequacy

of the flood gate which has now been determined to be significantly inadequate for

current conditions.

A feasibility study was completed by the New Orleans District, Corps of Engineers

in June 1989. The Red River Valley Association urges that Congress appropriate the

full capability of the Corps fiscal year 2000 budget to complete construction activities for the project on the Bayou Darrow flood gate, clearing and snagging of channels, the low flow structure and mitigation.

11. McKINNEY BAYOU PROJECT, AR

The Corps of Engineers completed a reconnaissance study of drainage in Miller

County, Arkansas. The project is known as the McKinney Bayou Project as it is the

principal drainage ditch in the County. Due to the thousand of acres of land cleared

in Miller County during the past 25 years, the ditch is grossly inadequate to handle

the drainage after heavy rains. The Reconnaissance study had a high B/C ratio and

therefore was recommended to go directly to Planning, engineering and design

(PED). A local sponsor has been identified to cost share PED; Federal 75 percent/

local sponsor 25 percent.
697

12. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

13. BOSSIER LEVEE DISTRICT, BOSSIER PARISH, LA

There ia a drainage channel issue which should be the responsibility of the Corps

of Engineers to maintain. This is Loggy Bayou with its confluence on the Red River,

river mile 194.1, with the channel in question extending approximately 8 miles upstream into Loggy Bayou.

Loggy Bayou is the final and only channel that drains a vast area of Northwest

Louisiana and part of Arkansas water into the Red River. The headwaters start in

Columbia County, Arkansas and the drainage area includes large parts of Webster,

Beinville and Bossier Parishes in Louisiana. There are no other diversions for these

waters to the Red River except through Loggy Bayou.

In 1943 the Bossier Levee District agreed to maintain the last 7.8 miles of Loggy

Bayou before it enters the Red River. Conditions have changed drastically since

1943, to include: the diversion of Coushatta Bayou into the Loggy Bayou; the channel is now approximately 20 feet deeper due to increased drainage flows and the

Red River Waterway Project has pooled the water into this section of Loggy Bayou

permanently raising the water level. The Bossier Levee District does not have the

equipment, expertise or funding to keep the channel maintained so there is now a

real threat for increased flooding upstream. Since there have been considerable

changes to the Loggy Bayou Watershed, beyond the control of the Bossier Levee District, and the waters drained are multi-state it is requested that the Corps of Engineers be directed to maintain the channel in Loggy Bayou, under the ‘Red River Waterway Project’, Operations and Maintenance, from its confluence with the Red

River upstream for approximately 8 miles.

14. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

15. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SUPPORT STATEMENT: GREATER SHREVEPORT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

TRANSPORTATION—WATER

RED RIVER WATERWAY PROJECT FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET

ISSUE: The Locks and Dams for the Red River Waterway Project have been completed from the Mississippi River to Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana. It is important to know that the project is only 90 percent complete with $200 million required

in construction appropriations. In addition, it will take approximately $14 million

per year to operate and maintain the system.

WHY IMPORTANT: For economic development to be fully realized, we must operate the Red River in a reliable manner for industry to use it as a major transportation system. The navigation channel must be maintained at a 9-foot draft for efficient use. If the channel is not properly maintained, industry will be reluctant to

use the Red River since they would not be able to load barges to full capacity making other modes of transportation competitive.

The project Recreational Master Plan has been completed and it is important to

execute the plan as soon as possible. There is limited access to the Red River and

these sites are necessary for safety as well as the economic benefits of recreation.

OUR POSITION: We appreciate the allocation in the President’s fiscal year 2000

budget for $21 million in construction funds, which is much higher than was in the

budget last year. However, this falls short of what we require and includes no funding for recreation. An additional $4.5 million is needed for navigation and recreation

projects. Our total request for Red River Waterway construction is $25.5 million.

Maintaining the infrastructure of this Waterway is extremely important. Funding

maintenance items sooner always costs less than waiting until it becomes an emergency. The President’s budget allocated $8.8 million while a total of $14 million is

required to complete all regularly scheduled and backlog items. This includes the

five locks and dams and repair to dikes and revetments.

RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL PROJECT

ISSUE: The first comprehensive study of the water quality of the Red River basin

was initiated in 1957 by the U.S. Public Health Service under the authorization of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It was determined that ten natural salt

source areas contribute a daily average of 3,600 tons of salt per day to the river.

This renders downstream waters unusable for most purposes. Structural measures

to help control the chloride pollution at 8 of the 10 sites were developed by the

Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers. These plans led to Congressional authorization

in the Flood Control Acts of 1962, 1966 and 1970. The first structure was completed
698

in January 1964 and the second in May 1987. The Water Resources Development

Act of 1986 authorized the construction of the remaining sites.

Approximately one-third of the project cost has been expended. The total project

is expected to cost $303 million.

The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), ASA(CW), Dr. Westphal, directed the Tulsa District to conduct a re-evaluation report for the Wichita River

Basin portion of the project. This is to be completed in 1999.

WHY IMPORTANT: Natural mineral pollutants (primarily chlorides and sulfates)

in the upper reaches of the Red River Basin are rendering downstream waters unusable for most purposes; therefore, the Red River Chloride Project is imperative in

order to realize full utilization of the surface water supplies in Louisiana (as well

as Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas). More than 1,000 miles of streams in the river

system are severely contaminated by naturally occurring brine and is not suitable

for municipal, industrial or agricultural purposes.

OUR POSITION: The President did not fund this project in the fiscal year 2000

budget, even thought it is supported by the ASA (CW). It is imperative that $2.1

million be appropriated so that the re-evaluation of the Wichita River can be completed and the next phase of construction start in fiscal year 2001. These funds also

include the environmental monitoring program currently underway to collect valuable data on the ecosystem of this region.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CADDO/BOSSIER PORT COMMISSION, SHREVEPORT, LA

On behalf of the citizens of Northwest Louisiana, the Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port

Commission strongly urges the Congress of the United States to allocate in fiscal

year 2000 the necessary monies to ensure safe and reliable inland waterway, and

in particular Red River, navigation and to carefully consider the numerous new

taxes and user fees proposed impacting the nation’s ports.

Port’s are a vital element of the national economy and national security and federal commitment to provide reliable and secure funding for our port system is paramount. Yet the waterways are facing once again proposals for reduced funding, new

user fees and the constant call of the ‘‘Green Scissors’’ campaign to cut maritime

programs to pieces.

The President’s budget request appears to shortchange inland navigation and

flood control while other civil works programs are fully-funded. For example, construction and maintenance of projects along the nation’s inland waterways would be

funded at less than half the level needed to optimize project schedules while deep

draft harbor maintenance and construction would be funded at an optimal level. The

optimal spending would be funded, however, by a new Harbor Services User Fee

(HSUF), a hastily crafted proposal which leaves open troubling and unanswered

questions and unfairly places the entire financial burden on certain commercial vessel operators. Instead of making America’s trade gateways safer or more efficient,

the HSUF would make them more costly and less competitive.

The Port of Shreveport-Bossier, regularly operating now for two years, is a part

of this national infrastructure. Maintaining the international competitive position of

this country’s ports is necessary in order for the inland ports to operate as much

of the cargo carried on inland waterways travels through the deepdraft ports.

The Port of Shreveport-Bossier stands today as a longtime dream with a potential

proving to exceed even the most optimistic projections. With local taxpayer investment guaranteed by a 1993 property tax in the two parishes of Bossier and Caddo,

the Port’s infrastructure is growing to meet the demands of a rapidly expanding customer base. Public investment in the Port complex today stands at more than

$73,000,000. Businesses located at the complex are Arch Chemicals, Oakley Louisiana, Re-Claim Environmental, Red River Terminals and Shreveport Fabricators.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RED RIVER WATERWAY COMMISSION, NATCHITOCHES,

LA

On behalf of the citizens of the Red River Waterway District of Louisiana, the Red

River Waterway Commission strongly urges the Congress of the United States to

allocate the funds necessary for fiscal year 2000 for Red River Waterway Project.

Adequate funding will allow continued construction progress toward actual project

completion and will facilitate totally reliability in operations for continued industrial

and recreational development. The infrastructure investment of $1.8 billion can only

be justified if commercial and recreational development interests can rely on an efficient, functional and user friendly river system.
699

Construction on Red River is approximately 90 percent complete, however, it is

vitally important that we understand the importance of steady progress toward

project completion with full knowledge of the financial constraints this country, the

President and the Congress are wrestling with during the budget process.

AREAS OF NEED FOR THE RED RIVER WATERWAY PROJECT

Navigation Structures (Revetments and Dikes).—These structures are necessary to

maintain the channel alignment so as to provide reliable navigation to the users.

In addition, the structures help insure that barges can be loaded to the maximum

depths allowable for profitable operation.

Recreation Development.—Design and Construction in Pools 3, 4 and 5 should

begin immediately. Important projects such as Shreveport Riverfront, Teague Parkway Trails, Colfax and Hampton Lake establish an excellent recreation foundation.

Operations & Maintenance Program.—Channel Maintenance (Dredging) is critical

to the viability of the waterway system. The Corps of Engineers needs sufficient resources to adequately maintain the navigation channel to provide dependable and

reliable depths so that barges moving on the system can be loaded to the maximum

nine foot draft. Reliable conditions will encourage other development on the Red

River. Maintenance of existing navigation structures at strategic locations is vital

to the users. The backlog of maintenance items at the lock & dam structures could

be devastating to the nation’s investment in the navigation system.

Construction/Maintenance Program.—The Corps of Engineers needs resources

available to react quickly to landowner bank caving complaints that are a result of

the project and are fully justified.

Aids to Navigation.—As commercial use continues to increase, the Coast Guard

presence and resources must reflect a similar growth to adequately maintain the

buoy system on the Red River and stimulate confidence in the river system.

Mitigation and Bendway Dredging.—Continue with land acquisition and developmental cost analysis associated with the mitigation portion of the project and as

soon as practical begin the bendway dredging operations to reestablish the connection to the channel of Red River.

MIDWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRENCE J. O’BRIEN, PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN WATER

RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO

On behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

(District), I want to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2000 and, at the same time, express our appreciation for your

support of the District’s projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor

for three Corps of Engineers priority projects of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan:

the O’Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. We are requesting the Subcommittee’s full support for McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, as the O’Hare Reservoir has

recently been completed. Specifically, we request the Subcommittee to include a

total of $6,000,000 in construction funding for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir

projects in the bill. The following text outlines these projects and the need for the

requested funding. Also, attached is a booklet indicating the municipalities in our

area, which benefit from these projects and the need for the requested funding. The

booklet reviews the history of the issues involved, including newspaper articles and

pertinent data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Illinois State

Water Survey.

THE CHICAGOLAND UNDERFLOW PLAN

The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs: the O’Hare,

McCook, and Thornton Reservoirs. The O’Hare Reservoir Project was fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law

99–662) and completed by the Corps in fiscal year 1999. This reservoir is connected

to the existing O’Hare segment of the District’s Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP).

Adopted in 1972, TARP was the result of a multi-agency effort, which included officials of the State of Illinois, County of Cook, City of Chicago, and the District.

TARP was designed to address the overwhelming water pollution and flooding

problems of the Chicagoland combined sewer areas. These problems stem from the

fact that the capacity of the area’s waterways has been overburdened over the years

and has become woefully inadequate in both hydraulic and assimilative capacities.

These waterways are no longer able to carry away the combined sewer overflow dis-
700

charges nor are they able to assimilate the pollution associated with these discharges. Severe basement flooding and polluted waterways (including Lake Michigan, which is the source of drinking water for millions of people) is the inevitable

result. We point with pride to the fact that TARP was found to be the most costeffective and socially and environmentally acceptable way for reducing these flooding and water pollution problems. Experience to date has reinforced such findings

with respect to economics and efficiency.

The TARP plan calls for the construction of the new ‘‘underground rivers’’ beneath

the area’s waterways. The ‘‘underground rivers’’ would be tunnels up to 35 feet in

diameter and 350 feet below the surface. To provide an outlet for these tunnels, reservoirs will be constructed at the end of the tunnel system. Approximately 93.4

miles of tunnels have been constructed or are under construction at a total cost of

$2.1 billion and are operational. The tunnels capture the majority of the pollution

load by capturing all of the small storms and the first flush of the large storms.

Another 15.8 miles of tunnels costing $399 million need to be completed. The tunnels connected to the O’Hare Reservoir now discharge when they fill up during large

rainstorms into the Reservoir and this system is working well and providing benefits. Thornton and McCook Reservoirs have not been built yet, so significant areas

remain unprotected. Without these outlets, the local drainage has nowhere to go

when large storms hit the area. Therefore, the combined stormwater and sewage

backs up into over 470,000 homes. This is a reduction from the 550,000 homes impacted before the tunnels were put on line.

Since its inception, TARP has not only abated flooding and pollution in the

Chicagoland area, but has helped to preserve the integrity of Lake Michigan. In the

years prior to TARP, a major storm in the area would cause local sewers and interceptors to surcharge resulting in CSO spills into the Chicagoland waterways. Since

these waterways have a limited capacity, major storms have caused them to reach

dangerously high levels resulting in massive sewer backups into basements and

causing multi-million dollar damage to property. To relieve the high levels in the

waterways during major storms, the gates at Wilmette, O’Brien, and the Chicago

River would be opened and the CSOs would be allowed to backflow into Lake Michigan.

Since the implementation of TARP, some backflows to Lake Michigan have been

eliminated. Since implementation of TARP, 358 billion gallons of CSOs have been

captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached waterways. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99 percent of the CSO pollution will be eliminated.

The elimination of CSOs will result in less water needed for flushing of Chicago’s

waterway system, making it available as drinking water to communities in Cook,

DuPage, Lake, and Will counties, which have been on a waiting list. Specifically,

since 1977, these counties received an increase of 162 mgd, partially as a result of

the reduction in the District’s discretionary diversion in 1980. Additional allotments

of Lake Michigan water, beyond 1991, will be made to these communities, as more

water becomes available from sources like direct diversion.

With new allocations of lake water, communities that previously did not get to

share lake water are in the process of building, or have already built, water mains

to accommodate their new source of drinking water. The new source of drinking

water will be a substitute for the poorer quality well water previously used by these

communities. Partly due to TARP, it is estimated by IDOT that between 1981 and

2020, 283 mgd (439 cfs) of Lake Michigan water would be added to domestic consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million people that previously did

not receive lake water, would be able to enjoy it. This new source of water supply

will not only benefit its immediate receivers but will also result in an economic

stimulus to the entire Chicagoland area, by providing a reliable source of good quality water supply.

THE MC COOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS—CHICAGOLAND UNDERFLOW PLAN

The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP)

were fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of

1988 (Public Law 100–676). The CUP, as previously discussed, is a flood protection

plan that is designed to reduce basement and street flooding due to combined sewer

back-ups and inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban waterways. These projects

are the second and third components of CUP, they consist of reservoirs to be constructed in west suburban Chicago and Thornton in south suburban Chicago.

These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15.3 billion gallons and will

produce annual benefits of $104 million. The total potential annual benefits of these

projects are approximately twice as much as their total annual cost. The District,
701

as the local sponsor, is actively pursuing land acquisition for these projects, and is

prepared to meet its cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99–662.

These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of return. They will

enhance the quality of life and the safety and the peace of mind of the residents

of this region. The State of Illinois has endorsed these projects and has urged their

implementation. In professional circles, these projects are hailed for their farsightedness, innovation, and benefits.

Based on two successive Presidentially-declared flood disasters in our area in

1986 and again in 1987 and dramatic flooding in the last several years, we believe

the probability of this type of flood emergency occurring before implementation of

the critical flood prevention measure is quite high. As the public agency for the

greater Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as the regional

sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect the health and safety of

our citizens. We are asking your support in helping us achieve this necessary and

important goal of construction completion.

We have been very pleased that over the years, the Subcommittee has seen fit

to include critical levels of funds for these important projects. We were delighted

to see the $3,250,000 in construction funds included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. However, it is important that we

receive a total of $6,000,000 in construction funds in fiscal year 2000 to maintain

the commitment and accelerate these projects. This funding is critical to accelerate

the detailed design, plans and specifications and initiate construction of the McCook

Reservoir. The community has waited long enough for protection and we need these

funds now to move the project into construction. We respectfully request your consideration of our request.

SUMMARY

Our most significant recent flooding occurred on February 20, 1997, when almost

four inches of rain fell on the greater Chicagoland area. Due to the frozen ground,

almost all of the rainfall entered our combined sewers, causing sewerage back-ups

throughout the area. When the existing TARP tunnels filled with approximately 1.2

billion gallons of sewage and runoff, the only remaining outlets for the sewers were

our waterways. Between 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., the Chicago and Calumet Rivers

rose six feet. For the first time since 1981 we had to open the locks at all three

of the waterway control points; these include Wilmette, downtown Chicago, and Calumet. Approximately 4.2 billion gallons of combined sewage and stormwater had to

be released directly into Lake Michigan.

Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity of flooding in our area, the

Corps was compelled to develop a plan that would complete the uniqueness of TARP

and be large enough to accommodate the area we serve. With a combined sewer

area of 375 square miles, consisting of the city of Chicago and 51 contiguous suburbs, there are 550,000 homes within our jurisdiction, which are subject to flooding

at any time. The annual damages sustained exceed $150 million. If these projects

were in place, these damages could be eliminated. We must consider the safety and

peace of mind of the 2 million people who are affected as well as the disaster relief

funds that will be saved when these projects are in place. As the public agency in

the greater Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as the regional sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect the health and

safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in helping us achieve this necessary and important goal. It is absolutely critical that the Corps’ work, which has

been proceeding for a number of years, now proceed into construction.

Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $6,000,000 in construction funds be

made available in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to advance construction of the McCook and Thornton Reservoir Project.

Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of our project over the years

and we thank you in advance for your consideration of our request this year.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name is Wallace

Gieringer. I am retired as Executive Director of the Pine Bluff-Jefferson County (Arkansas) Port Authority. It is my honor to serve as Chairman of the Arkansas River

Basin Interstate Committee, members of which have been appointed by the governors of the great states of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

As Chairman, I present this summary testimony as a compilation of the most important projects from each of the member states. Each of the states unanimously
702

supports these projects without reservation. I request that the copies of each state’s

individual statement be made a part of the record, along with this testimony.

Mr. Chairman, the members of the Interstate Committee have again identified as

our top priority a project vital to the five-state area and beyond—the urgently needed Montgomery Point Lock and Dam at the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and the Mississippi River.

Continuing problems caused by sediment and lowering of the Mississippi River

plague McClellan-Kerr entrance channel users. Construction of Montgomery Point

must continue as rapidly as possible before limited dredge disposal areas become inadequate. During times of low water on the Mississippi River the entrance channel

is drained of navigable water depth. As the Mississippi River bottom continues to

lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total shutdown.

Thus, the entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and its long termviability is threatened without Montgomery Point. Some $5 billion in federal and

private investments, thousands of jobs, growing exports in world trade and future

economic development are endangered.

The good news is that you, your associates, the Congress and the Administration

have all recognized the urgency of constructing Montgomery Point!

The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million construction contract on July 19,

1997. Last year Congress appropriated $44 million to begin construction of the lock

and dam. Work is progressing.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional support

is essential at this crucial time in the history of the project. An appropriation of $44

million is needed for fiscal year 2000 to insure that Montgomery Point is in operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.

The Interstate Committee also respectfully recommends the following as important priorities:

Providing $500,000 for the continuation of the Arkansas River, Fort Smith Study.

While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr, navigation needs

and flood control are closely related. Sustained high flows result in difficult navigation conditions and continued flooding in the vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas. Flood

control features of the Navigation System in that area are based on the Van Buren,

Arkansas, gage, thus the flooding concerns and navigation problems are interrelated. Accordingly, this study would address the Navigation System Operating

Plan to improve navigation conditions on the river, as well as the performance of

flood control measures, especially in the Fort Smith reach.

The Interstate Committee supports funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. For fiscal year 2000 we request $6.25 million for the

U.S. Bureau Reclamation (‘‘Upper Co region Endangered Species Recovery Programs’’) and (Activities), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $1.2 million (‘‘Resources

Management Funds’’), ‘‘Section Six Funds’’, and ‘‘RWS Budget Base Funds—Fisheries Activity; Hatchery O&M, sub-activity, to operate the Endangered Fish Propagation Facilities at Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Utah.’’

The Interstate Committee also requests funding in the amount of $500,000 for the

continuation of the Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project—a

City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of Kansas

project to demonstrate the feasibility of recharging a major groundwater resource

supplying water to 500,000 municipal, industrial and irrigation users and will also

reduce potential degradation of the existing groundwater quality by minimizing migration of saline water.

Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge the Committee to provide funding in the amount

of $1.5 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System at designated locks in Oklahoma.

Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we respectfully request that you and

members of your staff review and respond in a positive way to the attached individual statements from each of our states which set forth specific requests pertaining to those states.

We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance. Thank you very much

for the foresight, wisdom and resourcefulness you and your colleagues demonstrate

each and every year in providing solutions to our nation’s water resource problems.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALLACE A. GIERINGER, CHAIRMAN FOR ARKANSAS,

ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

present testimony to this most important committee. I am retired as Executive Director of the Pine Bluff-Jefferson County Port Authority and serve as Arkansas
703

Chairman for the Interstate Committee. Other committee members representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this statement is made, are Messrs. Wayne Bennett, soybean and rice farmer from Lonoke; Colonel Charles D. Maynard, U.S. Army, retired,

from Little Rock; Barry McKuin, a Director of the Morrilton Port Authority at

Morrilton; and N. M. ‘‘Buck’’ Shell, transportation specialist of Fort Smith and Van

Buren.

1998 was a memorable year in the history of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River

Navigation System—and you helped make it so! Last year Congress continued to

recognize the urgent need for Montgomery Point Lock and Dam by appropriating

$44 million. This much needed facility is under construction near the confluence of

the McClellan-Kerr System and the Mississippi River. To each of you, your staff and

the Congress—our most heartfelt thanks!

The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million contract for construction of the

lock and dam proper on July 19, 1997 and work is progressing. When completed,

Montgomery Point will protect over $5 billion in public and private investments,

thousands of jobs and world trade created as a result of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Without Montgomery Point Lock and Dam the future

of our wonderful navigation system remains threatened. Time is of the essence.

The absence of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam continues to deter economic

growth along the entire McClellan-Kerr and the project is certainly time sensitive!

As the Mississippi River bottom continues to lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total shutdown. Existing dredge disposal areas are virtually full. Ongoing

dredging and disposal of material can mean environmental damage. Construction

must continue as rapidly as possible if the project is to be in place before disposal

areas become inadequate.

During construction, and use of a temporary by-pass channel, navigation hazards

will increase making it imperative that work on the lock and dam be completed as

quickly and as safely as possible.

We are very grateful that you, your associates, the Congress, and the Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing Montgomery Point. Appropriations of $107.3 million have been made to date for engineering, site acquisition and

construction for this project which should be completed in 2003 according to the

Corps’ optimum construction funding schedule.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional support

is essential at this crucial time in the history of the project. We respectfully request

and urge the Congress to appropriate $44 million for use in fiscal year 2000 to continue construction. Adequate funding will insure that the urgently needed facility

is in operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.

On another matter, we wish to express thanks, Mr. Chairman, for the Committee’s support of funding for the Morgan Bendway Environmental Restoration

Project. The groundbreaking ceremony was held in January in Dumas, Arkansas.

The state of Arkansas provided one-fourth of the cost for this $3.3 million project

which includes a 1,000 acre lake and wetland restoration measures. This project

adds to the many widespread public benefits associated with the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.

Other projects are vital to the environment, social and economic well-being of our

region and our nation. We recognize the importance of continued construction of

needed features to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and

strongly recommend that you favorably consider the following in your deliberations:

Provide $500,000 for the Arkansas River, Fort Smith Study. While navigation is

the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System,

navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Sustained high flows result

in difficult navigation conditions and continued flooding in the vicinity of Fort

Smith, Arkansas. As the operation of the flood control features of the Navigation

System in that area are based on the Van Buren, Arkansas gage, the flooding concerns and navigation problems are interrelated. Accordingly, this study would address the Navigation System Operating Plan to improve navigation conditions on

the river, as well as the performance of flood control measures, especially in the

Fort Smith reach.

Support continued funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of the

McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.

Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Project until remaining channel stabilization problems identified by the Little

Rock District Corps of Engineers have been resolved. It is vitally important that the

Corps continue engineering studies to develop a permanent solution to the threat

of cutoffs developing in the lower reaches of the navigation system; and for the

Corps to construct these measures under the existing construction authority.
704

Provide funding and direct the Corps to complete installation of tow haulage

equipment for all the locks and dams on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. This efficiency feature will reduce lockage time by as much as 50

percent while permitting tonnage to double in each tow with only a minor increase

in operating cost.

Provide funds and direct the Corps of Engineers to begin construction of the Arkansas River Levees Project as authorized by Section 110 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1990. Continuing engineering and design is needed for these levees

which have been previously studied in the cost-shared Arkansas River Arkansas and

Oklahoma Feasibility Study.

$1.0 million needs be specifically provided and the Corps directed to begin rehabilitation construction on the Plum Bayou Levee.

Fund completion of the repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the

Dardanelle Lock and Dam which first went into operation in 1965. After this work

is completed, power output will be increased by 13 percent and thus increase income

to the Federal Treasury.

Funds for repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the Ozark-Jeta Taylor

Lock and Dam Powerhouse which first went into operation in 1970. This project is

vitally needed to correct problems which have plagued the slant axis turbines since

they were first put in operation and to continue the reliable production of power

from this facility.

We also urge the Congress to continue to encourage the Military Traffic Management Command to identify opportunities to accelerate use of the nation’s navigable

waterways to move military cargoes, thereby helping contain the nation’s defense

costs.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please help prevent a crisis for the Arkansas River

Navigation System and the multi-state region it serves by appropriating $44 million

for use in fiscal year 2000 for Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.

The entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and its long-term viability is threatened. The System remains at risk until Montgomery Point is constructed. Some $5 billion in federal and private investments and thousands of jobs

and growing exports are endangered.

We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the Chairman of the

Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your most important subcommittee and urge you to favorably consider our request for needed infrastructure investments in the natural and transportation resources of our nation.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE ARVESCHOUG, DISTRICT GENERAL MANAGER,

SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriation Subcommittee on Energy and

Water Development, thank you for the opportunity to present these comments and

requests on behalf of Colorado as a participant in the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.

Let me first voice my support for the Interstate Committee’s priority funding requests for the fiscal year 2000 budget—the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project

and the other priority projects as listed by the Arkansas River Basin Interstate

Committee member states.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we respectfully request funding for

the following: Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program—Fiscal

Year 2000 Request—United States Bureau of Reclamation, $6.25 million (Upper CO

Region Endangered Species Recovery Programs) and (Activities), and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, $1.2 million (Resources Management Funds, Section Six Funds,

and FWS Budget Base Funds—Fisheries Activity; Hatchery O&M, sub-activity, to

operate the Endangered Fish Propagation Facilities at Ouray National Wildlife refuge, Utah)

Reduction of Bureau of Reclamation Overhead Charges: we would like to make

this Committee aware of what we consider to be excessive overhead costs on Safety

of Dams projects and project O&M. Bureau charges are adding 50 percent to 60 percent to the cost of O&M and repair projects. Of that added cost, almost half comes

from the application of the Bureau’s overhead surcharge. Congress should hold the

Bureau accountable for these costs by requiring the Bureau to study less costly alternatives for the delivery of these basic services.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you an example of these excessive charges on

a project that we are involved with.
705

Introduction.—The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District is the local

public-agency sponsor of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The multipurpose Fry-Ark

Project annually delivers approximately 70,000 acre-feet of trans-mountain water to

eastern Colorado cities and farms, serving a population of 620,000 and irrigating

over 200,000 acres. Authorized in 1962, the Fry-Ark Project was built and is today

operated and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Southeastern District

has the financial responsibility for the reimbursable construction costs and annual

operation and maintenance costs of the Project. That obligation is met through the

assessment of a tax on all real and taxable personal property within the nine-county

service-area of the District, and through direct water and storage charges. In 1999

the Southeastern District and our constituents will send the Bureau over $5.7 million. For the most part we consider it an investment in much needed water for our

local communities.

In 1997 the Bureau of Reclamation determined that major ‘‘Safety of Dams’’

(SOD) repairs were needed at the Pueblo Reservoir Dam, the largest storage facility

in the Fry-Ark Project system. Initial cost estimates for the repairs were over $28

million. The costs would be over and above the annual repayment and O&M costs,

and would be shared between the federal government and the Southeastern District.

Under the federal Safety of Dams Act of 1978 and 1984, the Bureau (federal taxpayers) would pay for 85 percent of the costs while local sponsors pay for 15 percent

of the costs. That means that the Southeastern District would pay about $4 million,

which is about 60 percent of the District’s $6.3 million total annual budget. The District has committed reserve funds and assessed additional user fees in order to meet

this additional financial obligation.

Because the District’s financial obligations for the Fry-Ark Project are substantial,

and growing, we take a keen interest in how the Bureau of Reclamation spends our

constituents’ dollars.

Excessive Administrative Costs.—The Safety of Dams (SOD) project at Pueblo

Dam has again raised concerns regarding the cost of the Bureau of Reclamation’s

administration of project operations and repairs (work began in 1997 and will be

complete Spring 2001). As documented in our Cost Comparison Report, the Bureau

of Reclamation’s administration, or ‘‘non-construction’’ costs, of the SOD repair

project (design, engineering, oversight, construction management, contract administration, etc.) Adds 48 percent to 58 percent to cost of the construction project, private-sector industry standards suggest the 15 percent to 25 percent is a reasonable

factor to administer a construction project of this type.

The Bureau of Reclamation did not give the District the option to administer the

SOD repair project ourselves (such authority may not exist). However, in a side-byside comparison of the Bureau’s estimated administrative costs and the cost to administer the project at a local level, we believe we could save at least $5 million.

That would save the federal taxpayers $4.25 million and the District $750,000,

which is a lot of money to us. It’s simple to understand where the savings come from

when you compare the organizational chart for the Bureau’s administration with the

organizational chart for our local option.

The Added Cost of Overhead Surcharge.—All Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) direct

labor costs charged to the Safety of Dams Project at Pueblo pay for the Bureau’s

administrative functions for the Project. In addition, the Bureau applies a surcharge

to these direct labor costs to cover general BOR overhead. Based upon Bureau accounting of the total expenditures to date on this project ($5.2 million since fiscal

year 1997), nearly $1.5 million is to pay for these overhead surcharges. To put that

in perspective, the cost of direct labor for Bureau personnel to work on this project

has cost $1.8 million to date. These overhead surcharges nearly double the administrative costs on this SOD project. In many cases the same is true for normal operation and maintenance on Bureau Projects. Because the Bureau of Reclamation handles the O&M for the Fry-Ark Project and assess a surcharge on every direct labor

hour, a sizable portion of the District’s annual payment’s for O&M never benefit the

Project. While these dollars are being siphoned off for general Bureau administration, we fall further and further behind in addressing critical repair and maintenance on Project facilities.

Bureau Response to Date.—Bureau decision makers on the Pueblo Dam SOD

Project have responded to the District’s request to re-evaluate their non-construction

costs. As we were negotiating a repayment contract for our share of these repair

costs, we asked the Bureau to re-think their estimated costs for ‘‘construction management.’’ Original estimates had this line item at $7.6 million just to manage the

day-to-day work of the on-site contractor who actually does the repair work. With

some repeated encouragement from the District, the Bureau did lower the estimated

cost for construction management down to $4.3 million. The actual numbers will not

be known for several months. Even with this adjustment in estimated costs, the Bu-
706

reau’s administration of this SOD Project nearly exceeds the actual bid price for the

major construction component of the Project (contract for RCC placement—$8.9 million; Bureau non-construction costs—$8.3 million).

Conclusions and Recommendations.—The Southeastern District is proud to be the

local sponsor for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and has considered itself a willing

partner with the Bureau of Reclamation on the development and operation of the

Project since Congress authorized the Project in 1962. However, the present-day cost

of doing business with the Bureau of Reclamation makes it more and more difficult

for the District to afford the partnership. The excessive administrative charges and

surcharges on the Pueblo Dam SOD Project are just one example of just how costly

it is to do business with the Bureau. We have similar concerns with the Bureau’s

operation and maintenance of the Fry-Ark Project. It is difficult for us to repeatedly

go back to our constituents to ask them for more money to keep pace with the Bureau’s costly business practices.

We offer the following recommendations as an alternative to the status quo:

1. Allow for local administration of Safety of Dams projects and O&M on Bureau

facilities to reduce costs to local beneficiaries and the federal taxpayer.

2. Reduce the Bureau’s administrative structure so that the fundamental services

of the Bureau can be delivered at less cost—this would allow for a reduction in the

overhead surcharge rates now being applied to maintain the current Bureau administrative structure.

3. Totally eliminate or substantially reduce the overhead surcharges on all SOD

projects—the general administrative functions of the Bureau should already be covered by the current surcharges on Project O&M and other direct charges.

4. Review and audit the Bureau’s application of their ‘‘cost recovery objectives and

policies’’, and ‘‘contracts and repayment policy’’—local water users cannot even discuss their future water management objectives with the Bureau without being

charged—where does this money go?

Mr. Chairman and Members, your time and interest in these matters is greatly

appreciated. As I present these issues and requests to you, I recognize the difficulty

you have in meeting these needs along with the many others you have been presented. Of course, like the others, the requests of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee are important to us and our constituents. Your fair consideration

of the needs of the member states of the Interstate Committee is all that I can ask.

Thank you for your commitment to the water resource needs of our citizens.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD H. HOLMAN, CHAIRMAN FOR KANSAS, ARKANSAS

RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman, Senior

Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita, Kansas and

Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas Basin Development

Association. This statement is submitted on behalf of the entire Kansas Delegation.

We are honored to join with our colleagues from the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, and Missouri to form the five (5) state Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We are unified as a region and fully endorse the statement of the

Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.

In addition to the important projects listed below, we state our unanimous support for the continued construction of the authorized Montgomery Point Lock and

Dam Project to maintain viable navigation for commerce on the McClellan-Kerr

Navigation System. This inland waterway is vital to the economic health of our

area. Your support is vital to maintain its future viability. Construction is well underway and continued funding authorization is needed. We state our unanimous

support for the $44 million needed by the Corps of Engineers to maintain the most

economical and cost efficient construction schedule.

The water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the Arkansas River Basin

have been carefully reviewed by the Kansas delegation and reflect accurately the

need. Many of the projects are safety, environmental and conservation oriented. We

are grateful for your past commitment and respectfully request your continued commitment.

We ask for your continued support for these important Bureau of Reclamation

projects on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas area:

1. Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project.—This is the continuation of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the City of Wichita,

Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas. This model technology is demonstrating the feasibility of recharging a major groundwater resource

supplying water to nearly one-half million irrigation, municipal and industrial
707

users. The full scale project, when implemented, will capture flood flows from the

Little Arkansas River providing water for use during times of low rainfall or dry

conditions and will also reduce on-going degradation of the existing groundwater

quality by minimizing migration of saline water. The Bureau of Reclamation pilot

project is fully operational. Data positively supports predictions that the full scale

project can be successful and is capable of meeting the increasing water resource

needs of the area to the mid 21st century. The pilot project is scheduled for an additional two years to confirm early findings.

The Equus Beds provides approximately half of the Wichita area regional municipal water supply. This recharge project is vital to the future of the metropolitan

Wichita area and surrounding farming communities. Governor Graves supports this

much needed project as a benefit to 20 percent of the state’s population. We are

grateful for your consistent funding support since fiscal year 1995 which totals $3

million as a compliment to cost share funds provided by the City of Wichita. We request continued funding in the amount of $500,000 for fiscal year 2000.

For fiscal year 1998, the Conference Committee also approved the following report

language: ‘‘The conferees direct the Bureau of Reclamation to notify the Committees

on Appropriations of the House and the Senate before reprogramming any funds

from the Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project in Kansas.’’

This or similar language was also approved in fiscal year 1999. We request this or

similar language remain for fiscal year 2000.

2. Cheney Reservoir.—The reservoir provides greater than 50 percent of Wichita’s

regional water supply. Two environmental problems threaten the water quality and

longevity of the reservoir. One is sedimentation from soil erosion and the other is

non-point source pollution, particularly the amount of phosphates entering the reservoir resulting in offensive taste and odor problems. A partnership between farmers, ranchers and the City of Wichita has proven beneficial in implementing soil

conservation practices and to better manage and/or eliminate non-point source pollution. This partnership must continue indefinitely to protect the reservoir and the

Wichita water supply and therefore, on-going funding will also be important. The

City of Wichita is providing funding for this critical, nationally acclaimed model

project. We request continued funding in the amount of $125,000 for fiscal year

2000. As the funding from Section 319 of the Clean Water Act is phased out, we

request another source to maintain funding at a total of $125,000.

Recently, the Bureau of Reclamation completed a Comprehensive Facility Review

for the Cheney Dam. The Review concluded that significant damage exists in the

soil-cement slope of the dam, which must be fully determined, and needed repairs

completed. Present plans are to lower the reservoir during the winter of 1999/2000

to accurately determine needed repairs and then complete those repairs. Lowering

the reservoir the necessary 4 feet will reduce available water supply by 24 percent.

Repairs must be completed at the time the reservoir is lowered. We request funding

support in the amount of $500,000 to accomplish the work required by the Bureau

of Reclamation.

3. Arkansas River Mineral Intrusion Study.—A critically important research is the

Mineral Intrusion Study in the Equus Beds Aquifer along the Arkansas River between the cities of Nickerson and Hutchinson. Ground water pumping in the aquifer

is inducing saltwater from the river into the freshwater supplies of the Equus Beds.

The State of Kansas has supported this project with cost share monies and now the

Bureau of Reclamation is funding completion of the modeling. Data collection was

complete at year end 1998 and the report could be published by year end 1999. Special funding for this project is not needed in fiscal year 2000. However, following

analysis of the study results, follow-on projects might be warranted along with federal funding.

Many of our agricultural communities have historically experienced major flood

disasters, some of which have resulted in multi-state hardships involving portions

of the state of Oklahoma. The flood of 1998 emphasized again the need to rapidly

move needed projects to completion. Approximately 1,600 homes were damaged or

destroyed with damage totaling approximately $38 million. Most of the damage occurred in Sedgwick, Butler and Cowley counties. Our small communities do not

have the necessary funds or engineering expertise. Federal support is needed.

Projects in addition to local protection are also important. This Committee has given

its previous support to Kansas Corps of Engineers projects. We request your continued support for the projects listed below.

1. Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.—Unfortunately, this project was not

completed prior to the flood of 1998. The flood demonstrated again the critical need

to protect the environment, homes and businesses from catastrophic damages from

either Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding. When the project is complete, damage in a multi-county area will be eliminated and benefits to the state of Oklahoma
708

just a few miles south will also result. The Secretary of the Army was authorized

to construct the project in fiscal year 1997. We request your continued support in

the amount of $4.3 million for fiscal year 2000.

2. Winfield, Kansas Flood Protection.—This project is scheduled for completion in

June 1999. However, project closeout work will continue into fiscal year 2000. We

greatly appreciate the support to complete the much needed project as was again

demonstrated by the flood of 1998. We request continued funding at the level needed by the Corps of Engineers to closeout the project.

3. Walnut and Whitewater River Watersheds, Kansas, Reconnaissance Study.—A

reconnaissance study of the water resource problems in this watershed is critical.

The devastating flood of 1998 left more than 600 homes and businesses damaged

in and around the city of Augusta. In addition, local officials are concerned about

the economic future of the area due to water supply and infrastructure constraints.

A study would evaluate the basin needs and would include a reevaluation of the

proposed Douglass Lake project. We request funding in the amount of $100,000 to

conduct the reconnaissance study.

4. John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.—John Redmond Reservoir remains a primary source of water supply for many small communities in Kansas. It

is suffering loss of capacity ahead of its design rate because of excessive deposits

within the conservation pool. The flood pool remains above its design capacity. A

study would ascertain the equitable distribution of sediment storage between conservation and flood control storages and also evaluate the environmental impact of

the appropriate reallocation. Funding requirements for the Corps of Engineers study

is $550,000. We request your support.

5. Upper Arkansas River Watershed, Kansas, Reconnaissance Study.—A reconnaissance study of the high flow carrying capacity of the Arkansas River from the Colorado State Line to the vicinity of Great Bend is important to western Kansas. This

study would compliment the research accomplished on the Colorado portion of the

river below the federally-constructed John Martin Dam. Lack of flows over the past

two decades has allowed vegetation to encroach into the river channel, thereby restricting its ability to convey flood flows during runoff periods. Additionally, the delineation of the Ordinary High Water Mark separating the river channel property

between the public trust and private lands has become muddled because of the lack

of definition of a permanent channel in the Western Kansas reach. The study will

evaluate the watershed changes to determine if flood damage prevention, watershed

and ecosystem restoration or other solutions to water resource problems in the basin

are warranted. We request this project be funded in the amount of $100,000 to complete the necessary research.

6. Grand Lake Feasibility Study.—The Grand-Neosho River Committee was

formed at the request of the Kansas and Oklahoma congressional delegations to

evaluate water resource problems associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements necessary for flood control operations which affect both Kansas and

Oklahoma. A study authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996

was completed in September of 1998 and determined that if the project were constructed based on current criteria, additional easements would be acquired. A Feasibility study is now required to determine the most cost-effective solution to the real

estate inadequacies. Changes in the operations of the project or other upstream

changes could have a significant impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River

Basin system, as well. We request funding in the amount of $3 million in fiscal year

2000 to fully fund Feasibility studies for this project.

7. Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.—A need exists for a

basin wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River basin, apart

from the issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study

would focus on the evaluation of institutional measures which could assist communities, landowners, and other interests in southeastern Kansas and northeastern

Oklahoma in the development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages.

We request funding in the amount of $100,000 in fiscal year 2000 to conduct the

study.

8. Continuing Authorities Program.—We support funding for this program including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control

Act, as amended) as well as the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended). Smaller communities in Kansas

(Iola, Liberal, Medicine Lodge, Iola, McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona and Coffeyville) have requested assistance from the Corps of Engineers and are currently

on the waiting list. We urge you to support these programs to the $40 million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control Projects Program and $15 million for

the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program.
709

9. Operation, Maintenance and Planning Assistance Budgets.—To effectively manage water resources in the state, continued funding for the Corps of Engineers for

planning assistance, operation and maintenance is needed, specifically for Water

Control. Of particular interest at this time is on-going stream gaging support to help

plan and develop solutions to potential flooding so the devastating effects of the

flood of 1998 will not happen in the future. Continued funding at the programmatic

limits, specifically for Water Control, is requested.

Your continued support of a most important U.S. Department of Interior, Fish &

Wildlife Service project is very much appreciated:

1. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.—This is a joint project involving the U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service—Region 6, the State of Kansas, the local Groundwater Management District and the Water Protection Association of Central Kansas. Quivira

provides a resting area for waterfowl and endangered species during their annual

migrations in the Central Flyway. The Refuge is comprised of a series of shallow

pools totaling about 6,500 surface acre-feet and is part of the Rattlesnake Creek

basin. The Rattlesnake Creek basin has experienced groundwater and streamflow

declines due to climatic conditions as well as expansion of irrigated agriculture. An

engineering feasibility study is nearing completion which will identify the watershed-based options available for producing the most efficient and effective use of the

water resources in the Rattlesnake Creek basin to protect the Wildlife Refuge as

well as the agriculture economy of the area. We appreciate your previous funding

in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997. Federal funds along with cost share funds

from the State of Kansas and area businesses/organizations were sufficient to complete the study. No funding was requested for fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999

and none is requested for fiscal year 2000. However, future funding requests may

be made.

Finally, we are most concerned with any proposal to limit participation of both

the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation in development and protection

of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have the integrity and continuity

these agencies provide on major public projects. Your continued support of these

vital agencies, including funding, will be greatly appreciated. Our infrastructure

must be maintained and where needed, enhanced for the future.

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, we thank you for the dedicated

manner in which you and your colleagues have dealt with the Water Resources Programs and for allowing us to present our views and recommendations. We look forward with great expectations and hope for the future of water resource development

in Kansas and the entire Arkansas River Basin.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES M. HEWGLEY, JR., CHAIRMAN FOR OKLAHOMA

ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James M. Hewgley, Jr., Oklahoma Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, from Tulsa,

Oklahoma.

It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the Oklahoma Members

of our committee in support of adequate funding for water resource development

projects in our area of the Arkansas River Basin. Other members of the Committee

are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr. Edwin L. Gage, Muskogee; and Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; Mr. Lew Meibergen, Enid.

Together with representatives of the other Arkansas River Basin states, we fully

endorse the statement presented to you by the Chairman of the Arkansas River

Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views of

the special needs of our State concerning several studies, projects and programs.

As we have testified in the past, serious problems exist at the waterway entrance

to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Extensive modeling and

testing has proven that construction of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam is the only

acceptable means to correct the problem. The project is well underway and adequate

funding must follow to keep the project on its construction schedule.

Your recognition, as well as that of the Administration, of the importance of constructing Montgomery Point Lock and Dam is very gratifying. To date, you and your

colleagues have appropriated $107,3 million for engineering, site acquisition and

construction. This action is very much appreciated.

We are grateful that the Congress, in Public Law 102–580, directed that ‘‘The Secretary shall proceed expeditiously with design, land acquisition and construction of

the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam on the White River, Arkansas, authorized as

part of the McClellan-Kerr Waterway by section 1 of the River and Harbor Act of

July 24, 1946 (60 State. 635–363).’’
710

We respectfully request the Congress to appropriate $44 million in the fiscal year

2000 budget cycle to continue construction of the authorized project. This is the

amount the Corps of Engineers has indicated is necessary to keep the project on

schedule. This will help insure the project is completed and in operation as soon as

possible at the lowest possible cost.

Mr. Chairman, members of this distinguished Committee, we respectfully remind

each of you this navigation system has brought low cost water transportation to

Oklahoma, Arkansas and surrounding states. There has been in excess of $5 billion

invested in the construction and development of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River

Navigation System by the Federal Government and the public and private sector.

There have been more than 50,000 jobs created as a result of the partnered investment.

Tow Haulage Equipment, Oklahoma.—We strongly urge the Committee to provide funding in the amount of $1.5 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage

equipment on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System at designated

locks in Oklahoma. This project would involve installation of tow haulage equipment

on W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam #14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and dam #15, and Webbers

Falls Lock and Dam #16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage equipment is needed to make transportation of barges more economical by allowing less time for tows to pass through the various locks.

We are particularly pleased that the President’s budget includes funds to advance

work for Flood control in Oklahoma. Of special interest to our committee is funding

for the Skiatook and Tenkiller Ferry Lakes, Dam Safety Assurance Project in Oklahoma. We are pleased that construction funding has been provided for these important projects.

We support funding for the Grand Lake and Arkansas River System Operations

Feasibility Studies. We also support funding for reconnaissance studies of watershed

development needs for the Cimarron River Basin, the Illinois River Basin, the

Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed, and the Upper Arkansas River Basin.

Grand Lake Feasibility Study.—We support the ongoing effort to evaluate water

resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in Kansas and Oklahoma and

request funding to initiate a comprehensive Feasibility study. We support the continued funding of studies to evaluate solutions to upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements necessary for flood control

operation of Grand Lake Oklahoma. A study, authorized by the Water Resources

Development Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined that

if the project were constructed based on current criteria, additional easements would

be acquired. A Feasibility study is now required to determine the most cost effective

solution to the real estate inadequacies. Changes in the operations of the project or

other upstream changes could have a significant impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the

Arkansas River basin system, as well; we urge you to provide $3 million to fully

fund Feasibility studies for this important project in fiscal year 2000.

Cimarron River Basin reconnaissance Study.—We request funding in the amount

of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the Cimarron River Basin. Studies

conducted by the Tulsa district in the 1970’s identified the potential for flood damage reduction measures in the Cimarron River Basin. Several potential multiple

purpose reservoirs were considered for development in response to needs for flood

control, water supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation. Development and operation

of these projects in conjunction with the existing system of reservoirs in the Arkansas River Basin would provide for flood damage reduction along the Cimarron River

downstream as well as along the Arkansas River from Keystone Dam near Tulsa

to Fort Smith, Arkansas. These projects would also offer the potential for development of hydropower and navigation benefits along the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas

River Navigation System. Additional water resource development, including restoration of habitat lost as a result of Federal construction and rehabilitation of Federally

constructed watershed projects require further evaluation within the basin.

Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study.—We request funding in the

amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the water resource problems of the Illinois River Basin. The Illinois River watershed is experiencing continued water resource development needs and is the focus of ongoing Corps and other

agency investigations. However, there are increasing watershed influences upstream

of Lake Tenkiller which impact on the quality of water available for fish and wildlife, municipal and industrial water supply users, and recreation users of the Lake

Tenkiller and Illinois river waters. The committee requests funding to initiate reconnaissance studies for the Illinois River Watershed in fiscal year 2000.

Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.—We request funding in

the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the water resource
711

problems in the Grand (Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas. There is a need

for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River basin,

apart from the issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance

study would focus on the evaluation of institutional measures which could assist

communities, landowners, and other interests in northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in the development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the basin. The committee requests funding to initiate reconnaissance studies

in fiscal year 2000.

Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas and Oklahoma.—

We also request funding for a Feasibility study of the optimization of the Arkansas

River system in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The system of multipurpose lakes in Arkansas and Oklahoma on the Arkansas River and its tributaries supports the

McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, which was opened for navigation to the Port of

Catoosa at Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1970. The navigation system consists of 445 miles

of waterway that winds through the states of Oklahoma and Arkansas. This study

would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and Arkansas that provide flows into

the river with a view toward improving the number of days per year that the navigation system would accommodate tows. The committee requests funding of approximately $500,000 to initiate feasibility studies in fiscal year 2000.

We also request funding for reallocation studies for John Redmond Reservoir in

Kansas, Broken Bow, Wister and Tenkiller Lakes in Oklahoma.

John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.—We request funding of approximately $550,000 to conduct a reallocation study of the water storage of John

Redmond Reservoir, Kansas. A reallocation study is needed at John Redmond Reservoir to insure an equitable distribution of sediment storage between conservation

and flood control storage’s. This study will help insure the project can continue to

provide for both important water resource purposes.

Broken Bow Lake Reallocation Study.—Public Law 102–580, PP 102(V) provided

for the reallocation of a sufficient amount of existing water supply storage space to

support the Mountain Fork Trout Fishery. Releases of water for the fishery is to

be undertaken under terms and conditions acceptable to the Secretary of the Army.

The Corps has been cooperating with the state of Oklahoma to make releases for

the trout fishery in a series of demonstration programs since 1989. There is a Federal interest in the reallocation of storage from one project purpose if it achieves

an increase in the net National Economic Development benefits and has no significant environmental impacts. However, recreation is a low priority for Army Civil

Works funding and the Federal government is limited to no net out-of-pocket expense. A re-allocation study must be conducted to determine the amount of storage

needed to support the fishery, costs, benefits, and a National Environmental Policy

Act evaluation for impacts to existing project purposes and downstream environments. The results of this re-allocation study will be documented in a report to be

used by the Assistant Secretary of the Army. The report will provide recommendations for future interim use arrangements. Mr. Chairman, we support funding in the

amount of $170,000 for this study.

Wister Lake Reallocation Study.—We request funding of approximately $450,000

to conduct a reallocation study of the water storage of Wister Lake, Oklahoma. Wister Lake is located on the Poteau River near Wister, Oklahoma. The lake was completed in 1949 for flood control, water supply, water conservation and sediment control. Wister Lake is the primary water resource development project in the Poteau

River Basin. It provides substantial flood control, municipal and industrial water

supply, and recreation benefits for residents of LeFlore County, Oklahoma, and the

southeastern Oklahoma region. Originally constructed for flood control and water

conservation, seasonal pool manipulation was initiated in 1974 to improve the

project’s water supply and recreation resources. The conservation pool level was permanently raised in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. A reallocation

study, which would include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) coordination,

is required. NEPA and other resource evaluation and coordination would include the

assessment of cultural and fish and wildlife impacts, potential mitigation measures,

and reallocation studies.

Lake Tenkiller Reallocation Study.—We request funding of approximately

$500,000 to conduct a reallocation study of the water storage of Tenkiller Ferry

Lake, Oklahoma. Tenkiller Ferry Lake is located on the Illinois River approximately

7 miles northeast of Gore, Oklahoma, and 22 miles southeast of Muskogee, Oklahoma. Construction of the existing project began in June 1947 and the dam was

completed in May 1952. The proposed study would involve reallocation of the authorized project purposes among competing users of the project’s flood control, hydropower and water supply resources.
712

We also support funding for the Continuing Authorities Program including the

Small Flood Control Projects Program, (Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act,

as amended) and the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program, (Section 14 of

the 1946 Flood Control Act, as Amended). We want to express our appreciation for

your continued support of those programs.

We request your support of the Planning Assistance to States Program (Section

22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which authorizes the Corps of

Engineers to use its technical expertise in water and related land resource management to help States and Indian Tribes solve their water resource problems. The program is used by many states to support their State Water Plans. As natural resources diminish, the need to manage those resources becomes more critical. We

urge your continued support of this important program as it supports States and

Native American Tribes in developing resource management plans which will benefit citizens for years to come. The program is very valuable and effective, matching

Federal and non-Federal funds to provide cost effective engineering expertise and

support to assist communities, states and tribes in the development of plans for the

management, optimization, and preservation of basin, watershed, and ecosystem resources. The Water resources Development Act of 1996 increased the annual program limit from $6 million to $10 million and we urge this program be fully funded

to the programmatic limit of $10 million.

Section 205. Although the small Flood control Projects Program addresses flood

problems which generally impact smaller communities and rural areas and would

appear to benefit only those communities, the impact of those projects on economic

development crosses county, regional, and sometimes state boundaries. The communities served by the program frequently do not have the funds or engineering expertise necessary to provide adequate flood damage reduction measures for their citizens. Continued flooding can have a devastating impact on community development,

so much so, in fact, that there is currently a backlog of requests from communities

who have requested assistance under this program. Oklahoma communities that

have requested assistance from the Corps of Engineers under the Section 205 authority and are currently on a waiting list include Cherokee, Sayre, Dewey,

McAlester, Claremore, and Warr Acres. Additionally, the Pawnee Indian Tribe has

requested the Corps’ assistance with flooding problems. We urge this program be

fully funded to the programmatic limit of $40 million.

Section 14. Likewise, the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program provides

quick response engineering design and construction to protect important local utilities, roads, and other public facilities in smaller urban and rural settings from damage due to streambank erosion. The protection afforded by this program helps insure that important roads, bridges, utilities, and other public structures remain safe

and useful. By providing small, affordable, and relatively quickly constructed

projects, these two programs enhance the lives of many by providing safe and stable

living environments. There is also a backlog of requests under this program; counties in Oklahoma that have requested assistance under the Section 14 authority and

are on a waiting list include Blain, Wood, Kiowa, and Kingfisher. The city of Clinton, Oklahoma, and Waurika Master Conservancy District have also requested assistance. We urge this program be funded to the programmatic limit of $15 million.

Sections 1135 and 206. We also request your continued support of and funding

for the Ecosystem restoration Programs (Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of

1996). The Ecosystem restoration Programs are relatively new programs which offer

the Corps of Engineers a unique opportunity to work to restore valuable habitat,

wetlands, and other important environmental features which previously could not

be considered. Local interest has been expressed for potential ecosystem restoration

projects located at Great Salt Plains Reservoir, the Mountain Fork River, Meadow

Lake, and the North Canadian River in Oklahoma. The Section 1135 Program is already providing significant benefits to the states of Kansas and Oklahoma. A Section 1135 project is complete at Arcadia Lake in Oklahoma. A Section 1135 project

is underway at the Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge. We urge that these programs be fully funded to programmatic limit of $25 million each.

We also request your continued support of the Flood Plain Management Services

Program (Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act) which authorizes the Corps of

Engineers to use its technical expertise to provide guidance in flood plain management matters to all private, local, state, and Federal entities. The objective of the

program is to support comprehensive flood plain management planning. The program is one of the most beneficial programs available for reducing flood losses and

provides assistance to officials from cities, counties, state, and Indian Tribes to ensure that new facilities are not built in areas prone to floods. Assistance includes

flood warning, flood proofing, and other flood damage reduction measures, and crit-
713

ical flood plain information is provided on a cost reimbursable basis to home owners,

mortgage companies, realtor’s and others for use in flood plain awareness and flood

insurance requirements.

We also request your support and funding for the Challenge 21 Program. The

Challenge 21 Program is in support of the Clean Water Action Plan and would provide opportunity for the Corps of Engineers to work closely with other Federal,

State, and Local land and water resource agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to reduce flood damages and improve quality of life. The program would focus

on watershed-based solutions that could also include the restoration of riparian and

wetland ecosystems. Although the construction of dams and levees has prevented

billions of dollars in flood damages, many communities still experience disastrous

flood events. Some of that flooding can be attributed to over development in and

around the flood plain. The Challenge 21 program will focus on opportunities to

move homes and businesses from harms way through structural and non-structural

measures and through comprehensive watershed planning efforts. We support funding of this important initiative.

On a related matter, we would share with you that we are greatly concerned that

the Administration has not requested sufficient funds to meet the increasing infrastructure needs of our nation. The Administration’s request for $3.9 billion will not

keep projects moving at the optimum level to complete them on a cost effective

basis. Moving the completion dates out is an unacceptable exercise since 50 percent

of the funds come from the Waterways Trust Fund. This will not only waste federal

funds but, those from the trust fund as well.

The Administration’s proposal to use the money from the not-yet-enacted Harbor

Services Fund, is akin to counting your chickens before they hatch. Mr. Chairman,

this committee finds that proposal unacceptable. We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of Engineers budget to $4.7 billion so that the

Corps can meet the obligations of the Federal Government to people of this great

country.

Concerning another related matter, we have deep concerns about the attempt to

re-authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant beneficial reforms. If

a bill is passed through without reforms, it will be devastating to industry and the

country as a whole. We strongly urge you to take a hard look at any bill concerning

this re-authorization and insure that it contains reasonable and meaningful reforms.

The Tenkiller Utilities Authority.—The Tenkiller Utilities Authority (TUA) was established October 19, 1998 as a Public Trust under Oklahoma Law. TUA is comprised of twenty-nine (29) rural water districts, rural towns, and Native American

Governments. TUA’s main purpose is the production of safe drinking water on a

wholesale basis distributed through our Authority members to about 60,000 retail

customers. About 12,000 of that number are not presently serviced at all. Current

providers are individually struggling to meet increasingly stringent drinking water

standards and some are operating with outdated equipment. By coming together

under a single Authority, providers can gain economies of scale and provide uniform, high quality water at consistent prices.

TUA has been working closely with the Oklahoma water resources board, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Eastern Oklahoma Development district, Cherokee Hills

Resource Conservation and Development Project, and the Cherokee Nation. The cooperation and partnering among these groups has been outstanding. The TUA has

been successful in bringing together, in a single regional entity, varied interests who

share a common goal: Improving the health and quality of life for all citizens in the

Lake Tenkiller region. The great challenge now before the TUA is to finalize the

plan and build the system. The members of the TUA believe they can make it happen.

Mr. Chairman, we include the section on The Tenkiller Utilities Authority to show

that the studies and projects that are supported by the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, are necessary and essential to the further development of rural

utilities and compliance with mandated government regulations as they relate to

water resources.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our views on these subjects.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. BRESCIA, PRESIDENT, MIDWEST AREA

RIVER COALITION 2000

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Christopher J. Brescia,

President of the Midwest Area River Coalition 2000 (MARC 2000). Thank you for
714

the opportunity to submit our coalition’s views on the needs of the Mississippi Valley.

I would like to structure this testimony to address:

—The shortcomings in the President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Mississippi

Valley Corps of Engineers programs;

—Specific Upper Mississippi/Illinois Waterway fiscal year 2000 appropriations

need; and

—Specific concerns with the Upper Mississippi/Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND

Over 60 percent of the U. S. grain exports reach world markets by transiting the

Upper Mississippi River system to our Gulf ports. Returning traffic often brings agricultural inputs, petroleum, coal, steel, cement and other materials into the inner

reaches of the Midwest. These exports contribute, on average, $18 Billion per year

to our balance of trade and are fundamental to supporting farmer incomes.

According to the independent accounting firm Price Waterhouse, barge traffic

originating and terminating on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers has been

estimated to support over 153,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs) or between 306,000

to 459,000 full and part-time jobs in the 10-state Mississippi River Valley. These

jobs are estimated to generate $4 Billion in income and between $11–15 Billion in

business revenue. This data reinforces other data establishing the strong linkage between the Upper Mississippi and Lower Mississippi Valleys.

Our sixty-year-old lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers has provided reliable, environmentally friendly and cost-effective barge transportation which currently provides net transportation savings of $1.5 Billion per year

to the U. S. economy, including $671 million in savings to farmers. However, in

order to continue these benefits, certain lock chambers need to lengthened to accommodate modern tows (Tow boat with 15 barges).

While the 35 dam locations are structurally sound, traffic volume has grown from

2 million tons to over 100 million tons of cargo, creating congestion choke points at

the lower portion of the system (five locations on the Upper Mississippi River and

two on the Illinois River). This congestion is costing our economy millions of dollars

per year and is expected to grow exponentially as traffic increases by 63 to 100 percent over the next 30 years. River congestion, contributing to transportation cost inefficiencies, is a key determining factor that leads to reduced farmer income for

those grains exported and in relation to the overall price of corn, soybean and wheat

in the heartland. Without efficient water transportation U.S. exports will continue

to decline and farmer income will suffer needlessly. Preliminary results from a

Texas A&M study identify a potential loss of between $100-$150 million per year

to agricultural producers if congestion choke points limit our capacity to process

traffic efficiently.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 MISSISSIPPI VALLEY APPROPRIATIONS NEEDS

The Mississippi Valley’s civil works needs are under funded by approximately $190 million. The total requested level of $685 million needs to be raised to $875

million in order for key projects to be completed at optimum levels. The President’s

budget shorts the Mississippi Valley construction program by over $100 million resulting in inefficient time lines, extended schedules, delayed projects, broken commitments to the local sponsors and loss of benefits to the nation.

The President’s budget continues to place a strain on the operation and maintenance of the system. It does not even provide sufficient funds to cover ‘‘non-deferrable’’ maintenance and operations services, the bare essentials. An additional $108

million would be needed to take care of these problems.

The perils of flooding that led to the creation of the Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries project are at a higher risk with the President’s budget. This integrated

project protecting the populations of seven states is quickly eroding in credibility.

Levees in place are as much as six feet below grade in height, in other areas below

grade in sections. The risk of not providing sufficient funding for this program of

national significance is unsupportable. Approximately $70 million in additional

funds are needed for the 20∂ projects within the scope of this program and for general maintenance.

SPECIFIC UPPER MISSISSIPPI FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATION NEEDS

Within the Mississippi Valley’s needs, there are approximately $40.5 million additional dollars necessary in the Upper Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri Rivers programs. We would urge the following funds be made available accordingly:
715

[In millions of dollars]

Budget requestWhat we

want Variance

General Investigations:

Upper Miss Nav Study ...................................................................... 6.700 15.700 9.00

Upper Miss Flow Frequency .............................................................. 2.100 2.100 ................

Comprehensive Plan Study ............................................................... ................ 2.000 2.00

Subtotal ........................................................................................ ................ ................ 11.00

Construction General:

L&D 24 Part 1 Rehab ...................................................................... 3.844 3.844 ................

L&D 24 Part 2 Rehab ...................................................................... 1.200 1.200 ................

L&D 25 Rehab .................................................................................. 4.560 4.560 ................

Mel Price ........................................................................................... 2.900 3.900 1.00

EMP ................................................................................................... 18.955 18.955 ................

L&D 12 Rehab .................................................................................. 2.600 ( 1 ) ( 1 )

L&D 14 Rehab .................................................................................. 4.092 ( 1 ) ( 1 )

Missouri River Mitigation ................................................................. 5.000 10.000 5.00

L&D 3 Rehab .................................................................................... 3.200 3.200 ( 1 )

MS River (MO–OH) ........................................................................... 3.000 4.500 1.50

Subtotal ........................................................................................ ................ ................ 7.50

Operation & Maintenance:

MS River, MN–MO ............................................................................ 103.547 108.547 5.00

MS River (MO–OH) ........................................................................... 13.544 ................ ................

Illinois Waterway .............................................................................. 25.368 ................ ................

Kaskaskia River Nav. ....................................................................... 1.588 ................ ................

Missouri River ................................................................................... 7.812 ................ ................

Major Maintenance ........................................................................... ................ 17.00 17.00

Subtotal ........................................................................................ ................ ................ 22.00

Total ............................................................................................. ................ ................ 40.50

1Major maintenance.

Additional funds are needed to implement an expedited pre-construction and design initiative for seven locks extensions on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois

Waterway. Addressing these function now, during the study phase lowers our competitive risk and prepares for whenever Congress authorizes construction, rather

than waiting until the full study is completed. In addition, additional funds are

needed to initiate a comprehensive study for an integrated flood control system in

the Upper Mississippi Basin.

Funding from the construction account in the Upper Mississippi Basin is close to

capability levels, except for two categories and the Missouri mitigation program. It

is important that additional funding be provided for these accounts to meet efficient

time lines and to create additional opportunities for finding creative ways of enhancing the habitat restoration on the Missouri River. Those projects with an asterisk

have Major Maintenance counterparts to the Major Rehab projects underway.

One of the most vexing problems has been the lack of operation and maintenance

funds to sufficiently address dredging needs, major maintenance needs at key locks

and some key safety concerns. An additional $5 million is needed for dredging alone.

In many cases the least cost alternative may not be the environmentally preferred

alternative needing additional funds. In addition, at L&D #3, there is a clear safety

concern requiring extension of the Guardwall Major Maintenance Project ($13.3 M)

for which no funds are available. At L&D 12 & 14 there are over $40 million in

Major Maintenance project needs that should be expedited. In addition, L&D 27 requires an additional $1.1 M in major maintenance repairs. All these facilities have

exceeded their design life and are critical to the functioning of the system. For example, in 1997 L&D 27 was closed for 50 days to replace parts on the miter gates.

The estimated cost to navigation for tows waiting was estimated to be $17.5 million

that year.
716

CONCERNS WITH THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI/LLLINOIS WATERWAY NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY

STUDY

Mr. Chairman, we have lost confidence in the Upper Mississippi River/Illinois Waterway Feasibility process. We recommend that this Committee review the process

and methodology and take whatever steps are necessary to direct the Corps of Engineers to provide Congress with an Interim Feasibility report by June 2000. The

competitive position of our nation is at stake and we must be prepared to have Congress informed sufficiently to make important authorization decisions in a WRDA

2000. An independent economic critique will be provided the Committee within the

next six weeks to help clarify technical and theoretical flaws in the approach chosen

by the Corps of Engineers. MARC 2000 is also prepared to make technical experts

available for a briefing of Committee Members and staff as might be deemed appropriate.

MARC 2000 has been part of this study process, working with the Corps of Engineer, other federal agencies and State government representatives for the last six

years. Although we can point to some positive outcomes to this process, we are dismayed by the ‘‘new’’ and improved economic model used for calculating benefits and

cost. Let’s examine some of the assumptions that are embedded in this thinking:

(1) While barge rates will increase due to congestion on the river, rail rates will

not increase over the next 50 years and rail will be able to absorb any movements

of commodities leaving the river.

Mr. Chairman, we spent two days at Secretary Glickman and Slater’s Transportation Summit last year and heard testimony from rail representatives indicating

the lack of any additional capacity to move grain. In addition, when coming to this

conclusion the Corps acknowledged that they did not consider the increased costs

to rail that would have to be borne to increase terminal and switching capacity.

And, in interviews with grain companies who use both rail and water, they indicate

that the evolving patterns of grain movement, due to global competition are moving

in the exact opposite direction required by the rail companies—that is movements

over part of the year instead of the whole year. Anyone with any common sense understands the irrational logic behind this assumption, if not the skepticism we hold.

(2) In accepting traffic forecasts, the Corps of Engineers accepted growth lines

that do not take into consideration the major impact biotechnology will have in increasing corn and soybean yields or developing specialty grains for export customers.

Despite considerable documentation provided by leading biotech companies and

commodity groups, the Corps refuses to accept this possibility in determining the

National Economic Development Plan. Many experts agree we are on the threshold

of major potential in this field. If the Corps is charged to think on a 50-year time

line, then they must incorporate this information accordingly.

(3) Because the Corps is unable to empirically prove the relationship between

barge freight increases and whether grain will stay or not stay on the river, they

have qualitatively determined ‘‘barge freight demand curves.’’

I won’t go into details about this here, our economic paper will, but consider the

following. This model assumption claims that relatively small increases in barge

rates will lead to major diversion of grain to other uses and conversely, lowering

of barge rates sufficiently will lead to major exports of U. S. grain. This assumption

is held without regard to knowing the demand capacity of other uses.

Think about that, we are asked to have faith in a model that not only predicts

that under certain conditions we will export the total production of the nation, but

also predicts that we will export the entire production of the world. What are we

going to do, import grain from South America and then export it down the Mississippi River for export to Asia? Our experts have evaluated this model, taken it

apart and had discussions with lead economists in the Corps and are aghast at the

lack of understanding of basic economic principles and market functions.

(4) This model does not take into account the strategic decisions of competing nations in meeting global customer needs.

This study is supposed to be evaluating the cost and benefits of investing in infrastructure improvements for the future. This cannot be done in isolation of global actions. When strategic investments are considered in many other areas of this country’s functioning, countering foreign competition is an integral determinant for timing investment decisions. We do this in business all the time. Not factoring in the

competition’s capabilities into our strategy to overcome the competition, is selling

our country short.

(5) When calculating benefits of the waterway system, the non water-based environmental benefits are not included.
717

There is strong documentation attesting to lower fuel consumption, lower air

emissions and much lower accident rates for barge transportation over other modes.

Over the next 50 years the Corps conservatively estimates a 63–100 percent increase in traffic. No societal benefits are attributed to foregone emission clean up

costs, energy consumption, fewer fatalities and reduced congestion in our communities. Everywhere in the world societies understand the benefits of moving bulk

commodities on the river system, to keep congestion out of cities and volumes off

roads, except in the Upper Mississippi Valley. There are no benefits provided for the

savings in road repairs that 100 million more tons would cause if truck became the

next alternative.

(6) Finally, we are asked to accept a model output that recommends an investment schedule based on average growth as it occurs, rather than anticipating

growth.

Grain markets, especially, do not grow systematically. They react to many factors

in the production process, ocean-going freight rates, weather around the globe and

economic growth cycles of many customers. Therefore, they have many peaks and

valleys. If we don’t build the infrastructure that will allow the U.S. to grow into

market demand, we will lose out further to the competition. If we wait for the congestion on the river to choke us, and try to implement band-aid small-scale investment ideas in key congestion areas, then we will lose. If we had built our highway

system to carry existing traffic levels without consideration for growth, we would

not have the productivity gains that have permitted our nation’s economy to excel.

The same principles apply to the waterways.

Thank you for your consideration.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. WOLF, JR., P.E., ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

The City of Kansas City, Missouri welcomes the opportunity to provide written

testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding appropriations for fiscal year 2000. Herein we discuss our concerns with the President’s

recommended fiscal year 2000 budget as it relates to flood control projects in the

Kansas City area dependent on annual federal funding. All of these projects are essential to the sustainment and revitalization of prominent and long-standing commercial, business and industrial communities in this region, and when complete will

provide substantially increased levels of flood protection. Some of these projects are

located on urban streams subject to severe flash flooding, which run along major

roadways, resulting in an extremely hazardous threat to public safety.

The enclosed attachment shows our fiscal year 2000 funding request made to the

Office of Management and Budget last October. Our presentation to OMB was made

the morning after yet another terrible flood event ravaged Kansas City taking the

lives of eleven people in our community. The most devastating floods were along

Turkey Creek and Brush Creek, a tributary of the Blue River. Seven of the fatalities

occurred on a bridge crossing Brush Creek just upstream of the Blue River. The

small waterway opening at this location restricts the flow in Brush Creek and acts

as a dam, backing up floodwater to dangerous depths prior to it overtopping the

bridge. The City plans to replace the bridge as soon as possible however, the unimproved Blue River Channel is inadequate to convey the unrestricted flows from upstream.

The Blue River Channel project, currently under construction, represents our

most pressing need and for fiscal year 2000 we are requesting that this project be

appropriated $25,000,000. This will allow the Corps to make significant progress on

the next phase of the Blue River project which reaches upstream to Brush Creek.

Work in that reach could then be completed in the fall of 2001, construction of the

final phase begun at that same time and the entire project completed in 2003, overall a twenty year construction project. Construction began in 1983 and was originally scheduled for completion in 1998; that has been continually extended due to

federal funding constraints.

The Blue River Channel project when complete will significantly reduce the flood

threat to inhabitants of the Blue Valley. Additionally, the river winds through a

long-standing business district that, after much severe flooding, has now been partially abandoned. The channel improvement will bring many of those sites out of

the floodplain and will reduce flooding depths by six to eight feet. This will serve

as a means to help reclaim those Brownfield sites in the valley for redevelopment,

and to once again build a thriving Blue Valley community.

Kansas City, Missouri appreciates the past assistance we have received with local

flood control projects. We are prepared to provide our share of funding in the future,
718

and respectfully request that federal funding adequate to keep these very important

projects moving toward the soonest possible completion be appropriated in the upcoming year.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS

The City of Kansas City, Missouri, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers,

presently have five major flood damage reduction projects underway. These consist

of the Blue River Channel, Blue River Basin, (also known as Dodson Industrial District), and Swope Park Industrial Area, all along the Blue River in Kansas City,

Missouri; and, the Turkey Creek Basin and Kansas Citys, (the study of seven Missouri River levees), both in Missouri and Kansas.

Kansas City fully recognizes the importance of flood control to our community.

Over the past several years we have spent nearly $65 million on major flood control

projects being done in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. We appreciate the

past assistance we have received with these projects, and are prepared to provide

our share of funding in the future.

Our fiscal year 2000 federal appropriations request for the flood control projects

is presented in the following table, together with the activity to be performed with

those funds by the Corps of Engineers.

Project/Activity Fiscal year 2000

request

President’s

budget

Blue River Channel, Kansas City, Missouri: Continue Construction ............. $25,000,000 $13,700,000

Blue River Basin (Dodson Industrial Dist.), Kansas City, Missouri: Complete Plans,Engineering & Design ............................................................. 500,000 377,000

Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas and Missouri: Continue Plans, Engineering &

Design ........................................................................................................ 300,000 266,000

Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri: Complete Feasibility

Study .......................................................................................................... 60,000 58,000

Kansas Citys (7 River Levees), Kansas and Missouri: Begin Feasibility

Study .......................................................................................................... 350,000 315,000

The City of Kansas City, Missouri, also requests that the several key programs

which provide federal assistance for flood mitigation continue to be made available

to local communities and that they be generously supported with annual appropriations. Among these: Small Flood Control Authority, Section 205 of the 1948 Flood

Control Act as amended; Flood Plain Management Services, Section 206 of the 1960

Flood Control Act; Planning Assistance to States, Public Law 93–251; and Emergency Bank Stabilization, Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act as amended. We

have made use of these programs in the past and will continue to seek out beneficial

uses for them in the future.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED THOMAS, SR., CHAIRMAN, PIKITANOI RURAL WATER

SUPPLY SYSTEM, KICKAPOO TRIBE

FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

The Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas joins with the State of Kansas and rural water districts in 19 counties in the northeastern corner of the state to seek funds for a ‘‘special study’’ of drinking water needs in the region as a continuation and expansion

of planning for the Pikitanoi Rural Water System, Kansas. The amount requested

is $500,000. The ‘‘special study’’ has a total estimated cost of $1,000,000 and contemplates two years of effort with funding of $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 and

$500,000 in fiscal year 2001.

Planning of the project by the Kickapoo Tribe, coordinating with the State of Kansas, began in 1996 and has proceeded to the point that federal funds are needed

for continuation. All funds for the project to date have been furnished by the Kickapoo Tribe from its private, non-federal resources. The Kickapoo Tribe requests that

funds appropriated for the project will be included in the Corps of Engineers’ budget

for Water Development.

SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS

As will be related in the discussion of the history section of this testimony, there

have been significant developments in the project. As originally planned by the
719

Kickapoo Tribe, the project involved a seven county area. Interest in the project has

grown to the point that as many as 19 counties are now seeking participation in

the planning process. The primary reason for interest is the shortage of high-quality

water in this part of Kansas.

The State of Kansas supports the planning effort based on recent agreements in

concept for the ‘‘special study.’’ The key to the investigation is the study of alternatives to determine if a single system to serve the project area is most appropriate

from a financial standpoint. The development of a single system will be compared

with the costs of developing several smaller and separate systems. More than one

source of water may be involved. While the Missouri River was identified as the best

source of water for the seven county area, the ‘‘special study’’ will address sources

of water at existing reservoirs on streams tributary to the Missouri River and

groundwater potential, even though both potentials may be at some distance from

the point of demand. In summary, a comprehensive investigation of water source

and configuration alternatives will be undertaken in the ‘‘special study.’’

Finally, while the Corps of Engineers is neither an advocate nor supporter of the

project, there has been an effort with the Kansas City District to identify the scope

and magnitude of the ‘‘special study.’’ If asked, we believe the Corps of Engineers

will confirm that the request for appropriations for the ‘‘special study ’’ is reasonable

given the level of effort required to develop sound cost estimates of alternatives to

arrive at the best plan for the region.

HISTORY OF PROJECT

The need for funds for the ‘‘special study’’ is long standing. Several investigations

have been undertaken of northeastern Kansas for the purpose of arriving at a solution to a growing shortage of quality water.

The Corps of Engineers studied needs of the area as early as 1993 in Partners

for Environmental Progress, Type I Feasibility Study, Northeast Kansas Water Supply. Costs of alternative projects in the 1993 report ranged from $38.0 to $128.4 million, depending on demand assumptions.

The Department of Agriculture developed the Upper Delaware and Tributaries

Watershed Plan in 1994. This project studied the water needs of the Kickapoo Nation and other water needs of the region. The primary supply for the regional

project was Perry Reservoir. The project contemplated the development of a small

reservoir on the Kickapoo Indian Reservation to supply drinking water to the Tribe.

The Kickapoo Tribe completed a needs assessment of its present and future population and associated water requirements within the boundaries of the Kickapoo Indian Reservation as part of the Pikitanoi Project planning. The needs assessment

also included submissions from 10 rural water districts and 11 communities within

the original study area, which included parts of Doniphan, Brown, Nemaha,

Pottawatomie, Jefferson, Jackson and Atchison Counties.

The Kickapoo Tribe planned a wholesale water supply system to serve the area,

including the Reservation. The preliminary cost estimate, based on the system

shown in Figure 1 for a system diverting from the Missouri River near Atchison,

was $127 million. See Table 1 for a statistic summary of the original project. The

project would include 304 miles of pipeline from 4’’ to 24’’ in diameter and 15 pumping stations of 1,300 horsepower or less. At the original level of interest, the treatment plant and transmission lines would be sized for a demand of 11.6 million gallons per day or 9,669 gallons per minute. The system configuration and the cost estimate were expected to change as more rural water districts joined in the feasibility

analysis.

Since completion of the Kickapoo investigation in 1997, other systems in the original seven county area have expressed interest in the project and are supplying information on future needs and points of interconnection to the Pikitanoi Rural

Water System. Additionally, the cities of Hays and Russell have expressed interest

in the project. Their needs and needs of their region expand the area of interest in

the project to an additional twelve counties west of the original project on both sides

on Interstate 70. New counties in the project include Leavenworth, Marshall, Riley,

Geary, Shawnee, Dickinson, Ottawa, Saline, Lincoln, Ellsworth, Russell and Ellis,

bringing the total to 19 counties. Figure 1 distinguishes between the original and

the expanded areas, including the cities of Hays and Russell.

The Kickapoo Tribe and other entities are coordinating with the State of Kansas

and the Kansas Rural Water Association. The funds requested for fiscal year 2000

will be used to continue investigations by the Kickapoo Tribe, rural water districts

and communities in the northeast corner of Kansas. The work will be conducted by

non-federal entities with oversight by the Corps of Engineers.
720

ALTERNATIVES FOR WATER SUPPLY ARE SUBJECT OF SPECIAL STUDY

The need for drinking water in northeast Kansas is acute. Local surface water

and groundwater sources are highly developed. When a request of the Kickapoo

Tribe for additional water from its current emergency supplier, the City of Horton,

was made, it became clear that the City was without options to increase deliveries

to the Reservation. The Tribe now relies on the flows of the Delaware River at a

diversion point constructed by the Corps of Engineers. The flows of the stream at

the point of diversion are not dependable and will fall to zero (no flow) during times

of drought. The lack of adequate water supply to meet the needs of other water systems included in the original service area is common throughout northeastern Kansas, as evidenced by the considerable interest of rural water districts and communities in this project.

Project participants are examining a number of alternatives for water source,

transmission and distribution. The original project examined Perry Lake and Tuttle

Creek Lake, projects owned by the State of Kansas as water supply sources . The

Kickapoo Tribe has received authorization for construction of a reservoir on the

Delaware River within the Reservation, and the applicability of this project to the

overall regional system will be evaluated. The Missouri River forms the eastern

boundary of the project area and constitutes an unlimited high-quality supply of

water. Groundwater is a good source in some areas and is poor in others. All alternative water sources will be investigated for the development of a single regional

rural water project or multiple projects.

ORGANIZATION

It is contemplated that the Corps of Engineers will provide planning oversight for

the ‘‘special study.’’ The participating non federal entities in the planning process

will include the Kickapoo Tribe, a new entity formed by the water user districts and

communities, and the State of Kansas.

Federal procurement procedures will be followed to allocate funds for the project

to the entities involved in the planning process. For those project tasks to be undertaken by the Kickapoo Tribe, a cooperative agreement based on PL 93–638 contract

principles between the Corps and the Tribe will govern. It is anticipated that cooperative agreements between the Corps and other non-federal entities will be formulated and that those cooperative agreements will specify the scope of work to be undertaken by those entities and the procurement practices to be applied.

TABLE 1.—STATISTICAL SUMMARY PIKITANOI REGIONAL WATER PROJECT

Statistic 1990 Census 2020 Projected

Kickapoo R. Population .......................................................................................... 477 1,490

Counties Population ............................................................................................... 90,198 89,462

Median Age:

Kickapoo ........................................................................................................ 25.5 ....................

Kansas ........................................................................................................... 36.7 ....................

Kickapoo School Enrollment:

Pre-Primary .................................................................................................... 23 ....................

Elementary or High ....................................................................................... 80 ....................

College ........................................................................................................... 15 ....................

Total .......................................................................................................... 118 ....................

Housing:

Housing Units ................................................................................................ 139 527

Persons per House ........................................................................................ 3.44 2.83

Kickapoo Kansas

1990 Household Income ......................................................................................... $14,464 $27,291

1990 Family Income ............................................................................................... $16,250 $32,966

1990 Per Capita Income ........................................................................................ $4,831 $13,300

Percent Families Below Poverty Level .................................................................... 31.3 8.3

1990 Labor Force ................................................................................................... 126 765,003

Unemployed ............................................................................................................ 18 13,419
721

TABLE 1.—STATISTICAL SUMMARY PIKITANOI REGIONAL WATER PROJECT—Continued

Statistic 1990 Census 2020 Projected

Percent in Labor Force ........................................................................................... 34.2 48.7

Percent Unemployed ............................................................................................... 14.3 3.6

Value

Average Annual Water Availability, af:

Missouri River Streamflows, Rulo, af/year ................................... 29,701,000

Big Blue River Near Mahattan, af/year, Tuttle ........................... 1,664,232

Delaware River Valley Falls, ay/year, Perry ................................ 280,785

Groundwater ................................................................................... Good to Poor

2,020 Design Needs, gallons per capita per average day:

In-Residence .................................................................................... 81

Water Conservation ........................................................................ ¥12

Lawns and Gardens ....................................................................... 66

School Enrollment .......................................................................... 3.0

Labor Force ..................................................................................... 3.0

Commercial and Industrial ............................................................ 8.0

System Losses ................................................................................. 22

Total ............................................................................................. 171

2,020 Design Needs, Kickapoo and Region:

Average Day, gallons ...................................................................... 4,479,755

Maximum Day, gallons .................................................................. 11,602,565

Maximum Day, gpm ....................................................................... 9,669

Annual, af ........................................................................................ 5,086

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

[In 1998 dollars]

Missouri

Alt A

Perry

Alt C

Intake ............................................................................................................. $4,000,000 $4,000,000

Treatment Plant ............................................................................................. 13,978,000 13,978,000

Pipelines ......................................................................................................... 49,394,000 49,519,000

Pumping Stations ........................................................................................... 8,203,000 10,090,000

Meters ............................................................................................................. 686,000 686,000

Reservoirs ....................................................................................................... 3,875,000 3,875,000

SCADA ............................................................................................................. 3,000,000 3,000,000

O and M Building .......................................................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000

O and M Equipment ....................................................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000

Easements ...................................................................................................... 321,000 315,000

Mitigation ....................................................................................................... 500,000 500,000

Non-Contract .................................................................................................. 35,123,000 35,933,000

Cost Indexing to fiscal year 1996 to 1998 ................................................... 5,471,000 5,598,000

Total .................................................................................................. 127,551,000 130,494,000

TABLE 1–1.—STATISTICAL SUMMARY PIKITANOI REGIONAL WATER PROJECT

Statistic

Pipelines, feet:

24 inch diameter .................................................................................. 34,975 236,167

20 inch diameter .................................................................................. 294,228 93,203

18 inch diameter .................................................................................. 47,234 ........................

16 inch diameter .................................................................................. 52,619 52,618

14 inch diameter .................................................................................. ........................ 15,615

12 inch diameter .................................................................................. 489,510 493,887
722

TABLE 1–1.—STATISTICAL SUMMARY PIKITANOI REGIONAL WATER PROJECT—Continued

Statistic

10 inch diameter .................................................................................. 147,369 150,407

8 inch diameter .................................................................................. 172,773 283,661

6 inch diameter .................................................................................. 66,607 17,120

4 inch diameter .................................................................................. 229,042 195,196

2 inch diameter .................................................................................. 71,520 37,267

Total .................................................................................................. 1,605,877 1,575,141

Miles ................................................................................................. 304.1 298.3

Pumping Stations:

Number .................................................................................................. 15 16

Maximum Horsepower ........................................................................... 1,300 1,350

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION

[Millions of dollars]

President’s

Request

UMRBA Recommendation

Construction General:

Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program ................................................................................................. 18.955 19.455

Major Rehabilitation of Locks and Dams ............................................. 19.392 21.392

Operation and Maintenance: O&M of the UMR Navigation System .............. 142.459 157.459

General Investigations:

Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study ................................. 6.7 6.7

Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study ....................... 2.1 2.1

Land Management System (Research & Development) ....................... 3 (of 27) 3 (of 27)

BACKGROUND

The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of the states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating river-related state programs and policies and for collaborating with federal agencies on regional issues.

As such, the UMRBA works closely with the Corps of Engineers on a variety of programs for which they have responsibility. Of particular interest to the basin states

are the following Corps programs:

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program (EMP)

was authorized in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act in response to the

need for both restoring lost and degraded habitat and improving scientific understanding of the river system. What was at first a novel approach to interagency environmental management, has now become a widely recognized and respected regional program.

The EMP consists of two primary components: the construction of individual

projects to rehabilitate or enhance critical habitat areas and a long term monitoring

program to track the environmental health of the system. The habitat projects,

which vary in size and range in cost from about $200,000 to over $10 million, employ different types of techniques, including such measures as island creation, water

level control features, side channel closures or openings, and selective dredging to

remove sediment. The long term monitoring program uses six field stations throughout the river system which routinely collect standardized data on water, sediment,

fish, and vegetation at over 150 sites. In addition, the monitoring program headquarters at the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center is home to a multidisciplinary team of scientists who are interpreting and displaying the data in ways

that will be useful for management decisions.
723

The unique character of the EMP is, in part, a function of its partnership design.

While the Corps of Engineers is the lead agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Geological Survey, and five basin states all have specific roles to play in planning, designing, evaluating, and operating and maintaining the habitat projects, as

well as conducting the data collection and analysis that is part of the long term

monitoring program.

Fiscal year 2000 marks the fourth year in a row that the President’s budget re- quest includes less than the full authorized funding of $19.455 million for the EMP.

Last year, the Administration recommended $18.355 million and Congress increased

the funding level to $18.9 million. Although the Administration’s request is higher

this year ($18.955 million), it still falls $500,000 short of full funding. The five basin

states are hopeful that Congress will again affirm its support for this important program by providing full funding for the EMP in fiscal year 2000.

Funding shortfalls are of concern to the basin states for the following reasons:

—The Congress is currently considering reauthorizing the EMP as part of the

1999 Water Resources Development Act. The proposals under consideration

vary with regard to some provisions, but all include an increase in the annual

authorized funding level to approximately $33 million. It would be particularly

unfortunate and ironic if the EMP were to face funding cutbacks at the same

time that Congress is poised to authorize future funding increases. If the program is weakened by insufficient funding in fiscal year 2000, it will be difficult

to rebuild the program to the enhanced levels envisioned by Congress in pending reauthorization bills.

—Unlike most other Corps projects, the EMP is currently ‘‘capped’’ by its Congressional authorization both in terms of annual appropriations and overall time

frame. Therefore annual funding decisions have a far greater impact on whether

the program is ultimately able to accomplish its goals. No other Corps program

or project of which we are aware is constrained by this unique combination of

time and financial limitations.

Funding shortfalls in the early years of EMP (FY 1988–91) and in more recent

years (FY 1997–1999) total nearly $37 million below authorized levels. The annual cap on appropriations makes it impossible to ‘‘recapture’’ this shortfall.

—Unless and until the EMP is reauthorized, funding shortfalls in the closing few

years of the current EMP authorization period will have a particularly debilitating effect on the program. Some habitat projects for which planning and design have been initiated will not be able to proceed to construction, thus negating the investment which has already been made in these projects. The fiscal

year 2000 budget will support the continuing construction of 7 projects, the

completion of 5 projects, and continuing planning and design work on 16

projects. A number of these projects have already been delayed due to funding

constraints. Unless the program is reauthorized, some of these projects may

need to be abandoned entirely if sufficient funds are not provided prior to expiration of the authorization in 2002.

—The success of the Long Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM) component of the

EMP is dependent, in part, upon relatively reliable and constant funding levels.

As a non-construction element of the EMP which supports teams of scientific

and field personnel, the LTRM is particularly sensitive to annual funding

variances. In this regard, the LTRM is unique within the Corps’ construction

general account, where there is typically more flexibility to respond to annual

budgetary fluctuations.

Efforts are underway to restructure the monitoring program so that it will be

more flexible and effectively positioned to accommodate the future data and information needs in the ‘‘second generation’’ EMP. During this difficult transition

period, it will be particularly important to provide a minimum, stable funding

level for the LTRM, which has already suffered from the effects of inflation on

its fixed appropriations authorization.

—The economic and ecological health of the Upper Mississippi River are inexorably linked. Congress recognized this fact when, in 1986, it declared this river

system to be ‘‘a nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant

commercial navigation system.’’ Yet EMP funding cuts in the past few years are

widening the already large discrepancy between federal investment in these two

major river purposes. In fiscal year 2000, the Corps of Engineers will invest

over $140 million in operation and maintenance of the Upper Mississippi River

System for commercial navigation purposes. Another $20 million is scheduled

for major rehabilitation of aging locks and dams. Though some of these investments have incidental environmental benefits, full funding ($19.455 million) for

the EMP is critical if the federal commitment to multi-purpose management is

to be maintained.
724

MAJOR REHABILITATION OF LOCKS AND DAMS

Given that most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River System

are over 60 years old, they are in serious need of repair and rehabilitation. For the

past 13 years, the Corps has been undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout the system in an effort to extend their useful life.

The UMRBA supports the Corps’ fiscal year 2000 budget request of approximately

$19.4 million for major rehabilitation work at 5 locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River. Half of this amount is to be provided by the Inland Waterways Trust

Fund and will support work at Locks and Dams 3, 12, 14, 24, and 25. These funds

will be used for lock rehabilitation, auxiliary lock closure rehabilitation, miter gate

installation, electrical and mechanical rehabilitation, scour protection, rehabilitation

of embankment systems that are subject to overtopping during flood events, and

work on outdraft bendway weirs and wall openings. An additional $2,000,000 could

be used in fiscal year 2000 to advance completion of work on embankment systems

vital to navigation and environmental interests.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM

The Corps of Engineers is responsible for operating and maintaining the Upper

Mississippi River for navigation. This includes channel maintenance dredging,

placement and repair of channel training structures, water level regulation, and the

daily operation of 29 locks and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks and dams

on the Illinois River. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes slightly over $142 million

for O&M of this river system, including $103.5 million for the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the Missouri River, $13.5 million for the Mississippi River

between the Missouri River and Ohio River, and $25.4 million for the Illinois Waterway.

These funds are critical to the Corps’ ability to maintain a safe and reliable commercial navigation system. The efficiency of this system is vital to the agricultural

economy of the five states. In addition, these funds support a variety of activities

that ensure the navigation system is maintained while protecting and enhancing the

river’s environmental values. For example, O&M funds support innovative environmental engineering techniques in the open river reaches such as bendway weirs,

chevrons, and notched dikes that maintain the navigation channel in an environmentally sensitive manner. In addition, studies of water level management options

in a number of pools in the impounded portion of the river are underway as part

of the on-going navigation O&M program. Pool level management is a promising

new approach for enhancing aquatic plant growth and overwintering conditions for

fish without adversely affecting navigation.

While the funds that the Corps has requested for fiscal year 2000 are expected

to be adequate to meet basic O&M requirements, the UMRBA supports additional

funding of $15 million which could be effectively utilized in fiscal year 2000 for critical needs such as electrical repairs, bulkhead repairs, repairs to cracks and spalls

on lockwalls, concrete repairs, repairs to liftgates, revetment and dike repairs, and

replacement of roller gate chains at various lock locations on the upper river.

NAVIGATION STUDY

In 1993 the Corps of Engineers initiated a feasibility study of navigation capacity

expansion on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway, a transportation

system that is vitally important to the Midwest and the nation in linking agricultural commodities to international markets. The states in the region have been providing advice and counsel to the Corps throughout the study via a special Governors

Liaison Committee comprised of gubernatorial appointees from each of the five

basin states. The results of this study will be critical to our ability to make reasoned

decisions about the future of the Upper Mississippi navigation system. Given that

the merits of future multi-billion dollar federal investments will be judged based

upon this study, the states of the basin are keenly interested in both the analysis

and the alternatives under consideration.

During the past year, the study experienced delays associated with the need to

more carefully review and verify the economic models and some of the model inputs

including traffic projections and demand curves. As a result, the study completion

date has been postponed by one year to December 2000. Thus, much of the work

necessary to bring the study to a close will now be done in fiscal year 2000.

The five basin states support the President’s request for $6.7 million in fiscal year

2000 for the navigation study. Those funds will be used to continue the feasibility

study, complete the plan formulation process, complete the draft feasibility report

and draft Environmental Impact Statement, conduct internal and public review,
725

hold public meetings, and complete a site-specific report with a baseline cost estimate. It is essential that the Corps has sufficient funds to complete these important

tasks and produce a sound economic and environmental assessment of navigation

capacity expansion needs.

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY

Flow frequencies for the Upper Mississippi River System badly need revision. The

flood profiles currently in use were developed in 1979 by an interagency task force

and replaced profiles previously adopted in 1966. A variety of factors suggests that

the 1979 profiles need to be updated:

—The 1979 flood profiles are generally lower than the earlier 1966 profiles. In the

southern reaches of the Rock Island District, the difference is as much as five

feet. For example, the 1979 flood frequencies show that in the short time frame

of 29 years, a ‘‘100 year’’ flood, a ‘‘200 year’’ flood, and a ‘‘500 year’’ flood have

occurred in the city of Hannibal, Missouri. This has caused many communities

along the Upper Mississippi River to question whether the 1979 methodology

and resulting profiles are accurate.

—There are now nearly 20 years of additional data available, including flow

records from several high water events including the Great Flood of 1993. In

addition, new methodologies have enhanced the Corps’ ability to model the complex hydraulics of the Upper Mississippi River. In particular, following the 1993

floods, the Corps developed a new mathematical hydraulic model (UNET) to answer ‘‘what if’’ questions such as the impact of levee failures or reservoir operations on stages of the Mississippi River. That model is now essentially complete and will enhance computation of water surface profiles.

—Flood elevation profiles have a variety of uses including flood insurance; floodplain management; and the study, design, and construction of flood control

projects. The need for updated math models and flood profiles has been widely

recognized, especially since the Great Flood of 1993. The ‘‘Galloway Report,’’

which the Clinton Administration commissioned following the 1993 Midwest

floods, recommended that the methodology used for flow-frequency analysis be

reassessed. Similarly, the Flood Plain Management Assessment published by

the Corps in June 1995 recommended that hydrology and hydraulics data be

updated, including water surface profiles. The five states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin have been strong supporters of these recommendations.

The UMRBA supports the Corps’ fiscal year 2000 budget request of $2.1 million

for the Flow Frequency Study. These funds will be used for UNET modeling and

initiating work on generating flood profiles.

LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Corps of Engineers’ Research and Development (R&D) budget for fiscal year

2000 includes $27 million, $3 million of which it is hoped will be used to support

development of a Land Management System (LMS) demonstration project on the

Upper Mississippi River System. Despite the fact that the LMS project could have

utilized $4 million this year, only $800,000 has been made available in fiscal year

1999 for the demonstration sites on the Upper Mississippi River System.

The basin states support the LMS initiative, which is designed to meet the increasing need for integrated approaches to natural resources management. In particular, LMS will rely heavily on modeling tools that can assess cumulative effects

and forecast future conditions in a quantitative framework. We are fortunate in the

Upper Mississippi River Basin to be chosen for the initial demonstration of these

techniques. The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi is

leading the effort, which focuses on three specific locations in the basin: Peoria Lake

on the Illinois River, the Minnesota River, and Pool 8 on the Mississippi River.

Problems such as backwater filling, poor water quality, and habitat loss are common

to all these locations and are related to sediment transport and deposition. Evaluation of the ecological consequences of hydrologic and sediment dynamics at these

sites within the Upper Mississippi River System will enhance LMS applications to

other large river systems.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SAM M. HUNTER, PRESIDENT, LITTLE RIVER DRAINAGE

DISTRICT

My name is Dr. Sam Hunter, DVM of Sikeston, Missouri. I am a veterinarian,

landowner, farmer, and resident of Southeast Missouri.
726

I am the President of the Little River Drainage District, the largest such entity

in the nation. Our District serves as an outlet drainage and flood control District

to parts of seven (7) counties in Southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable area of Northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax supported by more than 3,500 private landowners in Southeast Missouri.

Our District as well as other Drainage and Levee Districts in Missouri and Arkansas is located within the St. Francis River Basin. This is a project item of the

Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.

The St. Francis Basin Project was authorized by Congress in 1928 for improvements by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The initial authorization was justified

by a projected benefit cost ratio of 2.4:1. Today this ratio is 3.6:1 and the project

is only 91 percent completed. As you can see this has been a wise investment of

our federal tax dollars. Few projects or ventures with funding levels provided by the

Federal Government return more than they cost. This one does and we need to complete it in a timely fashion.

Local interests have done their part in providing rights of way, roads, utilities and

the like. Our government now needs to fulfill their part of the project and bring it

to completion as quickly as possible.

The St. Francis Basin project has had a base funding level of approximately

$10,000,000 over the past several years. Our last five (5) year average has been $9.9

million. That baseline funding level does not need to be diminished. The President’s

budget request of $4,350,000 is not acceptable. The amount requested by OMB will

not provide sufficient funding levels for the Corps to maintain what they have built

and/or improved. If these funding figures are accepted and not increased to

$10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and succeeding years then we have digressed and

not progressed.

Since the initiation of the project for improvements we have seen many positive

changes occur such as:

(1) Many miles of all weather roads have been constructed and are usable almost

daily each year.

(2) Better flood control and drainage.

(3) Development of one of the most fertile and diversified valleys in the world.

(4) Growth of towns, schools, churches, industry, commerce, and etc.

(5) Improvement of our environment: malaria, typhoid and other such diseases are

no longer the norm but the rarity.

(6) A future for our young people to have a desire to remain in the area.

(7) Production of a variety of food and fiber products.

As you can see many changes have occurred and we who live there welcome them

fully. We, local interests, in Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas want this

project brought to completion and adequately maintained. We have waited over seventy (70) years and we believe it is now time to complete a wise investment for our

nation.

Our request to you today is to approve funding for the St. Francis Basin at

$10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and succeeding years to ensure completion of the

project.

Further, we are here as a member of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association which represents similar interests as our District from the Gulf of Mexico upstream to the headwaters of the Mississippi River.

The MR&T Project has only $280,000,000 in the President’s budget. The Corps

of Engineers has the capability of $355,000,000 and the need for a minimum of

$335,000,000. We ask you to give consideration to provide funding levels at

$335,000,000 for this project for fiscal year 2000. This will provide some new construction but it will also provide the necessary maintenance monies needed each

year.

Thank you very much for your kind attention and the favorable way this committee has responded to our needs in the past.

CONDENSED INFORMATION OF THE LITTLE RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ST. FRANCIS

BASIN PROJECT AND MR&T PROJECT

Little River Drainage District

(1) Circuit Court Drainage District of Missouri.

(2) Serves parts of seven (7) counties.

(3) Fully funded by special tax on landowners within Little River Drainage District.

(4) Provides flood control and drainage to more than 3500 private landowners.

(5) Located within St. Francis Basin.

(6) Large, diversified, and highly productive area for food and fiber.
727

(7) Has functioned since 1907.

(8) Major contributor to St. Francis Basin (1,200,000 acres of runoff annually).

(9) Member of Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association.

St. Francis Basin Project

(1) Authorized in 1928.

(2) Justified with 2.4:1 benefit-cost ratio.

(3) Presently providing a 3.6:1 benefit-cost ratio.

(4) Needs a minimum annual funding of $10 million.

(5) President’s budget is $4,350,000. (This is simply inadequate to maintain prior

constructed features and initiate any new authorized work).

(6) Project has baseline funding of $9.9 million annually for past several years.

(7) Local interest wants and needs this project completed. We have waited over

seventy (70) years.

(8) Project 91 percent completed.

(9) Now projected for completion in 2007.

Mississippi River and Tributaries Project

(1) Authorized in 1928. Protects 30,000 square miles at times. Protects 20,550

square miles at all times.

(2) Congress viewed project as a national problem at time of authorization.

(3) Mississippi River drains forty-three percent (43 percent) of Continental United

States and some of Canada.

(4) Mississippi River is vital to production of food, industry, commerce, transportation, our nations defense, environment, health, etc.

(5) Annual funding levels of $335,000,000 needed to maintain and continue construction.

(6) President’s fiscal year 2000 budget amount of $280,000,000 is inadequate.

(7) Project is now 57 percent completed. (Fiscally).

(a) Authorized levees are 92 percent completed. Projected year to complete

is 2009.

(b) Authorized channels are 93 percent completed.

(8) Local interest wants and needs this project completed. We have waited over

seventy (70) years.

(9) Corps has capability of $355,000,000.

(10) Finished portion yielding 7.9:1 benefit-cost ratio.

(11) Unfinished portion projected to yield 36:1 benefit-cost ratio.

(12) Entire project when completed will yield 20:1 benefit-cost return.

(13) Project projected for completion in 2031.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES S. ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, BLUE VALLEY

ASSOCIATION

The Blue Valley Association has represented businesses and the community in the

Blue River valley since 1920. One of the major concerns of the association throughout its existence has been flooding in the valley.

In order to provide some relief to the area, the Big Blue River Rechannalization

Project was approved by Congress in 1970. Construction on the project began in

1983 and was scheduled for completion in 1998. The project was to be constructed

in three stages. Stages 1 and 2 are complete. Construction on Stage 3 began in

1997. Our understanding is that the project is now targeted to be completed by

2003, provided the requested funding is approved. Reduced funding would continue

to delay the project by an additional three to five years.

The progress that has been made to date has provided environmental cleanup,

new jobs in the community, and flood relief to the landowners in the lower portions

of the Blue River Valley. Several of our members have reported lower river stages

after recent heavy rains.

However, there is much work remaining to be done before the project is complete.

We are concerned that the potential for flooding is still a serious threat to the properties upstream from the completed channel improvements. In addition, we are concerned that upstream development along the Blue River and its tributaries may actually increase the risk of flooding in some areas. If continued improvements upstream increase the threat, then obviously it is important to complete this project

at the earliest date possible.

For these reasons, we ask your consideration in approving funding for the projects

and appropriations listed on the attached sheet for the fiscal year 2000 budget.
728

Requested Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation

Blue River Channel, Kansas City Missouri:Continued Construction

of Stage 3. Completion—2003 ........................................................... $25,000,000

Turkey Creek, Kansas City Kansas and Missouri: Complete design

for construction start ......................................................................... 300,000

Missouri River Levee System:

Restudy Seven Levees—Begin feasibility study .......................... 350,000

Unit L–385—Complete revised plans. ROW being acquired.

Unit L–142—Complete design for new start ............................ 550,000

Upper Blue River, Kansas and Missouri: Complete Final Plans and

Specifications this year for construction in 2000. ROW to be acquired in 1999 .................................................................................... 500,000

Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri: Complete feasibility study ....................................................................................... 60,000

Total ............................................................................................. 26,900,000

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. M. PETERSON, PRESIDENT, AND DARREL G. CURRY, VICE

PRESIDENT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER BANK STABILIZATION ASSOCIATION

The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, its members and its officers

thank you for the opportunity to present this statement and request relating to the

budget for fiscal year 2000.

This statement and the request contained herein relate to the Missouri National

Recreational River project which was authorized by the Congress in 1978 per Section 707 of Public Law 95–625. The Association’s request for fiscal year 2000 is

$250,000.00 for operation and maintenance of structures built prior to 1978 pursuant to Section 32 of the Streambank Erosion Control and Demonstration Act. Additional funding is needed for:

1. Providing for replacement of flood-destroyed facilities which afforded access to

the river in the project’s lower reaches;

2. The acquisition of shoreline easements to increase wildlife habitat and to improve and restore the scenic characteristics of the river;

3. Provide streambank protection where and as needed;

4. Meet such other needs as may be required to achieve the completion of the

project.

This project seeks to preserve and protect the fifty-nine mile segment of the Missouri River extending downstream from near Yankton, South Dakota, circa mile

811, to the Ponca State Park, circa mile 752, near Ponca, Nebraska. This reach of

river is the only portion of the Missouri lying downstream of the ‘‘main stem’’ dams

which is still in a relatively natural state. Here, the river is neither channelized nor

are its banks protected by other than isolated stabilization structures. The entire

shoreline is under relentless attack by the voracious Missouri, including even those

areas which have been afforded some degree of bank protection. Three years of

much higher than normal flows have wrought havoc along this reach of river. Erosion is, of course, a natural process; indeed, the Missouri is notorious for its appetite

for its shoreline. The problem here, however, is that in this reach of the river the

‘‘main stem’’ dams have eliminated the annual flooding which once characterized the

river. Thus, while the erosion continues, there is no offset in the nature of the natural and historic ‘‘build-back’’ (accretion) from flooding. To exacerbate the problem,

the water discharged from the dam near Yankton is relatively free of sediment.

Thus, it has a greater capacity to erode the downstream shorelines than did the

muddy waters of old. The cleaner water can carry a greater sediment load, and it

continues to utilize this increased capacity to the fullest. Evidence of the increased

erosion is documented by Corps of Engineers’ reports that this reach of river is over

sixty percent wider now than when Gavins Point Dam, near Yankton, was completed in the mid-fifties.

While $21 million was authorized for this project, only some $2 million has been

spent. The original management plan, will soon be supplanted by a new management plan developed by the National Park Service and Corps of Engineers. The proposed plan details a number of desirable proposals for a variety of efforts designed

not only to increase public knowledge, accessibility and enjoyment of this historic

reach of the Missouri, but to preserve and protect those characteristics which constitute its identity. Those very characteristics made it worthy of its designation as

a Recreational River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

A significant factor underlying this request is the impending national celebration

of the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Interest in this momentous
729

event is accelerating dramatically, and one of the focal points of that interest is this

segment of the Missouri. As the only remnant of a relatively natural river lying

downstream of the Missouri’s dams, it affords a dramatic glimpse of the Missouri

which faced the Corps Discovery. Improved access, signage, preservation of extant

timber, islands, bars and wildlife habitat will help ensure the continued existence

of the characteristics which impelled the Congress to include in the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act, this unique segment of the Missouri.

The Association is truly appreciative of the previous support and assistance the

Congress has provided, and we thank you for that on-going concern. Joining in our

extension of thanks are the numerous individual outdoorsmen, landowners, hunters,

fishermen, environmentalists and others who love, respect and enjoy this national

treasure and wish to preserve and protect it. Again, our thanks!

UPPER MIDWEST WATER PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN HAAK, CHAIRMAN, GARRISON DIVERSION

CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Chairman Domenici and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of

the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District Board of Directors, thank you for your

past support of the Garrison Diversion Project. Previous Garrison Diversion Unit

appropriations have been used to deliver reliable, high quality water supplies to

residents in rural communities across North Dakota, along with maintenance of 120

miles of canals and pumping plants already constructed across the state.

The Garrison Diversion Project continues to be the backbone of all water projects

in North Dakota. Completing Garrison Diversion will assure our citizens affordable

access to an adequate quantity and quality water supply for municipal, rural and

industrial systems. Garrison Diversion is the key for future economic development,

recreation, tourism and wildlife enhancement in our state.

This year’s budget includes $24.5 million for the Garrison Diversion Unit. Additional appropriations will continue development of rural water supply systems

across the state, providing a dependable water supply to North Dakota residents,

who now in many cases are hauling water due to inadequate supplies. The funding

received, or not received, impacts the lives of families and business owners across

the state who are working toward finding solutions to meet their water needs.

Meeting the Indian MR&I needs also concerns North Dakotans. Existing ceilings

are exhausted and the unmet needs on the reservations are growing. Additional appropriations and an appropriate ceiling will allow tribal leaders to continue working

on their most critical water needs.

A greater concern is the overall Bureau of Reclamation budget. Current trends

show this budget number shrinking on an annual basis. Although the president’s

current budget request is an increase over last year’s appropriation, additional funding is definitely needed. The Bureau budget needs to reflect a greater commitment

to completing currently authorized water projects. Although water conservation,

water reuse and restoring fish and wildlife resources are important, the Bureau’s

budget needs to be refocused and increased to place more emphasis on completing

the authorized projects already on the books.

To this end, we fully expect the Dakota Water Resources Act to be reintroduced

in the very near future. This bill reduces the cost of the project currently authorized

and directs the funding to meet the highest priority needs of the state. The state,

under the terms of this bill, will repay, with interest, major portions of the costs

while matching federal dollars with substantial nonfederal dollars in other areas.

Mr. Chairman, North Dakotans from cities, farms and businesses are committed

to the Garrison Diversion Project. Although the project will never be built as originally planned in 1944, it is still the most important water project in our state. I

want to thank your committee for past support, and it is my hope your support will

continue for this fiscal year.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KURT PFEIFLE, GENERAL MANAGER, MID-DAKOTA RURAL

WATER PROJECT (PUBLIC LAW 102–575)

FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING REQUEST

First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify in support of

the fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project and for

the Subcommittee’s support.
730

The Mid-Dakota Project is requesting $28 million in federal appropriations for fiscal year 2000. This request anticipates $27 million for Project construction and $1

million for the authorized ‘‘wetland’’ component. As with our past submissions to

this subcommittee, Mid-Dakota’s fiscal year 2000 request is based on a detailed

analysis of our ability to proceed with construction during the fiscal year. In all previous years, Mid-Dakota has fully obligated its appropriated funds, including federal, state, and local, and could have obligated significantly more were they available.

This year (FY 2000) the project is seeking additional funds above the President’s

budget recommendation in the amount of $23 million. Mid-Dakota understands and

appreciates pressures on Congress to pass and maintain a balanced and seemingly

an austere budget and in that respect we understand the difficulties before congressional appropriators to find additional funds to supplement the President’s budget

request. However, we request and strongly urge Congress to appropriate the full

amount of Mid-Dakota’s request.

HISTORY OF PROJECT FUNDING

The Project was authorized by Congress and signed into law by President George

W. Bush in October 1992. The federal authorization for the project totaled $100 million (1989 $s) in a combination of federal grant and loan funds (grant funds may

not exceed 85 percent of federal contribution). The State authorization was for $8.4

million (1989 $s). The total authorized indexed cost of the project now stands at

$142.163 million. All federal funding considered, the Government has provided 43

percent of its commitment (56.546 million of $132.493 million) to provide construction funding for the Project. In the 1998 Legislative session the South Dakota Legislature appropriated $1.3 million completing the State’s authorized commitment to

Mid-Dakota. When considering the federal and state combined awards, the project

is approximately 47 percent complete, in terms of financial commitments.

Mid-Dakota wishes to thank this committee for its support over the past six years.

Within the limited monetary parameters of current federal awards and funds appropriated by the State of South Dakota, we have been able to put those scarce resources to good work, making exceptional progress on project construction, albeit not

nearly as fast as is needed or as we had initially envisioned.

SUMMARIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING

[In millions]

Fed. Fiscal Year Mid-Dakota

Request

Pres.

Budget House Senate

Conf.

Enacted

Levels

Award Level

(Underfinancing)

Applied

Additional

Funds

Total fed.

Funds

provided

Mid-Dak.

1994 .................. 7.991 ................ ................ 2.000 2.000 1.500 .................. 1.500

1995 .................. 22.367 ................ ................ 8.000 4.000 3.600 .................. 3.600

1996 .................. 23.394 2.500 12.500 10.500 11.500 10.902 2.323 13.225

1997 .................. 29.686 2.500 11.500 12.500 10.000 9.400 1.500 10.900

1998 .................. 29.836 10.000 12.000 13.000 13.000 12.221 1.000 13.221

1999 .................. 32.150 10.000 10.000 20.000 15.000 14.100 .................. 14.100

2000 .................. 28.800 5.000 ................ .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

Totals ... ................ 30.000 46.000 66.000 55.500 51.723 4.823 56.546

Additionally, the State of South Dakota has contributed $9.67 million in grants

to the Mid-Dakota Project, in previous years. The State of South Dakota completed

its initial authorized financial obligation to the Mid-Dakota Project in the 1998 Legislative Session.

The $15 million funding provided by the Subcommittee in fiscal year 1999 provided Mid-Dakota with the opportunity to achieve very significant and exciting accomplishments for the fiscal year. These are later summarized in the section titled

‘‘Construction in Progress.’’ Mid-Dakota will continue to deliver quality drinking

water to five community systems and approximately 600 rural customers. Mid-Dakota estimates that an additional 550 rural customers along with six more community systems will be receiving project water at the close of contracts awarded in fiscal year 1999. The generosity of the subcommittee has already had a deep and favorable effect on the lives of nearly 10,000 South Dakotans.
731

PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

In February the President’s Budget recommendations to Congress were released.

Mid-Dakota Rural Water was included in the proposed budget at a level of $5 million for fiscal year 2000. This represents a 50 percent decrease in the President’s

funding recommendation and a 67 percent decrease from what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1999. It is the only time the President has lowered his recommendation from one year to the next. The Mid-Dakota Project will not be able

to make any significant progress in fiscal year 2000 at this level of funding. In fact,

it would not be an overstatement to say that Mid-Dakota may have to suspend construction activities for fiscal year 2000, if the $5 million is not significantly increased.

As in previous years, Mid-Dakota is in ‘‘catch-up’’ mode, due to lower than expected appropriations in prior years. The $28 million request for fiscal year 2000

will help the project maintain an acceptable construction schedule. The $5 million

budget request by President Clinton would have profound and devastating effects,

pushing the completion of the Project to the year 2015. Under the Clinton Administration’s proposal, thousands of South Dakota citizens will be forced to wait an estimated 13 years until they can be connected to the Mid-Dakota Project. The President’s budget, if ultimately implemented will provide an extended delay of Project

benefits.

The following table demonstrates the effect of the President’s budget request for

the Mid-Dakota Project as compared to other larger appropriation levels. The table

also demonstrates the significant cost increases expected (using a conservative twopercent inflation (indexing) factor):

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT COST AND TIMELINE TO COMPLETION 1

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal Year 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost

to

Finish

Approp. $5 ............................... 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 78

Approp. $10 ............................. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 72

Approp. $15. ............................ 15 15 15 15 10 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 70

Approp. $20 ............................. 20 20 20 9 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 69

Approp. $25 ............................. 28 25 15 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 68

1 Data in table is based upon various leveled annual appropriations, an estimated $67.17 million authorized unappropriated federal funds and two-percent inflationary indexing.

As is evident by the foregoing table, the President’s budget recommendation will

have an effect of significantly delaying water service to those who need it most.

By its actions the Administration raises the potential of increasing the total cost

of the Mid-Dakota Project by more than $10 million. The federal government would

not be alone in absorbing negative impacts of funding shortfalls. In addition to making the Mid-Dakota Project more expensive to the federal government, the resulting

delays would also have a direct and proportional effect on the rate of debt service

to be paid by the Project and ultimately the water users. The repayment agreement

entered into by Mid-Dakota and the federal government (the Bureau of Reclamation

acting on the Government’s behalf), demands that Mid-Dakota’s ‘‘minimum bill’’ increase proportionally with the indexing applied to the Project. This is done by establishing the ratio of the federal authorization at the time Mid-Dakota submitted its

Final Engineering Report (FER) in 1994, compared to the authorized ceiling today

with indexing applied. This same ratio is then applied to Mid-Dakota’s ‘‘minimum

bill’’ as was identified at the time of execution of the repayment agreement. The following table is offered as an example:

Mid-Dakota’s ‘‘minimum bill’’ rate at the time of signing the repayment agreement

= $32.50

Leveled annual appropriations of $5 million—estimated increase to minimum bill:

21 percent

Leveled annual appropriations of $10 million—estimated increase to minimum bill:

16 percent

Leveled annual appropriations of $15 million—estimated increase to minimum bill:

15 percent

Leveled annual appropriations of $20 million—estimated increase to minimum bill:

14 percent
732

2 Contract 4–1A/B (schedules 1–5) should be complete in May, 1999.

Leveled annual appropriations of $25 million—estimated increase to minimum bill:

13 percent

By the Bureau of Reclamation’s own design, slowing down the development of the

Mid-Dakota Project will ultimately make the Project more expensive, in terms of;

rates paid by water users construction costs, total debt of the Project and Reclamation’s oversight costs.

IMPACTS OF AWARD

The most obvious impact of any significant reduction from Mid-Dakota’s request will be the delay of construction of one or more Project components. The $28 million

dollar request will allow the Project to proceed with construction of multiple contracts summarized later in this testimony. An award of less than our request will

result in the deletion or reconfiguration of one or more of these contracts from the

fiscal year 2000 construction schedule. Further, reduced appropriations have the effect of adding more cost to the amount needed for completion of the Project.

Mid-Dakota has consistently informed members of Congress and appropriate federal agencies, about the detrimental effects insufficient funding has on the Project

and ultimately the people who are to receive the water. In previous years Mid-Dakota and the public, which we will serve, have been able to make the most of the

resources provided the Project. However, failure to provide full funding has had profound consequences.

CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS

Mid-Dakota began construction in September of 1994, with the construction of its

Water Intake and Pump Station. Since that eventful day of first construction start,

we have bid, awarded, and completed seven 2 project components and are into construction on two other major Project components. The following table provides a synopsis of each major construction contract:

Cont. No./Description Cont.

budget 3

Cont. Bid

Award

Final Cont. Price

Over

(under)

Budget

Percent over

(under)

budget

1–1, Oahe Water Intake and Pump Station ................... 4.662 3.959 3.945 (0.717) (15)

2–1, Oahe Water Treatment Plant .................................. 13.361 9.920 10.278 (3.083) (23)

3–1A, Raw Water Pipeline .............................................. 1.352 1.738 1.719 0.367 27

3–1B, Main Pipeline to Blunt, SD .................................. 7.823 6.916 7.024 (0.799) (10)

3–1C, Main Pipeline to Highmore, SD ............................ 5.439 4.791 4.798 (0.641) (12)

3–2A, Main Pipeline to Ree Hights, SD ......................... 3.261 3.155 3.155 (0.106) (4)

3–2B, Main Pipeline to St. Lawrence, SD ...................... 3.691 3.349 3.349 (0.342) (9)

4–1A/B (1–5), Rural Service Area Contract ................... 9.169 9.983 10.601 4 1.432 16

5–1, Highmore Water Storage Tank ............................... 1.545 1.434 1.433 (0.108) (7)

5–1A, Onida Water Storage Tank ................................... 0.471 0.395 0.395 (0.075) (16)

Totals ................................................................. 50.774 45.640 46.697 (4.077) (8)

3 Contract budget is determined by Mid-Dakota’s estimate for the contract at the time of bidding.

4 A significant portion of cost increases are attributable to the placement of additional users as construction proceeds.

As is evident by the foregoing table, Mid-Dakota has been very successful in containing Project costs. Currently the construction of major Project components are approximately 8 percent under budget , providing an estimated saving of over $4 million. The savings are an example of sound engineering, good management and advantageous bid lettings. While we can’t guarantee future contract bid lettings will

continue to provide the level of savings currently experienced, we do think it speaks

well of the Mid-Dakota Project and how we’ve managed Project funding to date.

Mid-Dakota also provided the solution to a number of emergency situations in fiscal year 1998. The ‘‘rescue’’ effort to the City of Gettysburg, SD provided the town

with a dependable, quality water supply (Mid-Dakota) just as they were about to

lose their existing water intake, due to sluffing of the hillside at that location. The

town of Virgil, SD will have a new distribution system for the town, replacing the

old one that was in disrepair and draining the town coffers to keep it running and

supply drinking water to Virgil residents. Mid-Dakota has verbally agreed to takeover the operations of the Southern Spink and Northern Beadle Rural Water System (SSNB). SSNB is a small community water supply system that lacks the necessary resources to properly operate a potable water supply system. Mid-Dakota replaced approximately eight miles of pipeline along U.S. Highway 212. The Highway
733

5Project features listed in table are subject to rescheduling based upon funding provided and

readiness to proceed and other factors. Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide

exactly with schedule presented here.

is scheduled for improvements in the Spring of 1999. A water pipeline located in

the Highway right-of-way would have to be relocated increasing the cost of the

Highway improvement. Mid-Dakota instead placed its pipeline (that would have

been constructed in the future) out of the way of the Highway improvement. This

lessened the cost of the Highway project and provided for an uninterrupted supply

of water to people along the pipeline route.

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 5

Mid-Dakota has developed an aggressive construction schedule for fiscal year

2000, with plans to install nearly 900 miles of pipeline to serve an estimated 3,250

more people than are currently receiving or scheduled to receive Project drinking

water. Our construction schedule will also provide the necessary main pipeline infrastructure to move forward with many more rural and community connections in

the future. Federal funding allocated in any given fiscal year is always the limiting

factor that drives Mid-Dakota’s construction schedule.

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, FISCAL YEAR 2000

Project Feature Estimated

Cost

Estimated

number of

meters

connected

Estimated

population to

be served

Gettysburg Service Area & Tower 6 ............................................... 1.500 300 1,600

Highmore Central Service Area ..................................................... 3.575 180 500

Mac’s Corner Service Area & Tower .............................................. 3.210 110 350

Rezac Lake Service Area & Tower ................................................. 2.767 60 175

Collin’s Slough Service Area & Tower ........................................... 1.958 60 175

Cottonwood Lake Service Area & Tower ........................................ 3.203 155 450

Main Pipeline to St. Lawrence, SD 6 ............................................. 2.187 .................... ....................

Administration ............................................................................... .460 .................... ....................

Engineering & Legal ...................................................................... 2.116 .................... ....................

Inspection ...................................................................................... 1.135 .................... ....................

Bureau of Reclamation oversight ................................................. .460 .................... ....................

Other costs .................................................................................... 2.760 .................... ....................

Wetland component ....................................................................... 1.000 .................... ....................

Totals ............................................................................... 7 26.331 865 3,250

6 Project components footnoted are part of fiscal year 1999 construction schedule. Costs shown in the table are needed

to complete construction of that particular component. 7Mid-Dakota’s request of $28 million anticipates that 6 percent of any appropriation will be deemed unavailable by

the Bureau of Reclamation by application of ‘‘under-financing.’’ This level of ‘‘under-financing’’ would effectively reduce a

$28 million appropriation to $26.4 million.

CLOSING

Mid-Dakota is intensely aware of the difficult funding decisions that face the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and we do not envy the difficult job

that lies ahead. We strongly urge, the Subcommittee to look closely at the Mid-Dakota Project and recognize the dire need that exists. Consider the exceptionally high

level of local and state support. And lastly our readiness, our credibility and our

ability, to proceed.

Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its strong support in the past.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MNI WICONI PROJECT

FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REQUEST

The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully request appropriations for construction in fiscal year 2000 for the project in the amount of

$34,144,000 as follows:
734

Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System: Core Facilities (Treatment Plant, Pipelines) ................................ $11,895,000

Distribution System on Pine Ridge ............................................... 6,138,000

West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems ................................. 9,916,000

Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System .................................................... 3,762,000

Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System ............................................. 2,433,000

Total Mni Wiconi Project ............................................................ 34,144,000

The Oglala, Lower Brule and Rosebud Sioux Tribes were consulted as required

by the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93–638, as amended) when the

Administration arrived at its fiscal year 2000 construction budget of $23.9 million

for the Mni Wiconi Project. This budget, however, does not address the needs of the

project in fiscal year 2000 or in fiscal year 2001, a major target year for the project. The principle element in the budget for fiscal year 2000 is $11.895 million for the

Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core. The OSRWSS core system funds are needed to complete the project to Murdo by fiscal year 2001, where

water can be delivered to the largest areas of demand in the West River/LymanJones service area and all of the Rosebud service area. By completing the project

to Murdo, all of the interconnection points for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe will also

be provided. Only the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of West River/

Lyman-Jones will be without points of interconnection to the OSRWSS core. This

landmark in progress on the project by the end of fiscal year 2001 is the most significant event in the project to date. The requested funding level is needed for the

next two years to achieve the objective.

Important to note is the fact that in fiscal year 1999 the intake and treatment

plant on the Missouri River will be concluded. Completion of the OSRWSS core pipeline system to Murdo is necessary to utilize, to any significant degree, those completed facilities. Also, noteworthy is the fact that major segments, but not all segments, of the core pipeline will be completed in fiscal year 1999 between the treatment plant and Murdo. The funding request for fiscal year 2000 will continue the

core pipeline construction, and the funding request in fiscal year 2001 will permit

us to conclude the necessary construction to Murdo, thereby providing interconnection to a population of 26,000, 50 percent of the project population. Absent sufficient

funds in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, only 8,000 persons will be provided

with interconnection to the OSRWSS core to receive water from the Missouri River.

All proposed sponsor construction activity will build pipelines that will provide

project water immediately to beneficiaries. In many cases, construction is ongoing,

and fiscal year 2000 funds are required to complete those projects. In the absence

of fiscal year 2000 funds requested for the distribution systems, it will be necessary

to discontinue some on-going construction contracts and reinitiate them at a later

time. This will raise project costs. It will also lower faith of contractors in the

project, which will affect future bid prices.

Funding for OSRWSS core and distribution facilities are necessary to bring the

benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, one of five rural designations across the Nation. There is great anticipation on

the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The federal projection that as much as $.5 to

$1.0 billion in economic activity can be generated, however, is largely dependent on

the timely completion of a water system, which depends on appropriations for this

project.

UNIQUE NEEDS OF THIS PROJECT

Your consideration in this most important project, a project that brings hope, dignity and a spirit of cooperation between Indian and non-Indians, will be greatly appreciated. This subcommittee has provided us with considerable support for which

we are grateful. This year the Administration has provided a decreased and inadequate budget. It is necessary for the project to petition the subcommittee for the

appropriate level of funding to build the OSRWSS core to Murdo by year 2001, a

major accomplishment that will provide interconnections from the core system to

nearly 50 percent of the project population or about 26,000 persons.

The possibility of a lower level of appropriations in fiscal year 2000 would be hurtful. Each year our testimony addresses the fact that the project beneficiaries, particularly the three Indian Reservations, have the lowest income levels in the Nation.

The health risks to our people drinking unsafe water are compounded by reductions

in health programs. We respectfully submit that our project is unique and that no

other project in the Nation has greater human needs. Poverty in our service areas

is consistently deeper than elsewhere in the Nation. Health effects of water borne

diseases are consistently more prevalent than elsewhere in the Nation, due in part
735

to (1) lack of adequate water in the home and (2) poor water quality where water

is available. Higher incidences of impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies and

hepatitis-A are well documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni Wiconi

Project area. At the close of the 20th century one cannot find a region in which social and economic conditions are as deplorable. These circumstances are summarized in Table 1. Mni Wiconi builds the dignity of many, not only through improvement of drinking water, but through employment and increased earnings during

planning, construction, operation and maintenance.

TABLE 1.—1990 BUREAU OF CENSUS ECONOMIC STATISTICS

Indian Reservation/State Per Capita

Income

Families

Below Poverty

Level

(percent)

Unemployment

(percent)

Pine Ridge (Shannon County) ....................................................... $3,029 59.6 32.7

Rosebud (Todd County) ................................................................. 4,005 54.4 27.3

Lower Brule (Lyman County) ......................................................... 4,679 45.0 15.7

State of South Dakota ................................................................... 10,661 11.6 4.2

National ......................................................................................... 14,420 10.0 6.3

Financial support for the Indian membership has already been subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and through Welfare Reform. This project, progressing through the budget fighting efforts at the National level, was a source of strong hope that would off-set the loss of employment

and income in other programs and provide for a healthier environment. Tribal leaders anticipate that Welfare Reform legislation and other budget cuts nation-wide

will create a crisis for tribal government when tribal members move back to the reservations in order to survive. This movement has already started. Recent Census

Bureau data indicate that the population of Shannon County (Pine Ridge Indian

Reservation) increased over 21 percent between 1990 and 1997. The population of

Todd County (Rosebud Indian Reservation) has increased over 11 percent in the

same time period. Those population increases are greater than anticipated and will

create water needs that will more than utilize the benefits of the Mni Wiconi Project

Act. Public policy has resulted in accelerated population growth on the reservations.

The Act mandates that:

. . . the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate

and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental,

water supply and public health needs of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and

Lower Brule Indian Reservations . . .

Indian support for this project has not come easily because of the historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the Federal Government. The

argument was that there is no hope and the Sioux Tribes would be used to build

the non-Indian segments of the project and the Indian segments would linger to

completion. These arguments have been overcome by better planning, an amended

authorization and hard fought agreements among the parties. The Subcommittee is

respectfully requested to take the steps necessary the complete the critical elements

of the project proposed for fiscal year 2000.

The following sections describe the construction activity in each of the rural water

systems.

OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

Attachment A summarizes the status of the Oglala Sioux distribution system on

the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. All projects rely on groundwater. Pine Ridge and

parts of West River will be the last project sponsors to interconnect with the

OSRWSS core to receive Missouri River water. With projects now designed and proceeding under construction award there are 932 services and 402.2 miles of distribution and service pipelines, down from earlier projections due to the pace of funding.

We continue to extent the start of new projects. Two projects were bid in 1998 and

will require 2000 funds for continuation. The Manderson Loop has been under construction since fiscal year 1996, and the fifth of five phases will be scheduled for

completed with fiscal year 2000 funds. The Red Shirt Project in the northwest corner of the Reservation will be started in fiscal year 1999, and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2000. Parts of the project have been deferred due to shortage

of funds and higher costs than anticipated on other project segments. Of special im-
736

portance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the start of the main transmission system

from the northeast corner of the Reservation to Kyle in the central part of the Reservation. This transmission line is needed to interconnect the OSRWSS core system

with the distribution system within the Reservation in order to deliver Missouri

River water to the populous portions of the Reservation. If adequate funds were

available, this segment of the project would be initiated in fiscal year 2000. However, this critical component of the Oglala system has been deferred to later years.

WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

Appropriations received by WR/LJ have been applied to five service area construction projects that now serve a significant percentage of our membership. A summary

of project status, members services and miles of pipeline is provided in Attachment

A. Construction funds obtained from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will be used

to construct those projects on which design is on going.

WR/LJ priorities in fiscal year 2000 are for construction of distribution facilities

that will receive project water delivered by OSRWSS and LB core pipeline and

treatment projects now under construction and completed portions of the RST core

pipeline. These projects will bring needed water to the Ft. Pierre area of Stanley

County, rural users and the City of Presho in Lyman County and rural residents

of eastern Mellette County.

The project in eastern Mellette County is a joint undertaking with the RST. The

water source is the RST core pipeline. Distribution pipeline constructed by WR/LJ

will serve their membership and have capacity for and deliver water to RST tribal

members. A similar project is now under construction to serve WR/LJ and RST

members in western Mellette County.

ROSEBUD RURAL WATER SYSTEM

Fiscal year 2000 is turning point for the Sicangu Mni Wiconi. The work proposed

will build on the projects completed or initiated in 1998 and 1999 and prepare for

the OSRWSS reaching Murdo in 2001.

The improvements to the community system at St. Francis initiated in 1999, will

be used to distribute water to rural homes in the surrounding area. The rural distribution project will connect numerous additional rural residences to previously

constructed distribution pipelines. The work planned in the Mission/Antelope area

will further improve the reliability of the water supply to the area.

Fiscal year 2000 will also be a year of preparation for the construction of the

Rosebud core line to Murdo in fiscal year 2001. Pre-construction work in design and

right-of-way acquisition is needed to insure timely and efficient construction of this

major transmission pipeline in the following year. After the Rosebud core pipeline

is constructed to White River, high quality water will be available for both Indian

and non-Indians in Mellette County and Northern Todd County where the water is

needed most.

LOWER BRULE RURAL WATER SYSTEM—DISTRIBUTION

The core system pipeline from West Brule to Reliance has been installed and tested, using the systems West Brule booster station, which has also been completed.

The new water treatment plant is under construction, using a combination of funding from numerous sources. These include HUD/IHS, EPA, USDA-RD, Mni Wiconi/

LBRWS, and Tribal. A second 300-gpm treatment unit has been ordered, giving the

new plant two-microfiltration units with a total winter capacity of 600 gpm. Of the

total $1,800,000 funding, $145,000 will come from tribal funds and the Rural Development funds are a $150,950 grant and a $145,238 loan, to be repaid from the rural

water system operating revenues. The balance of the funds is all grant funds, with

$250,000 of those funds anticipated to be Mni Wiconi/LBRWS funds. The second

water treatment unit will allow LBRWS to provide water to their members in the

communities of Lower Brule and West Brule, and until the Lower Brule core system

is completed from Vivian to Reliance, services will be provided to West River/Lyman

Jones Rural Water System for their members in the Reliance North, Reliance South

and town of Reliance sub-systems. LBRWS also has under construction the reservoir

located just North of Medicine Butte as a part of this West Brule to Reliance core

system.

Fiscal year 1999 funds will also be used, as set forth in that fiscal year budget,

to construct the Fort George Butte/County Road core pipeline, and to design and

construct a new administration building. The pipeline project will provide water to

approximately twenty-four WR/LJ members along that route and, ultimately, to the

LBRWS Fort George Butte distribution sub-system, although those sub-system

funds have not been budgeted at this time.
737

Budgeted fiscal year 1999 funds will also be used to complete design for the Vivian to Presho segment of the Vivian to Reliance to West Brule LBRWS core system.

LBRWS requests fiscal year 2000 funding in the amount of $2,433,000. These

funds will be used for the following projects:

A. for purchase and installation of the second water treatment unit.

B. for completion of the administration building.

C. for construction, including related engineering services, for construction of the

Vivian to Presho LBRWS core pipeline.

As shown above, LBRWS is continuing its obligation to complete the basis core

pipeline from Vivian to Reliance and from Kennebec North to the reservation boundary by the legislatively mandated year 2003. In order to accomplish that goal, appropriations to LBRWS must be adequate to plan and construct, with all related

costs, at least one major core pipeline project each year. Funding at a level inadequate to accomplish that will cost an additional $340,000 in administrative cost for

each year of inadequate funding, thus removing those funds from our total authorized expenditure and, very possibly, depleting authorized funding available for construction to a level which will not allow full completion of the LBRWS core pipeline.

ATTACHMENT A.—PROGRESS ON MNI WICONI DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Project/Status

Rural Residential Population

(number)

Constructed

Pipeline

(miles)

OSRWSS:

White Clay/Wakpamni, Operating ................................................................. 991 65

Slim Buttes, Operating ................................................................................. 403 42

Kyle North, Operating .................................................................................... 408 28

Kyle to Sharps Corner, Operating ................................................................. 583 44

West Boundary, Operating ............................................................................ 16 10

Manderson Loop I, Operating ........................................................................ 562 42

Manderson Loop II, Operating ....................................................................... 292 31

Manderson Loop III, Operating ...................................................................... 530 24

Manderson Loop IV, Construction Awarded .................................................. 530 32

Manderson Loop V, Design OnGoing ............................................................. 398 27

Rockyford to Redshirt, Construction Awarded .............................................. 228 57

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 4,940 402

WR/LJ:

Creighton Area, Operating ............................................................................ 238 179

Elbon Area, Operating ................................................................................... 363 274

Kaodaka Area, Operating .............................................................................. 318 247

Grindstone South, Operating ......................................................................... 195 128

Reliance Area, Operating .............................................................................. 267 115

Vivian North, Construction Awarded ............................................................. 240 135

Mellette County West, Construction Awarded ............................................... 214 171

Draper City Distr, Bid ................................................................................... 152 3

Ft. Pierre West, Design OnGoing ................................................................... 246 115

Mellette County East, Design OnGoing ......................................................... 147 103

Presho, Design OnGoing ................................................................................ 240 100

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 2,619 1,570

RS RWS:

He Dog/Upper Cut Meat, Operating .............................................................. 450 35

Soldier Creek/Ring Thunder, Operating ........................................................ 215 18

Phase III, Operating ...................................................................................... 510 27

Phase IV, Under Construction ....................................................................... 20 21

N Parmalee/Black Pipe, Design OnGoing ..................................................... 40 12

Mission/Antelope/Ring Thund, Design OnGoing ............................................ 125 6

St. Francis, Design OnGoing ......................................................................... 1,200 15
738

ATTACHMENT A.—PROGRESS ON MNI WICONI DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM—Continued

Project/Status

Rural Residential Population

(number)

Constructed

Pipeline

(miles)

Rural Distribution, Design OnGoing .............................................................. 250 15

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 2,810 149

LB RWS:

West Brule to Reliance, Operating ............................................................... .................... 14

County Line Road Pipeline, Bidding ............................................................. .................... 14

Vivian to Presho, Design OnGoing ................................................................ .................... 11

Presho to Kennebec, Design OnGoing ........................................................... .................... 9

Subtotal .................................................................................................... .................... 48

Totals ........................................................................................................ 10,369 2,169

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. BYRNES, MAYOR, CITY OF MARSHALL, MN

Chairman Domenici and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the City Council and the

citizens of Marshall. Minnesota. We are requesting $2.275 million in Federal funds

for the construction of Stage II of the flood control project authorized in the Water

Resources Development Act of 1986. This is the funding level that the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers has determined is essential for Stage 2 work on the Marshall,

Minnesota Flood Control Project in fiscal year 2000. The Assistant Secretary of the

Army (Civil Works) has ask Congress to provide $2.275 million for the Marshall

project in his Budget Request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year

2000.

The Conference Committee designated $1.5 million for the Marshall project in the

fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Bill. These funds were augmented by $700,000

transferred to the project by the Corps of Engineers, and $750,000 appropriated by

the Minnesota State Legislature in 1998. In addition, the City of Marshall has allocated cash funds of nearly $1 million to the project, financed the dredging and reconstruction work required on the diversion channel at a cost of $350,000, and purchased property and easements at a cost of about $1 million.

The plans and specifications for the construction work have been completed, and

the project advertised for construction bids. All the necessary property and easements have been purchased by the City. The preparation work in Stage 1 of the

project has been completed including the dredging and enlargement of the diversion

channel and the repair or replacement of gates. The Ditch 62 project has been completed which provides for the storm water collection system for about 60 percent of

the City. Bids for Stage 2 construction are scheduled to be opened today, March 24,

1999, with construction scheduled to begin in April, 1999.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The project is located in Lyon County in the Southwest corner of the State of Minnesota, about 145 miles southwest of St. Paul. It is near the center of the Redwood

River basin. Southwest State University, the business district, and most of the

homes of the nearly 13,000 citizens are located in the floodplain of the Redwood

River. Marshall serves as the county seat of Lyon County, and is the commercial

and agricultural center for the region.

The Redwood River, a tributary of the Mississippi, enters the southwest corner

of the City, winds its way through the City, exiting at the northeast boundary near

the University campus. The Redwood River basin serves an elongated drainage area

of approximately 743 miles. The river’s elevation drops at the significant rate of 19

feet per mile until it reaches the City. There the river slope flattens out to an average of about 4 feet per mile. The lack of a confining valley, and the reduction in

grade on the plain, contributes significantly to overland flooding in the Marshall

area.
739

The geological decline in the elevation in the 50 miles from the watershed area

to the City of Marshall is greater than the Mississippi River elevation decline from

Minneapolis to New Orleans.

A federally constructed flood control project was completed in 1963. While it is

successful in protecting much of the City during frequent, smaller floods, the upstream and downstream channels were not effective during major flood events. At

those times, the Redwood River overflows a county highway, bypasses the diversion

control structure, and floods the inter city area.

The project is designed to protect the City of Marshall from major flood events.

Briefly, the authorized plan calls for channel improvements, drainage facilities, the

construction of 4.7 miles of additional levees, 3.8 miles of bank protection, 0.3 miles

of new high-flow diversion channel, an inter basin overflow structure, modifications

to the existing diversion channel and drop structures, and limited recreation trails,

picnic and rest area facilities.

PROJECT AUTHORITY, FUNDING, AND STATUS

The Marshall Flood Control Project was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and reauthorized in the Water Resources Act of 1988. Funds

were allocated in fiscal year 1984 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design

work. The total project is estimated to cost $10.75 million of which Federal costs

are estimated to be $7.85 million, and non-Federal costs of $2 million. The non-Federal costs have been provided through the State flood mitigation grant program, and

by bonding by the City of Marshall. The Design Memorandum and Environmental

Assessment were completed and approved in 1987.

Summarized Federal Financial Data

Estimated Federal Cost ......................................................................... $7,850,000

Estimated non-Federal Cost ................................................................. 2,900,000

Total Project Cost ....................................................................... 10,750,000

Federal Allocations to Date ................................................................... 4,397,000

Balance of Federal funds to Complete Project .................................... 3,453,000

Benefit-cost Ratio (8 percent) ............................................................... 1.10

FLOW AGREEMENT SIGNED

A major issue to be resolved in the Marshall Flood Control Project was the flow

rate of the Redwood River during major flood conditions.

A portion of the Redwood River basin waters are diverted into the Cottonwood

River basin. The project will require that historic overflows are maintained between

the two watershed districts. After numerous public meetings, a flow distribution

agreement was executed on February 22, 1998, by the City of Marshall, Lyon County, the State of Minnesota, and the Corps of Engineers.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Water and land related problems in the Minnesota River basin were first investigated by the St. Paul District Engineer in 1934, but his study did not address the

flooding and related problems in Marshall. In 1960, after the severe floods of 1957,

improvements were recommended by the Corps which included the construction of

levees and a floodwater diversion channel.

This flood control project was completed in 1963, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to, ‘‘provide protection for the people and property of Marshall from the frequent flood risks.’’ The major feature of the project was a 2.4 mile diversion channel

around the west and north sides of the City, a 1,840 foot levee at the upstream end

of the project, and other features. The channel was designed to handle a 6,500 CFS

flow. The overflow, then, would move naturally into the Cottonwood River Watershed south of Marshall.

In 1969, a flood of 8,090 CFS was experienced in Marshall. The river channel both

upstream and downstream from Marshall was inadequate to convey the 1963 design

flows either to or from the diversion channel. At flows greater than 3,500 CFS,

floodwaters bypass the diversion channel and flood the inner City of Marshall.

As a result of the failure of the 1963 flood control project to protect the City, other

studies were conducted by a private engineering firm under the direction of the

Corps in 1974. The Corps completed a flood control report in 1976, and a feasibility

study in 1979. This report was updated by a reevaluation of the problems in 1984.

The current project was then authorized in the 1986 Water Resources Development
740

Act. It is important to note that the project as constructed in 1963, has worsened

the potential of flooding for the City. The rate of flow is not adequate to move the

flood waters through the diversion channel, and other problems.

The three ‘‘Holiday Floods of 1993’’ (Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and Independence

Day) occurred at both ends of the diversion channel, causing hundreds of thousands

of dollars in damages to homes, businesses, and the City’s infrastructure. As the

water levels remained at flood stage throughout the summer, it created an atmosphere of fear and unrest among the citizens of Marshall.

In 1995, the Redwood River was again flowing at capacity, and the City of Marshall narrowly avoided a disaster worse than the floods of either 1969 or 1993. From

9 to 15 inches of rain fell near Montevideo, Minnesota, less than 40 miles from the

Redwood Watershed District.

If the storm had moved only a few miles to the southwest, the flood waters would

have engulfed the City at a rate of 8,000 to 12,000 cubic feet of water per second.

This is a much greater water overflow than that which occurred in the disastrous

flooding of 1969, and as much as three times greater than the 1993 floods.

The District Office of the Corps of Engineers provided estimates stating that the

City would have incurred millions in property damage, and that flash flooding of

this nature could well have resulted in the loss of lives. Corps officials stated that

flash flooding of this magnitude would have made most emergency measures futile.

As a result of the flat terrain in and around the City, and much of the Marshall

community would have been under water.

STAGE 2—CORPS SCHEDULE FOR MARSHALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Activity Beginning date Completion date

Plans & Specs Initiated .......................................................................................... 2/28/96 .................. Complete

Plans and Specs Submitted .................................................................................... 2/28/98 .................. Complete

Plans & Specs Approved ......................................................................................... 3/31/98 .................. Complete

Real Estate. Acquisition .......................................................................................... 12/31/98 ................ Complete

Certification of Real Estate .................................................................................... 1/15/99 .................. Complete

Construction Contract Advertised ........................................................................... 2/24/99 .................. Complete

Construction Contract Awarded .............................................................................. 3/24/99 .................. 3/24/99

Construction Contract Completion .......................................................................... 3/24/99 .................. 4/6/99

Construction Stage 2 Completion ........................................................................... 4/25/99 .................. 11/30/01

COUNTY DITCH NO. 62 DRAINAGE SYSTEM

In addition to the Marshall Flood Control Project, the overall protection of the

City required the reconstruction and modification of the storm sewer drainage system. The examination of the drainage problems was acknowledged in the General

Design Memorandum developed by the Corps for Marshall, but is not included, nor

is it a part of the funding of this project.

County Ditch No. 62 serves as the storm sewer drainage system for about 60 percent of the City’s corporate limits. The Ditch extends along the northeast part of

the City, in close proximity to the levee construction required for the Corps flood

control project, and feeds into the Redwood River. With the growth of the community, and the development of property and the University campus, since the construction of the Ditch in 1958–9, the flooding problems in the City have been exacerbated by the lack of drainage and poor water movement in a system that is no

longer adequate for the community. Construction was completed in 1998.

The City of Marshall, in cooperation with Lyon County and the State of Minnesota, a comprehensive storm water system was planned, designed, and jointly

funded by FEMA, the State of Minnesota, Lyon County and the City governments

at a total cost of slightly more than $3 million. There are elements of the Storm

Sewer/Ditch Project that are closely associated with the Flood Control Project.

STAGE 2—CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING NEEDS

The Corps of Engineers has accepted bids for construction work that spans both

fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. The Congressional appropriation for fiscal year

1999, Non-Federal funds, and fund transfers by the Corps have, in combination, provided sufficient dollars to move ahead aggressively on Stage 2 construction this

Spring. An appropriation of the $2.275 requested by both the Corps and City is critical to the project.

Without full funding by Congress this Session for fiscal year 2000, construction

work will come to a halt in October, 1999, causing delays that will substantially in-
741

crease the cost of the project. Of even greater importance is the risk of severe flooding that will confront the citizens of Marshall another year. A half completed construction project will provide very little protection for the City.

It has been noted by City officials that as soon as construction work begins, some

citizens are lulled into a sense of false security. A number of homeowners have

called the City asking to drop their costly flood insurance, assuming their homes

are protected by the unfinished flood control project. Delays in the completion of the

project results in a lack of preparation and a state of readiness by some citizens.

It is these precautions and preparations that have prevented major disasters in past

flood events.

For these reasons, we respectfully request this Subcommittee to appropriate $2.275 million of Federal funds in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act to continue the work required under Stage 11 of the Marshall Flood Control Project. This

action will prevent further delays in the completion of the project, and avoid the

over budget costs that inevitably occur when construction is stopped in the middle

of a project.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring this critical matter to your attention

through this statement. I will be delighted to respond to any questions you may

have about the project.

PREPARED STATEMENT CHAIRMAN HAROLD MILLER, CHAIRMAN, CROW CREEK SIOUX

TRIBE

The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe respectfully requests funds in fiscal year 2000 to

complete the feasibility study and for predesign activities for the Crow Creek Sioux

Rural Water System, in the amount of $235,000. The funds requested will complete

the feasibility study currently underway, including the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and Class I Archaeological survey, and provide for the purchase

of Geographic Information System (GIS) hardware to enable the Tribe to plan for

the development of a Municipal, Rural and Industrial Water System for the Crow

Creek Indian Reservation.

BACKGROUND—COMPLETION OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe resides on the Crow Creek Indian Reservation in

central South Dakota on the eastern bank of the Missouri River, a virtually unlimited water supply (Figure 1). Table 1 presents the findings of our investigations of

water needs to date.

Crow Creek has completed a Needs Assessment Report for the Municipal, Rural

and Industrial Water System. The report addresses needs of a water project

throughout the Crow Creek Indian Reservation with a total cost of $24,750,000. The

system would be designed to serve a future population of 2,843 persons, primarily

members of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Because the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe is

youthful, with median age of 18.9 years, the population is growing at a moderately

high rate, and the need for drinking water facilities will grow as time passes.

Existing facilities include the Fort Thompson, Crow Creek, Big Bend and Stephan

public water systems, which serve an estimated population of 1,520. Distribution facilities in the public water system would be incorporated into the new project and

improved upon where necessary. The existing intake and treatment plant with 450

gpm capacity at Fort Thompson would likewise be retained. Existing storage facilities with 241,000 gallons of capacity would be incorporated.

Quality of water in the public drinking water systems ranges from good to poor.

The Fort Thompson and Crow Creek systems, for example, have total dissolved solids (TDS) within the range of acceptable limits, but the Stephan and Big Bend

water systems have total dissolved solids that exceed suggested limits of acceptability, (Table 1). Some of the individual rural wells, not connected to public water

systems, have acceptable water quality, but the majority of individual wells has poor

water quality with total dissolved solids ranging as high as 4,440 milligrams per

liter.

The Missouri River is a source of dependable water supply for a municipal, rural

and industrial water project on the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. The average annual streamflow at Fort Randall Dam is 18,214,000 acre feet. Streams crossing the

Crow Creek Indian Reservation, such as Campbell Creek, Elm Creek and Crow

Creek, are not dependable supplies of water.

Groundwater may be a reliable source of supply in the southeast corner of the

Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Sufficient exploration of the terrace gravels at

these locations has not been undertaken to determine the long-term availability of

water and its quality.
742

Need for a municipal, rural and industrial water project on the Crow Creek Indian Reservation averages 262 gallons per capita per day, including 48 gallons per

capita per day for heavy water using industry, such as a meat packing plant. The

average need reflects system losses of 38 gallons per capita per day, 15 percent of

demand, an acceptable level of leakage in transmission, distribution and in-house

fixtures. The average 262 gallons per capita per day reflects water uses for full employment, commercial and industrial development of the Reservation, provisions for

livestock and moderate water conservation practices, the latter reflecting a future

plumbing code requiring the use of water conserving fixtures in the home. Provision

is also made for lawns and gardens surrounding each of the 978 households projected for the Reservation in year 2020 (Table 1).

The average future water need is 743,748 gallons per day. On days of the year

when maximum water use is approached, needs will rise to 1,926,000 gallons, approximately 2.59 times the average day requirement . These values are equivalent

to a maximum day flow of 1,338 gpm, of which 450 gpm will be provided from the

existing system at Fort Thompson.

Construction costs of the water project are estimated at $24,750,000. Twenty nine

(29) pumping stations would be required throughout the system with a total of 463

horsepower. Electrical costs, based on 1996 dollars, would average $58,430 annually.

Operation and maintenance costs of the pumping stations have been estimated at

$17,000 annually, (Table 1–1). The project will require 181 miles of pipeline

(985,000 feet).

STATUS OF FEASIBILITY STUDY

The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe obtained language in the fiscal year 1998 budget as

follows:

. . . the Secretary of the Interior may use $185,000 of the funding appropriated herein for a feasibility study of the alternatives for the Crow Creek

Rural Water Supply System to meet the drinking water needs on the Crow

Creek Indian Reservation.

105th Cong., 1st Sess., Amendment No. 872, Congressional Record, p. S7506 (July

15, 1997).

The Tribe entered a Cooperative Agreement with Reclamation on September 28,

1998 for the preparation of a Special Study of Feasibility Considerations for the

Crow Creek MR & I Water System. This requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, section 404 of

the Clean Water Act for wetlands protection, and a detailed demonstration of the

construction and operational costs. Rights of way, easements, licenses and other required permits shall be addressed.

The Bureau of Reclamation retained $20,000 of the $185,000 provided in fiscal

year 1999 for federal administrative expenses associated with the Special Study.

Reclamation’s detailed review and comments shall extend the originally contemplated period of time to complete the Study. Consequently, an additional $75,000

is required to complete the Feasibility Study.

In addition, the sum of $85,000 is required for the acquisition of Geographical Information System (GIS) computer hardware, and $60,000 is required for two full

time employees (FTE), a Project Coordinator and a GIS Technican. The sum of

$15,000 is needed for training the GIS Technician.

The sum of $235,000 is required in fiscal year 2000 for the Crow Creek MR &

I Water System.

CONCLUSION

The project as proposed will provide safe and adequate drinking water to the

Crow Creek Indian Reservation for the projected population, the development of

commercial and business activities, development of a heavy-water using industry

and the support of all livestock within the Reservation. The sum of $235,000 is required in fiscal year 2000 to complete the Feasibility Study and enable the Crow

Creek Sioux Rural Water System to acquire the GIS computer hardware needed for

predesign activities.
743

TABLE 1–1.—STATISTICAL SUMMARY CROW CREEK SIOUX MUNICIPAL, RURAL AND INDUSTRIAL

WATER PROJECT

1990

Census

2020

Projected

Crow Creek Population ........................................................................................... 1,756 2,843

Indian ............................................................................................................ 1,532 2,775

Non-Indian ..................................................................................................... 224 68

Median Age:

Crow Creek .................................................................................................... 18.9 ....................

South Dakota ................................................................................................. 32.6 ....................

Crow Creek School Enrollment:

Ages 3 and 4 ................................................................................................ 40 73

Ages 5 to 14 ................................................................................................. 416 765

Ages 15 to 17 ............................................................................................... 97 179

Ages 18 to 19 ............................................................................................... 17 58

Over 20 .......................................................................................................... 42 122

Total .......................................................................................................... 612 1,197

Housing:

Households .................................................................................................... 434 948

Persons per Household .................................................................................. 4.05 3.00

Crow Creek South Dakota

1990 Household Income ......................................................................................... $12,673 $22,503

1990 Family Income ............................................................................................... 13,125 27,602

1990 Per Capita Income ........................................................................................ 3,717 10,661

Percent Families Below Poverty Level .................................................................... 49.5 11.6

1990 Labor Force ................................................................................................... 480 342,112

Unemployed ............................................................................................................ 139 13,938

Percent in Labor Force ........................................................................................... 55.7 74.3

Percent Unemployed ............................................................................................... 29.0 4.1

Value

Existing Public Water Systems:

Population Served ........................................................................... 1,520

Service Connections ........................................................................ 305

Flow Capacity, gpm ........................................................................ 535

Storage Capacity, gallons ............................................................... 241,000

General Water Quality, TDS, mg/l:

Secondary Suggested Limit ........................................................... 500

Fort Thompson ................................................................................ 479

Crow Creek ..................................................................................... 706

Stephan ........................................................................................... 1,500

Big Bend .......................................................................................... 1,928

Rural Wells:

Maximum Observed ................................................................ 4,440

Average Observed .................................................................... 702

Water Availability:

Missouri River Streamflows, af/year ............................................. 18,214,000

Campbell Creek Streamflows, af/year ........................................... 2,669

Elm Creek Streamflows, af/year .................................................... 5,169

Crow Creek Streamflows, af/year .................................................. 13,749

Missouri River Monthly Minimum, af/month .............................. 260,668

Tributary Monthly Minimum, af/month ....................................... ...........................

Groundwater ................................................................................... Goof to Poor

Design Needs, gallons per capita per average day:

In-Residence .................................................................................... 81

Lawns and Gardens ....................................................................... 62

School Enrollment .......................................................................... 7

Labor Force ..................................................................................... 11
744

Commercial and Industrial ............................................................ 13

Heavy Industry ............................................................................... 48

Livestock ......................................................................................... 14

System Losses ................................................................................. 38

Water Conservation ........................................................................ ¥12

Total ............................................................................................. 262

Design Needs:

Average Day, gallons ...................................................................... 743,748

Maximum Day, gallons .................................................................. 1,926,308

Maximum Day, gpm ....................................................................... 1,338

Annual, af ........................................................................................ 833

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAY L. KIMBLE, MAYOR, CITY OF STILLWATER, MN

Chairman Domenici and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony requesting the remaining $1.2 million needed to complete Stage 2 of the Stillwater, Minnesota flood control project.

Construction of Stage 2 extension of the levee system will commence in late June

or early July of 1999, and is scheduled for completion by November 30, 2000, river

levels permitting.

The project was delayed first by the floods of 1997, and secondly, the soil beneath

the planned levee extension was very unstable, requiring a revision of plans and the

addition of another stage in the construction process.

The flood waters of the St. Croix River did.not recede until August of 1997. The

construction area remained under water preventing construction work to proceed as

scheduled. Work on Stage 1 was completed in late Summer of 1997, and additional

soil borings were taken for Stage 2. The soil was found to be very unstable, and

unable to support the levee system designed for Stage 2 of the project. The construction of Stage 2 is requiring remedial action, and has been designated as Stage 2S.

Phase I, the repair and reconstruction of the old levee wall was completed in the

Summer of 1998. A contract was awarded for Phase 2S in November, 1998, and is

expected to be completed in June, 1999. Phase 2 will begin the latter part of June

or early July of this year, and will be completed in fiscal year 2000. Stage 3 is

scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2002.

THE ADDITION OF STAGE 2S TO THE PROJECT

Nine sawmills dotted the St. Croix River waterfront at Stillwater during the lumbering days in the 1st half of the 19th Century. Billions of feet of lumber were processed and shipped all over the growing Midwestern part of the U.S. The current

levee wall system was constructed in 1938, in anticipation of the backup of the St.

Croix when Lock and Dam #2 was completed on the Mississippi. This Corps project

resulted in the widening of the River at Stillwater, covering the sawdust and wood

debris created by the sawmills a half Century earlier.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports prior to the authorization of this project

stated, ‘‘. . . Subsurface soils investigations along the waterfront in Stillwater identified pieces of glass, wood and/or layers of sawdust to depths of more than twenty

feet below the ground surface as remnants of the early logging and sawmill activities.’’

Another Corps report stated, ‘‘. . . The extent of the wood and sawdust precludes

the economics of excavating to remove these materials and backfilling with satisfactory soil.’’

Additional soil borings taken during and after Stage 1 to depths of 70 feet without

finding stable soil conditions. To construct a new cement levee wall system on an

unstable base would result in a degree of settling of the structure that would result

in cracking and breaking of the levee wall. To establish a firm base for the structure

is economically unfeasible feasible since the depths of such a base would have to

be more than 70 feet. How much deeper is unknown.

The third option was to pre-load the construction site with a soft, organic silt material equal to, or greater than the weight of the levee wall system. This process,

over a period of time, will compact the unstable soil, and allow the construction of

the levee wall after the soil has been compacted.

The surcharge embankment (see Figure 1) was constructed between October and

December of 1998. The Corps used 25,000 cubic yards of granular fill the City of

Stillwater had saved from the temporary levee constructed during the floods of

1997. The surcharge embankment extends about 1,100 feet, and is between 10–15

feet in height. Settlement plates and vibrating-wire piezometers were installed in
745

order to monitor the settlement of the subsurface soils. The engineers predict the

settling process of the riverfront will take about six months.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The purpose of the Stillwater project is to provide flood control and protection to

the City of Stillwater, Minnesota’s oldest city. The project is divided into three

stages. Stage 1 is the repair and reconstruction of the existing floodwall (about

1,000 feet in length.) Stage 2 will extend the floodwall North of the existing wall

1,100 feet to prevent the annual flooding that occurs in that area. Stage 3 includes

the expansion of the flood wall protection along the West side of Lowell Park

STAGE 1 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE

Stage 1 included the repair and reconstruction of the existing 1,000 foot levee wall

system where severe deterioration of the lower wall has occurred, the development

of the plans and specifications for Phase I, the preliminary design work for Phases

II and III, and a rip rap treatment of the South end of the levee. The rise in elevation to the South of the old levee permits rip rap to be used rather than extending

the levee wall system.

The original levee wall was constructed in 1938, under the auspices of the Public

Works Administration (WPA), and is on the register of the U.S. Department of Interior’s list of National Historic Sites.

The community is delighted with the Corps’ work in the restoration, repair and

reconstruction of the old levee wall system.

But even more important, the erosion of the water front underneath the structure

has been halted. This levee not only protects the water front, but a major trunk

sewer line that carries 3 million gallons of raw sewage each day to the Stillwater

water treatment plant. The engineers have warned that extensive, long-term flooding would result in the rupturing of the trunk sewer line, and release of raw sewage

into the St. Croix River, one of the Nation’s ‘‘Wild and Scenic Rivers’’ designated

by Congress.

While the repair and reconstruction work in Phase I of the project substantially

reduces the risk of a failure of the wall, it can not be eliminated until the levee is

extended and the annual flooding of the area diminished.

STAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION

Bids for Stage 2 construction, the extension of the levee wall system, are expected

to be awarded in July, 1999. This is an area North of the reconstructed levee wall

in Stage 1 of the project. The Stage 2 area is always the first area to flood, and

where the most severe flooding occurs during Spring run offs and heavy rains.

Flooding occurs annually at this location causing the emergency roadway adjacent

to the levee to become impassable for 4–6 weeks each Spring.

The Army Corps of Engineers has projected that $1.2 million will be required to

complete the work on the Stage 2 floodwall extension. These funds will be needed

in the Spring of fiscal year 2000, to avoid the stoppage of construction work in the

middle of Stage 2. Without funding at the appropriate time, contractors would remove their equipment, including barges used for heavy equipment, and reassign

personal, thus, increasing the cost of the project to both the City and the Federal

government. The United States Congress appropriated $2 million in fiscal year 1999

to initiate work on Stage 2.

STAGE 2S IN PROCESS

Stage 2S (‘‘S’’ for surcharge) was commenced in October, 1998 and the surcharge

placement was completed in December, 1998. It is anticipated that the surcharge

will need to be in place for approximately six months, and that the process will compress the subsoil from 18–24 inches. This will enable construction of the flood wall

to begin in mid Summer, and continue in the early Spring of 2000. The cost of the

placement of the surcharge was $255,000. Additional costs will be incurred with the

monitoring and removable of the surcharge embankment in the Summer of 1999.

STAGE 3

Stage 3 consists of the construction of a secondary flood wall 125 feet inland from

the existing levee. The wall will extend about two feet above the ground. Sheet piling will be driven 15 to 20 feet below the surface to prevent the seepage through

the porous soil that occurs during flood conditions. The secondary flood wall will

provide the City with a 50-year flood protection plan, and with the use of sandbags,

a 100 year protection program. The seepage which now occurs with sandbagging
746

during flood events will be resolved by the deployment of the sheet piling as a part

of the flood wall.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing a decision document to validate

the economic feasibility of the construction of the low floodwall along the Western

side of Lowell Park. The cost estimate for Stage 3 is $4.25 million.

PROTECT SCHEDULE

Stage 1—Construction Completed—October, 1997.

Stage 2—Project design, plans and specifications—Complete.

Stage 2S—In process. Completion date—July 1999.

Stage 2—Award bid for construction—July 1999.

Stage 2—Construction complete on Stage 2—October 2001

Stage 3—Study on for flood wall economics on October 1999.

Stage 3—Construction—April 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

This project was authorized for $3.2 million in the Water Resources Development

Act of 1992. Both the House and the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee designated $2.4 million in Federal funds for the purpose of

designing, repairing, extending, and expanding the levee wall system in the fiscal

year 1994 Appropriations Act. Additional Congressional appropriations were made

for fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999 totaling $4.2 million.

The Minnesota Legislature has provided half of the required non-Federal match- ing funds totaling $1.525 million for all three stages of the project. The City of Stillwater has contributed $950,000 in project funds, and has set aside the remaining

funds required for Stages 1, 2, and 3. To date, all non-Federal matching funds for

all Stages of the project are either in the escrow account, or available for transfer

to the escrow fund from the State account.

Recognition that additional funds would be required to complete the project, the

U.S. Congress amended the authorization in the Water Resources Development Act

of 1997, and increased the project’s authorization to $11.6 million. This level of

funding will permit the reconstruction of the existing levee, the extension of the

levee to the North, and the expansion of the levee wall by the construction of a flood

wall. The completion of Stage 3 is contingent on the decision document in preparation by the Corps.

Summarized Financial Data 1

Federal Cost ..................................................................................................... $6,670,000

Non-Federal Cost ............................................................................................. 2,670,000

Total Project Cost ................................................................................. 8,893,000

Allocations to Date .......................................................................................... 5,652,000

Balance to Complete .............................................................................. 1,118,000

1Does not include costs for Stage 3.

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT

The historic implications of the retaining wall system, and its’ solution, are extremely important to the entire State. In recognition of the historic significance of

Stillwater as the ‘‘Birthplace of Minnesota,’’ the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer conducted an excellent study completed in July, 1985, entitled, ‘‘Historical Reconstruction of the Riverfront: Stillwater, Minnesota.’’

The purpose of the study was to provide the Corps of Engineers with information

to be used in the review of options for flood control of the downtown area of the

City. The research identified 117 sites in the floodplain as being significant to the

entire State. Twenty-three of these sites are listed on the ‘‘National Register of Historic Places’’ by the U.S. Department of Interior. All are threatened by the lack of

an effective flood control system for the community.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is obligated to protect the cultural or man

made environment according to the Corps 1985 study. The obligation is embodied

in these laws that set forth Federal leadership in locating, inventorying, and protecting such sites. The proposed reconstruction and extension of the retaining wall

system does not threaten, damage, nor destroy any of the identified historical sites

in the area.

The project as authorized in 1992 and 1996 in the Water Resources Development

Acts provide the protection necessary to preserve these historic structures for future

generations.
747

ACTION REQUESTED

Based on the information and data from the ‘‘Design Memorandum’’ and information prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $1.2 million in Federal support

will be needed in fiscal year 2000, and is requested from this Committee. In recognition of the urgent need for the completion of this project, Congress increased the

authorization in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to provide for the

completion of Phase II, and the opportunity to provide flood control measures in

Phase lilt

The project is in full compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act,

the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 (f) and Section 110 (f), 16

U.S.C. 470h–2 (f), the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, and have met

the special provisions and requirements of Federal and State laws that protect the

wild and scenic rivers, and other State and Federal laws enacted to protect the environment and historic sites. We have been working with these agencies for many

years in anticipation of the construction and extension of the levee system, and have

a summary listing of their letters of support for the project.

For these reasons we respectfully request that this Subcommittee appropriate the

sum of $1.2 million for the completion of Phase II construction in the Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this critical matter to your attention through this statement. We

would be pleased to respond to any questions the Members of this Committee may

have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION GENERAL BUDGET

The Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission operates under interstate

compact to assist its sponsor states in coordinating public policies and programs on

the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers, which together comprise 265 miles of their bistate boundary. One of its tasks is to assist in the participation by the two states

in federal programs which relate to the protection, use and development of the waters, lands and river valleys.

The Commission has ten citizen commissioners, five from each state, appointed

by their respective governor. The Commission has long been a champion of the

Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program (EMP) and urged

and assisted Congress to create it the Water Resources Development Act of 1968.

Because the Upper Mississippi River has such complex ecological and economic resources under the jurisdiction of many agencies and units of government, our Commission has fostered and been a part of numerous partnership efforts on the river

in its 33 years of service.

The Commission recommends appropriation of the full amount recommended in

the President’s Budget [$18,995,000] for the Upper Mississippi River EMP in fiscal

year 2000.

The Upper Mississippi River System EMP has become the primary means by

which the federal agencies and states are working together to restore habitat, to

gain a better understanding of how the Upper Mississippi River System functions

as an ecosystem, and how it would be likely to respond in future management scenarios.

The EMP’s habitat rehabilitation and enhancement and long term resource monitoring programs cover the entire 1,300 miles of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River/Waterway from the Twin Cities and Chicago, respectively, down to the

confluence with the Ohio River. This is the only inland river in the Nation designated by Congress as both a major national wildlife refuge system and a major

commercial navigation system. Through more than two decades of cooperative partnership work among the five basin states and the Corps of Engineers and Department of the Interior, co-managers of federal river missions here, a management

strategy where the ecosystem and navigation purposes complement one another has

been worked out and implemented. This success story needs to be continued without

interruption. We respectfully urge the Congress to again support this appropriation

as being in the national interest on ‘‘The Nation’s River.’’
748

SOUTHWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. HODGES, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony for consideration in regard

to fiscal year 2000 budget preparation. The Trinity River Authority of Texas requests that this letter and the requests included herein be included in the formal

record for the fiscal year 2000 budget hearings.

Federal participation in Trinity River watershed water resource projects has contributed substantially to Texas’ economic development and represent some of the

soundest investments ever made with federal funds. We respectfully request your

committee’s continuing support on the following projects within the Trinity River

basin:

Wallisville Lake, Texas.—After decades of delay, this most important project at

the mouth of the Trinity River is nearing completion. The Galveston District of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has expressed the capability of beneficially spending

$4,756 million that will complete this project. The need for completion has been

more pronounced because of the drought conditions experienced in 1997 and 1998.

The operation of Wallisville will eliminate the need to release fresh water from Lake

Livingston to keep saltwater out of the rice fields of the lower Trinity River valley.

Enough water to supply approximately 40 percent of Houston’s needs was released

for the past two years. The President’s budget message did not contain any funds

for this activity, but we ask that you take all actions necessary to have this level

of funding added to the final fiscal year 2000 budget.

Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.—The North Central Texas Council of Government is the sponsor of this project. With the assistance of nine cities, two counties

and one special purpose district the NCTCOG is contributing matching funds for

this widely supported study. TRA strongly supports the recommended appropriation

of $720,000 included in the President’s budget message. If funded by Congress,

these funds will be used to design necessary improvements to the existing Dallas

Floodway.

Dallas Floodway Extension.—The City of Dallas is the local sponsor of this

project. In the past year the city has passed a major bond issue intended to pay

the local share of development costs. This project will extend the existing floodway

approximately eight miles downstream and provide flood protection to a large floodprone section of the city. The area within the levees will be available as a linear

greenbelt that will be subject to extensive recreational use by the public. The President’s budget message for fiscal year 2000 includes $1.553 million to continue preconstruction and design activities. TRA encourages your support for this appropriation.

Navigation to Liberty.—The City of Liberty and the Chambers-Liberty Counties

Navigation District are the local sponsors of an existing six-foot federal channel to

the Port of Liberty at river mile 45. This channel is in need of maintenance dredging, but no funds have been included in the President’s budget message. The Corps

of Engineers estimates that an additional $900,000 will be necessary to complete the

channel to Smith Point which was funded this year. The Corps estimates that an

additional $1.5 million would be necessary to maintain the channel to Liberty. We

request that your committee include a total of $2.4 million in the fiscal year 2000

budget for these purposes and direct the Corps of Engineers to complete this work.

Operations and Maintenance.—Other funds are included in the President’s budget

for operations and maintenance for a series of federal Trinity River watershed lakes

for which TRA serves as local sponsor. These projects include Lakes Bardwell,

Navarro Mills, Joe Pool and Wallisville.

I would like to express our appreciation for this committee’s historic support for

water resource development in the Trinity River watershed. I can assure you that

it is money well spent.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD CASTRO, CHAIRMAN, EL PASO WATER UTILITIES

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee in

support of the one million dollar appropriation request for the El Paso Wastewater

Reclamation program. My name is Richard Castro. I am Chairman of the El Paso

Water Utilities Public Service Board which is responsible for developing and operating the wastewater and water supply system in the City of El Paso.

The City of El Paso, Texas is located in the desert at the junction of the Texas,

New Mexico and Mexican borders. It is Texas’ fourth largest city, and the third fast-
749

est growing metropolitan area in the United States. The El Paso, Texas and

Ciuadad Juarez, Mexico, area forms the largest international border community in

the world with shared water supply sources.

El Paso faces a serious future water supply shortage with its arid climate and depleting underground aquifers, and water conservation is essential to preserving the

City’s future. Since 1991, when a water conservation ordinance was adopted by the

City, year-round conservation measures have been strictly enforced, including restrictions on residential watering, non-commercial car washing, and incentives to

prevent water flowing into streets and leaks. Over the past eight years this conservation program has reduced the per capita use of water from 203 gallons per day

to 162 gallons per day. Despite this success, the City of El Paso and Ciuadad

Juarez, Mexico, will deplete their groundwater supplies within the next 25 years.

The El Paso Reclaimed Water Project will serve the central El Paso area and will

provide reclaimed water to serve a variety of needs. These include several large turf

areas, including the Ascarate Municipal Golf Course, the Chamizal National Park,

local schools and cemeteries, and City parks. Government users include the El Paso

Community College and a Juvenile Detention Center located in the central part of

El Paso. The project will also serve the Chevron refinery, which is expected to be

the largest reclaimed water customer in El Paso, requiring one million gallons a

day.

Given the density of the potential customers within the project area, the project

is the most cost-effective reclaimed water distribution system within the City of El

Paso. Three different alternatives for delivering reclaimed water have been developed and are being analyzed using a hydraulic computer model. Each alternative

includes in its schematic a single distribution system, dual independent systems,

and a single system constructed in two phases.

The proposal was authorized under Public Law 104–266 in 1996 and received

$750,000 for the cost of initial planning and design in the fiscal year 1999 Bureau

of Reclamation budget. The one million dollars requested for fiscal year 2000 will

allow for construction to begin on the project. As with other Title XVI projects, 75

percent of the project funding will be provided by our local government.

The past support of this Committee and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has allowed the City to initiate the largest and most efficient water reuse project in the

state of Texas. Additional funding and other support have been given to the project

by the state, the North American Development Bank and the Border Environment

Cooperation Commission. However, the City is to the point where expansion of

water reuse is now needed on an even larger scale. Reclaimed wastewater is the

essential element and is at the core of our long term water conservation and water

supply plans and programs. Only with your help will we be able to move forward

in a timely manner. We greatly appreciate the assistance provided by this Committee in the past and we respectfully urge your support and assistance in allocating one million dollars in fiscal year 2000 for the El Paso Reclaimed Water

Project.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF H. THOMAS KORNEGAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF

HOUSTON AUTHORITY

On behalf of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) and the over 204,000 Americans whose jobs depend upon activity at the Port of Houston, we extend gratitude

to Chairman Domenici, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to

submit testimony in support of several important navigation projects included in the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works budget for fiscal year 2000.

For many years, the Port of Houston Authority has provided testimony to this

subcommittee expressing appreciation for providing the funds necessary for the

Houston Ship Channel (HSC) to remain fully functional by maintaining proper

dredge depths and dewatering of dredge disposal sites. Most importantly, we are

grateful for this subcommittee’s support through the funding request for the required studies prior to the authorization of the improvement project to deepen and

widen the Houston Ship Channel. We are deeply grateful for this support and are

particularly excited about the partnership of this subcommittee, the Army Corps of

Engineers and the Port Authority in marching forward with an insightful view of

the future of one of our Nation’s busiest ports in foreign commerce.

We express full support of the fiscal year 2000 Corps of Engineers’ budget request

in the following amounts:

Houston Ship Channel (O&M) .............................................................. $13,011,000

Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Construction) ................... 60,000,000
750

Each of these funding requests is important to ensure the continuous flow of commerce through this very busy waterway.

THE PORT OF HOUSTON—ONE OF THE NATION’S BUSIEST PORTS

Port of Houston commerce generates over $7.7 billion annually to the Nation’s

economy and over 204,000 people work in jobs that are directly related to the Port

of Houston’s activity. Moreover, the port generates nearly $500 million in customs

fees and over $525 million annually in state and local taxes.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Houston Ship Channel is one of the most

important economic lifelines between our Nation and the world. Houston’s favorable

geographic location provides easy access to the entire world business community

through key ocean, land, and air routes. More than 100 shipping lines connect Houston with more than 700 world ports and 200 countries. Three major railroads provide cargo distribution throughout the United States with the intermodal link of

more than 160 trucking lines. The Port of Houston forms the core of the Houston

international community which includes more than 350 U.S. companies with global

operations and Houston offices for more than 45 of the world’s largest non-U.S. companies. In addition, Houston is the home of one of the largest consular corps in the

Nation, with over 70 foreign governments represented. These factors have made the

Port of Houston a preferred gathering and distribution point for shippers transporting goods to and from the Midwestern and Western United States.

THE PORT OF HOUSTON—PROTECTING OUR NATION

During the Desert Shield/Desert Storm operation, the U.S. government deployed

106 vessels carrying 458,342 tons of government cargo and military supplies from

the Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut Terminal at the Port of Houston. In fact, between August of 1990 and October of 1991, the Port of Houston was the second busiest port in the Nation in support of our troops. We are proud that the strategic location of the Port of Houston allows us to play such an important role in the defense

of our Nation and the world.

MODERNIZATION & THE ENVIRONMENT—SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP

The Houston Ship Channel, which opened in 1914, is believed to be the result of

the first-ever federal/local cost-sharing agreement. At that time, the channel was

181⁄2 feet deep. It was subsequently deepened to its current depth of 40 feet with

a width of 400 feet. This last improvement was completed in 1996. While Houston

is one of our Nation’s busiest ports, it is also one of the narrowest deep draft channels. As you can imagine, ships and shipping patterns have dramatically changed

to meet the demands of world trade over the last 30 years. Yet, this busy waterway

has not been widened or deepened to accommodate these changes. As the local sponsor for the Houston Ship Channel, the Port Authority began its quest to improve

the channel in 1967. For reasons of safety, environment, and economics, the Houston Ship Channel is long over-due to be improved. The Port of Houston, and its

partner in maintaining this federal waterway—the Corps of Engineers—are leading

the way to a unique approach to addressing the environmental interests in the improvement of the Houston Ship Channel. In the late 1980’s, the Port Authority and

the Corps of Engineers joined with federal and state agencies to form an Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) in a cooperative effort to address environmental

concerns with the project—a process advocated by environmental groups and various resource agencies. The ICT included: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Natural Resources

Conservation Service (USNRC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

the Texas General Land Office (GLO), Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD), the Texas

Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Port of Galveston, and the Port of

Houston Authority. Several committees were established by the ICT. One of the

most important committees established was the Beneficial Uses Group (BUG). The

BUG, chaired by the Port, was charged with developing a disposal plan to utilize

dredged material in an environmentally sound and economically acceptable manner

that also incorporated other public benefits into its design. Most important was the

Port Authority’s committed objective that the final plan would have a net positive

environmental effect over the life of the project.

We are pleased to report that the ICT unanimously approved the beneficial use

plan for disposal of dredged material from the HSC project as one that will have

a net positive environmental effect on Galveston Bay, while significantly increasing

the net economic benefits to the region and to our Nation. Three basic principles
751

guided the BUG in their efforts: dredged material should be considered a potentially

valuable resource; development of an environmentally acceptable disposal plan is intrinsic to the approval of the project; and, the adopted disposal plan must have long

term environmental benefits for the Galveston Bay system. The approach utilized

by the BUG for Galveston Bay made this effort unique and precedent setting. What

was attempted had never been done before. The BUG developed a preferred disposal

plan rather than reviewing a proposal in a regulatory setting. The BUG also addressed one of the largest navigation projects in recent years (approximately 62 Million Cubic Yards (MCY) of new work material and an estimated 200 MCY of maintenance material over the next 50 years. Most importantly, the BUG actively solicited

beneficial use suggestions from environmental interests and bay user groups whose

collective ideas were given full consideration during the development of the recommended plan. In fact, the community identified more beneficial uses than the material available from the project plus 50 years of maintenance dredging. The result

was the identification of beneficial uses for the material to be dredged from the improvement project. The final plan includes the creation of 4,250 acres of marsh—

a bird island, boater destination, restorations of two islands lost over the years due

to erosion, and subsidence. In addition, an underwater berm will be constructed to

provide storm-surge protection and habitat.

PORT OF HOUSTON—LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE

The voters of Harris County in 1989 committed significant local funding to support these improvements. By a 2 to 1 vote, citizens approved a measure that will

provide the local funding ($130,000,000) to deepen the channel to 45 feet and widen

it to 530 feet. The Corps of Engineers and resource agencies involved in the ICT

and BUG process have worked diligently to address all concerns and to develop a

truly unique approach. The Port Authority heartily commends the cooperation and

hard work of the Corps of Engineers and the state and federal agencies who have

participated in the process that has this project being applauded across maritime

and environmental communities. This project is the first in history to have netted

no negative comments during the public review phase of the Supplemental Impact

Statement (SIS).

HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS (CONSTRUCTION)

From fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1999, Congress has appropriated nearly

$93,000,000 toward the project to deepen and widen the Houston Ship Channel. The

Port Authority has also contributed substantially to support this effort.

Based on our cooperative and productive discussions with the Corps of Engineers,

we are convinced that the optimal timeline for completing the navigation portion of

this project is four years. A four year schedule will accelerate the benefits of the

project and reduce its costs. Each year in reduction construction time adds more

than $81 million in benefits, reduces escalation costs by $4.562 million and drives

down investment costs by more than $17 million. This subcommittee has agreed

that this fiscally sound reasoning is good public policy and accordingly has provided

the necessary funding to keep this project at the optimum schedule.

This year, the Administration has included in the Corps of Engineers’ construction

budget the $60 million request needed to keep this project on the optimum schedule

for completion of the navigational portion of the project. We understand that the

budget allocations are predicated on anticipated revenue from the Administration’s

Harbor Services Fund proposal which includes controversial user fees. We fully recognize the challenges of this subcommittee in being responsible to the fiscal needs

of the Nation and yet trying to satisfy the many demands on the budget for critically needed water improvement projects. In a recent study conducted by the Texas

Transportation Institute, the Port of Houston was evaluated as a prototypical next

generation megaport. The port identified channel and berth depths as a major impediment to accommodating ships of the future. Further, in this era of environmental sensitivity, the Houston Ship Channel improvement project is a beacon of

light. The improvements to the environment that will be reaped from this project

cannot be ignored. The Port of Houston Authority’s Demonstration Marsh, utilizing

dredged material for beneficial uses, has been included in the Audubon Society’s

Christmas Bird Count. Over 155 species of birds have been identified on this marsh

built entirely with material dredged from the Houston Ship Channel.

The Port Authority has a responsibility to the citizens of Harris County to operate

the port in a cost-effective and efficient manner. We would not be fiscally responsible if we did not strive to realize the benefits of the project as soon as humanly

feasible and at a most-efficient cost to the partners involved. We urge the members

of this subcommittee to fully fund this important project. In doing so and in re-
752

affirming the subcommittee’s commitment to our Nation’s port system, we urge the

subcommittee to include the $60 million necessary to keep the Houston Ship Channel project on its current optimal, cost-effective schedule. We look forward to your

leadership on this vitally important matter.

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL—OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

The Corps’ fiscal year 2000 request for operations and maintenance funding includes $13,011,000 for maintenance dredging of key stretches of the channel, mosquito spraying, protection of various disposal areas, and dewatering of dredge disposal sites. These include the critical maintenance of channel depths at the Bayport

flare—essential to safety; removal of existing shoaled material in the Upper Bay;

dredging of Boggy Bayou to Greens Bayou; and dewatering of east and west Jones

disposal area.

CONCLUSION

We greatly appreciate your support in past years and urge you to include the

funds requested to fully support these projects in this busy federal waterway. These

maintenance projects, and particularly the funds necessary to continue construction

of the HSC improvement project at an optimal schedule are vital, not only to the

Port of Houston’s continued ability to move the Nation’s commerce in a safe, efficient, and economical manner, but also to ensure the competitiveness of this waterway in the world marketplace—an absolute necessity in this global economy.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FREDERICK A. PERRENOT, P.E., GENERAL MANAGER, CITY

OF HOUSTON

WALLISVILLE SALTWATER BARRIER PROJECT

We would like to express our appreciation and thank the Chairman and this Subcommittee for their longstanding support for funding for the Wallisville project. This

request is for the final appropriation necessary to complete the project.

The Wallisville project represents the culmination of 40 years of cooperative efforts by the City of Houston, the Trinity River Authority, the Chambers Liberty

Counties Navigation District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The

Corps currently estimates that it will take approximately $5,000,000 to complete the

project. If appropriated, that amount will be spent to rehabilitate the locks at the

saltwater barrier, complete construction of the upstream overflow barrier (‘‘Control

Structure A’’), breach an old unused dam and construct certain environmental enhancements to the project site.

With the Wallisville Saltwater Barrier in place, up to 260 million gallons per day

of freshwater held in the Lake Livingston reservoir, becomes available as part of

the drink water supply to address the needs of about four million Texas Gulf Coast

residents. Houston serves as the regional supplier of surface water to meet the

needs of Pasadena, Baytown, Friendswood, Webster, South Houston, La Porte, Clear

Lake and Galveston, Texas, among others, as well as several hundred municipal

utility districts and industries.

When completed, the water users in the greater Houston area will have provided

a local share of approximately 66 percent of the total costs of the co-dependent and

interrelated Wallisville Saltwater Barrier and Lake Livingston Reservoir projects.

We urge you to closely consider this final appropriation request of $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 so that the Wallisville project can be completed.

Again, we want to thank this Subcommittee for its support for funding this project

and request that this letter become part of the record of testimony before the Subcommittee.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLASS W. SVENDSON, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GULF

INTRACOASTAL CANAL ASSOCIATION

This testimony for the record, March 26, 1999, before House and Senate Energy

and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees is submitted by Douglass

W. Svendson, Jr., Executive Director of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association.

Ours is the oldest of the regional waterway associations, having been established

in Victoria, Texas in 1905. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway transports 121 million

tons of freight annually, the third highest volume among our inland and coastal waterways after the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
753

GICA’s membership includes both shallow draft and deep draft ports, port commissions and navigation districts, barge and towing companies, petroleum refineries,

chemical manufacturers, shipyards, marine fabricators, fuel terminal facilities, and

individuals whose businesses are waterway related and dependent. We have 180

members in the five states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida

served by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. In addition, the GIWW is the link that

binds the North-South rivers to the canal, the coastal ports, and ultimately the

heartland of America. The Mississippi River intersects the GIWW at New Orleans,

one of our busiest ports, and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway intersects the

GIWW at Mobile.

THE OVERALL CIVIL WORKS BUDGET OF $4.2 BILLION

During at least the last 4 years as the Administration has proposed smaller Civil

Works budgets, most organizations who file testimony with your subcommittee, including ours, have expressed very strong concern about these reductions, whether

in flood control, operations and maintenance, construction, or other. We were heartened when the final appropriated level for fiscal 1999 was approved at $1.653 billion

for operations and maintenance.

Because the fiscal year 2000 operations and maintenance budget allowance consolidates $692 million in port O&M with O&M, General, expenditures for the preservation, operation, and maintenance and care of existing river and harbor, flood

control, and related works may actually receive less than the recommended $1.835

billion in the President’s year 2000 budget.

This same concern applies to funds for construction in the year 2000 budget. If

we underfund normal construction schedules that are obviously within the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers’ capabilities, we (a) deny our nation the timely use of more

modern locks, affecting our international competitiveness, and (b) add to the ultimate cost of construction.

THE PORT FEE AND HARBOR SERVICES FUND

The combination user fee and Harbor Services Trust Fund for port maintenance

proposed by the administration in its budget raises several very serious issues for

waterborne transportation, our domestic economy, and international trade.

Whatever the constitutional infirmities of the previous harbor maintenance tax,

it was spread over a large base of commerce. This fact alone helped mitigate a potentially harsh economic impact which might otherwise have been injurious to many

of our ports, our trade, and our economic jobs base.

The proposed fee will be based on volume or tonnage, not value. Those most injured will be our ports that ship large volumes of commodities. This negative impact

will ultimately fall on farmers, mine operators, chemical and petroleum sectors, and

all commodities producers. Farmers and other producers have historically benefited

economically by retaining more of the ultimate sales price in their own pockets, as

a result of water transportation efficiencies.

A user fee, as proposed, is much more likely, we believe, to be port and/or vessel

specific, thus location dependent, and harm many but the very largest ports. Even

large ports stand to lose as a result of the fees that could be levied on many bulk

commodities which are routinely traded on world markets. For commodities, successful trades often are determined by pennies per unit of measure, or less. Margins

are exceedingly thin and relatively large fees will easily disrupt normal buyer-seller

patterns. Our commodities producers such as coal, chemicals, and agricultural products stand to lose sales and market share.

A related problem involves the nature of our ports in the overall economy. Ports

generate jobs themselves and also provide the impetus for related industries to establish themselves adjacent or nearby. Benefits of port spending are therefore quite

broad in terms of regional and national economies. Port related growth is not characterized by only a few, specific identifiable beneficiaries we usually associate with

the obligation to pay user fees. Port beneficiaries, including jobs creation and revenue enhancement, are the thousands of citizens in the affected locale or region. The

numbers involved are broad and diverse—just such a class of people we usually call

the general population. General revenues are employed to fund programs for this

large a segment of the population

Thus, the national benefits and economic significance associated with the sum

total of port activities places these entities in a category which is easily able to justify the use of general revenues in support of broad, general economic benefits. Our

association recommends that the Congress look seriously at funding port activities

from general revenues, as was done prior to WRDA 1986.
754

SPECIFIC BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association supports the Administration’s budget re- quest of $60 million for deepening and widening the Houston—Galveston Ship

Channel. This project has enormous favorable economic implications for the regional

and national economy. It also offers an opportunity to increase deep draft/shallow

draft navigation safety.

Approximately 100,000 barge tows and 20,000 ships transit the Houston Ship

Channel each year. In response to the last major barge and ship collision causing

a serious oil spill in 1992, the Houston Galveston Area Navigation Safety Committee (HOGANSAC) began studying how to prevent ship/barge collisions on the

Channel. With the work of a broad coalition of deep and shallow draft mariners,

shippers, the Houston Pilots, environmental groups, the Corps and the Coast Guard

a solution was developed. The plan was to move the beacons to a straight line 500

feet either side of the centerline of the channel between Bolivar and Morgans Point

and dredge the area between the beacons and the deep draft channel to a depth of

12 feet to allow barge tows to operate outside the deep draft channel.

We also support funding for the GIWW Section 216 Studies in the President’s

budget, identified as RCP, Review of Completed Projects. They are Brazos River to

Port O’Connor, Texas, High Island to Brazos River, Texas, and Port O’Connor to

Corpus Christi, Texas. Within the Brazos River to Port O’Connor study, we urge the

committee to specifically direct the secretary to re-route the GIWW across

Matagorda Bay.

Besides increasing safety, re-routing the GIWW across Matagorda Bay will save

substantial federal outlays. The re-route would enable barge traffic to cross

Matagorda Bay farther north than the existing alignment. The existing channel is

much closer to the Gulf, which subjects our vessels to serious shoaling and very dangerous currents. The Corps of Engineers recommended plan is not scheduled for implementation until 2003 to 2005. At least $7 million (and possibly as much as $9

million) will be spent during that time period compared to $2 million to establish

the re-route across Matagorda Bay now.

These two improvements will constitute the most significant physical and environmental safety enhancements along the Texas coast in years, and are supported by

the environmental community. They will also save scarce federal dollars. Our association also endorses the President’s budget request of $8.7 million for

construction of the channel to Victoria, Texas. This project was delayed in last year’s

budget because of funding levels and we urge the committee to provide funds for

completion as soon as possible, consistent with the Corps’ full capability.

We support surveys funding in the President’s budget for Calcasieu Lock, Lou- isiana ($691,000), and Intracoastal Waterway Locks Study, Louisiana ($700,000).

We support funding for the replacement of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal

Lock to the extent of the Corps’ full capability. We encourage the committee to make

certain this project is expedited, rather than stretched out.

The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association also supports the operations and maintenance funding request for Tri Rivers Waterway Development Association. We support sound economic development efforts to improve the ACF waterway as a vital

link for southeast Alabama, southwest Georgia, and northwest Florida to export

goods to other national and international markets via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

We support inland waterway navigation as an environmentally sound and cost effective transportation mode in the Gulf South region, helping to reduce freight rates

and promoting trade and development.

In addition, we support the President’s budget request for Pascagoula, Mississippi harbor project ($7,792,000) and Mobile, Alabama harbor project ($700,000).

This concludes our prepared testimony. We appreciate the opportunity to provide

this statement for the record.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNIE ZIESCHANG, PRESIDENT, PORT OF LIBERTY

COMMISSION

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for consideration in regard to

fiscal year 2000 budget preparation. The Port of Liberty Commission requests that

this letter and the appropriation requests included herein be included in the formal

record for the fiscal year 2000 budget hearings.

The Port of Liberty, Texas is located at river mile 45 on the lower Trinity River.

Navigation to the Port of Liberty is ‘‘run of the river’’ and can be very difficult during low flow conditions. At the present time, because maintenance dredging has not

been completed in the wake of a series of high flow events, navigation is impossible.
755

We, the people of the lower Trinity River valley, have a compelling economic need

to have our lifeline to the industrial complex on the upper Gulf Coast of Texas reopened.

There are no funds earmarked in the President’s budget message for fiscal year

2000 for maintenance dredging of the federal government’s channel to the Port of

Liberty. The Corps of Engineers has estimated that it will cost $1.5 million to open

this channel. The Corps has also estimated that an additional $900,000 will be required to finish dredging the channel to Smith Point in Chambers County. We request that this committee include funds in fiscal year 2000 budget in the amount

of $2.4 million for these purposes.

The Port of Liberty Commission also supports an appropriation of $4.756 million

for the completion of the Wallisville Saltwater Barrier. The Wallisville project includes among its facilities a navigation lock that will facilitate navigation on the

lower river during low flow conditions.

We appreciate all of the fine work this committee has done for interests in the

lower Trinity River area over the years, and request your support for federal maintenance and construction projects in our area.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GALE WM. FRASER, II, P.E., GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF

ENGINEER, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

Presented herewith is testimony in support of a $35,000,000 construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue the Tropicana/

Flamingo Washes flood control project and testimony to support $2,105,250 reimbursement to the non-federal sponsors, Clark County and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District, for work performed in advance of the federal project

pursuant to Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996.

This project is located in the rapidly growing Las Vegas Valley in Southern Nevada.

The Las Vegas Valley has experienced unprecedented growth over the past twenty-five years and all signs indicate that this growth will continue for several more

years. People have moved into the area from all parts of the nation to seek employment, provide necessary services, and become part of this dynamic community. It

is estimated that 5,000 people relocate to the Las Vegas Valley every month of the

year. Currently the population is over 1.2 million. The latest statistics show that

nearly 30,000 residential units are built annually. Once all these factors are combined, the result is that the Las Vegas Valley is one of the fastest growing areas

in the nation.

The Federal project proposed by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) is designed to collect flood flows from a 160 square mile contributing drainage area. The plan identified in the Corps’ Feasibility Study for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project

includes four debris basins, four detention basins, 28 miles of primary channels, and

a network of lateral collector channels. The debris basins are designed to collect

flood flows from undeveloped areas at the headwaters of the alluvial fans and trap

large bedload debris before it enters the channels and causes erosion damage. The

detention basins will function to greatly reduce the magnitude of the flood flows so

that the flows can be safely released through the developed urbanized area at nondamaging rates. The outflow from the debris basins and the reduced flows from the

detention basins will be contained in the primary channel system which will also

serve as outfalls for the lateral collector channels. While this latter element is considered to be a non-federal element of the entire plan, it is a necessary element for

the plan to function properly. Because flow over the alluvial fans which ring the Las

Vegas Valley is so unpredictable in terms of the direction it will take during any

given flood, all of the components of the Corps’ plan are critical.

The Feasibility Report for this project was completed in October 1991, and Congressional authorization was obtained in the WRDA of 1992. The first federal appropriations to initiate construction of the project became available through the Energy

and Water Resources Development Appropriations Bill signed into law by the President in October 1993. The Project Cooperation Agreement was fully executed in February 1995. Appropriations to date have totaled $71,045,000, which has allowed for

the continued implementation of the project. The total cost of the project is now estimated at $266,000,000, primarily due to the delay in anticipated federal appropriations.

Certain elements of the Corps’ plan have already been constructed by the local

community but require modifications in order to fit into the Corps’ plan and fulfill

the need for a ‘‘total fan approach’’ to the flooding problems of the Las Vegas Valley.

The Red Rock Detention Basin was constructed by Clark County in 1985 and modifications by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were recently completed in December
756

1996. The release from the basin has been reduced and its capacity to hold flood

waters were enhanced, thereby increasing the level of downstream protection provided by this feature. Although this was the first feature completed, the immediate

benefit realized was the removal of approximately five square miles and 4,754 parcels from the alluvial fan flood zones.

The non-federal sponsors also constructed the Upper Flamingo Detention Basin.

This facility was completed in February 1992, and is one of the main components

of the program. Under the Corps’ plan, the releases from this feature will also be

reduced and its storage capacity increased. We have been working with the local development community in an effort to have them remove the excess sand and gravel

from the impoundment area of this facility. Our goal is to have local contractors remove this surplus material for their own use at no cost to either the federal or local

governments, thus providing a significant cost savings to the total project as well

as maintaining the construction schedule.

As local sponsors for this important flood control project, both the Clark County

Regional Flood Control District and the Clark County Public Works Department

anxiously anticipate the construction start of each feature of this project.

Details of the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Budget Request indi- cate that $20,100,000 is proposed for the continued construction of this project. The

Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers informs us that their capability for fiscal year 2000 is $40,000,000. Funding at the $35,000,000 level will

allow the project to begin to return to the schedule as originally envisioned when

the Project Cooperation Agreement was executed. Furthermore, funding at this level

will allow: completion of construction of the Tropicana Outlet Channel, Lower Red

Rock Complex, Las Vegas Beltway Channel (Section 10A), Blue Diamond Detention

Basin; and the start of construction for the Flamingo Diversion Channel and R–4

Debris Basin and Channel. The non-federal sponsors are anxious to see these flood

control facilities installed. Any further delays places portions of the federal project,

and non-federal projects, both at risk.

In 1996, the Regional Flood Control District was notified by the District Engineer

of the Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that due to reduced federal budget expenditures, expected and subsequent years of anticipated federal

funding would be greatly reduced. The delay in funding, in the fastest growing community in the nation, will mean increased costs due to lost opportunities and inflation. The net result of the reduction in funding is currently expected to delay the

completion of the project from year 2001 to year 2006, a five-year delay.

In order to provide the required flood protection in a timely fashion, the non-federal sponsors are implementing certain features in advance of the federal government by pursuing the provisions of Section 211 of the WRDA 1996. An amendment

to the Project Cooperation Agreement to implement Section 211 of the WRDA 1996

is in its final review stages. It is anticipated that the amendment will be approved

within the next two months. Further, Section 211(f) of the WRDA 1996 identifies

this project as one of eight projects in the nation, to demonstrate the potential advantages and effectiveness of non-federal implementation of federal flood control

projects. To date the non-federal sponsors have designed and constructed features

at Russell Road, Valley View Boulevard, Dewey Drive, and Decatur Boulevard; and

designed the Las Vegas Beltway (Section 7A), which the federal government has

constructed, and Las Vegas Beltway (Section 7B, 8 and 9). The work performed pursuant to Section 211 of the WRDA 1996 totals approximately $2,807,000. Therefore,

the reimbursement for the federal share is estimated at $2,105,250. The non-federal

sponsors are continuing to pursue the design and construction of additional features

with the primary purpose of providing flood protection in as timely a fashion as possible at an estimated additional cost of $28,000,000. While the non-federal sponsors

are not asking to be reimbursed the federal proportionate share at this time, the

non-federal sponsors ask that the committee support the execution of the amendment to the Project Cooperation Agreement that institutes the language in Section

211 of the WRDA 1996 for this project.

This is an important public safety project designed to provide flood protection for

one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation. We ask that the committee

provide the Secretary of the Army with $35,000,000, the Corps of Engineers’ capability in fiscal year 2000, in order to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue the design and construction of additional phases of this desperately needed

flood control project.

As the committee is aware, proactive flood control is the investment required to

prevent loss of life and damages. Flood control is a wise investment that will, in

the long run, pay for itself by preserving life and property and reducing the probability of repeatedly asking the federal government for disaster assistance. Therefore, when balancing the federal budget, a thorough analysis should prove that
757

there will be substantial future federal savings in disaster assistance that will warrant the continued level of funding through Civil Works Budget appropriations.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE RENNER, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

The Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) is pleased to offer the

following testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Bill.

The Central Arizona Project or ‘‘CAP’’ was authorized by the 90th Congress of the

United States under the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968. We thank the

Committee for its continuing support of the CAP. The CAP is a multi-purpose water

resource development project consisting of a series of canals, tunnels, dams, and

pumping plants which lift water nearly 3,000 feet over a distance of 336 miles from

Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to the Tucson area. The project was designed

to deliver the remainder of Arizona’s entitlement of Colorado River water into the

central and southern portions of the state for municipal and industrial, agricultural,

and Indian uses. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initiated project construction in 1973, and the first water was delivered into the Phoenix metropolitan

area in 1985. The CAP delivered over 1 million acre-feet of water to project water

users in 1998 and anticipates delivering 1.4 million acre-feet in 1999.

CAWCD was created in 1971 for the specific purpose of contracting with the

United States to repay the reimbursable construction costs of the CAP that are

properly allocable to CAWCD, primarily water supply and power costs. In 1983,

CAWCD was also given authority to operate and maintain completed project features. Its service area is comprised of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. CAWCD

is a tax-levying public improvement district, a political subdivision, and a municipal

corporation, and represents roughly 80 percent of the water users and property taxpayers of the state of Arizona. CAWCD is governed by an elected 15 member Board

of Directors from each of the three counties it serves. CAWCD’s Board members are

public officers who serve without pay.

Project repayment is provided for through a 1988 Master Repayment Contract between CAWCD and the United States. Reclamation declared the CAP water supply

system (Stage 1) substantially complete in 1993, and declared the regulatory storage

stage, or Plan 6 (Stage 2), complete in 1996. No other stages are currently under

construction. Project repayment began in 1994 for Stage 1 and in 1997 for Stage

2. To date, more than $489 million of CAP construction costs have been repaid to

the United States.

CAWCD and Reclamation disagree about the amount of CAWCD’s repayment obligation for CAP construction costs. This dispute is the subject of ongoing litigation

in United States District Court in Arizona. In Phase One of the litigation, which

was completed in 1998, the District court ruled that CAWCD’s construction cost repayment obligation for CAP Stages 1 and 2 under the 1988 Master Repayment Contract was limited to no more than $1.781 billion. In addition, the court prohibited

Reclamation from denying CAWCD the use of project facilities. Phase Two of the

litigation addressed Reclamation’s cost allocation procedures for CAP. Trial of Phase

Two was completed in December 1998, but the court has not yet issued a ruling.

In its fiscal year 2000 budget request, Reclamation is requesting $27,326,000 for

the CAP. Of this amount, $11,153,000 is requested for the construction of Indian

distribution systems, and $2,220,000 is requested for completion of construction of

sulfur dioxide scrubbers at the Navajo Generating Station (NGS). The balance,

$13,953,000, is sought for other CAP activities, many of which would be partially

reimbursable by CAWCD if the repayment ceiling had not been exceeded. Reclamation estimates that $8,810,000 of the $27,326,000 would be subject to partial reimbursement resulting in a $6 million increase in total reimbursable costs.

Reclamation’s Project Repayment Appendix to the fiscal year 2000 budget justification documents indicates that a ‘‘residual’’ amount of $401,535,392 is currently

not covered under the repayment contract as ruled by the court in Phase One of

the CAP repayment litigation and may not be repaid to the Federal Treasury. While

CAWCD has challenged the adequacy of Reclamation’s cost allocation procedure

from which this residual amount was derived, we are concerned that Reclamation’s

budget request would result in an additional $6 million of reimbursable costs for

which no repayment contract presently exists. In addition, CAWCD questions Reclamation’s authority to spend CAP appropriations in the absence of an amendatory

contract to cover repayment of the reimbursable portion. CAWCD has met with Reclamation and has offered to amend its repayment contract to cover an appropriate

share of Reclamation’s cost overruns, provided that CAWCD’s repayment obligation
758

is reduced by an appropriate amount to reflect the value of CAP water which has

been transferred from non-Federal to Federal uses since the 1988 Master Repayment Contract was signed. Reclamation has rejected these offers. Thus, CAWCD believes it has no repayment responsibility for any further funds Congress may provide that would otherwise have been characterized as reimbursable.

Of the total $27,326,000 requested, $3,237,000 is earmarked to fund activities associated with implementation of a 1994 biological opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pertaining to delivery of CAP water to the Gila River Basin.

These funds are requested for construction of fish barriers ($2,612,000), payments

to FWS for non-native fish eradication and native fish conservation ($500,000), Reclamation’s non-contract costs ($100,000), and public information program ($25,000).

Litigation brought by a local environmental organization remains unresolved, and

it is likely that it will be at issue for some time. CAWCD continues to believe that

Reclamation should cease spending in this area until the pertinent issues are resolved. For the past three fiscal years, Congress has cut all funding for these activities; however, Reclamation continues to spend other CAP appropriations for these

purposes. In fact, language in the Conference Report regarding the fiscal year 1999

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill provided specific direction to

the Secretary of the Interior not to spend any current or previously appropriated

funds for this program. Yet, Reclamation’s spending continues. As in prior years,

CAWCD recommends that Congress not appropriate funds in fiscal year 2000 to

support any Reclamation activities under the 1994 Gila River Biological Opinion

issued by the FWS.

CAWCD continues to support appropriations necessary to ensure timely completion of all CAP Indian distribution systems. However, Reclamation’s fiscal year 2000

budget request of $11,153,000 for CAP Indian distribution systems is less than half

of the FY1999 appropriation for this item. Reclamation has indicated to CAWCD

that the fiscal year 2000 funding request will be sufficient to maintain current development schedules, but CAWCD is concerned that the reduced funding request is

an indication that Indian distribution systems are being delayed.

CAWCD also supports the continuation of funding for the Tucson Reliability Division. The requested $150,000 will allow planning work to continue and will assist

Tucson in developing and implementing a plan including adequate reliability for

putting its CAP water allocation to use.

Finally, CAWCD supports increased funding for Reclamation’s West Salt River

Valley Water Management Study. Reclamation’s South/Central Arizona Investigations Program includes a $200,000 line item to support a continuing planning effort

to study the integration and management of water resources in the West Salt River

Valley, including the use of CAP water. CAWCD supports increasing this line item

to $400,000 for fiscal year 2000.

CAWCD welcomes this opportunity to share its views with the Committee, and

would be pleased to respond to any questions or observations occasioned by this

written testimony.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE MILLER, MAYOR, CITY OF TUCSON

The people of Tucson greatly appreciate the funding support your Committee has

given over the years to the Central Arizona Project. A crucial element of Tucson’s

planning for long-term reliance on CAP water has been the provision of delivery reliability for Southern Arizona through the construction of a storage reservoir and

related facilities as part of the Project. This feature of the Project is commonly

known as Terminal Storage. In the past five years, quality problems with CAP

water have caused the City to suspend direct delivery of the water to customers.

However, the City is taking steps to resolve those problems. Until these problems

are resolved, the City will be storing CAP water underground and recovering it for

delivery to customers in lieu of direct delivery. Even after the problems with the

treatment and direct delivery of CAP water are resolved, the City will not be able

to shift to direct deliveries unless it is assured that delivery of CAP water will be

reliable.

I am writing to urge that the Bureau’s ongoing environmental, design and planning work for Terminal Storage be continued—so that the City can be assured of

CAP delivery reliability to assist the City in maintaining direct delivery of CAP

water as a future option. The Bureau has requested that $150,000 be appropriated

for the Bureau’s ongoing environmental and planning work for Terminal Storage.

The City supports the Bureau’s request and urges that the requested funds be included in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation so that our City can be assured of CAP

delivery reliability as the City works to shift its water supply from groundwater to
759

1 In recent years the Town of Oro Valley and the Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement

District (MDWID) have become water providers. The service areas of both entities were included

in Tucson’s service area when CAP allocations were made, since the City, in the Northwest Area

Agreements, had contracted to provide CAP water for these service areas. Recently the City,

as part of a settlement of litigation over MDWID’s obligations under the Northwest Area Agreements, transferred to MDWID 9,500 acre feet of the City’s CAP entitlement. An additional

amount of CAP entitlement may in the future be transferred to the Town of Oro Valley in connection with the settlement of the obligations of Oro Valley and the City under the Northwest

Area Agreements. Consequently, both MDWID and Oro Valley also have concerns over the longterm reliability of CAP deliveries in Southern Arizona.

CAP water. We understand that the Central Arizona Water Conservation District

has no objection to this request because Terminal Storage repayment is not included

in the current contract repayment ceiling of $1.781 million.

BACKGROUND RE CAP IN TUCSON

Until the arrival of Colorado River water through the CAP aqueduct in late 1992,

Tucson was one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States wholly dependent upon groundwater. Since the early 1900s, Tucson has been forced to mine

groundwater—withdraw more groundwater than is naturally replenished to the

basin—to provide water to its growing population. Recognizing the finite nature of

the groundwater resource, Tucson committed in the 1970s to a strong conservation

ethic. Over the years this has resulted in significant reductions in per capita

groundwater use. Nonetheless, current demands for water in this basin exceed renewable supplies by a ratio of nearly two to one.

For many decades, Tucson has been a major supporter of the Central Arizona

Project to import Colorado River water to the metropolitan areas of the state. Tucson recognizes that CAP water will be the most viable long-term water source to

sustain Tucson’s economic and population growth, meet the Arizona groundwater

code requirements, and conserve and preserve the City’s groundwater resource for

the future. In 1988, the City entered into a subcontract for 148,420 acre feet of CAP

Municipal and Industrial water, the largest CAP M&I subcontract in the state.1

Tucson is paying the annual capital charges on this water and in 1999 will pay

nearly $7 million to the Central Arizona Water Conservation District in capital

charges.

In 1989, after a lengthy process of study and public input, Tucson adopted a long

range Water Resources Plan. As part of that Plan, Tucson made a policy decision

of rapid transition from mined groundwater to surface water, much earlier than required by Arizona’s Groundwater Management Code. In preparing for the use of

CAP water, Tucson shifted its economic resources from drilling new wells and maintaining the well fields, to reorienting the water delivery system, and to the construction of a large treatment plant capable of delivering sufficient treated CAP water

to substitute renewable water for nearly all of the groundwater the City was delivering. Tucson invested over $160 million in the facilities required for reliance on

CAP water.

Unfortunately, when Central Arizona Project water arrived in the Tucson area,

the interaction between treated surface water and old galvanized steel pipes in some

portions of the city resulted in the delivery of discolored water to seven percent of

our customers who received the water. Although major efforts were undertaken to

correct the problem, progress was slow. In November 1995, the city’s voters passed

an initiative measure, Proposition 200, which bars Tucson Water from making direct delivery of CAP water unless it receives enhanced treatment to substantially

reduce the total dissolved solids in the water. In 1997, a privately sponsored initiative attempted prematurely to convince the people of Tucson to allow resumption

of direct delivery and was defeated at the polls.

Consequently, Tucson is planning to recharge and recover a significant portion of

its CAP water until the problems associated with direct delivery have been resolved.

Because the direct delivery of CAP water has been delayed, questions have been

raised concerning the need for Terminal Storage. A purpose of my testimony today

is to assure you that Tucson plans to solve the water quality problems and in the

long term to resume direct delivery of CAP water. Tucson needs Terminal Storage.

Growth projections put the Tucson area’s population at 1.2 million by 2025, and

at 2.5 million 100 years from now. Tucson Water delivered approximately 115,000

acre-feet of water in 1997. Tucson Water’s service area is projected to need approximately 170,000 acre-feet in 2025, and nearly 250,000 acre-feet in the year 2100. Regional needs are even greater. Tucson’s subcontract for CAP water is 138,920 acre

feet. An additional 25,000 acre feet is allocated to private water companies and state
760

land in the area. It appears that this area’s current CAP allocations will be totally

utilized by the year 2025.

Tucson is, and must remain, committed to the Central Arizona Project to support

the City’s existing population as well as its future growth. I assure this Committee

that Tucson’s long-term commitment to the CAP remains intact, despite the water

quality problems experienced by the City when it directly delivered CAP water to

its customers. After describing these problems, I will address our support for

$150,000 of the proposed appropriations for the Tucson Reliability Division of the

CAP for fiscal year 1999.

TECHNICAL CAP IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS IN TUCSON

Conversion of Tucson Water’s service area population of nearly 600,000 people

from groundwater to surface water has been a significant challenge for the City. In

order to comply with anticipated new stringent EPA requirements, Tucson constructed a state-of-the-art water treatment plant. We operated a pilot plant in Phoenix to identify and deal with the problems that could be encountered when CAP

water was introduced in Tucson. A major public relations campaign was implemented to prepare our customers for the changes they might encounter when CAP

water arrived. When the first 84,000 customers were transferred from groundwater

to CAP water in early 1993, 7 percent of those customers experienced problems on

a scale that had not been anticipated. The surface water caused encrusted materials

in old galvanized steel pipe to break loose and resulted in the delivery of discolored

water to approximately 6,000 customers. The City established a special office to deal

with customer complaints and employed nationally recognized experts to help solve

the problem. However, a quick solution could not be achieved, so the areas experiencing major quality were returned to groundwater deliveries.

During 1994, the City continued to deliver treated CAP water to customers in

areas with newer pipelines. However, after the CAP aqueduct was closed down in

November and December, 1994 for siphon repair, the Mayor and Council decided

that deliveries of treated CAP water would not be resumed to any customers until

the problems with direct delivery were fully resolved.

To assure that direct delivery of CAP water would not resume until the quality

of the water improved, the voters of the city approved a citizens’ initiative known

as Proposition 200 in November 1995. It provides that CAP water cannot be directly

delivered to Tucson Water customers unless the quality is equivalent to high quality

groundwater in Avra Valley west of Tucson. Enhanced treatment will be needed if

CAP water quality is to be improved to Avra Valley standards.

In 1996 the City contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct pilot plant

tests of enhanced treatment techniques and estimate costs. This study is not yet

complete. Meanwhile the City is developing ways to continue to purchase CAP water

and store it for future use. The Mayor and Council have been clear and united in

continuing their commitment to taking substantial quantities of CAP water each

year. However, the City must deal with the quality issues which have arisen because of the interaction between CAP water and the City’s older pipe system. Economic consequences will include pipeline repair and accelerated replacement, costs

for homeowner damages, and, as described above, the possible construction of a new

enhanced treatment plant.

We will preserve our basic conservation ethic, and our long-term need for CAP

water to meet the needs of Tucson’s growing population will continue. The CAP Use

Study for Quality Water by Dames & Moore, completed in the Fall of 1996, reported

on alternatives for utilization of the City’s CAP allocation. Its long-term recommendation included direct delivery of substantial quantities of treated CAP

water. Terminal Storage is critically necessary for such direct delivery.

To address its problem with corroded pipes, the City is accelerating its main replacement program. More than half of the 200 miles of old galvanized water pipes

have been replaced. The City is also conducting a major new program to determine

the level of water quality acceptable to our water customers and the methods for

assuring that this level is maintained. A pilot program to deliver blended CAP and

groundwater to volunteer neighborhoods is under way.

TERMINAL STORAGE

The problems Tucson has had switching from groundwater to CAP water highlight the need for a storage facility near the terminus of the aqueduct—Terminal

Storage, as the final element of the Central Arizona Project in Southern Arizona.

A reliable supply of CAP water is very important to Tucson. It is also quite important to the Tohono O’odham Nation. The Nation has a contract for 37,800 acre feet

of CAP water, and is to receive an additional 28,200 acre feet of water under the
761

terms of the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act of 1982. This may also

be CAP water. The Nation has urged that Terminal Storage be provided as part of

the Central Arizona Project so that a reliable supply of water will be provided to

the Nation and its people.

The Bureau has been doing detailed planning and continuing the NEPA processes

on a terminal storage proposal that has been approved by the City and the CAWCD

board. The principal elements of the proposal are as follows:

1. A 15,000 acre foot surface storage reservoir with 350 cfs gravity flow to the

Tucson Water Treatment plant;

2. Joint CAP recharge facilities with the CAWCD;

3. Recovery of recharged water from: a. Two of Tucson Water’s existing exterior

wellfields, Avra Valley and Santa Cruz, with the flexibility to introduce flows either

at the treatment plant or into the surface reservoir; and b. A new Central Avra Valley wellfield, located on City-owned property with the pumped supply introduced directly into the CAP canal on the discharge side of the Brawley Pumping Plant.

4. Operation of the Tucson wellfields to be turned over to the CAWCD, under a

cooperative agreement, during any CAP outages. The estimated cost of the federal portion of this project is $70 million for the stor- age facility; the cost of the local portion is approximately $50 million for existing

and new wellfields and pipelines. The draft Environmental Impact Statement for

Terminal Storage was completed in April 1995. The final EIS was completed last

year.

We have urged the Bureau to continue the environmental work and planning for

Terminal Storage and the Bureau plans to do so, albeit at a reduced level. Its appropriation request seeks $.12 million for work in fiscal year 2000 related to Terminal

Storage. The City respectfully asks that this request be approved so that Terminal

Storage can remain alive while Tucson resolves its CAP problems and develops its

long term programs to return to direct delivery of CAP water.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNADINE BOYD, PRESIDENT, FORT MCDOWELL TRIBAL

COUNCIL, FORT MCDOWELL INDIAN COMMUNITY

On behalf of the Fort McDowell Indian Community [Community], I request that

the sub-committee appropriate a supplement to the fiscal year 2000 budget for the

Bureau of Reclamation in the amount of $3.2 million, representing the cost of environmental mitigation associated with a loan pursuant to the Small Reclamation

Projects Act, 43 U.S.C. § 422a [small project loan], authorized and funded as part

of the Community’s 1990 water settlement.

THE FORT MCDOWELL WATER SETTLEMENT

As part of the Community’s 1990 water settlement, Congress directed that the

Secretary provide the Community a $13 million small project loan, to be repaid at

no interest over a fifty year period. Id., § 408(e). The Congress further provided that,

‘‘The Secretary [of Interior] is directed to carry out all necessary environmental compliance . . .’’ and further ‘‘authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out all necessary environmental compliance associated with this settlement, including mitigation measures adopted by the Secretary.’’ Id., § 410 (a) &

(b). To date, the environmental mitigation required by the Secretary as part of the

small project loan has been undertaken largely by and at the expense of the Community. The Congress has not appropriated funds necessary to allow the Secretary

to assume these burdens. That is the purpose of this request.

During the negotiations leading to the 1990 water settlement, the Community

made it clear that it required wet water, not simply a paper water right: that is,

the practical ability to deliver the necessary water for full development of the reservation. The Community’s water budget was based on this principle. Most importantly for present purposes, the federal cost sharing in the settlement was as well.

In correspondence between the Community and the Department, the Community

laid out its proposal regarding federal cost sharing as follows: the Community required sufficient funding to enable it to beneficially use its entire water budget; the

Community determined those costs to be approximately $38 million, in consultation

with its engineer and agricultural economists; the Community agreed to the $13

million small loan for its agricultural development and agreed to apply that amount

against development costs, resulting in the Community’s proposed development fund

of $25 million. In the final settlement, the State of Arizona contributed $2 million

to the development fund and the United States contributed $23 million. Id., § 408.

Clearly, the development anticipated through the small project loan at the time

of the settlement was a key component of the overall settlement. As stated in the
762

Community’s testimony in support of the bill, the small project loan was expected

to develop approximately 1,600 acres of the reservation. Once finalized, the loan application showed development of 1,584 acres, with state of the art drip irrigation for

permanent crops.

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION COSTS OF THE SMALL LOAN PROJECT

At the time of the settlement, the parties anticipated little, if any, environmental

mitigation would be required as part of the small project loan. The Secretary was

directed to undertake any required environmental mitigation and the Congress authorized appropriations to pay for such. However, these costs were not appropriated

at the time since the nature and extent of environmental mitigation, if any, were

unknown.

As the project progressed, the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation [Bureau] required substantial environmental mitigation. Two of these mitigation requirements imposed obligations with significant negative economic impacts on

the Community.

First, before land clearing for the project began, six significant cultural (archaeological) sites were identified by the Bureau archaeologists. These sites could have

been cleared for development through excavation recovery. To avoid the substantial

delay in the project this would cause and the substantial cost of excavation to the

Bureau, the Bureau proposed and the Community agreed to simply avoid these

sites. These six sites are now fenced off and are surrounded by developed fields. The

irrigation system is built around these sites but does not include them. Principally

because these sites were excluded, the total acreage developed by the project is

1,357, rather than the 1,584 expected at the time of the settlement.

At the time the cultural sites were fenced, it was estimated that mitigation of the

sites by excavation would have cost approximately $3 million. Recently, the Community obtained an estimate from Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., for the excavation and recovery of these cultural sites. Their more current estimate shows

that the cost could now exceed $9 million. The Secretary saved literally millions by

avoiding the sites rather than excavating them. However, the effect of this approach

was to impose mitigation related costs on the Community. Even if the Secretary

were to undertake the excavation of these sites now, the cost to place those sites

into development would be prohibitive. It would require redesign of the entire

project and the extension of laterals within these isolated pockets. For all practical

development purposes, these sites are now isolated and forever lost to the Community.

Second, for the project to move forward, the Bureau and Fish and Wildlife Service

required biological or habitat mitigation. Because it simply took the project lands

out of desert habitat, the Community was obliged to set aside other land as desert

habitat. The Bureau could have set aside land off reservation for this purpose. Instead, the Bureau required that the Community set aside 330 acres of Verde River

front property on the reservation as permanent desert habitat in 1992. This 330

acres cannot be developed or even used by Community members. The Community

recently obtained an appraisal of these 330 acres, which showed a market value of

$4.9 million.

Apart from the obvious costs to the Community summarized above, these steps

for environmental mitigation have affected overall value of the project to the Community as well. As a result of the environmental mitigation, the project is reduced

in size from 1,584 acres to 1,357 acres. The Bureau has worked with the Community

to identify additional reservation land that can be developed to make up for this

acreage shortfall. However, these replacement lands are class III lands, much lower

quality and productivity than the class I lands that were withdrawn from the

project for environmental mitigation purposes. In addition, these substitute class III

lands have higher development costs. An additional $1.9 million, over and above the

original $13 million loan, will now be required to place these substitute lands into

development.

Even more disturbing is the reduction in the expected economic benefits from the

project. Under the project as originally approved in 1990 (1,584 acres in development with no environmental mitigation costs imposed on the Community), the Community expected an internal rate of return of 6.6 percent. As the project now stands,

there are 1,357 acres developed, with $4.9 million in costs for habitat mitigation,

resulting in an internal rate of return of less than 2 percent.

Clearly, this is not the bargain struck by the Community in the 1990 water settlement. By reducing the developed acreage, the Community has fallen short of the full

development goal upon which the settlement was premised. By imposing the environmental mitigation burden on the Community rather than the Secretary, the eco-
763

nomic value to be derived from the developed acreage is dramatically reduced. In

fact, the combined environmental mitigation costs and obligations imposed on the

Community may actually exceed the present value of the loan.

THE APPROPRIATION PROPOSED BY THE COMMUNITY

As the project neared completion last February, the Community presented this

problem to the Department of the Interior. The Community made a proposal to the

Department that, in its view, would place the Community roughly in the position

contemplated at the time of the water settlement. Specifically, the Community proposed that the Department forgive repayment of the small project loan. This would,

in turn, have released an escrow account of $1 million, plus interest, that was set

aside by the Community in 1990 to guarantee repayment of the loan. The Community proposed to complete the project to the full 1,584 acres with its own funds, a

cost now estimated at $1.9 million. Finally, the Community proposed that restrictions on the 330 acre habitat mitigation area be lifted, in favor of regulation by

Community under its own land use plan that restricts development on a much larger part of the reservation. Significantly from the Community’s point of view, the

Community land use plan does not restrict members’ use of the area, as does the

present restriction.

The Department studied the Community’s proposal for months and informally decided that, for technical budgetary reasons, it could not solve the problem administratively. Although the Department acknowledges its responsibility for environmental mitigation under the water settlement act, Congress must appropriate the

funds authorized by the act so that the Department can fulfill its responsibility.

The Community proposes that its original proposal to the Department be implemented through an appropriation for the environmental mitigation costs already authorized in the water settlement. The Community believes these costs can be calculated as follows:

—$3.2 million is a conservative estimate of the direct costs to the Community of

environmental mitigation: the Community proposes to pay the $1.9 million necessary to complete the project to 1,584 acres; the Community will also suffer

a long term reduction in the value of the project because of the substitution of

class III for class I lands, estimated at $1.3 million (calculated by subtracting

present value of project as originally approved from present value of project as

completed with substitute lands, or $8.735 million minus $7.474 million calculated at 6 percent interest; these calculations reflect a delay in achieving full

benefits as well as a reduction in annual crop benefits);

—$3.2 million also approximates the present value of the $13 million small loan

repayment, using an interest rate of 6 percent;

—Congress should appropriate $3.2 million to the Bureau of Reclamation, as representing the reasonable costs of environmental mitigation, with direction that

the Bureau use the appropriation to close out the Community’s small loan and

forgive repayment, thereby lifting all Bureau restrictions and responsibility for

the project, subject of course to full payment of any unused portion of the original $13 million to the Community for use in completing the project;

—with the small loan closed out, the escrow account held by the Community to

guarantee repayment will be closed, which funds can be dedicated, along with

other necessary Community funds, to complete the project to the originally contemplated 1,584 acres;

—with the small loan closed out, all restrictions imposed on reservation land by

the Department as part of the loan must be lifted, with the 330 acre habitat

mitigation area reverting to the Community’s land use plan.

These steps will place the Community in the same approximate position as that

anticipated at the time of the settlement—sufficient funding to apply its full water

budget to beneficial use. The circumstances here arguably support direct monetary

compensation to the Community, in light of the Department of the Interior’s failure

to comply with its obligation to assume responsibility for all environmental mitigation under the water settlement. However, the Community does not propose that

here. Rather, the Community proposes that funding representing the Community’s

costs of environmental mitigation be appropriated for the Bureau so that the Bureau can close out the loan. Done any other way, the United States’ costs will be

much higher and the final completion of the project, up to the anticipated 1,584

acres, will be greatly delayed.

The Fort McDowell water settlement was a turning point for the Community. The

irrigation project funded by the small project loan has been constructed and 86,000

pecan and citrus trees have been planted. The reservation has literally begun to

bloom as these permanent crops reach fruition. By any measure, the water settle-
764

ment in general and the small project loan in particular are successful. With this

appropriation, the final touches will be put on the settlement and the United States

and the Community can be proud of the result. As always, the Community appreciates your support and wishes to thank the Arizona congressional delegation in

particular for its efforts on the Community’s behalf.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL W. WEST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TUCSON REGIONAL

WATER COUNCIL

The Tucson Regional Water Council (TRWC) thanks you for the opportunity to

provide testimony concerning the Bureau of Reclamation’s fiscal year 2000 budget

request. TRWC is a non-profit organization in Tucson, Arizona whose members are

water providers, business and professional people, and concerned citizens dedicated

to ensuring a long-term stable, quality water supply for Tucson and the surrounding

region. Our members appreciate the Committee’s long support of the Central Arizona Project (CAP), and we owe a debt of gratitude to you and your colleagues for

your years of dedication to this project.

TRWC wishes to address the specific Bureau of Reclamation budget line item:

Tucson Reliability Division, which refers to system reliability to utilize CAP water.

In view of the importance to the Tohono O’odham Nation, the towns of Marana and

Oro Valley, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District, and the City of

Tucson, TRWC requests that the Committee support the Bureau’s small request for

funding ($150,000) in the fiscal year 2000 bill.

There is widespread recognition among regional water providers that the Tucson

area will eventually find it necessary to directly utilize CAP water for municipal

purposes. The present move to recharge much of the CAP water has been in response to customer dissatisfaction with the initial treatment and delivery provided

by Tucson Water. However, recharging all the CAP water will not efficiently supply

municipal needs for the long-term.

Extensive testing conducted over the past five years shows that the problems experienced by water users in 1992–94 can be avoided with the proper pH adjustment

and the addition of the corrosion inhibitor polyphosphate. A voluntary neighborhood

demonstration project sponsored by the City of Tucson will be implemented shortly

to show that a blend of groundwater and recharged CAP water can produce water

of acceptable quality. The next logical step is to demonstrate to the community that

a blend of groundwater and properly treated CAP water is also an acceptable, and

more affordable option.

TRWC believes that providing reliability for the Tucson region is critical to completing the Central Arizona Project and reducing reliance on our dwindling groundwater supplies. Unless this region has system reliability, it cannot achieve the most

efficient uses of its CAP allocations . . . not for municipal uses or other uses such

as mining. Direct utilization requires a stable and sure supply, and funding the Bureau of Reclamation’s request will enable the agency to continue efforts to provide

our region with the reliability that will be vitally needed.

TRWC respectfully requests that this specific Bureau of Reclamation budget line

item Tucson Reliability Division be approved. Thank you for your serious consideration of this request.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SKIP RIMSZA, MAYOR, CITY OF PHOENIX

On behalf of the City Council and the residents of Phoenix, the sixth largest city

in the country, I would like to present the following testimony. I am pleased to

present this testimony in support of appropriations to help our city and region continue to foster a partnership with the federal government to achieve our shared objectives. We have been working with our delegation, this Committee, the Corps of

Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal agencies to promote environmental restoration and flood control needs in the most effective and economical

way. We sincerely appreciate the past support of this Committee and trust we will

continue our partnership to see several critical projects through to a successful conclusion.

There are three initiatives under way which this Committee has supported in the

past and are included in the President’s Budget. Continued support is essential to

achieve the public benefits for which the projects are being designed.
765

RIO SALADO AND RIO SALADO PHASE II

We have been working for nearly five years with the Corps of Engineers in a costshared partnership to study a project to restore riparian wetlands along the Salt

River in downtown Phoenix and Tempe. The wetlands were lost over many years

as a result of diversion of Salt River flows for irrigation of the surrounding region.

In cooperation, the Corps, the City of Tempe, and we have developed a cost-effective plan called Rio Salado to restore about seven miles of the lost riparian wetlands. The plan has been approved by the Secretary of the Army and the Administration and was included for authorization in the Senate passed Water Resources

Development Act of 1998. Even though the House did not act on the bill, we are

hopeful that Congress will pass a WRDA 99 that will include authorization for the

Rio Salado project. In the meanwhile, preconstruction engineering and design is continuing.

The Rio Salado project is the centerpiece of our efforts to revitalize the environment and the economy of a part of our city that has not enjoyed the fruits of

progress as have other parts of the city. The President’s budget request is both sufficient and essential to keep this project on schedule. We urge you to support the appropriation of $1,545,000 for design of the Phoenix section of the project and the

$100,000 for the Tempe section. We also seek $100,000 to begin Rio Salado construction subject to WRDA 1999 authorization. This funding is critical if the Corps is to

accelerate its schedule and begin to contract construction in late fiscal year 2000.

The Rio Salado Phase II portion of this environmental restoration project was included in the Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance Study in 1996 which led to the

Rio Salado project. It is essentially a continuation of the Rio Salado project and

would connect the Rio Salado project either to Tempe or to Tres Rios. We are seeking $200,000 for the Corps to begin the feasibility study of this portion of the project

which will determine if the project moves upstream or downtstream in the next

phase. Completion of the study and construction of the project would make much

of the corridor whole. We strongly urge your support for this appropriation.

TRES RIOS

This is a truly unique project the outcome of which holds promise to benefit the

entire nation as well as the Phoenix region in particular. The Bureau of Reclamation has constructed a demonstration project, which uses wastewater from the regional wastewater treatment plant to create wetlands near the discharge location.

The Corps of Engineers is studying expansion of those wetlands and the Bureau is

looking at ways to reuse the wastewater once again for groundwater recharge in the

Agua Fria River after it has flowed through the wetlands. The demonstration

project to date has exceeded all expectations.

It is critical that we continue this project at full pace. The President’s Budget includes $486,000 for the Corps to complete its feasibility study to expand the demonstration project and $50,000 to begin preconstruction engineering and design. We

believe this is sufficient for the Corps.

The Bureau’s budget contains $400,000 for its share of the effort, which we support. We are seeking an additional $200,000 to allow the Bureau to begin studies

on the Agua Fria River groundwater recharge portion of the project. This work

should be undertaken under the separate authority for a Metropolitan Phoenix

Water Reclamation and Reuse project under section 1608 of the Bureau’s Title XVI

Reclamation and Reuse Program. It is important to have that portion of the study

completed in about the same time frame as the rest of the study and design work

to avoid losing the water coming from the wetlands restoration project.

GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST DRAINAGE AREA

This is another innovative study designed to anticipate potential flood control

problems from the rapidly expanding development on the alluvial plains in the

Northeast section of the greater Phoenix area. The results of the study will allow

local jurisdictions to plan and regulate development in a coordinated way throughout the region to avoid creating flooding problems as has happened in many other

rapidly growing areas in the nation. We believe that spending a little time and planning effort now will reap large savings in flood control costs and flood damages in

the future. The Corps budget contains $342,000 for this study that we believe is

enough to keep it on schedule.

SUMMARY

All three projects, Rio Salado with its Rio Salado Phase II extension, Tres Rios,

and the Gila River, will act in synergy to restore lost environmental quality and pro-
766

vide for creative management, conservation, and reuse of scarce water quantities in

the Phoenix metropolitan area. In summary, we are requesting that you retain

$1,645,000 for the Rio Salado project ($1,545,000 for the Phoenix reach and

$100,000 for the Tempe reach), add $100,000 in construction funds for Rio Salado,

include $200,000 to extend the Rio Salado study to Phase II, that you retain the

$486,000 for the Corps of Engineers feasibility study of the Tres Rios project and

$50,000 for Corps preconstruction engineering and design, that you include

$400,000 for the Bureau’s portion of Tres Rios, and that you include $200,000 for

the Bureau to proceed with the groundwater recharge study at the Agua Fria.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present this request and thank you

very much for your courtesy and consideration. We would be pleased to provide any

additional information you may need.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK A. BARNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO RIVER

BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM

COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM

This testimony is in support of funding for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program. Congress has designated the Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation), to be the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado

River Basin. This role and the authorized program were refined and confirmed by

the Congress when Public Law 104–20 was enacted into law. A total of $17,500,000

is requested for fiscal year 2000 to implement the needed and authorized program.

Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic damage in the

United States and Mexico and threaten compliance with adopted basin-wide water

quality standards in the future. The President’s request of $12.3 million is a level

funding request and the Forum appreciates this Administration’s support of the program. Nonetheless, studies have shown that implementation of the program has

fallen behind the needed pace to prevent salinity concentrations from exceeding numeric criteria adopted in connection with water quality standards for the River

Basin while the Basin states continue to develop their Compact apportioned waters

of the Colorado River. Concentrations of salts in the water above the criteria would

cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in the United States and result in

poorer quality water being delivered by the United States to Mexico. For every 30

mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there is $100 million in additional damages

in the United States. The Forum, therefore, believes a rate of implementation of the

program beyond that requested by the President is necessary.

The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be very successful

and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and private sector to implement

salinity control strategies have far exceeded the available funding. Hence, Reclamation has a backlog of proposals and is able to select the best and most cost-effective

proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin states’ cost sharing at

the level requested by the Forum. Water quality improvements accomplished under

Title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of

water delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met the commitments of the International Boundary & Water Commission’s (Commission) Minute

242 to Mexico with respect to water quality, the United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing Mexico’s request for better water quality at the

Southerly International Boundary. Consideration of all of this argues for a higher

level of funding than requested by the President.

OVERVIEW

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by Congress

in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States made, through Minute 242, to Mexico concerning the quality of water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam.

Title II of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates of

the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the Interior

and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead federal role by the Congress.

This testimony is in support of funding for the Title II program.

After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be amended. Congress revised the

Act in 1984. That revision, while keeping the Secretary of the Interior as lead coordinator for Colorado River Basin salinity control efforts, also gave new salinity control responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture, and to a sister agency of the
767

Bureau of Reclamation—the Bureau of Land Management. Congress has charged

the Administration with implementing the most cost-effective program practicable

(measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept as the Basin states consider cost sharing 30 percent of federal expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to proceeding

to implement their own salinity control efforts in the Colorado River Basin.

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed of Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah

and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress to support the implementation of a program necessary to control the salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under requirements of the Clean

Water Act, every three years the Forum prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future salinity, and the program necessary

to keep the salinities at or below the levels measured in the river system in 1972.

In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system, the salinity levels measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and Hoover Dams in 1972 have been

identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling salinity has

been captioned the ‘‘plan of implementation.’’ The 1996 Review of water quality

standards includes an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation

requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If adequate

funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies involved are in agreement

that the numeric criteria will be exceeded and damage from the high salt levels in

the water will be widespread in the United States as well as Mexico and will be

very significant.

JUSTIFICATION

The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven Colorado River

Basin states is the level of funding necessary to proceed with Reclamation’s portion

of the plan of implementation. This funding level is appropriate if salinity in the

Colorado River is to be controlled so as not to exceed the established numeric criteria and threaten the associated water quality standards. In July of 1995, Congress

amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The amended Act gives

Reclamation new latitude and flexibility in seeking the most cost-effective salinity

control opportunities, and it provides for proposals and more involvement from the

private as well as the public sector. Early results are indicating that salt loading

is being prevented at costs often less than half the cost under the previous program.

Congress’s recent review of the program and the amendments it authorized have

made the program more effective in removing salt from the Colorado River in a

most cost-effective manner.

The Basin states have agreed to cost sharing on an annual basis, which adds 43

cents for every federal dollar appropriated. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, working with EPA, has agreed upon a plan of implementation for salinity control, and that plan justifies the level of funding herein supported by the

Forum to maintain the water quality standards for salinity adopted by the Basin

states. The federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory

Council, created by the Congress in the Salinity Control Act, has met and formally

supports the requested level of funding. The Basin states urge the Subcommittee

to support the funding as set forth in this testimony.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF FUNDING

In addition to the dollars identified above for the implementation of the newly authorized program, the Salinity Control Forum urges the Congress to appropriate

necessary funds, as identified in the President’s budget, to continue to maintain and

operate salinity control facilities as they are completed and placed into long-term

operation. Reclamation has completed the Paradox Valley unit which involves the

collection of brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those

brines into a deep aquifer through an injection well. The continued operation of the

project and other completed projects will be funded through Operation and Maintenance funds.

In addition, the Forum supports necessary funding, as identified in the President’s budget, to allow for continued general investigation of the salinity control program. It is important that Reclamation have planning staff in place, properly funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed, coordination between various federal and state agencies can be accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity can be properly planned to maintain the water quality
768

standards for salinity so that the Basin states can continue to develop the Compact

apportioned waters of the Colorado River.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY LIBEU, PRESIDENT, WESTERN COALITION OF ARID

STATES (WESTCAS)

The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is pleased to submit comments

for the record, regarding programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s

(Reclamation) fiscal year 2000 budget, for the hearing on Energy and Water Appropriations. WESTCAS is an organization of cities, towns, water and wastewater districts and associate agencies from the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas and who are dedicated to environmentally

conscientious planning of water resources and development of water quality standards for the unique ecosystems of the arid West. Of particular interest to WESTCAS

and its member agencies are the federal programs that can further our goals

through partnerships and scientifically sound regulation and guidance concerning

our most precious resource—water.

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM

Since 1974, federal agencies and the seven basin states have been working together to maintain the Colorado River’s salinity levels within a range which does

not limit the economic, recreational, and environmental uses of the river. The Colorado River is a major source of water supply for the urban and agricultural regions

of Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Southern California. It is important that Congress

continue to fund the federal portions of this successful program. With continued development of water sources in the Upper Colorado Basin and continued shortfalls

in salinity control funding, the salinity levels will continue to increase in the Lower

Colorado River Basin. The increased salinity in the Lower Colorado River Basin will

have a long-term detrimental financial impact on agricultural and urban activities

in the areas dependent on the Lower Colorado River water.

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states’ salinity control efforts, issued

its 1996 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1996

Review) in June 1996. The 1996 Review found that additional salinity control was

necessary beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria in the water quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and approved by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water supply conditions. For the last

four years, federal appropriations for Reclamation have not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for the portion of the program the Federal Government has the

responsibility to implement. It is essential that implementation of Reclamation’s

basinwide salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric criteria to

be met again under average annual long-term water supply conditions, making up

the shortfall. To assist in eliminating the shortfall, the Forum once again recommends that Reclamation utilize up front cost sharing from the Basin states to

supplement federal appropriations. This concept has been embraced by Reclamation

and is reflected in the President’s proposed budget.

The President’s proposed fiscal year 2000 budget contains funding of $12 million

for implementation of the basin-wide program. WESTCAS requests that Congress

appropriate $17.5 million for implementation of the basin-wide program, an increase

of $5.5 million from that proposed by the President. This level of funding is necessary to meet the salinity control activities schedule in order to maintain the state

adopted and federally approved water quality standards.

WATER RECYCLING AND GROUNDWATER RECOVERY

Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and

Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–575) will greatly improve water supply reliability and the environment. Title XVI projects authorized by the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–266), but not included

in the President’s proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, are considered to be equally important. Implementation of such projects is difficult without combined federal, state and regional assistance.. These authorized

projects will greatly improve water supply reliability and the environment through

effective water recycling and recovery of contaminated groundwater in the arid

west. WESTCAS strongly requests that Congress increase the appropriation level

for Reclamation’s Title XVI program from $31,514 million to $100 million in order

to proper fund all of these authorized projects.
769

WESTCAS supports the funding in the President’s proposed fiscal year 2000

Budget for the following programs which are important to ongoing activities in our

region:

EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

Reclamation is encouraging innovation in water resources management to help

meet the water conservation objectives of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982. The

program provides partnership capability for Reclamation and its customers, in cooperation with States and other entities, in seeking solutions to water use efficiency

and conservation. The program supports technical assistance to districts in planning, evaluating, and implementing efficiency measures. Activities are located within all Federal water projects in the 17 Western States.

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION

Reclamation is designated as a cooperative participant in recovery measures to

minimize the potential effects of Reclamation actions upon listed or candidate species and reduce the potential for more stringent requirements being imposed upon

Reclamation projects as a result of formal consultation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)

of the Endangered Species Act. Activities are located throughout the region including the Upper and Lower Colorado River basins.

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

This program operates under a delegated grant of authority for fish and wildlife

assistance programs from the Secretary to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation’s funds are used for fish and wildlife restoration projects in

partnership with local, state, tribal, and/or nongovernmental organizations. Funding

for the Foundation, and the Foundation’s support for programs like the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, are extremely important to the development of comprehensive solutions to the complex endangered species issues.

DESALINATION RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

This program addressees problems and technology needs for water supply augmentation, water quality improvement and protection. Studies are directed at reducing costs and minimizing environmental impacts from salt removal, developing commercially attractive technologies, improving surface and groundwater quality, and

facilitating cost-effective conversion of previously unusable water resources to usable

water supplies.

WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION PROGRAM

This program provides for a water quality monitoring program in cooperation with

state and local entities. Funding requests provide for the coordination of water management and conservation efforts with the water users and other non-Federal entities. It also provides for water conservation centers and training, improvements in

water measurement and accounting.

WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The Wetlands Development Program allows for the development of design criteria,

strategies, and implementation of wetland enhancement projects which provide for

water quality, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic purposes. Projects are located throughout the 17 Western States and include demonstration projects using reclaimed

wastewater from existing treatment facilities in Arizona and wetlands and wildlife

habitat in Nevada.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

The Bay-Delta system provides habitat for fish and wildlife and is also critical to

California’s economy serving as the hub of California’s water system, supplying

more than two-thirds of the State’s 32 million residents with a portion of their

drinking water and irrigating 45 percent of the nation’s produce. In September

1996, the President signed the California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement

Act which authorizes $143.3 million per year in Federal funding for Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration activities in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Federal money for the BayDelta will fund an array of critical ecological improvements, including habitat restoration, watershed protection, fishery enhancement and water quality improvement.
770

Recently your Subcommittee was provided with a report by the Bureau of Reclamation ‘‘Annual Costs of Bureau of Reclamation Project Operation and Maintenance for Fiscal years 1993–97’’. WESTCAS has not had the time to adequately review the report, however, several of our members have raised the issue for our

Budget Committee to review the report because of the tight budget constraints their

district’s are confronted with and the possibility of having inappropriate costs being

passed on in their own operating budgets. We will forward our comments on to your

subcommittee in the near future and would ask that your subcommittee look further

into the details contained in the report.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for Reclamation water resources management and ecosystem restoration programs that are critical for water supply reliability in the arid West.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL

The Northwest Power Planning Council appreciates the opportunity to submit

written testimony in support of the Clinton Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget

request for programs under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development

Subcommittee.

The Council was established by Congress in 1980, and created as an interstate

compact by the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. Its purpose is

to develop a 20-year regional electric power plan to assure for the Pacific Northwest

an adequate supply of power at the lowest possible cost, and to develop a major program to protect and rebuild fish and wildlife resources harmed by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin. The Council carries out its responsibilities

under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980

(Northwest Power Act), Public Law 96–501.

Three federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power Administration, administer programs critical to the Columbia River Basin. The Council works

closely with all three agencies in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program

The Council continues to support the Corps’ Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program. The focus of the program is to reduce the mortality of both juvenile and adult

salmon and steelhead during their migration through the projects and reservoirs

comprising the Federal Columbia River Power System. The Corps’ fiscal year 2000

budget proposal for the program is $100 million, and includes funding for several

critical studies and activities that are crucial to recovering, rebuilding and maintaining the anadromous fish runs in the Columbia River Basin. The Council supports the Corps’ full $100 million budget request.

Significant amounts have been appropriated for the program for more than a decade, and a recent study by the National Marine Fisheries Service suggests that juvenile salmon survival through the four lower Snake River hydro projects and reservoirs has improved. Although the data has not been independently verified, NMFS

scientists believe that survival conditions may have improved over pre-project conditions. While it remains unclear whether increases in juvenile survival through the

Snake River projects leads to increases in adult returns, it is reasonable to assume

that the installation and improvement of fish passage at the projects under the

Corps’ Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program will make the federal hydroelectric

system less lethal. Accordingly, it is critical that the Corps’ Columbia River Fish

Mitigation Program be fully funded in fiscal year 2000 to ensure that the effort continues to make the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers safer for juvenile and

adult salmon.

Council Review of the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program

In the Subcommittee’s fiscal year 1998 Conference Report, a provision in the Joint

Explanatory Statement was included directing the Council, with assistance from the

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), to conduct a review of the Corps’ Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program. Given the magnitude of the task, the Coun-
771

cil agreed with the ISAB’s recommendation to conduct the review in three phases,

including an overview of the entire Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program.

The first phase dealt with the proposed installation of extended length bar screens

at John Day Dam and the construction of a new juvenile bypass outfall at Bonneville Dam. The scientists believed that the small increases in survival to specific

species from installation of the screens were not justified. The ISAB felt that limited

funds should be used for ‘‘pursuing existing surface spill alternatives and funding

research toward possible deployment of a surface-flow bypass system’’ at the dam

instead of installing screens. Given the uncertainty identified by the ISAB on the

benefits of screens, the Council has called for further research and testing of screen

prototypes that take into consideration the scientists’ concerns, prior to recommending any further major investments in screen installation at John Day Dam.

In addition, at Bonneville Dam, the ISAB stated ‘‘the high mortality inflicted upon

juvenile salmon by predators at the present bypass outfall locations justifies relocation of the outfalls to locations and habitats where predation rates are expected to

be significantly reduced.’’ In addition to relocating the bypass outfalls, the scientists

encouraged ‘‘integrated, long-term planning and study of other planned alterations’’

at Bonneville Dam. The Council transmitted the ISAB’s report to the Subcommittee

on July 1, 1998.

In the ISAB’s second phase report, the scientists reviewed the development and

testing of surface bypass systems and the dissolved gas abatement program. The

ISAB concluded that over 20 years of work to improve turbine intake screen technology has yet to result in a turbine intake screen that can achieve the 80 percent

fish passage efficiency standard for all species and stocks. Therefore, efforts to develop other juvenile fish bypass alternatives that can achieve the 80 percent goal

for all species and stocks should be pursued. Surface collection and bypass continue

to show promise; however, the scientists caution that substantial uncertainties remain regarding the level and changes in survival of juvenile salmon that can be provided by surface bypass facilities. Given the uncertainty, the ISAB recommended

that all juvenile passage alternatives be evaluated against the baseline of spill,

since spill more closely mimics natural processes than any other bypass alternative.

Spill should be considered the alternative when improvements anticipated from

other bypass technologies do not meet passage goals. The Council continues to support the federal spill program for juvenile passage through the federal hydropower

system.

In its report on dissolved gas abatement, the scientific board concluded that the

Corps’ program is important for rectifying supersaturation of waters of the Snake

and Columbia rivers, and that it should continue with high priority. Attainment of

the Clean Water Act total dissolved gas standard of 110 percent throughout the hydropower system will be difficult under involuntary spill conditions with the majority of dams in place. The current program of modifications of dams to reduce gas

supersaturation should have benefits to salmon and other components of the ecosystem, the scientists said. The Council transmitted the ISAB’s second report to the

Subcommittee on January 11, 1999.

The third phase of the ISAB’s review addressed adult fish passage at the dams

and also included an overview of the entire Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program. On March 2, 1999, the Council released the report to the public for review

and comment. In this report, the ISAB concluded that the subject of adult passage

at Columbia and Snake River dams has not been adequately dealt with, that returning adults to spawning grounds may be more important than juvenile survival, and

that the Corps’ planned site-specific measures may be supportable but probably are

not sufficient to ensure that adult spawning migrations are unimpeded. The ISAB

recommended that additional evaluation, field research, and capital projects will be

needed to address the adult passage issues.

Next month, the Council will review the comments submitted by the public and

finalize a comprehensive report to Congress that will include not only the ISAB’s

findings, but also the Council’s final recommendations to Congress on the program.

We intend to transmit the final report to the Subcommittee no later than early May

1999.

The Council has learned a great deal during this review process, both about the

current configuration of the fish passage facilities at the federal dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers, and with regard to new principles and guidelines that should

be considered by the Corps in planning additional passage improvements. Developing fish passage systems is not an exact science, but one that is continually evolving. As we increase our knowledge of the behavior patterns of anadromous fish, and

river processes, and improve our understanding of the need to protect biodiversity,

we will develop more effective fish passage alternatives. These alternatives likely

will be implemented to benefit the range of species and stocks in the river, and may
772

result in providing multiple passage solutions at individual projects. They also will

reflect that the best passage solutions are those that take into account and work

with the behavior and ecology of the species using the river system.

The Council realizes that the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program has enjoyed high funding levels for several years. Continuation of the program at its full

capability is necessary to ensure that critical improvements to the system are implemented, and important studies and tests completed so that fish survival through the

dams can continue to improve.

Willamette River Temperature Control, Oregon

The Willamette River Basin is located in northwestern Oregon. During the last

40 years, 13 Corps of Engineers reservoirs have been constructed in the basin to

control floods, generate electricity and provide water for navigation, irrigation, improved water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife. Studies over the last 15

years have demonstrated that the temperature at which water is released from

these reservoirs is a key limiting factor for survival of anadromous and resident fish

in the Willamette basin. Local, state and federal agencies, including the Council,

have been seeking modification of water temperature in the McKenzie River downstream from Blue River and Cougar reservoirs to achieve more beneficial temperatures for wild spring chinook salmon, bull trout and rainbow trout. The Corps’ feasibility study for the project was completed in 1995. An Environmental Impact Statement was completed, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was signed by the Division Commander on April 24, 1996. In March of this year, Willamette spring chinook and winter steelhead were listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act; the last significant wild stock of

spring chinook in the Willamette is in the McKenzie River. The current estimated

cost to install multi-level intake towers at the two projects is $70.6 million.

Due to cost limitations associated with the project’s authorization, the Corps’ current focus is on the Cougar Lake reservoir intake tower, which has a total estimated

cost (including future inflation) of $50.077 million. In its fiscal year 2000 budget,

the Corps is proposing Cougar Lake for a new construction start, and has requested

$1.7 million in funding. The Council supports this project and the requested funding

level, and urges the Subcommittee to include it in its fiscal year 2000 funding recommendations.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

The Bureau is proposing to spend $11.734 million in fiscal year 2000 on the

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. The Council supports this project,

which will employ structural and non-structural water conservation measures to increase the reliability of the irrigation supply and enhance streamflows in the

Yakima River. In addition, Yakama tribal water supply facilities will be improved

and tribal economic development, fish and wildlife, and cultural programs will be

enhanced.

The Council also strongly supports the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, which the Bureau is proposing to fund at $13.122 million for fiscal year

2000. The funds are used for important purposes in the Snake River Basin, such

as acquiring water through leasing or on a willing-seller basis for flow augmentation

to aid migrating salmon and steelhead, and to address Endangered Species Act requirements.

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the primary implementor of the Council’s

fish and wildlife program. In the fall of 1995, the Administration and Congress

agreed on a fixed budget for Bonneville’s fish and wildlife recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin. Under the terms of that agreement, which was further defined

and formalized in September 1997 in a memorandum of agreement signed by the

secretaries of the Army, Interior, Commerce and Energy, Bonneville will incur costs,

on average, of $435 million per year for five years on fish and wildlife activities.

These funds fall under a number of different categories, including direct expenditures on fish and wildlife projects, power purchases, reimbursements of appropriated

funds to the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, capital repayment

and foregone revenues. For fiscal year 2000, Bonneville estimates that its total fish

and wildlife budget will be $403.6 million.

In the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997,

the Committee added a new section, 4(h)(10)(D), to the Northwest Power Act, which

requires the Council to appoint an 11-member Independent Scientific Review Panel

(ISRP) to review fish and wildlife projects proposed to be funded through Bonne-
773

ville’s direct program. For fiscal year 2000, Bonneville expects to commit $100 million to its direct program, and use up to $27 million of its borrowing authority.

The Council shares the Committee’s objective that all fish and wildlife funds be

spent judiciously after thorough independent scientific review. We are continuing to

work with the region to fully and fairly implement the requirements of section

4(h)(10)(D), which will help ensure that Bonneville’s ratepayers’ funds are spent on

projects that have the greatest value in recovering and providing mitigation for the

Columbia River Basin’s fish and wildlife populations.

Thank you for this opportunity to share our views with you. We sincerely appreciate the thorough consideration that this subcommittee has given to the needs of

the Pacific Northwest over the years.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLENN VANSELOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC

NORTHWEST WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Glenn Vanselow.

I am Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on appropriations issues to the Committee. The PNWA membership includes nearly 120 organizations and individuals

in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. PNWA represents public port authorities on the

Pacific Coast, Puget Sound, and Columbia/Snake River System; public utility districts, investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives and direct service industries; irrigation districts, grain growers and upriver and export elevator companies; major

manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest; forest products industry manufacturers and

shippers; and tug and barge operators, steamship operators, consulting engineers,

and others involved in economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest.

PNWA has a long history of working with the Committee and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (Corps) on projects of regional and national importance, sharing

the challenge to maintain and develop our transportation infrastructure. Our members wish to thank the Committee for its support of Pacific Northwest transportation, hydropower and salmon enhancement programs and projects.

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

Fiscal year 2000 Civil Works Budget.—The maintenance of channels and harbors

serving all currently authorized Pacific Northwest deep draft and coastal ports is

a top priority for PNWA. We urge Congress to provide sufficient funding to meet

national needs for both operations and maintenance (O&M) and new construction.

The Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget request for navigation O&M in Idaho,

Oregon and Washington and the request for preconstruction, engineering and design

for the Columbia River Channel Deepening appear to be adequate, but the request

for new construction is not sufficient. We oppose the overall level of the request for

civil works because it is provides inadequate funding for crucial Corps waterways

programs nationwide. While the request of $3.9 billion for the Corps is on par with

fiscal year 1999 appropriated levels, the proposal would only fund inland navigation

and flood control construction projects at about 50 percent of their optimal schedule.

We believe that a level of funding closer to $4.7 billion is needed to maintain the

integrity of the civil works program. We strongly oppose the Administration’s proposed Harbor Services Fund proposal. We believe Congressionally appropriated

funding from the general treasury is the best and most appropriate way to meet

both routine maintenance and unexpected dredging needs. We also oppose new

taxes on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration services and plans for

taxes to recover the cost of Coast Guard navigation services.

We support continued federal funding for operations and maintenance to present

authorized depths of federally authorized navigation channels at shallow coastal

harbors in Oregon and Washington. We support the current method of funding new

project starts.

Regional Navigation Operations and Maintenance.—We would like to thank the

Committee for its previous support of navigation O&M (operations and maintenance) in the region’s shallow, deep draft and inland navigation system.

Navigation is the least cost, most fuel efficient and least polluting mode of transportation. Navigation is the critical link that keeps the Northwest and the nation

competitive in domestic and international trade and supports the commercial and

recreational fishing industry. It provides significant numbers of jobs and other economic benefits both within the region and nationally. We support maintaining a

strong federal role in planning, construction, operation, maintenance and funding of

navigation on the inland waterways, deep draft ports and shallow draft ports. We

ask the Committee for full funding for ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M)
774

of the federally authorized navigation channels in the Columbia/Snake river system,

the Oregon and Washington coastal ports and Puget Sound. Maximizing O&M is a

cost-efficient means of fully utilizing the federal government’s investment in channel

operations.

Some 20 percent of the employment in the Northwest states is directly related to

international trade. Navigation projects are among the few federal programs that

are analyzed to ensure that economic benefits exceed the costs. Eliminating these

programs would not be cost-effective.

Navigation Feasibility Studies and Construction.—We wish to thank the Committee for appropriating funds last year for feasibility studies on the Columbia River

and in Puget Sound. We are opposed to the downward trend in funding included

in the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request.

The Columbia River deep draft channel is the lifeblood of the Columbia/Snake

River System, which serves shippers from more than 40 states. To protect future

growth and development of the River System, we ask the Committee to fund the

requested $892,000 preconstruction engineering and design for the lower Columbia

River Navigation Channel Deepening. This funding would pay for the federal government’s share of work necessary to investigate improving the existing 40-foot

navigation channel by increasing the channel depth to 43 feet. We support completing the feasibility study for channel improvements of the Blair Waterway Navigation Channel at Tacoma. We also support the Administration’s $3.4 million request to complete construction of the East Waterway Channel Deepening at Seattle,

which is proposed to be carried out during O&M dredging.

Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration.—PNWA encourages the Committee to appropriate $100,000 to begin a study that would focus on ecosystem restoration

opportunities within the Lower Columbia River. The study is strongly supported by

the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program, and the States of Oregon and Washington have jointly agreed to non-Federal sponsorship of the study.

Portland Harbor Environmental Dredging Project.—PNWA encourages the Com- mittee to appropriate $100,000 for the Corps to undertake a reconnaissance study

for an environmental dredging project at Portland Harbor.

Minimum Dredge Fleet.—We encourage the Committee to maintain the currently

active hopper dredges operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers and to reject

any additional future set-aside for private dredges. We oppose legislation that places

artificial limits on the federal hopper dredges by directing increasing amounts of

maintenance dredging to private dredges. Federal hopper dredge costs are artificially higher than necessary because of that set aside. We believe that Congress

should reduce or eliminate the set aside to increase the efficiency of the Corps hopper dredges. We also encourage the Committee to find ways to make the Corps

dredges less expensive to operate by examining recent increases in depreciation and

plant increment payments.

We believe that the presence of the federal dredges keeps bids for dredging work

competitive and lower in cost. We are concerned that the low number of private industry bids for work in our region could force dredging costs higher were it not for

the availability of the federal dredges.

Operations and Maintenance of the Region’s Hydropower System and the John

Day Drawdown study.—We are concerned that the President’s fiscal year 2000

Budget request for construction on the Bonneville Dam powerhouse phase II and

The Dalles powerhouse is insufficient. We encourage the Committee to increase

funding for the Bonneville powerhouse construction to $16.3 million. We also encourage the Committee to increase funding for The Dalles powerhouse construction

to approximately $3.3 million. We support the President’s requests for Operations

and Maintenance at these and other regional projects.

We have testified in previous years that we do not believe there is biological justification for drawdowns. Just this year, the National Marine Fisheries Service testified before the Northwest Power Planning Council that salmon smolt survival

through the four dams on the lower Snake River (Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower

Monumental and Lower Granite) is as high or higher than it was before those dams

were built. It is also clear that drawdown would have serious economic impacts on

the region and the nation. Drawdown would eliminate important authorized purposes on the system, including navigation, hydropower production and irrigated agricultural production. The committee also should be aware that we believe that

drawdown would reduce the Bonneville Power Administration’s revenue generating

capacity and jeopardize BPA’s ability to repay its debt to the US treasury after the

next subscription process expires. The four lower Snake dams and John Day provide

20 to 25 percent of BPA’s total energy production.

Salmon Recovery Decision Authority and Funding.—First, we support efforts to

establish priorities for funding and implementation of fish and wildlife recovery
775

projects in the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Second, we support selected salmon recovery actions such as improved and enhanced smolt transportation, surface collection and other smolt by-pass facilities, fish-friendly turbine

programs and habitat restoration and protection. Third, we oppose funding to carry

out Phase II of the John Day drawdown study, and we do not support funding to

study drawdown of McNary. These programs and others are included in the Administration’s $100 million budget request for Columbia River Fish Mitigation. We encourage the Committee to redirect the $5.5 million proposed for these studies toward fish recovery programs for which there is broad regional support.

We support the Senator Slade Gorton’s 1996 amendment to the Northwest Power

Act, approved during consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which establishes a panel of scientists to establish priorities for funding and implementation of fish and wildlife recovery projects in the Columbia River

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. We hope that this, with the Independent Economic Analysis Board, will result in programs that will provide maximum biological

benefits to listed salmon stocks and are more cost-effective.

Regional Governance.—The discussion about regional cooperation in developing

salmon recovery objectives and programs in the Columbia Basin has been expanded

significantly through the establishment of the Columbia Basin Forum, formerly

known as the Three Sovereigns Forum. A memorandum of agreement establishing

this new body was recently signed by the federal agencies, tribes and states. This

process was created without consulting affected stakeholders, and the participants

do not intend to include stakeholders in the consensus process. PNWA believes that

effective fish and wildlife programs can be implemented without a new governance

body. If a new management structure is necessary for addressing the Endangered

Species Act, the Northwest Power Planning Council offers an appropriate model.

Federal, state and tribal agencies and regional stakeholders should work cooperatively to develop solutions that maintain Congressional authority over navigation

and the other authorized purposes of the federal projects and state authority over

water and land use. If PNWA urges the Committee to support collaboration in the

Columbia Basin within the existing authorities of the federal agencies, states and

tribes, and, in the strongest terms possible, we urge Congress to retain exclusive

authority over the authorized purposes of the federal projects within the Columbia

Basin.

Demolition of the former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Complex at Walla

Walla.—We ask the Committee to appropriate $4.7 million to remove asbestos and

lead paint and to tear down the former Corps complex at the Walla Walla Regional

Airport, Washington.

Columbia River Channel Designation, Interstate 5 Bridge between Vancouver and

Portland.—We ask the Committee to appropriate $50,000 to designate a new navigation channel under the high span of the I–5 bridge. We hope that this action will

be authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This new channel

will connect to the existing channel upstream of the bridge, allowing for more efficient use of the Columbia River and the I–5 bridge for navigation and surface transportation.

Hanford Cleanup.—We ask the Committee to continue to adequately fund the Department of Energy cleanup of 45 years of accumulated defense waste currently

stored at the Hanford site. We recognize that defense waste cleanup is a long-term

project that will be most cost effective and most rigorously pursued if Hanford is

a viable, operating site. Therefore, we strongly urge the Committee to support a

complete, ongoing Hanford scientifically and technologically based research and operations program in order to ensure long-term funding for waste cleanup. PNWA

also supports a complete and ongoing scientifically and technologically based research and operations program, including the restart of the Fast Flux Test Facility

for the joint missions of national defense and medical research and isotope production to meet the demands for more effective cancer treatments.

Conclusion.—On behalf of nearly 120 members from throughout the Pacific Northwest, we thank the Committee for giving us this opportunity to review a number

of issues important to the environmental and economic prosperity of our region.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MERV GEORGE, JR., CHAIRMAN, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE

On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, I express our appreciation for

the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) budget. A summary of our fiscal year 2000 funding request follows:

1.Support Administration’s position that existing laws provide authority to support Trinity River Division fish and wildlife management and restoration activities.
776

Further, the Hoopa Valley Tribe supports the Administration’s position that Central

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) funds are authorized for expenditure in

the Trinity River Basin. 2. Request that $13,000,000 be provided for Trinity River fishery management requirements within the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project for continuing fish and wildlife management programs of tribal, state, federal and local entities and for the Comprehensive Co-Management Agreement between Hoopa Valley

Tribe and BOR.

3. Support proposed funding increase for the Klamath Project and request an ad- ditional $750,000 for the Karuk and Klamath Tribes.

4. Request $150,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for a feasibility

study for upgrading the Lewiston generator, and for Trinity River green sturgeon

and Pacific Lamprey population studies.

5. Support the Native American Affairs proposed budget and request an increase of $1,000,000 for additional assistance to Indian tribes.

BACKGROUND

The Trinity River in northern California is the largest tributary to the Klamath

River, the second largest river system in California. Since time immemorial, the

Klamath Basin provided sustenance to Native Americans of the region. The Klamath River Basin is the aboriginal territory of Hoopa Valley, Karuk, Klamath, and

Yurok Tribes. Moreover, utilization of fishery resources of the Klamath River has

been fundamental to the economic health of northern California providing viable

recreational and commercial salmon fisheries. In 1963, BOR completed construction

of the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The Trinity River

Division currently provides an estimated fourteen percent of the total water yielded

by the CVP.

Shortly after completion of the Trinity Dam, and subsequent diversion of up to

90 percent of the stream flows at the diversion point (near Lewiston, California)

from the Trinity River, the fishery began to decline. Through the 1980’s, corresponding declines of up to 80 percent of the salmon and steelhead populations occurred. In response to declines in Trinity fish stocks, the Secretary of Interior approved development of a flow evaluation study in 1981 to determine stream flow

needs for fish restoration. Further, Congress recognized the seriousness of the problem, and enacted the Trinity River Restoration Act (Public Law 98–541, 1984)

which, with subsequent amendments, authorized approximately $70,000,000 in an

attempt to reverse the decline of the fishery resources within the Trinity River

Basin. However, the downward trend in Trinity fish populations has continued as

reflected by listing of coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (6 May,

1997) and proposed listings of steelhead and chinook fish stocks of the Klamath/

Trinity Rivers.

While much work has been accomplished to date, it is recognized that continued

monitoring and research will be necessary to provide insight on status of resources,

evaluation of restorative measures, and effective management recommendations for

further restoration. Primary among the scientific achievements to date has been the

development of in-stream flow criteria that quantify the benefits to salmonids of retained flows in the Trinity Basin. These criteria, developed over the entire course

of the Restoration Program, provide a basis for the Secretary’s flow decision, due

in fiscal year 2000. The Secretary’s Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study Report is

now ready for printing, and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is scheduled

for completion by April, 2000.

In spite of many years of research into Trinity River ecosystem processes, considerable uncertainty persists in regard to downstream impacts of water releases from

Lewiston Dam. These uncertainties are to be addressed via an Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) under the direction of the Interior Secretary. Long-term monitoring and research are essential to the AMP: hypotheses underlying the Trinity

River Flow Evaluation Study recommendations will be tested through research; and

monitoring data will be used to measure how well river ecosystem health objectives

are met.

NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATION AND FUNDING REQUESTS

1. The Tribe is in agreement with the Administration’s legal conclusions contained

in the fiscal year 2000 Budget Justification and Annual Performance Plan—Trinity

River Division—that existing authorities provide ample justification for expenditures on fish and wildlife restoration within the Trinity River. The 1955 Act creating the Trinity River Division, Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act as

amended, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) mandate that
777

the Department of the Interior restore and maintain fish and wildlife populations

with CVP funds. Furthermore, Congress acknowledged the reserved fishing rights

of the Hoopa Valley Tribe in the CVPIA.

2. Funding Request for Fish and Wildlife Management—In January 1998, agencies responsible for managing the Trinity River fishery resources determined that

$13,000,000 was needed annually to fund comprehensive management within the

Trinity River Basin in order to restore the fishery resources to pre-dam levels. The

Hoopa Valley Tribe participated in the development of this management plan.

Therefore, the Tribe requests that the Committee provide $13,000,000 for Fish

and Wildlife Management and Development within the Trinity River Division budget.

Further, the Tribe requests that the Committee continue support for the Co-Management Agreement between the Tribe and BOR at a level of $2,500,000 for implementation in fiscal year 2000. The requested funding would ensure the Tribe’s involvement in water project operations planning, environmental impact analysis,

hatchery investigations, fisheries management, and would accelerate resource restoration through unified, inter-governmental management actions.

In its seventh year, the Co-Management Agreement between Hoopa and BOR has

contributed not only to the fulfillment of the Federal trust responsibilities to Native

Americans, but has also served to bring Federal, State, Tribal and local management agencies together into a constructive and cooperative forum for managing fishery and water resources within the Trinity River Basin.

3. Support proposed funding increase for the Klamath Project and request an additional $750,000 for the Karuk and Klamath Tribes. Both Tribes are involved with

the restoration and protection of Trust resources in the Klamath River including active technical and policy involvement in water quality and quantity studies designed

to improve the health of the upper Klamath Basin ecosystem. Endemic suckers listed under the ESA in Upper Klamath Lake, as well as salmon and steelhead living

in downstream areas would benefit from increased Tribal involvement.

4. Request $150,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for a feasibility

study for upgrading the Lewiston Hydro-power generator, green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey studies. It is expected that the Interior Secretary’s Trinity River permanent fishery flow decision will result in reduced diversions of Trinity River flows

into California’s Central Valley. While being greatly beneficial to Trinity River fishery resources and upholding the federal trust obligations to Indian tribes, the decision will likely reduce the amount of electricity generated from diverted flows. To

compensate for this situation, the Tribe requests that $100,000 be provided from

Reclamation’s General Activities Planning budget for determining the feasibility of

increasing the capacity of the Lewiston Powerhouse generators in anticipation of the

increased releases to the Trinity River. An expected benefit of increased generation

of electricity from the Lewiston powerhouse is the possibility of using its revenues

to pay for future fish and wildlife restoration activities within the Trinity River

Basin, thereby reducing long-term costs to the Federal Government.

In addition, the Tribe requests that $50,000 be provided for conducting population

and fish health studies for Trinity River green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey, both

of which are important species to the Klamath and Trinity River Indian tribes and

have been negatively impacted by the construction and management of the Trinity

River Division.

5. Support the Native American Affairs proposed budget request and an increase

of $1,000,000 for additional assistance to Indian tribes. The Reclamation Native

American Affairs program has proven to be very beneficial to both the Federal Government and Indian tribes while trying to resolve inter-governmental water and

fishery management issues. Without a doubt, the Native American Affairs Program

has been instrumental in reducing the possibility of costly litigation and disputes

between Reclamation and Indian tribes.

RESULTS ANTICIPATED

Trinity Restoration Program: Effective restoration of fisheries, critical to the

Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes and the economic stability of the fishery dependent

communities of northern California and southern Oregon, would be promoted

through collective actions of the Trinity Restoration Program. Identification and implementation of specific remedies and monitoring of fishery trends are expected results of Restoration Program.

While many on-the-ground achievements have already been realized, many critical elements have yet to be completed. Among the expected outcomes of the Program for 1999 is the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement to assist

the Secretary with implementation of in-river flows required for full restoration of
778

salmonid populations in the Trinity River as mandated under Public Law 102–575.

The Secretary’s fishery flow allocation decision, originally mandated for fiscal year

1997, was delayed due to incomplete environmental documentation. It is now anticipated that completed environmental documentation shall be available to support the

Secretary’s Decision expected in fiscal year 2000.

Tribal/Reclamation Co-Management Agreements and Native American Affairs

Program: The Co-Management Agreements will continue to assist in the coordination of Federal, State, Tribal and local activities (management and research) impacting salmon fisheries and salmon habitats of the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Accomplishments under this agreement in fiscal year 1997 included maintenance of data

collection and analysis programs critical to the integrated management of the Klamath and Trinity fishery resources. Both Reclamation and the Tribe agree that a wise

investment has been made in developing a comprehensive foundation for fishery restoration. This foundation includes on-the-ground restoration work, assembly of scientific data on fisheries and habitat, and the coordination across multiple jurisdictions affecting salmon survival. It is now important to insure that this investment

provides the desired results of a fully restored Trinity River Basin.

The General Activities Planning budget request will assist the Tribes, agencies

and private interests to develop opportunities for compensating for the loss of electricity caused by increased Trinity River flows. The Green Sturgeon and Pacific

Lamprey population and survival studies will provide basic information for development of long-term management programs for these species. While green sturgeon

and Pacific Lamprey are important species to Indian tribes, and their maintenance

is part of the Federal Government’s trust obligations, lack of funding has prevented

the development of management programs for these species.

CONCLUSION

The Hoopa Valley Tribe’s relationship with BOR has improved significantly in recent years; however, it is clear that the fishery management problems associated

with the Central Valley Project and Klamath Project operations still persist. Resolution of these issues may only be assured through the continued commitment by the

Tribe and BOR to ongoing co-management of these important resources.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony regarding BOR’s fiscal

year 2000 budget. I am available to discuss these matters with you in more detail

at your convenience. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. BRAKKEN, COMMUNITY LIAISON/CENTRAL

OREGON TEAM LEADER, NORTHWEST AREA FOUNDATION

DESCHUTES BASIN RESOURCES CONSERVANCY

I understand that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water

Development has an upcoming hearing pertaining to the Deschutes Basin Resources

Conservancy (DRC) in Central Oregon. This seemed an appropriate time to share

some information with you regarding the Northwest Area Foundation’s past experience with the DRC, as well as our potential future relationship.

As you may be aware, the DRC grew out of a collaborative planning effort initiated in 1992 by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and Environmental Defense Fund to improve instream flows and water quality in the

Deschutes River. Ultimately, that initiative attracted the support of a large and diverse number of organizations and individuals throughout Central Oregon—many of

whom are now represented on the DRC Board. The Northwest Area Foundation provided the bulk of financial support—$300,000 over three years—for this planning effort. We consider it to be among the most successful of our recent watershed planning and management grants.

Recently the Foundation shifted the focus of our mission from short-term

grantmaking to individual nonprofit organizations to working with entire communities in long-term partnerships of approximately 10 years. We anticipate committing $150 million to only a dozen or so community partnerships in our eight-state

region over the next decade. One of the first places we are exploring for a possible

partnership is the regional community of Central Oregon. We were drawn to this

region for a number of reasons. But one of the most significant was the promising

model for regional collaboration that is currently being demonstrated by the DRC.

We are particularly impressed with the quality and diversity of individuals that

DRC has attracted to serve on its board of directors. During the past six months

members of the Foundation’s Central Oregon Team have met individually with more

than 150 citizens of the region—most all of them identified through personal refer-
779

rals. Judging from the number of referrals we received of people serving on the DRC

board, and our meetings with many of those individuals, we can attest to the high

caliber of the board, as well as its action-orientation. In fact, we are hopeful we can

attract a similar caliber of individuals to a steering committee we will soon convene

to help design our prospective partnership with the community.

The specific goal of our community partnerships is to reduce poverty by encouraging better integration of the social, economic, and environmental facets of a community’s development. To effectively accomplish this goal, we will need to work

closely with local organizations focused on similar objectives, such as the Deschutes

Basin Resources Conservancy. We commend their efforts to you, and hope you will

support them in whatever way possible. That, in turn, will help us better leverage

our potential investment in Central Oregon.

Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RON NELSON, CHAIRMAN, DESCHUTES BASIN RESOURCES

CONSERVANCY

SUMMARY

The Deschutes Basin Working Group, dba the Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC), is a non-profit, private corporation established in Oregon in 1996. In

September 1996, Congress enacted and the President signed Public Law 104–208,

which included S.1662, the Oregon Resources Conservation Act. Section 301(h) (Division B, Title III) of Public Law 104–208 authorizes $1.0 million per year through

2001. The DRC is limited to spending 5 percent of any appropriation on administration.

In 1999, Congress appropriated $500,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation to support

the DRC. The DRC is using these funds to implement projects to improve water

quality and quantity in the Deschutes Basin. Water projects are crucial in the

Deschutes Basin where steelhead and bull trout are listed as threatened and Fall

Chinook are proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

The DRC has supported eight demonstration projects in the Basin. From October

1998 to March 1999 the DRC has leveraged $272,180 of its funds to complete

$777,680 in on-the-ground restoration projects. These projects include: piping irrigation district delivery systems to prevent water losses; securing instream water

rights to restore flows to Squaw Creek; providing riparian fences to protect riverbanks; working with private timberland owners to restore riparian and wetland

areas; and seeking donated water rights to enhance instream flows in the Deschutes

Basin.

The DRC is governed by a diverse group of directors from private and public interests from the region. It is a community-based, cooperative endeavor that believes

economic progress and natural resource conservation need to work together to

achieve success. The DRC seeks voluntary actions based upon contracts and compensation for property and services. The DRC does not seek, nor is it authorized,

to impose regulatory mandates through legal or political action.

1999 DRC PROJECTS

Annual Water Leasing Program.—The DRC is working with water users in targeted areas for water rights donations or sales to improve instream flows. The program began November 1998 by meeting with each irrigation district manager to introduce the leasing program and the process for transfers. In early 1999 water

rights holders were contacted requesting the user’s water donation. This program

enables water right holder to protect their water rights by leasing and improves

Deschutes flows.

Central Oregon Irrigation District Piping.—For the most part the irrigation canals

in the Upper Deschutes Basin are unlined and have been dug in porous, volcanic

soils, so water losses through percolation can be quite high over the long distances

that irrigation water must travel from the point of diversion to the farms. The DRC

and Central Oregon Irrigation District propose to install roughly 3,960 feet of pipe,

an inlet structure, an outlet structure, four clean-outs and four diversion structures.

COID figures to conserve .29 cfs or .57 an ac/ft. Projected over a 180 day period,

this calculates to 102.6 ac/ft water conserved. One half of the conserved water from

this project will be returned to instream flows in the Deschutes River. This project

is an important demonstration of how water can be conserved to benefit both the

irrigation district and its water users and the Deschutes ecosystem.
780

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Riparian Fencing.—The DRC and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation of Oregon are partners

on a project to protect riparian areas in the Deschutes Basin’s Eagle Creek,

Skookum Creek and the mainstem river. The project constructs fence for livestock

exclosures, places cattle guards at road crossings and installs solar pumps to provide animals water away from the riverbank. One of the DRC’s primary goals is to

improve water quality. Healthy, functioning riparian areas are critical to improving

water quality in the basin. Riparian vegetation provides fish and aquatic habitat,

stream shading to reduce water temperatures, bank stability and a filter for nutrients and sediments entering the water. This project is especially important for the

habitat of Bull Trout that are listed as threatened and Fall Chinook and steelhead

that are pending listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. This project involves voluntary cooperation by the tribal grazing group allottees. The Warm

Springs Tribes are involved in various other projects to improve stream conditions

both on and off the reservation. This project is a part of a larger effort to improve

flows and water quality for fish and wildlife.

North Unit Irrigation District Piping.—The DRC, North Unit Irrigation District,

Bureau of Reclamation and Natural Resource Conservation Service are partners in

a Water Conservation Grant Program project for the Deschutes Basin. These groups

are providing funds to replace an open irrigation lateral with buried pipe. The

project consists of installing approximately 20,235 feet of plastic pipe, with 19 turnouts and related appurtenances. The delivered water will be pressurized due to the

elevation difference between the inlet at the main canal and landowner outlets. This

pipeline will provide irrigation for approximately 445 acres. This project will save

water, improve energy efficiency and reduce operation and maintenance expenses.

The project will annually save about 600 acre feet of water. The majority of the conserved water comes from eliminating seepage from the open lateral. Water will also

be saved by reducing system management losses (carry water) and improving delivery to small land parcels. Standard measuring devices, flow meters or flow regulators will be utilized at all outlets. Use of flow meters on the larger outlets will

improve on-farm irrigation water management because landowners can readily

verify how much water they are currently using or have used to date. One half of

the conserved water from the project will be returned to instream flows in the

Deschutes River. This project is an important demonstration of how water can be

conserved to benefit both the irrigation district and its water users and the

Deschutes ecosystem. The pressurized system will reduce the pumping requirements

for sprinkler irrigation systems to save energy. Most of the irrigated land served by

this lateral is currently being sprinkler irrigated.

Foley Creek Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Forest.—Foley Creek is one of the most

significant steelhead spawning and rearing areas in the Deschutes Basin. The DRC,

EDF and landowners, Ochoco Lumber, are working together to develop a forest

management plan to improve riparian areas and wetlands in Upper Foley Creek.

The project also includes an intensive timber vegetation inventory. This inventory

will provide the foundation to construct a carbon assessment that meets Environmental Protection Agency criteria. This may result in carbon contracts and other

types of commodity contracts for the landowner to protect this habitat and benefit

financially. This project is a demonstration of how private sector market solutions

can improve the Deschutes ecosystem.

BACKGROUND

In 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Confederated Tribes of

the Warm Springs Reservation began a cooperative project to reconcile on-reservation ecological and economic conflicts. In late 1992, the Tribes and EDF expanded

the scope of the project to include the entire Deschutes Basin. It was agreed that

the initial focus would be on river flows and water pollution. Flow-deficient stream

reaches and excessive water pollutant loads could only be mitigated by identifying

and reducing existing water diversions and pollution discharges. At the same time,

a high value was placed on being ‘‘good neighbors’’ to other landowners and resources users within the Basin. Positive incentives for changes in resource uses

were emphasized instead of costly and divisive political and legal conflicts. Solutions

employing economic incentives, such as water rights and pollution allowance marketing, were introduced and experiences elsewhere in the West were reviewed.

A key forum for this community dialogue, the ‘‘Ad Hoc Deschutes Group’’, was

formed. The 14 member Ad Hoc Group had representatives of all economic sectors

in the Basin. The irrigation community holds the most water rights and reservoir

storage and therefore has the greatest impact among resource users on the pattern

and amount of river flows. At the same time, water quality degradation stems from
781

a diverse set of land uses driving non-point water pollution. An important part of

the project was to assure that the federal interests in the Basin were addressed

along with those of the tribes, resource users, and local and state governments.

The Ad Hoc Group recognized the need for a private organization with ecosystemdetermined goals and methods based on positive incentives, consensus, and local

governance. Since approximately half of the Basin’s land area is managed by federal

agencies it was clear that such a private organization would need the capacity to

partner on projects with the federal agencies to be truly ecosystem and basinwide

in scope. In March, 1996, Senator Hatfield introduced S. 1662 authorizing federal

agencies to work with this private organization, known as the Deschutes Basin

Working Group. Title III of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996, signed

by the President in September, 1996, authorizes the following:

—Federal agencies to work with the private Deschutes Basin Working Group, dba

Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC)

—Secretaries of Interior & Agriculture to appoint DRC board members for 3 year

terms

—Federal participation with DRC in ecological restoration projects on federal and

non-federal land and water with 50–50 cost share

—Five year startup authorization of $1.0 Million a year federal fund; 50/50 cost

share with DRC

—Emphasize voluntary market-based economic incentives

The Deschutes Basin Working Group, later to adopt an operating name of the

Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC), has the goal of implementing onthe-ground projects that enhance the quality of the region’s natural resources and

add value to its economy.

Its board consists of nine members from the Basin’s private sector; hydropower,

livestock grazing, recreation/tourism, timber, land development, irrigation (2), environmental (2), and two members from the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs

Reservation. In addition to the private board members there are two board members

appointed from the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, two board members

representing the State of Oregon, and four members representing local governments

within the Deschutes Basin.

The DRC will receive funds through tax exempt donations from individuals, businesses, and corporations, including philanthropic foundations, and from government

agencies seeking project development assistance or collaboration. It will seek to develop income from direct sources such as fee-for-service.

FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 FOR THE DRC—AN INVESTMENT IN CENTRAL OREGON, IN FEDERAL AGENCIES’ FUTURE ROLE AND IN RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT

The DRC has a foundation enabling it to make a substantial contribution toward

meeting the region’s economic and ecological challenges. The potential for the DRC

to marshal significant and ongoing resources and cooperation is great. The engagement of private sector interests in the design, funding, and implementation of ecological restoration efforts is an important precedent to help relieve federal budgetary

requirements under a variety of programs and responsibilities. The DRC’s combination of private and local interests with those of the federal agencies provides an opportunity to explore the cooperative sharing of authorities and responsibilities. The

DRC represents a new institutional approach to river basin management that will

be applicable to other river basins throughout the nation, particularly in the western regions.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAN LEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON WATER

RESOURCES CONGRESS

Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: Mr. Chairman, members

of the subcommittee, I am Jan Lee, executive director of the Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC). The OWRC represents irrigation, water control, drainage

and water improvement districts, private ditch and irrigation corporations, cities

and counties, individual farmers and ranchers statewide as well as having agribusiness associates as members.

I am writing to urge your support for the $18,366,000 included in the President’s

fiscal year 2000 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation projects in the State of Oregon. The funding for these projects represents a valuable commitment to meeting

the needs of our member organizations at a time when many are confronted with

the problem of how to meet water delivery needs for their district populations while

at the same time addressing environmental and Native American requirements.
782

There are particular projects like the Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration program and

the Klamath project in Southern Oregon that typify this balance.

OWRC has a larger concern that the overall funding for the Bureau of Reclamation the past several years has not been adequate to address the backlog of projects

in their program. We were greatly surprised that Congress cut the Bureau’s Budget

by 11 percent for fiscal year 1999. The cuts in the Oregon Water management and

Technical Assistance program, Efficiency Incentives program, Water Management

Conservation Program and the Title XVI make it difficult for water users in the

state to address the combination of water/environmental/Native American water resource issues.

In addition to the proposed funding for Oregon projects in the fiscal year 2000

Budget, we would ask the Subcommittee to consider funding to move forward the

Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Title XVI project in Salem, Oregon, a

project that we support because of the agricultural component associated with the

proposal. We would also ask that additional funding be included in the Efficiency

Incentives Program for the Bend Feeder Canal in Bend, Oregon.

I would also ask that the Subcommittee continue to look into the issues surrounding the report to the Subcommittee that the Bureau of Reclamation provided

concerning annual costs associated with operation and maintenance for fiscal years

1993–1997. Our district’s already have very tight budget constraints and are concerned with possibilities of having increased costs passed on that may have nothing

to do with their projects.

Thank you for considering our requests and we look forward to favorable action

by the subcommittee.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL

The McKenzie Watershed Council is an advisory body established in 1993 with

the purpose of helping to address management issues in Oregon’s McKenzie River

watershed and to provide a framework for coordination and cooperation among key

interests. The mission of the 20-member council is to foster stewardship of

McKenzie Watershed resources, deal with issues in advance of resource degradation,

and ensure sustainable watershed health, function, and uses.

In March 1995, the Council, which includes a representative from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, agreed by consensus to support federal implementation of the

Willamette River Temperature Control project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

has been authorized to evaluate and plan for the installation of temperature control

structures in the McKenzie Watershed on the Cougar and Blue River projects. The

recommended plan is to modify the projects by adding one multi-level, ported intake

structure at each project. These structures will permit selective withdrawal of water

from different elevations within the reservoirs to achieve preferred downstream

water temperatures for anadromous and native fish species. The Cougar and Blue

River projects are only a few miles above their respective river’s confluence with the

McKenzie River, so their influence on the McKenzie temperature regime is significant. The recommended plan is expected to produce an additional 16,700 spring chinook salmon annually in the McKenzie River watershed.

Implementation of the Willamette River Temperature Control project takes on

extra significance with the expected federal threatened species listing of the Upper

Willamette spring chinook salmon. The McKenzie Watershed contains the last selfsustaining population of native spring chinook salmon in the Willamette system.

Historically the McKenzie Watershed was the destination for 40 percent of the native spring chinook salmon passing above Willamette Falls. Obviously, the

McKenzie Watershed will play a major role in the restoration of Willamette spring

chinook salmon.

Alterations to the water temperature regime of the McKenzie River have been

cited by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as a key limiting factor for

the production of spring chinook salmon. In addition to spring chinook, bull trout

are listed as ‘‘threatened’’ under the federal Endangered Species Act, and their status would be improved with a modified temperature regime.

The McKenzie Watershed Council commends the Clinton Administration’s funding

request for construction of this critical temperature control device. However, this

funding request does not do enough to protect the McKenzie River’s spring chinook

salmon. The Council supports increasing fiscal year 2000 construction funding to $5

million, which will accelerate completion of this critical project. In addition, this

funding level will provide the scheduling flexibility necessary to accommodate spring

chinook salmon migration and spawning cycles. It is essential that construction activities be managed in a manner that will minimize impacts on salmon.
783

Adequate funding for this project, which will assure timely initiation and proper

management, will accelerate the recovery of the McKenzie spring chinook salmon

population. In comparison to other recovery options such as aquatic habitat enhancement, temperature control is the most effective and least costly alternative for

restoring fish populations. Implementation of temperature control structures on the

Cougar and Blue River projects will complement other critical restoration efforts

being completed by public and private stakeholders in the McKenzie Watershed and

throughout the Willamette Basin.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, TUMALO IRRIGATION

DISTRICT

Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) is writing to urge your support for their request of $2,000,000 in the Bureau of Reclamation’s fiscal year 2000 budget. This money would be used for the

piping of the Bend Feed Canal. This work would be undertaken through the Bureau

of Reclamation’s Efficiency Incentives Program.

TID is located in Bend, Oregon and diverts its water from the Deschutes River

and from Tumalo Creek. The water diverted from the Deschutes River is transported through a rapidly urbanizing area in an open canal which is made of porous

volcanic materials. A portion of the canal is already piped and TID proposes using

this funding for piping the balance of the canal including the flume over Tumalo

Creek.

The piping of the Bend Feed Canal will cost approximately $4,000,000, half of

which will be paid for by the Tumalo Irrigation District. This piping will save a minimum of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). From this savings, TID proposes targeting

a 5 cfs flow for the Tumalo Creek, which currently is dried up in low water years

The remaining 15 cfs of old rights will be exchanged for TID’s 1961 rights which

will be put in stream. The piping project will not expand TID’s irrigated acreage.

This project will help reestablish Tumalo Creek as a spawning area for fish and

contribute flow to the Deschutes River. These flows will help in meeting the water

needs of the northwest fish on the threatened or endangered species list.

Although TID is experiencing an abundant snow pack this year, district users remember the drought years. The water savings will help insure a more reliable delivery of water in years of short supply.

This project is a continuation of TID’s conservation plan. Over the last four years

TID has spent approximately $2,500,000 on piping its canals, laterals and ditches.

In addition to the $2,000,000 that will be provided under the cost-sharing for this

project, TID will spend approximately $800,000 to replace two flumes and approximately $250,000 to install a fish screen in the next year.

TID is a small irrigation district and needs federal assistance for the completion

of the effort to pipe the Bend Feed Canal. As population in the Bend urban area

is occurring at a rapid pace, enclosing the canal with pipe will reduce the drowning

risk of children, pets and wildlife. TID believes the project is beneficial to the public

with its water savings and safety features, and will provide increased reliability to

its users.

The Tumalo Irrigation District appreciates the Subcommittee’s consideration of

this request for the Bureau of Reclamation’s fiscal year 2000 budget.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAYOR DONNA EVANS, CITY OF WEST JORDAN, UTAH

Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing the opportunity to testify before your

Committee. My name is Donna Evans, and I am the Mayor of West Jordan, Utah.

The purpose of my testimony is to request $1.65 millionfor the federal share of the

construction for the West Jordan, Utah Water Reuse Project and $700,000 to complete the feasibility study and the planning and design for the Jordan River Meander project to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Water Reuse project has been authorized as part of Public Law 104–266

amending the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Facilities Act (Title XVI

of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992). The City

has committed the 75 percent local share for the project and is prepared to proceed.

The Corps of Engineers expects to finish the feasibility study in fiscal year 2000 and

complete the plans and specifications for the project in the next fiscal year.
784

WEST JORDAN WATER REUSE PROJECT

This project is located in the City of West Jordan, Utah, with a current population

of over 52,000 people. As a suburb of Salt Lake City, the City of West Jordan is

experiencing rapid growth. Since 1986 the water use in the City has increased over

55 percent to over 13,000 acre feet per year. During the summer months, water use

increases mostly as a result of lawn watering and other outdoor irrigation activities.

Records indicate that the average daily flow may increase as much as 77 percent

over average annual flow to a maximum daily water use rate of almost 20 million

gallons a day.

This project would consist of the construction of the facilities to treat and distribute reclaimed water for the irrigation of public and, possible, private properties.

The reclaimed water would be obtained from the effluent of South Valley water reclamation facility, located in the City of West Jordan. Up to 7000 acre feet per year

of water would be available to reduce the peak loading of the culinary water delivery system and supplies. The water would receive tertiary treatment and disinfection prior to distribution.

Due to the rapid growth of not only the City of West Jordan, but also the entire

Salt Lake Valley, water resources are now being taxed to their limits. Salt Lake

County Water Conservancy District (SLCWCD), which wholesales water to over

twenty different entities in the valley, is projecting reaching their current peak flow

capacity in three years or less. West Jordan currently purchases forty to fifty percent of their water supplies from SLCWCD, most of which is during peak demand

of summer. Reducing the peak loading of West Jordan would not only benefit the

residents of the City, but also the rest of the customers of SLCWCD by delaying

or reducing the costly upgrades to the wholesale delivery system of SLCWCD.

Although such water reuse is already being accomplished in other areas of the

country, it is a relatively new approach to water conservation in Utah. The State

of Utah has recently passed regulations on the use of effluent from treatment facilities. All current discharge parameters of South Valley Reclamation Facility meet

the State regulations for Type I uses. Type I use is that which ‘‘where human exposure is likely.’’ Additionally, the State Division of Water Rights has recently issued

their opinion on how the rights to the effluent would be distributed. Although there

is not yet an official ruling, the City has been assured by the State Engineer that

whatever water the City contributes to the treatment plant and has the original

water rights for, the City has a right to reuse that quantity of effluent.

Following the initial feasibility study, the City would proceed with detailed plans

and specifications for the required facilities. These facilities would include, but not

be limited to the following: Diversion structure with sand and/or activated carbon

filter beds; lined holding pond or reservoir; pumping facility with chlorination or

other disinfection capabilities; booster pump station(s); distribution system; and metering and billing capability.

For the most part, all facilities would be constructed on City property or right of

ways. Some land may have to be shared with or purchased from South Valley Reclamation Facility. Disturbance of any of the properties would be minimal. The impact would be no greater than, and possibly less, than the installation of necessary

utilities to serve the growing population.

Initially, it is projected that the project would be delivering up to 1000 acre feet

of water to over 300 acres of City parks, cemeteries, and athletic complexes. As the

system is expanded, it could serve a number of commercial landscapes and eventually private properties. As aforementioned, the City could divert up to 7000 acre feet

of water, with current water rights.

With the continuing growth of the Salt Lake Valley and particularly that of the

City of West Jordan, new water supply sources are being exhausted physically and

financially. Over one third of all water consumed is for irrigation of developed landscapes. This project would put to beneficial use water which is now discharging directly into the Great Salt Lake. Additionally, the project would reduce the use of

drinking quality water for irrigation purposes, making more available where potable

water is more critical. The $1.65 million would be the full federal share for the entire project.

JORDAN RIVER MEANDER PROJECT

The Corps and the City of West Jordan are working on an environmental enhancement project to restore the River’s meander through the City to reduce the

River’s current scouring impacts caused by man-made changes to the River’s channel. The project will restore the River to its natural meandering path through a 1.7

mile corridor in the City and relocate 48’’ and 56’’ sewer lines to an alignment further west of the River.
785

The Salt Lake District Office of the Corps of Engineers reports that with the funding they hope to complete the feasibility study in early fiscal year 2000 and initiate

the planning and design phases of the project next fiscal year. The Corps will need

$700,000 in fiscal year 2000 ($130,000 to complete feasibility and $570,00 to begin

planning and design). The total Jordan River Meander project, including construction, is $6.8 million.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration of our requests. Water supply

is essential to the quality of life in West Jordan, Utah as it is in most western cities.

The Reuse project redirects and strengthens the City’s new strategy in water conservation and long term water supply. The Jordan River is the historic and ecological center of our city and having it restored to a more meandering course will enhance the quality of life for our citizens and improve the natural environment for

our wildlife. In both cases the help from you and your committee will have a major

positive impact on the quality of life in our city for our citizens. Thank you for your

help.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER

Dry Prairie Rural Water (DPRW) joins the Fort Peck Tribes in the request for

funds to continue the planning of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System

in the amount of $447,000 from the Burec General Investigations Account. DPRW

serves the off reservation portion of Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels and portions of

Valley county. The funds requested to address pre-authorization planning of the

DPRW system are $193,000.

With the funds from fiscal year 1999 appropriations, DPRW accomplished a tremendous amount towards the advancement of the project. The coordination and education of the public, Environmental analysis and pre-construction engineering are

progressing very well. The state has also recognized the need for this system and

have passed through committee an $82,000 Renewable Resource grant and a

$100,000 appropriation through the Joint Committee on Resources. These funds will

be for fiscal year 1999 and 2000.

With the funds from this request and the state and local funds, we hope to able

to complete the environmental assessment and final engineering work. In the event

the project is authorized this year, we will be ready to begin design level investigations.

With the help from the previously allocated funds, DPRW has been able to secure

a strong public participation in this project. All or 100 percent of the cities have

passed resolutions to participate in the system. They have paid or budgeted $5 per

water service. The rural drive is going equally as well. From the rural sector we

ask a $100 fee to be included in the planning of the system. Over 50 percent have

sent in their fee with about 20 per week coming in at this time. The rural membership drive was started in December of 1998.

One of the benefits that has already been realized from this effort is the trust and

friendship building between the on and off-Reservation people. The joint effort to

solve this common problem has made us aware of the different problems each of us

face on both sides of the reservation borders. The problems will be easier to solve

together.

The water quality problems in the DPRW service area are similar to the problems

on the Fort Peck Reservation. DPRW has one city with a condemned water system

with two more operating at the edge of compliance. The quality of the ground water

we are presently using has deteriorated quickly in recent years. Several cities have

recently built treatment facilities only to find that they do not adequately purify the

water. The excessive amounts of iron, sodium, nitrates, and sulfates are very expensive and difficult to filter out.

We strongly believe that the only permanent and most economically feasible solution to the water problems in North East Montana is a regional water system using

Missouri River water. With out this type of system, we will be forever struggling

to find ways to make useless water usable. The health and economical welfare of

this area depends on the success of this project.

The Montana delegation introduced S 841 and H 2306 to the 105th Congress.

These bills have been reintroduced this year. With strong state and local involvement we hope to be more successful in our bid for authorization.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX

The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request funds to continue

planning of the Fort Peck Reservation RWS, Montana, in the amount of $447,000.
786

The Tribes are joined in fiscal year 2000 by the Dry Prairie Water System, a part

of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System, that is planning water

service to all or parts of Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels and Valley counties outside

the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The request for funds is for continued pre-authorization work on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation ($254,000) and within Dry Prairie

Water System ($193,000).

The Tribes are highly appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000 were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999, $810,000 were appropriated.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITH PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS AND PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation include a

Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes have continued to

work with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Tribes’ engineer to improve upon and

update the cost estimates for a regional project. The Final Engineering Report is in

progress and will be completed in fiscal year 1999, incorporating the cost of expanding facilities on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation to serve the Dry Prairie Water

System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The State of Montana, by action

of its legislature, appropriated $62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs

Assessment and cost estimate of facilities outside the Reservation. The 1999 Montana Legislature is currently considering $182,000 in planning funds. The needs and

facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie Water System are being incorporated

into the Final Engineering Report.

Based on the considerable pre-authorization work that has been completed fiscal

year 2000 funding will provide for conclusion of the environmental assessment and

value engineering concepts in the Final Engineering Report. In the event the project

is authorized in fiscal year 1999, the fiscal year 2000 appropriations will be used

to complete NEPA compliance requirements and to begin design level investigations.

PROGRESS OF THE FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES

Through the efforts of this Subcommittee, planning for the project has been adequately advanced and we are hopeful that the project will be authorized this year.

Specific technical objectives with the fiscal year 2000 funds include continued public

involvement and coordination with off-Reservation interests in the Dry Prairie

Water System by the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, continued work with

the Bureau of Reclamation on NEPA and ways of reducing project costs while delivering necessary water requirements.

The Tribes are extremely pleased with progress on the project to date. fiscal year

1997 through fiscal year 1999 focused on public involvement within the Fort Peck

Indian Reservation and outside it. The Tribes held numerous public meetings to acquaint residents within the boundaries of this regional project with capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, planning for the establishment of an operation and

maintenance entity and the potential impact on environmental resources. The

Tribes have planned the use of water from the Missouri River on the basis of their

Compact with the State of Montana which assures a dependable supply of project

water without shortage. The efforts of the Tribes have involved members of the

Tribal Council, Water Resources staff, the Tribes’ Water Commission, members of

the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and other residents of the Fort Peck

Indian Reservation.

Detailed cost estimates have been refined and expanded off the Reservation by the

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Counties Water System to assist water

users and communities in an evaluation of the costs of participating in the project

and improving drinking quality.

The total project cost within the Reservation, sized to carry off-Reservation water

demands, is $103 million. The cost of enlarging the facilities to carry water to meet

off-Reservation municipal, rural and industrial demands is $26 million (included in

the $103 million). The cost of facilities outside the reservation is $76 million. Therefore, total project costs are $179 million. Assuming a cost share of 76 percent federal

and 24 percent local, consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, and

comparable projects funded by the Subcommittee, the non-federal cost share would

be $16.0 million. The Tribes recognize that the cost share details necessarily require

Congressional concurrence and authorization.

The cost of annual operation and maintenance of Fort Peck and Dry Prairie facilities is estimated at $2.57 per thousand gallons. Off-Reservation users will have additional costs to operate and maintain off-Reservation transmission and distribution
787

facilities and to retire debt. The Dry Prairie monthly cost of water at $40.00 is near

the edge of the ability to pay.

DRY PRAIRIE WATER SYSTEM ACTIVITIES

Part of the effort of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes during fiscal year

1997 and 1998 was to work with the off-Reservation, Dry Prairie, interests in the

project to assist them with organization and an improved understanding of the

project. This resulted in the formation of a Steering Committee for the Dry Prairie

System, which then evolved to the formation of a conservation district under Montana law or a non-federal entity with a board of directors to plan and design the

Dry Prairie system.

The board has undertaken a fund drive for both communities and rural residences. One hundred percent (100 percent) of the communities have indicated their

support of the project by contributing $5.00 per service connection, and as much as

75 percent participation from rural farmers and ranchers is expected with a $100.00

sign up requirement to evidence the support of the individual to the project. The

degree of support for the project exceeds most other rural water projects in the

northern great plains and indicates the severity of the water problem in the region.

Improvement in the source and quality of water are considered essential to stabilizing the population of the area and attracting new industry.

WATER QUALITY OF EXISTING DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES AND NEEDS

The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the counties outside

the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern Montana, North Dakota and

South Dakota. With the exception of the Missouri River, which is a high quality

water source, the groundwater supplies of the region are of poor quality, derived

from shales deposited in ancient seas. Some of the worst water on the North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in part, by those activities. Other near-surface aquifers are subject to

growing nitrogen contamination from agricultural activities within the area.

The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the International Boundary, and the balance is available for use

in the United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-fired power

generation on the Canadian side increases the concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the United States. The Poplar River and its principle

tributaries are neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality

for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and the Counties Water System are

seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni Wiconi and

Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the Mainstem Missouri River.

The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than similar projects

is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri River for a distance of more than 60

miles. Many of the towns in this regional project are located two to three miles from

the river, including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,

Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation will deliver water 30 to

40 miles north of the Missouri River. Therefore, the distances from the Missouri

River to all points in the main transmission system are shorter than in other

projects of this nature in the Northern Great Plains.

For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional projects, please

refer to Tables 1 and 2.

PROJECT AUTHORIZATION SOUGHT IN FISCAL YEAR 1999

In the first session of the 105th Congress, the Montana delegation introduced S.

841 and H.R. 2306, comparable bills in both houses of Congress for authorization

of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Project. A hearing was held

on the proposed legislation by the Senate Water and Power Subcommittee in fall

1997. A hearing before the House Water and Power Subcommittee was held in summer 1998. Means of financing the project within the Reclamation budget were discussed in the context of the GAO Report on this project and Lewis and Clark.

The Montana delegation is working with the Tribes and the Dry Prairie Rural

Water to re-introduce authorizing bills early in this session. The project is building
788

good relationships throughout the region as we determine the interests of those outside the Reservation in participating in this most important project. The community-building aspects of the project have been considerable over a short period of

time.

We have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation to address its concerns related

to federal and non-federal cost share, among other matters. Many of the initial

issues have been clarified to the mutual satisfaction of the sponsors and Reclamation. There has also been good coordination with the Western Area Power Administration on the power provisions of the bills.@

TABLE 1.—Comparison of Fort Peck Total Dissolved Solid Levels With Comparable

Projects

Total dissolved solids

project community

Project/community (mgl)

Fort Peck—Fort Kipp ............................................................................................ 2,730

Lewis and Clark—Upper Limit ............................................................................ 2,600

Mni Wiconi—Red Shirt .......................................................................................... 2,332

Mni Wiconi—Reliance ............................................................................................ 2,056

Mni Wiconi—Murdo ............................................................................................... 1,761

Mni Wiconi—Kennebec .......................................................................................... 1,740

Mni Wiconi—Presho .............................................................................................. 1,398

Fort Peck—Poplar .................................................................................................. 1,380

Fort Peck—Frazer .................................................................................................. 1,180

Lewis and Clark—Lower Limit ............................................................................ 1,179

Mni Wiconi—Wakpamni Lake .............................................................................. 1,125

Mni Wiconi—Horse Creek ..................................................................................... 869

Fort Peck—Brockton .............................................................................................. 748

Mni Wiconi—Pine Ridge Village ........................................................................... 416

TABLE 2.—Comparison of Fort Peck Sulfate Levels With Comparable Projects

Project/Community Sulfate (mgl)

Lewis and Clark—Upper Limit ............................................................................ 1,500

Mni Wiconi—Reliance ............................................................................................ 1,139

Fort Peck—Fort Kipp ............................................................................................ 1,120

Mni Wiconi—Red Shirt .......................................................................................... 1,080

Mni Wiconi—Murdo ............................................................................................... 1,042

Mni Wiconi—Kennebec .......................................................................................... 984

Mni Wiconi—Presho .............................................................................................. 644

Lewis and Clark—Lower Limit ............................................................................ 538

Fort Peck—Frazer .................................................................................................. 498

Mni Wiconi—Horse Creek ..................................................................................... 410

Mni Wiconi—Wakpamni Lake .............................................................................. 398

Fort Peck—Brockton .............................................................................................. 212

Fort Peck—Poplar .................................................................................................. 103

Mni Wiconi—Pine Ridge Village ........................................................................... 70

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GERINGER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF WYOMING

This testimony supports the appropriation in fiscal year 2000 of $17,500,000 for

the Bureau of Reclamation’s basin-wide Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. This testimony is submitted in support of a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of

$17,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Salinity Control Program. Testimony was recently submitted to this Subcommittee by the Colorado

River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), a seven-state organization created by

the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States, by the Forum’s Executive Director, Jack Barnett. The State of Wyoming, a member state of the Forum, concurs in

the Forum’s testimony. While the President’s recommended budget line-item for the

basin-wide Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is $12,300,000, the State

of Wyoming and the Forum urge the Congress to increase the appropriation for this

Program by $5,200,000. The implementation of the Program has fallen behind the

needed pace to prevent salinity concentration levels from exceeding specified numeric criteria in the water quality standards for the Colorado River. In addition to

considerations of complying with this basin-wide water quality standard, the United

States has committed to the Republic of Mexico, pursuant to Minute 242 of the 1944

‘‘Treaty Between the United States and Mexico, Relating to Waters of the Colorado
789

and Tijuana River and of the Rio Grande,’’ to managing the salinity concentrations

of water deliveries to Mexico.

The State of Wyoming is one of the seven member states represented on the

Forum and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council (Council).

The Council was created by Section 204 of the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Act (Public Law 93–320). Like the Forum, the Council is composed of gubernatorial representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin states. Both the Council

and Forum serve important liaison roles among the seven states, the Secretaries of

the Interior and Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). The Council is directed by statute to advise these federal officials on

the progress of the federal/state cost-shared, basin-wide salinity control programs,

and annually recommends to the Federal agencies what level of funding it believes

is required to meet the objective of assuring continuing compliance with the basinwide water quality standards.

The Council last met in October 1998 and developed funding recommendations for

fiscal years 2000 and 2001 based on the progress the Bureau of Reclamation, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Land Management and the seven

states are making in implementing their programs for managing and reducing the

salt loading into the Colorado River System. The Council’s funding recommendations further heeded analyzes made by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forum.

Every three years the Forum updates the plan of implementation for maintaining

the Colorado River water quality standards for salinity in accordance with Section

303 of the Clean Water Act. The 1996 triennial review of the standards identified

the need for the Bureau of Reclamation to expend $17,500,000 per year in order to

carry out its portion of the plan of implementation. The plan is devised to assure

that the salinity concentrations of Colorado River water do not exceed the numeric

criteria set forth in the standards. Based on its own review of the facts, the Council

recommended that a minimum of $17,500,000 needs to be expended by the Bureau

of Reclamation during fiscal year 2000 to accomplish needed salinity control activities.

This funding level is appropriate if the salinity of Colorado River waters is to be

controlled so as not to exceed the numeric salinity concentration criteria contained

within the water quality standards for the Colorado River. Without the necessary

levels of funding, there is an increased probability that the numeric criteria will be

exceeded resulting in violations of the basin-wide water quality standards. Without

the necessary levels of funding, there is an increased probability that the numeric

criteria will be exceeded resulting in violations of the basin-wide water quality

standards. Failure to maintain the standards’ numeric criteria could result in the

imposition of state-line water quality standards (as opposed to the successful basinwide approach that has been in place since 1975) and impair Wyoming’s ability to

develop our Compact-apportioned water supplies. The present basin-wide salinity

control program and its funding arrangements appropriately reflects that the primary beneficiaries of the basin-wide salinity control program are in the Lower Basin

while the most cost-effective opportunities to reduce salt loading are upstream in

the Upper Basin. Failure to maintain the standards’ numeric criteria could result

in the imposition of state-line water quality standards (as opposed to the successful

basin-wide approach that has been in place since 1975) and impair the states’ ability to develop its Compact-apportioned water supplies. Delaying or deferring adequate funding will create the need for a much more expensive salinity control effort

in the future to assure that the Colorado River Basin states are able to comply with

the water quality standards. ‘‘Catch-up’’ funding in the future will require the expenditure of greater sums of money, increase the likelihood that the numeric criteria for Colorado River water quality are exceeded, and create undue burdens and

difficulties for one of the most successful Federal/State cooperative non-point source

pollution control programs in the United States.

In July, 1995, Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act.

The amended Act provided Reclamation with additional authorities that have improved upon the cost-effectiveness of Reclamation’s salinity control program, in large

part because it provided for proposals and greater involvement from the private sector. Submitted proposals have far exceeded the available funding, while at the same

time overall progress in accomplishing the rate of salinity control determined to be

needed and as set forth in the Plan of Implementation continues to fall behind the

scheduled rate.

We urge this Subcommittee to fund the level for the Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Program line-item in Reclamation’s budget at $17,500,000. In addition to

the funding needs identified for the basin-wide Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, the State of Wyoming supports the appropriation of Operation and

Maintenance funds for completed Reclamation salinity control projects, including
790

the Paradox Valley Unit. The State of Wyoming understands that a portion of the

General Investigation Funds included in the President’s budget are intended for salinity control activities. Wyoming supports the appropriation of funds to accomplish

these necessary planning and investigation activities.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I request, in addition to

your consideration of its contents, that you make it a part of the formal hearing

record concerning fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single life science organization in the world, comprised of more than 43,000 members, appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) research programs.

The ASM represents scientists who work throughout academic, governmental and

industrial institutions worldwide. Microbiologists are involved in research to improve human health and the environment. The ASM’s mission is to enhance the

science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding of basic life processes, and

to promote the application of this knowledge for improved health, and for economic

and environmental well being.

The ASM strongly supports the inclusion of basic science programs within the

DOE. While relatively small in terms of the overall DOE appropriation, these programs provide important fundamental discoveries that establish the foundation for

subsequent developments in biotechnology related to energy and the environment.

It is imperative for the United States to maintain a strong science budget that supports basic research.

Along with enhanced appropriations to fund specific program areas, it is important that the DOE receive increases in administrative budgets to properly staff and

manage fundamental science programs. Investments in well-managed basic and applied science programs can produce long term benefits. Over the past decade, scientific research has become more interdisciplinary. It is essential that DOE have

the resources necessary to adapt to these changes in science and to hire the necessary experts to manage programs effectively. This will allow the Agency to make

educated program and funding decisions based on cross-disciplinary scientific expertise.

Many DOE scientific research programs share the common goal of producing and

conserving energy in environmentally responsible ways. Areas of research include

basic research projects in microbiology, as well as, extensive development of biotechnological systems to produce alternative fuels and chemicals, to recover fossil

fuels, to improve the refinement process of fossil fuels, to remediate environmental

problems, and to reduce wastes and pollution.

In 1997, the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol and committed to reduce the

nation’s carbon dioxide emissions to eight percent below 1990 levels. The Administration proposed a government-wide Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI)

to implement this commitment and to find solutions to problems associated with

greenhouse gasses. The President’s budget for DOE proposes $437 million for this

initiative. These funds will be allocated throughout the Agency’s programs including

the Office of Science (SC). Biological research is slated to receive a significant boost

from this initiative. As part of the CCTI, DOE will support microbiological research

on carbon management science including basic studies on microorganisms that consume carbon, and on other microbes that assist in the development of carbon free

energy sources. Combating global warming is critical and these programs will make

significant contributions to the long-term battle to maintain the quality of our atmosphere.

The ASM is encouraged by the President’s budget request for DOE’s science programs. The Administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2000 requests $17.8 billion for the DOE overall. Included in that request is $2.8 billion for programs supported by the Office of Science. The following comments focus on research supported

by the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences

(BES) programs and make recommendations related to carbon management,

genomics, bioremediation, ocean science, and basic energy science. Federal investment in these programs today will help to ensure fundamental research to find solutions to future environmental and energy problems while maintaining U.S. scientific

leadership worldwide.
791

CARBON MANAGEMENT SCIENCE

An important component of the CCTI program in BER addresses the basic phenomena and strategies for managing the carbon budget of our terrestrial and ocean

systems. Biological sequestration of carbon, both its capture and stability of the biologically produced carbon forms, has major effects on the global CO2 and methane

concentrations. Furthermore, stored carbon such as soil carbon, has beneficial effects on plant growth, water retention in soil, and soil structure.

The President’s budget proposes an increase from $5.5 million in fiscal year 1999

to $13.0 million in fiscal year 2000 for the carbon management research program.

Approximately $5.8 million of this budget would be devoted to genome sequencing

of microorganisms important to carbon sequestion and hydrogen production. ASM

strongly supports this enhanced effort and believes that new understanding will be

derived that will aid decisions about management of the global carbon cycle, and

new biotechnologies discovered that can reduce CO2, convert carbon to useful products and stabilize fixed carbon.

GENOMICS

DOE supports the Microbial Genome Program (MGP) within the Office of Biological and Environmental Research . The program, developed in 1994 as a compliment

to the Human Genome Program, already provides complete genome sequence information on important microorganisms. The Administration has proposed $10 million

for fiscal year 2000, about $1 million more than last year.

Genome sequencing has revolutionized the scientific approach to understanding

biology and is providing a depth of insight not previously possible. DOE’s MGP has

led the way in this new biological era, completing full genome sequences of several

microorganisms important in energy and environmental processes. Now, however,

other nations have seen the promise of this field of research and have mounted significant programs. Continued growth in the DOE MGP is critical to maintaining

U.S. leadership in this important field. This research should include not only the

genome sequencing but the functional analysis of those genomes, the associated software and databases to fully and efficiently analyze the information, and development of new technologies to help characterize the genes of unculturable microbes

in nature.

In view of the tremendous potential to be derived form microbial genome sequencing, ASM recommends that Congress provide $15 million for the MGP. A base funding level of $10 million to sequence critical organisms within the scope of DOE’s

mission should be provided to the MGP. Funding from the CCTI should serve as

an add-on to the program for specialized sequences of organisms related to the mission of the CCTI.

Researchers supported by the MGP have already sequenced several complete microbial genomes, including ones from methanogens living in deep-sea thermal vent

regions, and a bacterium that is extremely resistant to radiation, Deinococcus

radiodurans. This sequence information provides clues into how we can design biotechnological processes that will function in extreme conditions, including ones that

will generate fuels and help clean up the environment. With each new genome that

is sequenced we gain a greater understanding of microbial evolution and diversity.

Also, each sequenced genome has revealed how much more science needs to learn.

Thirty percent of each genome has no known function. This presents a great challenge for scientists to unravel the genomes’ significance for understanding microbial

evolution and the potential for biotechnological developments.

The DOE has established the necessary peer review and advisory program to the

MGP to ensure that the microorganisms selected for sequencing will yield the greatest scientific informational benefits and that the research is of the highest quality.

Important new knowledge has been gained from each and every genome sequenced.

The ASM believes that even greater benefits would be achieved if the program were

funded at the level of $15 million and strongly urges this Subcommittee to consider

adding these funds to the Microbial Genome Program for support of competitive research.

The DOE has expanded its research into microbial diversity, and has begun sequencing the genomes of bioremediative microorganisms. Due to a scientific approach called sequence leveraging, a practice of using previously sequenced microbes

to build the sequences of similar non-sequenced microbes in a more cost-effective

manner. The results of these initiatives will be readily available to other scientists,

through the use of on-line databases. All genome sequences supported by the MGP

are available to the public and as such contribute to further scientific exploration.

The public disclosure of genomic data will aid scientists in their research into new
792

biotechnologies such as bioremediation, a technology that is proving to be a practical

and a cost-effective way of eliminating pollutants.

BIOREMEDIATION

The MGP’s research into bioremediative microorganisms compliments the research supported by the DOE’s Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Program

(NABIR) and other DOE bioremediation research initiatives. The NABIR program

is level funded from fiscal year 1998 with a request for fiscal year 2000 of $19.1

million. The ASM supports the Administration’s request for bioremediation research. However, the ASM believes that greater benefits will be achieved if the

NABIR program is increased to $30 million, which is more consistent with the original $40 million plan for the program.

Bioremediation scientists are searching for cost-effective technologies to improve

current remediation methods to clean up DOE’s contaminated sites. This research

will lead to new discoveries into reliable methods of bioremediation of metals and

radionuclides as well as organic pollutants in soils and groundwater. The NABIR

program supports the basic research that is needed to understand this technology

to more reliably develop the practical applications for cost-effective cleanup of pollutants at DOE sites. The ASM strongly recommends that additional funding be allocated to balance the program elements and pollutants studied as originally envisioned when the NABIR Program was designed.

OCEAN SCIENCE

Other exciting new microbiological research supported by BER is in the Ocean

Sciences Program. The Administration’s budget request includes $6.9 million for

this program in fiscal year 2000. Microbiological research supported by the Ocean

Sciences Program investigates the effects global change has on marine microbes.

The findings from this program will be crucial to understanding the responses of

marine biological systems to changes in their environments. The ASM fully supports

the Administration’s request for this program.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Administration’s requested funding level for the Office of Basic Energy

Sciences is $888.1 million for fiscal year 2000. This funding level is an $88.6 million

increase over last year. BES funds important microbiological basic research programs through the Energy Biosciences Division. In fact, about one fifth of all BES

funds go directly to support research at academic institutions across the nation.

This program focuses on research in both microbiological and plant sciences that

will lead to new discoveries in producing energy without risk to the environment

and finding effective methods of cleaning up existing contamination. The CCTI effort of BES is proposed to increase from $8.0 million to $20.0 million in fiscal year

2000. Research on the microbial role in the carbon cycle is an important part of this

program.

Other microbiological research supported by this program includes biotechnology

related to energy, biofuel production, and technologies to aid in the restoration of

contaminated environmental sites. More basic research on hydrogen, methane, and

ethanol production is needed if we are to meet future energy needs and to have fuels

that will minimize environmental pollution. The ASM supports the proposed funding level for this program and urges Congress to allocate these funds for the Energy

Biosciences.

CONCLUSION

DOE’s research programs help to keep the United States at the forefront of scientific discovery and competitive in the world marketplace. The ASM encourages

Congress to maintain its commitment to the Department of Energy research programs to maintain the United States’ leadership in these vital industries and continue our commitment to a strong basic science program.

The debate over the effect of greenhouse gasses on the environment is complex.

While some may disagree about the severity of the greenhouse problem, most will

agree that the reduction of industrial gasses emitted into the atmosphere will provide more long term environmental benefits than continuing to increase the rate

these gasses enter our atmosphere. In Kyoto, the United States committed to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. DOE’s basic research

programs support research that investigates solutions to existing and future environmental and energy problems. Through the leadership of DOE’s basic research

science in clean fuels, and environmental processes, new technologies will be devel-
793

oped to enable the U.S. to be better prepared to meet environmental problems and

the economic challenges associated with them.

In summary, the ASM makes the following recommendations:

—The ASM believes that it is imperative for the United States to maintain a

strong science budget that supports basic research.

—It is essential that the DOE receive sufficient increases in administrative budgets to properly staff and manage biological science programs.

—The ASM recommends that Congress provide $15 million, $6 million more than

fiscal year 1999 funding, for the Microbial Genome Program. The MGP should

have a base funding level of $10 million to sequence critical organisms within

the scope of DOE’s mission. Funding from the Climate Change Technology Initiative should serve as an add-on to the program for specialized sequences of

organisms related to the mission of the CCTI.

—The ASM recommends that the CCTI programs in BER and BES receive the

$33.0 million proposed for fiscal year 2000, and that $5.8 million of this be devoted to genome sequencing of microorganisms important to global carbon management.

—The ASM recommends $30 million be appropriated for the NABIR program to

provide the funds necessary to sustain a balanced program of bioremediation research on chemicals important to DOE site cleanup.

—The ASM fully supports the Administration’s request for $6.9 million for the

Ocean Sciences Program.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the DOE basic

life sciences programs. The ASM hopes that its recommendations will be useful to

the Subcommittee. We would be pleased to respond to any questions.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ELLEN FUTTER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MUSEUM OF

NATURAL HISTORY

Founded in 1869, the American Museum of Natural History is one of the nation’s

pre-eminent scientific and educational institutions. For over 129 years, the Museum

has pursued a mission of examining critical scientific issues and increasing public

knowledge about them. Throughout the Museum’s history, its explorers and scientists have pioneered discoveries that have offered us new ways of looking at nature and human civilization. The Museum has sponsored thousands of expeditions,

sending scientists and explorers to every continent. This rich scientific legacy includes an irreplaceable record of life on earth in collections of some 32 million natural specimens and cultural artifacts that are an extraordinary research tool and

represent the focus of science at the Museum. The Museum’s power to interpret

wide-ranging scientific discoveries and convey them imaginatively has inspired generations of visitors to its grand exhibition halls and educated millions about the

marvels of the natural world and the vitality of human culture. With four million

visitors annually (of whom half are schoolchildren), the largest unified natural history library in the Western Hemisphere, a staff of dedicated educators who seek to

inspire curiosity and a desire to learn in both children and adults, the Museum is

known as one of the nation’s preeminent scientific and educational institutions.

More than 200 active research scientists with internationally recognized expertise

conduct more than 150 field projects each year. Museum scientists in the ten scientific departments are retracing the evolutionary tree, documenting changes in the

environment, and describing the achievements of human culture affecting the

public’s understanding of where we come from and where we may be headed.

The Museum’s ongoing research provides the foundation for its educational mission. The goals of its educational programs include increasing scientific literacy

among both adults and children nationwide addressing issues that affect our daily

lives and the future of the planet and its inhabitants, and providing a forum for

exploring world cultures. The recent Museum’s launching of the National Center for

Science Literacy, Education, and Technology in partnership with NASA helps to further these goals. In creating the National Center, AMNH and NASA recognized an

opportunity to combine and leverage their incomparable resources. The National

Center creates materials and programs that reach beyond our institutional walls

into homes, schools, museums, and community organizations around the nation.

The Museum actively continues a tradition of creating some of the greatest scientific exhibitions in the world. Early in the year 2000, the Museum will open the

new Rose Center for Earth and Space, in one of the most exciting chapters in the

Museum’s long and distinguished history of science and education. The Rose Center

includes a newly rebuilt and updated Hayden Planetarium and will allow visitors

to journey among the stars and planets in our own galaxy as well as those of other
794

galaxies; the Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Hall of the Universe, where interactive

technology and participatory displays will elucidate important principles of astronomy and astrophysics; and the adjoining Gottesman Hall of Planet Earth (opening

in 1999). The new Hall of Planet Earth will explore key questions such as: how has

the Earth changed though time; why do ocean basins continents and mountains

exist; what causes climate change; and why is the Earth habitable. As part of the

exhibition the question of natural resources will be explored: what are they; what

resources are necessary to generate energy (oil, coal, goethermal); where are they

located; and how are they formed. The Rose Center for Earth and Space will enable

the Museum to join science and education to provide a seamless educational journey

taking visitors from the beginnings of the universe, to the formation and processes

of Earth to the extraordinary and irreplaceable diversity of life and cultures on our

planet.

One of the strategic goals of the Department of Energy is to utilize its assets to

advance the nation’s science literacy. In addition to our mutual commitment to

science literacy, the American Museum and DOE share several other joint goals, including: making science/scientific enterprise more accessible to a large and diverse

audience; harnessing the power of technology to support science, exhibition, and

education; and enhancing the diversity of the science workforce working with

schools, parents, and the community. The DOE has enormous resources that can

support the activities of the American Museum’s science, exhibition, and education

programs. In partnership with DOE, the Museum would significantly advance the

public’s access to the expertise, data and technology that has been developed by

DOE.

The Department of Energy has traditionally been one of the major sources of support for research and laboratory instrumentation equipment. The types of laboratories and instrumentation that the American Museum seeks are indeed consistent

with the DOE’s mission. The Molecular Systematics Lab is a critical tool to basic

energy research, the human genome project, and the Department’s biological and

environmental research function (the BER account).

Technology is rapidly changing the way we perceive nature. With the advent of

DNA sequencing, museum collections have become critical baseline resources for the

assessment of the genetic diversity of natural populations. Genomes, especially

those of the simplest organisms, provide a window onto the fundamental mechanics

of life. One of the goals of the DOE sponsored Human Genome Program is to learn

about the DNA of nonhuman organisms. This, the sponsors of the research say, can

lead to an understanding of their natural capabilities that can be applied toward

solving challenges in health care, energy sources, and environmental cleanup. We

believe that the Museum’s accomplishments in this area support and complement

the Department of Energy’s goals in this area.

The American Museum has a history of being at the forefront of conservation activities. In addition, the molecular systematics programs at the Museum are on the

cutting edge in the use of DNA sequences in conservation and evolutionary research.

The Museum houses two molecular laboratories that are directed by four curators

from the Museum and one from The New York Botanical Garden. Current studies

focus on a variety of endangered species representing diverse geographic and taxonomic scope, including: tiger beetles and moths of the Atlantic coast of North America, sturgeon of the Caspian Sea, muntjacs (small deer) recently discovered in

Southeast Asia, lemurs and whales of Madagascar, spotted owls of the Pacific

Northwest, tiger populations throughout Asia, and right whales around the world.

Ancient DNA, essential for historical study of changes in genetic markers in endangered species, has been recovered from museum specimens of rare or extinct animals, as well as 25-million-year-old termites fossilized in amber.

As more species become threatened and extinct, it is more critical than ever to

catalogue and store the variety of life’s natural genetic diversity so that it will be

available far into the future. For these reasons, the Museum has launched a new

effort to create a super-cold storage facility. Located in a new, state-of-the-art collections and laboratory building, this new storage facility will enable Museum scientists and researchers from around the world to perform unique and vital DNA research. This new storage facility will multiply the possibilities for DNA research exponentially.

Molecular techniques have revolutionized the study of biology, including conservation, evolution, and medicine. As part of our ongoing mission in collections-based research we propose expanding activities in the preservation of biological tissues and

molecular libraries in super-cold storage for current and future genetic research.

This collection is unique and valuable for research in several fields, including:

—Conservation genetics.—The practice of systematics and the management of endangered species rely on collections to provide data on the natural distribution
795

of populations on the planet over time. Accurately identified specimens accompanied by data such as date and locality of their collection are essential for the

design of field projects. With the advent of DNA sequencing, museum collections

have become valuable resources for recognizing species and assessing changes

in the genetic diversity of natural populations throughout periods of ecological

change.

—Systematics.—Natural history collections are critical resources for the creation

of phylogenetic trees (branching diagrams representing evolutionary relationships), as many species that are pivotal to the reconstruction of a full evolutionary history of a group are known only from museum material. The American

Museum frozen-tissue program provides a means to appropriately store rare organisms for molecular work. This collection serves as a permanent library of the

molecular structure of organisms and is an important source of loans to investigators from around the world.

—Medicine.—Better understanding of the natural arrangements of genomes and

interactions among genes is driving, and will continue to drive, the development

of novel therapies for disease. It is also clear that many genes of significant scientific and medical importance are found only in a few organisms. Such natural

products are useful in ways we are only beginning to understand. Tissue collections such as the one we propose expanding at the Museum will preserve genetic material and gene products from rare and endangered organisms that may

go extinct before science fully exploits their potential.

The super-cold natural history collection is a permanent world wide resource for

storage, conservation of genetic resources, and loans to the scientific community.

Most biological material in natural history collections is dried or formalin fixed.

While these methods preserve anatomy, they do not preserve nucleic acids and proteins in workable quantities. A super-cold natural history collection of vast biological

diversity is underway at the Museum.

Now in operation for eight years, the Musuem’s molecular laboratories have accrued tens of thousands of specimens. We will create a database not only for record

keeping, but also to make this collection easily searched via the Internet and accessible for loans by scientists outside the Museum. We foresee increased loan activity

as the fields of molecular systematics and comparative genomics continue to grow.

Because tissues could be easily depleted by several requests, molecular libraries

(DNA in fragments multiplied and stored in easily workable vectors) are or will be

constructed for many of these specimens. Many of the tissues and molecular libraries in the Museum=s frozen collection come from long-term field projects with extensively detailed data.

We also suggest establishing a geographically based, publicly accessible Web site

that enables users anywhere to access the available information. Projects of this

type are critical to fostering a public understanding of human genomics and the fundamental building blocks of life, and are in keeping with the DOE’s own stated

goals.

Molecular information is important for understanding the history of life. The phylogenetic trees constructed from DNA sequence data have changed how biologists

think about ecology, evolution, conservation, development, and behavior. The phylogenetic approach relies heavily on primary DNA sequences. However, many lineages

of organisms have only been sampled in a very cursory manner or not at all.

In the past, the time and expense of DNA sequencing forced systematists to collect sequences from only one gene per species. A single set of character information

is inadequate to represent the complexity of the organisms and their history. Fortunately, with support of the Department of Energy’s Human Genome Program, DNA

sequencing technology has improved rapidly in the past five years (bases sequenced

per unit time has increased at least tenfold). This improvement has allowed the Museum’s molecular labs to address gaps in knowledge of biodiversity by sequencing

DNA from rare, endangered, and understudied organisms. Concomitantly, Museum

scientists are working to improve the theory and implementation of phylogenetic

analysis of vast data sets of DNA sequences and other forms of biological information such as the anatomy of extant and extinct organisms.

Currently, the Museum has one old and one new sequencer, both of which are operated on a 24 hour/day, 7 day/week schedule. Museum researchers bring a great

deal of knowledge of the natural world and a staggering diversity of organisms into

the lab. Our students and scientists are not typically molecular biologists but rather

zoologists, botanists, and resource managers who are trained at the Museum to collect raw sequence data from the organisms in which they specialize and analyze the

data for evolutionary and conservation studies. Sequence data are shared worldwide

on NIH’s Genbank database and via original scientific research disseminated in theses and peer reviewed publications.
796

Given that DNA sequencing technology has improved vastly in rapidity and cost

effectiveness in the past five years, and given the Department of Energy’s increased

pace for the Human Genome Program, we seek in FY00 the addition of upgrade sequencing and computational equipment to the Museum’s molecular laboratories.

These upgrades will allow us to fully benefit from the intellectual resources represented by our students and scientists and the physical resources contained in our

new super-cold storage facility. In addition, the Hall of Human Biology and Evolution at the Museum is a major resource for the public and especially students. The

Human Genome Program of the DOE is an important endeavor. We propose to assist the DOE to translate its findings to the public through a AGenetics Bulletin,

a set of continually updated interactive media kiosks that display research findings

in the exhibition hall and can be made available internationally via public web sites.

Despite empirical advances, no amount of sampling of DNA of extant animals will

help researchers overcome the gaps in evolutionary history that are left by extinction events. As a result, analytical approaches that combine DNA sequence with

other types of information such as the anatomy of living and fossil species are proving very informative. However, because of the mathematical difficulty inherent in

calculating phylogenetic trees, our ability to understand data lags far behind our

ability to produce raw data.

A common theoretical problem in biology is the accommodation of diverse kinds

of information and their ability to jointly support notions of evolutionary relationships. For example, several studies focus on the integration of data from adult anatomy with molecular information. How are such diverse kinds of information combined? Furthermore, how can the information presented by the fossil record help

distinguish among hypotheses derived from molecular evidence? We have addressed

these issues through new ways of describing characters (DNA or any feature of an

organism) mathematically and linking them through novel means of phylogenetictree reconstruction. These methods are general and useful, but require immense

computational attention, necessitating the development of new parallel algorithms

in order to examine these procedures and questions.

In addition to building biological expertise at the level of the molecule and organism, researchers at the Museum have been studying the mathematical and algorithmic complexities of phylogenetic analysis in great depth over the last 20 years.

By expanding the parallel-processing cluster, we plan to develop and explore new

approaches to making sense of the large and diverse datasets necessary to appreciate organismal diversity. The Museum has made software available to the research community free of charge and will continue to do so. Furthermore the Museum serves as a center for training and symposia on evolutionary theory.

We are seeking, therefore, a fiscal year 2000 DOE investment of $2 million to support genomic research and related facility and instrumentation needs including a

super cold storage facility, DNA sequencing and computational equipment, and related educational materials.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE L. MAUDERLY, SENIOR SCIENTIST AND DIRECTOR OF

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, THE LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

It is proposed that the Department of Energy negotiate with the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute to establish a long-term agreement for operation of the

privatized, government-owned Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute facility on

Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, NM.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Beginning in fiscal year 1997, the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute joined

DOE in a pioneering effort to privatize the operation of a small DOE research laboratory, the Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute in Albuquerque, NM. The facility was leased to Lovelace for a five-year period, allowing Lovelace to diversify

and build federal and non-federal support for research in the facility, thereby preserving it as a national research resource, offsetting the economic impact of declining DOE funding and potential closure, and mitigating DOE’s liability for decommissioning the facility. Lovelace continues DOE work under a cooperative agreement,

and pays use fees for non-DOE work at the facility.

Lovelace committed its resources to the success of the venture. It focused its corporate mission, out-placed peripheral activities, reorganized and consolidated its administrative and scientific activities, renovated portions of the facility at its own expense, developed an aggressive marketing program, diversified its customer base,

and spearheaded a community technology incubator program which uses a portion

of the facility.
797

The privatization has been successful.—Research support for activities in the facility has increased. Research support has been diversified, and major new programs

have been initiated for both federal and non-federal customers. To date, $359 thousand in use fees were collected. Many companies have been served by the incubator.

Hundreds of direct jobs have been saved and many more indirect jobs are supported

by the effort.

The privatization is at a critical point, and the future disposition of the facility

must be resolved quickly or the effort will fail.—Now, in the third year of the initial

five-year agreement and with no resolution of longer-term use, Lovelace is prevented from establishing long-term research agreements for either federal or nonfederal clients. DOE’s Albuquerque Operations Office recently provided Lovelace

with a draft agreement which would extend the lease for a total of up to 10 years.

Lovelace urgently seeks an arrangement that provides a longer-term operating horizon and allows use fees to be used for facility maintenance.

BACKGROUND OF THE PRIVATIZATION

The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) is an independent, non-profit

biomedical research organization located in Albuquerque, NM and dedicated to the

prevention, treatment, and cure of respiratory disease. LRRI conducts basic and applied research for government, industry, health advocacy organizations, and the

public. Beginning with a 1960 contract with the Atomic Energy Commission,

Lovelace developed and managed the government-owned laboratory which became

the DOE-owned Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute (ITRI), a one-of-a-kind

international center of excellence for basic and applied research on respiratory disease, respiratory toxicology and environmental lung health risks. DOE work at ITRI

was funded primarily by the Office of Energy Research (ER), with lesser levels of

funding from the Offices of Defense Programs and Environment, Safety, and Health.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the decline in DOE/ER priorities for research on health outcomes resulted in the closure of many of the Agency’s laboratory-based biology programs, with the exception of those closely related to the

human genome and nuclear medicine. Declining funding threatened the continued

existence of the ITRI facility, and its operation as a special purpose DOE laboratory

prevented Lovelace from replacing declining DOE funds by responding to other federal and non-federal research customers in a competitive manner. Recognizing the

value of ITRI as a national research resource, Lovelace negotiated an agreement

with DOE to privatize the facility on a five-year trial basis.

LRRI leases the ITRI facility from the government through DOE as the landlord

agency. The term of the present lease is five years, the first year being fiscal year

1997. The lease allows use and sublease of the facility for purposes generally consistent with past uses. Under the lease payment is made to the U.S. Treasury at

the rate of 3.53 percent of gross revenues from non-DOE sources, excluding support

from LRRI’s own endowment. Under the cooperative agreement, a fee of 3.45 percent of the total value of grants and contracts is assessed for use of governmentowned equipment in work for non-federal customers. Equipment fee revenues may

be used at ITRI as DOE program funds as specified in 10 CFR 600. The lease

clauses included DOE support for facility repair or replacement costs over $25,000.

To terminate work under the previous Management and Operating contract, DOE

agreed to pay costs incurred by reductions in workforce necessitated by the loss of

DOE funding and not offset by new business.

Upon privatization, DOE work by Lovelace in the leased ITRI facility continued

under a five-year cooperative agreement, with total funding projected to decline progressively from approximately $13 million in fiscal year 1997 to $4 million in fiscal

year 2001. LRRI accepted the considerable challenge of developing new research and

business activities that, at minimum, must offset the progressive loss of DOE support.

Lovelace committed its organization to the privatization effort

Enabled by the privatization of the ITRI facility, LRRI consolidated its multiple

research and administrative operations into a single organization. The Institute

then embarked on a rapid transformation that purposefully linked the future of the

organization to its success in privatizing the ITRI facility. It recruited a new President/CEO oriented toward development of research business, narrowed its scientific

focus to respiratory disease, out-placed research programs not aligned with this

focus, combined and reduced the total size of administrative functions, shifted from

a local to a national Board of Directors, implemented a multifaceted marketing program, consolidated its laboratory staff in the ITRI facility, undertook (at its own expense) several facility renovations, and subleased excess portions of both LRRIowned and ITRI facilities.
798

THE PRIVATIZATION HAS CLEARLY BEEN SUCCESSFUL

The research conducted in the facility has grown and diversified

From fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1999 (to date), LRRI has increased its annual

non-clinical research business from approximately $17 million to approximately $21

million. This increase has been attended by a considerable diversification of funding

for work in the ITRI facility. In fiscal year 1996, before privatization, 71 percent

of the work in the facility was supported by DOE, 12 percent by NIH, 9 percent

by other federal agencies, and 8 percent by non-federal customers. In fiscal year

1999 (to date), only 31 percent of the work in the facility is funded by DOE, 16 percent by EPA, 10 percent by NIH, 10 percent by DOD, and 33 percent by non-federal

sources. A total of $359 thousand in facility and equipment use fees has been collected from non-DOE clients to date.

LRRI’s success has supported the local economy through the retention of approximately 200 jobs directly within the Institute, which translates into approximately

1000 total jobs, most of which are in the local community.

NEW FEDERAL RESEARCH INITIATIVES DEPEND ON CONTINUED USE OF THE FACILITY

DOE has a continuing need for the facility

It is clear that DOE itself has continuing need for the capabilities offered by LRRI

and the ITRI facility. During fiscal year 1999, DOE is funding approximately $700

thousand in new work obtained through competitive grants programs from various

offices, and this work is intended to continue in future years. The Office of Heavy

Vehicle Technologies has established a growing environment, safety, and health program concerning engine emissions, and LRRI is a major participant in this program.

Indeed, the funding for LRRI work on engine emissions, made possible by the

unique ITRI facility, nearly tripled from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1999, and

is envisioned to continue for several years.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS A CONTINUING NEED FOR THE FACILITY

In fiscal year 1998, congress established the National Environmental Respiratory

Center through the EPA appropriation as a multi-year research program to address

the growing crisis of apportioning adverse health effects of environmental air pollution among the many constituents of air pollution mixtures. This program, developed by LRRI at the ITRI facility and unlike any other air pollution research effort

in the nation, is essential to providing a foundation for the air pollution regulatory

framework of the future. The work was made possible by the unique capabilities of

the ITRI facility for creating in the laboratory complex mixtures of man-made and

natural air contaminants, and conducting laboratory assays of the health effects of

the mixtures. This body of research will be jointly funded by EPA, other federal

agencies, states, and industry, and is intended to continue at a level of approximately $4 million/yr for at least six more years. In addition to the Center, EPA has

funded several new projects at LRRI in response to competitive solicitations for

work on airborne toxic materials and environmental lung disease.

The Department of Defense has a continuing need for the facility

As described above, research funding from DOD has grown, and the Agency clearly has a continuing need for the capabilities Lovelace offers at the ITRI facility. Recent examples are studies to resolve Gulf War Illness issues, the cancer hazards of

depleted uranium fragments retained deep in tissue, and the detection of airborne

biological agents.

The ITRI facility is slated to play an increasing role in the development of new

technologies to detect and mitigate chemical, biological, and radiological threats of

both military and domestic importance. Based in part on the unique capabilities of

the ITRI facility for working safely with very hazardous agents and creating

atmospheres of airborne agents, a new working alliance has formed among LRRI,

Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratories, and the University of New Mexico. This new Research Alliance for Health and National Security

will pool intellectual and technical resources to develop new technologies to detect

and reduce threats, protect personnel, and stage and treat victims. Although each

member organization brings special capabilities to the Alliance, the continued existence of LRRI’s capabilities at the ITRI facility are central to the work plan.

The National Institutes of Health has a continuing need for the facility

NIH (NHLBI, NIEHS, NCI) continues to fund research utilizing the ITRI facility.

One example is the multi-year Special Center of Research Excellence (SCORE)

grant awarded jointly to the University of New Mexico and LRRI to conduct re-
799

search on the causes of the continual increase in childhood asthma. Part of this

work requires the specialized capabilities of ITRI to generate atmospheres of tobacco

smoke and other air pollutant mixtures to determine their role in the development

of asthma. NIEHS recently awarded a developmental center grant to the University

of New Mexico, and a portion of the research requires the environmental research

capabilities of the ITRI facility. There have been discussions with the Director of

NIEHS regarding the potential use of the ITRI facility in a more direct manner to

support the Agency’s inhalation toxicology needs.

The facility is also being used to support a growing technology business incubator

LRRI is playing a key role in an effort involving other community groups to develop a technology business incubator program. The Business Technology Group

(BTG) was formed in the fall of 1997 by LRRI, Sandia National Laboratories, the

Albuquerque and Hispano Chambers of Commerce, the Albuquerque Department of

Economic Development, Technology Ventures Corporation, the Center for Entrepreneurship, the University of New Mexico, and several private companies. Local incubator space was consolidated under the BTG, an Executive Committee was formed

to direct operations, and an Evaluation Committee was formed to evaluate potential

incubatees. LRRI provides a portion of the incubator space through subleases of the

ITRI facility, and provides a wide range of administrative, scientific, and technical

support services to the occupants.

After only one year of operation, 41 new companies have already been served by

this incubator, providing numerous jobs in the community, and several additional

companies are either in negotiations with BTG or have expressed interest.

There is an urgent need to resolve the long-term future of the facility

Both DOE and LRRI can take satisfaction in the clear success of the exploratory

privatization effort to date. The success of this effort provides a unique demonstration that it is possible to privatize government-owned research facilities and at the

same time enhance their value as a national resource.

It is now critical to build on this success by developing a long-term plan for the

use and maintenance of the facility. LRRI and the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office are currently negotiating an extension of the lease, but this is not an adequate

long-term solution. For example, even a revolving five-year lease would only permit

LRRI to compete for multi-year projects during the first two of each five years, an

arrangement which would ensure failure. It is important to note that this limitation

is troublesome for both federal and non-federal customers, who have demonstrated

their interest in maintaining programs in the facility, as well as for LRRI, which

has structured its organization around the effort.

There are several alternative possibilities for resolving this issue. For example, a

longer-term (eg, 10 year) agreement with negotiation on future use beginning at the

mid-point (eg, at five years) would be a step in the right direction. On the other

end of the spectrum, it may be possible to convey ownership of the facility to LRRI

or a community group. LRRI is open to discussing any possibility, including those

that might require a legislative mandate.

It is important to recognize that a long-term use arrangement can not succeed

without provision for investment in the maintenance of the structures, heating and

cooling equipment, etc. that are essential to the usefulness of the facility. The Agency would incur a considerable cost to decommission the facility if it were abandoned.

It may be cost-effective for the Agency to mitigate or delay this cost may be offset

by a modest investment in the facility. At a minimum, the use fees collected from

non-DOE research sponsors should be used for this purpose.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID E. BALDWIN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL

ATOMICS, ET AL.

Chairman Domenici, Senator Reid and Members of the Subcommittee, we are

very pleased to submit this statement on the status of the fusion energy sciences

program. We each believe that the nation’s fusion research program is experiencing

the most exciting and important new developments in a long time. We want to tell

you about some of those changes and our developing plan for the future of fusion

energy research.

Fusion is a scientific and technological grand challenge. It has required the development of the entire field of high-temperature plasma physics, a field of science that

contributes to the description of some 99 percent of the visible universe. Plasma

physics also provides cross-cutting insights to related fields such as nonlinear mechanics, atomic physics, and fluid turbulence. Quality science has always been the

key to optimizing fusion systems. Throughout the history of fusion energy research,
800

the combination of exciting, challenging science and the lofty energy goal has attracted gifted young people into fusion research, many of whom have gone on to

make important contributions in related scientific fields and in the commercial technology arena.

The DOE Fusion Energy Sciences program is exploring multiple paths for optimizing the fusion systems, taking advantage of both the strong international program in magnetic fusion energy and the strong DOE Defense Programs effort in inertial confinement fusion. As in other fields, the advancement of plasma science and

technology requires facilities in a range of sizes, from the largest devices that press

the frontier of high-temperature plasmas to smaller experiments suitable to begin

the exploration of innovative ideas for fusion optimization. The very largest facilities

may require international collaboration while the smallest are natural for university-scale investigation. Specific questions of plasma science and fusion technology

set both the required number and the required scale of the experimental facilities

in the program.

FUSION APPROACHES AND ISSUES

There are two principal approaches to creating practical fusion energy: magnetic

fusion energy (MFE) and inertial fusion energy (IFE). Scientific progress in both of

areas has been profound over the past decade. For both MFE and IFE, there is little

question that the generation of copious fusion energy in the laboratory is scientifically and technically achievable. Fusion energy production of over 20 MJ per pulse

has already been achieved in MFE and is anticipated for IFE in NIF in 2008. The

challenge to fusion researchers now is to make fusion power practical, affordable,

and attractive. Each approach to fusion has a different mix of technical attributes.

As it is presently unclear which approach will ultimately prove the most meritorious, a prudent fusion development strategy is one which retains breadth and

well as depth in its scope and has a process for advancement of the most attractive

concepts and elimination of noncompetitive approaches.

Issues unique to MFE include (1) maximizing the pressure of the plasma that can

be held by the confining magnetic field; (2) minimizing the transport loss of heat

from the plasma; (3) achieving stable, steady-state operation in self-heated, burning

plasmas; and (4) controlling of the plasma edge including exhaust of the fusion ash,

which is helium. Issues unique to IFE include (1) completing the target physics program as part of the DOE DP Stockpile Stewardship Program; (2) developing an efficient, rep-rated driver for target compression; (3) developing low-cost methods for

target fabrication, injection and tracking; and (4) developing chamber concepts capable of containing repeated micro-explosions over long periods. Issues in common include production of the tritium fuel, reduction of activation of the confining structure, and efficient conversion of neutron energy produced to electricity.

RECENT CHANGES IN U.S. FUSION RESEARCH

As Members of this Subcommittee are well aware, the fusion energy sciences program has been through a number of very significant changes over the past few

years. These changes have included substantial cuts to the program budget (nearly

40 percent between fiscal year 1996 and today) and the resulting termination of one

major and several minor experiments, an increased emphasis on scientific understanding and innovative alternative approaches to fusion energy development, and

the withdrawal of U.S. participation in the design of a major international fusion

collaboration.

One of the more significant recent developments to occur in the fusion program

has been the closer alliance between inertial confinement fusion scientists and magnetic fusion energy scientists. As you are aware, the development of inertial confinement fusion has been pursued primarily as a means of providing insight into the

physics of nuclear weapons and for maintaining the reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile. While some work on inertial fusion energy development is funded

through the fusion energy sciences budget, most of that budget is focused on the

development of magnetic fusion energy and science.

Recently however, scientific and technological progress in inertial fusion has led

to increased confidence that inertial confinement may present another potentially

attractive path to fusion energy. So, somewhat over a year ago, in response to this

progress and to guidance from your Subcommittee, intensive discussions began between the leadership of the magnetic and inertial confinement fusion communities.

Those discussions and the strengthening bond between the magnetic and inertial

fusion communities has resulted in a new proposal or roadmap for the management

of our nation’s fusion energy research.
801

A PORTFOLIO-BASED ROADMAP FOR FUSION ENERGY R&D

The ultimate goal of fusion research is the creation of a nearly ideal energy source

for future generations: one that is safe, inexhaustible, without harmful atmospheric

emissions, and that has a fuel source readily available to all nations. After decades

of R&D and many advances, the promise of fusion energy remains bright. Significant challenges, however, remain to fulfill this promise. In the nearer term, fusion

research yields rich benefits in fundamental science and practical technology.

Within the fusion community, we are in the process of developing a portfoliobased roadmap for the future of U.S. fusion research that we believe to be responsive to this subcommittee’s directions.

The central element of the roadmap is the exploration of a portfolio of promising

ideas for improved fusion concepts, including improvements to the leading tokamak

concept. This effort builds on the major advances in the knowledge of fusion physics,

gained particularly over the last decade, coupled with greatly improved methods for

measurement of critically important local plasma parameters. Promising ideas can

be more readily identified in both MFE and IFE based on new understanding in

areas like plasma turbulence, nonlinear instabilities, particle and radiation transport, MHD stability, wave-particle interactions, and the plasma/material interface.

This naturally leads to the use of a ‘‘portfolio’’ approach. In order to provide a framework to assess the relative level of development among the different fusion concepts

being pursued within MFE and IFE and to permit the application of appropriate

objectives and criteria for success within the fusion portfolio, concepts are expected

to advance through a series of distinct stages of experimental development. The lowest stage is identified as ‘‘Concept Exploration’’, then ‘‘Proof of Principle’’, followed

by ‘‘Performance Extension.’’ Success in these stages then should lead to the technical and scientific basis for making a decision to advance the concept to a stage

of ‘‘Fusion Energy Development,’’ and ultimately to a fusion demonstration power

plant.

This development roadmap is optimized to provide the most cost-effective route

to the knowledge base for practical fusion power. At all times it balances the risk

of innovative new ideas, pursued initially at low cost, with the scientific productivity

of well established concepts, pursued in more powerful and expensive devices. An

important aspect of this portfolio-management approach is that there is strong scientific synergy across the elements of the portfolio, and indeed scientific advances

made in one concept are readily translated to others. The breadth of the portfolio

assures that attractive opportunities are not missed, and roadblocks are not likely

to span all approaches. It also broadens the arena of spin-offs from fusion research

to other areas of U.S. science and technology.

FUSION FUNDING NEEDS

In developing this plan or roadmap for fusion research, we are trying to be responsive to both Congress’s expressed concerns and to the long-term energy needs

of the nation. The program seeks to broaden fusion research with a central theme

of optimizing the fusion power source through application of the underlying science.

However, this is necessarily a broader fusion program whose goals cannot be met

at the current level of funding ($223 million in fiscal year 1999), and the fusion

budget must be increased to $300 million per year in the near term. While still well

below the funding of only a few years ago, this funding level will support a considerably broadened program in both MFE and IFE, enable initiatives like the new laser

fusion initiative, allow for greater utilization of existing experimental facilities, ensure that potentially viable paths to fusion are not overlooked, and ensure continued

measurable and substantial progress towards the ultimate goal of practical fusion

energy.

—Within MFE, there are today compelling and peer-reviewed near-term opportunities for investment in innovative confinement experiments (at a range of

scales), new tools for the U.S. tokamak facilities to address advanced-tokamak

issues and collaboration on the most powerful experimental facilities overseas.

These investments will enable a broad, coordinated attack on key scientific and

technical issues associated with the optimization of magnetic confinement systems and the achievement of the most attractive power plant concept.

—Within IFE, exciting opportunities exist in parallel with the construction and

operation of NIF, to demonstrate the principles for a range of potentially attractive drivers for repetitively imploding fusion targets (including both ion beams

and lasers), to address associated fusion target chamber technologies, and to examine techniques for the mass manufacture of precision targets. New innovative driver and target concepts are also being developed, providing opportunities

for new science and a potentially more attractive ultimate power plant.
802

—In support of both areas there are opportunities in technology development, advanced simulation, and basic plasma science and technology.

We recognize, however, that funding increases this year may be heavily constrained. In this event, to begin to broaden the fusion research agenda in fiscal year

2000, an appropriate level of support for the Fusion Energy Sciences program would

be $260 million, including the $10 million needed to begin decommissioning of the

DOE TFTR device at Princeton. This level would permit a start on the expanded

IFE program and on important MFE opportunities which cannot be addressed at the

current level.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNNE P. BROWN, PH.D., ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR

GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS, CENTER FOR COGNITION, LEARNING, EMOTION AND MEMORY, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

Research into cognition, learning, emotion, and memory can help educators, physicians, and other health care givers, policymakers, and the general public by enhancing our understanding of normal brain development as well as the many disabilities,

disorders, and diseases that erode our ability to learn and think, to remember, and

to emote appropriately. New York University is seeking $10.5 million over five years to establish at its

Washington Square campus a Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion and Memory.

The program will draw on existing research strengths in the fields of neural science,

biology and chemistry, psychology, computer science, and linguistics to push the

frontiers of our understanding of how the brain functions, and how we learn.

Such exploration into the fundamental neurobiological mechanisms of the nervous

system has broad implications for human behavior and decision making as well as

direct applicability to early childhood development, language acquisition, teaching

methods, computer science and technology development for education, the diagnosis

and treatment of mental and memory disorders, and specialized training for stressful occupation.

COGNITION, LEARNING, EMOTION AND MEMORY STUDIES AT NYU (CLEM)

New York University is poised to become a premier center for biological studies

of the acquisition, storage, processing and retrieval of information in the nervous

system.

To be housed at NYU’s Washington Square Campus within the Center for Neural

Science, the new Center will capitalize on the university’s expertise in a wide range

of related fields that encompass our computer scientists who use MRI imaging for

research into normal and pathological mental processes in humans, our vision scientists who are exploring the input of vision to learning and memory, our physical

scientists producing magnetic measurements of brain function with a focus on the

decay of memories, our linguists studying the relation of language and the mind,

and our psychiatrists conducting clinical studies of patients with nervous system

disorders.

The New York University Program in Cognition, Learning, Emotion and Memory

(CLEM) focuses on research and training in the fundamental neurobiological mechanisms that underlie learning and memory—the acquisition and storage of information in the nervous system. Current studies by the faculty at NYU are determining

why fear can facilitate memory; how memory can be enhanced; what conditions facilitate long-term and short-term memory; and where in the brain all these memories are processed and stored. The research capacity of this Center capitalizes on

our expertise in physiology, neuroanatomy, and behavioral studies, and builds on active studies that range from the mental coding and representation of memory to the

molecular foundations of the neural processes underlying emotional memories. Our

faculty use electrophysiological and neuroanatomical techniques to study the organization of memory in the medial temporal lobe. Together these researchers bring substantial strength in psychological testing, computational sophistication, advanced

tissues staining and electrical probes, and humane animal conditioning.

These core faculty are well recognized by their peers and have a solid track record

of sustained research funding from federal agencies and private foundations: total

costs awarded and committed for their research for full project periods from all

sources presently total $7 million. Additional faculty are being recruited in areas of

specialization that include: the cellular and molecular mechanisms operative in neural systems that make emotional memory possible, neurophysiological studies of

memory in non-human primates, computational modeling of memory, and neuropsychological and imaging research on normal and pathological human memory.
803

Colleagues in the Biology Department are doing related work in the molecular

basis of development and learning. Given the important input of vision to learning

and memory, the Center has strong links with the many vision scientists based in

the Psychology Department who work on directly related topics that include form,

color, and depth perception, memory and psycholinguistics. Colleagues in behavioral

science study learning and motivation, memory and aging. Physical scientists explore the magnetic measurement of brain function, with a focus on the decay of

memories. CLEM also shares research interests with colleagues in the Linguistics

Department, who study the relation of language and the mind.

Research linkages extend to computational vision studies, now centered in NYU’s

Sloan Program in Theoretical Neurobiology. The Sloan Program works closely with

computer scientists at our Courant Institute on Mathematical Science, with colleagues at the Medical Center in Psychiatry, who use MRI imaging for research into

normal and pathological mental processes in humans, and in Neurobiology, who are

conducting clinical studies of patients with nervous disorders, especially memory

disorders.

What is unique and exciting about the establishment of such a comprehensive

center at NYU is the opportunity to tap into and coordinate this rich multidisciplinary array of talent to conduct pioneering research into how the brain works. In

this, the ‘‘Decade of the Brain,’’ NYU is strategically positioned to be a leader.

EARLY CHILDHOOD AND EDUCATION

Research into the learning process as it relates to attention and retention clearly

holds important implications for early childhood development. Although most of a

person’s brain development is completed by birth, the first few years of life are critically important in spurring intellectual development. For example, research has already shown that in their early years, children need human stimulation, such as

playing and talking, to develop the ability to learn.

With more immigrant children in schools, language development is another crucial area of study. If a child’s brain were more receptive to acquiring sounds during

the first few months of life, and language in the first few years of life, then students

may learn a second language more quickly if taught in the lower grades instead of

waiting for high school.

In the midst of a national debate on education reform, thousands of education innovations are being considered without the advantage of a fundamental understanding of the learning process. CLEM researchers, coupled with educational psychologists, can contribute to a better understanding of how parents can stimulate

their children’s cognitive growth, how children learn at different stages and use different styles, how educators can accommodate those styles, and how educational

technology can be harnessed to increase retention and memory.

At NYU, these efforts will be enhanced by our scholars and research conducted

in our School of Education and our New York State-supported Center for Advanced

Technology.

COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

As we refine our knowledge of how the brain acquires, processes, retains and retrieves information and images, we will also be able to improve the design, development and utilization of computer science and technology. As we reach a better understanding of how children learn, we can more effectively harness computer technology in the service of education.

At NYU, this effort is enhanced by the presence of our New York State-supported

Center for Digital Multimedia, Publishing and Education, which brings together

educators, laboratory scientists and software designers who explore how interactive

multimedia technologies enhance learning and develop prototype teaching models.

SPECIALIZED TRAINING

Research into how cognition and emotion interact can have applicability to other

diverse areas of interest including retraining of adult workers, job performance and

specialized training for high risk or stressful jobs such as military service and emergency rescue work.

Accordingly, we believe that the work of this Center is an appropriate focus for

the Department of Energy, given the Department’s long-term involvement and investment in computer science technology through its Basic Energy Sciences program. The focus of the NYU Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion and Memory

is entirely consistent with the Department’s commitment both to the Basic Energy

Sciences, including computer science, and to its commitment to Biological and Environmental Research. We have demonstrated how scientists from a broad range of
804

biological sciences are working together with leading mathematics and computer

science researchers to achieve a better understanding of how the brain functions

and how we learn. The Department’s commitment to education and to science will

be well served through this partnership.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KERRY L. SUBLETTE, SARKEYS PROFESSOR OF

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF TULSA

It is proposed that the U.S. Department of Energy support a focused, universitybased program, the Integrated Public/Private Energy & Environmental Consortium

(IPEC), with the goal of increasing the competitiveness of the domestic energy industry through a reduction in the cost of compliance with U.S. environmental regulations. Federal support is specifically requested as part of the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for the Department of Energy through the Biological and Environmental

Research account or other source the Subcommittee may determine to be appropriate.

Last year the Congress provided $1.5 million in funding for the Integrated Public/

Private Energy & Environmental Consortium (IPEC) (formerly the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium) in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill for the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specially this funding was provided for the

development of cost-effective environmental technology, improved business practices,

and technology transfer for the domestic energy industry. With initial funding under

the Science and Technology account of EPA, IPEC will implement a comprehensive

mechanism (Center) to advance the consortium’s research expertise in environmental technology. The consortium includes the University of Tulsa, the University

of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the University of Arkansas.

IPEC’s operating practices and linkages to the independent sector will ensure that

real problems in the domestic energy industry are addressed with real, workable solutions. Indeed this Subcommittee highlighted and supported these efforts by including strong support language in the committee report. We thank you for your support

and would also like to express our appreciation to those members and their staff

who provided valuable advice and guidance during the last session of Congress. As

envisioned and proposed by the consortium, State-level matching funds have been

pledged to support IPEC, creating a true Federal-State partnership in this critical

area.

IPEC officers have met with the Director of the Environmental Engineering Research Division of the EPA National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance. The Consortium is working with EPA to ensure that we meet the

agency’s requirements for funding as a research center and the successful funding

of IPEC.

IPEC is proceeding in its solicitation and review process so that we will be in a

position to fund projects as soon as possible. The IPEC Industrial Advisory Board

(IAB) has been formed and met for the first time on January 20, 1998. This twentymember Board is composed of environmental professionals from the domestic energy

industry and is dominated by representatives of independent producers. We are

pleased to report that IPEC’s Industrial Advisory Board has approved five programs

for funding and more are expected in the coming months. These five projects include

the following:

(1) Intrinsic bioremediation of whole gasoline.—This project seeks to develop a scientific basis for a risked-based approach to management of sites contaminated with

gasoline. The project will investigate the mechanism and rate of the natural attenuation of gasoline via biodegradation by microorganisms which occur naturally in soil

(termed intrinsic bioremediation). If all of the regulated components of gasoline can

be naturally biodegraded, then contaminated sites which pose no immediate threat

to human health or environmental receptors can be given a low priority for active

intervention freeing precious resources to be allocated to sites where the threat is

more acute.

(2) Microflora involved in phytoremediation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons.—

Phytoremediation is the term applied to the use of plants and microorganisms that

thrive in the plant’s root zone to biodegrade soil pollutants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are a major class of recalcitrant pollutants and are a significant byproduct of petroleum processing and refining. PAHs are concentrated in

food chains, are toxic, and some are recognized mutagens and carcinogens. This

project will determine the feasibility of using plants to degrade these PAHs in contaminated soil by creating a ‘‘living cap’’ of plants and associated microorganisms

over contaminated sites. The costs of such waste treatment are far below those re-
805

quired for conventional treatment such as excavation and incineration of contaminated soil.

(3) Passive sampling devices (PSDs) for bioavailability screening of soils containing petrochemicals.—The concept of a risk-based corrective action applied to the

management of contaminated soil or groundwater requires that a regulator assess

human risk. Soil contaminants can be detected by chemical analysis, but this provides little information on the actual hazard presented to ecological and human receptors. In some cases, contaminant levels above current soil quality guideline levels

exists, but not toxicity. In other cases, chemical levels are below soil quality guidelines, yet toxicity persists. This project seeks to develop a rapid, cost effective

screening tool or passive sampling device (PSD) to determine the actual toxicity of

contaminants in soil and their bioremediation potential. Use of such a device to determine the actual risks to human health presented by a site and its amenability

to bioremediation would allow regulators to better prioritize contaminated sites

needing immediate remedial action.

(4) Using plants to remediate petroleum-contaminated soil.—This project also proposes to use plants and associated microorganisms in the plants root zone to effect

the remediation of soil contaminants. This project specifically seeks to conduct field

studies to develop protocols suitable for phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated secondary containment berms. These earthen berms are designed to contain

fluids in the event of a major spill or leak in a tank. Many of these berms become

contaminated with oil through leaks, spills, and normal transfer operations. This

project envisions the continuous cultivation of suitable plants on these berms to

keep oil contamination under control.

(5) Probabilistic risk assessment of petroleum contamination using detailed physical models.—Like all human endeavors the exploration and production (E&P) of oil

and gas has associated with it some risk of damage to human or environmental

health. Response to this risk can be reactive or proactive. The latter is of course

preferred since proactive management prevents environmental damage and injury

and is less costly. This project will develop a proactive risk management program

for E&P operations to minimize the potential for environmental damage. This riskbased approach makes resource allocation more effective based on the probability

that a scenario will occur and the potential severity of the associated damage.

Proactive risk management in the domestic petroleum industry has the potential for

both significant cost savings and enhanced environmental protection.

The use of the Industrial Advisory Board to measure the relevancy of research

within the Consortium is truly unique and ensures that the Consortium is meeting

the needs of the domestic energy industry. IPEC has secured significant matching

funds from industry for these first five programs. The combined funding request for

these five projects is $492,000; however, the investigators have secured another

$502,000 in matching funds from industry for these projects from individual companies and industry organizations such as the Gas Research Institute, the American

Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum. IPEC is

well on its way to becoming a true public/private partnership.

As we have previously testified, the ability of small and medium sized producers

to compete in a global market is complicated by two factors: the cost of regulatory

compliance and the declining cost of crude oil. With your help IPEC is developing

cost-effective solutions for the environmental problems that represent the greatest

challenge to the competitiveness of the domestic energy industry. However, the fiscal year 1999 appropriation is only a beginning. For example, the IPEC Industrial

Advisory Board has identified 26 critical research needs. With the current funding

we can begin to address only a fraction of these needs. There is much work to be

done and we respectfully request that the Subcommittee provide $4 million in funding for IPEC in fiscal year 2000.

THE CONTINUING CRISES IN THE DOMESTIC ENERGY INDUSTRY

The crisis in the domestic energy industry that we described in testimony in the

last session of Congress has only gotten worse as the price of crude oil continues

to fall to below $13 per barrel. The independent producers are producing from mature fields left behind by the majors. Although there is a significant resource base

in the fields this is the most difficult and the most costly oil to produce. The independent producer has only one source of revenue—the sale of oil and gas. There is

no vertical depth to his business. With the price of oil this low the independent producer is extremely vulnerable to the costs of environmental compliance. This latest

drop in oil prices will no doubt result in another wave of business closures, plugged

and abandoned wells, and reduced new well completions. The problem is so acute

that the Governor of Oklahoma has recently formed an emergency task force to de-
806

termine what the state can do to help Oklahoma producers survive the current

plunge in prices. A similar price crash in the 1980s triggered a prolonged statewide

recession. Clearly this trend is not in the best interest of the U.S. in terms of energy

self-sufficiency or national security. We are turning over control of our cost of production in terms of energy costs to foreign interests. If domestic exploration and production and refining are to continue to play a strategic role in meeting U.S. energy

needs, the domestic petroleum producer will continue to require access to cost-effective technology for pollution prevention, waste treatment and remediation in exploration and production (E&P) and refining.

IPEC’S RESPONSE TO CRITICAL RESEARCH NEEDS

IPEC will continue to work with the domestic energy industry to provide solutions

to those environmental problems that represent the greatest challenge to the competitiveness of the industry. Specifically in fiscal year 2000 IPEC will continue to

work with our Industrial Advisory Board to address the remaining critical research

needs they have identified as well as address new needs that develop. These research needs include the following:

(1) Bioremediation and other remediation technologies.—Reducing toxicity of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils; development of rapid, on-site remediation technologies; control of salt migration in the subsurface; developing methodologies for

phytoremediation.

(2) Risk Assessment.—Development of cost-effective ecological risk assessment

methods for petroleum impacted sites; development of cost-effective and relevant

terrestrial (animal/plant) bioassays for use in ecological risk/impact assessment; development of field methods for ecological risk assessment; development of methods

to evaluate actual and future environmental risk of petroleum impacted soils; determining the correlation between ecological risk assessment and human health risk

assessment; determining the impact of intrinsic bioremediation on risk-based closures; development of risk-based guidelines for handling, disposal and storage of

NORM-contaminated solids, pipe, and equipment.

(3) Measurement Technology.—Development of cost-effective methods (direct and

indirect) for measuring the amount and extent of petroleum hydrocarbon sources in

unsaturated and saturated soils; development of useful and easy to implement field

and analytical methods and protocols for demonstrating intrinsic bioremediation;

validating current models for predicting flash emissions of hydrocarbons in E&P operations.

(4) Process Technologies.—Control or treatment of flash gas emissions from stock

tanks; use, treatment or disposal of oil tank bottoms; development of cost-effective

methods for capture, recycling/destruction of volatile organic compound emissions

from hydrocarbon processing and storage tanks; development of improved water

treatment methods—particularly those methods; development of methods to for

treatment of hydrogen sulfide in the reservoir.

(5) Management and Decision Tools.—Development of methods to predict plume

migration of salt water from pits; development of methods to calculate the full life

cycle cost of material and waste handling in the petroleum industry; development

of proper pit closure methods using a clay or compacted soil cap; development of improved methods for disposal of drilling wastes; development of methods to distinguish between historical oil field pollution and recent, current and/or ongoing pollution.

In addition to working with our Industrial Advisory Board, IPEC will continue in

fiscal year 2000 to build linkages with organizations which provide services to the

domestic energy industry. As IPEC begins to fund technology development projects

the Directors will work with the leadership of these organizations to develop a synergy between their efforts and those of IPEC. These organizations form the IPEC

Affiliates Group and include the National Petroleum Technology Office (NPTO) of

the U.S. Department of Energy, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

(IOGCC), the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB), the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association

(OIPA), the Gas Research Institute (GRI), the Office of the Oklahoma Secretary of

Energy, the Osage Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Oil Producers

of Arkansas (OPA). Recently, Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma named the

IPEC Director to the Environmental and Safety Committee of the IOGCC.

HOW IPEC’S OBJECTIVES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE MISSION OF THE BIOLOGICAL AND

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

Although IPEC’s close ties to the independent sector of the domestic energy industry have resulted in a strong working relationship with the National Petroleum
807

Technology Office in the Office of Fossil Energy, IPEC continues to have broad applicability across the Department of Energy. Biological treatment of waste materials

and bioremediation of contaminated media such as water, air and soil are widely

recognized as potentially the most cost effective treatment methodologies available

for many types of wastes. Petroleum hydrocarbons are both the most widely distributed class of environmental pollutants and the most amenable to biological treatment. These facts have certainly been recognized by the IPEC Industrial Advisory

Board in that of the five research projects approved thus far by the IAB as relevant

to IPEC’s mission, four concern the use of plants and microbes to treat contaminated soils. Further, of the critical research needs identified by IPEC’s Industrial

Advisory Board fully half concern bioremediation, phytoremediation, ecological risk

assessment, and toxicity issues. These topics are clearly within the mission of the

DOE BER Program.

The mission of the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program under

Environment, Safety and Health is to ‘‘develop the knowledge needed to mitigate

or correct the consequences of energy use while contributing to the education and

training of the scientific work force’’. This is identically the mission of IPEC when

applied to the domestic energy industry. IPEC will use academic scientists and engineers in partnership with industry to develop new, cost-effective technology to solve

environmental problems which are having a major economic impact on the domestic

energy industry. These academic investigators will utilize undergraduate and graduate students in the sciences and engineering in these projects resulting in the

training of new environmental professionals.

An example of an innovative petroleum environmental technology which fulfills

the mission of the BER Program is intrinsic bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Intrinsic bioremediation is the application of indigenous microorganism to

the attenuation of hydrocarbons which contaminate soil and groundwater. It has recently been shown that many petroleum hydrocarbons will be biologically degraded

in soil and groundwater even in the absence of oxygen and without active intervention. These observations suggest that if no environmental receptor (drinking water

aquifer, stream or lake) is immediately threatened, no intervention may be necessary to remediate certain spills. This conserves financial resources for application

to other problems where the actual risks to public health are significant. However,

intrinsic bioremediation is not sufficiently well understood at present to safely make

these types of judgments. A better understanding of the rate and extent of natural

attenuation of petroleum hydrocarbons in the subsurface will require a multi-disciplinary approach analogous to the BER subsurface science program. The response

of ‘‘biological systems to local disturbances resulting from energy-related activities’’

is a key element of both the BER Program and IPEC’s investigations of intrinsic

bioremediation.

IPEC is in the second year of a major three-year effort to address an important

problem in the exploration and production of petroleum and natural gas: the remediation of hydrocarbon-impacted soil and groundwater. The project is funded by the

Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program of DOE ($973,000) with cost

share from Amoco Production Co. Specifically this research is investigating the

mechanisms of the natural biodegradation or intrinsic bioremediation of hydrocarbons in the subsurface with the goal of providing a sound scientific basis to support risk-based regulatory decisions at hydrocarbon-contaminated sites.

FUNDING OF IPEC

IPEC is seeking appropriations of $4 million for fiscal year 2000 and the succeeding fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 through the Department of Energy. The

consortium will be responsible for at least a 50 percent match of federal appropriations with private sector and state support over a four year period. The Consortium

will be subject to annual review to ensure the effective production of data, regulatory assessments, and technology development meeting the stated goals of the

Consortium.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. MCCRORY, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR,

LABORATORY FOR LASER ENERGETICS, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER

SUMMARY AND REQUESTED ACTION

The inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program is a key element in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) to ensure the reliability and credibility of the U. S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The ICF program provides access to high-energy-density physics data important in nuclear weapon de-
808

sign and understanding. In fiscal year 2000 the program will be focused on the use

of available unique laboratory facilities: OMEGA at the University of Rochester’s

Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE), Z at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL),

and the Nike laser at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). Significantly, the discontinuation of a major, older facility, the Nova laser at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in fiscal year 1999, requires the shift of many experiments

conducted by the weapons laboratories to the OMEGA facility at LLE. Experiments

on ICF facilities support the demonstration of thermonuclear ignition and gain on

the National Ignition Facility (NIF) now under construction at LLNL. The facilities

also provide data in support of the nuclear weapons science-based stewardship activities of the Nation.

LLE, a major participant in ICF research since the 1970s, is the only ICF program that has been jointly supported by the Federal government, State government,

industry, utilities, and a university. At relatively small comparative cost, LLE

makes fundamental scientific contributions to the National program and the Laboratory makes available technology to the public and private sectors through interactions with industry and other Federal laboratories. In addition, the Laboratory

trains graduate students with the unique facility. Finally, the Laboratory serves as

a National laser users’ facility benefiting scientists throughout the country. The

OMEGA laser, the highest power ultraviolet fusion laser in the world, will be the

principal laser facility for SSP activities for DOE in fiscal year 2000.

The Laboratory’s primary ICF mission is to validate the direct-drive option for

ICF. OMEGA is also required to meet mission-critical requirements for the indirectdrive ignition plan developed by DOE for the NIF. Without LLE, the DOE schedule

to demonstrate ignition and gain in the laboratory, the objective of the NIF program, cannot be realized. OMEGA with its 60 beams is also used for indirect-drive

experiments in collaboration with the National laboratories for SSP experiments, including classified experiments.

OMEGA is the only facility that can demonstrate the scientific potential of direct

drive to provide a modest-to high-gain energy option for the Nation. ICFAC1 emphasized the priority of conducting cryogenic experiments on OMEGA beginning in fiscal year 1999. OMEGA is, and will continue to be, the principal facility in the National program for ICF-based stockpile stewardship experiments until the NIF is

completed in fiscal year 2004. Beyond 2004, OMEGA will continue to be used when

full NIF energy or capability is not required, particularly since the cost per shot on

OMEGA is considerably less costly than a NIF shot. Additionally, the repetition rate

of OMEGA (one shot per hour) is substantially higher than that planned for NIF

(several shots per day).

To provide the operations support for program deliverables and operation of

OMEGA (for both cryogenic and SSP experiments), and maintain the training programs at Rochester, a total authorization and appropriation of $30,500,000 is requested for the University of Rochester for fiscal year 2000, as contained in the Administration’s budget request for DOE.

BACKGROUND

Thermonuclear fusion is the process by which nuclei of low atomic weights, such

as hydrogen, combine to form higher atomic weight nuclei such as helium. In this

process some of the mass of the original nuclei is lost and transformed to energy

in the form of high-energy particles. Energy from fusion reactions is the most basic

form of energy in the universe; our sun and other stars produce energy by thermonuclear fusion reactions occurring in their interior. Fusion is also the process that

provides the vast destructive power of thermonuclear weapons.

To initiate fusion reactions, the fuel must be heated to tens of millions of degrees.

In ICF the heating and compression of fusion fuel occurs by the action of intense

laser or particle beam drivers. There are two approaches to ICF, direct and indirect

drive: indirect drive involves the conversion of beam energy to x rays to compress

a fuel capsule in an enclosure called a hohlraum; direct drive involves the direct irradiation of a spherical fuel capsule by energy from a laser and may be more efficient energetically than indirect drive. In either approach, if very extreme density

and temperature conditions are produced, it is possible to produce many times more

energy in these fusion reactions than the energy provided by the drivers.

INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION PROGRAM FOCUS

DOE has accepted the recommendations of independent reviews,1 2 and construction of the NIF is in progress. The purpose of the NIF, in its SSP mission, includes

the demonstration of ignition, propagating burn, and modest gain in the laboratory.

The NIF project completion is projected to be 2004. Beginning in fiscal year 2000,
809

while NIF is under construction, OMEGA will be the principal ICF facility used for

nuclear weapons stewardship experiments by LLNL and LANL, and for direct-and

indirect-drive ICF experiments.

LLE is the primary focus in the U. S. for the direct-drive approach to ICF. Direct

drive may ultimately prove to be the best approach to ICF and provide the most

efficient path to a laboratory-scale thermonuclear capability for both energy research and defense technology needs. OMEGA is the only facility that can demonstrate the scientific potential of direct drive to provide modest to high gain on the

NIF.

In addition to the ICF experimental program, LLE is a major participant in NIF

design and construction. At present, LLE is fabricating the large polarizers and

transport mirrors for the NIF, and LLNL has also recently decided to have LLE

coat, assemble, and test the NIF deformable mirrors. LLE is the lead laboratory

working with DOE and the other participants to formulate the plan for the directdrive ignition campaign on the NIF. In collaboration with the other ICF laboratories, LLE is also developing several advanced diagnostics required for NIF experiments (see below).

An extensive collaborative program between LLNL, LANL, and LLE has provided

data on basic physics, beam smoothing, and unstable hydrodynamics using available

lasers. This collaboration on OMEGA includes both nuclear weapons physics experiments and ICF experiments. Physics issues for both ICF and weapons issues for the

SSP fall into five broad categories: irradiation uniformity, laser energy coupling and

transport, laser-plasma interaction physics, hydrodynamic stability, and hot-spot

and main-fuel-layer physics. The OMEGA and NIF programs are complementary.

Figure 1 illustrates the schedule for the glass laser facilities to be used in the National program plan for inertial fusion and shows the phased availability plan for

the NIF.

The figure illustrates how the National program has been structured to provide

a full complement of mature experimental facilities from the present to the future.

With the termination of Nova laser operations in fiscal year 1999, OMEGA becomes

the Nation’s principal facility to continue experimental work during NIF construction. Both LANL and LLNL will continue to use OMEGA for indirect-drive experiments for ICF and SSP experiments for the foreseeable future. Because of the high

interest and utility of the OMEGA facility to the weapons laboratories, DOE’s budget request includes funds for extended operations on OMEGA for SSP experiments.

With its lower per-shot cost compared to NIF, as well as the higher shot-repetition

rate, OMEGA will be a very important supporting facility for experiments and diagnostic development for the NIF after it’s completion in 2004 (see Fig. 1).

THE LLE DIRECT-DRIVE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

The goal of the glass-laser direct-drive target physics program is to evaluate the

performance of fuel capsules near ignition conditions. OMEGA is also the first facility to attempt the fielding of high-fill-pressure cryogenic DT capsules, the basis for

the principal capsule design to be used in the NIF indirect-drive ignition demonstration. In addition to providing data for the NIF, these experiments are required to

validate the direct-drive configuration on the NIF that could result in two to three
810

times higher fusion gains (gain > 50) than those available with the baseline (indirect-drive) NIF design.

An important element of the direct-drive program on OMEGA is to demonstrate

on-target irradiation uniformity of 98 percent to 99 percent. The realization of this

goal is a principal objective for fiscal year 2000. OMEGA is also being used to develop and test diagnostics for NIF. Cryogenic fueling and target experiments on

OMEGA are necessary to demonstrate the likelihood of success of the direct-drive

option of NIF. Additionally, the OMEGA cryogenic system serves as an engineering

test-bed to support NIF cryogenic development. In collaboration with LANL and

General Atomics, the cryogenic capability will be completed in fiscal year 1999 with

the first fully cryogenic capsule experiments planned for OMEGA in fiscal year

2000. The ICFAC 1 recommended in their final report: ‘‘The committee believes that

experiments are essential to assessing real target performance and benchmarking

code calculations. The first opportunity to do such experiments on cryogenic targets

approaching NIF size will be on OMEGA . . . It is very important that this effort

be kept on track with proper priority and not delayed further.’’ 1 A cryogenic capability, advanced diagnostics development (including fusion-product charged-particle

diagnostics, γ-ray detection, and high-dynamic-range optical and x-ray streak cameras), and beam smoothing are all required for the NIF. LLE is the principal National facility to develop these technologies for the program. LLE’s design and testing of two-dimensional smoothing by spectral dispersion and fabrication capabilities

for the large polarizers, transport optics, and deformable mirrors for the NIF are

essential to its completion and success.

LLE provides education and training in the field of ICF and related areas for personnel with expertise in areas of critical National needs. These include theoretical

and experimental plasma physics, laser-matter interaction physics, high-energy-density physics, x-ray and atomic physics, ultrafast optoelectronics, high-power laser development and applications, nonlinear optics, optical materials, and optical fabrication technology. One hundred eighteen University of Rochester students have

earned Ph.D. degrees at LLE since its founding. Forty-eight graduate students from

other universities were funded by NLUF grants. A total of 34 graduate students and

14 faculty members of the University of Rochester are currently involved in the

unique research environment provided at LLE and represent many departments

within the University, including Mechanical Engineering, The Institute of Optics,

Physics and Astronomy, Electrical Engineering, and Chemical Engineering. Beyond

this, more than 50 undergraduate students receive research experience annually at

LLE. Additionally, a high-school summer science program exposes ten talented students each year to the research environment and encourages them to consider careers in science and engineering. Many LLE graduates have made important scientific contributions in National laboratories, universities, and industrial research

centers.

REFERENCES

1 Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Report to Assistant Secretary Reis (February 21, 1996). 2 ‘‘Science Based Stockpile Stewardship,’’ JASON Report JSR–94–345 (The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, November 1994).

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW

JERSEY

The following is the testimony of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New

Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest public health sciences university in the nation. The

UMDNJ statewide system is located on five academic campuses and consists of 3

medical schools, and schools of dentistry, nursing, health related professions, public

health and graduate biomedical sciences. UMDNJ also comprises a Universityowned acute care hospital, three core teaching hospitals, an integrated behavioral

health care delivery system, a statewide system for managed care and affiliations

with more than 100 health care and educational institutions statewide. No other institution in the nation possesses the resources which match our scope in higher education, health care delivery, research and community service initiatives with state,

federal and local entities.

We appreciate this opportunity to bring to your attention the priority projects of

UMDNJ that are consistent with the biomedical research mission of the Department

of Energy and Water. These include the Child Health Institute of New Jersey, the

Neurological Institute of New Jersey, efforts to combat infectious disease and chem-
811

ical and biological terrorism, and our collaboration with the Department of Energy

on its environmental clean-up efforts.

Our first priority is the Child Health Institute of New Jersey at the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) in New Brunswick, New Jersey. As part

of the state’s public higher education system, the medical school’s 2,500 full-time

and volunteer faculty train about 1,500 students in medicine, public health and

graduate programs and ranks in the top one-third of the country with regard to the

percentage of its students who practice in primary care specialties after completing

their residency training. The School ranks in the top one-third in the nation in

terms of grant support per faculty member. RWJMS is also home to The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, the only NCI-designated clinical cancer center in New Jersey;

The Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine; the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, the largest environmental institute in the world;

and the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.

The Child Health Institute is a comprehensive biomedical research center focused

on the health and wellness of children. In this program, medical researchers direct

efforts toward the prevention and cure of environmental, genetic and cellular diseases of infants and children. The Institute is integral to the long-term plan for the

enhancement of research at the medical school in developmental genetics, particularly as it relates to disorders that affect a child’s development and growth, both

physically and cognetively.

The program will enable the medical school to expand and strengthen basic research efforts with clinical departments at the Robert Wood Johnson University

Hospital and with the new Children’s Hospital in the areas of Obstetrics, Pediatrics,

Neurology, Surgery and Psychiatry. The Child Health Institute will fill a critical gap

in services through the recruitment of an intellectual base upon which basic molecular programs in child development will build.

The Child Health Institute will focus research on the molecular and genetic mechanisms which direct the development of human form, subsequent growth, and acquisition of function. Broadly, faculty and students will investigate disorders that occur

during the process of development to discover and study the genes contributing to

developmental disabilities and childhood diseases; to determine how genes and the

environment interact to cause childhood diseases; and to identify the causes and

possible avenues of treatment of cognitive disorders broadly found among conditions

such as mental retardation, autism and related neurological disorders.

Normal child development is a water dependent process, reflecting water quality,

quantity and its 19management’ by cells and tissues. Access to uncontaminated

water is at the base of the tree of life. Pollution of aquatic ecosystems poses a serious threat to the entire ecosystem and studying how a toxin affects embryonic development is central to understanding the risks pollutants represent, whether derived

from pesticides, industrial run-off, acid rain or landfills. In multiple ways, the embryo is a sentinel for environmental toxins. Research at the Child Health Institute

will focus on molecular mechanisms of early embryonic development, a natural, but

vulnerable water-based environment. Sixty percent of the weight of the average

human is contributed by water. The average 150 lb man contains about 40 to 45

quarts of waters, approximately 6 quarts of which is circulating in the blood, and

39 quarts are within and between the cells of each and every organ. The embryo

is even more highly hydrated than the adult. During development the embryo undergoes rapid changes in size and shape requiring rapid changes in the structures

and cells present in any one tissue. In order to accommodate these rapid and essential changes, the embryo is rich in molecules which have a very high water binding

capacity. After birth, the water in tissues allows cells to continue to move about

within the embryo with ease and also promote fluid movement in blood vessels, the

gastrointestinal tract and the airways. For example, cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited disorder which afflicts millions of children world-wide. The genetic defect in CF

has been identified and involves a pump which, in effect, moves salt and water into

and out of cells. Children with CF insufficiently pump water into the secretions of

their pancreas and lungs and the dryness of these secretions leads to obstruction

of those organs and subsequent infection and/or obstruction.

The CHI will address genetic disorders that lead to a much broader array of disorders such as heart defects, autism, diabetes, muscular dystrophy to name a few.

The Institute will grow on a current funding base at RWJMS of approximately $50

million, $17 million of which has development as a theme. The CHI builds on existing significant strengths within RWJMS and our associated joint research institutes

with Rutgers University.

The CHI will act as a magnet for additional growth in research and health care

program development in New Jersey. The Institute will encompass 83,000 gross

square feet and will house more than 40 research laboratories and associated sup-
812

port facilities. Fourteen senior faculty will direct teams of M.D. and Ph.D. researchers, visiting scientists, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians for

a full complement of some 130 employees. At maturity, the Institute is expected to

attract $7 to $9 million dollars of new research funding annually. The Institute’s

total annual operating budget is projected to be $10 to $12 million: applying a

standard economic multiplier of 5, the total impact on the New Brunswick area is

estimated to be $50 to $60 million per year. Construction costs for the Institute are

estimated at $27 million, with approximately half of that figure associated with

local employment. We respectfully seek $10 million from the Department of Energy and Water to

further advance the construction and development of the Child Health Institute of

New Jersey.

Our second priority is the Neurological Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ-New

Jersey Medical School (NJMS) and UMDNJ-University Hospital (UH) in Newark,

New Jersey. The Institute was created as a center of excellence in the neurosciences

in recognition of the fact that neurological diseases are a leading cause of death and

disability and, of the widespread expertise that exists in this discipline on our Newark campus.

University Hospital is the major provider of tertiary neurological and

neurosurgical services to the State of New Jersey, including patient care, education

and research. The NJMS-Department of Neurosciences is ranked sixth nationally in

research funding, with $4.1 million annually. NJMS offers the only fully accredited

neurosurgical residency program in the state. The Neurological Institute will serve

as an umbrella under which clinical, research and educational efforts in the neurosciences would be focused to support a higher level of achievement and expertise

than currently exists in New Jersey.

The Neurological Institute will enable UMDNJ to further advance its cutting-edge

work in neurological disorders including stroke, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s

disease. About 50 million Americans are affected by these diseases annually. Neurological diseases account for some $400 billion annually in health care costs and lost

productivity. While neurological diseases and injuries are devastating, there are

breakthroughs in treatment with new drugs and/or surgical techniques, which require research and testing, significant financial support and a concentration of clinical expertise and potential research subjects in a controlled environment. The Neurological Institute will provide such a setting and will place New Jersey in the forefront of research and treatment of neurological diseases.

The employment of new MRI-technology can aid in the diagnosis and treatment

of neurological diseases. We are working on the newest treatments available, and

an investment in the work of the Neurological Institute is critical to advance our

work in these diseases.

UMDNJ seeks a major step forward in the research arena with the acquisition

and placement of a state-of-the-art Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) instrument

for the Neurological Institute. This MRI, with a rated field strength of 3–4 Tesla,

is expected to provide spatial resolution in the millimeter range and temporal resolution of less than one second—both carrying great significance at physiological levels. Areas of research will include language, learning, memory, visual processing

and spatial representation. Clinical applications will include Alzheimer’s disease,

multiple sclerosis, tumor characterization and epilepsy where brain dysfunction is

clearly established. UMDNJ would collaborate with its research partners, the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Rutgers University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology in the development of a neuroimaging laboratory.

We respectfully seek $1.5 million from the Department of Energy and Water toward the capital and instrumentation costs of a neuroimaging laboratory for the

Neurological Institute of New Jersey.

Our next priority project is our initiatives aimed at responding to threats of

emerging infectious diseases, and chemical and biological terrorism.

UMDNJ is home to the International Center for Public Health, a strategic initiative that will create a world-class infectious disease research and treatment complex

at University Heights Science Park in Newark, New Jersey. We are also home to

the New Jersey Medical School National Tuberculosis Center, one of only three

model Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Centers in the United States funded by

the Centers of Disease Control (CDC).

In our complex world of instant communication and ease of global transportation,

disaffected individuals or political groups have access to highly destructive weapons

of terror. With our open society the United States is particularly at risk to individuals, ideologically motivated fanatics, or to nations seeking revenge. The possibility

of the employment of weapons of mass destruction on an innocent population has

already become a reality with the Sarin nerve gas attack in the subways of Tokyo.
813

State and local governments and health organizations need reliable information

upon which to develop and coordinate response plans for contingencies due to weapons of mass destruction. They need programs to educate planners and response

teams on the public health aspects of these threats and how to recognize and respond to them. In addition, they need to understand both the short and long term

implications for human and ecologic health. Such a plan requires a broad base of

scientific and educational expertise which has an international scope in order to devise approaches for the early detection and treatment of biological and chemical

weapons of terror. As citizens of the nation’s most densely populated state, we in

New Jersey have a particular concern about being targets of biological and chemical

terrorist activities. Our communities abut each other and our traffic patterns are

statewide making us especially vulnerable to infectious disease. There are no obvious geographical boundaries to readily institute a quarantine. Our central location

as a transportation hub for the populous Northeast also makes us a prime target.

Terrorists have three types of weapons available to them. For the first, explosive

devices, although increasingly deadly, we have developed responses and have become all too familiar with this form of terror and chaos. The other two types of terrorist weapons are relatively new and present particular challenges to our normal

response processes. These are chemical weapons of terror, such as nerve gas, and

biological weapons of terror, such as anthrax. Chemical and biological weapons differ dramatically from explosions in that for these newer threats early recognition

and diagnosis is crucial for both those initially affected and for others who might

yet be affected through spread of infection or contact with the chemical. Education

of emergency responders to correctly identify these threats, whether they occur here

or abroad, is crucial to minimize the impact of biological and chemical weapons, as

well as to protecting the emergency responders themselves. Compounding our problems is the need for a better understanding of the effects of likely chemical and biological agents of terrorism, development of the means to prevent their spread, and

to rapidly treat their victims.

The nation’s foremost program in education and training concerning chemical and

physical threats is headed by a UMDNJ faculty member who is currently President

of the American Public Health Association. Among her programs is the Center for

Education and Training which provides training concerning chemical and physical

agents to more than 160,000 police, firefighters, municipal and state employees, as

well as to physicians, nurses and industrial hygienists. Because of its scientific expertise, UMDNJ is uniquely qualified to develop a program to educate state and

municipal governments, emergency responders and health and hospital professionals on planning for the response to terrorism and training personnel to deal

with threats of terrorism and how they affect public health.

We respectfully seek $1.5 million through the Department of Energy and Water

to expand our research, education and training programs in response to threats of

chemical and biological terrorism.

Our final priority is to seek continued funding for the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), which is in its fourth year of funding from the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM). CRESP has become

an integral part of the technical dialogue between DOE EM sites and their regulators on major issues. At both the Savannah River and Hanford, regulators are taking our results and using them to facilitate better remedial options to expedite or

validate decisions that bring cleanup to closure.

By focusing its scientific efforts on issues which are arising at various points of

regulatory interface, and providing data accepted by all parties as sound and credible, CRESP believes its work is not only proving valuable on specific issues, but

is providing a basis for more extensive, complex wide replication and application.

The pace of requests that CRESP scientists are involved in has expanded dramatically. We believe that we are more than a source of new information and methods.

A mechanism such as CRESP is fundamental to bringing resolution to the regulatory process that would otherwise not be resolved.

The Administration’s budget calls for CRESP to receive $3 million for fiscal year

2000. However, to maintain our current level of activity, we respectfully request an

investment of $4 million. If CRESP is going to expand to respond to new requests,

it will require at least that amount.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the University

of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ). We are grateful to this committee for its past support of our initiatives and for your leadership in advancing

biomedical and environmental research.
814

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE F. COLVIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, I would like to commend you, Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Reid and the members of this subcommittee for

focusing your attention on the value of nuclear-related programs contained in the

Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission budget proposals for fiscal

year 2000.

Before I proceed, let me say a word about the Nuclear Energy Institute. NEI sets

policy for the U.S. nuclear energy industry and represents over 275 members with

a broad spectrum of interests, including every U.S. utility that operates a nuclear

power plant. NEI’s members also include nuclear fuel cycle companies, suppliers,

engineering firms, research laboratories, radiopharmaceutical companies, universities, labor unions and law firms.

In large measure, your continued support of nuclear-related programs will ensure

a strong legacy of nuclear energy, science and security for our children and for generations to come. The programs outlined in my testimony will further U.S. advances

in nuclear medicine and technology; help guard against international threats to our

energy security and nuclear safety; and encourage growth of the nation’s largest

source of emission-free electricity.

Today, nuclear energy generates 20 percent of the nation’s electricity—enough for

65 million homes. More than 100 nuclear units contribute to the stability of the nation’s power grid and are the greatest source of emission-free energy in the country.

Policymakers who recognize the nexus between energy and environmental policy

cannot ignore nuclear energy’s unique value in mitigating emissions to meet U.S.

clear air regulations and international carbon abatement goals. To capitalize on

these benefits, comprehensive reform of the nuclear regulatory process must be a

priority in fiscal year 2000 appropriations legislation.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Safety is the nuclear energy industry’s top priority, and we recognize the unique

responsibility that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has to assure adequate protection of public health and safety. The NRC’s $465.4 million funding request should

be devoted to implementing regulations that have a direct bearing on safety. One

of the single most important challenges facing the nuclear energy industry is a regulatory process that consumes licensee and NRC resources on issues that have little

or no safety significance, and that produce inconsistency in assessment and enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot overstate the importance of this subcommittee’s role,

which has been instrumental in encouraging the NRC commissioners and staff to

complete work on many long-standing reform issues. The NRC has a number of

promising regulatory reform initiatives underway. However, Congress should continue to guide regulatory reform.

The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, requires that

the agency recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority by assessing

licensees annual fees consistent with the regulatory benefits derived. Most of those

fees are collected as a generic assessment levied on NRC licensees, creating, in effect, a ‘‘miscellaneous’’ category to encompass nearly 80 percent of its budget. This

practice is contrary to sound and accountable budgeting. The industry supports legislation to modify the fee structure so that licensees are assessed only for NRC programs necessary to regulate them. Unrelated agency expenditures, such as international activities and regulatory support to agreement states or other federal agencies, should not be included in nuclear plant licensee user fees, but should be included in a specific line item on the NRC’s budget, subject to the authorization and

appropriations process. Additionally, the agency’s ability to collect user fees should

be authorized annually by Congress until the commission completes its regulatory

reform initiatives.

We strongly urge the subcommittee to reaffirm its recommendation last year to

eliminate agency expenditures in fiscal year 2000 that do not benefit licensees so

that user fees are fairly and equitably assessed.

In the area of reform, the subcommittee should encourage the NRC to develop and

implement a long-term strategic plan as well as to focus on activities that can be

completed in the near term. The NRC’s long-range strategy should include these

principles: A safety-focused regulatory framework that incorporates risk insights; a

more efficient and accountable regulator; an integrated NRC strategy for achieving

the objectives of regulatory reform; and a specific timetable and milestones to ensure the NRC’s long-range plan is implemented on schedule; and staff resources and

a fully accountable budget that supports fundamental NRC reform.
815

The nuclear energy industry believes that rather than increase the NRC budget—

and user fees—the commission can better focus its programs and regulations on

safety-based performance standards. Such an emphasis on performance standards

would free NRC resources for license renewal of nuclear power plants and other discrete licensing actions without increasing the agency’s overall budget.

The nuclear energy industry fully supports approval of the funding requested by

NRC from the Nuclear Waste Fund. These funds will allow the NRC to continue

its oversight of the Yucca Mountain project as the Department of Energy prepares

its license application for the repository. The NRC’s oversight activities are a crucial

step toward timely implementation of the integrated used fuel management program.

On another front, this subcommittee can help resolve the long-standing impasse

regarding overlapping regulatory authority between the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency. This overlap authority exists in many areas, but is most

immediately apparent in establishing radiation standards for a national repository

for used nuclear fuel. As the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Energy Department, the industry respectfully urges you to clarify the matter of setting radiation standards for Yucca Mountain. The NRC’s regulations have proven effective

in protecting public health and safety as well as worker safety at nuclear facilities.

Conversely, EPA has little direct experience in regulating the use of radioactive materials and relies on a regulatory philosophy that lacks a scientific underpinning.

The industry encourages this subcommittee to take actions necessary to eliminate

dual regulation of nuclear facilities. For the reasons stated, EPA’s standard setting

authority should be ceded to the NRC, an independent agency with scientific and

technical expertise.

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Chairman, continued investment in nuclear energy research and development

will ensure the U.S. position as a world leader in nuclear safety and technology.

Through its fiscal year 2000 recommendations, this subcommittee also can continue

to capitalize on nuclear energy’s ability to avoid atmospheric emissions amid stronger Clean Air Act controls and international air quality goals. In fact, DOE states

that without nuclear generation, the resulting increase in carbon emissions would

be five times greater than utility reduction goals for 2000 under the agency’s Climate Challenge Program.

A comparison of electricity generating sources reveals that nuclear energy is the

most economical federal research and development investment. For example, in

1997, the federal government spent 5 cents for every kilowatt hour generated at nuclear power plants. The cost per kilowatt-hour of research and development in wind

energy for that period was $4,769; for photovoltaics, $17,006; for natural gas, 41

cents and for coal, 5 cents.

The nuclear energy industry encourages the subcommittee to support a $40 million appropriation for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, which funds research

and development at universities, national laboratories and industry to advance nuclear power technology, pave the way for the expanded use of emission-free nuclear

energy and maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear technology and safety abroad. During its first year, NERI’s review board received an impressive 300 grant applications. In light of this enthusiastic commitment, the proposed $40 million would permit NERI to grow yet remain manageable. The Energy Department’s $25 million

request would support continuation of first-year projects, but permit little, if any,

expansion.

In addition to NERI, DOE’s request for the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization

program would allocate $5 million to research and development projects that enhance the efficiency and reliability of our 103 nuclear power plants. The industry

strongly supports a $10 million program in keeping with recommendations of the

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. This initiative is particularly important as utilities deal with uncertainties associated with electric industry restructuring. NEPO seeks to work with industry to improve plant economics, reliability, availability and plant aging while maintaining a high level of safety.

Finally, the industry recommends $17 million for University Supportprograms at

universities and colleges to enhance research and education in nuclear sciences by

helping to sustain university reactor and engineering programs. While DOE requested $11.3 million, the nuclear energy industry believes additional funds are

needed to expand the Nuclear Energy Education Research initiative and recruitment of future nuclear engineers and scientists.

In addition to these efforts, the industry strongly encourages the subcommittee to

restore $20 million for electrometallurgical research at Argonne National Labora-
816

tories. This research would focus on devising technology to treat used fuel that powered the Argonne reactor, EBR-II. Research on the treatment of this metal fuel’s

unique composition could be applied to the treatment and disposal of other reactor

fuels with unique characteristics.

FEDERAL STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF USED NUCLEAR FUEL

A key component that ensures the continued benefits of nuclear energy is the federal acceptance and disposal of used nuclear fuel. Since 1982, the Energy Department has been siting and developing a deep geologic repository for the disposal of

used nuclear fuel. In recent years, however, the agency has failed to advance an important aspect of the program—the acceptance and removal of used fuel. A little

more than a year ago, the Energy Department was scheduled to start accepting

used fuel from national laboratories, nuclear power plants and defense facilities at

more than 100 locations in 40 states. The agency missed its deadline in violation

of its clear statutory duty under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The law requires disposal at a single, federally monitored location.

The Energy Department in December 1998 released a report ordered by Congress

supporting the continued scientific study of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the site for

a permanent repository for used nuclear fuel.

The report concluded that ‘‘DOE believes that Yucca Mountain remains a promising site for a geologic repository.’’ Despite the sound scientific basis for the viability assessment, the Administration still refuses to move used nuclear fuel. A recent

plan from Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to take title of used nuclear fuel would

leave used fuel where it is today and would pay for the program through the Nuclear Waste Fund. Although this proposal does not work as a stand-alone concept,

the industry recognizes the valuable opportunity that Secretary Richardson has

posed to industry stakeholders through the promise of continued dialogue focused

on immediate receipt of used nuclear fuel. The industry welcomes that opportunity.

However, this country needs an immediate solution to central storage and disposal of its used nuclear fuel. The industry urges the subcommittee to support the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999, S. 608, which would ensure funding for central

storage and a geologic repository by altering the funding mechanism of the program.

Without the budget modification in S. 608, DOE would fall short of funding needs

now that it appears that a more realistic date for the agency to open a repository

may be 2020, not 2010.

Despite the Energy Department’s default, scientific and technical activities must

continue if the agency is to able to determine if the permanent repository site is

suitable. The agency’s $409 million fiscal year 2000 request for the Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management is necessary to ensure the office continues to meet

deadlines for data collection and study at the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nev., repository. All of these projects further DOE’s effort to prepare a draft environmental impact statement and license application for the repository. From the industry’s perspective, the fiscal year 2000 request assures timely scientific study and analysis

at Yucca Mountain.

The administration’s budget for Yucca Mountain activities includes $39 million

from funds previously appropriated in 1996 for interim storage. Congress set those

funds aside for an interim storage facility and an associated transportation framework pending passage of an authorization bill. This subcommittee should prevent

the diversion of previously appropriated funds so that the money can be held for

its intended purpose. However, as stated above, the agency’s $409 million request

is necessary to ensure the agency continues to meet its deadlines.

The nuclear energy industry believes that Nevada’s use of federal grants by the

state university system and counties has been wise and has resulted in useful contributions to the repository project. These efforts should continue to be funded. However, the nuclear energy industry continues to support strong oversight of all expenditure for the federal used nuclear fuel management program. Through this subcommittee’s vigilance, recent appropriations acts have precluded Nevada from using

grant funds for lobbying, litigation and certain multistate activities . Until the subcommittee is satisfied that DOE-administered funds provided to the state are properly spent, any further funds should be withheld from grant recipients shown to

have misspent past federal grant money.

Several other programs warrant industry support at the recommended funding:

Low-Dose Radiation Research.—The nuclear energy industry supports the Energy

Department’s request of $10 million to study how cells react to low radiation doses

and to better understand biological responses to radiation that would further enhance occupational radiation protection. This research has garnered the support of
817

the Health Physics Society, as the attached Health Physics Society policy statement

notes.

Uranium Decontamination and Decommissioning.—The industry believes the federal government has a responsibility for site cleanup and decommissioning. DOE’s

fiscal year 2000 request for appropriations from the fund includes $242 million for

activities at the government-owned gaseous diffusion plants and $35 million for uranium/thorium tailings cleanup.

Surplus Weapons Material Disposition.—The nuclear energy industry supports the Energy Department’s $200 million request for the disposal of surplus weapons fissile

materials so that the United States and Russia can continue a parallel path to dispose of excess weapons-grade material. The nuclear energy industry and federal

agencies also must continue efforts to use mixed oxide fuel at U.S. reactors.

International Nuclear Safety Program and Nuclear Energy Agency.—DOE’s International Nuclear Safety Program is essential to improving operational safety at Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. Potential weaknesses in reactor safety abroad

may pose threats to public health and the environment and erode public confidence

in the entire industry. The Institute also supports continued funding for U.S. membership in OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency. The industry also supports expansion

of DOE’s nuclear nonproliferation program, including the nuclear cities initiative

with Russia.

Medical Isotopes.—The industry supports DOE’ radioisotope program and encourages the enhanced and continued supply of isotopes for the purpose of medical research. Such isotopes are not readily available in the commercial sector and the Energy Department has a historical mandate from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to

provide medical isotopes.

DOE Radiation Standards.—An area of major concern to the industry is overlapping authority on development of radiation standards for safe cleanup and restoration of DOE’s decommissioned facilities. We urge the subcommittee to support the

Energy Department in finalizing standards in order to enhance a safe, economic and

timely conclusion to the agency’s extensive environmental restoration program.

Close involvement between DOE and the NRC ensures early identification of potential concerns that otherwise would require more costly long-term review.

CONCLUSION

By funding the Energy Department’s nuclear energy research and development

initiatives, the subcommittee would reaffirm nuclear energy’s valuable contribution

toward achieving clean air compliance and continue research to further enhance

productivity of U.S. nuclear power plants. As the nation’s second largest electricity

source, nuclear energy is well-positioned to meet future energy demand in a manner

that preserves and improves our air quality.

The nuclear energy industry urges the subcommittee to consider the equity of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s user fee. Licensees should not be assessed 100

percent user fees for commission activities that do not affect the regulation of licensees, but that have broader, national or international application.

Finally, although the Department of Energy has failed to meet statutory and

court-affirmed deadlines for disposal of used nuclear fuel, Congress should support

the agency’s continued scientific and technical work at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to avoid further delays. Even as Congress considers separate legislation to reform the federal nuclear waste management program, the subcommittee

must ensure that activities progress to support the repository project. I would like

to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to share the industry’s perspective

on issues vital to the nuclear energy industry.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

INTRODUCTION

The Council is pleased to offer testimony to the Energy and Water Subcommittee

of the Senate Appropriations Committee on the proper role for government in promoting energy research and development, as it relates to renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).

The Council was formed in 1992 and is comprised of businesses and industry

trade associations which share a commitment to realize our nation’s economic, environmental and national security goals through the rapid deployment of clean and

efficient natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewable energy technologies. Our

members range in size from Fortune 500 enterprises to small entrepreneurial companies, to national trade associations.
818

Few activities have a greater impact on our nation’s economy, environment, and

national security than the production and use of energy. Our economic well-being

depends on energy expenditures, which account for approximately 7 to 8 percent of

the nation’s gross domestic product and a similar fraction of U.S. and world trade.

Energy production and use also account for a large share of environmental problems, such as regional smog, acid rain, and the accumulation of greenhouse gases

in the atmosphere. Our national security is increasingly linked to energy production

and use, given our nation’s increasing dependence on foreign oil sources, including

those from the politically unstable Middle East. Expanded reliance on natural gas,

energy efficiency, and renewable energy are the three pillars of a more secure and

sustainable energy strategy that will help strengthen the U.S. economy and clean

up the environment.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

The Council recognizes that it is the suppliers and users of energy—not the federal government—that ultimately will decide which energy sources will meet our future energy needs. However, the federal government does play an important role in

helping the private sector share the risk of investing in deployment of clean technologies that, while at or near economical viability, face financial, informational, or

institutional obstacles to their wide market availability. The Council would like to

describe the following programs, which can strengthen the nation’s portfolio of energy generation technologies.

WIND

World markets for utility-scale wind energy are growing at an unprecedented

rate. Figures for 1998 indicate that total worldwide installed wind capacity stands

at 9,600 megawatts (MW), up 19 percent from a year earlier. This figure includes

approximately 2,000 MW installed in 1998. The Council supports DOE’s total request of $45.6 million for wind energy research and development in fiscal year 2000

to fund projects in turbine research ($20.2 million), cooperative research ($11.9 million) and applied research ($13.5 million). This level of funding is particularly important to continue developing next generation wind turbine technologies needed to

keep the U.S. industry competitive in restructured domestic markets and in the fast

growing, highly competitive international markets.

Total U.S. wind capacity grew by 235 MW in 1998, a significant change from the

previous three years when U.S. markets for wind energy had slowed to 11 MW in

1997, 10 MW in 1996, and 41 MW in 1995. Preliminary projections indicate that

600 MW of new wind generating capacity will be developed in 1999 and that 120

to 250 MW of wind capacity will be added through ‘‘repowering’’ development at several older wind farms in California. Repowering involves the replacement of older

wind turbines with newer, more efficient models. While the long-term future of wind

technologies is uncertain in an increasingly deregulated electricity market, costshared DOE/wind industry efforts have the potential to develop the next generation

of wind technologies to deliver electricity in the range of 2.5 cents/kilowatt-hour.

The Council supports DOE’s programs focusing on small wind turbines which generate up to 50 kilowatts, including the cost-shared Advanced Small Wind turbine

project. Small wind turbines are used for smaller on-and off-grid applications where

the value of the energy is high. Presently, U.S. small wind turbine manufacturers

are the world’s leading suppliers but they must rely on exports for approximately

three-quarters of their business. The small size of the domestic market makes this

industry vulnerable to foreign competition, particularly from countries with more

developed markets. For this reason, the Council is encouraging DOE to expand its

small wind turbine market development programs by creating initiatives similar to

PV-COMPACT, PV-BONUS, and the Million Solar Roofs program. Such initiatives

would lower the costs of small wind turbines, create many new jobs, and give more

opportunities for the marketplace to choose the most competitive small-scale renewable energy technologies.

DOE has also been effective in helping U.S. small wind turbine companies overcome barriers to important international markets. While DOE expenditures in this

area have been very modest, support by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

in the areas of wind resource studies, economic analyses, and pilot projects has created substantial new markets in South America, Asia, and Russia. Throughout the

world, rural villages are being electrified or provided with clean water by small

wind turbines exported from the U.S., at costs that are lower than the conventional

alternatives of extending the grid or running diesel generators.

Funding for Cooperative Research and Testing will provide support for industry

testing at the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) in Rocky Flats, Colorado.
819

This will allow for continued development of a U.S.-based certification capability for

wind energy technologies. Ultimately, streamlined certification criteria will make it

easier for U.S. businesses to market and sell American-made wind turbine technologies in international markets.

The main focus of the applied research program is development of models to better understand aerodynamics (through wind tunnel tests), fatigue damage prediction

and structural reliability capabilities. Modeling and code design work is underway

at both the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (located in Golden, Colorado)

and the Sandia National Laboratory (New Mexico).

More and more electric utilities are becoming interested in generating power from

large-scale wind power plants. The global market for wind power is expected to further grow over the next few years. New wind power markets are driven in part by

the fact that at least one-third of the world’s population—over 2 billion people—do

not have access to reliable energy. Maintaining an U.S. presence in this growing industry is a valuable investment of federal resources—one that will pay off many

times in the next several decades.

The global wind energy market has been growing at a remarkable rate over the

last several years and is the world’s fastest growing energy technology. The growth

of the market offers significant export opportunities for U.S. wind turbine and component manufacturers. The World Energy Council has estimated that new wind capacity worldwide will amount to $150 billion to $400 billion worth of new business

over the next twenty years. Experts estimate that U.S. companies can sell over $1

billion of wind energy each year if U.S. industry can capture 25 percent of the

worldwide wind energy market over the next five years.

SOLAR ENERGY

The United States currently leads the world in the diverse portfolio of solar technologies: photovoltaics (PV) for manufacturing; thin films and energy services; solar

thermal power in advanced concentrations (solar power towers, parabolic troughs,

and dish-engines); and solar buildings in integrated systems and energy services delivery. However, our international competitors are positioning themselves to take

market share from the United States in vast, multibillion dollar world markets, as

a result of strong support provided by their respective governments—especially in

Japan and Germany—through a variety of aggressive development and deployment

programs. Maintaining our lead will require strong and focused U.S. government action, not only to support international activities but also to secure a position in

growing domestic markets.

Solar technologies available today include PV, solar water and pool heating, solar

process heating, and solar thermal power technologies. Faster integration of solar

energy systems in both supply-and demand-side applications in our domestic economy, combined with support for increased exports of U.S. solar technologies, will

have the parallel benefits of creating thousands of new high-technology manufacturing jobs while improving our environment. The Council supports the trend toward market-driven, industry cost-shared programs designed to leverage federal dollars with private sector participation to enhance private sector understanding and

use of these technologies.

Improving conversion efficiency of solar panels and reducing manufacturing costs

will play a key role in sustaining U.S. dominance in the area of PV. The Council

supports DOE’s photovoltaic system program. PV programs are among the best leveraged (the PV COMPACT program, for example, leverages $4 and $5 for every

federal dollar expended) in DOE. Our two most formidable competitors, Japan and

Germany, are outspending DOE’s investment in PV research and development and

PV commercialization programs. While U.S. industry is exporting a significant

amount of its products to these countries, most expect this surge in demand to rapidly diminish as in-country manufacturing capabilities are increased. As an example, the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry has set a domestic

deployment goal of 400 megawatts of PV by next year and its manufacturers have

responded to the challenge.

Japanese manufacturers are expected to expand their annual production capacity

four-fold to 80 megawatts over the next three years. Not only will this expansion

allow the Japanese industry to meet much of its domestic demand for PV; it will

enable Japan to overtake the U.S. in terms of global market share. The Council also

supports the Administration’s Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Initiative.

The Council supports DOE cost-shared initiatives in R&D (thin-films and other

advanced materials, manufacturing and other solar initiatives which address these

issues). Equally important is the concept of building integrated PV programs where

PV manufacturers, systems integrators and utilities are working together to reduce
820

the cost of PV generated electricity. The Council also supports the Department’s PV

COMPACT program. PV COMPACT is a collaborative effort involving more than 80

electric utilities (representing over half the electricity produced in the U.S.) and

other interested organizations to garner the economic, commercial, and environmental benefits of PV technologies.

PV and other solar technologies offer the U.S. environmentally benign and costeffective energy supply options in a variety of market applications. The market viability of these technologies is demonstrated in growing private sector interest in developing new manufacturing facilities related to solar industries. In the area of PV

production alone, the last four years have witnessed six U.S. companies announce

plans to construct new photovoltaic plants. This activity is a unique example of DOE

funding encouraging significant private-sector investment that creates new jobs. The

Council strongly urges Congress to continue its support of public/private partnerships that help ensure that U.S. companies can compete effectively in rapidly

emerging world renewable energy markets.

BCSE is highly supportive of non-conventional PV programs within DOE’s Office

of Power Technologies. The Council specifically supports the non-conventional PV

request of $4.3 million and specifically requests the Committee to instruct DOE to

dedicate $2 million for Thermo Photovoltaic (TPV) research.

The Council also supports PV programs within DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, specifically DOE’s Solar Thermal Buildings program, a research and development program focusing on materials and components for solar

water and space heating technologies for building applications. Based at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Florida Solar Energy Center, the program also has a strong technology standard and certification component. Activities

in fiscal year 2000 should include the completion of collaborative projects with utilities and builders to assess their impact on improving solar water heating technology

and the completion of a cooperative research and development agreement with the

Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District to develop a solar water

heater that could provide hot water at a cost of 6 to 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The Council supports the Solar Thermal Electric and Process Heat programs, an

R&D program on materials and components with a heavily cost-shared technology

validation component. Over the past six years, the primary program focus has been

in collaboration with industry to develop advanced solar thermal electric technologies to the point of commercial readiness.

DISTRIBUTED GENERATION

Utilities throughout the nation are reorganizing to meet the many challenges associated with electric utility restructuring. Accordingly, power providers are developing state of the art technologies aimed at providing customers with the cleanest,

most reliable, and cheapest power possible. Combined heat and power (CHP) and

distributed generation technologies provide reliable on-site power generation with

dramatically improved efficiencies and cleaner fuels such as natural gas and biomass gas. BCSE strongly supports $8 million for development and deployment of

CHP and related distributed generation systems, managed by the Office of Industrial Technologies, which showcase novel integrated schemes or hybrid system demonstrations.

RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE

As part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Sec. 1212), Congress passed the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) to encourage the development of renewable

energy projects in tax-exempt municipal utilities. This program has been succcessful

in helping municipal utilities such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District develops wind and solar generating facilities. We believe the Administration’s request

is insufficient to meet the requirements of this program, and request the Committee

increase to $20 million the funding for the REPI.

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Finally, the Council would like to offer its support of federal programs designed

to help open important international markets for renewable energy technologies.

The Council is extremely supportive of the fiscal year 2000 increases in funding for

international energy programs such as the International Solar Energy Program.

The developing world—Eastern and Central Europe, the former Soviet Union,

Asia, Africa, and Latin America—presents tremendous opportunities for the deployment of renewable energy technologies. Renewables offer great flexibility to developing countries looking for economically viable, reliable, and clean energy supply options that can be used to serve growing metropolitan areas and remote rural regions
821

where power is otherwise unavailable. Renewables can also help support the development of commercial activities such as agriculture and telecommunications

through remote power source applications. Competition in rapidly growing developing country markets is intense; U.S. renewables manufacturers face the dual obstacles of competition from conventional energy sources and foreign renewables

manufacturers buoyed by government assistance.

In this regard, it is important to note that major U.S. competitors are now making

aggressive moves into the renewables market. When measured against the relative

size of their economies, Japan, Germany, and Sweden are each now making larger

government R&D investments in renewables than is the U.S. In fact, the U.S. taxpayer spends a lower portion of his R&D budget on energy than any other taxpayer

in an industrialized, market-based economy.

U.S. government assistance in identifying market opportunities, providing education and training for energy decision-makers in the developing world, and supporting demonstrations of renewable technologies in overseas applications promises

to help ensure that U.S. renewables manufacturers will be successful in capturing

market share throughout the expanding global market for clean energy technologies

and services.

CONCLUSION

Some have suggested that a technology should have a minimum market share before federal support is provided for R&D. We believe that the role of the federal government should in fact decrease as new technologies successfully penetrate the market and increase their ability to support robust R&D programs on their own. Promoting research, development and validation of emerging renewable energy technologies will result in the near-term creation of thousands of new jobs, a stronger

economy, enhanced export opportunities for domestic manufacturers, and a cleaner

environment. DOE’s budget request continues federal emphasis on developing lowand non-polluting energy technologies and services as a means of achieving these

goals. It utilizes cost-shared collaboratives with industry to leverage limited federal

funds in recognition that cooperation with industry is vital for addressing market

imperfections impeding the widespread use of renewables. The Council strongly supports this approach, and urges Congress to continue its support of federal research,

development and validation programs for renewable energy technologies.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

The American Chemical Society (ACS) strongly supports increasing the federal investment in research conducted by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science

(SC).

As part of our commitment to sustained research funding, ACS supports doubling

total federal spending on research within a decade, fiscal year 1999–fiscal year

2009. This requires an average increase of 7 percent per year for each of the federal

government’s basic research programs. For that reason, ACS applauds Congress’

recognition of the importance of energy-related research and for providing SC with

an increase of greater than 9 percent in fiscal year 1999. This is an important first

step.

ACS urges Congress to further strengthen the national investment in research

supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science by providing it with at

least a 7 percent increase in fiscal year 2000. The nearly 5 percent increase proposed in the fiscal year 2000 Administration budget request for SC is insufficient

to meet the energy-related research needs of our nation. Moreover, while the Society

is pleased with the strong funding levels for proposed research initiatives such as

the Scientific Simulation Initiative and the Climate Change Technology Initiative,

ACS is concerned about the decrease in funding for ongoing basic research programs. For example, the Society is distressed with the proposed 2.3 percent decrease

in funding for Chemical Science within the Basic Energy Sciences program.

The ACS supports programs within SC for the following reasons:

—The United States has a dynamic, comprehensive, interconnected research system that has enabled us to assume global leadership, enjoy a high standard of

living, and ensure our nation’s security. Maintaining those benefits requires

continual renewal of investment in R&D, including research sponsored by SC,

which is an integral part of the federal research enterprise.

—SC-supported research is advancing our national goals of reducing energy consumption, harnessing new energy sources, and reducing our dependence on imported oil and improving the quality of the environment. Better understanding

of combustion at a fundamental level, improved hazardous waste storage, and
822

the development of new superconducting materials are some of the areas of discovery SC supports. SC research also plays a key role in efforts to understand

global climate change.

—SC programs include a broad array of research activities that advance the fundamental scientific knowledge base and train future scientists in areas of great

importance to our nation. They are also the principal source of support for the

non-defense R&D carried out at DOE’s nine multipurpose national laboratories.

The American Chemical Society appreciates Congress’ continued focus on the nation’s energy research needs, but also recognizes the difficulty in achieving the goal

of doubling research support within a ten-year period. A national commitment to

double federal support for research will require additional resources. ACS encourages Congress to work in a bipartisan manner with the Administration to identify

and employ the necessary resources. The Society looks forward to working with Congress this year to strengthen the national investment in DOE basic research.

CHEMISTRY: FUNDAMENTAL TO MEETING ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

Most chemistry research at DOE is supported through two programs within the

Office of Science: Basic Energy Sciences (BES) and Biological and Environmental

Research (BER). These two programs support the fundamental research that provides the discoveries, knowledge base, and the experienced scientists and engineers

needed to address the environmental impacts of energy production and use. This research is also essential for control and clean-up of radioactive and hazardous wastes

at DOE sites, particularly those sites involved in past nuclear weapons production.

—Basic Energy Sciences is the most diverse research program within DOE. This

program supports scientific research related to energy technology development,

which consists of a wide range of basic research activities in chemistry, as well

as materials, engineering, earth sciences, and energy biosciences. Basic Energy

Sciences is also the program through which major research facilities are developed and maintained. The major user facilities operated by BES at the DOE

laboratories are used extensively by industry, universities, and government on

a cost-shared basis.

—Biological and Environmental Research is focused on basic research in the biomedical and environmental sciences to further understanding of potential longterm health and environmental effects of energy productions and use that includes research on global climate change and the human genome project. The

program also supports the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory for

bioremediation research.

Investments in fundamental research have already paid off, as documented in

past DOE reports. Examples of promising work include the following:

—BES-supported researchers have synthesized and tested an ion exchange resin

that removes a variety of metal contaminants from groundwater and mixed

wastes.

—Radioactive sludge intake wastes present clogging problems. Surface chemistry

information being produced through SC-supported research is helping to control

this situation.

—In other SC-funded work, scientists have decomposed dioxins in soil using methods that are technically and economically feasible.

—BES-supported research is combining models of turbulent combustion with realistic chemical kinetics to reduce the emission of pollutants from internal combustion engines.

As the world’s population grows, the energy and environmental challenges confronting us will become more complex and difficult for us to solve. The fundamental

chemistry-related research supported by the Office of Science will be essential to our

efforts to meet these challenges.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAIME STEVE, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN WIND

ENERGY ASSOCIATION

WIND POWER IS WORKING

Cost-Shared R&D ∂ Existing Tax Credit = New Jobs & Competitively Priced, Pollution-Free Power

Over 230 Megawatts of New Domestic Wind Power Came On-Line in 1998.

Utility-Scale Wind Power Expands Throughout the U.S.
823

1The American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, was formed in 1974. The organization

represents virtually every facet of the wind industry, including turbine and component manufacturers, project developers, utilities, academicians, and interested individuals.

The American Wind Energy Association 1 appreciates this opportunity to provide

testimony for the record on the Department of Energy’s Fiscal 2000 wind energy

program budget before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and

Water Development.

Our testimony addresses the following issues:

(1) The need for increased appropriations for cost-shared DOE/industry R&D partnerships aimed at further driving down the cost of wind power to a level approaching 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

(2) Wind power is working throughout much of the U.S.—Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New

Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Cost-shared R&D—which has already slashed the cost of wind power by more than

80 percent since the early 1980’s—coupled with the existing wind energy production

tax credit is currently producing competitively-priced, pollution-free electricity.

(3) Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI). This program would be significantly underfunded by the Clinton Administration budget proposal. But even

more importantly, AWEA suggests that Congress work with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop long-range alternatives to unpredictable annual funding of

this program. For this appropriations cycle, AWEA recommends funding of $8 million—$12 million below the $20 million need identified by DOE in its fiscal year

1999 appropriations testimony.

A GROWING DOMESTIC WIND INDUSTRY

Utility-Scale Wind Development.—Total U.S. wind capacity grew by 235

megawatts (MW) in 1998, with major new wind plants being built in states outside

California, traditionally the nation’s leading wind energy producer. The states of

Minnesota, Oregon, Wyoming, and Iowa account for most of the new development.

This impressive growth exhibits a significant change from the previous three

years when U.S. markets for wind energy had slowed to only 11 MW of new capacity installed in 1997, 10 MW installed in 1996, and 41 MW installed in 1995.

This surge in U.S. wind energy capacity is due to two main factors:

(1) Cost-shared DOE/industry R&D partnerships which have reduced the cost of

wind energy by more than 80 percent since the early 1980’s.

(2) The impending expiration (on June 30, 1999) of the Wind Energy Production

Tax Credit (PTC)which provides an incentive to produce electricity with non-polluting wind resources. While developers are moving quickly to erect new wind farms

before the credit expires, AWEA remains hopeful that the incentive will be extended

and continue to encourage additional projects in the future.

For 1999, AWEA is preliminarily projecting 600 MW of new wind energy capacity,

and between 120 and 250 MW of ‘‘repowering’’ development at several older wind

farms in California. The term repowering means removing older wind turbines and

replacing them with new, more efficient turbines. At some sites in California one

new wind machine can replace up to twelve turbines in operation since the early

1980’s while generating more electricity at a significantly lower cost.

On the international front, wind power has been the fastest growing energy

source in the world in the 1990’s—with global installed generating capacity estimated to have grown by 25.7 percent annually since 1990. Worldwide, the wind industry doubled the amount of capacity in place three years ago, adding 2,100

megawatts (MW) to reach a total of 9,600 MW at the end of 1998. That amount of

capacity is sufficient to generate approximately 21 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, or enough power for 3.5 million suburban homes. Through this type of

growth, wind power has become one of the most rapidly expanding industries, with

worldwide equipment sales reaching roughly $2 billion in 1998.

Small Wind Systems (i.e., 50 kW or less).—Although the worldwide market for

small wind turbines (with a capacity of less than 50 kilowatts per turbine) has not

received as much attention, there is a growing recognition that the market for small

wind turbines is becoming increasingly attractive. Small wind turbine markets are

diverse, and include many applications both on-grid and off-grid. One market projection anticipates a five-fold increase in the small turbine market by 2005.

Small turbines can provide electricity where none is available from conventional

sources or where fuel costs are prohibitively high, such as diesel generators in Alaska. Currently, more than 2 billion people around the globe are not connected to an

electric power grid and that number is growing. Small wind turbine manufacturers
824

from Flagstaff, Arizona to Norman, Oklahoma, to Norwich, Vermont are working to

capture this emerging market for U.S.-made goods and services.

One or more small turbines can power a cabin, telecommunications relay, business, school, community center, clinic, or an entire village. Farmers can use small

turbines to power their homes and other buildings or pump water for livestock or

irrigation. In some cases, utilities may erect a cluster of turbines at the end of a

distribution line instead of building a more expensive power plant or transmission

line.

WIND PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUEST

AWEA supports DOE’s fiscal 2000 wind program request of $45.6 million. A

strong Department of Energy research and development effort, aimed at achieving

even further cost reductions, is a crucial component in continuing to grow the U.S.

wind industry and build on the successes of 1998 outlined below.

Applied Research.—About $13.5 million of the overall Wind program request

would fund Applied Research containing core research efforts involving universities

and private entities. Work focuses on advancing the U.S. wind energy technology

base through research, testing, and analysis of complex interactions between wind

turbine structures and materials. Efforts also examine how all parts of wind energy

systems—blades, drivetrains, generators, power converters, control systems, and

towers—can be optimized to increase reliability and further reduce costs.

AWEA’s member companies rely on these cost-shared efforts with DOE and its

laboratories for this type of research because most individual companies are undercapitalized. Even larger corporations have limited capability to carry out basic research efforts without specialized assistance.

Activities under the core research component of Applied Research are consistent

with the recommendations of the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and

Technology (PCAST) report on energy research and development to support research

on computational fluid dynamics, light weight adaptive structures, advanced control

systems, and variable speed and direct drive generators.

The additional $2.8 million requested above fiscal year 1999 funding would be applied to a new program—Wind Partnerships for Advanced Component Technologies

(Wind PACT)—to establish industry-government teams to test promising new component parts. Under this effort, two to three R&D subcontracts would be competitively selected to explore potential concepts such as light-weight and direct-drive

generators, flexible and articulated rotors, feedback controls for load alleviation, and

high efficiency power converters.

Applied Research also includes R&D for technologies that enable wind to be used

in stand-alone, remote, or hybrid power systems. The combined use of wind turbines

with diesel generators and other renewables and storage systems is a potentially

large market for U.S.-made technologies. The key research issue in this area is designing a control system that allows diesel generators to be turned off, when intermittent wind power is being produced, thus reducing overall consumption of highcost diesel fuel. In addition to laboratory R&D on control systems, this program supports ‘‘real world’’ control system field verification projects in Alaska. Approximately

60 percent of field verification costs are met by private industry.

Ultimately, WindPACT and other Applied Research efforts are aimed at moving

new technologies from the laboratories to the marketplace where they will directly

benefit American consumers and taxpayers by spurring new job growth, cutting

electricity generation costs, and reducing overall emissions of harmful air pollutants.

Turbine Research.—About $20.2 million of the overall Wind program request

would be invested in DOE’s cost-shared Turbine Research program aimed at further

reducing the cost of utility-scale wind power to a price approaching 2.5 cents per

kilowatt-hour at 15 mph wind sites. The bulk of this effort is focused on completing

research and development with two industry partners leading to state-of-the-art

utility scale (500 kW—2 MW) wind turbines. These projects currently call for a 20—

75 percent industry cost-share.

The requested funding would support design review, analysis, and testing services

needed for several new and on-going Turbine Research subcontracts with AWEA

member companies. In addition, field verification projects would be initiated that

would be tailored to satisfy specific regional needs. In addition, technical and data

analyses support would be continued for ongoing utility-scale Turbine Verification

Program projects.

Another important component of this program would direct $1.3 million in costshared R&D efforts to research, testing, and field verification of smaller wind turbines. This effort is aimed at assisting U.S. manufacturers capture a significant portion of the growing international market for small, distributed electricity generation
825

throughout the developing world. Another component of the $20.4 million Turbine

Research effort would provide $1.8 million for projects aimed at developing distributed (or, off-grid) wind resources on Native American Lands. The additional $4.8

million requested above fiscal year 1999 funding would be used for several field

verification efforts aimed at moving new turbine designs from the laboratory to the

marketplace.

Cooperative Research & Testing Program.—About $11.9 million of the overall

Wind program request would fund Cooperative Research and Testing efforts conducted at the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC), located new Rocky Flats,

Colorado. The goal of this work is to resolve near-term technical questions and provide technical support thus allowing U.S. companies to better compete in world markets.

The additional $3.2 million requested above fiscal year 1999 funding would be

used exclusively for field verification projects under the Hybrid Systems for Village

Power program and wind monitoring/performance measurement at existing wind

farms. This key efforts would build off of hybrid field verification work in Alaska

and provide additional opportunities for field verification of new hybrid power systems developed in the area of Applied Research. In essence, this project would

verify—through ‘‘real world testing’’—smaller wind systems at existing stand-alone

diesel power sites in Alaska and other states, U.S. territories, Native American communities, and other remote, off-grid locations.

A separate, but related, effort funded under Cooperative Research and Testing

would support continued development of international consensus standards for wind

turbine design, and establishment of wind turbine certification capability in the U.S.

Both of these activities are essential to maximizing industry prospects for international sales of U.S. wind energy products and services.

WIND POWER IS WORKING IN THESE STATES

Once based almost solely in California, the domestic wind energy industry now

features utility-scale projects in 18 states. This economic expansion into the nation’s

heartland is directly tied to dramatic cost reductions and reliability improvements

stemming from industry cost-shared partnerships with the Department of Energy

laboratories. Below are some of the state success stories of the last year.

Colorado.—New Belgium Brewing Company, of Fort Collins, CO,—makers of ‘‘Fat

Tire Amber Ale’’ and other microbrews—said February 25 that it will soon become

the largest private consumer of wind power in the U.S. The decision has been put

to a vote of the company’s 70 employees, who unanimously OK’d the switch to wind

power even though the slightly increased cost cut into their bonuses, which are paid

on a cost-per-barrel basis.

By substituting 100 percent wind power for more conventional sources of electricity, the brewery will reduce the amount of coal burned by 980 tons per year and

eliminate more than 4 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions annually. The

power will be supplied by Fort Collins Utilities (FCU), the city’s municipal utility.

A 660-kW wind turbine will be built next fall at the Platte River Power Authority’s

wind site near Medicine Bow, Wyoming, to support New Belgium’s subscription to

FCU’s wind power program. The new turbine will produce about 1.8 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which is about the amount of electricity that New

Belgium will consume over 12 months.

Two 600-kW turbines have operated at the Medicine Bow site since April, 1998,

producing power for 12 other Fort Collins businesses and approximately 520 residents who have subscribed to the utility’s wind program.

Iowa.—Enron Corp. is erecting 250 high-tech wind turbines near Alta and Storm

Lake and will sell power to MidAmerican Energy. FPL Energy, Inc. (a subsidiary

of Florida Power & Light) is building 56 turbines at Clear Lake and selling power

to Alliant Energy. When these new wind turbines go on line, Iowa will be the thirdlargest wind energy producing state in the nation, behind California and Minnesota.

Illinois.—The initial startup of a new 60,000-square-foot wind turbine assembly

plant in Champaign, IL has created 60 new jobs building 22 story-tall wind machines each weighing 23 tons. Workers have already built and shipped 56 turbines

to a wind farm in Iowa and recently finished the first of four of 47 turbines headed

for Texas. Owners, NEG Micon USA, Inc. (based in Rolling Meadows, IL) expect to

assemble and deliver 250 wind turbines across the U.S. in 1999. When operating

at full speed, the facility is capable of assembling more than 400 wind turbines per

year.

Minnesota.—Northern States Power Co. is building 425 MW of wind capacity by

2002. When complete, these wind farms will be producing enough energy to power

the equivalent of 200,000 Minnesota households.
826

New Mexico.—In April, Southwest Public Service Co. starts purchasing wind

power from the brand new .7 MW Llano Estacado Wind Ranch located halfway between Clovis, NM and Farwell, TX. The one test-turbine is owned and maintained

by Cielo Wind Power of Austin, TX. The Llano Estacado generator will be mounted

on a 230-foot tubular steel tower and will be turned by three 80-foot long blades.

Power is produced when wind velocity reaches eight to 60 miles-per-hour, although

25 MPH wind would be the most efficient. The generator will turn off when the

wind velocity is more than 60 MPH.

New Mexico is ranked #12 on a DOE list of the top 20 states for wind energy development potential—even higher than California which is ranked #17. With more

turbines, New Mexico winds could produce 435 billion kilowatt-hours annually, the

wind energy could create 130,000 jobs, and it has an economic potential of $10.9 billion.

North Dakota.—Grand Forks, ND gained 130 new high-tech jobs earlier this year

when LM Glasfiber, Inc., a wind turbine blade manufacturer based in Denmark,

opened a new $5.8 million production facility in the town’s new industrial park.

More jobs will be added when the company soon adds a sales and service department.

Oregon.—FPL Energy’s new Vansycle wind farm, near the town of Pendleton,

went on line in December of 1998. The project’s 38 high-tech turbines are now producing about 25 MW of power—enough electricity to meet the needs of about 60,000

people—for customers of Portland General Electric.

Texas.—(A) The largest wind turbines ever erected in North America were dedicated December 2, 1998 in Big Spring, Texas. Upon completion, the project’s 46

wind turbines will produce about 117 million kilowatt-hours per year—enough electricity to serve the needs of 7,300 homes.

(B) Reliant Energy HL&P, a major utility based in Houston, TX., plans to offer

its customers non-polluting electricity from the wind this summer. HL&P will be

buying the power generated by 22.5 MW of wind capacity to be installed in the

Delaware Mountain Wind Farm, which is now under construction in rural

Culberson County in west Texas. The amount of electricity from the wind farm will

be equivalent to the power needs of more than 4,000 homes. American National

Wind Power (ANWP), a Houston-based wind farm developer, is scheduled to complete the wind plant’s first phase, which will total 30 MW in capacity, before the

end of June. ANWP hopes to ultimately expand the Delaware Mountain Wind Farm

to 250 MW, which would make it the largest U.S. wind plant.

Wyoming.—The Foote Creek wind farm will soon have the capacity to produce

over 40 MW of power. Electricity generated at the site will be purchased by

Pacificorp, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Eugene (Oregon) Water &

Electric Board.

RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE (REPI)

Year-to-year uncertainty regarding funding levels for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) play havoc with the long-term planning needs of running

a municipally-owned utility. For this reason, AWEA suggests the Congress work

with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop long-range alternatives to annual

funding of this program.

Assuming that significant changes in program funding and distribution are unlikely to occur this year, AWEA recommends fiscal year 2000 REPI funding of $8

million—$12 million below the $20 million need identified by DOE (in its fiscal year

1999 appropriations testimony) and by the American Public Power Association.

AWEA’s recommendation differs markedly from the Administration’s proposed reduction to $1.5 million from current spending of $4 million (fiscal year 1999 level).

AWEA’s $8 million recommendation is the same funding level suggested in our fiscal year 1999 testimony.

The REPI program, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, encourages municipally-owned utilities to invest in renewable energy technologies including wind

energy systems. REPI permits DOE to make direct payments to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities at the rate of 1.5 cent per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Because wind energy

projects require a two to three year lead time for permitting and construction, it is

very important that stable and predictable funding be provided.

REPI was established to ensure equity between investor-owned utilities—that utilize production tax credits—and publicly and cooperatively owned electric utilities

that are unable to do so. REPI is particularly important in helping the following

publicly owned utilities develop wind energy projects: Bonneville Power Administration (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana); Cedar Falls Utilities (Iowa); City of
827

Brownfield (Texas); Eugene Water & Electric Board (Oregon); Fort Collins Light &

Power (Colorado); Lincoln Electric (Nebraska); Lower Colorado River Authority

(Texas); Marshall Utilities (Minnesota); Moorhead Public Service (Minnesota); Nebraska Public Power District (Nebraska); Platte River Power Authority (Colorado);

Princeton Municipal Light Dept. (Massachusetts); Sacramento Municipal Utility

District (California); Traverse City Light & Power (Michigan); and Waverly Light

& Power (Iowa).

CONCLUSION

Smart investments in wind energy R&D have delivered—and are delivering—

value for taxpayers by developing a clean domestic energy source providing significant economic, public health, and environmental benefits. Working with DOE, the

wind industry has cut the per kilowatt-hour cost of wind power by more than 80

percent since the early 1980’s thus allowing utility-scale wind development in 18

states and generating electricity equivalent to the residential electric needs of over

one million Americans.

As the cost of conventional electricity sources also continues to decline, a strong

DOE wind energy research and development effort funded at $45.6 million is one

crucial component of growing this industry.

On behalf of the members and board of the American Wind Energy Association,

I thank you for the chance to share our views on these important programs.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Energy Committee of the

Council on Engineering of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

is pleased to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE). Our testimony is directed to DOE’s research and development (R&D) programs related to the use of renewable and nuclear energy and

fundamental energy research.

INTRODUCTION TO THE ENERGY COMMITTEE OF ASME

The 125,000-member ASME is a worldwide engineering society focused on technical, educational, and research issues. It conducts one of the world’s largest technical publishing operations, holds some 30 technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and sets many industrial and manufacturing

standards. This testimony represents the considered judgment of the Energy Committee and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole. The Energy Committee

consists primarily of members representing the eight technical divisions that address energy technologies and resources.

Energy R&D was identified in a recent survey of ASME members as one of the

most important public policy issues. Energy Committee members recommend that

an energy policy:

—maintain U.S. competitiveness in the international marketplace;

—protect our national energy security;

—seek technological solutions to concerns about global climate change and emissions of associated pollutants; and,

—protect the environment in all phases of the energy cycle, from the extraction

of fuels to the ultimate disposal of the byproducts.

ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY

Increased national and international concerns about the environment are placing

higher demands on the performance of our energy systems. As engineers, we cannot

emphasize strongly enough that investments in science, engineering, and technology

are essential for enabling our nation to meet its needs for inexpensive energy that

is produced and consumed in an environmentally friendly manner.

Meeting our future energy needs in a manner consistent with national and global

environmental well-being will require development of a broad suite of technologies

ranging from renewables to nuclear energy. Fossil fuels, which are presently the

worldwide predominant energy source, will remain the primary fuel for provision of

energy for a number of years to come, both here and abroad. Therefore, efforts to

improve the efficiency and environmental friendliness of their use will have a larger

impact than might be true of other sources, particularly in the next 20 years. Those

efforts must be complemented by R&D investments in a broad range of energy production technologies.
828

The Energy Committee believes that immediate priority for increased funding for

research programs should be given to:

—programs that maintain or even increase the use of nuclear energy,

—programs that develop renewable sources as viable energy options for both domestic and foreign implementation, and

—programs that provide for basic research, which stimulates the development of

innovative technologies, addresses major science and technology challenges, and

maintains our educational pipeline to ensure the supply of human capital.

PROGRAMS IN THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

The Energy Committee supports the responsible use of all energy resources for

generating electricity, transportation fuels, and use in the industrial, commercial,

and residential sectors. Our assessment of energy use projections, such as presented

in the EIA Annual Energy Outlook for 1998, lead to the conclusion that the United

States must continue to maintain a diverse mix of energy supplies. The U.S. pioneered the safe utilization of atomic energy for commercial power production. Technology developed in the U.S. is now employed world-wide for nuclear power generation. For over two decades, no new nuclear power plants have been approved for

construction in the U.S. Abroad, many countries are taking advantage of this clean,

safe, and relatively inexpensive power source. The U.S. has the opportunity to

renew its option on the effective use of nuclear power, which many believe will be

a vital part of a future where carbon emissions may be severely curtailed. However,

this will not be possible without significant, sustained, national investment, coupled

with the re-licensing of existing U.S. nuclear plants.

Nuclear energy plant optimization

The Energy Committee is particularly supportive of efforts to address extending

the life and improve the effectiveness of conventional nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program marks the beginning of efforts to

enable maximum use of our existing nuclear generation capacity. Major advances

in science and technology offer the potential to substantially increase the productive

life of nuclear plants with improved safety and economic performance. Given the potential benefits offered by the NEPO program, the Energy Committee encourages

consideration of additional funding, above the $5 million proposed by the Administration for fiscal year 2000 to $10 million, with appropriate and justified increases

in future years.

Nuclear energy research initiative (NERI)

Renewal of efforts to develop fundamental new technology for future nuclear

power generation was supported by the Energy Committee last year, and we continue to endorse investment in this young program. Increased understanding of nuclear power technology, advances in materials science, and improvements in many

related sciences and technology offer the potential to reduce plant construction and

operation costs and waste management requirements, and improve plant operability, reliability, lifespan, and safety. A substantial fraction of this initiative will

go toward nurturing university research and education in nuclear science and engineering, through direct funding and reinforcing linkages between the nuclear technical community in industry and our national laboratories. It will help ensure the

availability of an improved nuclear power option for the future, which will benefit

the U.S. by enhancing power production in this country and enabling U.S. industry

to compete effectively in the global energy markets. The Energy Committee supports

the increase in funding proposed for this program.

Other nuclear programs

Consistent with support of the NERI program, the Energy Committee supports

continued investment in the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support

(URFAS) efforts. It is reasonable to believe that increased investment in NERI and

NEPO will require greater utilization of our university reactors, therefore, the Energy Committee recommends a modest increase to $13 million for fiscal year 2000.

The Energy Committee supports continuation of the Advanced Radioisotope Program at the level proposed by the Administration (no change from fiscal year 1999).

The Energy Committee also supports continued efforts to support establishment of

a commercial application for the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at the level ($30

million) proposed by the Administration. This effort is particularly prudent considering the Administration-proposed establishment of an Advanced Nuclear Medicine

Initiative that would augment the commercial mission envisioned for FFTF of medical isotope production.
829

PROGRAMS IN SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES

The development of technologies that enable use of solar and renewable resources

are of significant strategic importance to the U.S. Development of competitive renewable options provides insurance for potential energy security and global climate

change impacts on our energy future. They will enable the U.S. to achieve a more

sustainable energy economy.

The development of solar and renewable resource technologies provides one of the

greatest challenges to modern science and engineering. Consistent with the magnitude of the challenge, it will be necessary to sustain investment over long periods

of time to enable substantial progress in this arena. The Administration has proposed substantial increases in funding for solar and renewable programs, largely because of their potential to contribute to reduction of global climate change emissions. It is likely, however, that efforts to improve efficiency and reduce carbon

emissions of fossil energy technologies could have a larger near-term impact on global climate change emissions than comparable investments in solar and renewable

technology.

Solar/renewable energy programs

The Energy Committee strongly encourages continued support of fundamental

science and engineering to facilitate discovery and development of breakthrough

technologies in all solar and renewable resource applications. A key aspect of R&D

should focus on the development of innovative concepts at universities to complement the work being pursued by the national laboratories. Demonstration programs are an essential element to both evaluate technologies and to address the

many challenging operations and integration issues, and should be focused on resolving performance uncertainties, examining systemic and integration issues, and

reducing cost and risk for commercial development and deployment. Such programs

should not attempt to create a market for these technologies, which properly remains the responsibility of industry.

The Solar Buildings and Hydropower programs are very small, with small dollar

increases. Both of these programs favorably impact the use of renewable energy, at

good cost/benefit ratios. The larger programs, Concentrating Solar and Geothermal

Energy, are slated for modest increases (11 percent and 4 percent, respectively),

which appear appropriate considering their contributions.

The substantial increase (over 25 percent) in the hydrogen program does not seem

justified. Careful consideration of the rationale for aggressive development of ‘‘pure’’

hydrogen technology systems should be undertaken in light of the potential for onboard and on-site conversion of hydrocarbon fuels to hydrogen offered by several developing technologies. Furthermore, the time scale for implementation of the ‘‘hydrogen economy,’’ should it become necessary and economically feasible, is sufficiently

long that urgent development is not now required. The $7.5 million (24 percent) increase in the Biomass program also does not seem to be merited in terms of its

near-term contribution to the nation’s energy needs, unless the ‘‘co-firing with coal’’

project can be shown to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The major program dollar and percentage increases (about 30 percent each) are

in the two biggest programs: Wind and Photovoltaics (PV). Both of these technologies have viable industries and are in a ‘‘globally competitive’’ mode, with research and development investments driving down the delivered energy price of

each. It is to the advantage of the United States to be pre-eminent in both of these

technologies because of the value of their export markets and also because of the

energy security and emission-reduction objectives offered by both technologies. The

PV program represents the renewable technology with the greatest overall energy/

power potential, and also has been a program with steadily increasing efficiency and

reduced energy/power costs. Both programs should continue to be examined for benefits versus costs, especially with large program funding increases.

PROGRAMS IN THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE

The bulk of funding allocated for programs in the Office of Science support efforts

along four themes, (1) the physics of matter, (2) global climate change research, (3)

fundamental transport and conversion processes, and (4) advanced computation and

information technologies. The scientific merits of the majority of these programs

have been well documented and have earned the support of the Energy Committee.

The most substantial changes proposed for fiscal year 2000 relate to (1) the continued construction of the Spallation Neutron Source ($84 million), which the Energy

Committee generally supports, and (2) initiation of the DOE elements of the Administration’s Information Technology for the Twenty-First Century initiative (IT2)

($68.5 million).
830

The Energy Committee strongly endorses the DOE efforts under the IT2 with certain reservations. We applaud the inclusion of combustion processes as a major computation challenge of which the Scientific Simulation Initiative is a small portion

($7 million) of the proposed funding. However, there are a great many additional

challenges that defy present engineering simulation (such as on-line simulation of

power grid dynamics, or composite material behavior) that would be worthy research areas for advanced simulation. The development of engineering simulation

approaches has been less well represented in DOE efforts than scientific computing,

yet investments in engineering simulation can often result in rapid translation into

domestic economic growth. We therefore support increased funding for the Simulation Initiative to enable establishment of a more substantial programmatic effort in

engineering simulation as part of this new initiative.

Lastly, the Energy Committee is concerned that the Science Education budget re- mains under funded, at $4.5 million. ASME has long championed increased attention to science, mathematics and technical education at all levels, but particularly

in grades K–12. Considering that almost $3 billion is budgeted for the DOE Office

of Science, it seems only reasonable that efforts to translate the scientific and engineering experience of the present generation to those who will be responsible for our

future should be of paramount importance. We therefore recommend a budget of $6

million for Science Education as the first step toward increasing the interest and

enthusiasm of our youth for science and engineering.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the renewable, nuclear, and science budgets proposed for the Department of Energy. ASME’s Energy

Committee will be pleased to respond to requests for additional information or perspectives on other aspects of our nation’s energy program.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHESTER A. FARRIS, III, CHAIRMAN, PHOTOVOLTAICS

DIVISION, SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (SEIA)

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national industry association of the solar electric and solar thermal companies in the United States. The

Photovoltaics Division represents those industry members who manufacture, distribute, and install solar electric technologies known as photovoltaics (PV).

The Division strongly supports the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 recommenda- tion for $93 million in research and development funding for photovoltaic technology. Over the last several years, federally-supported photovoltaic research at the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, universities,

and the private sector has yielded stunning results, enabling the U.S. to retain its

worldwide technological leadership position.

The industry respectfully solicits the Subcommittee to fund critical cost-shared

programs at the level of the Administration’s request. In order of priority, these programs are:

1. Thin Film Partnership

2. PV Manufacturing Technology R&D (PV MaT)

3. Million Solar Roofs and Building-integrated PV R&D

4. System Engineering and Reliability

5. High Performance R&D

THE INDUSTRY REQUEST

The Photovoltaics RD&D Program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy has consistently achieved its long-and short-term goals and objectives.

The primary goal of the Program is to conduct pure and applied research on new

materials and processes to lower the cost of photovoltaics and boost user confidence

in the application of this innovative technology. The governments of Germany and

Japan have initiatives far more ambitious than those outlined by the fiscal year

2000 recommendation.

The US photovoltaics industry is comprised of over 20 US-based manufacturers,

100 distribution and system integration firms, and over 100 solar electric installation companies. The US industry leads the world technologically and has a dominant market share of over 40 percent. The ability to maintain America’s leadership

position can only be sustained by leveling the playing field by fully funding the programs proposed in the Administration’s budget. Funding in Japan’s photovoltaics

program now exceeds US $250 million per year. Germany has launched a program

to install 100,000 rooftop systems that would increase the country’s PV market requirement by an order of magnitude.

To date, the DOE Photovoltaics Program has been very effective in directing the

resources of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Sandia Na-
831

tional Laboratories, which are jointly known as the National Center for

Photovoltaics (NCPV). The Labs’ technical competency and analytical capabilities

have resulted in significant improvements in the cost, reliability, and performance

of photovoltaic cells, modules, and systems. Research areas of particular note include new substrate materials (high-strength glass and plastics), process technology,

building-integrated photovoltaics, and system measurement and performance.

At the Subcommittee’s request, the DOE Photovoltaics Program has dramatically

reduced ‘‘uncosted’’ balances, becoming the leading renewable energy program to do

so. The DOE Photovoltaics Program awards funding almost entirely on a competitive bid basis and is well managed and directed.

The Thin Film R&D and PV Manufacturing Technology programs have resulted in a reduction in photovoltaic cell and panel manufacturing costs from $50 per watt

in 1976 to below $5 per watt today, a ten-fold decrease. To reach parity with conventional power generation technologies, our industry must continue to drive this cost

down further. This goal can only be achieved through aggressive R&D and manufacturing technology programs such as the Thin Film Partnership and the PV MaT

Program. The current cost-sharing methodology used by the Department ensures

that participating companies must fully commit their own dollars towards this goal,

as well.

The Million Solar Roofs Initiative, announced by the Administration in 1997, has

encouraged several state agencies, local governments, and electric utilities to establish promotion and technical assistance programs for photovoltaics. However, the

Million Solar Roofs Program requires additional funding in order to ensure the longterm viability of the US industry which is continually threatened by foreign government subsidy programs.

Historically, it has taken considerable courage and foresight from our elected officials to put in place infrastructure programs that have long-term benefits to this

country. America’s highways, electricity generation and distribution systems, aviation management systems, and state and national parks were championed at times

when such spending was criticized.

The future economic strength of any nation is highly dependent on readily available, reliable, affordable, and clean energy. To ensure our nation’s long-term energy

security, independence, and sustainability, the government’s support is absolutely

crucial. Without question, this will be a daunting task. Photovoltaics have been and

will continue to be a pivotal technology to achieve these goals in the new millenium.

The US photovoltaics industry urges you to support the Administration’s fiscal

year 2000 recommendation of $93 million, which includes explicit specific language

supporting pure and applied research, technology improvement and validation, and

commercialization technical assistance. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LES NELSON, CHAIRMAN, SOLAR THERMAL & BUILDING

PRODUCTS DIVISION, SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (SEIA)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national industry association of the photovoltaics and solar thermal equipment manufacturers, component

suppliers, distributors, and installers (via our affiliated state and regional chapters).

The Solar Thermal and Building Products Division represents the section of SEIA’s

members who are involved in solar water heating and solar space heating technologies primarily for buildings, but also for commercial and industrial processes

and facilities.

The Division strongly supports the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 recommendation for $5.5 million in funding a focused set of research activities primarily at the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Labs and select Universities. However, to insure that the funding in research has a pathway towards

the private sector, the industry respectfully requests the Subcommittee to endorse

a limited set of technology validation activities to promote new efficiencies in technology, greater utility of use by emerging markets, and analysis for barrier reduction in regard to pollution prevention, electricity displacement and load shifting, and

building integration.

THE INDUSTRY REQUEST

The Solar Buildings RD&D program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy has been one of the under-appreciated RD&D programs.

The goal of the program is to significantly reduce solar system installed costs and

operation and maintenance costs, largely through research on technical innovations
832

and lower cost materials, while providing technical assistance to energy service companies, solar companies and utilities on effective utilization of solar for load shifting,

demand management, pollution prevention, and emerging energy service businesses.

The solar thermal industry is comprised entirely of small businesses with nearly

400 US-based companies involved in the manufacturing, distribution and installation of solar thermal systems.

The program has been extremely effective in directing the resources of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, the Florida Solar

Energy Center and others in developing their technical competency to drive whole

new areas of RD&D that can be transferred to the U.S. industry. Computer modeling of system performance, evolution of new concepts, and provision of technical

assistance to emerging endusers are all quantifiable results of this program.

The Subcommittee has explicitly endorsed RD&D and commercialization efforts

for other building-based technologies such as geothermal heat pumps. The solar

thermal technologies are as deserving, not only because solar is a viable, clean, costeffective option, but because the U.S. solar industry has a clear record of cost-shared

RD&D tied to a willing utility and consumer base.

The Million Solar Roofs initiative, announced by The Administration in 1997, has

leveraged several local governments, utilities and states to establish an aggressive

promotion and technical assistance efforts for solar thermal. The emerging technologies that DOE has worked so ardently with industry to develop, should be allowed to penetrate this evolving market.

The U.S. Department of Energy along with its national laboratories and university partners are essential for the growth of this industry. There is an established

need by state air quality offices to be provided analytical tools to quantify solar

water heating pollution prevention benefits. Similarly, the utility industry wants

quantifiable analysis on the demand reduction profiles of solar, while the new home

construction market demands products which can be integrated with existing construction practices and products.

The research base is in place, the U.S. solar industry has shown to be a reliable

and willing partner, and the market is on the cusp of growing with the appropriate

and focused technical assistance.

The solar building industries urge you to support the fiscal year 2000 level of $5.5

million which includes specific language supporting pure and applied research, technology validation, and commercialization technical assistance. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LENNART JOHANSSON, CHAIRMAN, SOLAR THERMALPOWER

DIVISION, SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (SEIA)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national industry association of the photovoltaics and solar thermal equipment manufacturers, component

suppliers, distributors, and installers (via our affiliated state and regional chapters).

The Solar Thermal Power Division represents the section of SEIA’s members who

are involved in concentrating solar energy technologies primarily for electricity generation, but also for thermal energy commercial and industrial processes and facilities.

The Division strongly supports the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 recommendation for $18.7 million in funding a focused set of research activities primarily at the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories. However, to insure that the funding in research has a pathway towards the private sector, the industry respectfully requests the Subcommittee to endorse a limited set of

technology validation activities to validate system performance from the combined

set of components created through joint collaboration of US industry and the national laboratories via DOE.

THE INDUSTRY REQUEST

The Concentrating Solar Power RD&D program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy has been one of the DOE programs that have been on time, on

budget, and shown proven merits.

The goal of the program is to increase the efficiency of a variety of promising solar

thermal technologies; to perform research on optimizing solar thermal operations for

solar troughs; to undertake systems validations and lend competent technical assistance for solar driven engine systems, to hone performance tools and to provide technical assistance to energy service providers, solar-energy-related companies and util-
833

ities on the effective utilization of solar for load shifting, demand management, pollution prevention and the development of emerging energy service businesses.

The concentrating solar thermal industry currently holds global technical leadership with nearly 40 US-based companies involved in the manufacturing, distribution

and installation of concentrating solar thermal systems.

To date, the DOE RD&D program for Concentrating Solar Power has been extremely effective. Solar Dish engines systems were installed at The Pentagon, at the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado and in Arizona in 1998. These

systems needs continued validation and expansion to other sites.

The solar trough systems are going through another year of new technical O&M

approaches in California where over 350 megawatts of power are being produced.

Over the last decade, the cost per kWh has dropped from approximately 25 cents

down to the 8- to 9-cent range with further improvements expected for new projects

with the assistance of a continued and well-focussed RD&D program.

Largely due to the success of the program, international interest has increased

with potential trough projects under discussion in Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt,

Greece, Mexico, Morocco and Spain. With the increasing international interest, U.S.

industries could be poised on the cusp of a potential new wave of technology export

opportunities. Without a continued strong commitment by the USDOE to support

the solar thermal RD&D program, US industry alone may not be able to maintain

it’s position of leadership in the face of the high level of support being lent similar

programs by the European Union and other countries.

The Department of Energy has not been clear, however, on the direction of this

emerging technology program even though the costs of the technology and the actual

performance of solar concentrating technologies have far exceeded several other

major programs in their energy R&D portfolio. This RD&D program typifies the

need for federal involvement, pre-commercial, non-incremental improvement and a

solid R&D basis—the epitome of what the Subcommittee has expressed in earlier

hearings.

The utilization of solar concentrating technologies has a pragmatic path to the

marketplace if the pure and applied RD&D are sustained. Arizona Public Service,

Public Service of New Mexico, and other utilities have shown a solid commitment

and excitement on the prospects of this emerging technology. Aside from displacing

the need for conventional fossil-fuel combustion when the sun is shining, the vast

potential for utilizing clean-burning natural gas as a solar-hybrid-generator to make

solar thermal electric generation fully dispatchable is a big plus. The hybrid solar/

natural gas approach is used with great success today in the solar trough plants

in California. The modularity of the technology also situates it as useful during a

restructured era in the electric utility where incremental generation and investment

provides far more flexibility than traditional large-scale baseload electric generation

units.

The concentrating solar thermal industries urge you to support the fiscal year

2000 level of $18.5 million which includes specific language supporting pure and applied research, technology validation, and commercialization technical assistance.

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD L. KLASS, PRESIDENT, BIOMASS ENERGY

RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2000 appropriations for mission-oriented, biomass energy and fuels research, development, and deployment (RD&D)

programs carried out by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

(EERE). The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) is a non-profit association in Washington, DC. BERA was founded in 1982 by researchers and private organizations that are conducting biofuels research. Our objectives are to promote

education and research on renewable biomass energy and waste-to-energy systems

that can be economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a source of information on biomass policies and programs.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of BERA’s members for the

opportunity to present our position on the federal funding of mission-oriented biomass RD&D. Continued support of this effort is essential to provide the stimulus

to develop environmentally clean, indigenous energy resources that can displace fossil fuels, stimulate regional and national economic development and employment,

reduce our dependence on imported oil, improve our energy security, and help to

eliminate adverse climate and environmental changes.

I have examined EERE’s appropriations request for biomass energy and fuels

RD&D in fiscall year 2000, and would like to offer a few comments about our
834

Board’s concerns before presenting BERA’s recommendations. DOE continues to

over-emphasize scale-up projects, the budgets for which are large and which adversely impact the research budgets. DOE has therefore been required to terminate

research in several microbial and thermochemical conversion areas. We feel that a

balanced research program should be sustained and protected, so BERA continues

to recommend both a diversified portfolio of research and an appropriate amount of

funding for scale-up without diminishing either EERE’s research or scale-up programs. Also, DOE’s research on biomass energy outside of EERE by the Office of

Science (OS, former Office of Energy Research), which supports basic academic research, and by the EERE’s Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) on chemicals from

biomass, complements EERE’s biomass energy and fuels RD&D. All biomass programs should be internally coordinated and jointly managed at DOE Headquarters.

Note that for fiscal year 2000, EERE’s biomass-based research under the title Hydrogen Research in the funding request is included in BERA’s recommendations, but

our recommendations for OIT’s Agriculture Vision chemicals-from-biomass program

are presented in a separate BERA statement for the Interior and Related Agencies

Bill.

EERE’s appropriations request for biomass energy and fuels RD&D in fiscal year

2000 includes details that have normally not been presented in the past. We commend EERE for updating their biomass RD&D plan so that it is now reasonably

clear which projects have been completed, terminated, or are new starts. Specifically, BERA recommends that $113.7 million be appropriated for biomass energy

and fuels RD&D in fiscal year 2000. The highlights are:

—A total of $61.2 million for research and $52.5 million for industry cost-shared

scale-up.

—$31.2 million for research and $28 million for industry cost-shared scale-up

projects for Power Systems. The scale-up projects include the integrated biomass production-conversion and Vermont gasification projects.

—$25.5 million for research and $24 million for industry cost-shared scale-up

projects for Transportation. The scale-up projects include the NREL ethanol

pilot plant in Colorado, and commercial ethanol plants in Alaska, California,

New York, and Louisiana.

—$4 million for biomass-based hydrogen research.

—$1 million for internal coordination and joint management of all DOE biomass

programs.

ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATION RECOMMENDED BY BERA

BERA recommends that the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 be allocated as

shown in the table. BERA’s recommendations are generally listed in the same order

as DOE’s request for fiscal year 2000, except we include several research areas that

are either new or that BERA’s Board recommends be restored to sustain a balanced

program of research and scale-up. Note that the recommended budget for each scaleup category does not include industry cost-sharing, which is required to be a minimum of 50 percent of the total budget for each project.

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Program area

Recommended budget

For research For scale-up

Power Systems

Thermochemical Conversion:

Advanced Combustion .................................................................................................... $2,000,000 ........................

Advanced Gasification .................................................................................................... 2,500,000 ........................

Advanced Pyrolysis ......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 ........................

Advanced Stationary Fuel Cells ...................................................................................... 2,000,000 ........................

Improved Emission Control ............................................................................................. 2,000,000 ........................

Wastewater Treatment .................................................................................................... 1,500,000 ........................

Ash Disposal and New Uses .......................................................................................... 1,500,000 ........................

Hot-Gas Clean-Up ........................................................................................................... 2,000,000 ........................

Advanced Materials ........................................................................................................ 700,000 ........................

Microbial Conversion: Advanced Anaerobic Digestion ............................................................ 2,000,000 ........................

Systems Development:

Vermont Gasifier ............................................................................................................. ........................ $6,000,000

Integrated Production-Conversion .................................................................................. ........................ 19,000,000

Advanced Cofiring with Coal .......................................................................................... 2,000,000 ........................

Small Modular Systems .................................................................................................. 2,500,000 ........................
835

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY—Continued

Program area

Recommended budget

For research For scale-up

Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................................................. 3,500,000 ........................

Pelletized Biomass Fuel Systems ............................................................................................ 500,000 ........................

Feedstock Production ............................................................................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000

Regional Biomass Energy Program ......................................................................................... 2,500,000 1,000,000

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................... 31,200,000 28,000,000

Transportation

Fermentation Ethanol:

Advanced Organisms ...................................................................................................... 3,000,000 ........................

Advanced Enzymes ......................................................................................................... 3,000,000 ........................

Advanced Pretreatment .................................................................................................. 2,000,000 ........................

NREL Pretreatment Pilot Reactor ................................................................................... ........................ 3,000,000

NREL Fermentation Pilot Plant ....................................................................................... ........................ 5,000,000

Commercial Ethanol Plants by Company and Location:

BCI International, Gridley, CA 2 ...................................................................................... ........................ 5,000,000

Massada Resources, NY 3 and Sealaska, AK 4 ............................................................... ........................ 7 7,000,000

Arkenol, Rio Linda, CA 5 ................................................................................................. ........................ ( 8 )

BCI International, Jenninqs, LA 6 .................................................................................... ........................ ( 9 )

Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells .................................................................................................... 3,000,000 ........................

Biodiesel .................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 ........................

Feedstock Production ............................................................................................................... 2,000,000 3,000,000

Thermochemical Conversion:

Ethanol Production ......................................................................................................... 3,000,000 ........................

Mixed Alcohols Production .............................................................................................. 3,000,000 ........................

Oxygenates from Biomass .............................................................................................. 3,000,000 ........................

Regional Biomass Energy Program ......................................................................................... 2,500,000 1,000,000

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................... 25,500,000 24,000,000

Hydrogen Research 1

Advanced Thermal Processes .................................................................................................. 2,000,000 ........................

Advanced Photolytic Processes ................................................................................................ 2,000,000 ........................

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 ........................

Integrated Bioenergy RD&D

Coordination and Integration .................................................................................................. 500,000 500,000

Total ........................................................................................................................... 61,200,000 52,500,000

Grand Total ................................................................................................................ 113,700,000

1 BERA’s recommendations pertain only to the biomass-based portion of Hydrogen Research.

2 Rice straw, dilute acid.

3 Refuse-derived fuel, concentrated acid.

4Waste softwoods.

5 Rice straw, concentrated acid.

6 Bagasse, dilute acid.

7 For Masada and Sealaska plants, and initiation of corn-enzyme hydrolysis and fossil-derived syngas-microbial ethanol production plants. 8 DOE’s share of funding completed.

9 DOE supplied $4,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.

BERA RECOMMENDS $61.2 MILLION FOR RESEARCH AND $52.5 MILLION FOR INDUSTRY

COST-SHARED, SCALE-UP PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

BERA’s recommendations consist of a balanced program of mission-oriented

RD&D on feedstock production and conversion research and technology transfer to

the private sector. Advanced power generation technologies and alternative liquid

transportation fuels are emphasized.

In addition, BERA strongly urges that at least 50 percent of the federal funds for

biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-up projects, are used to sustain a

national biomass science and technology base via subcontractors outside DOE’s national laboratories. While it is desirable for the national laboratories to monitor this

research, increased support for US scientists and engineers in industry, academe,

and research institutes that are unable to fund biomass research will encourage

commercialization of emerging technologies and serious consideration of new ideas.
836

It will also help to expand the professional development and expertise of diverse researchers committed to the advancement of biomass technologies.

BERA’s specific recommendations for research, the industry cost-shared scale-up

projects, and the dollar allocations are listed in the table (page 2). Additional commentary on each program area is presented below in the same order as in the table.

POWER SYSTEMS

Thermochemical Conversion.—Currently, there is over 8,000 MW of electric power

capacity fueled by biomass in the United States. Municipal solid wastes, forest and

wood processing residues and pulping liquors are the primary fuels. Continued research to develop advanced biomass combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis methods

could have environmental and economic benefits that can lead to significant growth

in biomass power generation. Much of this research has been phased out by DOE.

Research (not scale-up) should be initiated or re-stored with the goal of developing

the next generation of thermochemical biomass conversion processes for power generation. Stationary, integrated biomass gasifier-fuel cell systems should be developed as potential, high-efficiency power generation systems. New fuel cells that can

tolerate the sulfur levels found in certain biomass-derived fuel gases without sacrificing system affordability and the testing of integrated advanced fuel cell systems

should be included in this work. In addition to the restoration of this important research, priority should also be given to the development of innovative enabling technologies consisting of advanced emission control systems, improved ash disposal

methods and new ash uses, low-cost, hot-gas clean-up methods, and advanced materials that eliminate corrosion and erosion problems for thermochemical reactors and

turbines. The status of these technologies is far from what is needed, yet they are

essential for practical, low-cost thermochemical conversion of biomass.

Microbial Conversion.—Microbiological gasification by anaerobic digestion is

unique in that it produces methane directly, the major component in natural gas,

as a primary product from a full range of virgin and waste biomass feedstocks. However, DOE has terminated most of the research needed to develop advanced systems

that yield low-cost methane by reducing capital and operating costs. This research

can lead to the alleviation of numerous environmental problems encountered during

waste treatment and disposal, and should be restored.

Systems Development.—The scale-up of biomass gasification for medium-Btu gas

and power generation in Vermont continued in fiscal year 1999. This project should

be funded in fiscal year 2000 to enable testing of an advanced turbine system for

the generation of 8–12 MW from wood. The testing in Hawaii of the hot gas cleanup system, which was shown in the preliminary work to be effective, was not completed because the gasifier was shut down. This work should be completed, at another site if necessary, to perfect the technology. The integrated biomass productionpower generation projects chosen by DOE for scale-up in Minnesota (alfalfa), New

York (willow-coal cofiring), and Iowa (switchgrass-coal cofiring) as well as DOE’s initiative to expand biomass-coal cofiring at additional sites should be continued. Plans

should also be made to fund scale-up of the Whole Tree Energy system as part of

this effort. Research on the development of advanced biomass-coal cofiring systems

and small modular direct biomass combustion turbines should be sustained to develop advanced designs for small modular systems, and advanced combined cycle

systems that can supply cogenerated power.

Municipal Solid Waste.—MSW disposal is a continuing national problem, which

when combined with energy recovery, offers major opportunities for power generation and recycling. Advanced MSW disposal-energy recovery systems are needed for

municipalities; there is also a need for small, low-cost systems. Research in each of

these areas should be restored.

Pelletized Biomass Fuel Systems.—Research is needed to develop low-cost, highproductivity biomass pelletizing and supply systems, and automated residential and

commercial heating units designed for these fuels. The unavailability of such systems has been a large barrier to the growth and expansion of residential and commercial biomass fuel markets.

Feedstock Production.—See Feedstock Production in next section.

Regional Biomass Energy Program.—The Regional Biomass Energy Program

(RBEP), established by Congress in 1983, to take advantage of the regional differences in biomass resources and energy needs, are implemented through five separate regions located in the Southeast, Northwest, West, Great Lakes, and Northeast.

The RBEP has been important in establishing individual state biomass programs,

and in stimulating technology transfer and the development and commercialization

of biomass energy in the private sector. RBEP activities have created awareness and

a positive image for biomass energy while providing significant environmental en-
837

hancement and creating new jobs, especially in rural areas. The private sector and

the states have been highly supportive of the RBEP and typically provide 2 to 4

times the federal investment as cost sharing. In fiscal year 2000, the RBEP will conduct activities to develop and encourage the commercialization of technologies for

power generation with biomass, biomass-coal cofiring, small-scale distributed generation systems, and biogas systems. These activities may include several statelevel, one-day workshops to educate stakeholders and to facilitate the addition of

new generating capacity based on biomass fuels. Development of integrated disposal-biogas recovery systems will be continued because the disposal of large quantities of animal manures continues to be a major national problem.

TRANSPORTATION

Fermentation Ethanol.—Research on the conversion of low-cost lignocellulosics to

fermentation ethanol should be continued. The targets should include the development of: genetically engineered organisms that can simultaneously ferment all the

C5/C6 sugars in biomass; low-cost cellulase production for simultaneous

saccharification-fermentation; and advanced pretreatment of low-cost biomass feedstocks, including the testing of the counter-current pretreatment pilot plant reactor

recently installed at NREL. This research should focus on the development of accurate bases from which advanced technologies can be scaled-up for commercial use

with confidence, and on advanced technologies that significantly reduce processing

costs. NREL’s ethanol pilot plant should be operated on an as-needed, cost-shared

basis with DOE’s industrial partners to support the commercial ethanol plant program

Commercial Ethanol Plants.—Several fermentation plants are being cost-shared

by DOE in fiscal year 2000 as shown in the table on page 2. The processes used

are conventional and advanced technologies, such as the microbial conversion of synthesis gas. The preliminary planning work for other plants should continue, but

BERA recommends that the existing projects should produce operating data that

confirm the technologies before new scale-up projects are started.

Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells.—Research should be initiated to design and perfect

vehicular fuel cell systems equipped with on-board reforming units for biomassbased liquids. The goal should be the production of low-cost fuel gases suitable for

direct use as motor fuels and as fuels for on-board fuel cells.

Biodiesel.—Research should be focused on increasing natural triglyceride yields to

permit low-cost biodiesel production. Advanced transesterification processes are already available, and engine and emissions tests have been or are being performed

by the engine manufacturers.

Feedstock Production.—Land-based biomass grown as energy crops can supply

large amounts of fossil fuel substitutes. Considerable progress has been made on the

efficient production of short-rotation woody crops, and on the growth of herbaceous

species. In addition, research on tissue culture techniques and on the application of

genetic engineering methods for low-cost energy crop production have shown promise. This research should be continued to develop advanced biomass production

methods that can meet the anticipated feedstock demand. BERA also recommends

that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects chosen by DOE of at least 1,000 acres

in size be continued to develop large-scale, commercial energy plantations in which

dedicated energy crops are grown and harvested for use as biomass resources. These

projects should be strategically located and should utilize the advanced biomass production methods developed in the research programs. Successful completion of this

work will help biomass energy attain its potential by providing the data and information needed to design, construct, and operate new biomass production systems

that can supply low-cost feedstock for conversion to transportation fuels and electric

power.

Thermochemical Conversion.—Almost all of DOE’s RD&D on liquid transportation

fuels from biomass emphasizes fermentation ethanol. Thermochemical conversion

research should be started that targets liquid motor fuel production at costs competitive with those of gasolines and diesel fuels in the near-to-mid term. Research

on the thermochemical conversion of low-grade biomass for use as motor fuels shows

great promise. Preliminary research on the non-microbial conversion of synthesis

gas illustrates the potential of producing ethanol, mixed alcohols and oxygenates,

ethers, and coproducts at costs that are much less than the corresponding costs of

liquids produced by microbial and fermentation processes. Some analysts project

that fuel ethanol from low-grade biomass by thermochemical processes may be able

to attain production costs in the same range as thermochemical methanol from natural gas feedstocks. Each of these areas should be added to DOE’s program.
838

Regional Biomass Energy Program.—In fiscal year 2000, the RBEP will conduct

cooperative projects with state and local governments on resource assessments, the

selection of suitable sites for biomass-based transportation fuel production and distribution facilities, and multi-product biomass plants. Specifically, the RBEP will

conduct a number of technology transfer activities related to the production of fuel

ethanol from cellulosic raw materials. The activities will include several state-level,

one-day workshops to educate stakeholders about fuel ethanol technologies, and the

opportunities available in various regions to develop new fuel ethanol production capacity with low-grade biomass feedstocks. In conjunction with this work, the RBEP

will complete several publications that address the educational needs related to the

production of fuel ethanol. The RBEP will continue to provide national leadership

in the development of biodiesel fuels with several engine testing programs, and will

also work with the National Park Service to increase the use of biofuels in selected

national parks that are encountering air quality problems.

HYDROGEN RESEARCH

Innovative research on the thermal reforming of biomass in a supercritical fluid

reactor and in an advanced-design plasma reformer, and on water splitting with

algae, which is the equivalent of photolysis, should be continued. Detailed study of

each of these advanced conversion methods may lead to practical processes for the

low-cost production of hydrogen.

INTEGRATED BIOENERGY RD&D

As mentioned on page 1, all of the biomass-related RD&D funded by EERE and

OS should be coordinated internally and jointly managed at DOE Headquarters.

The program managers at DOE Headquarters should be heavily involved in this activity. The organizational phase should be completed as soon as possible, after which

the assigned management responsibilities should continue. This will significantly

enhance the value of the total program for DOE and its industrial partners and

stakeholders.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF GRIDLEY, CA

Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Reid: My name is Tom Sanford, and

I am the Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Gridley, California. I also serve as Gridley’s

commissioner on the governing board of the Northern California Power Agency.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the Subcommittee regarding the progress that the City of Gridley has made in developing a biomass facility fueled by rice straw. I want to begin by thanking the Subcommittee for the

past support it has provided for the Gridley Rice Straw Project. The federal funds

which have been provided since fiscal year 1996 have been matched dollar for dollar

and have brought about the completion of permitting and environmental assessments for the site of the facility so that construction can begin this year.

This will be the last time the City will request funds for development of this

project. With this last installment of funds, the City will be able to secure the completion of a cost-effective, subsidy-independent, renewable source of liquid fuel for

both transportation and power production purposes. In securing a final federal appropriation of $5 million in fiscal year 2000, the City of Gridley and its partners

can ensure that the Gridley plant will be fully operational to use rice straw harvested during the year 2000.

In the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2000 budget request, there is $10 million in the biomass/biofuels account to support ongoing projects, and the Department has indicated its support of the Gridley project and has indicated its intention

that $5 million for the Gridley project be provided within this amount of funds.

The City of Gridley, which operates its own utility, is involved in the development

of this technology for a number of reasons. The City of Gridley is a rural community

situated in the rice-growing region of the Sacramento Valley in Northern California.

Our community and region are dependent upon an agricultural economy largely

based upon rice production. Thousands of jobs and more than $500 million annually

of the Sacramento Valley’s economy are directly dependent upon the rice industry.

The rice industry, however, is coming under tremendous pressure because of new

mandates to reduce air pollution and end open field burning of rice acreage. Currently, the State of California has statutorily reduced the burning of rice straw. By

the year 2001, the automatic right to burn rice straw will be eliminated. Given that

there are insufficient cost-effective mechanisms to remove rice straw from the fields,

we are greatly concerned that the restrictions will lead to a reduction in rice acreage
839

in production. A substantial portion of the rice grown in the Sacramento Valley is

grown on land with very heavy clay soil types that are suitable for very little other

than rice. The elimination of burning as a means of dealing with the very tough

rice straw is having significant impact upon the economics of rice growing in the

Valley.

Since fiscal year 1996, the Subcommittee has shown its support for the development of a biomass facility that will effectively utilize rice straw in order to produce

ethanol. Unlike the facilities of the Midwest, the Gridley rice straw project will be

able to use multiple feedstocks to keep the plant operating year-round. The construction of the Gridley plant will develop the technologies and processes necessary

for the cost-effective use of forest and timber industry byproducts as well as agricultural waste products. Clearly, this plant will expand biomass opportunities to a

broad array of industries and agricultural commodities, which will be beneficial to

other parts of the state as well as other regions of the country.

The Gridley Rice Straw Project will help the State of California meet the important air quality goal of ending open field burning, while at the same time provide

rice farmers with an alternative rice disposal method that could generate an additional source of revenues for the grower. The Project will also create hundreds of

direct and indirect jobs in Northern California communities with high levels of unemployment.

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony and want to thank the Subcommittee again on behalf of the City of Gridley and communities in the Sacramento Valley and Northern California for its support in ensuring a federal partner for the Gridley Rice Straw Project, thus making this project a reality in the near

future.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROF. DAVID K. WEHE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided support to the DOE University Research Program in Robotics to pursue long range research leading to the: ‘‘development and deployment of advanced robotic systems capable of reducing human

exposure to hazardous environments, and of performing a broad spectrum of tasks

more efficiently and effectively than utilizing humans.’’

The DOE University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) has proven highly effective in technology innovation, education, and DOE mission support. The URPR

incorporates mission-oriented university research into DOE EM’s Office of Science

and Technology (OST) and, through close collaboration with the DOE national laboratories, provides an avenue for applying innovative solutions to problems of vital

importance to DOE.

The URPR would like to thank the Committee members for their historically

strong support of this successful program and is pleased that the URPR is included

in the DOE Budget Request for fiscal year 2000 at $4.0M. The URPR is requesting

the Committee consider augmenting this amount to $4.35M to compensate for

DOE’s expansion of the Consortium to include the University of New Mexico.

REQUEST FOR THE COMMITTEE

We request the Committee include explicit language directing $4.35M of ER&WM

(EM–50) research funds to the University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) for

development of safer, less expensive, and more effective robotic technology for environmental restoration and waste management solutions.

DEVELOPING ADVANCED ROBOTICS FOR DOE AND THE NATION

Develop robotic solutions for work in hazardous environments and facilitate cleanup

operations

The goal of this program is to advance and utilize state-of-the-art robotic technology in order to remove humans from potentially hazardous environments and expedite remediation efforts now considered essential. Established by DOE in fiscal

year 1987 to support advanced nuclear reactor concepts, the project was relocated

to EM to support higher priority needs in environmental restoration. The project

has produced an impressive array of technological innovations which have been incorporated into robotic solutions being employed across federal and commercial sectors. This successful program demonstrates efficient technology innovation while

educating tomorrow’s technologists, inventing our country’s intelligent machine systems technology of the next century, and meeting today’s technology needs for DOE.
840

Robotics: A Strategic National Technology

R&D funding is the most effective use of federal funds to promote the nation’s

well-being according to a 1997 published poll of respected academic economists. And,

as documented in previous testimonies, key national studies (by the Council on

Competitiveness, DOD, and former OTA technology assessment reports) consistently

list robotics and advanced manufacturing among the five most vital strategic technologies for government support. During the past year, reports from NSF, the OSTP

report on critical technologies, and the report from the President’s Advisory Committee on Information Technology suggests that the areas of greatest concern to the

nation are: the economy, education, health care, and the environment. The URPR

is making technology contributions affecting each of these key areas. Furthermore,

the reports note key technology areas include information technology and

nanotechnology, and key enabling technologies include manufacturing and materials. The URPR actively participates in advancing these fields. The national need

for an investment in the development of intelligent machines which can interact

with their environment has been universally recognized for over a decade.

Intelligent Machines: Grand Challenge for the Next Millennium

Significant advances in computing power, sensor development and platform architectures (e.g., unmanned airborne vehicles) have opened new opportunities in intelligent machine technology. The long-range implications of intelligent mobile and

dextrous machines which can assist humans to perform life tasks are clearly significant and represent one of technology’s Grand Challenges for the next millennium.

We can expect to see intelligent prosthetic devices, smart transport vehicles, and

mobile devices capable of assisting or replacing the human, not only in potentially

hazardous situations, but in daily life.

URPR: INNOVATION, EDUCATION, AND DOE MISSION SUPPORT

URPR: Refining the Right Paradigm

The URPR instantiates the new paradigm recommended for Federal investment

in national S&T by the National Science Board (3/6/98) that emphasizes the integration of long-range research and education. The URPR’s strategic mission is to make

significant advances in our nation’s intelligent machine and manufacturing technology base while emphasizing: education, technology innovation through basic

R&D, and DOE mission support. Furthermore, the Consortium of Universities (Universities of Florida, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and New Mexico) are united as a

powerful technology team, governed by a national Board of Directors, advised by a

Technical Advisory Committee, and managed by a group of DOE and national laboratory officials. During fiscal year 1999, the Consortium has worked through 8–10

levels of DOE bureaucratic control, an unfortunate side effect of the current DOE

structure which governs the URPR. It is only because of the Committee’s explicit

appropriations language that any funding has managed to pass through this system.

The URPR has demonstrated in earlier years that the advantages of operating as

a consortium are significant. The institutions of the URPR partitioned the technical

development into manageable sections which allowed each to concentrate within

their area of expertise (efficiently maintaining world-class levels of excellence) while

relying on their partners to supply supporting concentrations. With full cooperation

of the host universities, this effort naturally generated the in-depth human and

equipment capital required by the EM community. Practically, the long-term distributed interaction and planning among these universities in concert with the DOE

labs and associated industry allows for effective technology development (with software and equipment compatibility and portability), for a vigorous and full response

to application requirements (component technologies, system technologies, deployment issues, etc.), and for the supported application of the technology. Considering

the remarkable achievements of URPR over its history and the enlightened commitment of EM–50 to this technology development, the URPR is now poised to enhance

its prominent role in education, technology innovation, and DOE mission support.

Educating the New Millenium’s Technologists

The URPR has already educated about 450 advanced degree students in the critical engineering fields, including many with earned doctoral degrees. These students

have entered the work force, and lead an industrial resurgence based on intelligent

machines, advanced manufacturing technology, and related fields. Graduates from

this project have built successful startup companies and made industrial technology

transfers in computer vision and robotic technology (MI, TN, TX) and medical imaging (MI), video databases (CA), and intelligent manufacturing (MI, FL, TX). We
841

have historically seen a strong demand for graduates educated through this project,

even during the leanest of times.

DOE Mission Contribution—Environmental Cleanup

Since its inception, EM has recognized robotics as an essential technology to accomplish its mission. The motives for undertaking a comprehensive R&D effort in

the application of advanced robotics to EM tasks in hazardous environments reflect

both economic considerations, efficiency, effectiveness, and health and safety concerns. The RBX is a national laboratory program which primarily applies commercially available technology to current problems. In contrast, the URPR supports

needs-driven applied research to develop innovative and synergistic technologies in

support of EM focus areas.

URPR progress is annually evaluated by a thorough review of technical accomplishments, and then anticipated DOE technology needs are used to set the program’s directions. The URPR has consistently received high rankings for providing

both outstanding technical contributions and value. Future success of this program

is expected to continue based upon the Consortium’s productive history.

Over the past few years, the URPR projects successfully supported the following

EM projects:

1. deployment and testing of SWAMI, an autonomous inspection robot for Fernald

stored waste drums;

2. design, construction and testing of a robot to precisely map large DOE facilities,

such as K–25 and K–27 in Oak Ridge, in preparation for decontamination and decommissioning (D&D);

3. delivery of a robotic handling system for an automated chemical and radiological analysis system to Los Alamos;

4. remote radiation mapping of the MSRE facility at ORNL during D&D operations;

5. design and implementation of a real-time controller for use at Hanford in support of the tank waste retrieval project; and

6. design and fabrication of a prototype Soil Sample Preparation Module in support of the Contaminant Analysis Automation project.

During fiscal year 1999, the URPR achievements have included:

—1998 Discover Magazine Award for Technological Innovation: Robotics. Personally presented by the Secretary of Energy.

—Invention of the room-temperature semiconductor radiation sensor that holds

the world’s record for energy resolution.

—Development of a mutisensor visualization platform to aid operators during

D&D operations.

—Transfer of an inductive, radiation-resistant, high resolution position sensor to

a commercial vendor.

—Development of a system to reduce the time between a site-defined need and

a site-delivered implementation of the robotic and/or automation hardware

using simulation of components.

—Codified algorithms for assembly of standardized modules to produce the complex manipulators needed for a wide range of hazardous tasks.

As shown above, these efforts are directly linked to cleanup operations in the

DOE complex. During fiscal year 2000, the URPR plans to continue its focussed efforts on DOE field cleanup applications, while maintaining our commitment to research and education.

Innovation—the seed of future technology

The URPR has produced prodigious levels of innovation in research and development. While recent demonstrations reveal next-generation technologies, even more

advanced capabilities are emerging from the laboratories. These include new types

of locomotion, navigation techniques, sensing modalities (radiation cameras and

laser imaging devices), environmentally hardened components, and dextrous open

architecture manipulators. These devices will evolve and inspire the intelligent machines of the future, including smart automobiles, obstacle avoidance aids for the

disabled, and agile manufacturing cells capable of being rapidly reconfigured.

This level of innovation can also be seen in the following statistics:

—Approximately 15 patents awarded or pending.

—Over 700 technical papers published in technical journals and conferences.

—The standard technical books for vision, radiation detection and imaging, and

robotics are authored by researchers who have worked with this project. Faculty

and senior scientists dedicated to this project are internationally renowned technologists of their fields.
842

—A suite of world-class robots (including CARMEL, winner of the AAAI Mobile

Robot Competition) serve as the research testbeds for this project.

PROGRAM REQUEST

During fiscal year 1999, the URPR provided vital contributions to education and

research while meeting DOE technology needs. The motivation for this project remains steadfast—removing humans from hazardous environments while enhancing

safety, reducing costs, and increasing cleanup task productivity. EM–50 has recognized the URPR’s role and mission and has requested $4M for the URPR in fiscal

year 2000. We are requesting an additional $350K to fund the University of New

Mexico, added by DOE to the Consortium in fiscal year 1998, at a level comparable

to the other consortium members.

REQUEST FOR THE COMMITTEE

To continue this vital program, we request that the Committee include the following language into the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill: For

development of safer, less expensive, and more effective robotic technology for environmental restoration and waste management solutions, $4.35M of ER&WM (EM–

50) funds are provided to the University Research Program in Robotics (URPR).

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE REPI ACTION COALITION

The undersigned members of the REPI Action Coalition request that the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) program be funded at a level sufficient to

cover payments for eligible projects. $20 million is needed in fiscal year 2000 to

make full incentive payments for electricity produced by all qualified facilities

through the end of fiscal year 1999. The current funding level of $4 million provides

full incentive payments for only a few projects and insufficient revenues for the majority of projects.

Our coalition, which represents the interests of national consumer, business, environmental, energy and industry organizations, is incredulous that the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 Budget Request of $1.5 million for REPI represents a 62.5

percent reduction from the existing funding level. At this level, most projects eligible

for REPI funding—including projects receiving funds in the prior fiscal year—will

not receive payments. This will cause irreparable damage to the incentive value of

a program designed to encourage public power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

through a variety of projects including landfill gas-to-energy projects.

Created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, REPI authorizes the Department of Energy to make payments of 1.5 cents per kWh of energy produced from eligible renewable energy sources to consumer-owned electric utilities. Unlike the tax credits

awarded to investor-owned utilities, the public power REPI program is inherently

uncertain because payments are dependent on the availability of annual appropriations. In funding shortfall years, projects in Tier 1 (solar, wind, geothermal and

closed-loop biomass) are granted full payments. Inadequate leftover revenues are

then dispersed on a pro rata basis to Tier 2 (landfill gas-to-energy) projects. Electricity for which payment is not made may then be added to the next fiscal year’s

electricity production and submitted by the qualifying facility for payment consideration.

Congress established REPI in large part to provide benefits commensurate with

those available to investor-owned utilities through the renewable electricity production tax credit in Section 45 and the investment tax credit in Section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code. In the years since REPI incentives have been in place, private

entities have enjoyed full access to their economic incentives while consumer-owned

electric utilities have received only partial appropriations since 1996.

Since the program’s inception, nearly $8.4 million in incentive payments have

been made to the owners of qualifying facilities. The number of projects receiving

REPI awards has increased from 6 projects in 1995 producing 43 million kWh of

electricity to 16 projects in 1998 producing 549 million kWh of electricity. Due to

inadequate appropriations, full payments for all eligible projects were last made in

1996. Every year since then, the majority of eligible projects have received only partial payment. Projects most impacted by the funding deficit have been landfill gasto-energy projects.

Despite this shortcoming, REPI is the most significant incentive available to locally owned, not-for-profit electric utilities to make new investments in renewable

energy projects. These projects provide important economic and environmental benefits to the communities served by the municipal utility. Along with significant air
843

quality benefits resulting from the accelerated use of emissions-free energy sources,

new jobs are created each time these technologies are deployed.

An important and unique feature of the REPI program is its potential to assist

municipalities, and the communities they serve, in reducing significant levels of

greenhouse gases (ghg) through landfill gas-to-energy projects. Landfill gas is about

50 percent methane and methane is a potent ghg that is over 20 times more potent

than carbon dioxide in contributing to climate change. There is potential to reduce

over 2.3 million metric tons of carbon equivalent of ghg by deploying these projects

on existing untapped landfills. The comparative economics of landfill-gas projects

makes these facilities one of the most promising near-term renewable resources.

Despite the funding shortfalls and the volatility of the appropriations process,

REPI is considered a true incentive among potential project owners. For example,

a feasibility study for the construction of a municipally-owned wind farm in Iowa

showed that REPI assistance made an impressive difference in the cost of the

project.

The REPI program increases in importance as new air quality regulations and renewable energy mandates are imposed. Public power systems will be at a disadvantage under the currently structured REPI if renewable portfolio standards are included in electricity restructuring proposals. Unlike the certainty of the tax credits

and incentives available to private entities, REPI funding is erratic and insufficient

to offset the higher costs of using alternative energy resources.

In conclusion, REPI is an important tool in promoting renewable energy resources

by consumer-owned utilities which could be greatly improved by program reform

that addresses insufficient and uncertain appropriations. We strongly encourage

your help this year in saving REPI by agreeing to restore funds at a level sufficient

to cover on-going and future payments.

Thank you.

The American Public Power Association, The Large Public Power Council,

City of Glendale, California, PACE Energy Project, Minnesota Municipal Utility Association, SUN DAY Campaign, American Wind Energy Association, Omaha Public Power District, American Bioenergy

Association, Klickitat Public Utility District (Washington), Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Global Bio Refineries Inc., University of California, Los Angeles, American Green Network, Business

Council for Sustainable Energy, Solar Energy Industries Association,

Bio Energy Industries Association, Bob Lawrence & Associates, Public Citizen, Monterey Regional Waste Management District (California), Solid Waste Association of North America, Board of Public

Works, City of Auburn, Nebraska, Salt River Project (Arizona), Union

of Concerned Scientists, Lincoln Electric Service (Nebraska), Friends

of the Earth, Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, City of Tallahassee, Florida, Clean Fuels Foundation, American Solar Energy

Society, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Emerald

Peoples’ Utility District (Oregon), Austin Energy (Texas), Waverly

Light and Power (Iowa), Nebraska Public Power District, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, New York Power Authority, JEA

(Florida), Moorhead Public Service (MN), Geothermal Energy Association, Lycoming County Resource Management Services (PA), Potomac Resources, Windrush, Inc., Consumer Federation of America,

City of Seattle, Traverse City Light & Power Department (Michigan),

Michigan Public Power Agency, and Michigan Municipal Electric Association.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION

The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal and other state and locally

owned utilities throughout the United States. Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to one of every seven U.S. electric consumers (about 40 million

people), serving some of the nation’s largest cities. The majority of APPA’s member

systems are located in small and medium-sized communities in every state except

Hawaii.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony outlining our fiscal year

2000 appropriations priorities within your Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.
844

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

APPA believes it is important to continue development and commercialization of

clean, renewable energy resources as we face the prospect of increased competition

in the electricity marketplace. Two of the most significant barriers to greater renewable energy use are cost and lack of demonstrated experience. Because of the requirement to supply electricity to customers on demand, with high reliability at a

reasonable cost, electric utilities often are conservative when evaluating new technologies. Evolving deregulation, coupled with stable fuel prices, now adds a further

challenge to greater adoption of relatively unproved renewable technologies.

We applaud the Administration’s emphasis on DOE energy efficiency and renewable programs and ask that this Subcommittee work to ensure that renewable energy remains part of the full range of resource options available to our nation’s electric utilities. APPA supports a minimum of $399 million for renewable energy technologies in fiscal year 2000. This funding level will go a long way in furthering the

call for significant expansion of renewable energy R&D programs in order to meet

the energy challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.

RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (REPI)

APPA urges this subcommittee’s continued support for REPI, the renewable energy production incentive program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Current funding is $4 million, but according to DOE’s Golden Fields Laboratory estimates, which are based on incentive payments requested from qualified facilities,

$20 million is needed to fully fund all eligible projects. At a funding level of $20

million, REPI will help the nation’s locally owned, not-for-profit electric utilities

spur renewable energy use and development. This benefits the environment because

of the greater use of emissions-free energy sources, and the economy because of the

job creation potential that is tied to the deployment of new technologies.

REPI permits DOE to make direct payments to publicly owned electric utilities

at the rate of up to 1.5 cents/kWh of electricity generated from solar, wind, certain

geothermal and biomass electric projects. Because projects of this nature often require a long lead-time for planning and construction, it is imperative that stable and

predictable funding be provided.

REPI was established to ensure equity between investor-owned utilities that utilize renewable energy tax credit and production payments and not for profit electric

utilities that are unable to do so. Several electric utility restructuring bills introduced in the 105th Congress, and bills in state legislatures, mandate use of renewable energy sources. REPI payments provide the singular financial incentive for

publicly owned utilities to meet these increasing demands. In addition, production

payments to utilities are an excellent market-based method to spur greater interest

in renewables. They fit well with DOE’s emphasis on market-led commercialization.

APPA urges this subcommittee’s support of REPI at $20 million to fully fund all eligible projects.

STORAGE FOR HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

We support the Administration’s budget request of $409 million for DOE’s Office

of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. These funds will enable DOE to continue preparations to accept spent fuel as well as to continue scientific studies at

Yucca Mountain leading to a second viability assessment to compliment the completion of the first assessment in late1998.

ADVANCED HYDROPOWER TURBINE PROGRAM

The Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program is a joint industry/government costshare effort to develop a new, improved hydroelectric turbine superior in its ability

to protect fish and aquatic habitat and operate efficiently over a wide range of flow

levels. We support funding this program at $7 million in fiscal year 2000.

During the next 15 years, 220 hydroelectric projects will seek new licenses from

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Publicly owned projects constitute 50 percent of the total capacity that will be up for renewal. Many of these

projects were originally licensed over 50 years ago. Newly imposed licensing conditions can cost hydro project owners 10 to 15 percent of power generation. A new,

improved turbine could help assure any environmental conditions imposed at relicensing in the form of new conditioning, fish passages or reduced flows are not accomplished at the expense of energy production. This is particularly important due

to the increasingly competitive electric market in which utilities operate today. Flow

levels will affect the economics of each of these projects and many will be unable

to compete if the current trend toward flow reductions continues.
845

The Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program is planned in three phases: (1) design development; (2) model design and testing, and (3) development of the final

prototype. It is important that the prototype be in place in order to accommodate

the many hydroelectric projects that will be up for relicensing after the year 2000.

FEDERAL POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (PMAS)

APPA has consistently supported increased efficiency in PMA operations. However, Congress must recognize that federal power sales revenues cover all PMA operating expenses plus all Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation operations,

maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation expenses for hydropower, and repayment of the federal investment in the construction of the projects plus interest.

Power sales also support many nonpower-related expenses associated with these

projects. Budget ‘‘scoring’’ rules aside, because the PMAs charge cost-based rates, reducing discretionary appropriations to PMAs actually costs the government nothing.

As appropriations are lowered, power rates fall accordingly thus reducing mandatory receipts on the other side of the ledger. APPA urges members of the subcommittee to reassess the Department of Energy’s policy change whereby the federal

power marketing administrations would no longer purchase power. Customers of

three of the federal power marketing administrations would have to make there own

power purchase and transmission agreements directly with suppliers. It is essential

that the PMAs be able to purchase power because it is used to firm up their hydro

capacity, allowing them to meet their contractual agreements.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

APPA supports the Administration’s fiscal year 2000 Budget Request of $4,293

million for the Corp of Engineers and $857 million for the Bureau of Reclamation.

More than 500 public power systems purchase power generated at U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation dams and marketed by the four

PMAs. APPA asks this subcommittee’s support in assuring adequate appropriations

are provided to the Corps and Bureau for operation, maintenance, major rehabilitation, upgrading and replacement of the equipment needed at the powerhouses. The

Administration has requested reductions in several of these accounts for fiscal year

1999. Unfortunately, budget realities in the past often have required the Corps and

Bureau to defer upgrades and maintenance resulting in efficiency losses affecting

hydropower production.

Discussions are continuing in various project areas between customers and the operating agencies seeking alternatives to relieve the stress caused by the spiraling

effects of deferred maintenance. We will keep this subcommittee apprised of our

progress in this regard and look forward to working with you and the authorizing

committees in seeking remedies to increase efficiencies and deal with ongoing maintenance problems.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)

APPA supports the Administration’s budget request of $180 million in fiscal year

2000 for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an increase of nearly

eight-percent over last year. Adequate funding for the agency is particularly necessary at this time in order to provide the resources needed to continue implementation of electric utility industry restructuring and to address major issues such as

open-access and stranded costs.

The FERC is charged with regulating certain interstate aspects of the natural

gas, oil pipeline, hydropower, and electric industries. Such regulation includes

issuing licenses and certificates for construction of facilities, approving rates, inspecting dams, implementing compliance and enforcement activities, and providing

other services to regulated businesses. These businesses will pay fees and charges

sufficient to recover the Government’s full cost of operations.

CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS

APPA generally supports the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request of $4 million to

fund the Climate Change Technology Initiative. The initiative consists of a package

of tax incentives and investments in research and development to stimulate increased energy efficiency and to encourage greater use of renewable energy sources.

APPA is an aggressive advocate of federal support for energy research and development. While these programs do not directly provide benefits or incentives to public

power systems, APPA supports them nevertheless because they will result in substantial improvements to the environment.
846

U.S. DOE programs under the Climate Change Initiative include a mix of tax

credits and federal-spending programs designed to increase efficiency and greater

use of renewable energy resources. Important elements of the initiative include support for the deployment of clean technologies for buildings, transportation industry

and electricity. The request includes $122 million for DOE research on next-generation coal combustion technologies, including integrated gasification combined cycle

and pressurized fluidized bed combustion.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DWANE MILNES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN JOAQUIN AREA

FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY AND CITY MANAGER CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

SUBJECT: SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA (SECTION 211) INCREASE FISCAL YEAR 2000 PRESIDENT’S COE BUDGET FROM $200,000 TO $380,000 AND

INCLUDE $10 MILLION OF THE EXPECTED $45 MILLION FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Dwane Milnes, Executive Director of the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency and the City Manager of the City of Stockton, California, located forty five miles south of Sacramento.

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for the fiscal year 2000 budget

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the City of Stockton, California and San Joaquin County. SJAFCA was

created to finance, design and construct a $70 million dollar Flood Protection Restoration Project (FPRP). The FPRP provides a 100 year level of flood protection for

the City of Stockton and surrounding areas of San Joaquin County. The project was

undertaken in response to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) restudy of the area which identified a large new floodplain. The FPRP protects a population of approximately 300,000 and removed severe economic impacts to the region associated with floodplain designation by FEMA. Construction of the FPRP was

completed in November 1998.

The Corps of Engineers (COE) completed a Reconnaissance study of the project

area in 1997 and found a Federal interest. The COE is continuing with a Federal

study to establish the amount of Federal reimbursement for the FPRP provided for

in Section 211 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 96) as one

of eight specifically named demonstration projects and a Feasibility Study to identify any additional flood protection improvements. The COE report is scheduled for

completion in 1999.

The FPRP was initially financed completely with local funds collected through the

formation of an assessment district. The assessment district provided $70 million

dollars and was financed through the sale of bonds. Annual interest payments on

the outstanding bonds are approximately $2.5 million. Therefore, it is important to

receive Federal reimbursement as soon as possible so that these interest costs will

cease. It should be noted that SJAFCA has already received reimbursement from

the State of California in the amount of $12.6 million as the estimated state share

of the FPRP costs.

The fiscal year 2000 President’s Budget is currently programmed to fund the current companion COE studies (San Joaquin River Basin, Stockton Metropolitan Area

(Section 211) for $200,000. The COE has a capability of performing $380,000 of

work on these studies. Therefore, we are requesting an increase of $180,000 so that

the COE can fully staff both studies and accomplish them on the current schedule.

In anticipation of this report we also request that at least $10 million dollars of the

expected $45 million of Federal reimbursement be included in fiscal year 2000 budget.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to this Subcommittee, and extend our sincere appreciation for your past support of this community’s efforts to protect the citizens and

properties in the capital city of California. In our continuing efforts to protect the

Sacramento metropolitan area, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

(SAFCA), and its member agencies, support the following Federal appropriations for

fiscal year 2000:
847

[Millions of dollars]

Project Funding type President’s budget Recommended funding

American River—Common Elements ....................... Construction .......... 17.0 ................. 17.0

American River—Comprehensive Plan .................... PED ........................ 5.0 ................... 5.0

American River-North Area Project ........................... Construction ..........

(Reimbursement)

4.0 ................... 4.0

Sacramento River Bank Protection ........................... Construction .......... 7.0 ................... 7.0

South Sacramento Streams Group ........................... Construction .......... 0.5 ................... 4.0 Construction 1

Section 205 Continuing Authorities (Magpie

Creek).

Construction .......... 26.9 .................

(Total Program)

Support

Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs Feasibility Study .... 0.5 ................... 0.5

Ueda Parkway Recreational Improvements .............. Construction .......... ......................... Support City of Sacramento

1 Construction funds in fiscal year 2000 contingent upon authorization in 1999 WRDA.

Sacramento has the dubious distinction of being the urban area with the worst

flood risk in the nation according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Addressing

this problem is our region’s most critical infrastructure issue as evidenced by the

formation of a joint powers agency, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

(SAFCA) to solve the problem and the millions of dollars spent over the past ten

years on improvements and countless engineering studies. A major flood on the

American River, would cause between $7 and $16 billion in damage and likely result in lives being lost. The floodplain is home to over 400,000 residents, 150,000

homes, 5,000 businesses, the State Capitol, and 1,300 government facilities.

Sacramento’s existing level of flood protection has been a moving target over the

past year. Quantifying flood risk has been difficult for engineers to explain, frustrating for policy makers who must make decisions and virtually impossible for the

general public to understand. However, all interests from engineers to environmentalists; corporations to small businesses; community activists to the local homeowner all agree Sacramento needs more flood protection and we need it now. The

five largest floods on the American river this century have all occurred after 1950,

including the two largest floods within the last eleven years (1986 and 1997). It is

unclear if this signals a shift in our meteorologic climate, but it is clear the flood

risk is much greater than was thought 50 years ago when the original flood control

system was built. In fact, our existing system of Folsom Dam and the downstream

levees, which was designed to protect Sacramento from a 250–300 year flood, now

provides less than 100-year flood protection. This means there is a 25 to 30 percent

chance over the next 30 years of having the worst flood disaster in this nation’s history occur in Sacramento.

Sacramento has not been sitting idly since our near disaster in 1986. Over $80

million in local funds have been spent on flood control improvements, engineering

studies, public education and other activities to further our region’s flood control objectives. We have been a very pro-active and innovative community. Accomplishments to date include strengthening levees along the Sacramento River; raising and

constructing new levees in North Sacramento and Natomas; raising levees protecting the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant; negotiating an agreement for

more flood space at Folsom; restoring bank erosion sites along the Lower American

River; and development of a flood management plan including evacuation plans and

development guidelines. The flood control improvements to our system played an

important role in avoiding the devastating flood damages experienced by our neighbors to the north and south during the past few years. In addition, we have systematically re-evaluated the flood control system protecting this region and identified

the projects necessary to significantly reduce our chances of a catastrophic flood. In

order to advance these efforts, SAFCA supports fiscal year 2000 Federal appropriations for the following flood control projects in the metropolitan Sacramento area.

AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT

When Folsom Dam was completed along the American River in 1955, Sacramento

was thought to have a very high level of flood protection (250 to 300-year) consistent

with other urban areas in the nation. However, as described above, the five largest

floods of this century on the American River have all occurred in the last 50 years

which has led to a reduction in our credited flood protection to less than 100-year.

This is significantly less than the authorized project in the 1950’s and substantially

less than other similarly situated major urban areas around the nation including

St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Omaha, Minneapolis, and Pittsburgh.

Following an exhaustive feasibility study by the Corps looking at all the flood control alternatives, Sacramento unsuccessfully sought Congressional authorization of
848

a comprehensive flood control project on the American River in 1992, 1996, and

again in 1998. Sacramento is continuing efforts to gain authorization of a project

as part of a 1999 WRDA. As part of the fiscal year 2000 Federal budget, we are

seeking $5.0 million to move forward with Preconstruction, Engineering and Design

of the one flood control improvement all parties to the debate support which is increasing the outlet capacity of Folsom Dam. The funds requested would also allow

the Corps to provide more detailed information about flood control options in the

event Congress fails to enact authorizing legislation this year.

Common Elements.—As part of the 1996 WRDA, Congress authorized flood control

features which were common to all the long term alternatives being considered for

Sacramento. These included 26 miles of levee stabilization along the lower American

River, raising and strengthening 12 miles of the east levee of the Sacramento River

south from the Natomas Cross Canal, three new telemetered gauges and other early

flood warning improvements along the American River. As the recent floods in

Northern California have demonstrated, we must continue to rehabilitate our existing system of levees to carry even their intended design flows. The levee modifications authorized under this project complement work done by the Corps in the early

1990’s along the Sacramento River and will complete the job of stabilizing the existing levees protecting this community. The first contract was awarded on this project

in 1998 to complete a two-mile stretch of the American River north levee. The Corps

has an ambitious schedule to push forward with this project in 1999 and will require continuing appropriations in fiscal year 2000 so as not to delay the project.

We support the Administration’s budget request of $17.0 million in fiscal year 2000

to allow completion of the project on an efficient construction schedule and request

this Committee’s support.

North Area (Natomas) Levee Improvements.—In 1992, the recommended plan for

the American River was construction of a flood detention dam at Auburn and levee

improvements around Natomas and lower Dry and Arcade Creeks. Congress did not

include this project in the WRDA for that year, but in subsequent legislation did

authorize the levee improvements around the Natomas basin and North Sacramento. The authorizing legislation included provisions to reimburse the local

agency for constructing levee improvements which were consistent with the Federal

project. With over 75,000 residents at risk, subject to life threatening flood depths

of 20 feet in some areas, SAFCA decided to initiate construction of the project using

local funds with the potential for future Federal reimbursement. By borrowing heavily from other sources and debt financing through a capital assessment district,

SAFCA proceeded with construction of the authorized project and has rapidly completed $60 million in flood control improvements. These improvements were instrumental in preventing flooding in recent years. However, the borrowing of funds, coupled with additional future flood control obligations, has severely strained SAFCA’s

financing capability to the point we are now seeking reimbursement as provided

under the authorizing legislation. The Assistant Secretary of the Army has directed

the Corps to negotiate and execute a crediting/reimbursement agreement with

SAFCA. This agreement, which will be ready for execution later this year, provide’s

the basis for reimbursement of not less than $21 million agreed to by the Corps,

and a future reimbursement as appropriate based on the final cost accounting for

the project and further negotiations with the Corps. Congress included $9 million

in fiscal year 1998 and $10 million in fiscal year 1999 which the Corps indicates

is available to reimburse SAFCA once the agreement is executed. SAFCA supports

the President’s request of $4.0 million in fiscal year 2000. Two million completes the

Federal share for the initial $21 million reimbursement the other $2.0 million is for

additional constructed features, which SAFCA believes are consistent with the authorized project, and are the subject of future negotiations with the Corps. These

funds can be used to stabilize SAFCA’s financing capability so that additional flood

control improvements could be planned and constructed.

In addition, SAFCA supports the City of Sacramento’s efforts to obtain construction funds for implementation of the recreational improvements along the City’s

Ueda Parkway which were included as part of the federally authorized project described above. The recreational components are an integral part of creating a parkway which serves both as an open space corridor and a floodway. By maintaining

the open space, we can insure channel capacity is maintained in the future.

SACRAMENTO BANK PROTECTION PROJECT (AMERICAN RIVER LEVEES)

SAFCA, the State of California and the Corps have found that bank protection

improvements are needed to stop erosion which threatens urban levees along the

lower American River. Over the last four years SAFCA has led a collaborative process through which flood control, environmental and neighborhood interests have
849

reached agreement on how to complete this work in a manner which protects the

sensitive environmental and aesthetic values of the American River in addition to

improving the reliability of the levee system. As a result, a bank protection program

to be implemented over the next several years has been established to address the

most critical reaches of the river system. Construction on this project commenced

in 1996. The President’s proposed budget includes $7.0 million in Construction

funds for several American River sites in fiscal year 2000. SAFCA supports this

funding which provides for an efficient construction schedule on the lower American

River sites.

SOUTH SACRAMENTO STREAMS PROJECT

In 1995, homes in the South Sacramento area were threatened by rain swollen

creeks which reached to within a foot, and in some areas less, of overtopping the

levees and channels and flooding adjacent residential subdivisions. The recently

completed Feasibility Study by the Corps shows much of the urban area of South

Sacramento has less than 50-year flood protection from these urban streams. There

are over 100,000 people and 41,000 structures in the floodplain of Morrison,

Unionhouse, Florin and Elder Creeks which make up the study area. Because of the

significant flood risk, SAFCA constructed a portion of the levee improvements using

local funds in 1996 under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 104 crediting

provisions. In its Chief’s Report, the Corps has recommended an NED project which

provides the entire area with a consistent 500-year level of flood protection. We are

seeking authorization of this project as part of the 1999 WRDA. We therefore request your committee’s support for $4.0 million in new start Construction in fiscal

year 2000 contingent upon obtaining Congressional authorization. The Corps has indicated they are on schedule to deliver the first construction contract in early 2000

and would have a capability of spending at least $4.0 million on construction during

that fiscal year. If funding is not provided, construction would be unnecessarily delayed for a year. The President’s proposed budget includes only $500,000 to complete

PED which would appropriate if there was not WRDA until 2000.

MAGPIE CREEK (SECTION 205 CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM)

The Magpie Creek Diversion Project, constructed by the Corps in the 1950’s as

an extension of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, is inadequate for even

the 100-year flood event using new hydrologic data. The resulting floodplain encompasses residential and commercial developments downstream and would close Interstate 80, the major east-west transportation route through Sacramento. These improvements have a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5 to 1 and not only protect existing

urban development but are essential to provide capacity for future improvements on

McClellen Air Force Base to allow for orderly redevelopment activities as part of the

base conversion process. Congress earmarked funds in last year’s Energy and Water

Appropriations bill to initiate work on this project, but construction has been delayed. SAFCA supports the Administration’s proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for

the Section 205 Program and requests the Corps be directed to initiate construction

of the Magpie Creek Diversion Project within these available funds.

LOWER STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS

SAFCA, in cooperation with Sacramento County, support the President’s proposed

budget of $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 for a Feasibility Study of the Lower Strong

and Chicken Ranch Sloughs. Floodwaters from these urban streams are collected at

the base of the American River levees and pumped into the river. In 1986 and again

in 1997, the limited channel and pumping capacity led to significant flood damages

to a number of residential and commercial structures. Most of the flooding occurs

when the American River is at a high stage due to releases from Folsom Dam. The

original pump station was built by the Corps as part of the American River and Folsom project in the 1950’s but has proven inadequate with the revised hydrologies.

The Corps is currently conducting a Reconnaissance level study as directed by your

Committee last year. They anticipate finding a Federal interest in pursuing a Feasibility level study to identify potential solutions and to determine if the originally

authorized Federal project is deficient.
850

CALIFORNIA NAVIGATION AND RELATED PROJECTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THEODORE STEIN, JR., COMMISSION PRESIDENT, PORT OF

LOS ANGELES BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Ted Stein, President of

the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners which oversees the activities of the Port of Los Angeles. My testimony, for the City of Los Angeles and its

Board of Harbor Commissioners, speaks in support of continuation of the Federal

role in the implementation of the major navigation improvements underway at the

San Pedro Bay, California. Specifically, I am speaking of the Pier 400 Dredging and

Landfill Navigation Project and its funding in fiscal year 2000. I am also presenting

testimony on our project to deepen the Main Channel which is presently under

study. At the outset, let me say that we sincerely appreciate the support of the Committee, over the past three years, in providing funds that have kept construction of

the Pier 400 Project—a vital and urgently needed project at the Port of Los Angeles—on schedule.

PIER 400 IMPLEMENTATION UNDER THE 2020 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, acknowledged years ago, that a dramatic increase in Pacific Rim

trade volumes would likely take place over the next several decades. To meet the

anticipated burgeoning international trade needs of the region and the Nation, the

Port of Los Angeles engaged in a long-term, cooperative planning effort with the

Corps of Engineers known as the 2020 Development Plan. The 2020 Plan accurately

predicted the phenomenal growth of trade through the San Pedro Bay ports, and

is a blueprint for the ports’ infrastructure development that will accommodate the

projected growth well into the 21st century. While the Port of Long Beach has since

withdrawn from this collaboration, the Port of Los Angeles has moved forward with

its implementation of the 2020 Plan.

Divided into phases, Stage 2 of the 2020 Plan is a Federal deep-draft navigation

project—known as the Pier 400 Dredging and Landfill Navigation Project—which is

currently under construction. The Commissioners, management and staff at the

Port of Los Angeles have been working with the Corps of Engineers since 1985 toward the implementation of the 2020 Plan which was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA) (Public Law99–662), and further sanctioned in WRDA 1988 (Public Law100–371) and WRDA 1990 (Public Law101–640).

The contracts for Stage 1 construction were completed by the Port in 1997 and

we received a credit of $63.8 million toward our share of Stage 2 construction. Stage

1 included the dredging of new Federal deep-draft navigation channels that abut existing land at Pier 300 and the reclamation of 265 acres of new land at Pier 400.

Stage 2 includes the dredging of new and deeper channels to Pier 300 and Pier 400,

and the creation of an additional 315 acres of new land at Pier 400 upon which new

state-of-the-art marine terminals will be built.

STAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION

I am pleased to inform the Subcommittee that, based on funds increased by this

panel and Congress in fiscal year 1999, Stage 2 construction is on schedule with

completion expected in January 2000. The President’s Budget for fiscal year 2000

includes $9.7 million to complete Stage 2 construction. We support this amount.

MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT

The Port of Los Angeles also requests that your Subcommittee include $750,000

for the Federal share of the Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PE&D) phase

of the project to deepen the Main Channel. Although part of the Pier 400 Project

includes deepening of some of the channels for safer and more efficient container

ship navigation, the Main Channel’s current depth is inadequate to accommodate

the new state-of-the-art container vessels that carry more than 6,000 TEU’s. These

vessels are longer and wider than most of the current vessels, and most significantly, now draft up to 46 feet in depth. Presently, five of the major container shippers in the San Pedro Bay have vessels that draft 46 feet. Another 50 of this new

generation of vessels is either under construction or on order, and they will meet

the competitive requirements for shipping efficiencies in the 21st century.

To accommodate the industry’s shift to larger container vessels, the Port must

deepen existing deep-draft navigation channels by at least an additional five feet,

from the present depth of 45 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to a minimum

of 50 feet, to allow for safe shipping operation. This depth will accommodate the
851

new generation vessels at 46-foot drafts plus an allowance for tides and under-keel

clearance. The Main Channel project includes dredging approximately 4.5 million

cubic yards of sediment not only from the Main Channel, but also from the Turning

Basin, the West and East Basins, and the East Basin Channel. The estimated cost

for the project is approximately $40 million.

Typically, the Corps of Engineers, in initiating a Federal project, would perform

preliminary studies. Based on favorable findings in these studies, the Port would

then seek a Congressional appropriation to fund the feasibility study and other related studies. These steps can take more than two years to complete before the feasibility study is begun. To expedite this process, Section 203 of WRDA 1986 allows

the local project sponsor to pay the full cost of the feasibility study. If the study

shows a Federal interest, Section 203 further allows Federal reimbursement to the

local sponsor in an amount equal to 50 percent of the costs. The Port of Los Angeles

has undertaken a Section 203 Study of the Main Channel’s dredging needs and has

signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Los Angeles District Corps of

Engineers. The MOA provides the framework under which the study will be completed and details the responsibilities of both the Port and the Corps of Engineers.

The MOA also provides that support agreements are prepared for the Port to have

the Corps of Engineers complete and pay for the work required for the studies.

The Port anticipates that the Section 203 Report will be completed in less than

a year. Ultimately, the Secretary of the Army will transmit to Congress his recommendations in time for authorization in the WRDA 2000 legislation. Consistent

with the Corps of Engineers’ seamless funding, once the Section 203 Report is sent

to Washington for review by the Secretary, the PE&D phase can be undertaken by

the Corps of Engineers early in fiscal year 2000.

ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING FEDERAL CHANNELS AND THE HARBOR

BREAKWATER

Related to the efficient operation of the completed Pier 400 Project is the required

ongoing maintenance of the existing Federal navigation channels at the Port of Los

Angeles. The Port requests your Subcommittee to support an appropriation of

$350,000 for ongoing maintenance of the existing navigation channels and the harbor breakwater. Specifically, $150,000 is needed for the Corps to perform engineering design for the maintenance dredging of the West Basin; $100,000 would enable

the Corps of Engineers to continue their condition survey of the Federal channels;

and, an additional $100,000 would fund the continued rehabilitation of the harbor

breakwater. This work is critical. Ongoing maintenance of the navigation channels

will ensure that they remain at depths in which fully loaded container ships can

safely navigate and guarantee the stability of the breakwater during severe storms.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the Port of Los Angeles has been a ‘‘donor port,’’ under the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) program, contributing approximately $70

million per year in HMT revenues since the inception of the fee in 1986. In contrast,

the Port has been allocated only about $700,000 in Operation and Maintenance dollars because our maintenance dredging needs have been minimal. Consequently, we

urge your support for the full appropriation of $350,000 to pay for the ongoing maintenance dredging of the Federal navigation channels at the Port, and the other ongoing channel and breakwater maintenance needs.

CONTINUED FUNDING OF THE LOS ANGELES HARBOR MODEL

The Port of Los Angeles further requests your Subcommittee to provide an appro- priation of $165,000 for ongoing maintenance of the Port’s harbor model at the

Corps of Engineers’ Waterways Experiment Station (WES) at Vicksburg, Mississippi. In addition, $355,000 is required for continued wave data collection. This

information is necessary to validate the numerical and physical models used for ongoing project designs. During the state-of-the-art design phase for the Pier 400

Project land reclamation, eight separate, but related, models, were used and maintained by the scientists and engineers at WES and were, likewise, used by the engineers at the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps’ Los Angeles District personnel.

Maintenance of the hydraulic and physical models at WES, and their prototype

data acquisition facilities, remains an essential resource for the Corps’ Los Angeles

District and for the Port of Los Angeles.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PIER 400 PROJECT

The Port of Los Angeles has testified in previous years on the economic impact

its operations have on the Nation’s economy; it cannot be over emphasized. Cargo

throughput for the San Pedro Bay continues to grow and is estimated to more than

triple in the next two decades. Actual growth in cargo handling, from 1990 through
852

1998, has already exceeded the forecast growth for that period. The trend is only

upward. The ability of the Port to meet the continued demand of this phenomenal

growth is dependent upon sufficiently deep water channels (such as those being constructed under the Pier 400 Project and planned for the Main Channel) that can

accommodate the largest state-of-the-art deep-draft cargo vessels that are now on

line in the world fleet of container ships. These new vessels provide greater efficiencies in cargo transportation, thereby offering consumers lower prices on imported goods, as well as more competitive exports from the United States to foreign

markets.

The Pier 400 Project is clearly a project of national significance, providing such

economic benefits to the United States as: more than one million permanent wellpaying jobs across the country; more than one billion dollars in wages and salaries;

and, sales and income tax revenues, including increased U.S. Customs Service revenues. The return on the Federal investment is real and quantifiable, and is expected

to surpass the cost-benefit ratio as determined by the Corps of Engineers’ project

feasibility study. The Federal investment in the Pier 400 Project has, and we hope

will continue, to ensure that the Nation’s busiest container port remains competitive

well into the 21st century.

IN SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your Subcommittee to

include in the Corps of Engineers’ fiscal year 2000 appropriation, the following

funds to support the Corps of Engineers’ work on behalf of the Port of Los Angeles:

—$9.7 million for the Pier 400 Dredging and Landfill Navigation Project;

—$750,000 to fund the Preconstruction, Engineering and Design phase of the

Main Channel Deepening Project;

—$350,000 for ongoing maintenance dredging, breakwater rehabilitation and condition survey;

—$165,000 for ongoing maintenance of the Los Angeles Harbor Models at WES;

and,

—$355,000 for continued collection of wave data on the San Pedro Bay and Port

of Los Angeles channels.

The Port of Los Angeles has long valued your Subcommittee’s demonstrated support for and understanding of the importance of the port industry to the economic

vitality of the United States, and, in particular, of the Port’s role in contributing

to this country’s economic vigor. This understanding has been evidenced by the appropriation of scarce Federal dollars for harbor and navigation projects such as our

Pier 400 Project.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this testimony in support

of continued funding for the Federal navigation activities at the Port of Los Angeles.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON KNABE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, SUPERVISOR,

FOURTH DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Los Angeles County respectfully requests that the Congress of the United States

include funds in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water appropriations bill for the

following projects, which are urgently required to preserve public safety in Marina

del Rey and to begin the process of planned shoreline protection in Los Angeles

County.

Marina del Rey Entrance Channel Dredging ($6,500,000)

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintenance dredging of the

Marina del Rey’s entrances and main channel, pursuant to a perpetual right of way

and easement agreement with the County. The last design-depth dredging of Marina del Rey occurred in 1969. Since then, contaminants in some of the Marina’s

sediments have prevented thorough dredging. While small, clean-sediment dredging

projects were conducted in 1987, 1994, 1996, and 1998, the south entrance to the

Marina is nearly closed. This situation jeopardizes the safety of thousands of boaters

who use our harbor, and it precludes prompt response by the Coast Guard and others to air-sea disasters off of LAX and other ocean emergencies.

This year, the Port of Long Beach is constructing a new terminal by filling in a

large slip. This project provides a unique opportunity, which will not be duplicated

in the foreseeable future, to remove and safely dispose of 300,000 cubic meters of

contaminated sediment from Marina del Rey. The Port’s project schedule calls for

acceptance of the Marina’s sediments between October 1 and December 31, 1999,

requiring funding in fiscal year 2000. If implemented as planned, this project will

result in eliminating the need to dredge in Marina del Rey for many years. It will
853

also remove contaminants from the Santa Monica Bay, provide clean material for

beach replenishment, and greatly improve boating safety.

It is critical that we take full advantage of this extraordinary opportunity to dispose of contaminated sediments in an environmentally safe and economical manner.

The President’s fiscal year 2000 budget does not include any funds to perform maintenance dredging at Marina del Rey. We are, therefore, requesting your support for

an appropriation of $6.5 million to remove the 300,000 cubic meters of contaminated

sediment, and as much clean sediment as is possible for beach replenishment. Without a thorough dredging in 1999, the Marina’s entrances will continue to close,

which could threaten the ability of the U. S. Coast Guard, the County Sheriff’s Harbor Patrol, the County Lifeguards and the City and County Fire Departments to respond to emergencies. As these agencies are the critical core of the LAX Air-Sea Disaster Response Team, it is imperative that the Marina’s entrances remain open and

safely navigable.

Marina del Rey and Ballona Creek Feasibility Study ($100,000)

Some of the sediments creating navigational hazards in Marina del Rey’s entrances contain contaminants that make dredging and disposal difficult and costly.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a reconnaissance study in 1996,

which established that there is a Federal interest in solving this problem.

The study is focused on economical and environmentally safe disposal options for

the contaminated sediments, as well as on actions that can be taken in the Ballona

Creek watershed that will eliminate or reduce the flow of contaminated sediments

into Marina del Rey’s entrance. Dedicated staff from the County, the Corps, the City

of Los Angeles, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Heal the Bay, and other

environmental and regulatory agencies have worked to limit the scope, time, and

cost of this study. Based on the approved plan, the study was expected to require

three years to complete, at a total cost of $2.7 million. The study has been ongoing

for two years and is progressing on schedule toward completion next year. As the

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has agreed to pay 50 percent of the

study’s costs, we are pleased that there are funds in the President’s fiscal year 2000

budget for completion of this study. We, therefore, ask your support of the President’s budget request of $100,000, for the Federal share of the cost in fiscal year

2000.

Regional Dredged Material Management Plan Feasibility Study ($400,000)

It is estimated that approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of contaminated marine

sediments will need to be dredged from the harbor waters of Los Angels County over

the next five years. Unfortunately, permanent sites for the disposal of these sediments are not available. As a result, routine maintenance dredging and port expansion activities have been critically hampered, impeding both navigation safety and

the livelihood of the area’s economy. In addition, the continuous buildup of contaminated sediments within the Los Angeles Region’s coastal waterways raises concerns

with respect to potential impacts to public health and the health of the marine environment.

A multi-agency Contaminated Sediments Task Force has been formed to address

these concerns and to try to solve the problems associated with the dredging and

disposal of contaminated sediments. This Task Force is comprised of representatives

from Federal and State regulatory and resource agencies, ports and harbors, local

agencies, research institutions, and local environmental groups.

Recognizing the fact that contaminated sediments are a serious problem for the

Los Angeles Region, the State of California has committed $1 million over a fiveyear period to fund the administrative cost (staff time and coordination efforts) of

the Task Force. Its objective is to develop a management strategy to control and dispose contaminated dredged material. However, the Task Force quickly discovered

that these funds are not sufficient to acquire the necessary data, investigate disposal site alternatives, and initiate pilot projects to analyze promising new technologies. These efforts need to be accomplished to support development of regional

management strategy for contaminated sediments.

This letter is, therefore, to request your support for $400,000 in Federal funds in

fiscal year 2000 to prepare a Feasibility Project Study Plan (PSP), negotiate and

sign a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) between the Federal government

and non-federal interests, and to initiate the feasibility study following the execution of the FCSA. The feasibility study will develop a regional dredged material

management plan for the ports, harbors, and marinas within the coastal waters of

Los Angeles County. The study plan will include: (1) gathering data; (2) investigating sediment threshold levels for the disposal of contaminated dredged sediments; (3) analyzing potential regional disposal site alternatives having economic
854

and environmental viability; and (4) preparing a framework to analyze innovative

dredged material treatment technologies through a series of pilot projects.

It is understood that, as non-federal stakeholders, the Task Force members will

need to cost share the regional dredged material management plan feasibility study

with the Federal government, and we are committed to work with the other members to secure funding for this very important study.

Coast of California Study—Los Angeles County ($400,000)

Los Angeles County is famous for its beautiful, sandy beaches that attract over

50 million visitors each year. What is little known is that these beaches are not naturally sandy. Since the 1930’s, over 35 million cubic yards of sand have been removed from various public works projects and used to widen the beaches. Unfortunately, there has been no planned approach to protecting and maintaining these

beaches, which are important parts of our infrastructure and a major economic engine for the region. In fact, our beaches protect critical highways, utilities, public

beach facilities, as well as homes and businesses. Based on data from a university

study, the Economic Development Corporation of Los Angeles has estimated that

the annual economic value of Los Angeles County’s beaches is $20.7 billion.

The El Nino storms of 1998 caused severe erosion of some of our beaches, resulting in the creation of a Los Angeles County Beach Replenishment Task Force, which

is intended to develop a long-term management plan for our beaches, as well as to

seek out funding sources for beach restoration projects. The Task Force has determined that the County’s beaches have not been regularly surveyed since the early

1970’s, or studied at all since the early 1990’s. Effective beach managmenet requires

a thorough baseline study and annual surveys for monitoring erosion and acretion.

The Coast of California Study, as authorized by the Water Resources Development

Act, is an ideal starting point for development of a long-term beach management

plan. Based on studies already completed for San Diego and Orange Counties, your

support for an fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $400,000 for a Los Angeles County—Coast of California Study is requested.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. PARSONS, DREDGING PROGRAM MANAGER,

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT

The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress:

1. Include $3,500,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintenance dredging of the

Ventura Harbor federal channel and sand traps and repair of a groin.

2. Include $300,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill to continue a cost shared Feasibility Study to determine the advisability of modifying the existing Federal navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass system.

BACKGROUND

Ventura Harbor, homeport to 1,500 vessels, is located along the Southern California coastline in the City of San Buenaventura, approximately 60 miles northwest

of the City of Los Angeles. The harbor opened in 1963. Annual dredging of the harbor entrance area is usually necessary in order to assure a navigationally adequate

channel. In 1968, the 90th Congress made the harbor a Federal project and committed the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide for the maintenance of the entrance structures and the dredging of the entrance channel and sand traps.

The harbor presently generates more than $40 million in gross receipts annually.

That, of course, translates into thousands of both direct and indirect jobs. A significant portion of those jobs are associated with the commercial fishing industry (over

30 million pounds of fish products were landed in 1996), and with vessels serving

the offshore oil industry. Additionally, the headquarters for the Channel Islands National Park is located within the harbor, and the commercial vessels transporting

the nearly 100,000 visitors per year to and from the Park islands offshore, operate

out of the harbor. All of the operations of the harbor, particularly those related to

commercial fishing, the support boats for the oil industry, and the visitor transport

vessels for the Channel Islands National Park are highly dependent upon a navigationally adequate entrance to the harbor.
855

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE NEEDS

Dredging

The Corps of Engineers has determined that $2,875,000 will be required to perform routine maintenance dredging of the harbor’s entrance channel and sand traps

during fiscal year 1999. This dredging work is absolutely essential to the continued

operation of the harbor.

Groin Repairs

It is estimated that $625,000 will be required during fiscal year 2000 for the

Corps of Engineers to repair extensive El Nino related storm damage to the South

Beach Groin. This structure is an important component of the harbor’s entrance system and its repair must be accomplished expeditiously in order to assure the maintenance of a navigationally adequate entrance channel. Additionally, it should be

noted that the failure to repair this structure will result in increased maintenance

dredging costs in subsequent years.

STUDY NEEDS

The Corps of Engineers has asked that $100,000 be provided in fiscal year 2000

to continue a cost shared Feasibility Study to determine the advisability of modifying the existing Federal navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand

bypass system. Given the continuing need for maintenance dredging, it is respectfully requested that the funding be increased to $300,000 in order to expedite this

effort to determine if a sand bypass system or other measures can accomplish the

maintenance of the harbor in a manner that is more efficient and cost effective than

the current contract dredging approach.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER KRYGSMAN, DIRECTOR, PORT OF STOCKTON

Mr. Chairman: I am Alexander Krygsman, Port Director of the Port of Stockton

in Stockton, California.

The San Francisco Bay to Stockton Ship Channels Project is an authorized

project.

The Port of Stockton is primarily a bulk port that serves industry and agriculture

in the San Joaquin Valley in California, and the bulk imports and exports of the

Western States.

The Port of Stockton recognized as far back as 1952 that deeper channels would

be needed for the movements of bulk cargoes and requested the Corps of Engineers

to deepen the channel in 1952. Coal, grain, fertilizers and many other bulk materials require deeper channels to serve the larger bulk carriers.

The Nation needs ports that can handle larger, more economical and more fuelefficient vessels close to the production areas, both agricultural and industrial.

The Port of Stockton is such a port.

The dredging of the Stockton Channel portion of the project to thirty-five (35) feet

was completed in 1987. A copy of the Port of Stockton’s most recent annual report

is attached. Cargo volume has increased since the dredging of the Stockton Channel

was completed; and the project is certainly paying off.

Therefore, we requested the Corps of Engineers for a new navigation study (reconnaissance study) to deepen the Channel further, to forty (40) feet or more, if economically feasible. The funding for this study was appropriated in fiscal year 1998.

The reconnaissance study determined that there is a Federal interest in further

deepening the Channel.

For the 2000 fiscal year, we are requesting three-hundred-thousand dollars

($300,000) for the feasibility study. Because this study has to be coordinated for

proper timing with the U.S. Navy’s project to deepen the Channels to the Concord

Weapons Station, this study needs to be done now. The feasibility study is fifty percent (50 percent) cost-shared.

The President’s proposed 2000 budget only contains one-hundred-fifty-thousand

dollars ($150,000) for the feasibility study, but the feasibility study and the eventual

construction, needs to be closely tied to the deepening of the Channel through San

Pablo Bay, and this project needs to be timed appropriately with that construction.

Deferring one-hundred-fifty-thousand dollars ($150,000) now could cost millions in

extra cost later.

The President’s proposed 2000 budget includes one-million-six-hundred-sixty-twothousand dollars ($1,662,000) for maintenance. This is insufficient. Every time insufficient funds are provided for complete maintenance, and the maintenance dredging, therefore, cannot be completed at one time, an additional mobilization and de-
856

mobilization cost of between five-hundred-thousand dollars ($500,000) and one-million dollars ($1,000,000) is incurred when it is completed. Three-million dollars

($3,000,000) is required for an average, complete maintenance dredging job. Appropriating less than three-million dollars ($3,000,000) results in extra mobilization

and de-mobilization cost between five-hundred-thousand dollars ($500,000) and onemillion dollars ($1,000,000) United States Senate Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Sub-Committee of the Senate Appropriations Committee Page three

each time each additional maintenance job, which increases the cost by thirty percent (30 percent) to sixty percent (60 percent), not counting staff time, testing cost,

permitting cost, et cetera. It could very well double the actual cost.

We urge you to appropriate three-hundred-thousand dollars ($300,000) for the

Stockton Deep Water Channel Feasibility Study. We also strongly urge that threemillion dollars ($3,000,000) be appropriated to maintain the Channels so that the

present benefits also may continue to accrue, and to avoid the additional cost incurred when insufficient funds are provided to complete the required maintenance

at one time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAYOR RODGER ANDERSON, CITY OF MORRO BAY

During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) designed and constructed a new harbor entrance at Morro Bay with two rock breakwaters. Since the

initial construction, over 50 years ago, the Federal government has maintained the

harbor entrance, breakwaters and navigational channels.

In fiscal year 1995 the ACOE completed the Morro Bay Harbor entrance improvement project to improve safety for commercial fishing and navigation. The City of

Morro Bay was the local sponsor and contributed over $900,000 in cash and in-kind

services. Morro Bay is a small city of 10,000 with very limited resources but made

this project one of its highest priorities for almost 10 years because of the regional

importance of the harbor. Without continued Federal maintenance, all of the past

local and federal investment will be lost.

Morro Bay Harbor is the only all-weather harbor of refuge between Santa Barbara

and Monterey on the West Coast. Our Harbor directly supports almost 250 homeported fishing vessels and marine dependent businesses. We provide irreplaceable

maritime facilities for both recreational and commercial interests. Businesses that

depend on the harbor generate $53,500,000 annually and employ over 700 people.

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) maintains a 15 person search and rescue

station at Morro Bay Harbor to provide the Coast Guard services for the entire Central California Coast.

Exposure to the open ocean and strong winter currents carrying sediment into the

harbor create the need for a routine maintenance schedule to insure that the harbor

entrance and federally designated navigation channels remain safe and navigable.

It is imperative that the federally constructed navigation channels and protective

jetties be maintained to insure safe commerce and navigation on a 300 mile stretch

of the California Coast.

This year, the President’s budget recommend $2.5 million to maintain our harbor

in the fiscal year 2000 budget. We are requesting your distinguished Subcommittee

approve the funding as recommended in the President’s budget. This funding will

be utilized for maintenance of the federally designated navigation channels. It is estimated that an additional $5.2 million in fiscal year 2001 will be required to complete this crucial maintenance project, including maintenance of the entrance area

and the south jetty.

In addition to being home port to over 250 commercial fishing vessels, Morro Bay

Harbor is part of the federally designated National Estuary Program. The Morro

Bay Estuary was the subject of an ACOE reconnaissance study (funded by Congress

in 1998) of potential projects to and restore sensitive habitat through improving

tidal circulation. The Bay Foundation, a local non-profit conservation group, has put

together a coalition to act as local sponsor for the Feasibility Phase of the Ecosystem

Rehabilitation Project. We also request you approve the President’s recommendation

for $100,000 to initiate a feasibility study for this project in fiscal year 2000.

Our thanks again for your actions and continued support. I am grateful for the

opportunity to present these requests to your Subcommittee on behalf of the citizens

of the City of Morro Bay.
857

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER GREEN, MAYOR, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Peter Green, and

I am the Mayor of Huntington Beach, California. Thank you for the opportunity to

present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000 budget for the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. The City of Huntington Beach requests $300,000 for a feasibility study for the

continuing Huntington Beach Coastal Bluff Restoration Project at Blufftop Park. Although the Corps completed an initial reconnaissance study in March of 1995, finding that the erosion of the cliffs has been and will be gradual and attributable to

normal wind and wave erosion, in fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated $100,000

to amend the Corps initial reconnaissance study to include storm damage as an accelerator to the normal bluff erosion. Several major Pacific storms in the past ten

years have caused major damage to these cliffs, and it is anticipated that the

amended reconnaissance Study will find Federal interest in restoration of our coastal bluffs.

In February of 1995, while the Corps was performing its measurements for the

initial Reconnaissance study, a major Pacific storm struck. Damage from this storm

resulted in a state and Federal disaster being declared. The Corps took cliff face

measurements before and after the storm event. This one storm event, it was discovered, had created eight new embayments, causing the cliff face to retreat between

6 and 15 feet, over only a two-day period. With only a few more storms such as this

one, not only would Blufftop Park be gone, but Pacific Coast Highway would also

be threatened.

The initial study defined an 8,000 feet stretch of coastal bluffs extending from the

southern boundary of Bolsa Chica State Beach to 17th Street. The ‘‘Central Reach’’

runs northward from the vicinity of Goldenwest Street for approximately 4,600 feet.

This portion of cliff-face rises 30 to 40 feet above the Pacific Ocean. These cliffs consist of poorly consolidated alluvium and marine terrace deposits. They are subject

to erosion from wave action, wind and storm damage. The slope of the cliff-face is

relatively steep. In the central and southeastern portions of this reach, the beach

berm is absent and wave run-up routinely reaches the cliff base at high tide. Most

of the cliff base and portions of the cliff face have been protected by a non-engineered revetment consisting of concrete rubble and quarrystone. Erosion

embayments exist in the cliff base and cliff face where revetment coverage is sparse

or absent.

This ‘‘Central Reach’’ contains the highest concentration of park facilities along

the cliff top, including safety railing, security lights, pedestrian walkway, bicycle

path, irrigated landscaping, picnic tables, benches, bicycle racks, drinking fountains,

metered parking lots and a paved ramp leading from the cliff top to the beach at

each end of the reach. Records indicate that the pedestrian walkway and the bicycle

path are used by over 700,000 people annually. A closure would cause an estimated

annual recreational loss of $238,200. Seaward of the northern parking lot, the bluffs

are approaching failure in four large embayments (total length of about 700 feet).

The City has closed the most seaward of the two trails. Four measures were considered for reducing or eliminating loss under the assumption that the cliff will retreat

8 feet in the next 25 years and 25 feet in the next 50 years. The four measures

include simply relocating park facilities and three alternative methods of constructing engineered revetment. Three of the four measured display a positive benefit to cost ratio.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DICK LYON, MAYOR, CITY OF OCEANSIDE

OCEANSIDE HARBOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION DREDGING PROGRAM

The City of Oceanside and the Oceanside Harbor District request your support of

$1,170,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Oceanside Harbor Maintenance

Dredging Program.

In 1960, Congress authorized full federal funding for maintenance of the Oceanside Harbor entrance (House Document 456, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, Public law

85–500.) in recognition of the fact that the Harbor entrance was constructed as an

emergency wartime measure in 1942. To this day, the Oceanside Harbor entrance

continues to serve the vital military installation of Camp Pendleton Harbor. In

1992, the Harbor District partnered with the federal government in a local cost

share agreement to modify the harbor entrance and the authorized channel depth

to reduce storm damage, provide surge protection to the harbor’s infrastructure and

provide significant reduction of navigational hazards that have produced 11 deaths,
858

49 serious injuries, 134 boating accidents and $1,500,000 of damage to vessels in

the harbor entrance.

Oceanside Harbor would experience severe negative impacts should the dredging

project not be funded. Such action would prevent access to the Pacific Ocean to the

United States Navy and Marine Corps as joint users of the entrance channel, as

well as the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Point Hobart, which is also based in Oceanside.

The economic impact upon the local fishing fleet, the commercial sportfishing fleet

and the 1,000 recreational vessels berthed here, as well as the businesses supported

by the harbor, would be critically impacted.

The maintenance program is essential for the safe navigation into Oceanside Harbor and the U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Harbor. The program also

provides beach sand restoration, shoreline protection, recreational and commerce

benefits.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for your consideration of the request.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL SHORELINE STUDY

The City of Oceanside is seeking $1,500,000 as an addition to the fiscal year 2000

budget for a San Diego County Regional Shoreline Study. The funds for this project

are not included in the Administration budget.

Oceanside has a 57-year history of beach erosion resulting from the Camp Pendleton Harbor construction that began in 1942. The federal government acknowledged its responsibility for Oceanside’s beach erosion in 1953. A letter report to the

U.S. Navy from the Army Corps of Engineers noted that the construction of the

Camp Pendleton jetties had compartmentalized the littoral cell and resulted in the

loss of 1.5 million cubic yards of sand in Oceanside during 1950–1952. An additional

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report to Congress in 1956 concluded that only restoration of the protective beach at Oceanside would protect the upland area and restore and maintain a satisfactory recreational beach. In 1958, the Navy extended

the north harbor jetty to reduce the entrance channel maintenance problems. This

action further aggravated the erosion of the beaches.

In 1967, congress authorized a review study of beach erosion at Oceanside resulting in the Office of the Chief of Engineers confirming 100 percent federal responsibility.

Despite numerous and significant efforts in placing sand on the beach, periodic

nourishment of the beach from maintenance dredging of the harbor entrance and

sand bypassing project, no permanent solution to the massive erosion problem has

yet to be achieved.

The 1994 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance Report on the Oceanside

Shoreline concluded that there is a federal interest in maintaining the Oceanside

beach and suggested several planned alternatives, including a beach fill, a groin system with beach fill, and a submerged breakwater system. However, federal costsharing law provides that non-federal interests (the City) pay 35 percent of the

project construction costs and annual maintenance. The federal rules also require

a 50 percent cost-sharing for the feasibility phase of the project study. The City of

Oceanside has been advised that Congress can only provide special 100 percent

funding for a beach restoration project if there is a study that would quantitatively

justify a larger federal cost-share based on the project being required to ‘‘mitigate’’

a federal action (i.e. the federal construction of the Camp Pendleton Harbor). If the

study documents that the erosion is 100 percent the result of the federal construction of the harbor, full federal funding would be justified on a future project. The

City of Oceanside is seeking $1.5 million to conduct the study to justify special federal cost-sharing.

The language for the study is as follows:

SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL SHORELINE STUDY. In recognition of the

findings of past studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as published in House

Document 456, 86th Congress, 2nd session and other related reports which conclude

that the erosion of Oceanside Beach and other downcoast beaches has been caused

by the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor as a wartime measure, without provision for bypassing material to the downcoast beaches; and in equity restoration

and maintenance of downcoast beach conditions that would be existing today if adequate bypassing was provided as part of harbor construction should be a Federal

responsibility; therefore the Secretary, acting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is directed to conduct a study to determine the extent of the erosion impact

caused by Camp Pendleton Harbor, and to develop plans to mitigate these impacts.

The cost of the study should be 100 percent Federal cost and not exceed $1.5 million.
859

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for your consideration of the request.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN E. FOSS, PORT DIRECTOR, SANTA CRUZ PORT

DISTRICT COMMISSION

Santa Cruz Harbor is an active small craft harbor at the north section of Monterey Bay, California. It was authorized as a federal navigation project in 1958, constructed in 1964, and expanded in 1972. A 1986 joint-venture between the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and the Santa Cruz Port District provided for a permanent sand bypass system to solve the ocean-driven shoaling problem at its entrance.

The Port District has successfully operated that system for the past thirteen winters. However, the Port District has been unable to solve the siltation problem emanating from the three-square mile watershed which terminates at the north end of

Santa Cruz Harbor.

Silt from Arana Gulch fills berths, fairways, and channels in the harbor, making

them hazardous and unusable. At this time, the siltation is not solvable by the existing sand bypass system. The soil characteristics of the watershed make beach disposal impractical at this time. Arana Gulch sediment must either be taken upland

or delivered by barge offshore—both of these disposal options are quite wasteful.

They are also extremely expensive and cost the Port District hundreds of thousands

of dollars each year. Additionally, the 1998 El Nin ̃o storms brought 15,000 cubic

yards of material into the north harbor alone from Arana Gulch. The event was declared a federal disaster, and FEMA and the State of California are spending in excess of $400,000 to return the harbor to charted depths.

On June 25, 1998, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

passed Resolution Docket 2565 authorizing the Secretary of the Army to review the

Arana Gulch watershed siltation problem. The Port District respectfully requests that $100,000 be appropriated for the

Arana Gulch reconnaissance study for fiscal year 2000.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIMMY SMITH, COMMISSION PRESIDENT, HUMBOLDT BAY

HARBOR, RECREATION AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT, EUREKA, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity

for me, Jimmy Smith, as Commission Chairman of the Humboldt Bay Harbor,

Recreation and Conservation District in Eureka, California to submit prepared remarks to you for the record in support of the Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water

regular appropriations measure to fund the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers into the

new millennium. Commissioner Roy Curless and Chief Executive Officer David Hull

will represent the Commission and District in meetings with subcommittee staff and

agency representatives and respond to any project-related questions that arise during those meetings and appearances.

The Commission recognizes and expresses its debt of gratitude to our retired Congressman Frank Riggs and retired Congressman Fazio (both former members of this

subcommittee), our new Congressman (and former State senator) Mike Thompson,

Subcommittee Chairman Packard from California, and the other members of this

subcommittee and staff for their continuing efforts in funding the Humboldt Harbor

and Bay Navigation Project. This project is of critical importance to the future development of Humboldt Bay and county, and the entire north coast region of the

State of California.

With your support, the conference report on fiscal year 1999 appropriations contained six million dollars for our project as a new construction start we support the

President’s budget request in the amount of $3.2 million in the construction general

account to complete project construction in fiscal year 2000. We are likewise grateful to the subcommittee for including $3.910 million in the

operations and maintenance general account for fiscal year 1999. We support the

President’s budget request for an additional $4.189 million in the operations and

maintenance general account for fiscal year 2000 and request the subcommittee increase this amount to $5.689 million dollars.

The increased budget request from fiscal year 1999 is derived from three sources.

$300,000 is attributable to annualized cost increases and additional survey work to

monitor the new hydrodynamics of the channel after completion of project construction. A second element of the additional request above the President’s budget will

permit the Corps to extend their survey south of the navigation channel to determine how the sand accumulation is impacting the main channel saving additional

money over the long term. This survey effort will cost an estimated $150,000. The
860

last element included in the request is for an additional $1.35 million to be appropriated to dredge this same area.

Although the exact quantities to be dredged will not be determined until the survey is complete, our estimates and the emergency nature of this request accounts

for the additional $1.5 million sought over the President’s budget request for the operations and maintenance general account.

Completion of the long sought new construction project (the harbor deepening

project) will vastly improve the safety of navigation in Humboldt Bay and help us

begin to diversify our maritime economy. For those unfamiliar with the geography,

Humboldt Bay is the only deep-draft natural harbor strategically situated along five

hundred miles of Pacific coastline between San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon. Extreme winter storm conditions at the Humboldt Bay and entrance have posed extreme navigation safety hazards, resulting in loss of life and significant property

damage over the years.

To us, regular maintenance dredging can be a life and death, as well as economic,

survival matter. For example, in a commendable effort to save Federal and local

sponsor financial resources, the Corps’ San Francisco District previously scheduled

combined operations/maintenance and construction dredging for this spring. An unanticipated delay in final approval of our project cooperation agreement has resulted

in dangerous shoaling of portions of the bar and entrance channel being allowed to

persist for more than four months. Deep draft vessels and commercial fishermen

have encountered shoaling conditions currently at 18′ in places where normally it

would be 40′ deep. This shoaling poses additional safety risks of ship grounding over

and beyond those inherently unsafe seasonal conditions intended to be remedied by

the channel improvement project itself.

Recently a Corps hopper dredge itself was damaged by high wave action while attempting to undertake emergency maintenance dredging of the shoals. Indicative of

adverse economic impacts, a vessel calling at a Louisiana-Pacific Corporation facility

was delayed by shoaling conditions resulting in $1.5 million in delay penalties and

lost sales. This furthers the perception of an unreliable harbor entrance and could

have significant adverse impacts to the wood chip export market. Completion of the

construction will substantially alleviate these conditions.

Project completion will provide unique economic development opportunities for the

North coast region. These capitalize upon our natural resources base enabling us

to ship our commodities to world markets at competitive freight rates, and ship

more of our imports and exports by water rather than transship them long distances

by road or rail to market. At the same time, it will permit us to diversify our economic base by improving our transportation infrastructure and attracting new industrial activity to an area largely dependent upon the economic well-being of the

forest products industry. We are currently suffering from closure of major facilities

and continuing uncertainty surrounding the industry’s future as a major contributor

to our long term economic base.

With the support of then Congressman Riggs, Congress authorized the Humboldt

Harbor and Bay 38 foot deep draft navigation project in section 101 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 1996) (Public Law 104–303) at an estimated total construction cost of $15,178,000 with a required local contribution of

$5,180,000 and a first Federal cost of $10,000,000. The project has a 1.9 to 1 favorable benefit cost ratio. It has no significant environmental impacts and enjoys the

consensus support of Federal, State, regional and local agencies.

In June 1998, with the support of the California Maritime Infrastructure Authority in the first of its kind issuance of revenue bonds to finance a Federal navigation

project, we were able to raise $3.9 million matched by an additional $1.0 million

in local redevelopment agency funds from the city of Eureka to meet our required

local contribution to the project construction cost. Since then, we have been waiting

for a final approved project cooperation agreement and commencement of construction. The Harbor District Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to authorize

execution of the final agreement on March 16, 1999.

In order to provide an additional revenue stream from which to service the debt

incurred in meeting its financial obligations, the district has implemented the first

of its kind harbor user fee under section 208 of WRDA 1986 so that vessels and

cargo benefitting from the navigation improvements will share in the cost of providing them.

Thanks to an accelerated final review by Secretary Westphal’s staff, we anticipate

his approval of the agreement this week with advertisement and contract award to

follow soon in the second quarter this fiscal year and completion of construction on

schedule next fiscal year.

On behalf of the members of the commission and district, we appreciate those

prior occasions in which we have had the opportunity to appear before the sub-
861

committee and look forward to appearing before this subcommittee on future occasions to provide progress reports concerning the successful completion of this

project. We are prepared to supplement our prepared remarks for the record in response to any questions that the Chair, subcommittee members or staff may wish

to have us answer.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This concludes my

prepared remarks.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF E.D. ALLEN, CHIEF HARBOR ENGINEER, PORT OF LONG

BEACH

I am E. D. Allen, Chief Harbor Engineer for the Port of Long Beach, California.

The Port of Long Beach is this nation’s largest container port. I have been authorized by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach to represent

the Port of Long Beach in regard to appropriations for the Los Angeles and Long

Beach Harbors Model Study and Wave Data Collection Program; construction of the

Queen’s Gate Deepening Project as part of our on-going 2020 Plan; Los Angeles

River maintenance dredging; Feasibility Studies for beach erosion; and Reconnaissance and Feasibility Studies for Contaminated Sediment Disposal.

In addition to the following specific project appropriation requests, I am recommending the committee recognize the need for a standby Corps dredging capability

to supplement private contractors in the event of emergencies.. I specifically recommend a standby dredging and personnel training capability be funded without a

minimum dredge quantity per year. This will allow:

(1) private contractors to benefit from receiving previous Corps annual dredging

quantities and

(2) Corps of Engineers equipment to be used in emergencies without a project

funding appropriation.

As a result, minor maintenance dredging could be undertaken at the Corps’ discretion for training purposes which would provide a tremendous benefit to the

smaller ports and harbors. Many of the needs of the smaller ports have not been

met due to the lack of a program such as this.

My more specific requests follow for listed projects.

HARBORS MODEL MAINTENANCE (CIVIL WORKS BUDGET CATEGORY—O&M)

The Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Section 123, authorized the Chief

of Engineers to operate and maintain the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Hydraulic

Model at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in

Vicksburg, Mississippi as part of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model

Study. This model encompasses both port complexes in San Pedro Bay, which, as

the third largest container port complex in the world, are ports of national strategic

and defense significance. The hydraulic model, along with several numeric models,

provide state-of-the-art methodology that can be used to provide operational improvements to the San Pedro Bay ports and many other harbor complexes. In addition, the Port, as the local agency, is assisting in the Corps effort to provide collection of continuous wave-gauge data by providing necessary support personnel and

equipment for the maintenance of portions of the systems located at the Port.

In fiscal year 1999, $165,000 was appropriated for maintenance of the physical

model of San Pedro Bay. During this time, the Port also used the model to analyze

necessary navigation-related modifications to our upcoming expansion within the

Navy Basin and validate numerical model results. This effort is being funded by the

Port and is on-going. It is necessary that the model remain ready for service such

as this. Funding in fiscal year 2000, in the amount of $165,000, would continue annual maintenance on the model. Additionally, we are requesting $335,000 in continued funding for the wave gage (prototype) data acquisition and analysis program.

The wave data gathering program is essential as it provides real-world information

to compare to model performance. The wave data acquisition program began in 1987

to provide validation of the design of the 2020 Plan, our Master Plan for port expansion and navigation improvements. This program has now evolved to construction

monitoring and model verification which needs to continue to confirm expected levels of impacts of the expansion plans. The shipping industry’s increasingly larger

vessel size continues to challenge port engineers. The need for modeling and wave

gage data acquisition continues to be a critical tool supporting the ports ability to

create facilities compatible with changing trade conditions and operations. Therefore, Congress is respectfully requested to appropriate $500,000 for fiscal year 2000

to perform this work.
862

PORT OF LONG BEACH DEEPENING, QUEENS GATE (CIVIL WORKS BUDGET CATEGORY—

CONSTRUCTION)

The Port of Long Beach developed a long-range master plan, referred to as the

2020 Plan, which demonstrates the need for deeper navigation channels at the

Queens Gate entrance to San Pedro Bay and additional landfill development

through the year 2020.

Section 201(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized construction of the 2020 Plan upon recommendations of a feasibility report and completion of a favorable Chief of Engineers Report. The Chief’s Report was issued July

26, 1996 and the Office of Management of Budget has approved the Report. The

first phase of the Plan deepens the Long Beach Main Channel to a depth of 76 feet.

This project is known as the Port of Long Beach Deepening. Together with the approach channel deepening outside the federal breakwater, the dredging was evaluated for Federal interest in the feasibility study because it permits deeper draft

crude petroleum vessels to call at the Port of Long Beach.

This project was funded in 1998 and 1999 and is on-going. We fully anticipate

that the Corps will provide sufficient programmed funds to complete this project

with no additional funding appropriations. I am pleased to note that the Corps specified the work in such a manner that we can achieve a measurable benefit from the

project as each foot of depth is dredged.

LOS ANGELES RIVER MAINTENANCE DREDGING (CIVIL WORKS BUDGET CATEGORY—O&M)

The Port of Long Beach also concurs with and supports the recommendation of

C-MANC and the City of Long Beach to federal fund remedial maintenance dredging to remove accumulated flood-deposited silt in the mouth of the Los Angeles

River. During the storms of 1995, flood-deposited silt closed the mouth of the Los

Angeles River to navigation. This restricted regularly scheduled water route transportation between the cities of Long Beach and Avalon, creating an economic emergency. Reacting to this, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers removed 300,000 cubic

yards from the channel which allowed for minimal resumption of navigation.

On a yearly basis substantial quantities of silt remain in the channel. These silt

deposits create the likelihood of future serious restrictions and safety hazards to

commercial and recreational boating activity in, and adjacent to, the Long Beach

Harbor District and the associated businesses in Long Beach. Such restrictions and

hazards have resulted in accidents and litigation.

The Port supports the City in recommending that these silt deposits be removed

on an annual basis as a scheduled work item. In the draft of ‘‘Project Plan for Los

Angeles River Estuary Maintenance Dredging, Long Beach, CA, October 1994’’

(Draft Project Plan–1994), the Corps of Engineers estimated an average annual deposit of silt in the estuary of 485,000 cubic yards. The rate of such deposits is influenced by operational decisions at the Corps of Engineers’ dams located at the headwaters of the river. It is imperative for our current operations, that a long range

remedy be found for the Los Angeles River mouth, if navigational utility and effective flood control capability is to be maintained.

It is estimated by the Corps of Engineers, that maintenance dredging of the channel to a minimum usable width requires removal of approximately 185,000 cubic

yards at an annual cost of over $2,000,000. Congress is requested therefore, to appropriate $2,000,000 for annual silt removal. This work is included in the line item

known as Los Angeles Long Beach Harbors in the Civil Works Budget. Please note,

if there was a standby/training budget for Corps dredges that I earlier proposed, it

is possible that this type of work could be more easily scheduled at Corps’ discretion

rather than via emergency provisions.

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT DISPOSAL (CIVIL WORKS BUDGET CATEGORY—GENERAL

INVESTIGATIONS)

The Contaminated Sediment Task Force, of which the Los Angeles District of the

US Army Corps of Engineers is a key member, is charged with investigating the

major issues involved in formulating and implementing a regional contaminated

sediment management strategy including four major issues:

1. Upland Disposal.—Blending of contaminated sediments with clean sediment to

make structural fill as a promising disposal option. However, there is no quantitative data on proportions, handling methods, and desired end products that would

support management decisions on disposal/reuse options. There is great need to undertake a pilot handling project to collect that information.

2. Screening Guidelines.—Quantitative sediment chemistry guidelines are required to screen sediments for aquatic disposal and necessitate gathering historical
863

regional data on sediment chemistry, toxicity, and bio-accumulation to be analyzed

for region-specific relationships between sediment chemistry and toxicity.

3. Watershed Management.—Control of future contamination via land runoff as a

key management issue. Field and modeling study of sediment and contaminant

transport in the Los Angeles region are required both to build on existing watershed

efforts and to acquire specific data on the movement of contaminants into harbors.

4. Aquatic Disposal.—A regional confined aquatic disposal facility is a promising

management tool which provides a multi-user site active over a period of many

years. The approach requires an engineering feasibility study of such issues as:

quantifying the containment disposal capability, the interface chemistry between

sediments of multiple users, and determining best management practices.

The program would be managed by the Los Angeles District and requires $400,000 in Federal funding; substantial additional funding would come from State

and local sources. Congress is therefore requested to appropriate $400,000 in fiscal

year 2000 to support the Contaminated Sediment Task Force in their effort to initiate a Regional Contaminated Sediment Disposal Planning Study.

FEASIBILITY STUDY BEACH EROSION (CIVIL WORKS BUDGET CATEGORY—GENERAL

INVESTIGATIONS)

The Port of Long Beach also supports C-MANC and the City of Long Beach on

their request for federal funding to initiate a Corps of Engineers feasibility study

on beach erosion. This beach erosion problem is directly related to the focusing affect the federal breakwater has on our large commercial harbor complex and surrounding beaches. In southeastern Long Beach, east of the Port’s land and channels,

and directly opposite the federal breakwater, a beach and seawall protects approximately $200,000,000 worth of homes based on the 1990 US census. We expect the

current home value to be significantly higher. Steady erosion has reduced the beach

from an optimum of 175 feet to 50 feet prior to City’s efforts in late 1994 to rebuild

the beach. Winter storms continue to reduce the beach width.

The City has also experienced erosion in the west beach area. Although homes

are not endangered, public improvements, including lifeguard stations, public restrooms, a bicycle and pedestrian trail, and a parking lot, are at risk. The cause of

the new problem is unclear, indicating the need for a thorough study of the beach

erosion problem inside the federal breakwater.

The primary method of protecting the homes has been annual rebuilding of sand berms during high tides or expected storms. The City has invested over $5,500,000

in capital improvement projects, annual beach rebuilding, and storm protection to

control the beach erosion over the past 17 years. Despite this effort, in 1989 and

1993, storm waves eroded the beach and breached the protective seawall, causing

damage to homes. The City is also defending itself against a lawsuit by one of the

homeowners who is claiming that the City failed to halt erosion that narrowed the

beaches in front of his home to less than the desired width adopted in the 1980

Local Coastal Plan.

In fiscal year 1997, $252,000 was appropriated to complete the reconnaissance

study of the beach erosion problem within the City of Long Beach. It is now requested that Congress appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 to initiate the feasibility study.

Attached hereto is a Resolution to be adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach on March 22, 1998, which contains data relating

to the background of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study, the

2020 Plan implementation, the Los Angeles River dredging, the Contaminated Sediment Task Force, the beach erosion problem in Long Beach, and other related navigation and economic matters. The resolution stresses the need for federal assistance

in developing economic, technical and environmental background information essential to the design and permitting of Port facilities vital to regional and national interests. The Port of Long Beach is the largest container port in the United States

and is the economic engine bringing $3.7 billion in customs receipts from both Los

Angeles and Long Beach ports and jobs for 500,000 people. We are truly a port and

harbor of national significance.

We kindly ask that Congress continue its support of these projects in fiscal year

2000 by appropriating the requested funds.

Thank you for permitting me the privilege of this testimony.

RESOLUTION NO. HD–1958

A resolution of the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the city of Long Beach,

California, requesting the Congress of the United States to appropriate funds to the

United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to continue planning, engineering
864

and design for the San Pedro Bay 2020 Plan, to continue the Los Angeles and Long

Beach Harbors model study relating to improvements in San Pedro Bay, to conduct

maintenance dredging at the mouth of the Los Angeles River, to conduct feasibility

studies of beach erosion, and to develop a regional contaminated sediment management strategy

WHEREAS, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in San Pedro Bay, California, are two of a limited number of sites on the West Coast of the United States

which possess the potential for deep water port facilities as recommended in the

West Coast Deep Water Port Facility Study conducted by the United States Army

Corps of Engineers; and WHEREAS, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have

a record of both physical and fiscal growth to the extent that together the two ports

are presently handling over 185.9 million metric revenue tons including 7.23 million

twenty-foot equivalent units of container cargo annually (fiscal year 1998), and the

international cargo handled is valued at over $159 billion annually (calendar year

1997); and

WHEREAS, the growth and activity of the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles

have a significant regional and national economic effect; and

WHEREAS, in 1998 the Los Angeles Customs District remained the Nation’s top entry and exit point for international cargo, valued at over $181 billion, generating

approximately $3.7 billion in Federal revenues collected as United States Customs

duties, approximately 85 percent of which is generated by the Long Beach and Los

Angeles Ports; and

WHEREAS, both Ports are now, and are increasingly becoming, hard-pressed to

provide facilities to meet the needs of the shipping industry, and to that end are

conducting extensive studies, in conjunction with federal studies, to determine navigational, transportation, and environmental requirements necessary to provide economic and adequate surge-free berthing and cargo handling facilities; and

WHEREAS, all existing land in the Port of Long Beach which can be developed

for shipping operations has been utilized or is in the process of being developed and,

in order to meet the needs of the following decade, the design, permitting and construction of new lands must continue; and

WHEREAS, continuation of the studies currently underway by the United States

Army Corps of Engineers, consisting of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors

Model Study, including maintenance and operation of the San Pedro Bay Hydraulic

Model at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as authorized by Section 123 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, is needed for use in the design and permitting

processes for future landfills for port development; and

WHEREAS, the Port of Long Beach handled over 27 million metric tons of liquid

bulk cargo (fiscal year 1998). Because of economies of scale, liquid bulk cargo

brought in by deeper draft vessels will have lower transportation costs and environmental benefits in the form of less vessel traffic. However, the existing navigation

channel depths leading to the Port limit the size of calling vessels until such time

as the Long Beach Deepening Project is complete; and

WHEREAS, the Los Angeles River is the largest of numerous flood-control channels constructed and maintained jointly by the Los Angeles County Flood Control

District and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and silt deposit from storm

runoff accumulating in the mouth of the Los Angeles River in the City of Long

Beach constitutes a restriction and hazard to both commercial and recreational boating; and

WHEREAS, the Southern California region has a significant volume of contaminated sediments from area runoff and other activities and the Los Angeles District

of the US Army Corps of Engineers is a key member of a Task Force charged with

the investigation of major issues involved in formulating and implementing a regional contaminated sediment management strategy; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, as a

properly constituted and financially responsible local agency, by its Resolution No.

HD–890, adopted August 3, 1965, expressed its intent to enter into such agreements

as may be reasonably required to further federal projects for the development and

improvement of Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors; and

WHEREAS, at southeastern Long Beach in front of Alamitos Bay a beach and

seawall protects $200 million worth of homes (1990 US census data). The primary

method of protecting the homes has been annual beach rebuilding and sand berms

during storms. Steady erosion has reduced the beach from optimum width of 175

feet to 50 feet and continues to reduce beach width despite rebuilding efforts in

1994. The City has invested over $5.5 million in capital improvement projects, annual beach rebuilding, and storm protection to control the beach erosion over the

past 17 years. Despite this effort, in 1989 and 1993, storm waves eroded the beach

and breached the protective seawall causing damage to homes.
865

NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long

Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby, respectfully

requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of Engineers, to maintain the San Pedro Bay Hydraulic Model at the Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as

part of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study.

Sec. 2. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby, respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of Engineers, to continue the existing wave gauge

(prototype) data acquisition and analysis program.

Sec. 3. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby, respectfully requested to support the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of Engineers,

to complete construction of dredging deeper navigation channels to the Port of Long

Beach to the full project depth.

Sec. 4. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby, respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the Los Angeles

County Flood Control District, to engage in the necessary maintenance dredging at

the mouth of the Los Angeles River to remove silt deposits which have accumulated

at that location.

Sec. 5. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby, respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of Engineers, to complete feasibility studies to develop protective measures to prevent beach erosion within the City of Long Beach.

Sec. 6. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby, respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of Engineers, to complete feasibility studies to develop and implement a regional contaminated sediment management strategy for

Southern California.

Sec. 7. That the Executive Director of the Long Beach Harbor Department be, and

he is hereby, directed to send copies of this resolution to the United States Senators

and to Members of the House of Representatives from California, with a letter requesting their assistance in presenting this resolution before the proper Congressional committees.

Sec. 8. That the Executive Director of the Long Beach Harbor Department be, and

he is hereby, further directed to send copies of this resolution to the President of

the United States; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary

of the Army; the Chief of Engineers, the Director, Directorate of Civil Works, the

Division Engineer-South Pacific Division and the District Engineer-Los Angeles, all

of the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and to such other interested persons

as he may deem appropriate.

The Secretary of the Board shall certify to the passage of this resolution by the

Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, shall cause the same

to be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach, and shall

cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed forthwith with the City Clerk of

the City of Long Beach and it shall thereupon take effect.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BRIDLEY, WATERFRONT DIRECTOR, CITY OF SANTA

BARBARA, CALIFORNIA

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING

As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2000 Energy and

Water Resources Appropriations Bill, I would like to bring a very important Corps

of Engineers project to your attention.

About 400,000 cubic yards of sand piles up every winter at Santa Barbara Harbor,

and in years of severe storms, the accumulated sand can close the channel bringing

local fishing and other businesses in the Harbor to a standstill.

There is an important Federal interest in maintaining dredging at the Harbor. It

provides slips and moorings for over 1,100 commercial, emergency and recreational

boats. It is also an important part of Coast Guard operations on California’s central

coast.

The President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget Request includes $1,646,000 for operations and maintenance for Santa Barbara Harbor. I respectfully request that the

U.S. Senate, through your Subcommittee, maintain that level of funding.
866

NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT—DREDGE ACQUISITION

The President’s fiscal year 2000 Budget recommendation also includes project

funding for a potential new construction project in Santa Barbara. The City of Santa

Barbara and the Corps of Engineers have pursued a proposal to design and construct a dredge for annual operation and maintenance dredging of our Harbor.

Under this proposal, the City of Santa Barbara would contribute 20 percent funding

(approximately $1.6 million) with the Corps of Engineers funding $4,960,000 for the

acquisition of the dredge. The City would then take over the annual costs to operate

the dredge, which are estimated to be $750,000–$1 million.

Unfortunately, the recommendation to proceed with funding of this project cannot

come at a worse time for the City. During the past year, the City suffered severe

damage from El Nino storms causing over $1 million in damage to the Harbor and

Stearns Wharf. In November 1998, Stearns Wharf was hit with a catastrophic fire

causing over $10 million in damage destroying a portion of the wharf and closing

five businesses. The financial impacts of these natural disasters have severely impacted the City’s ability to proceed with the dredge procurement and operations at

this time.

Although the City remains interested and committed to the dredge acquisition in

the future, due to the financial hardships of the fire and winter storms last year,

I respectfully request that the U. S. Senate through your Subcommittee defer funding of this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
(i)

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Page

Akin, Richard, Supervisor, County of Sutter, California, prepared statement .. 598

Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., prepared statement ..................................... 622

Allen, E.D., Chief Harbor Engineer, Port of Long Beach, prepared statement .. 861

Allen, W. Ron, President, National Congress of American Indians, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 603

American Chemical Society, prepared statement ................................................. 821

American Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement .................................... 600

American Public Power Association, prepared statement .................................... 843

American Society for Microbiology, prepared statement ...................................... 790

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement ........................ 827

Anderson, James S., President, Blue Valley Association, prepared statement .. 727

Anderson, Mayor Rodger, City of Morro Bay, prepared statement ..................... 856

Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement ..................... 701

Armstrong, Michael D., General Manager, Monterey County Water Resources

Agency (MCWRA), prepared statement ............................................................. 585

Arveschoug, Steve, District General Manager, Southeastern Colorado Water

Conservancy District, prepared statement ........................................................ 704

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, prepared statement .......................... 609

Audrey J. LaPlace, President, Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee

District, Lutcher, LA, prepared statement ........................................................ 681

Baldwin, Dr. David E., Senior Vice President, General Atomics, et al., prepared statement ................................................................................................... 799

Ballard, Lt. Gen. Joe N., Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers—Civil,

Department of the Army, Department of Defense—Civil ................................. 63

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 79

Barnett, Jack A., Executive Director, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control

Forum, prepared statement ................................................................................. 766

Barrett, Lake H., Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Environmental Management and Civilian Waste Management

Programs, Department of Energy ....................................................................... 269

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 297

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 294

Beachem, Philip, Chairman, New Jersey Maritime Advisory Council, letter

from ....................................................................................................................... 612

Beier, Keith E., Mayor Pro Tem, City of Escondido, California, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 556

Belza, Tib, Chairman, Yuba County Water Agency, prepared statement .......... 567

Beneke, Patricia, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Water and Science,

Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior ......................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 3

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah:

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 168

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 15

Biggs, Otha Lee, Judge of Probate & President, Monroe County Commission,

Monroeville, AL, prepared statement ................................................................. 637

Blum, Carl L., Deputy Director, Department of Public Works, Los Angeles

County, California, prepared statement ............................................................. 579

Bollinger, Donald T., Chairman, Louisiana Governor’s Task Force on Maritime Industry, prepared statement .................................................................... 656
Page

ii

Borrone, Lillian C., Director, Port Commerce Department of the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................ 615

Boyd, Bernadine, President, Fort McDowell Tribal Council, Fort McDowell

Indian Community, prepared statement ............................................................ 761

Brakken, William A., Community Liaison/Central Oregon Team Leader,

Northwest Area Foundation, prepared statement ............................................. 778

Bransford, Donald, President, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, prepared

statement, ............................................................................................................. 547

Brescia, Christopher J., President, Midwest Area River Coalition 2000, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 713

Bridley, John, Waterfront Director, City of Santa Barbara, California, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 865

Brinson, J. Ron, President and Chief Executive Officer, Port of New Orleans,

New Orleans, LA, prepared statement ............................................................... 667

Brown, Lynne P., Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Government and Community Relations, Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion and Memory,

New York University, prepared statement ........................................................ 802

Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:

Questions submitted by ........................................................................ 54, 170, 497

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 29

Business Council For Sustainable Energy, prepared statement ......................... 817

Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions submitted

by ........................................................................................................................... 178

Byrnes, Robert J., Mayor, City of Marshall, MN, prepared statement ............... 738

Caddo/Bossier Port Commission, Shreveport, LA, prepared statement .............. 698

Campbell, Joseph L., President, Board of Directors, Contra Costa Water District, prepared statement, .................................................................................... 546

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado, statement of ..... 270

Castro, Richard, Chairman, El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 748

Cherokee Canal, Sediment Removal and Streambed Alteration Project, Butte

County, prepared statement, ............................................................................... 568

City of Gridley, CA, prepared statement ............................................................... 838

City of Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement .............................................. 649

City of Stockton, California, prepared statement ................................................. 574

Clemens, Ralph O., Jr., President, Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc., prepared statement ........................................................................ 634

Coachella Valley Water District, prepared statement .......................................... 549

Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions submitted

by....................................................................................................................... 165, 381

Colvin, Joe F., President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 814

Corbett, Kevin S., Executive Director, Port Authority Affairs, State of New

York, Empire State Development Corporation, prepared statement ............... 615

County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin County Flood Control and

Water Conservation District, California, prepared statement ......................... 557

Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Utah, questions submitted

by....................................................................................................... 60, 173, 265, 501

Curry, Darrel G., Vice President, Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 728

DeCosmo, James M., Manager of Lands, Research and Procurement, Southeast Timberlands, Kimberly-Clark, Mobile, AL, prepared statement ............. 626

Delesdernier, Capt. Mark, Jr., President, Crescent River Port Pilots’ Association, Belle Chasse, LA, prepared statement ...................................................... 670

Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles, prepared statement ...... 568

DiGiorgio, Michael, Mayor, City of Novato, California, prepared statement ..... 589

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 383

Questions submitted by ............................................................... 35, 117, 246, 337

Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:

Questions submitted by ........................................................................ 60, 190, 521

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 387

Dry Prairie Rural Water, prepared statement ...................................................... 785

Duffy, George E., President, Navios Ship Agencies, Inc., Mobile, AL, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 627
Page

iii

Evans, Mayor Donna, City of West Jordan, Utah, prepared statement ............. 783

Farris, Chester A., III, Chairman, Photovoltaics Division, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement ................................................... 830

Felty, Billy J., Chief Engineer, St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 677

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux, prepared statement ......................................... 785

Foss, Brian E., Port Director, Santa Cruz Port District Commission, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 859

Foster, Gov. M.J., Jr., on Behalf of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, prepared statement .................................................................................. 671

Fraser, Gale Wm., II, P.E., General Manager/Chief Engineer, Clark County

Regional Flood Control District, prepared statement ....................................... 755

Fuhrman, Maj. Gen. Russell L., Director of Civil Works, Corps of Engineers—

Civil, Department of the Army, Department of Defense—Civil ....................... 63

Futter, Dr. Ellen, President, American Museum of Natural History, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 793

George, Bruce, Manager, Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 588

George, Merv, Jr., Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe, prepared statement ............ 775

Geringer, Hon. Jim, Governor, State of Wyoming, prepared statement ............. 788

Gieringer, Wallace A., Chairman for Arkansas, Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement ................................................................ 702

Gottemoeller, Rose E., Director, Office of Nonproliferation and National Security, Atomic Energy Defense and Nonproliferation Programs, Department

of Energy ............................................................................................................... 193

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 210

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 207

Gravois, Aubrey, President, Board of Commissioners, Lafourche Basin Levee

District, Vacherie, LA, prepared statement ....................................................... 676

Green, Peter, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach, California, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 857

Haak, Norman, Chairman, Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 729

Haun, Charles A., Executive Vice President, Parker Towing Company, Inc.,

Tuscaloosa, AL, prepared statement .................................................................. 628

Hayden, Channing F., Jr., President, Steamship Association of Louisiana,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 663

Henderson, Ed, Chairman, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, prepared statement ....................................................................... 570

Henry, Allen, President, Henry Marine Service, Inc., Spanish Fort, Alabama,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 625

Hewgley, James M., Jr., Chairman for Oklahoma Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement ................................................................ 709

Hodges, James H., Governor, State of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 642

Hodges, William D., President, Board of Directors, Trinity River Authority

of Texas, prepared statement .............................................................................. 748

Holgate, Laura S.H., Director, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, Atomic

Energy Defense and Nonproliferation Programs, Department of Energy ....... 193

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 217

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 214

Holland, Lisa S., Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., prepared statement ................................................................................................... 611

Hollingsworth, Tom, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 598

Holman, Gerald H., Chairman for Kansas, Arkansas River Basin Interstate

Committee, prepared statement ......................................................................... 706

Hunter, Dr. Sam M., President, Little River Drainage District, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 725

Israel, Keith, General Manager, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control

Agency (MRWPCA), prepared statement ........................................................... 587
Page

iv

James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 614

Jansen, Keith H., Director, Raw Materials Planning Procurement Distribution

and Sales, U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement ............................. 631

Johansson, Lennart, Chairman, Solar Thermalpower Division, Solar Energy

Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement .......................................... 832

Jollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government Relations, University

of Miami, prepared statement ............................................................................. 644

Jordan, James T., Director, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter from ....................... 638

Joseph, William F., Jr., Chairman, Montgomery County Commission, Montgomery, AL, prepared statement ........................................................................ 637

Kendall, Donald R., Ph.D., P.E., General Manager, Calleguas Municipal

Water District, prepared statement ................................................................... 581

Kimble, Jay L., Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN, prepared statement .................. 744

King, T. Keith, P.E., President and CEO, David Volkert & Associates, Inc.,

Mobile, AL, prepared statement ......................................................................... 631

Klass, Dr. Donald L., President, Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 833

Knabe, Don, Chairman of the Board, Supervisor, Fourth District, County

of Los Angeles, prepared statement ................................................................... 852

Kornegay, H. Thomas, Executive Director, Port of Houston Authority, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 749

Krebs, Dr. Martha, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy .............. 383

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 393

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 388

Krygsman, Alexander, Director, Port of Stockton, prepared statement ............. 855

LaGrange, Gary P., Executive Director/CEO, Port of South Louisiana, LaPlace, LA, prepared statement ............................................................................ 667

Langjahr, Joseph H., Vice President and General Counsel, Foss Maritime,

letter from ............................................................................................................. 624

LaPlace, Aubrey J., President, Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee

District, Lutcher, LA, prepared statement ........................................................ 683

Lee, Jan, Executive Director, Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 781

Lema, Joseph E., Vice President, Manufacturers and Services Division, National Mining Association, prepared statement ................................................. 653

LeVake, Barbara, President, the Resources Agency and the Reclamation

Board, State of California, prepared statement, ............................................... 542

Levine, John L., Jr., President, Associated Branch Pilots, Metairie, LA, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 669

Libeu, Larry, President, Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS):

Letter from ........................................................................................................ 595

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 768

Lopez, Gaye, Manager, Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement ... 545

Losoya, Milton, Mayor, City of Woodland, prepared statement .......................... 551

Lowe, A. Lynn, President, Red River Valley Association, prepared statement .. 688

Lyon, Dick, Mayor, City of Oceanside, CA, prepared statements ................... 580, 857

Mackey, Karan, Chair, Board of Supervisors, County of Lake, California,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 597

Madigan, Michael D., Chairman, California Water Commission, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 525

Magwood, Bill, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology,

Department of Energy ......................................................................................... 383

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 419

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 415

Martin, William, Chairman, Tumalo Irrigation District, prepared statement ... 783

Martinez, Eluid, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior ......................................................................... 1

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

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 7

Mauderly, Joe L., Senior Scientist and Director of External Affairs, The

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, prepared statement ........................ 796

McClelland, John S., Jr., Midstream Fuel Service, Inc., Mobile, AL, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 626
Page

v

McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted

by ........................................................................................................................... 495

McCrory, Robert L., Professor and Director, Laboratory for Laser Energetics,

University of Rochester, prepared statement .................................................... 807

McDonough, Frank M., Executive Director, New Jersey Maritime Resources,

State of New Jersey, Commerce & Economic Growth Commission, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 615

McKenzie Watershed Council, prepared statement .............................................. 782

Melton, Carlton J., Regional Vice President, Gulf & Inland Region, Stevedoring Services of America, Mobile, AL, prepared statement .......................... 630

Merrihew, Lawrence L., Senior Vice President, Regions Bank, Mobile, AL,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 629

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared statement ......... 592

Mikels, Jon D., Chairman, Supervisor, Second District, County of San

Bernardino, prepared statement ......................................................................... 552

Miklos, Mayor Steve, City of Folsom, California, prepared statements ......... 595, 597

Miller, Chairman Harold, Chairman, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 741

Miller, George, Mayor, City of Tucson, prepared statement ................................ 758

Milnes, Dwane, Executive Director, San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency

and City Manager, City of Stockton, California, prepared statement ............. 846

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, prepared statement ........... 747

Minsky, Reynold S., President, Board of Commissioners, Fifth Louisiana

Levee District, Tallulah, LA, prepared statement ............................................. 680

Mni Wiconi Project, prepared statement ............................................................... 733

Morgan, Carl, President, Economic Development Authority, Selma, AL, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 640

Morgan, Sheldon L., President, Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 620

Mosher, Carl W., Director, Environmental Services Department, City of San

Jose, California, prepared statement ................................................................. 547

Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, questions submitted

by ........................................................................................................................... 188

National Waterways Alliance, prepared statement .............................................. 599

Nelson, Les, Chairman, Solar Thermal & Building Products Division, Solar

Energy Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement ............................. 831

Nelson, Ron, Chairman, Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 779

Noble, Vernon A., Chairman, Green Brook Flood Control Commission, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 619

Northwest Power Planning Council, prepared statement .................................... 770

Nuisance Flooding Near the 3B’s Portion of the Butte Basin Overflow, Sacramento River, Butte County, California, prepared statement ........................ 568

O’Brien, Terrence J. President, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago, prepared statement ................................................................ 699

Orillion, Wayne, President, Board of Commissioners, Atchafalaya Basin Levee

District, Port Allen, LA, prepared statement .................................................... 678

Owendoff, James M., Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Environmental Management and Civilian Waste Management Programs, Department of Energy ............................................................................. 269

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 273

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 271

Pace, W.O., Chairman, Autauga County Commission, letter from ..................... 639

Palmer, R. Barry, Executive Director, DINAMO, prepared statement ............... 651

Parsons, Richard W., Dredging Program Manager, Ventura Port District,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 854

Perrenot, Frederick A., P.E., General Manager, City of Houston, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 752

Peterson, J. M., President, Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 728

Peterson, R. Max, Executive Vice President, International Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statement ....................................................... 606

Pettygrove, Hon. George, Mayor, City of Fairfield, California, prepared statements ................................................................................................................ 551, 596
Page

vi

Pfeifle, Kurt, General Manager, Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project (Public Law

102–575), prepared statement ............................................................................. 729

Rabbon, Peter D., General Manager, the Resources Agency and the Reclamation Board, State of California, prepared statement ......................................... 542

Ravan, Jack E., Director and Chief Executive Officer, Alabama State Docks

Department, Mobile, AL, prepared statement ................................................... 633

Red River Waterway Commission, Natchitoches, LA, prepared statement ........ 698

Reicher, Dan, Assistance Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 449

Statements of................................................................................................ 383, 438

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Questions submitted by ............................................................................... 176, 509

Statements of........................................................................................... 2, 194, 384

Reis, Dr. Victor H., Assistant Secretary, Office of Defense Programs, Atomic

Energy Defense and Nonproliferation Programs, Department of Energy ....... 193

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 198

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 195

Renner, George, President, Board of Directors, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, prepared statement .............................................................. 757

REPI Action Coalition, prepared statement .......................................................... 842

Richard, Roger P., Executive Director, Port of Greater Baton Rouge, Port

Allen, LA, prepared statement ............................................................................ 668

Richmond, George R., President and Chief Operating Officer, Jim Walter

Resources, Inc., letter from, ................................................................................ 632

Rimsza, Skip, Mayor, City of Phoenix, prepared statement ................................ 764

Rogers, Ross, General Manager, Merced Irrigation District, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 550

Rousselle, Benny, Plaquemines Parish Government, Belle Chasse, LA, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 669

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, prepared statement ............................. 846

San Diego, California, Water Reclamation Program, prepared statement ......... 564

Sanguinotti, Phillip A., President, The Anniston Star, Anniston, AL, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 636

Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California, prepared statement .. 559

Schafer, R. L., District Engineer, Cawelo Water District, Bakersfield, California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 569

Schafer, R. L., Secretary/Watermaster, Tule River Association, Porterville,

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 569

Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement .................................................... 647

Serna, Joe, Jr., Mayor, City of Sacramento, California, prepared statement ..... 590

Sherrill, Lynn, Vice President, Operations, Crounse Corporation, Paducah,

KY, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 623

Smith, Jimmy, Commission President, Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and

Conservation District, Eureka, California, prepared statement ...................... 859

Smith, Sandy, Executive Director, Monroeville Area Chamber of Commerce,

Monroeville, AL, prepared statement ................................................................. 637

Stein, Theodore, Jr., Commission President, Port of Los Angeles Board of

Harbor Commissioners, prepared statement ..................................................... 850

Stepan, J. Craig, General Manager, Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company,

Chickasaw, AL, prepared statement .................................................................. 632

Steve, Jaime, Legislative Director, American Wind Energy Association, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 822

Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 520

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 63

Stewart, Jerry L., Vice President Fuel Services, Southern Company Generation, letter from .................................................................................................... 629

Story, Charles, Vice President Governmental & Public Affairs, Degussa-Hu ̈ls,

Theodore, AL, prepared statement ..................................................................... 624

Sublette, Kerry L., Sarkeys Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Tulsa, prepared statement ....................................................................... 804

Svendson, Douglass W., Jr., Executive Director, Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association, prepared statement ................................................................................ 752
Page

vii

Thomas, Fred, Sr., Chairman, Pikitanoi Rural Water Supply System, Kickapoo Tribe, prepared statement .......................................................................... 718

Thompson, Michael D., President, Thompson Power Systems, Birmingham,

AL, prepared statement ....................................................................................... 630

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prepared statement ............................................ 621

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared statement ........ 810

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement ........................ 722

Vann, James A., Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, Alabama Electric

Cooperative, Inc., Andalusia, AL, prepared statement ..................................... 622

Vanselow, Glenn, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 773

Venable, Jim, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, prepared statement .............................. 576

Volusia County, Florida, prepared statement ....................................................... 646

Waldon, Donald G., Administrator, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, Columbus, MS, prepared statement ....................................... 640

Waldron, Marie, Council Member, City of Escondido, California, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 556

Wallace, James D., President, Selma and Dallas County Chamber of Commerce, Selma, AL, prepared statement .............................................................. 639

Wanamaker, James E., Chief Engineer, Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners, prepared statement ................................................................................ 686

Wehe, Prof. David K., University of Michigan, prepared statement ................... 839

Weiland, Kenneth L., P.E., CEO and Chief Engineer, Yazoo-Mississippi Delta

(YMD) Levee Board, prepared statement .......................................................... 683

West, Carol W., Executive Director, Tucson Regional Water Council, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 764

Westphal, Dr. Joseph W., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68

Statements of.................................................................................................... 63, 65

Whetstone, Mayor David D., Jr., letter from ......................................................... 638

White, M. Dean, Port Captain, Orsouth Midland Enterprises, Orsouth Transport Co., letter from ............................................................................................. 628

Wilk, J. Tim, Hunt Crude Oil Supply Co., Tuscaloosa, AL, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 625

Williams, M.V., President, West Tennessee Tributaries Association, Friendship, TN and Chairman, Executive Committee, Mississippi Valley Flood

Control Association, prepared statement ........................................................... 674

Wiseman, Glenwood W., Executive Director, Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal

District, Lake Charles, LA, prepared statement ............................................... 668

Wolf, George E., Jr., P.E., Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works,

Kansas City, Missouri, prepared statement ...................................................... 717

Zieschang, Ernie, President, Port of Liberty Commission, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 754

(ix)

SUBJECT INDEX

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE AND NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS

Page

Advanced driver development ................................................................................. 250

Aging nuclear scientists of concern ........................................................................ 235

BN–600 reactor ........................................................................................................ 266

Budget request, sufficiency of ................................................................................. 234

Canadian reactors .................................................................................................... 265

Chemical and biological:

Threats .............................................................................................................. 212

Weapons ............................................................................................................ 209

Chemistry and Metallurgical Research (CMR) building upgrade ....................... 255

Chiles Commission Report ...................................................................................... 246

Recommendations ............................................................................................. 223

Chinese nuclear weapons ........................................................................................ 245

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ............................................................................ 234

Contamination:

Explosive testing ............................................................................................... 226

Resulting from explosive testing ..................................................................... 226

Core technologies and NEPA compliance .............................................................. 221

Critical needs not addressed in budget .................................................................. 223

Declassification initiative ........................................................................................ 213

Domestic security ................................................................................................ 209, 244

Emergency management ......................................................................................... 210

Emergency response ................................................................................................ 213

Capability .......................................................................................................... 228

Environmental Safety Center ................................................................................. 232

Environmental Surety Program ............................................................................. 231

Experimental facilities, progress on major ............................................................ 204

Experimental programs ........................................................................................... 202

50 Tons, Definition of .............................................................................................. 263

Fiscal year:

1999 emergency supplemental appropriation ................................................ 216

2000 budget request..................................................................................... 210, 214

Fissile material storage, surplus ............................................................................ 221

GAS U.S.-Russian reactor technology development .............................................. 216

Idaho Operations Office .......................................................................................... 256

Immobilization ......................................................................................................... 218

Independent project review ..................................................................................... 254

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), GAO Report on ....................... 241, 260

International nuclear safety ................................................................................... 208

Cooperation ....................................................................................................... 212

Kazakhstan BN–350 activities ............................................................................... 266

Manufacturing capabilities ..................................................................................... 200

Material Protection, Control and Accounting [MPC&A]......................... 207, 211, 259

Mixed oxide fuel fabrication and irradiation services .......................................... 219

MOX vs. Vitrification .............................................................................................. 264

National Ignition Facility ........................................................................................ 249

National security challenges ................................................................................... 212

New construction projects ....................................................................................... 243

New weapons, production of ................................................................................... 240

Nonproliferation technology .................................................................................... 265

Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI)................................................................ 243, 262, 266
Page

x

Nuclear:

Emergency Response and Technology Partnerships programs ..................... 205

Emergency Response Program ........................................................................ 228

Power plant in Cuba, status of ........................................................................ 237

Smuggling ......................................................................................................... 229

Weapons stockpile, condition of the ................................................................ 246

Russia’s production of ............................................................................... 242

Office of Counterintelligence fiscal year 2000 budget request ............................. 257

Parallel U.S. and Russia Programs ........................................................................ 263

Pit:

Disassembly and conversion ............................................................................ 218

Production, reestablishing........................................................................... 241, 252

Plutonium disposition:

Activities, budget request summary for .......................................................... 220

Progress with Russia on ................................................................................... 239

Presidential Initiative ............................................................................................. 258

Prior year balances, use of ...................................................................................... 257

Production plants and labs funding, balance of .................................................... 223

Program:

Direction ............................................................................................................ 222

Integration ........................................................................................................ 206

Proliferation prevention and nuclear cities initiative (IPP), initiatives

for.................................................................................................... 208, 212, 229, 261

RBMK reactors ........................................................................................................ 224

Research and development ..................................................................................... 213

Russia:

Cooperative efforts with ................................................................................... 237

Nuclear power plants in ................................................................................... 224

Work with .......................................................................................................... 220

Russian:

Assistance to Iran, concern about ................................................................... 235

Breeder reactors ............................................................................................... 233

Naval fuel assistance ....................................................................................... 232

Navy Fleet ......................................................................................................... 266

Plutonium disposition .................................................................................. 219, 239

Talks, status of ................................................................................................. 262

Schedule ................................................................................................................... 265

Simulation and computation ................................................................................... 204

Skilled workers, attract and maintain ................................................................... 227

START II .................................................................................................................. 236

Stewardship:

Lab missions flow from .................................................................................... 196

Production complex response to ...................................................................... 197

Stockpile:

Life extension and surveillance ....................................................................... 200

Management, Funding for ............................................................................... 251

Safety reliability and security ......................................................................... 222

Stewardship ...................................................................................................... 247

Challenge, meeting the ............................................................................. 195

Interagency coordination .......................................................................... 198

Is working, how ......................................................................................... 199

Y2K concerns .................................................................................................... 225

Surplus:

Nuclear materials threat ................................................................................. 222

Plutonium disposition summary ..................................................................... 217

Test readiness, maintaining ................................................................................... 226

Tritium ..................................................................................................................... 202

Production............................................................................................ 197, 237, 252

U.S.-Russia plutonium agreement ..................................................................... 215, 225

Uranium disposition, highly enriched .................................................................... 221

Weapons activities, funding for .............................................................................. 246

Y2K impact on Chernobyl-type reactors ................................................................ 224

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CIVILIAN WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Accomplishments ..................................................................................................... 345

Fiscal year 1998–fiscal year 1999 ................................................................... 299

Major program ........................................................................................... 308
Page

xi

Accomplishments—Continued

Progress—cleaning up and closing sites ......................................................... 274

Actinide packaging and storage facility ................................................................. 374

Advanced mixed waste treatment project (AMWTP) ............................................ 363

Cleanup:

Budget ............................................................................................................... 362

Complex-wide integration to support .............................................................. 279

Estimated cost of .............................................................................................. 318

Level of .............................................................................................................. 319

Outyear funding requirements for .................................................................. 331

Program to Corps of Engineers, impact of transferring ................................ 347

Progress toward completing ............................................................................. 277

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) Cleanup at DOE Sites ....................................................................... 344

Defense spent fuel and waste ................................................................................. 331

DOE:

Cleanup Program, cost of ............................................................................ 339, 344

Cleanup with previous estimates, comparison of cost of ............................... 318

DWPF, canister production at ................................................................................ 377

Earthquake threats ................................................................................................. 314

EM Program, the fiscal year 2000 request reflects the evolution of the ............. 275

Environmental legacy, meeting the challenge of the ............................................ 274

Environmental Management Centers .................................................................... 379

EPA groundwater standard .................................................................................... 320

External oversight and payments-equal-to-taxes .................................................. 339

Fiscal year:

2000 budget request..................................................................................... 272, 296

Application of the ...................................................................................... 302

Summary of the..................................................................................... 280, 299

2001, funding requirements for ....................................................................... 320

FUSRAP sites .......................................................................................................... 319

Groundwater:

Contamination .................................................................................................. 321

Potential problems ............................................................................................ 336

Hanford:

Activities ............................................................................................................ 272

Reprogramming/EM Program accountability and control ............................. 355

Site ..................................................................................................................... 365

Budget.................................................................................................... 317, 322

Manager ..................................................................................................... 317

Heavy water, processing of ..................................................................................... 377

Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory............................. 330, 362

Long-range plan at ........................................................................................... 334

Idaho, shipment of transuranic waste out of ......................................................... 328

In-tank precipitation project (ITP) ......................................................................... 375

Integration effort, complex-wide ............................................................................. 335

Jack Ass Flats radiation exposure ......................................................................... 335

Litigation .................................................................................................................. 298

Local government, payments to the State and affected units of ......................... 299

Los Alamos Environmental Restoration Program ................................................ 354

Management reforms ............................................................................................... 276

Nuclear waste, costs of transporting ...................................................................... 337

Oak Ridge National Laboratory ............................................................................. 377

On-site:

Disposal, costs to set up ................................................................................... 336

Storage costs ..................................................................................................... 332

Alternative options to ................................................................................ 338

Maintenance costs of ................................................................................. 337

Nuclear regulatory commission ................................................................ 334

Regulatory concerns for ............................................................................ 333

Utility compensation for ........................................................................... 332

Pit 9:

At Inel ................................................................................................................ 329

Project ................................................................................................................ 364

Plutonium oxide stabilization ................................................................................. 315

Program goals and progress .................................................................................... 271

Program management and integration..................................................... 302, 306, 311

Quality assurance .................................................................................................... 299
Page

xii

Recent accomplishments ......................................................................................... 295

Rock fractures .......................................................................................................... 313

Rocky Flats:

Additional workload at ..................................................................................... 315

Alternatives for storage at ............................................................................... 326

Cleanup ............................................................................................................. 361

Funding ............................................................................................................. 324

Site ..................................................................................................................... 323

Storage of waste at ........................................................................................... 315

S–608 ........................................................................................................................ 334

Savannah River site ................................................................................................ 373

Science and technology .............................................................................. 278, 358, 381

Spent Nuclear Fuel:

On-site interim storage of ................................................................................ 337

Programs ........................................................................................................... 329

Tank waste remediation system (TWRS) .............................................................. 367

Privatization ..................................................................................................... 317

Project ........................................................................................................ 320

Three Mile Island fuel storage ............................................................................... 329

Transuranic waste ................................................................................................... 316

2006 completion, funding for .................................................................................. 361

Viability assessment ........................................................................................... 295, 297

Waste acceptance, storage, and transportation ....................................... 301, 306, 311

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) .......................................................... 322, 352, 381

Costs associated with delay in opening .......................................................... 326

Lawsuit at ......................................................................................................... 316

Opening ............................................................................................................. 362

Project ................................................................................................................ 272

Shipping non-mixed waste to .......................................................................... 326

Work requirements, additional ............................................................................... 324

Yucca Mountain.......................................................................................... 299, 302, 308

Milestones, acceleration of ............................................................................... 338

Schedule ............................................................................................................ 295

Site, total spent at the ..................................................................................... 336

Water migration ............................................................................................... 312

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriated funding, appropriate use of ............................................................. 469

Biofuels programs .................................................................................................... 440

Biopower/biofuels ..................................................................................................... 461

Carbon fuel tax ........................................................................................................ 471

Electric energy systems and storage ...................................................................... 467

Fiscal year 2000 budget request ............................................................................. 447

Geothermal energy .................................................................................................. 465

Hydrogen .................................................................................................................. 466

Hydropower .............................................................................................................. 466

International Solar Energy Program ..................................................................... 468

Kyoto accord ............................................................................................................. 471

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ................................................................ 464

Photovoltaic .............................................................................................................. 439

Energy systems ................................................................................................. 457

Program accomplishments ...................................................................................... 439

Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program ............................................... 463

Renewable energy technologies .............................................................................. 385

Solar and renewable energy technologies, overview of the fiscal year 2000

request for ............................................................................................................. 455

Solar building technology research ........................................................................ 456

Solar Power Program:

Concentrating ................................................................................................... 459

Direction ............................................................................................................ 469

Support .............................................................................................................. 463

Sole source vs. competitively awarded grants ....................................................... 448

Superconductivity .................................................................................................... 447

Wind energy systems ............................................................................................... 460

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Accelerator transmutation of waste ....................................................................... 492
Page

xiii

Advanced radioisotope power systems ................................................................... 427

Department of Energy, developing .................................................................... 422, 424

EBR–II ...................................................................................................................... 475

Energy diversity and security, providing for ......................................................... 420

Environmental future, securing our ....................................................................... 426

Fast flux test facility [FFTF].............................................................................. 433, 475

Isotope support ......................................................................................................... 431

Maintaining vital nuclear research facilities and supporting a strong educational infrastructure ......................................................................................... 424

Mission critical technologies ................................................................................... 422

Moly-99 program ...................................................................................................... 474

Nuclear energy plant optimization ......................................................................... 417

Advisory committee............................................................................................... 418

Program ........................................................................................................ 429, 476

Nuclear energy research:

Advisory committee .......................................................................................... 475

And development (R&D).............................................................................. 416, 427

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative [NERI] ............................................ 417, 429, 473

Nuclear energy, science and technology ................................................................ 415

Nuclear power, importance of ................................................................................. 437

Nuclear powerplant relicensing .............................................................................. 473

Program direction .................................................................................................... 435

Roadmap for the 21st century ................................................................................ 420

Termination costs .................................................................................................... 433

Test reactor area landlord ....................................................................................... 428

University reactor fuel assistance and support ..................................................... 430

Uranium programs .................................................................................................. 434

OFFICE OF SCIENCE

Bates Laboratory funding ....................................................................................... 491

Biological and environmental research .................................................................. 404

Climate change:

Budget request .................................................................................................. 384

Technology initiative ........................................................................................ 492

Computational and technology research ................................................................ 411

Employment levels ................................................................................................... 486

Energy research analyses ....................................................................................... 413

Energy supply R&D programs ................................................................................ 414

Facilities support ..................................................................................................... 412

Field structure ......................................................................................................... 487

Fiscal year 2000 budget request ............................................................................. 390

Fusion energy sciences ............................................................................................ 410

GAO study ................................................................................................................ 392

Goals and strategies, rethinking our ..................................................................... 395

High energy physics ................................................................................................ 406

High flux beam reactor ........................................................................................... 490

Human genome projects .......................................................................................... 387

Low dose radiation research ................................................................................... 488

Multi program energy laboratories ........................................................................ 412

Nuclear energy programs ........................................................................................ 386

Nuclear physics ........................................................................................................ 409

Our mission hasn’t changed .................................................................................... 394

Potential programmic problem areas ..................................................................... 493

Program accomplishments ...................................................................................... 390

Program overview .................................................................................................... 389

Sandia, micro-machines program at ...................................................................... 478

Science education ..................................................................................................... 413

Science program:

Basic energy sciences ....................................................................................... 402

Direction ............................................................................................................ 413

Science research budget request ............................................................................ 386

Scientific simulation initiative ................................................................................ 392

Spallation neutron source [SNS]........................................................................ 391, 479

Strategies—initiatives for fiscal year 2000, implementing the ............................ 397

Technical information management ....................................................................... 414
Page

xiv

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

1

Animas-La Plata ...................................................................................................... 38

Bay-Delta:

Ecosystem funding ............................................................................................ 25

Funding by agency ........................................................................................... 26

Budget:

Priorities, stakeholders’ input into .................................................................. 29

Request .............................................................................................................. 2

Bureau of Reclamation ............................................................................................ 6

Bureauwide operation and maintenance costs ...................................................... 28

California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED)....................................... 5, 41

Appropriations and expenditures .................................................................... 26

Expenditures ..................................................................................................... 27

Program ............................................................................................................. 4

Status of spending on ....................................................................................... 31

Central Arizona project ........................................................................................... 49

Central Utah project ................................................................................................. 5, 15

Central Utah Project Completion Act .................................................................... 6

Competing water demands, managing ................................................................... 42

Cost Overruns .......................................................................................................... 56

CVP, American River Division ............................................................................... 49

Dakota Resources Act .............................................................................................. 17

Dam Safety Program............................................................................................... 20, 45

Dams:

Corrective actions, initiate safety of ............................................................... 45

Initiate safety of ............................................................................................... 45

Safety evaluation of existing ........................................................................... 45

Desalination............................................................................................................. 11, 21

Funding in Federal Government Agencies..................................................... 22, 23

Reclamation’s Future Focus ............................................................................ 12

Role in ........................................................................................................ 11

Drought:

Assistance .......................................................................................................... 20

Funding ............................................................................................................. 21

Emergency planning and disaster response program ........................................... 52

Garrison diversion unit ........................................................................................... 60

Glendive, Montana .................................................................................................. 31

Indian water settlements ........................................................................................ 25

Lake Powell draining .............................................................................................. 16

Land management and fish & wildlife activities .................................................. 60

Long Beach water reclamation and reuse ............................................................. 51

Lower Yellowstone title transfer—intake diversionary dam ............................... 55

Montana safety of dams projects ............................................................................ 54

MR&I needs of Indian tribes .................................................................................. 18

New Mexico drought conditions .............................................................................. 34

Nimbus fish hatchery interpretive facility ............................................................ 49

O&M activities, staffing levels for .......................................................................... 29

Operation and maintenance costs .......................................................................... 42

Overall Program Goals ............................................................................................ 13

Pueblo Dam .............................................................................................................. 46

Reclamation:

Grazing permits ................................................................................................ 30

Recreation Management Program—Title XXVIII .......................................... 38

Red Butte Dam ........................................................................................................ 15

Red River Valley Water Need Studies ................................................................... 19

Safety of dams .......................................................................................................... 19

Program ............................................................................................................. 7

Salinity control program ......................................................................................... 15

Salton Sea, California research project .................................................................. 39

San Juan Gallup—Navajo water supply study ..................................................... 36

San Juan River project ............................................................................................ 24

Gallup, Mount Taylor pipeline ........................................................................ 35

Snake River plain aquifer ....................................................................................... 60

Taos Indian water rights settlement ...................................................................... 36
Page

xv

Technical/Emphasis Areas ...................................................................................... 13

Title XVI water reclamation and reuse program .................................................. 54

Water reuse program ....................................................................................... 16

Truckee River Operating Agreement ..................................................................... 10

Upper Rio Grande basin water management ........................................................ 37

Ute Reservoir pipeline project, Curry and Roosevelt Counties, NM ................... 37

Year 2000 compliance .............................................................................................. 47

Yellowstone River flooding conditions .................................................................... 30

Yellowtail Dam & Bighorn Lake operations .......................................................... 58

Yuma:

Area projects ..................................................................................................... 52

Desalting plant ................................................................................................. 50

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Acequias irrigation system, New Mexico........................................................... 116, 163

Administrative appeals ........................................................................................... 112

Bluestone:

Dam safety project ............................................................................................ 186

Drift and debris ................................................................................................ 185

Bonneville and the Dalles powerhouse:

Projects replace generating units .................................................................... 189

Rehabilitation ................................................................................................... 102

Bonneville powerhouse phase II, Oregon and Washington (major rehabilitation) ....................................................................................................................... 103

Budget:

Overview ............................................................................................................ 66

Themes .............................................................................................................. 65

Business operations, improvement in .................................................................... 88

Caspian tern ............................................................................................................. 96

Challenge 21 program ............................................................................................. 176

Civil Works program:

Budget, fiscal year 2000 ................................................................................... 69

Performance ...................................................................................................... 69

Clarkston and Lewiston, ports of ........................................................................... 96

Coastal environmental impact study, Mississippi ................................................ 167

Columbia and Snake Rivers .................................................................................... 101

Columbia River fish mitigation project .................................................................. 188

Construction:

Capabilities, fiscal year 2000 ........................................................................... 120

General.............................................................................................................. 71, 85

Continuing authorities .............................................................................. 176

Cooperative agreements .......................................................................................... 187

Corps of Engineers:

Dam Safety Program ........................................................................................ 115

Financial management system ........................................................................ 89

Vision ................................................................................................................. 90

Credits and reimbursements .................................................................................. 104

Dam safety ............................................................................................................... 115

Devils Lake:

Dikes .................................................................................................................. 190

North Dakota .................................................................................................... 97

Outlet ................................................................................................................. 98

Divisions ................................................................................................................... 87

Drawdown studies ................................................................................................... 103

Economy and the environment ............................................................................... 70

Efficiency and responsive measures ....................................................................... 79

Emergency operations organization ....................................................................... 87

Environmental:

Programs ........................................................................................................... 67

Projects and aquatic ecosystems ..................................................................... 179

Erosion control, demonstration ............................................................................... 167

Fiscal year 2000:

Civil Works program budget ............................................................................ 82
Page

xvi

Fiscal year 2000—Continued

Continuing program, highlights of the ........................................................... 71

FUSRAP program .................................................................................................... 80

General expenses ..................................................................................................... 86

Account .............................................................................................................. 81

Appropriation request ...................................................................................... 146

General investigations ............................................................................................. 85

Government performance and results .................................................................... 89

Grand Forks:

Dikes .................................................................................................................. 191

North Dakota .................................................................................................... 98

Greenbrier basin flood protection ........................................................................... 181

Harbor service:

Fee, support for the .......................................................................................... 111

Fund .............................................................................................. 67, 109, 118, 176

Proposal ...................................................................................................... 69

Headquarters ........................................................................................................... 87

And division offices, restructuring of .............................................................. 177

Investigations, general ............................................................................................ 72

Island Creek at Logan ............................................................................................. 186

Jackson County, Mississippi ................................................................................... 166

John Day Dam drawdown study ............................................................................ 102

Lafarge Lake, WI ..................................................................................................... 99

Level deferred maintenance .................................................................................... 113

Libby Dam, MT ........................................................................................................ 175

London lock and Dam .............................................................................................. 187

Lower Las Vegas wash wetlands ............................................................................ 177

Lower Mud River ..................................................................................................... 187

Marmet locks and Dam ........................................................................................... 180

Milo Creek ................................................................................................................ 174

Mississippi River and tributaries....................................................................... 149, 165

Budget request .................................................................................................. 100

Mississippi River levees .......................................................................................... 166

Natchez, Mississippi ................................................................................................ 166

New funding ............................................................................................................. 83

New investments ..................................................................................................... 71

New study starts ...................................................................................................... 105

O&M increase .......................................................................................................... 179

Operation and maintenance:

Budget request .................................................................................................. 160

General.............................................................................................................. 71, 85

Program ............................................................................................................. 81

Program execution................................................................................................. 80, 161

Outlook .............................................................................................................. 84

Project:

Conditions ......................................................................................................... 114

Cost sharing problems ...................................................................................... 64

Management ..................................................................................................... 79, 88

Projects budgeted for fiscal year 2000, fully funded ............................................. 120

Regulatory administrative appeals process ........................................................... 99

Regulatory appeals process ..................................................................................... 177

Regulatory program ......................................................................... 67, 73, 81, 93, 170

Administrative appeal ........................................................................ 147, 168, 173

Reimbursed program ............................................................................................... 84

Reimbursements and credits .................................................................................. 146

Remedial Action Program, formerly utilized sites.............................................. 85, 160

Restructuring ........................................................................................................... 86

Robert C. Byrd locks and Dam ............................................................................... 184

Santa Ynez, CA study ............................................................................................. 109

Small Business Program ......................................................................................... 89

Snake River Dam removal ...................................................................................... 93

South Pacific division .............................................................................................. 163

Staffing ..................................................................................................................... 84

Strategic planning ................................................................................................... 88

Technical centers of expertise ................................................................................. 163

2000 funding level, impact of .................................................................................. 180

Upper Jordan River restoration project, section 206 ............................................ 91

Upper Rio Grande water operation model, New Mexico.................................. 116, 163
Page

xvii

Water resource development process ..................................................................... 66

Water Resources Development Acts of 1999 and 2000 ......................................... 69

West Virginia:

Statewide flood protection plan ....................................................................... 184

Tug Fork flood protection projects .................................................................. 182

Wheeling riverfront ................................................................................................. 183

Winfield lock & Dam ............................................................................................... 185

Yellowtail Dam, MT ................................................................................................ 98

Æ