U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–780 PDF 2007

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES

FOR 2008

(109–9)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 14, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

CONTENTS

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Page 

Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................ 37

Dunlop, George S., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Army Civil Works, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................ 10 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Asministrator for Office of Water, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................. 37

Johnson, Collister, Jr., Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 10

Kilgore, Tom, Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority ................... 37 

Lancaster, Chief Arlen, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 37

Lancaster, Chief Arlen, Chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural 

Resource Conservation Service ........................................................................... 37

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

Engineers .............................................................................................................. 10

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Arcuri, Hon. Michael A., of New York ................................................................... 52

Baker, Hon. Richard, of Louiiana ........................................................................... 54

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 63

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 64

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., of Maryland ................................................................. 67

Mica, Hon. John, of Florida .................................................................................... 95

Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona ............................................................................ 98

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker ..................................................................................... 57 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H. ................................................................................. 69

Johnson, Collister, Jr. ............................................................................................. 76

Kilgore, Tom ............................................................................................................. 84

Lancaster, Chief Arlen ............................................................................................ 90

Strock, Lieutenant General Carl ............................................................................ 102

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

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

Works, statement ................................................................................................. 107

(v) 

vi


34780.001
vii


34780.002
viii


34780.003
ix


34780.004
x


34780.005
xi


34780.006
xii


34780.007
(1)

AGENCY BUDGETS AND PRIORITIES FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2008

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Good morning. Today we will receive 

testimony on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 

and its impact to the programs and priorities of the Subcommittee 

on Water Resources and Environment. Unfortunately, the priorities 

reflected in this budget are contrary to the Nation’s priorities of 

protecting the public safety and environment, investing in the future and ensuring continued economic prosperity. Quite simply, 

this budget is not adequate to meet the Nation’s needs. The budget 

takes a penny-wise, pound foolish view of the economy, making imprudent short-term cuts to programs that have proven essential for 

long-term economic health. 

This Administration fails to recognize that continued investment 

in water-related infrastructure is a key element for stimulating 

and improving the U.S. economy, an economy built on the investments of our predecessors. Cutting investment today and exploding 

future deficits can only serve to deny economic opportunity to future generations. For example, the President’s budget request for 

the Corps’ construction account is close to $500 million less than 

the likely appropriation for the current fiscal year. This amount is 

45 percent below the Corps’ own capability numbers, which represent the amount of work the Corps could carry out if funding 

were available. 

As a result, roughly half of the work that the Corps is authorized 

and ready to carry out will be delayed until funding is available, 

leading to further delay and completing essential flood control, 

navigation and ecosystem restoration projects. I am certain that 

every member of this Subcommittee can identify important projects 

that are targeted for slowdown, reductions or elimination in this 

budget. 

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

Corps’ ability to conduct vital operation and maintenance activities 

for both navigation and flood control projects. The passage of time 

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

failure for transportation linkages or flood protection projects. 

2

As the Nation learned in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita, the implications of failure of our navigation and flood 

control infrastructure can be devastating, not only to local economies, but to lives and livelihoods. Yet this budget forces the Corps 

to do more with less money and risk the continued reliability of our 

infrastructure on the hope that it will hold together for another few 

years. This is irresponsible. 

These cuts are also not limited to the Corps, but also in the 

budget of the other Federal agencies represented here today. The 

small watershed programs of the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service are completely eliminated. There is no consideration of termination costs, no consideration of State or local investment, and 

no consideration of the potential threat to public safety that comes 

from shutting down these programs. 

As history has proven, the Federal Government will pay up front 

to protect lives and property, or will pay afterwards to help rebuild 

and restore people’s lives, which usually costs much more. 

For the Environmental Protection Agency, this budget represents 

the lowest funding level requested by the current Administration 

for several programs essential to safeguarding human health and 

protecting the environment. Most notable is the 36.6 percent reduction to primary Federal programs for investing in wastewater infrastructure, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. As noted by 

this Subcommittee’s hearing last month, annual needs for water infrastructure are estimated between $3 billion and $11 billion above 

current expenditures. Yet the budget would eliminate almost $400 

million in Federal grants to States for revolving loan funds. These 

reductions are simply unacceptable and are the exact opposite approach to that taken by the Committee last week in approving legislation to authorize $20 billion over five years for the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund. 

States and local communities have warned that reduced funding 

for wastewater infrastructure programs make it difficult to respond 

to failing wastewater infrastructure and could force the delay of essential upgrades to improve water quality. Again, we all know of 

examples where local communities have been unable to fund necessary projects due to the lack of availability of funds. 

The Superfund program fares no better in this budget. Since the 

Administration came into office, the President’s budget has almost 

halved the annual number of Superfund cleanups achieved by the 

previous administration. From 2001 to 2008, this Administration 

has presided over a significant slowdown in the pace of toxic waste 

cleanups from an average of 73 sites per year to just over 40. 

Unfortunately, this year, the President’s budget announced that 

it must revise its prediction for fiscal year 2007 downward from 40 

sites to just 27. Barring any further revisions of fiscal year 2008, 

the budget forecasts only 30 sites will reach the construction complete threshold. These figures validate my prediction at last year’s 

budget hearing of a second slowdown of the Superfund program 

and that insufficient funding to address contaminated sites further 

slows cleanups and may force EPA to limit the number of future 

sites that can enter the cleanup program. 

The budget also reinforces the troublesome findings of a 2004 

EPA Inspector General’s report that highlighted how limited fundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Aug 07, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34780 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
3

ing for the Superfund program has hampered its ability to clean up 

toxic waste sites. EPA has responded that a major cause for the 

shortfall is that the remaining sites are more complex and more 

costly. However, most of these sites have been in the Superfund 

pipeline for decades, so it comes as no surprise that the additional 

cleanup dollars are going to be necessary. Yet for the last several 

years, the President’s request for the Superfund budget has been 

declining, failing even to keep up with the pace of inflation. Fewer 

resources for more expensive sites can only lead to slowdowns. 

This budget again proposes that all Federal spending for the 

Superfund program will be from the general taxpayers and continues the alarming trend of collecting fewer and fewer cost recoveries from responsible parties. It is not how the Superfund program 

was intended to be run when it was enacted. Gone are the days 

when the Superfund program was a ′′polluter pays′′ program. Now 

the program has become less than super, requiring everyday taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up someone else’s mess. Unfortunately for the American people, the list of cuts to important programs goes on and on. We cannot under-invest in the Nation’s infrastructure nor its environment. We have an obligation to our future generations to provide a cleaner, safer and more secure world 

for them to live. 

I welcome the witnesses here today and I look forward to today’s 

testimony. 

I would recognize Mr. Mica, and then Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for recognizing me, and thank you for 

going forward today. I am glad. There were some of the hearings 

that were canceled or postponed. But it is important that we all 

move closer to the Capitol Building, get a small hovel or apartment 

where we can walk right to the Capitol and go to work immediately. I appreciate your pressing forward. I understand Mr. 

Baker will be here, he’s delayed, and we will be joined by some of 

the other members on both sides of the aisle. 

Today I know we are discussing some of the budget items, important matters under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Water 

Resources and Environment. I think most of the people around 

here know that I am a pretty tight-fisted fiscal conservative. And 

I often am known also for supporting the President’s efforts to control Government spending. 

I realize also that the Administration finds itself in a very difficult situation, having to make some very tough choices, particularly when we face national security and homeland security requirements that are unprecedented and very expensive. Again, we 

have some very tough choices and we have to set priorities. 

However, I believe that the Administration and Congress have 

the same responsibility of also sustaining economic growth while 

protecting our environment. I have to say that I am a bit disappointed in the Administration’s budget. I do again recognize the 

pressure they are under. But I think that we have to look at some 

of what we are doing in this Subcommittee and have responsibility 

over our really strong investments in many important program 

areas for the Country. 

The civil works program of the Corps of Engineers, we have seen 

how vital that is with Katrina, with the storms that we face, coastVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Aug 07, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34780 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
4

al storms and flood damage. Part of our Federal responsibility is 

also to partner to keep our ports and waterways open for commerce 

and restore our aquatic ecosystems. 

One of the things I have learned about since taking over as the 

Republican leader too is the need for some of the dredging and 

deepening of our harbors, new requirements to accommodate new 

classes of cargo ships and other ships. If we want to be able to compete, we are going to have to go forward with those projects that 

the Corps is involved in, again, with some of our State and local 

partners. The construction funding for these projects unfortunately 

would be cut if the proposed budget by the Administration were followed. 

Another very important area is the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, which provides, as you know, low interest 

loans to communities, so that they can meet the requirements of 

the Clean Water Act and keep local waters clean. This program has 

played a very important role in water quality improvements that 

we have seen across the Country, and unfortunately, not seen 

enough of. Yet the Administration does propose a cut in funding for 

this program as well. 

The small watershed program of the Natural Resources Conservation Services provides small but very important water supply 

and flood projects to rural America. The Administration, the budget 

proposed unfortunately does not fund these projects at all, so I 

have some concerns there. 

These programs are, I think, good examples of the kinds of investments we are going to have to make to keep our environment 

clean, create jobs and keep up with global competition. I don’t view 

these in any way as wasteful spending. 

I am confident that the Congress, who does have the responsibility to make these choices, will restore some of these funds. I look 

forward to working with both sides of the aisle to make certain 

that we do come up with the best list of priorities and that we can 

move some of the projects I mentioned that are so vital to this 

Country forward. I appreciate the Corps and the others, your fine 

work and efforts. We will move forward together. 

Thank you for yielding to me and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for 

calling this important hearing. 

I had hoped today to be welcoming Assistant Secretary Woodley, 

but I understand he has been hampered by the weather and Mr. 

Dunlop is here in his place. I hope you have been apprised of some 

of the discussions that I have been having with the Secretary. And 

I look forward to following up with some questions. 

The fiscal year 2008 Administration budget is a good place to 

begin some of the ongoing discussions for both policy and budget 

that this Subcommittee will be engaging in during the 110th Congress. I am looking forward to these discussions. 

My top priority in Congress is protecting my district from flooding. Statistically, Sacramento is a single American river city most 

likely to experience a catastrophic flood in the near future. We 

5

have to remember that New Orleans was just ahead of us, and we 

know what happened to New Orleans. 

So I am committed to working with my partners at the Federal, 

State and local levels to withstand such an event. From a budgetary perspective, these efforts depend on full funding for authorized flood protection projects in the Army Corps of Engineers budget. I do have several follow-up questions that I will be asking you, 

and I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. First, let me 

offer my apology for arriving late to this hearing, to the witnesses, 

Chairwoman Johnson and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 

The work being done by the agencies under the jurisdiction of 

this Committee is absolutely vital to my southwest Louisiana district. I am pleased to be here today to talk about the Administration’s fiscal year 2008 budget priorities. I am encouraged that the 

President’s request for the Corps of Engineers includes $16 million 

for operations and maintenance along the Calcasieu River ship 

channel. Our Nation depends on Louisiana to meet its energy demands. And within the next 10 years, 25 percent of all natural gas 

used in the United States will run through my district, actually 

most of it will run through Cameron Parish in the form of liquified 

natural gas being imported. 

Three liquified natural gas facilities are being located on the 

Calcasieu river, in the Calcasieu ship channel, and one of our Nation’s top ten ports, The Port of Lakes Charles, anchors that waterway. Ensuring safe and unfettered navigation along this vital ship 

channel is important, both to our Nation’s commerce and energy security. 

We are rapidly reaching our capacity to dispose of dredged materials along the Calcasieu, which is going to be a major problem in 

the near future. I am encouraged that the Administration has included funding for a dredged materials disposal facility, and I am 

eager to learn more about the Corps’ intended use for this funding. 

We could probably spending an entire hearing talking about the 

beneficial use of dredged materials. I don’t want to do that here 

today, but I know that the Corps is currently working on its beneficial use program. But it makes sense to me that one way to address our disposal limitations along the Calcasieu is to use the materials to revitalize nearby wetlands. I mention it here today to let 

the Corps know that this is an issue I am very interested in and 

something I would like to follow up on in the near future. 

I am disappointed that there is no funding in the President’s request to complete the study of replacement alternatives for the 

Calcasieu lock. In the days immediately after Hurricane Rita, this 

inadequate structure of the current lock meant that 80 tows waited, costing the economy over $400,000 every 24 hours in direct 

transportation penalties. Louisiana just released its latest version 

of a draft comprehensive master plan for a sustainable coast. I 

know that the Corps is working with the State in developing its 

Congressionally mandated program for Louisiana, the Coastal Protection and Restoration Project. However, it is not clear to me how 

6

these two reports will be merged to produce one set of comprehensive recommendations. I am hopeful that our witnesses can elaborate on this process today as we go forward. 

Last Congress, this Committee passed a study resolution I introduced authorizing the Corps to specifically look at hurricane protection and flood control needs in southwest Louisiana. My main 

focus at the time was to ensure that southwest Louisiana did not 

get ignored, as much as the focus continued to be on New Orleans 

and the levees. I hope I can get an update on the progress of that 

study as well today. 

I want to make sure that as the Corps works toward the completion of the LACPR report, the needs of southwest Louisiana are 

being addressed as well. It is a continual battle that I will fight 

each and every day to remind everyone that Hurricane Rita, the 

forgotten storm, of a similar magnitude to Katrina, made landfall 

in my district just weeks after the storm everyone else remembers 

struck Louisiana and Mississippi. 

So as we begin the fiscal year 2008 budget process, and as this 

Committee moves forward on a new WRDA bill in the near future, 

I want to work with the Administration and Chairwoman Johnson 

to address many of these critical water resources issues facing 

southwest Louisiana, and I certainly look forward to your testimony today and thanks for being here with us. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. And thank you 

so much for trying really hard to find something positive about this 

budget. 

Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for coming before the Subcommittee to provide us with a detailed explanation of the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

The President’s budget request is out of touch with the needs of 

the American people. The budget proposal cuts funding to programs that provide critical services across the Country. In this 

budget request, the President proposes decreasing overall funding 

for the Army Corps of Engineers by $459 million, less than the 

level prescribed by the House-passed continuing resolution two 

weeks ago. 

Each year, heavy rains and subsequent flooding have a devastating impact on many upstate New York communities in my district. Floods that are only supposed to occur once every 50 years 

are occurring far more regularly. For example, the city of Oneonta, 

which I represent, experienced very damaging flooding last year 

due to heavy rains. Consequently, Oneonta and surrounding local 

economies are now bearing the burden of this damage, in part because funding for preventive measures like those overseen by the 

Army Corps did not receive adequate funding. 

Perhaps if the Army Corps had the necessary funding, it would 

have been able to assist Oneonta. The devastating effects of these 

floods may have been minimized. The floods could have been prevented if the city had been afforded sufficient resources to assist 

them in putting the preventive measure in place beforehand. That 

is certainly the view of the local officials. 

7

The President’s budget request also proposes taking a step back 

in and addressing America’s demand for clean water. The President’s budget also proposes an almost $200 million cut to the Clean 

Water Revolving Fund, and almost $400 million in total cuts to 

wastewater infrastructure, when compared to the sum in the continuing resolution approved last week. The State of New York would receive a $43 million cut in Clean 

Water Revolving Loan Funds under this budget request. This is not 

an option. A decrease of this magnitude would directly impact our 

State’s ability to repair and modernize our aging water infrastructure. These critical funds provide our local communities with assistance they need to help with repairs and upgrades to damaged 

water treatment facilities and our aging sewer systems. 

The Administration’s proposal to lift caps on privately issued 

bonds is not a silver bullet and does not justify or soften the effects 

of slashing funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund 

by 22 and a half percent. I am a believer that public-private partnerships can work in the short-term, but I still remain doubtful 

that private investment will address the long-term sustainable 

water infrastructure needs of communities around the Country. 

I thank the Chairwoman and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. As 

you know, after chairing the Aviation Subcommittee for six years, 

I had the privilege of chairing this Subcommittee for six years. You 

were the third one of my ranking members during that period, and 

it was a pleasure and privilege to work with you. As I said a few 

days ago, I know you’ll do an outstanding job as the new Chairwoman of this Subcommittee. The work of this Subcommittee is 

very, very important. I have said many times that there is nothing 

that the people of this Country take as much for granted as our 

clean water and wastewater infrastructure in this Nation. 

So I look forward to continuing to work with you, even though 

I have moved over to become the ranking member on the Highway 

Subcommittee. It was a privilege just for a few minutes to sit by 

you as I substituted for Dr. Boustany, who was substituting for 

Congressman Baker. So I was sort of a third stringer there. 

But at any rate, I am pleased to be here this morning and want 

to welcome all of the witnesses. I particularly want to welcome 

General Strock, who has been with us several times before and who 

is an outstanding leader for the Army Corps of Engineers. General 

Strock, I want to say that I am pleased that the President’s budget 

contains $35 million to continue the construction at the Chickamauga lock. While that is in the Third District of Tennessee, Congressman Wamp’s district, it is much more important to my district 

and the people of the Second District, because of the traffic on the 

river and so forth. So I appreciate that. 

I also want to welcome Tom Kilgore, the Chief Executive Officer 

of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Certainly there is probably no 

agency more important to the people of my district than the TVA. 

Mr. Kilgore has just been doing an outstanding job in his leadership role at TVA. TVA is restarting the Nation’s first nuclear unit 

8

at the Browns Ferry site in North Alabama. If I understand it correctly, Browns Ferry Unit 1 will provide an additional 1,280 

megawatts of clean baseload generation for the TVA system. TVA 

has in recent years really turned its nuclear generation around and 

I think that the agency needs to be commended for it. We hear so 

much about clean air and global warming and so forth and nuclear 

power is clean and safe and reliable. I think it must play an important role in our Nation’s energy security and in our efforts toward 

clean air in the years ahead. Certainly the Tennessee Valley Authority is spending great sums of money and has been in recent 

years to make sure that the air in our Tennessee Valley is very 

clean. 

I am also pleased that the TVA is doing so much to turn around 

the debt problem that they have had under previous leadership in 

years past. I have to go to the Floor shortly, so I am not sure I will 

be able to hear all of the testimony. But I do want to welcome the 

witnesses, and I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for calling this 

very, very important hearing. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to all our esteemed witnesses. I am in a position of representing New York’s 

19th Congressional District, and we are bounded on the west side 

by the Delaware, on the east by the Connecticut border and close 

to it the Ten Mile River, and split down the middle by the Hudson 

River. So we have great interest in all of the projects that we will 

be discussing and hearing about from you today. 

I just want to say first of all, thank you for the work that you 

do in maintaining our dams and waterways. I would imagine that 

we will try to get you more money to do that work than is in this 

budget, and I believe it will be necessary. I can’t help but comment 

on the concept of nuclear power being clean, safe and reliable, except when it’s not clean, safe or reliable, because we happen to 

have a plant in my district that is leaking strontium–90 and tritium into the Hudson River as we speak, from two point sources 

that have not yet been identified. There are several upstream communities, town of Poughkeepsie, city of Poughkeepsie, town of 

Wapingers and the New York City backup water intake at the 

Chelsea pumping stations, all of which have filtration systems to 

take river water and turn it into drinking water. I am curious, in 

a river that is tidal all the way to Albany, how that might be dealt 

with and still preserve those drinking water supplies. 

But anyway, that is another topic. The water systems, water 

treatment and drinking water systems are very important, and 

flood control also is an issue that we have dealt with several of the 

last years on both the Delaware side and on the Ten Mile side 

where there was significant flooding that caused a lot of property 

damage and financial stress on individuals and also on the municipalities. So when we get to questions, I will have specifics about 

that. 

Thank you for being here and I am looking forward to your remarks. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

9

Mrs. Miller. And after Mrs. Miller, we are going to ask everyone 

to submit their opening statements to the record, so we can go 

right to our witnesses. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate that. I will be brief. 

I just want to speak briefly to the Army Corps of Engineers 

budget. Like every budget, there are some things you like and some 

things you don’t. But I am concerned in particular that the budget 

request is lacking particularly for funding to dredge small and recreational harbors. In fact, recently the entire Michigan Congressional delegation sent a letter to the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member of the Transportation Committee, as well as the Chair and 

the Ranking Member on the Appropriations, raising a couple of 

issues in regard to dredging along the Great Lakes, the harbors in 

the Great Lakes, about budget guidelines and criteria for dredging 

of commercial harbors that we felt hurt small and rural communities, particularly a policy that the Corps has about using tonnage 

handled as a standard for deciding which harbors to dredge. We 

raised that as an issue, as well as unacceptably low funding for the 

Great Lakes harbors. 

So I will, when I get an opportunity under Q&A, talk a little bit 

about that. 

But I also wanted to point out one area I was very pleased to 

discover in the Army Corps’ budget as well, and that is a proposal 

by the Corps to authorize a total of $27.4 million for the Chicago 

Sanitary and Ship Canal, the barrier project. Of course, the goal 

of the project is to prevent the movement of invasive fish species, 

specifically the Asian carp, from coming up the upper Mississippi 

River system into the Great Lakes system. These carp were originally introduced to control algae, actually, in southern fish farms. 

But then they escaped into the Mississippi River during the floods 

of 1990. Since that time, these fish are moving northward up 

through the Mississippi River system and of course have been 

found in the Illinois River which connects to the Great Lakes via 

the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal as well. 

Obviously those of us that live in the Great Lakes basin there 

recognize the significant threat that Asian carp are to the Great 

Lakes, for a number of reasons which I won’t go into. But they 

really have the potential to have an unbelievably catastrophic and 

negative impact, we think, on the very delicate ecosystem of the 

Great Lakes. So I do see that the budget request does talk about 

an authorization for $11.4 million for construction improvements to 

Barrier One and then $16 million for Barrier Two. I look forward 

to hearing from the witnesses today about these issues that I have 

raised and others as well, and I appreciate the time to make that 

statement, Madam Chair. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

We are pleased to have a very distinguished panel of witnesses 

on our first panel here this morning. And first, we have Mr. George 

S. Dunlop, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

Civil Works, who is here on behalf of the Honorable John Paul 

Woodley, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who 

was unable to get out of his street. 

10

Unfortunately, Secretary Woodley will not be here, but he told 

me that Mr. Dunlop was more informed than he was, probably. So 

I think he will be very credible. 

And next we have General Carl Strock, Chief of Engineers for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And finally, we have Administrator Collister Johnson, Jr., of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. We are pleased that you are here and we will 

begin with Mr. Dunlop. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE S. DUNLOP, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ARMY CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS; LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK, 

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; 

COLLISTER JOHNSON, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, ST. LAWRENCE 

SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

Mr. DUNLOP. Madam Chairwoman, I really do appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I thank you so much for your hospitality, on behalf of the Department of the Army. 

It is my pleasure to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. As 

you indicated, Mr. Woodley is unavoidably detained, and very much 

does send his regrets, and values the personal relationships he has 

with you and the other members of the Committee, and, of course, 

is always available to the Committee to discuss any of these matters with you all individually. 

I can report that the budget that the President submitted provides a total of $4.9 billion in new Federal funding for civil works. 

This is a 3 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 budget, and 

actually is the most ever included for the Civil Works Program and 

the most requested by any President. 

The budget provides $2.5 billion for the operation and maintenance account. This is a 9 percent increase over the amount of the 

fiscal year 2007 budget. 

The budget focuses on construction funding on 69 high-performing projects, including 6 national high priority projects, 11 

dam safety and seepage control projects, and 52 other high-performing projects. 

This budget modifies the construction guidelines that help determine the priority of these projects by replacing what is called the 

remaining benefit, remaining cost ratio concept with the total benefit cost ratio as a metric to rank these projects. The total benefit 

cost ratio will better measure the overall economic performance of 

the projects. Now, using this improved tool from year to year will 

help ensure continuous funding of these high-performing projects. 

The budget includes $40 million to fund preparedness for flood 

and coastal emergencies, and about $20 million to apply lessons 

learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, about $10 million to 

continue the national inventory and assessment of flood and storm 

protection projects, and $10 million to continue the assessment of 

dam safety at Corps of Engineers dams. 

The budget emphasizes the regulatory program to protect the 

Nation’s waters and wetlands through the Clean Water Act, and 

increases funding to $180 million. 

11

In addition to new Federal funding in the budget, the budget also 

reallocates $1.3 billion in appropriations provided in fiscal year 

2006 supplemental appropriations to expedite increases in the overall level of protection for the New Orleans metro area. 

The Administration plans to transmit to Congress draft legislation that would authorize the collection of user fees for the inland 

and intracoastal waterways. The proceeds would be deposited in 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and like the current tax on 

barge fuel, would finance 50 percent of inland waterway construction and rehabilitation costs. 

This proposal would provide increased annual revenues to avoid 

depletion of the Trust Fund and would also improve, we believe, 

the user pay aspect of the trust fund. 

The budget proposes the replacement of existing continuing contracting authority with multi-year contracting authority. We believe this would put the Corps contracting processes and practices 

on a basis similar to those of other Federal agencies. 

In summary, then, the budget was developed using performance 

based principles that are in line with the President’s very robust 

management agenda. Even though it provides the highest level of 

funding ever requested for Civil Works in any President’s budget, 

indeed it is a frugal budget that reflects the priorities of a nation 

at war. As in past years, it does not fund all the good things that 

the Corps of Engineers is capable of doing, but it does move ahead 

with many important investments that would yield enormous returns to the Nation’s citizens. 

Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Woodley asked me if I would take this 

opportunity to convey on his part to the Committee the appreciation that he has for Lieutenant General Carl Strock, for his most 

excellent service to the Nation, both as a valorous soldier and as 

an outstanding Chief of Engineers. General Strock has served as 

the Chief of Engineers at a time of great challenge and difficulty 

for the Nation and for the Corps. 

The magnitude of work that has been undertaken under his leadership has been utterly unprecedented when one considers the additional scope of work arising from Hurricane Katrina and the 

other hurricane disasters that the Nation faced in 2004 and 2005, 

and the enormous scope of the reconstruction projects undertaken 

in Iraq. 

His effective leadership has been instrumental in enabling the 

Corps to effectively manage these challenges in a way that has left 

the Corps of Engineers an organization that is stronger and better 

than it was when he assumed his responsibilities. 

So with that, Madam Chairman, we of course appreciate the opportunity to be here, and will be responsive to any questions that 

you have to the best of our ability. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I know that General, you have been in 

a very key spot during probably the worst disaster we have had as 

it relates to Corps of Engineers in this Country. I must say I am 

impressed with the way you handled it, and I never really saw you 

upset, although I know behind the scenes you probably were. 

But I recognize you now for a statement. 

12

General STROCK. Thank you very much, and Mr. Dunlop, please 

express my apreciation to Mr. Woodley for those very kind comments. 

Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to be testifying before you along with Mr. 

Dunlop on the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget for the Army 

Civil Works program. If I may, I would like to briefly summarize 

some of the key points of my full statement and with your permission submit my complete written statement for the record. Thank 

you. 

This is a performance-based budget that reflects the realities of 

a national budget that must address recent natural disasters and 

the ongoing global war on terror. This fiscal year 2008 budget focuses construction funding on 69 projects that will provide the 

highest economic and environmental returns on the Nation’s investment. The 69 funded projects include 6 national priority 

projects, 11 dam safety projects, and 52 other ongoing projects. 

These projects are crucial to the future success of our water resources infrastructure and the funding will be used to improve the 

quality of our citizens’ lives, contribute to the national economic 

growth and development and to our national security. 

The budget uses objective performance measures to establish priorities among projects and proposes changes to the Corps; contracting practices to increase control over future costs. We believe 

that focusing our effort on funding and completing a more beneficial set of projects will improve our overall program performance 

and would help the Nation realize the net benefits per dollar from 

its investments much sooner. 

The Corps has learned many lessons in the past year and a half 

since Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in 2005. The lessons 

learned provide great insights into changes that needed to be made 

with respect to parts of our organizational culture, in the planning, 

execution and life cycle management of projects and in how we 

communicate risks to the American people. 

In light of this, I issued my 12 Actions for Change in August, in 

recognition of the need to continue to change our organization to 

better serve the Nation. The 12 actions also commit the Corps to 

ensuring that the American public has the information needed to 

fully understand and make decisions about risk when they live behind or near a Corps of Engineers project. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget includes $2.471 billion for operation 

and maintenance, and $158 million for the Mississippi River and 

Tributaries Program. I can assure you that I will continue to do all 

that I can to make these programs as cost effective and efficient 

as possible. 

Domestically, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers volunteers from 

across the Nation continue to respond to the call to help construct 

and improve a comprehensive hurricane and storm damage reduction system for southeast Louisiana, I should say coastal Louisiana. 

The critical work they are doing will reduce the risk of future 

storms to people and communities in the region. 

Over the past year, Corps dams, levees and reservoirs again provided billions of dollars in flood damage reduction and protected 

lives, homes and businesses in many parts of the Nation following 

13

heavy rains. Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

continues to support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan 

build foundations for democracy, freedom and prosperity. 

Many U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civilians, each of whom is 

a volunteer, and soldiers are providing engineering expertise, quality construction management and program and project management in those nations. The often unsung efforts of these patriotic 

men and women contribute daily toward this Nation’s goals of restoring the economy, security and quality of life for all Iraqis and 

Afghans. 

In closing, the Corps is committed to staying at the leading edge 

of service to the Nation. In support of that, we will be working with 

others to continue to transform our Civil Works Program. We are 

committed to change that ensures an open, transparent and performance-based Civil Works Program. 

Madam Chairwoman, this is likely my last appearance as your 

Chief of Engineers, so I want to take this opportunity to thank you 

and the Committee for your efforts in improving our national water 

resources strategies and programs. It really has been a pleasure for 

me to work with you, and I have enjoyed our relationship over the 

years. 

With that, I will conclude my statement and await your questions. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Johnson, you may proceed. 

Mr. JOHNSON Thank you, Madam Chair and the other distinguished members of the Committee. We really appreciate your allowing us to be up here and to testify. 

The details of our fiscal year 2008 budget and programs are in 

the formal record. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about 

the Seaway and its importance and how we can improve its competitive position. 

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation on the 

U.S. side is a wholly-owned Government corporation and an operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. It 

is responsible for the operations and maintenance of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. 

This responsibility includes maintaining and operating the two 

U.S. Seaway locks located in Massena, New York, and vessel traffic 

control in the areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. 

In addition, the Seaway Corporation performs trade development 

functions designed to enhance awareness and use of the Great 

Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system. 

The SLSDC coordinates activities with its Canadian counterpart, 

particularly with regard to safety, rules and regulations, environmental programs and the overall day to day operations of the Seaway. I think it is important to note, Madam Chair, this is a binational seaway and we have responsibilities to our Canadian partners. 

The U.S. Seaway Corporation has assets exceeding $160 million, 

which includes locks, navigation equipment, buildings and other 

equipment and supplies necessary for the operation of the Seaway. 

Our agency is somewhat unique within both the Department of 

Transportation and the Federal Government in that we are directly 

14

responsible for operating and maintaining fixed perpetual assets. 

So we are not a regulatory agency, we are not a grant agency, we 

are an operating agency, and therefore need to be funded accordingly. 

Maritime commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway System is a critical transportation link for the continent’s agricultural and industrial heartland, annually sustaining more than 150,000 U.S. jobs, 

$4.3 billion in personal income, $3.4 billion in transportation-related business revenue and $1.3 billion in Federal, State and local 

taxes. Since opening in 1959, more than 2.4 billion metric tons of 

cargo has been transported through the St. Lawrence Seaway with 

an estimated value of more than $400 billion. During the 2006 

navigation season alone, 47.2 million metric tons of cargo, mostly 

grain, iron ore, steel and other bulk commodities, passed through 

the Seaway, representing a value of $7.7 billion. 

The bi-national Seaway is expected to become an even more important commercial transportation route over the next decade as 

the U.S. and Canadian governments seek ways to ease highway 

and rail congestion, especially along North America’s East and 

West Coasts and Midwest region. In the past few years, the St. 

Lawrence Seaway has enjoyed significant growth in new business 

as waterways become a viable alternative for shippers looking to 

avoid port, highway and rail congestion. But even with that, the 

Seaway only operates at about 60 percent capacity, and that is one 

of the few modes, I believe, in the United States, that can make 

that statement and therefore, offer solutions for congestion. 

Of particular interest to this Subcommittee, the U.S. Corp of Engineers is expected to release later this year its final report on the 

recommendations for the future viability of the Great Lakes St. 

Lawrence Seaway System, including an engineering analysis that 

will provide the two seaway entities and policy makers with a detailed framework for projects, and most importantly, for the costs 

that are required to keep the Seaway lock infrastructure in excellent working condition for the next 50 years. 

The final report, Madam Chair, scheduled to be completed in 

July, will detail the conditions of the various assets of the Seaway, 

which for the most part were acquired in the late 1950’s and early 

1960’s. Many of these assets are showing signs of wear, and are urgently in need of technological and physical upgrades. 

In many cases, the Seaway infrastructure assets, including locks, 

bridges and tunnels, have not been renewed at a level sufficient to 

perpetuate these assets. And that raises the specter, Madam Chair, 

as you pointed out, of catastrophic failure. And if that were to occur 

in the Seaway, because it is a single lock system, everything in the 

transportation route between Duluth and Montreal would be shut 

down if we failed. That may be of interest to Mr. Oberstar. 

So once this report is completed, we will be back in touch with 

this Committee to talk about our needs. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

We are going to begin our first round of questions with people 

that didn’t get a chance to make opening statements. Mr. Costello 

is recognized. 

15

Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I will be 

very brief. I have one question. 

General Strock, it is good to see you again. Thank you for being 

before the Subcommittee. 

As you know, you are very familiar with the St. Louis region, we 

have a collection of individual levee districts that provide flood protection in the region. If one of those levees fails, it will have a severe impact on the adjacent levees along with various levels of impact for the entire region. While these levee districts, as you know, 

are dependent upon each other for system protection, they are not 

managed by a system. And I am wondering if you can state for the 

record how the Corps is approaching the need to manage these collections of individual levees as a flood protection system? 

General STROCK. Yes, thank you, sir. As a result of the hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast earlier in 2005, we developed a 

set of 12 Actions for Change. One of the most important actions is 

to embrace a systems approach to how we do the work. We must 

look at these systems not as discrete elements, but rather as how 

they interact and are interconnected. So while we don’t have any 

specific authorities to do that now, we certainly recognize the value 

in considering them as a system. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I am not clear on your answer, actually. 

General STROCK. Well, sir, I think there are some legislative 

fixes to that. I think as an example in Louisiana, the State has 

taken it upon themselves to create an overarching State body that 

will oversee the efforts of the various levee districts within the 

State. That sort of thing will certainly contribute to our ability to 

operate as a system. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So your suggestion would be that the State of Illinois would come in and pass legislation to try and address this 

issue? 

General STROCK. I wouldn’t suggest that, sir, but I am saying 

that is how the State of Louisiana has attacked a similar problem 

down there. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And in that case, did the Corps work with the 

State of Louisiana to work with them to come up with a plan? 

General STROCK. Indirectly, I did. We were informed of their 

plans and we understood the implications for the Corps as a result 

of those, yes, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. Thank you, General. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and also thank you, 

all of you, for being here this morning. I too will be brief in my 

questions to give you the opportunity to speak to the issues. 

First of all, I would like to know what you believe the current 

health and status of the Lake Okochobee in Florida is. The Lake 

Okochobee is vitally important to the health of the Everglades system and to all our quality of life in Florida. Also what the current 

situation with the Herbert Hoover dike surrounding the lake is. 

Basically want to know if we are safe if a hurricane comes through, 

and will the dike be able to hold the water. 

16

And finally, take a few minutes to address an important issue for 

me and then for my district, and for all of southwest Florida, and 

that is the C43 Reservoir and the PIR that is going to determine 

the future construction plans of the reservoir. Obviously we are 

eager to see this move forward quickly, so we can see some relief 

for the river and for the ecosystem and for our quality of life in 

southwest Florida. 

Thank you. 

General STROCK. Sir, the state of health of the lake is not good. 

As a result of the hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, we had tremendous 

inflows into the lake, which caused large discharges, high turbidity 

within the lake and very high phosphorus levels. We had extensive 

loss of vegetation and major damage to the fisheries, so the state 

of health of the lake is not good. 

As far as the safety of the Herbert Hoover dike, we are concerned 

about its structural integrity, but we do not see it as being in danger of imminent failure. We are able to control the safety through 

carefully regulating the levels of the lake, down to hundredths of 

a foot. And during the hurricane season, I get direct reports on that 

level within the lake. So we are able to control it. 

But it does need to be rehabilitated. We have recently revised 

our study and recommendation on that rehabilitation with a considerable increase in the scope of that. This budget allocates $56 

million to begin the work in fiscal year 2008. So I do not see an 

immediate threat to the safety of the people of South Florida as a 

result of the condition of the Herbert Hoover Dike, but it does need 

to be fixed. 

As far as the C43 Reservoir is concerned, we are attempting to, 

we are putting the pilot project in there for aquifer storage and recovery. That project did not work as we had hoped, and we are 

looking now for an alternative site for the well that we will use to 

continue that pilot project. And with the success of that, that will 

drive then what we do with C43 and the rest of the general program of aquifer storage. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you for your answers. Two things come to 

mind. One is, as you talk about changing the level of the lake, that 

has a direct impact on the Colusahatchee River and this reservoir. 

General STROCK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MACK. So what I would like to hear is that the PIR is moving forward and that you plan on having that done soon so we can 

then begin the construction of the reservoir that I think we all 

agree will help with the quality of water that flows down through 

the Colusahatchee River that is killing the estuary. 

General STROCK. Sir, we will finish phase one of the PIR this 

summer. That will allow us then to initiate phase two. So I think 

we are moving along about as quickly as we can. The phase two 

effort will address the additional storage needs and water quality 

needs for the basin. So I think we are moving along as well as we 

can on the PIR. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

17

Thank you very much for your testimony, gentlemen. I have a 

couple of specific questions, but first overall, I am very concerned 

about the overall funding level for the Army Corps, I think an 8.6 

percent cut in funding from fiscal year 2007 and the CR is ill-advised. I am also troubled by the prohibition on new starts. 

I want to focus on two specific things. I represent eastern Long 

Island, so my district has about 300 miles of coastline. The first 

area I want to pursue is the Fire Island to Montauk Point reformulation study. As I understand it, the amount of money included in 

the fiscal year 2008 budget is $750,000 to complete the study. And 

I am pleased that there is money in the budget to complete the 

study. This is the fifth budget that I have been a member of Congress for, and three of the five did not include any money for the 

reformulation study. We had to work with the appropriators to see 

to it that that project remained funded. 

But my question is specifically, is the $750,000 sufficient to complete the study? 

General STROCK. I don’t have that information immediately in 

front of me. 

Sir, the answer is yes. It is sufficient to complete the study. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, thank you very much. And I am glad, many of 

us on Long Island anxiously await the results of that study, so that 

we can begin to have the framework that we need to make the decisions to protect our shoreline. 

Secondly, I am troubled by the continued prohibition on the 

Corps being involved in beach renourishment projects. Just to be 

specific, as part of the Army Corps Fire Island to Montauk Point 

reformulation study, there is $2.6 million in the budget for the 

court-ordered beach renourishment at Westhampton Dunes. Now, 

there is no way that the Village of Westhampton Dunes could undertake that project on their own. The scope of the project is such 

that it requires a Federal role. That project is not unique. 

So I guess my question is, is it realistic to think that local government can take on the role of beach renourishment projects, and 

does it not, if we say yes, it is only up to local government, does 

that not expose our shoreline and our inner shore areas to the kind 

of Katrina-like devastation that we have unfortunately seen? 

General STROCK. Sir, as I recall, the court-ordered renourishments I think are an exception to that policy. I think the Federal 

Government remains committed to those court-ordered renourishments. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry, repeat that again, General Strock? 

General STROCK. It is my understanding that the Federal Government does have responsibility for the court-ordered renourishment. 

Mr. BISHOP. We are in full agreement on that. I am just using 

that as———

General STROCK. For the general discussion, yes, sir, it is our position that we will participate in the initial placement of the protective sand on a beach, but that the follow-on replenishment of that 

sand is a local responsibility. That is principally driven by the lack 

of available funding to do that. 

18

Mr. BISHOP. I understand that that is your position. My question 

is, is that realistic? I mean, are we not turning a blind eye to a 

potentially devastating problem? 

General STROCK. I think each case has its own merits. In some 

cases, beach communities have the resources to provide that renourishment, in others, they do not. So it is situational, to answer 

that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for your testimony. I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for being here today, to our panel. I would like to follow up on Congressman Bishop’s comments. I feel, I will try to 

choose my words carefully, but I can’t tell you how troubled I am 

with the position that the Administration has taken by again deciding that shore protection projects and their renourishment cycles 

will not receive funding. This just makes no sense to me. It comes 

despite the fact that these projects are fully authorized by Congress 

and the Corps and non-Federal sponsors have entered into signed 

project cooperation agreements with a lot of people doing a lot of 

work and renourishment is critical by almost any measure that you 

want to take. 

Coastal erosion places homes and businesses of not just my constituents, but obviously of Congressman Bishop and many members of Congress, at a serious risk. And we have seen that the Administration has apparently decided that somehow it is cost effective to spend billions of dollars with FEMA in disaster relief to replace homes and business after the next storm, but not to spend 

the millions of dollars to do the renourishment projects. Each of us, 

many of us have districts that rely on this. And as Congressman 

Bishop said, these individual communities, you are in essence saying the projects can’t be done. These small communities cannot afford to foot the bill to do these renourishment projects. 

I am really troubled by this. And I would like to know, Congress 

has included funding for renourishment projects in the 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Given the rules you are developing for the 2007 continuing resolution, can you tell me whether 

renourishment projects will receive funding? 

Mr. DUNLOP. Congressman, it is my understanding that the type 

of renourishment that would receive funding when we come up 

with the work plan, the allocations which have not yet been completed for fiscal year 2007—that when projects are Federal projects, 

when there is a renourishment activity that is needed to protect a 

Federal project, that that would be under consideration for that allocation. 

But it is a policy decision that has been made that the other 

things that you are referring to would not be included. And I understand what you said, I will take the message that you have 

about the rationale and the earnestness that you feel about it, and 

we will continue to take that under advisement. But right now, it 

is my understanding that unless it is directly related to a Federal 

project that those allocations would not be there. 

Let me do check, though, to make sure that I have not over-spoken. And I think I have had this, that is, the additional confirmaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Aug 07, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34780 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
19

tion that has been provided to me is that renourishment would be 

budgeted, if it has been caused by a Federal navigation project, in 

other words, if some work that we have undertaken has resulted 

or had a consequence, an unintended consequence, of causing beach 

degradation, then that is when we could participate. That is what 

I am advised is what our allocations will look for. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, I can’t tell you how upset I am with hearing this. You are dooming I don’t know how many communities 

along all of our coast. And when property is lost or more importantly, when lives are lost because a storm comes in, and these 

communities couldn’t keep up with this, the Federal Government 

is going to be coming in and picking up the tab. If you are worried 

about spending dollars and being cost effective, this is just about 

as stupid as it gets in my book. I hope that this Committee continues to make a strong statement. I hope this Congress continues 

to make a strong statement. And in this particular case, I hope 

that you can go back and report how strongly at least some of us 

feel that this policy has to be overridden. This is disastrous for us. 

Mr. DUNLOP. I understand what you have said, sir. I will be 

faithful to that. As I have stated, the work plan has not yet been 

determined, so these are matters that we will continue to take 

under advisement, as you have asked us to do. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, I hope you strongly reconsider as you put 

this together. I just can’t believe, we go back to our communities 

and tell them that the Federal Government is abandoning them 

and then another storm comes in, whether it is the East Coast or 

the West Coast or the Gulf Coast, and you are going to come in 

and pick up the pieces at a much higher price tag. It doesn’t make 

any sense. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for 

General Strock. The Army Corp Civil Works projects are of critical 

importance to my second district of Hawaii, which consists of seven 

inhabited islands. Except for Oahu, these islands are rural in nature, and the residents and businesses rely on our harbors for commerce, fishing and recreation. We also rely on the Army Corps to 

assist in important flood control and ecosystem restoration projects. 

I am especially grateful to the Corps for its assistance in studying the safety of the many dams in our State after the tragedy at 

Ka Loko Dam on the island of Kauai, which resulted in several 

deaths, property losses and ecosystem damage. I want to inquire in 

particular about a project that has been a very high priority for the 

Hawaii delegation for many years. That project is the Kikiaola 

light draft harbor on the island of Kauai. This is a much-needed 

and long-authorized project that is ready to proceed to construction. 

I understand that this project has been delayed due in part to the 

reprogramming of some $10 million in funds that were earmarked 

for the project over the past 25 years. 

Senator Inouye was successful in securing an earmark of $13.5 

million in fiscal year 2007 in the Energy and Water Appropriations 

bill for the project, which would have allowed construction to move 

forward. However, as the bill did not become law, I am concerned 

20

about the future of this project. Will the Army Corps provide the 

needed funding to finally move to construction this project from the 

funds provided and the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution? 

General STROCK. Ma’am, you are correct, we had hoped to move 

to construction in September of 2005. But the bid climate in Hawaii made it such that we were unable to do that. The project is 

owed $10 million in payback, and we are continuing to seek a 

source for that payback, but we do not have it. 

As far as the work allocation for 2007, as Mr. Dunlop mentioned, 

we are awaiting the final form of the funding resolution and guidance from the Administration on how to work the 2007 program. 

But we will certainly do everything we can to move Kikiaola forward. 

Ms. HIRONO. It is a long time coming. So I appreciate your pushing it as hard as you can. 

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Representative Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have a few questions about the Great Lakes harbor dredging. 

It will come as no surprise to you that several of my colleagues 

from Michigan and the other Great Lakes States are very concerned about the persistently low level of funding for dredging 

Great Lakes harbors. Our region currently faces a backlog of over 

$200 million in operations and maintenance projects. This has led 

to vessels on the lakes being forced to carry lighter loads for fear 

of shallow harbors and channels. This has delayed cargo shipments, drives up costs significantly. 

We are particularly concerned about the inequities of this. For 

example, in fiscal year 2005, the Ohio River received over $266 million for dredging, which is about $1.10 per ton of cargo. The Great 

Lakes only received $87.5 million, which is about 50 cents per ton, 

less than half. We dropped down to $74 million in fiscal year 2006. 

And I certainly don’t want this to become a battle between regions, 

but that certainly seems inequitable, when we are receiving less 

than half as much per ton of cargo transported than other areas 

are. 

I noticed that it gets bumped up to $105 million this year, but 

it is not clear to me that this is for the Great Lakes, or is because 

the Indiana harbor combined disposal facility, a $20 million project, 

was moved over from the construction account. So my question is, 

what plans do you have to start to tackle the backlog in maintenance projects of dredging that is causing such a problem for the 

shippers on the Great Lakes, and do you distinguish between navigation projects designed to move domestic cargo and those designed 

to move import and export cargo, and do you distinguish between 

those two at all or not? I might add, it is complicated by the fact 

that lake levels have fallen drastically since 1998. It makes the 

need for dredging even more urgent. 

General STROCK. Sir, certainly where the allocation of funding 

goes, we do not discriminate between regions. We do not do a head 

to head competition between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes 

or any other region. The Lakes and Rivers District, like all of ours, 

21

has a budgeting process that is risk based. So each project and 

each situation is taken on its own merits. 

As you had mentioned, the result of that was an increase in the 

Ohio River, and I can’t tell you categorically whether it was due 

to Indiana Harbor or not. We will look into that, sir. 

But certainly the Ohio River increased by 12.6 percent and the 

Lakes increased by 8.8 percent, a difference. But it was a bottomup driven budget that took that business line approach 

[The information received follows:]

The increase in Operation and Maintenance funding for the Great Lakes and 

Ohio River Division is primarily for critical maintenance on the mainstem Ohio 

River. The Indiana Harbor Confined Disposal Facility also was included in the 

Operation and Maintenance account in the FY 2007 budget.

Mr. EHLERS. I don’t understand that term, bottom-up. Are you 

talking about the bottom of the river? 

[Laughter.] 

General STROCK. No, sir, in terms of the organization. The districts within the Lakes and Rivers Division made the case for each 

of their projects against a set of criteria, and that then moved upward as we allocated the available funds. Their defense of their requirements was taken into consideration. That is what I mean by 

a bottom-up driven analysis. 

In terms of the import-export, I will have to answer that offline, 

sir, I do not know the answer to whether we make a discrimination 

on that or not. 

[The information received follows:]

Allocations to navigation projects were not based on distinctions between those 

that move domestic cargo and those that move import and export cargo.

Mr. EHLERS. OK. Well, I certainly appreciate your checking into 

that, because it has become a major problem for the shippers on 

the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. 

The other comment I wanted to make, I understand in her opening statement Mrs. Miller from Michigan raised the issue of the 

barriers. That is a crucial issue. I can’t imagine anything which 

would be more damaging to the Great Lakes ecosystem than having the Asian carp get into the lakes. We absolutely have to stop 

that. I think it is to the point that if you can’t get the dispersal 

barriers going up and operating regularly and faithfully, certainly, 

then we ought to close off the Chicago drainage canal and just 

make sure nothing gets up. But of course, the city of Chicago would 

be in terrible shape if that happened. 

So it just absolutely has to be addressed. I think that has to be 

the highest priority project of anything that you do. So I certainly 

support Mrs. Miler’s comments on that. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to our 

panel. 

First I want to just continue on the add my voice of concern that 

we have heard in a bipartisan way here today that, does it make 

sense for us to be penny-wise and pound-foolish with this budget. 

I hope we will look at that in the broader context. 

22

To General Strock, I want to say thank you. We have talked 

many times about river issues that surround my district in the St. 

Louis region. I am right across the river from Congressman 

Costello, at the confluence of the Mississippi, the Missouri and the 

Illinois Rivers. So we have some great national treasures around 

us and appreciate your work with regard to them. 

I want to echo Congressman Costello’s comments about the need 

to look at the systems management approach to our levees around 

the region and look forward to working with you on that. 

Secondly, I want to also mention the formerly utilized sites remedial action program. Two of those sites are in the St. Louis region. 

It is important we continue those. I am disappointed to see the 

funding down from 2007 levels. As you know, these are sites that 

were mostly contaminated as a result of our early efforts to develop 

nuclear weapons, atomic weapons. So we need to finish that work. 

Finally, I want to talk about the St. Louis floodwall. During the 

great flood of 1993, as we all know, that floodwall nearly failed. At 

risk there in St. Louis is an estimated $3 billion worth of residential, commercial and industrial property. It has been 14 years since 

that great flood. It has been since 1955, three years before I was 

born, I might add, that that project was authorized. Yet this is 

being put in a category of new projects, new construction. And my 

question is, how can that be put in a category of new construction, 

number one, and number two, given the severity of the property at 

risk, how can we go forward to get that and make that a priority? 

And with regard to the local initiatives, there are many new initiatives to improve our riverfront as a top priority for St. Louis. We 

have taken a local initiative to come up with local bonding funds 

to help that. But the Federal Government has to do their part. 

General STROCK. Sir, I certainly share your frustration over the 

time it has taken to bring this to resolution. We do understand the 

nature of the problem, and it really can be resolved by installation, 

by replacement of the relief wells. Perhaps not a satisfactory answer, but the policy is that if the construction is a result of a design deficiency, which this is, then it is characterized as new work. 

That is simply the way the system works, so it must compete in 

that category. But we are prepared to move ahead for construction 

in 2008, if this is funded. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Well, we need to continue to work on that. As 

we have talked many times, and with other representatives from 

the Corps, this is one of the top priorities. When you look at the 

property at risk, it certainly should be in a top priority. So we appreciate that, and we will continue to work with you. 

General STROCK. Yes, sir. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Congresswoman Drake. 

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here, especially on such a difficult day. I would like to join the chorus of talking to you as well 

about beach replenishment. I think in Virginia Beach, we have all 

seen that that project did do exactly what it was supposed to do 

when Hurricane Isabel came in. I know we are very close to being 

able to finish that work. 

23

My question for you deals with the Supreme Court ruling last 

year in Rapanos that Section 404 program overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled in a decision that 

to claim jurisdiction there must be significant nexus between the 

wetland and a navigable body of water. This decision did little to 

clarify any possible confusion on Section 404 because of the 441 

ruling that was issued. 

So the result is, companies are making business decisions based 

on circuit court decisions and interpretations, using Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus test to assert jurisdiction over waters some 

distance from navigable streams. I believe the agencies need to 

issue guidance to the field staff and regulated industries, rather 

than companies making decisions based on very limited court rulings. So my question is, is this guidance coming and what can we 

expect? 

Mr. DUNLOP. Yes, ma’am, the guidance is coming. We are obliged 

by the Supreme Court when they make decisions that add new factors into the consideration of what is jurisdiction. It is a complicated ruling. It is taking us much greater time to bring together 

the ways to accomplish what the Supreme Court has determined 

than we thought it would. I do think it is safe to say that the guidance that we expect to provide to the field to assure that we have 

consistency and predictability and that we are consistent with the 

Supreme Court rulings—and we factor in the considerations of, as 

you said, significant nexus and other factors that the Court has determined are necessary in this—that it is, if I used the term imminent it would not be overspeaking, that are very eager to accomplish this at the earliest possible time. 

Mrs. DRAKE. I appreciate that. Can you also tell me what the 

basis would be, or if it is just like talking about the beach replenishment, how you are going to decide what ongoing projects are 

going to be funded with the CR for the 2007 funding? 

Mr. DUNLOP. Well, I might ask General Strock perhaps to address the particulars of that. But as I did indicate previously, these 

allocation decisions are still under consideration. Until we settle all 

of those things out and look at the way that we have to deal with 

this CR, it would really be speculative for me to say anything specific about that. 

I could ask my staff if there is a particular thing I might add to 

that. They confirm that we are working earnestly on this, and that 

at the earliest possible time we will try to deal with these allocation decisions. 

Mrs. DRAKE. Then let me ask General Strock, if the President’s 

budget request is above what was requested in 2007, as you said, 

so will you be able to address all expected maintenance needs? How 

much deferred maintenance do you think we are going to be incurring for what the current backlog is going to be for maintenance 

as well? Even though it is an increase, where do you think we are 

with that? 

General STROCK. I don’t have those figures available to me now, 

ma’am. I can answer that either offline or for the record. But as 

Mr. Dunlop says, our approach to the 2007 funding certainly would 

not be able to meet all the maintenance needs. We will address the 

critical needs first, obviously. And again, when the joint funding 

24

resolution is passed and we see what that looks like and what 

guidance it provides, and what guidance we get from OMB, we will 

finalize the 2007 work plan. 

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Dunlop, I have been in discussion with Secretary Woodley 

and I have a question. For areas like Sacramento that have many 

budgeted and ongoing flood protection projects, it is really difficult 

to look toward fiscal year 2008 budget until one fully understands 

the status of the CR and fiscal year 2007 budget situation. So for 

high risk flooding areas, can you explain how these critical decisions for at-risk populations will be made? 

Mr. DUNLOP. Congresswoman, I have not been involved in the 

discussions about that to the degree that Mr. Woodley has. I think 

that anything that I might say in that regard might just confuse 

the issues, because I am really not informed about that. What I 

would like to do is, in specific response to your question, to respond 

to that either by having Mr. Woodley have a discussion with you 

personally about it, to come see you or speak to you on the phone, 

or for us to provide a written statement that would address the 

specifics of what you have raised. 

Ms. MATSUI. That would be very helpful. 

I have a more general question here, then. For the CR, the fiscal year 2007, the Army Corps has $2.3 billion to spend on construction for projects. In fiscal year 2008, the Administration has recommended $1.846 billion in construction. If $2.3 billion cannot take 

care of our Nation’s needs, how can we expect the fiscal year 2008 

budget numbers to come close to meeting, let alone sustaining our 

Nation’s needs? 

Mr. DUNLOP. In a general sense, of course, what is public policy 

but the allocation of available resources? And you know, as General 

Strock and as many of you have said in your opening statements, 

the opportunities that we have to improve the water resources infrastructure of this Nation are great. And it is really very difficult. 

That is why we have assistant secretaries and why we have budgets and why we have Congresses that ultimately have to resolve 

these issues. 

But the processes that we use seek to prioritize, in the very best 

way we can, in an open and transparent way, what the principles 

and the priorities and the practices are that would allow us to use 

the proper decision making processes to rank the ways in which we 

allocate these resources. It is a tough job and we are all engaged 

in it most vigorously. Ultimately, when we have more will than we 

have wallet, there just has to be a way to resolve those things. 

The process that we are engaged in here in hearings, and other 

oversight that the Congress engages us with, help inform these 

processes greatly. We take it very, very seriously when elected representatives of the people emphasize what is important to them. 

And then we weigh those considerations against the matrices that 

we use so that we have an open and transparent way to help allocate these resources. 

25

Ms. MATSUI. My concern, Mr. Dunlop, is that we have had ongoing projects for years. And we have decided on a direction. Most of 

this depends upon meeting capability. That is why I am concerned 

about where we are with the CR. Because if we use the 2006 numbers, we are certainly below capability. If we are looking at 2008, 

we need to look to see what we are doing in a CR, in order to stay 

on track. And even at that, from what I understand with the fiscal 

year 2008 budget on basically my projects, for instance, there is 

$66 million for various projects like the American River watershed, 

the Sacramento River bank protection and the South Sacramento 

streams. I have been advised that the Corps capability for these 

projects is approximately $100 million higher. 

So we are looking ahead, trying to finish these vital flood control 

projects in a rational, reasonable manner, understanding that we 

would like to get this done within 10 years. And yet we have no 

understanding about what the rationale is, how we interface with 

you in order to find out how you make these critical decisions. You 

indicated that you have not been as involved in this process and 

I will certainly follow up with Secretary Woodley. But you have to 

understand that all of us here are very much focused on how our 

projects are going to be placed as far as the CR in the 2008. Because we are looking forward to many more years than that. 

So it is something that I think all of you have to consider. 

Mr. DUNLOP. Yes, ma’am. We understand exactly. And of course, 

the definition or the use of the term capability is something that 

from an engineering and construction and other allocation and mobilization of assets that we have in the Government—the people 

that work for the Corps of Engineers in a contracting capacity—is 

a very useful term. 

But when we talk about capability outside of that engineering 

context, it can be somewhat confusing. Because while my understanding of these terms like capability and other things is not entirely perfect, it is my understanding that it assumes that there are 

no other constraints, there is no other work that is being asked to 

be done by the same people. So when we look at a number like, 

well, we have capability to do X, it is almost like we are looking 

at that particular project and not looking at any other activity that 

would need to be addressed by the same people that would be doing 

that work. 

So as we talk with you and gain a better understanding about 

how we can properly allocate available resources there, this gaining 

a better understanding of exactly how these capability concepts affect the area in which you are interested, in the Sacramento and 

the American River and all those other areas there, will be something I think will be a very useful discussion for all of us. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. I must say that I have been really involved in this for a very long time. So I understand what capability 

means. And it is just a sense of trying to get to how you make a 

decision. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for coming in and making these presentations this morning. 

26

I represent the First Congressional District in South Carolina, 

which is on the coast, so I will echo some of the concerns that we 

have with some of my counterparts along the coast about beach renourishment. It seems like to me that the Corps and I guess the 

Administration has given up on renourishing our beaches. I am 

just concerned about the benefit cost ratio between prevention and 

the benefits of having sand on the beaches, particularly when we 

have a storm or national disaster come through. 

I am just wondering, if in effect you are incorporating that into 

the former to help us generate the need for continuing beach renourishment? 

General STROCK. Sir, the formulation of the benefit cost ratio 

does take into account the damages that occur if that protection 

was not in place. So in that respect, it does. In terms of the other 

aspect of this, the fact that we do not support beach renourishment, you can begin to get into the argument about whether the 

damages avoided would not be worth the cost to the Federal Government of renourishment. But as mentioned, with the shortage of 

funding, we simply have to draw the line somewhere. We have 

committed to the initial nourishment of those projects which meet 

the criteria and leave the renourishment to the local population. 

Mr. BROWN. We have even had to go to FEMA to help reconstruct the beaches after the storms come through. It seems like to 

me that is kind of reversing the priorities in the best cost methods, 

using the taxpayers’ dollars. I would certainly encourage you to 

take another look to see if we can’t change, reach the direction in 

which we are going to address that particular problem. 

A big problem we have down along the cost is the need to get 

permits during construction projects. I was just curious, after the 

Carabell/Rapanos decision, are you moving forward on enacting 

those permits? I know we have some 20 to 25 different corporations 

just waiting for an answer to move forward on some construction 

projects. 

Mr. DUNLOP. Yes, sir. It is my understanding that the policies 

that we have, in regard to permits that are being made of the sort 

you described, is that until there is more guidance, which Congresswoman Drake was asking about earlier, the current policy is 

for any project applicant, any person who wants to use his property 

and needs a 404 permit, if he is willing to accept jurisdiction on 

that, we will immediately process that permit and accept that jurisdiction. And then of course the factors that would be considered for 

the permit would be the typical ones that involve mitigation, 

whether they can avoid, minimize or compensate for their impacts 

on the aquatic resources of the United States. 

If people are not willing to accept jurisdiction, they say, well, 

gosh, there was this Supreme Court decision, we may not even be 

jurisdictional, then we have had to withhold dealing with those 

permit applications right now. So they are on hold. There is a backlog building because of this. It is a significant factor and we are 

most eager to get our guidance out into the field so that we can 

begin to deal with this mounting backlog. 

Mr. BROWN. Well, it is a real serious problem in my district. We 

have smaller contractors that get financial commitments on the 

cost of that property and they are paying interest, and those interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Aug 07, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\34780 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
27

est costs continue to build. I would hope in some timely time line 

that you would be able to make that determination. 

Mr. DUNLOP. Yes, sir. In fact, as I responded to Congresswoman 

Drake, I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that it is imminent. I would say, however, if you had asked me that in July, I 

would have said it is imminent. It is very difficult to come up with 

the types of guidance that cannot have unintended consequences of 

causing further litigation, and therefore further delays for everybody. But I do really think that we are very close to this, and certainly will take the admonishment that you have to help move this 

through———

Mr. BROWN. When was that ruling made? 

Mr. DUNLOP. I think actually it was like in April of last year. 

Mr. BROWN. So we really have a lot of people that have been 

hanging based on trying to get some decisions on that ruling. 

Mr. DUNLOP. And in fact, in our budget presentation today, we 

also talked about how the Administration has requested $180 million for our program and part of that funding would be to help us 

deal with the much more complicated decision making that has to 

be made as we try to find what the significant nexus is. That increase is a very substantial increase. If I remember correctly, I believe the number for the current fiscal year 2006 is about $154 million. From 154 to 180 is something that we were very earnest 

about achieving, so that we can keep this regulatory program moving apace. 

Mr. BROWN. So you are not predicting getting this new budget 

passed in order to get this enacted, are you? 

Mr. DUNLOP. No, no. Not at all. When the Court rules, we have 

no recourse but to follow the guidance of the Supreme Court. Regardless of what these costs are and other things, we just have to 

proceed on that basis. 

Now, if we don’t have enough funds to actually do the work or 

if there isn’t time to hire the people and get them on board, well, 

then, one of the consequences of these rulings is of course to cause 

the kinds of delays that you are describing. They are very real and 

very significant. 

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chair, I apologize for going over my limit. 

But this is a major issue down in South Carolina, and I certainly 

appreciate your consideration as we try to move that as quickly as 

possible. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen. I have a couple of questions that are related. First question is, General, can you tell me what percentage 

or what amount of your budget or the time that you spend, however you can break it down for us, is dedicated to projects in Iraq 

and Afghanistan as opposed to domestic projects? 

General STROCK. Sir, that is a very difficult question to answer, because the Iraq program involves about $13.5 billion worth of effort. It is funded through a different appropriation, and it is over 

a period of years. To date we have placed about $7 billion worth 

of effort there. But in my opinion, it does not directly compete with 

our civil works program. As part of the overall effort to the global 

28

war on terror and the constraints that makes on the Federal budget, perhaps it could. But there is no direct connection or competition. 

We do rely on volunteers for the Corps of Engineers, mainly civilians, to move overseas and execute those programs. But I think we 

are able to compensate for the absence of those people within those 

districts and carry the workload of those who are absent. So I don’t 

see a direct impact. In fact, I really would like to say and believe 

that we are better able to execute our domestic programs as a result of the intensity of the experience that our people receive over 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Mr. ARCURI. Obviously the experience is always helpful and relevant. But are you saying that none of the programs or none of the 

money from the domestic budget is used for projects in Iraq or Afghanistan? 

General STROCK. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. ARCURI. It comes from a different funding source? 

General STROCK. Completely different appropriation,yes, sir. 

Mr. ARCURI. OK. My next question is, now, obviously you watch 

the news, you hear so much about natural disasters. In my own 

district, we are upland, we are in upstate New York and we still 

have some major flooding problems that we haven’t seen in recent 

history. Has this affected the Army Corps of Engineers’ ability to 

deal with the different crises, the more intense storms that we are 

receiving? Has it affected your ability to effect change, to quell 

these problems? 

General STROCK. Well, sir, certainly storms like the intensity we 

experienced in Katrina taxed our ability to respond. We do not resource to the worst case. And that was very apparent in Katrina. 

We were at a low, I think, because we have standing processes and 

experience, to generate additional resources as we fed in response 

to that event. We are working very hard to align the response 

mechanisms we use. We respond to natural disasters, terrorist 

strikes and contingency operations. And we are trying to align all 

of those so we use consistent practices and processes when we do 

that. 

Mr. ARCURI. My question is this, and let me be a little more direct with it. You indicated earlier that you prioritize the projects 

that you address. Has the fact that we had seemingly increased 

numbers of flooding, an increased number of projects, raised the 

bar, so to speak, and therefore made the smaller projects, which affect communities like mine greatly, less likely to be addressed by 

the Army Corps of Engineers in the short term? 

General STROCK. Sir, I think that could be an outcome. We are 

committed to doing more risk-based analyses. Certainly there are 

communities that face risks now, and risks are constantly changing, based on weather patterns, geomorphology and that sort of 

thing. So it is not a static system. There continue to be growing 

problems around the Country. 

We are unfortunately faced with the situation now that there is 

so much backlog on the books that our ability to take on new studies and new projects is diminished. And there is an increased 

awareness, obviously, and an interest in particularly flood damage 

reduction and protection. So there is more competition for a limited 

29

pool of resources. So it is unlikely under current processes and policies that we would budget for additional studies. 

Mr. ARCURI. Would the necessity to do this type of risk-based 

analysis be diminished if you had more funding, if the funding was 

greater for the Army Corps of Engineers? 

General STROCK. Certainly with more funding, we could do more 

detailed and rigorous analysis. I think we have an obligation to 

contribute to informed decision making, to do the analysis that 

really articulates and quantifies the risks people face, so that those 

in the Administration and Congress can make informed decisions 

about where to invest resources. Unfortunately, with the prohibition on new studies and new starts now, we are unable to do a lot 

in the specific sense of addressing local problems. 

Mr. ARCURI. But basically with additional funding, you would be 

able to address some of the flooding problems in the smaller communities that don’t come up as such a high priority risk for the 

Army Corps of Engineers in its analysis? 

General STROCK. Certainly, yes, sir, with more funding we could 

do more. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, I want to thank the panel for being here today. I certainly appreciate all the good work that the Corps has done in my 

district over the years and I am sure will continue to do. 

My question, I think Mr. Brown, I am not quite sure if he hit 

on the same exact topic as I am going to ask about, the nationwide 

permits. The nationwide permits are expiring, I understand, the 

middle of March, March 18th. And that to date you have not reissued the regulations that need to be put out in the public for 60 

days so the Corps districts and the States can do the various things 

they need to do to comply. If for instance, you were to put them 

out tomorrow, that would, the 60 days would take us into April, 

there would be four weeks that people couldn’t operate or there 

would be a gap in the current NWPs. That of course causes great 

problems for these contractors and developers around the Country, 

being able to plan long-term to keep the work going. Obviously 

time is money, and it is going to cost them. 

Does the Corps have a plan to enable the existing permittees to 

continue to operate under their current NWPs? 

Mr. DUNLOP. Congressman, it is our belief that in fact we can 

manage around, that there really will not be a gap. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I am sorry, say that again? 

Mr. DUNLOP. We don’t believe there will be a gap. Now, theoretically there is because of the States, when they have the 60 days 

to review their 401s, that is, the State water quality certifications. 

We believe that we can work with the respective States, that they 

could go ahead and authorize in a programmatic way for the Corps 

of Engineers, the regulatory branch, to go ahead and execute the 

NWPs by giving us blanket 401s. If the States were to determine 

otherwise that they will not give a 401 until we have our NWPs 

and they have had their 60 days, then that would present a problem. 

30

But I think it is a problem only in theory. We believe in practice 

we can manage through that. The bottom line is, we intend to keep 

on schedule with the publication of the NWPs and that this is imminent and will be done in a timely way, and that we can manage 

through so that the gap will not exist in practice. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK, so you will just extend, is that my understanding, you will extend the current NWP, is that what you would 

do? Because again, my understanding is under the law you have 

to have 60 days public notice and we are a month away from them 

to expire. So you wouldn’t just extend what they currently have, or 

would you just issue them a new one and forego the 60 day public 

notice? 

General STROCK. Sir, I believe that the condition is that these 

nationwide permits will take effect immediately upon publication, 

which is imminent. The challenge is the State water certifications 

and coastal zone consistency determinations. The State will have 

60 days to reorient their processes. 

What a developer would have to do, I think, in the interim, is 

comply with the nationwide permit, but would have to apply for an 

individual permit to comply with the State requirements. 

Mr. DUNLOP. If the State doesn’t give us programmatic 401s. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And you think in practice that it is going to be a 

rather simple thing? Because my understanding is these have little 

impact to the environment, that is why they can move quickly? 

Mr. DUNLOP. That is right. I think that is right. We are in the 

process—the regulatory branch is in the process—of communicating 

with the States and advising them of these circumstances and 

working through any problems in advance that any State might 

have. 

Mr.SHUSTER. So you don’t feel there will be a gap, and you believe that when they expire on March 18th, you will have———

Mr. DUNLOP. The new nationwides will be in effect and they will 

be lawful and everything will be able to move forward. We still 

have the kind of constraints that Congressman Brown was addressing. But in terms of the capacity of the nationwides to give people 

the tools out of the regulatory toolbox they need, we don’t see an 

impact, an adverse impact, to the regulating community. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

General, there are a couple of questions that have to do with my 

area. One of them is not necessarily my area, but the delta levees 

in northern California. As the chair of the Subcommittee on Water 

and Power, that is a great issue for the State of California. What 

is the Army Corp proposing to do to strengthen those levees? This 

is the bay delta up in northern California. 

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am. We worked very closely with the 

State over the last year to identify the most critical areas. I think 

we are well on the way to making those repairs. 

The broader aspect, though, there is a tremendous amount of 

work, as Congresswoman Matsui indicated, throughout the entire 

delta that needs to be worked. We have plans in place and we are 

working toward that. But that is something we will have to work 

together. 

31

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to sit with you at a later time, 

because it is an issue of the possible intrusion of the seawater into 

that area. 

General STROCK. Certainly. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The second area that I wanted to ask is recently, the City of Los Angeles, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

announced a $2 billion plan to transform 32 miles on the Los Angles River into a green ribbon of parks, pedestrian walkways, bike 

trails and housing. I will have a question on the housing, but that 

is later. The San Gabriel River is a great proposal that was started 

some years ago by Senator, one of the Senators. 

At any rate, why was not the San Gabriel River included in the 

proposal and can you include it in the proposal to study the San 

Gabriel River, which is not more than a few miles down on the 

other side? 

General STROCK. Ma’am, I can’t answer the question, either the 

proposal for the L.A. River or the San Gabriel. I will have to get 

back with you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would appreciate it. What is the Corps’ goal, 

in 25 words or less? 

General STROCK. Twenty-five words or less? Boy, you got me. I 

require my people to have those sorts of elevator speeches, and I 

am caught without one. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I don’t want a speech. 

[The information received follows:]

The San Gabriel River was not included in the proposal for the Los Angeles 

River because there was no local sponsor for that action. The Los Angeles District is working with Los Angeles County, and our understanding is that currently the County intends to request a new reconnaissance study for the San 

Gabriel River area. This study could be performed under the existing Los Angeles County Drainage Area authority.

General STROCK. I think, as I indicated in my opening statement, 

we are looking for a mechanism to make sound decisions on investments in water resources for this Nation based on performance and 

returns on investment. We are looking for a water resources program and policy that contributes effectively to our national economy, to our environment and to national defense. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is over 25, but I will take that. 

Then why is it that we continue to see cuts in the budget that 

are going to help our economy grow, whether it is the tourism by 

helping the beaches refurbish, by doing all those different things? 

And one of the questions that I did have is dovetailing into Mr. 

Arcuri’s question about your budget. You indicated it was $13.5 billion into Iraq and $7 billion today, although that doesn’t come out 

of your budget for this particular area. But what has been your increase in the last, say, four years since the war, or decrease for 

projects that are so necessary and vital to the national welfare and 

economy? 

General STROCK. Ma’am, I think generally speaking, the President’s budget has had a steady increase over the last few years of 

about $200 million a year. When you compare it to the appropriation, then you have a difference. But I think the President has consistently added more money to the civil works program. And this 

32

is the largest civil works budget that has ever been requested by 

any President. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I am specifically addressing myself to 

the investigation and construction account. Investigation decimated 

by 54 percent. How else are we going to be able to help the communities? And then construction by 35 percent. Then we go to the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund being cut. Those are areas that 

are key and vital to the recovery of our Country’s economy. Yet we 

are saying, well, we can send more money to Iraq, but we can’t put 

some of that money to work to be able to help us be able to fund 

the war later on, if we run into another one. 

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am. Again, I don’t see a direct plus and 

minus to the commitment we have made to Iraq. The fact is that 

we have many more projects on the books, as we have already 

talked about, we have a tremendous capability and requirement 

that is not being satisfied. So the Administration’s general policy 

is, rather than bring new projects aboard, let’s finish those highperforming projects we have now. 

I do share your concerns with the lack of investment in the investigations. Because in addition to providing information on future needs of the Nation, it allows us to maintain a competency to 

do the sorts of studies to contribute to informed decision making. 

But again, it is the position of the Administration that we must 

focus on what is on the books now, put those projects into operation, so we can begin to realize the benefits that they will provide. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would it be possible———

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Your time has expired. We will have to come back. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Welcome. I know when you walk in 

this room you are ready to make a presentation, you walk out feeling like a punching bag oftentimes. General Strock, I would like to 

welcome you here. I would like to say that for some reason in my 

district, we have a lot of issues that involve the Army Corps of Engineers. You have really been most professional, most responsive. 

Did you know Colonel Dornstauder? Well, he is somewhat presentable. But if he had a star on his shoulder, he would probably be 

a lot more presentable. But I have never seen anything to influence 

that decision. 

He is, and Colonel Thompson before him that I dealt with, have 

been really good to work with. We have had old munitions that we 

have found in cities that they have immediately responded to and 

dealt with, flood control issues that arise quite often. You always 

seem to be there. I know if you had all the money that you needed, 

you could make 435 of us very happy. But the funds aren’t there 

and available to meet the demands placed upon you. 

But in my district, I represent the 42nd Congressional District 

in California, mostly Orange County, small part of L.A., small part 

of San Bernardino. We have the Santa Anna Mainstem project, 

which includes Prado Dam. The Army Corps estimated in the late 

1980’s that if that wasn’t completed as proposed if they had a 

major flood, it would impact about 110,000 acres, over 3 and a 

quarter million people. And the damage of that projection was $15 

billion, who knows what it would be like today. 

33

We have been steadily working on that project. Now, last year the proposal from the Administration was about $54 million on 

that project. This year it has been cut down to about $17 million. 

And that whole project has not only a major impact on flood control, but the people that live behind that project have property that 

we are trying to acquire as the dam is elevated have been waiting 

very patiently for years. Their property has basically been condemned because they can’t build on it, they can’t sell it for development, and it is in a flood controlled area. So until the dam is completed and acquired, they are kind of stuck. 

I just don’t know if you have any idea how long this project is 

going to take. You have been working on it yearly. It is going up 

gradually. But we have been since the late 1980’s and 1990’s trying 

to complete this project and it is still under construction. So do you 

have any kind of an idea what we are looking at? 

General STROCK. Sir, I don’t have the specifics on that in front 

of me. I will have to get back to you to lay that out for you in more 

detail. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Further on that question, the Administration I know comes up with proposal on how much they are 

going to spend, and they prioritize projects. How much direct input 

does the Army Corps have in prioritizing the funding and 

prioritizing the project in their budgetary process? 

General STROCK. Sir, we have a considerable amount of direct 

input. We are given guidance from the Administration on how to 

present that. We do help in the development of that guidance. But 

we apply the guidance that we think does steer the available funding in the right ways by looking at benefit cost ratios, by looking 

at turns on environmental projects and so forth. So I am satisfied 

that we do have the ability to shape the guidance and make the 

recommendations for funding that we need to make. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Would Congress enacting a basic 

water resource development act and prioritizing these yourselves, 

would that be beneficial, would that be detrimental to your efforts? 

General STROCK. Sir, it is my personal view that a Water Resources Development Act would be useful to us, because we haven’t 

had one in the last six years. And that is the legislation we use 

that shapes policies that must change over time. I think we certainly benefit from it. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Well, as I say, Colonel Dornstauder 

has done a really good job. I know he is leaving this year, I believe, 

and is going to be replaced by somebody else. Colonel Thompson 

before him was excellent. Is there any way that you can get us 

some kind of a projection that is realistic based on what your future prioritization are going to be as far as funding, as to when this 

project might come to fruition and completion and when we might 

expect, especially that are impacted behind it, on both sides of this 

dam, to have issues resolved? Can you do that for us? 

General STROCK. Sir, I will certainly try to do that, yes. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. I thank you for your testimony and once again, the Army Corps has been very good to my 

district and I appreciate it. I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hall. 

34

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will keep it short. 

I have two questions. The first one pertains to the capability for 

Delaware River comprehensive watershed flood management plan. 

There are three items listed in the proposed budget which were 

showing in my district and also Congressman Hinchey’s and Congresswoman Gillibrand’s district. The Delaware River comprehensive watershed flood management plan capability for fiscal year 

2008 of $300,000, Upper Delaware River watershed the same. 

And planning assistance to States, Section 22, all of them were 

taken to zero this year in the proposed budget. And I am just curious how we can begin to address the backlog of projects like this. 

We heard about capability before, we know in our area that the 

need is there. It is not just that there is capability, but there is this 

need. We have had two floods that caused substantial damage in 

the last four years. The Delaware was one of them, Port Jervis and 

that whole area of the Delaware. 

So how are we supposed to respond to a zero budget line in 2008 

and address this and what thoughts do you have on a realistic 

number? 

General STROCK. Sir, I don’t have the specifics of those projects 

in front of me. But in general, if the assessment is that there is 

a high risk to safety there and we have various metrics to evaluate 

that, the number of people in the flood plain, the anticipated velocity and volumes and so forth, that we will take on those studies. 

But without looking at the specifics of that project, I can’t give you 

a good answer on that. I will have to do that for the record. 

Mr. HALL. I would appreciate if your staff would respond to y office with that. Because I am getting this question all the time in 

Port Jervis, in particular. 

And the last question, I will edit out the other ten, and send 

them to you in writing, there is a piece here in the written statement about hydropower. I understand that the Philadelphia office 

has been involved in a low-head hydropower project in Pennsylvania, at least one. I was curious if the Corps would be willing to 

undertake a full evaluation of what resources and facilities under 

its jurisdiction may represent opportunities to expand low-head 

hydro. We have, according to the Idaho National Laboratory, in 

New York alone 4,000 some low-head hydro sites, existing dams 

and waterfalls where a turbine could be put into place to harvest, 

they claim, greater than 12,00 megawatts of power without having 

to build anything new other than the turbine. And many of those 

dams, I understand, are flagged for safety reasons by the Corps. So 

do you see the Corps undertaking that sort of study? 

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

record as well. In general, we applaud the opportunity for multiple 

purposes, to use a water column for multiple purposes as it moves 

through the system. Again, I will have to give you a separate answer for that one. 

Mr. HALL. Thanks for your testimony. I will yield back my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask a question of Mr. Dunlop. As you know, the Congress 

has not passed a water resources bill since year 2000. Of course, 

the whole country is pleading for something to happen. We must 

take some of that responsibility, but we also feel that we have not 

35

had the support of the Administration. Since year 2001, they have 

not even submitted a formal water resources bill to Congress, nor 

has the Administration been an active player in moving anything 

along. 

My question is, it is pretty simple, is this Administration going 

to submit a water resources proposal to Congress this year? 

Mr. DUNLOP. Well, the decision about that has not been finally 

made. But I can tell you, Madam Chair, that we are very vigorously developing a legislative framework that we believe will reflect 

the kinds of priorities that we have discussed today and some of 

which the members have discussed today. Our proposal will first 

of all, of course, support the budget recommendations that would 

require legislative enactment. But in the coming weeks, I believe 

that we are going to be able to make a proposal that will help accomplish the kinds of principles and the practices and the policies 

that have proven successful in the past. And we will seek some creative incentives to be able to improve them for the future. 

So the bottom line, Madam Chair, is that we would like very 

much to work closely with this Committee and with the Congress 

toward a Water Resources Development Act that would allow you 

to fulfill your legislative objectives and responsibilities. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Does that mean that the Administration is supporting the Congressional efforts this year? 

Mr. DUNLOP. Well, when you say supporting the efforts, we always have supported the efforts. We have always been in the position where we want to be helpful to the Congress and provide what 

counsel we can. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I know that is the way it is with the 

Corps. 

Mr. DUNLOP. And with the Administration, yes, ma’am. I am 

speaking on behalf of the Administration, not only the Corps of Engineers, but Assistant Secretary Woodley and the people to whom 

we are subordinate in the Executive Branch. We are under direction that whenever the Congress undertakes legislative activity, we 

are to be absolutely helpful, to be responsive in every way and to 

try to be creative in recommending specific things that we believe 

will carry out the best practices. And as I had indicated, it is very 

much our hope to be able to come forth with some specific recommendations and proposals and frameworks that will assist this 

process that you are engaged in with the WRDA bill that almost 

came to fruition last year. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, General Strock, let me just say, thank you very much 

for your service to our Country. I know this is probably the last 

time you will appear before the Subcommittee. Thank you for what 

you have done for Louisiana. Let me just say I am glad to see that 

you don’t have any more gray hair as a result of the challenges 

that we put before you in Louisiana. 

In the interest of time, I would ask that the Corps provide a 

summary of what has been done to date in New Orleans, the Gulf 

Coast area, in the aftermath of the storms. Furthermore, an assessment of what needs to be done as we go forward to provide for safety. 

36

Likewise, back in December of 2005, we had authorization and 

appropriation for a survey study of southwest Louisiana. I would 

like an update on that as well, if you could provide that. Not today, 

but some time in the future, to my office. 

One question, though. I mentioned in my testimony, Louisiana 

had released its latest version of a draft comprehensive master 

plan for a sustainable coast. I know it is still a work in progress. 

The Corps has been working with the State on the Congressionallymandated Louisiana coastal protection and restoration. I am not 

sure how these two are going to be merged together. Could you give 

me some guidance as to what to expect there? 

General STROCK. Sir, the LACPR, we are working on it very 

closely with the State of Louisiana in partnership with them. So we 

are considering their ideas and their master plan. We are also considering the previous work we did with the Louisiana coastal area 

study. So all of that is being rolled together into our recommendation for the coastal protection. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I appreciate that. Being the Congressman for the 

Seventh Congressional District in southwest Louisiana, I just want 

to emphasize that we don’t leave southwest Louisiana out in that 

process. 

General STROCK. Sir, very briefly, I can tell you that on the study 

you referred to, we will complete the recon shortly. We have evaluated three plans which we all think are economically justified. And 

we expect a letter of intent from a local sponsor soon. We should 

be prepared to move on the feasibility study. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So you expect that all that will be merged into 

a comprehensive report? 

General STROCK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. That is all I have. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. I thank the witnesses for panel one, as we complete, and most especially look forward to working cooperatively as we have in the past. If the Subcommittee has any further questions, if they can be submitted, we 

will submit them for response. I appreciate your coming. 

We will now call on the second panel, who has been here very 

faithfully waiting for their time. 

Mr. BAIRD. [Presiding] In the interest of time, I will go ahead 

and introduce our panel as they find their way to their seats. 

Our second panel of witnesses consists of the Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Office of Water. It is good to see you again, Mr. 

Grumbles. The Honorable Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response; Mr. Tom Kilgore, President and 

Chief Executive Officer of the TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority; 

and Mr. Arlen Lancaster, Chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

Your full statements will be placed in the record and we ask that 

you try to limit your testimony to about five minutes as a courtesy 

to other witnesses. We will proceed in the order in which the witnesses are listed in the call of the hearing. Thank you all for being 

here. 

Administrator Grumbles, please proceed. Thank you. 

37

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE HONORABLE SUSAN 

PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID 

WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY; TOM KILGORE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY; CHIEF ARLEN 

LANCASTER, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a delight to be 

here on behalf of EPA and the national water programs. 

The national water Programs in the President’s budget amount of $2.7 billion, or 37 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget. The budget advances our goals toward greater sustainability and increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Nation’s water programs. Mr. Chairman, what I will do in the brief 

overview is to highlight the key themes and areas and priorities of 

the budget. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know our focus is on infrastructure and 

sustainability of infrastructure. It is the key to closing the gap and 

improving health and economics within the communities and the 

watersheds. The President’s budget reflects the sustainability of 

our four pillars of sustainability program. We are seeking $688 million for the Clean Water SRF. We are also including in this budget, 

Mr. Chairman, an initiative of the Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Treasury have 

worked together on this. And within the President’s budget is a 

proposed new water enterprise bond initiative. What this means, 

Mr. Chairman, is the potential to increase by billions of dollars the 

investment in the Nation’s water and wastewater infrastructure. 

Specifically what the Administration is seeking is to amend the 

U.S. tax code to remove the unified State volume cap on private activity bonds for water and wastewater infrastructure. We believe 

that while this will cost $184 million over a ten year period, it will 

translate into billions of dollars of new investment in water and 

wastewater infrastructure and advance our objective of sustainable 

infrastructure throughout the 21st century. 

Another key component of our approach to water and wastewater 

infrastructure is to emphasize like never before water efficiency. 

EPA is putting a priority within our water programs on voluntary 

public-private efforts, modeled in part on the Energy Star program, 

but with a specific focus on water, water efficiency. So our budget 

will certainly help us continue this effort that was launched last 

June to develop a labeling program so that consumers and families 

and communities can choose water efficient products and appliances and save money and energy and also help advance ecosystem 

protection within a watershed. 

The other item I want to highlight, Mr. Chairman, is the importance of watersheds and watershed protection. The Agency is seeking $57 million for the Great Lakes. It is a priority of the President 

and the Administrator, and that includes $35 million for the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act, to clean up contaminated sediments, to keep the 

ball moving forward and to make progress on the ecosystem health 

and protection to protect and restore the Great Lakes. 

38

The Chesapeake Bay includes in the EPA budget a continued in- crease in funding for the EPA from our perspective, and that is $29 

million for the Chesapeake Bay. We are also including $39 million, 

a continued increase in the national wetlands programs that the 

EPA works in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers on. 

That is not just the regulatory effort, it is also cooperative conservation, which is a principle of the President to advance the goal, 

the ambitious goal, the new goal for the Country that the President 

announced on Earth Day in 2004, and that is not simply maintaining the wetlands base in America, but gaining, increasing wetlands. So our budget reflects that continued commitment. 

The other key item I want to highlight, Mr. Chairman, is water 

security. The goal of the U.S. EPA national water programs is to 

ensure that water is clean, safe and secure. Water security in this 

post–9/11 world is critically important. There is $44 million included in the budget specifically for water-related efforts, advancing the technology, providing the tools and training to water utilities, as well as wastewater utilities, to work to increase the security of our Nation’s water and wastewater systems. 

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize the importance of 

oceans and coasts throughout. The President has emphasized 

through his ocean action plan that more than ever before, it is critically important to invest in and to use the collaboration and efforts 

of various Federal agencies to protect our oceans. EPA is requesting $13 million for our Ocean Dumping Act and oceans and coastal 

protection programs, and that is part of the overall effort of the 

President for a new initiative, $140 million, to advance ocean protection and health. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to respond and answer questions 

that you and your colleagues may have. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Ms. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles. 

Ms. Bodine. 

Ms. BODINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I am Susan Parker Bodine, the Assistant Administrator 

for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. It is always 

a pleasure to be back in this committee room, thank you. 

I am here today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget 

request for Superfund, Brownfields and other programs in my office 

that fall in the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. The President’s 

fiscal year 2008 budget request provides the necessary funds for 

EPA to carry out our mission efficiently and effectively, to protect 

human health and safeguard the environment. The budget request 

continues to emphasize funding for homeland security, and my office’s piece of that is preparedness, response and recovery. That is 

$45.2 million. 

We maintain funding for the Brownfields program at $162.2 million and continue needed funding for the Superfund program at 

$1.245 billion to continue our success in cleaning up hazardous 

waste sites. 

Now, I know that in today’s tight budget climate, EPA faces 

many challenges. In our program, particularly in the Superfund 

program, we are preparing to address large, complex sites. For example, the sites that have not yet had all their remedies conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Aug 07, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\34780 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
39

structed are averaging 4.3 cleanup projects 4.3 operable units per 

site. The ones where we have been successful in already completing 

construction, those averaged 1.8 separate cleanup projects per site. 

But I want to assure you that we are taking on this challenge 

and managing it. For example, through aggressive management of 

our contracts, we have been able to de-obligate more than $665 

million since 2001. That is money that was sitting in contracts, had 

been obligated to contracts and the sites were completed, and we 

had excess money left over when the project was done. We were 

able to de-obligate that money and then use it, and put it to good 

use cleaning up other sites. 

In addition, since 2001, through our aggressive enforcement ef- forts, we have been able to put more than $1 billion into special 

accounts. This is PRP money that we collect from the responsible 

parties, put into special accounts and then we can draw down on 

that funding again to clean up sites. As of the end of fiscal year 

2006, remedy construction had been completed at over 1,000 sites, 

at 1,006 sites. 

Now, while construction completion is one way to measure success in the Superfund program, it is an interim measure. It says 

remedy construction is done. But it isn’t a measure of long-term 

protection. And so in 2007, we have established a new measure, 

which is post-construction completion, to make sure that the sites 

are ready for their anticipated uses. That means that the cleanup 

levels on the site have been met, that are consistent with the future anticipated use, and most importantly, that all the institutional controls are in place so that if the site use is restricted, then 

that will continue to be restricted on into the future, ensuring longterm protection. We anticipate in 2007 and also in 2008 to make 

30 sites ready for their anticipated uses. 

As the Subcommittee is aware, we have adjusted our goal for fiscal year 2007 for the number of sites where all remedies are constructed. It had been 40, we have adjusted that to 24. And the 2008 

goal is 30 sites. However, we have not adjusted the goal that was 

in our strategic plan that was published in September. That strategic plan was a 2006 to 2011 strategic plan. The strategic plan 

was to complete $205 sites over that six year period. After analyzing the sites, we expect to continue to meet that goal. 

In doing this analysis, we have looked at the stage that the sites 

are at in remedy construction. These are long-term construction 

projects, and we are looking at where they are in that phase. That 

is the basis for establishing these numbers. As we look at it, we 

are seeing a dip in 2007, and then we are going to see it go up 

again, based on where they are in construction. So whoever is sitting in this chair in 2009 is going to be able to tell the Committee, 

construction completions are going back up. But that is because of 

where they are right now. That is because they are long-term 

projects. 

The budget request continues to support, of course, our emergency removal program that addresses spills and other incidents 

that have immediate risks at sites. We address immediate risks immediately with emergency removals and time critical removals. In 

our homeland security budget we are requesting an additional $6 

million to help us set up laboratory networks that will allow us to 

40

address chemical warfare agents. That is new for us. We are very 

good at analyzing chemicals, ordinary chemicals. Chemical warfare 

agents is a capability we don’t have yet and we are working on developing. We have $6 million in our request to help us develop that 

capability. 

As I mentioned, while maintaining our budget levels for 

brownfields, we have made adjustments within that. Our headquarters EPM account, environmental program management account, we have been able to do some belt tightening of our own 

money and reduce that. Within the STAG account, the State and 

Tribal Assistance Grants account, that account is steady. But 

again, within that account, we have been able to shift how we are 

spending the money, so that we are going to be able to give more 

grants to State and local governments for site assessment and 

cleanup and revolving funds. 

Mr. BAIRD. I am going to ask you if you can bring it to a close. 

Ms. BODINE. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. 

Mr. Kilgore. 

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 

thank you for letting us come. I am honored to appear today before 

your Committee to discuss TVA’s programs and priorities for the 

future. And I am also appreciative of Congressman Duncan’s earlier remarks. He represents the district that houses TVA’s headquarters. 

This is my first appearance before you under the new governance 

structure established by Congress last year that has brought an expanded board and a fresh approach to TVA. With their fresh and 

strong business backgrounds, Chairman Bill Sampson and his fellow board members are using their wealth of experience to guide 

TVA’s wide ranging business responsibilities. 

TVA’s responsibilities boil down to just three things: energy, the 

environment and economic development. These are the core of 

TVA’s mission for improving the quality of life in the Tennessee 

Valley region. They were in 1933 and they still are today. Two 

thousand six was a recording setting year in the TVA energy business. With respect to energy, the TVA power system met eight new 

monthly records for peak demand in 2006, including the largest 

peak demand in our history. Our reliability was 99.999 percent for 

the seventh year in a row. 

With respect to the environment, despite low rainfall in much of 

2006, TVA’s integrated management of the Tennessee River system 

continues to provide multiple public benefits. TVA also continued 

its $5.8 billion clean air program that has reduced sulfur oxide 

emissions by 80 percent since 1977 and reduced nitrous oxides 

emission during the ozone season by 81 percent since 1995. The air 

in the Tennessee Valley region is cleaner now than it has been in 

many years. Later this spring, TVA’s Browns Ferry Unit 1 in north 

Alabama will become the first U.S. nuclear unit to be brought online in the 21st century. Its safe, clean, zero-emission power will 

be a vital contributor to TVA’s clean air strategy. 

With respect to economic development, TVA invested about $40 

million to support the expansion of businesses and industries in the 

41

Valley in 2006. These investments have to track or keep some 

53,000 jobs in the region and leveraged capital investment from 

other sources. It is not surprising that TVA was ranked number 

one among Utilities and Business Facilities magazine’s report card 

on economic development in 2006. 

As you know, TVA is financially self-supporting and no longer receives any Federal appropriations. TVA pays its own way using 

power revenues to buy fuel, pay our wages, service our debt, maintain our assets and fund our river stewardship program. Despite a 

challenging year for TVA operationally due to the low rainfall and 

a hot summer, TVA met its debt reduction target in 2006, reducing 

its existing total financing obligations by $341 million. This year, 

we expect to pay $529 million in our TFO reductions. Total financing obligations, or TFOs, as we refer to them, include existing statutory debt and alternative financing mechanisms, such as lease 

leasebacks and prepayment agreements. In the past decade, TVA 

has reduced total financing obligations by nearly $2.5 billion and 

reduced the amount of each revenue dollar used to pay interest and 

other financing expenses from 34 cents of every dollar to 14 cents 

of every dollar. That is a record we are proud of. 

Anticipating further growth in energy demand, TVA is exploring 

the cleanest, most cost-effective energy options for the future. 

These options will be addressed in the new strategic plan that is 

being developed at the TVA board’s request. As we look forward to 

the future, TVA is committed to improving its financial health, 

maintaining fiscal responsibility and staying true to the mission for 

improving the quality of life for the people we serve. We look forward to continuing our close partnership with this Committee, the 

entire Congress and the Administration and with all our stakeholders, to ensure that we accomplish these goals. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear, and I look forward to 

answering any questions. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Kilgore. 

Mr. Lancaster. 

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

thank you for the opportunity to appear here before you to discuss 

the water resource program activities of the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. I have submitted my full testimony for the 

record, and in the interest of the Committee’s time, I will summarize our budget request for fiscal year 2008 for the watershed and 

flood prevention operations, watershed surveys and planning, 

emergency watershed program and watershed rehabilitation. 

Our water resource programs offer communities and landowners 

site-specific technical expertise and financial assistance for watershed project planning and implementation. The programs are designed to help solve local natural resource problems, including flood 

damage mitigation, water quality and quantity, soil erosion control 

and fish and wildlife habitat improvement. The water resources 

programs have given NRCS the authority to complete work on 

2,000 watershed projects nationwide. 

The watershed and flood preventions program authorizes NRCS 

to work cooperatively with States and their political subdivisions to 

plan and install watershed improvement measures that foster conservation and utilization of the land and authorized watersheds. 

42

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2008 eliminates funding for 

this heavily earmarked program, in order to redirect them to higher priority programs that reflect national interests. 

While the NRCS water resource programs have been successful 

over the past 50 years, we believe that sponsoring organizations, 

along with State and local governments, will assume a more active 

leadership role in identifying solutions to local water resource concerns. 

Our watershed surveys and planning program. Under this effort, 

NRCS assesses natural resource concerns and develops coordinated 

watershed plans that conserve natural resources. This includes 

flood plain management studies, cooperative river basin studies, 

flood insurance studies, watershed inventory and analysis, as well 

as Public Law 83–566 watershed plans. 

With the elimination of the watershed and flood prevention operations program, funding is not necessary for the planning component. Therefore, the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget eliminates 

funds for this program and redirects them to higher priorities. 

The third program is the emergency watershed protection program which authorizes emergency measures to decrease runoff and 

soil erosion, to safeguard lives and property from natural disasters. 

This includes the purchasing of flood plain easements. 

Typically work under this program ranges from removing debris 

from clogged streams caused by flooding, receding native grasses to 

prevent soil erosion on hillsides after a fire, or replanting and reshaping stream banks after a natural disaster. In response to requests from communities across the Gulf Coast region recovering 

from the 2004 and 2005 hurricane season, NRCS committed $350.9 

million and obligated nearly $200 million in recovery work. Since 

funding for this program is provided through supplemental appropriations, the budget does not contain a specified request for AWP. 

Our watershed rehabilitation program. In November 2000, the 

Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 authorized the 

NRCS to assist communities to address public health and safety 

concerns and environmental impacts of aging dams. Since the enactment of the amendments and the subsequent amendments in 

the 2002 Farm Bill, NRCS has developed rehabilitation plans for 

113 dams. The President’s fiscal year 2008 budget requests $5.8 

million for watershed rehabilitation activities involving aging 

dams. We will use that funding to focus on critical dams where failure could pose a high risk for loss of life and property. This reflects 

the Administration’s position that maintenance, repair and operations of these dams continues to be carried out locally. 

For the past 50 years, the Department of Agriculture has invested in local communities by providing funding and technical assistance through water resources programs. The benefits from 

these programs primarily accrue to local communities and we recommend that they continue to take on increasing responsibility of 

funding such projects. 

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

questions. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank you, Mr. Lancaster, and thank all the witnesses for their patience and promptness. 

43

The Ranking Member and I have agreed to invite Mr. Shuler to 

ask questions first, followed by Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

panel for taking time out of their day to present in front of the 

Committee. We certainly appreciate that, under the weather circumstances. I also want to congratulate Mr. Kilgore for his position 

and certainly the fiscal responsibility that the TVA is undertaking 

with some of their target debt reduction. I think it is $3.4 billion 

by year 2012. I want to commend you for that. 

First, how do we meet those targets in debt reduction? Secondly, 

in meeting those debt reductions how will you ensure that we still 

have the promise to keep air quality control and to increase air 

quality control in western North Carolina, East Tennessee and especially the Great Smoky Mountain National Park? 

Mr. KILGORE. Well, obviously what we have to do is from our free 

cash flow, which is basically produced from depreciation in our net 

income, is fund our capital expenditures and our debt reduction. 

Those are the two things it goes to. So we feel like we are on a 

good program to continue debt reduction at the rate we are at, and 

are looking forward to the capital expenditures which include additional clean air. We have spent about $4.5 billion so far, we have 

another $1.2 billion to go in the existing program. 

We announced today back in Tennessee that we will be adding 

the next scrubber. That doesn’t mean it is the last one, it just 

means it is the next one, we have seven in operation, we are constructing eight, nine and ten. And we announced today the eleventh one. So we are progressing right up the line. 

We recognize that we have a lot of work to look at there, and we 

will continue and give you our commitment that we will continue 

to clean up there. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you. Also alternative energy sources, sustainable renewable sources, excluding nuclear—how are you relating to and marketing to the public to incentivize them to lessen 

their dependence upon the grid. 

Mr. KILGORE. I think there are three things. Number one, we 

have some wind power, the first wind power farm in the southeast, 

in northeast Tennessee. That provides us some green energy. We 

also use sewer gas in the city of Memphis, for instance. We actually 

burn the gas that comes off of the processing of the sewage there 

in our Allen plant. Then as we go forward, we have to work even 

harder to get everybody to conserve and use energy at different 

times than on the peak. So those threefold things, conservation and 

then using the renewable energy sources are what we have to do. 

Then I will just say finally, we are upgrading our hydro system. 

We have actually increased the output of our hydro, which also is 

non-polluting, of all kinds. So we have upgraded that by about 10 

percent trough to the last few years. We have a little bit left to go 

on that. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to have you all here, we really do appreciate your hard 

work. We will have to visit with you, Ms. Bodine, in the sense of 

in your previous capacity last year, slipping us tough questions to 

44

ask as opposed to sitting over there taking tough questions. So 

hopefully it won’t be too tough. But we really do appreciate all that 

you all do. 

One of the things that is really important to me is that, my rural 

communities in my district and I think across the Country are really concerned about the funding for the rural water and wastewater 

technical assistance. I think there is some concern that in the continuing resolution that that funding won’t be available. Could you 

comment about that? I think that is something that is vitally important in helping those communities to address these problems before they go on and get out of hand. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, I would be delighted to address 

that question. The challenge is to meet the Nation’s water and 

wastewater infrastructure needs and also to advance watershed 

protection, and to do so in rural America as well as in urban and 

suburban America. You are asking a question about the funding for 

some drinking water programs and watershed protection efforts. 

The Agency works very closely with the National Rural Water Association and its State chapters. There is also the policy of the Administration not to carry forward earmarks, Congressional adds 

such as that. So that question about how the funding will occur for 

fiscal year 2007 is still undecided, it is not answered yet. 

I can also tell you, though, that the Agency is committed to working with that organization and with other organizations across the 

Country to provide funding to drinking water, to the drinking 

water SRF, through other programs that we have, to make sure 

that money and technical assistance get to the circuit riders and 

the rural water experts. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. And again, the funding for 

particular projects is one thing. The other thing, like I said, the 

technical assistance is so important to the rural water associations. 

I hope you will really look at it. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. That has been something that really has proved 

to be very, very valuable. We take for granted that America has 

water and yet there are so many areas in this part of the Country, 

so many areas in Arkansas, where because of wells going back and 

this and that, throughout the United States, as you know, we have 

many, many areas that are hauling water and things like that. 

So again, if you would look at that, we would be very grateful. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. We would be happy to. The grassroots efforts, 

the work of the rural water associations complements very much 

the overall national efforts and programs of the Agency. So we 

want to work with them and continue to work with Congress and 

discuss funding for these organizations. Because it is not just about 

drinking water and watershed protection. They also play a helpful 

role in advancing water security for small systems. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you very much. And again, thank 

you for your hard work. You have always been very, very helpful 

as we have had questions. It is very much appreciated. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. Grumbles, I will ask you a few questions, then after I am 

done, Mr. Boustany, followed by Mrs. Napolitano. 

45

Mr. Grumbles, I am pleased to see funding provided for the 

Chesapeake Bay and for the Great Lakes. I represent the Puget 

Sound area as well as the Columbia River. Can you talk to us a 

little bit about EPA’s role in the Puget Sound area and anticipated 

efforts there? As you know, there has been a major statewide initiative to try to improve the health of the Puget Sound and habitat 

for salmon, et cetera. I would welcome your comments on that. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted 

to. In the President’s budget request for EPA, there is funding specifically for advancing the Puget Sound Partnership. The Agency 

values the role it can play and has played over the years through 

the National Estuary Program. 

But also, we are very existed about working with the partnership 

to advance their efforts. I was just on the phone this morning talking with Interior officials, working with them to coordinate efforts. 

We think that the key with any successful regional collaboration is 

to ensure that it is on everyone’s agenda, that partnerships are developed and that people recognize, it is everyone’s responsibility. 

The Federal agencies are very interested in that. EPA in particular, in addition to some technical and funding assistance, we 

believe that more action will occur to address septic tanks and 

stormwater and habitat protection for salmon, some of the key 

issues that have been identified. We are very optimistic and excited 

about making progress in the Puget Sound. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Ms. Bodine, at some point perhaps this Committee may get back 

to you on some of these issues about the numbers of sites that have 

been cleaned up there, some technical questions. We want to ask 

and understand what exactly that means, but I appreciate your 

testimony. I think the questions I would ask you are more detailed 

than we could cover in five minutes. So I will just give you a headsup, we will invite you back. 

Mr. Lancaster, I am troubled by what seems to be a virtual abandonment of the mission of NRCS. The reason is, back home, I have 

talked to people who are very respectful of the work that has been 

done by your agency, and it seems that in a number of ways, you 

are cutting back or eliminating entirely programs. When you say 

you shift the costs, you expect the local communities to bear the 

burden. Any sense of what the net cost increase will be to our local 

communities? How much of the cost in dollars are we shifting to 

our local communities? Where do you suppose they will get that 

money? 

Mr. LANCASTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under our programs, 

the local sponsors actually incur all the costs for operating and 

maintaining those facilities after they are constructed. And in 

terms of the construction of the programs, many of those practices, 

when we look at a watershed, structures are a part of it. But land 

treatment is a key part of addressing those watershed needs. Those 

are programs that address I think in other programs within NRCS, 

through our cost share programs as well as through our technical 

assistance. I can’t give you a specific number on what the cost is 

on constructing additional facilities. 

But again, we are talking about a program here that is 100 percent earmarking, and in terms of trying to address national priorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Aug 07, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\34780 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
46

ities, there is not all that flexibility there so we can make sure 

those funds are focused on those national priorities. Again, we continue to work with landowners in the State of Washington, we have 

tremendous support and participation on our Farm Bill programs. 

Each of those practices do address land treatment as well as, in 

many cases, smaller structures. 

Mr. BAIRD. Within that, though, what will be the impact of the 

President’s proposed budget on the programs you just described? 

Mr. LANCASTER. The watershed fund prevention operations is the 

program that we would provide some assistance in constructing the 

facilities. Under the watershed program, watershed survey and 

planning program, we go out there and we make determinations on 

what needs to be done. We are currently doing that under our 

rapid watershed assessment, so we can better target our other programs. So that work is occurring. 

Without the watershed flood prevention operations program, 

there is no need for that additional survey program. So I think 

really we are talking about watershed flood and preventions operations program. And again, Mr. Chairman, I believe that few of our 

other programs can more effectively address land treatment and 

other needs in those communities. We are always available to provide technical assistance to landowners or sponsors as they are 

looking to address the water quality, water quantity, flood mitigation efforts. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that. I want to just for the record say 

that it occasionally happens that an Administration will just zero 

out programs and say that well, we just expect the local folks to 

take up a greater burden in this, which is really shifting the tax 

burden to the local communities. 

Before I conclude, again, Mr. Grumbles, I appreciate EPA’s efforts on the Puget Sound and I want to continue to work with you 

on that. The partnership is very exciting in a critical and beautiful 

part of this Country. 

Mr. Boustany? 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me follow up on Mr. Baird’s question, Mr. Lancaster. What 

is the current backlog of authorized small watershed projects? 

Mr. LANCASTER. Based on the work we do with the watershed 

survey and planning, I think there is $1.4 billion in a backlog for 

structural practices. Many of those, again, you can address through 

land treatments or other practices. And many of those, I think, 

there is still determination on whether or not those are high priority projects. With limited funding within our discretionary budget, we are going to target it towards technical assistance for our 

programs, as well as our Farm Bill implementation, where we are 

directly helping landowners reach their resource concerns and address those concerns. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Mr. Grumbles, EPA’s gap analysis assumes that municipalities 

will borrow at lower than market rates, is that correct? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That is correct. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So can you give an indication if they have to borrow at market rates, what effect that is going to have on the overall figure? 

47

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think that the key to answering that question 

and to putting together all the different pieces in the puzzle to narrowing the gap, which is what we are also committed to, is doing 

a couple of things. One is working with utilities and communities 

to provide tools to help them set their own rates, but rates that reflect the full value of the service that is provided. 

So we think that that will help in terms of setting rates to help 

provide the capital and the long-term O&M funding for narrowing 

the gap, which we estimate at, if you assume that the rates will 

increase, or revenues will increase, not only at normal inflation 

rates, but 3 percent increase, we believe the gap is about $45 billion over the next 20 years. Actually, that is the Drinking Water 

SRF. The Clean Water gap is about $21 billion over the next 20 

years. 

We think the key is both working with communities to set rates 

to have asset management plans, to set rates that reflect the full 

value of the service provided, and also to bring innovative tools, 

new tools to the table, such as these water enterprise bonds, so 

that there will be public-private partnerships if the community 

wants to go that route. But we think that is the key to sustainability and to help narrow that water infrastructure gap. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thanks. I appreciate your answer. I am also 

pleased, in your testimony, about your comments on private activity bonds, lifting the cap. I think we are going to have to look at 

ways, as we go into the future, ways to look at alternative financing mechanisms. I know in our recent markup, we have some provisions for the GAO to study that and give a report back to the 

Committee. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Ms. Bodine, what are the sources of funding for the Superfund 

program beyond annual appropriations? 

Ms. BODINE. We also have funding from PRP funding that is put 

into special accounts. We reach settlements with responsible parties, collect their money and put it in a special account, and we can 

draw down from that. At sites that are fund-lead, we have State 

cost share. There is a 10 percent State cost share. That is money 

that we can use. And as I mentioned in my testimony, we also are 

using de-obligations where, in the past we have put too much 

money into contracts, the project is done, there is money just sitting there idle, left over, and we have been able to use that money 

as well. We have a variety of sources. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. It is my understanding that even though the appropriation level has gone down somewhat annually for the program, that the overall figures remain fairly constant? 

Ms. BODINE. It is relatively steady. I think I supplied staff with 

data on that. But yes, it has maintained relatively stead. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. That is all I have. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Just to the EPA, I have worked for years with one of the best 

representatives you have on the West Coast, your regional director, 

Wayne Nastry. My compliments to you for having him there. 

Some of the issues that I have are concerning the brownfields, 

because we have beaucoup in California, as you well know. Why 

are you asking for less funds? I am sure we don’t have less. There 

48

are going to be more, because you haven’t even scratched the surface in some of the areas, and I can tell you, sitting on the Water 

Subcommittee, they will be there. Could you answer that, either 

one of you? 

Ms. BODINE. The Brownfields program has steady funding. It 

does not have less funding. We have actually been able to increase, 

within that account, the amount of money that we are providing to 

local governments and to States for the cleanup grants, for the assessment grants. We have been able to do that by shifting some 

funding away from some headquarters contracts and away from 

some of our interagency agreements, so we could actually increase———

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am sorry. That is double talk. 

What I am asking is, there is $110.7 million, or 55 percent less 

than the authorized amount, the lowest Presidential request for 

brownfield cleanup funding since the program was created in 2002. 

Ms. BODINE. The request is consistent with the amount of Congressional funding that has been made available. The authorization 

was in 2002. For the first several years of the program, we had 

asked for $110 million out of the STAG account to help pay for 

these grants, and consistently got $89 million, $90 million. After 

going out, making a request at the high levels and being rejected, 

we several years ago lowered our request to be consistent with 

what Congress was willing to provide. Since then, the requests 

have all been steady and the funding has been steady. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I won’t go into my personal experiences, but 

I ask for more to get what I need. 

The projected public health implications of the year’s decrease in 

the SRF funding, what documentation or analysis have you or the 

Office of Water done to determine the public health effects? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, we think that one of the greatest success stories under the Clean Water Act is the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund. That is why we are committed to continuing 

to provide through 2011 a total of $6.8 billion between, this President committed between 2004 and 2011 to provide $6.8 billion, plus 

bringing innovative tools and a focus on sustainability to the table, 

so that this Clean Water SRF will have a revolving rate of $3.4 billion a year, well into the future. We think investing in clean water 

infrastructure at all levels of government, and pursuing full value 

pricing, so that the ratepayers are providing the funds to reflect 

the true value of the services that the infrastructure systems provide, will provide enormous environmental and public health benefits. That is why we are committed to continuing to invest in the 

Clean Water SRFs and to build greater sustainability. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK, you can play with the figures all you 

want, but it is still less than what we require. Or at least, studies 

have not been shown why this is such a major budgetary decision. 

I will go into the next one, because my time is running low. The 

question into the U.S. Mexico border program, I am very concerned, because I work on the Colorado River issue as well as the 

Rio Grande issue in my committee. And I am concerned, you have 

a $300 million funding for border water infrastructure and remaining unspent. Is this typical EPA funding? There is hundreds of millions of dollars remaining untouched while untreated sewage and 

49

wastewater, industrial wastewater, comes from Mexico into the 

U.S. What are you doing about it and why are we not using that 

money to be able to address that? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, we are committed to continuing 

to deliver environmental results while meeting a balanced budget. 

When it comes to the many needs along the Mexican border, 

whether it is wastewater needs or drinking water needs, we are focused on several items. One, through the border environment infrastructure fund, that is a key program. Now, with respect to that 

program, what we are focused on in the President’s 2008 budget is 

on accelerating the delivery of projects that are already in the pipeline. 

With respect to some of the coastal issues, we think that the key 

is not only infrastructure investment, but to increase the science of 

coastal water quality monitoring, to provide additional funding———

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are not answering my question, sir. I am 

concerned about the border and the effect it has on the people on 

the United States side that have to put up with this. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I would say that it is also a priority for the U.S. 

EPA to work with our partners on both sides of the border. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I would like later, I will submit 

some questions and I would like to talk to you later. Thank you. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. I am sure we all feel that your 

work is among the most important that Government does, and indeed, is part of national security, water security, that being. And 

I wanted to start by asking Mr. Grumbles about the State Revolving Loan Fund. This week I was proud to join my colleagues on the 

Committee to report out reauthorization of the Clean Water State 

Revolving Loan Fund. The need is clear, in New York alone EPA 

identified $20 billion in need. And I am stunned that with such a 

clearly defined need, EPA has once again shorted the funding for 

clean water. The reduction in the proposed budget from the CR 

passed by the House is almost $400 million, a $44 million cut for 

New York. 

This budget says to our States and our communities that they either have to go into their own pockets, which they most likely can’t 

do, or be forced to tolerate unclean water. What is the justification 

for this? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, the justification is that we are 

committed to delivering environmental results, while meeting a 

balanced budget, and that the President’s plan for the Clean Water 

SRF is to provide over that period of time, between 2004 and 

20011, a continued commitment. I certainly recognize that there 

are other constituencies or other groups, there are members of this 

Committee who are urging a greater level of funding from the Federal Government for the State Revolving Funds. Our approach is 

that this is a key opportunity, a time to advance a new wave of innovative financing and infrastructure assistance, to continue to 

provide funding for the SRF, but to increase the leveraging potential of that State Revolving Fund mechanism, to get Congress to 

pass a water enterprise bond, which will bring in, we hope, billions 

50

of dollars in additional funding, private activity for public service 

bonds. 

But we are not content with the status quo. We are focused on 

developing new tools and working with our State and local and private sector partners to narrow that gap. But it is certainly not 

going to be narrowed solely based on the revolving loan funds and 

the Federal grants for purposes of those funds. We appreciate the 

work of Congress to reduce the number of earmarks. I can tell you 

as a national water program manager that there are over 800 backlogged, earmarked projects that haven’t gone through the system 

yet. We go through the NEPA analysis and other review. It is another example of, we think, working with Congress. The key to 

truly narrowing that gap for infrastructure is a combination of the 

State revolving funds, their long-term sustainability, increased 

leveraging and also new tools, bringing in the private sector for 

public works projects. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I always get a little bit nervous when I 

hear about yet another area of Government responsibility that we 

thought was sort of essentially important public protection being 

farmed out to private investment. But I will move on to the Superfund sites, like the Hopewell Precision contamination area in my 

district, which has TCE leaked into the local water supplies. What 

impact will the reductions have on the National Priority Sites like 

Hopewell Precision? This is to Ms. Bodine. EPA has been dragging 

its feet on updating its human health standard for TCE. Does this 

budget include funding to update that standard and to undertake 

the remediation necessary to meet a new standard? And if not, 

why? 

Mr. BODINE. First of all, certainly we are very actively working 

on the Hopewell Precision site in your district, in addressing the 

vapor intrusion issues that you are talking about. With respect to 

the TCE standard, the Office of Research and Development is 

working on that issue. But while they are working on that, that 

doesn’t stop the Superfund program from proceeding with cleanups. 

Even though we don’t have a specific number for the vapor pathway, if the contamination is in water, we do have an MCL. But we 

don’t have one for the inhalation pathway. 

But because we use conservative screening levels in making a decision about whether or not we need to remediate a home, we are 

able to proceed. Because of the technology, then, if the conservative 

screening level is met, then the technology that we would employ 

to solve the problem already takes down the TCE levels to a very 

low level. So the fact that we don’t have a health-based action level 

isn’t stopping us from proceeding with cleanup at all. And the technology we use, again, achieves a very low level. We are proceeding 

with these sites all over the country, as well as in New York. 

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

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

Just a couple of final comments or questions. Mr. Grumbles, 

these water enterprise bonds, this Committee just passed last 

week, I think it was, or the week before, as you know, you testified 

regarding the State Revolving Loan Fund. One of the contentious 

issues which was resolved through the democratic process was 

Davis-Bacon applicability in SRF funds. What would be your opinVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Aug 07, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\34780 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
51

ion about whether Davis-Bacon and other Federal rules apply 

through water enterprise bonds, if those are private capital versus 

public capital? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, I need to get back to you on that. 

The issue of Davis-Bacon applicability to private activity bonds for 

us, the reason we are so enthused about removing that State volume cap is we think it will provide communities options and 

choices to come up with ways to fund public works projects. I don’t 

think it speaks directly to Davis-Bacon, but we certainly understand the importance of the question and commit to get back to you 

on that. 

Mr. BAIRD. I hope our Committee will get back to you on that 

as well, possibly statutorily if necessary. I appreciate that. 

I just want to put a marker down. You have articulated and others have on the panel today that the shortfall in infrastructure 

funding, whether it is water, today it is water, yesterday I think 

or the day before we had a hearing on highway shortfalls. We know 

aviation has a shortfall. We know rail does. Engineering societies 

suggest we have a $1.6 trillion infrastructure deficit, $1.6 trillion 

dollars. That is significant. And it is in addition to our $8.7 trillion 

fiscal debt. 

One of the things I think we might consider would be where we 

can find some money to fill that gap. We also separately, many of 

us believe we ought to set Social Security trust funds in a lockbox. 

As you know, they are currently borrowed by the general fund, 

which theoretically pays revenue back, but it is all a paper transaction, and basically an IOI, not even an IOU. 

I think there is merit to exploring the possibility of investing our 

Social Security trust fund surplus in an infrastructure development 

bank. Currently, as you know, many of the private-public partnerships are being funded by Macquarie, which is largely funded by 

Australian based retirement funds. 

I find it rather ironic that Australian retirees are going to build 

U.S. infrastructure and then U.S. citizens are going to pay the Australian retirees back over time for the privilege of having used 

their money, when we have, in the next five years, $1.2 trillion of 

Social Security trust funds that are going to be borrowed by our 

own general fund, with zero real dollar revenue coming back. I 

would much rather us look at investing our trust fund surpluses 

today toward infrastructure development to create jobs to sustain 

our economy and then when the time comes, to draw down on those 

funds to pay back the Social Security retirees. We have it available 

through this bond structure, this infrastructure bank. 

So I just put that out there. I don’t know if the Administration 

is interested, and there are doubtless pros and cons that smarter 

people than I would know. But it is sort of common sense to me. 

I would rather that our retirees are getting paid back than others. 

So I want to thank all our panelists today and those who joined 

us today and the members as well for their participation. Again, 

some members of the Subcommittee may have follow-up questions 

for the record. We would expect a timely response to any questions 

forwarded to you. 

Thank you all for being here. That will conclude this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

52


34780.008
53


34780.009
54


34780.010
55


34780.011
56


34780.012
57


34780.013
58


34780.014
59


34780.015
60


34780.016
61


34780.017
62


34780.018
63


34780.019
64


34780.020
65


34780.021
66


34780.022
67


34780.023
68


34780.024
69


34780.025
70


34780.026
71


34780.027
72


34780.028
73


34780.029
74


34780.030
75


34780.031
76


34780.032
77


34780.033
78


34780.034
79


34780.035
80


34780.036
81


34780.037
82


34780.038
83


34780.039
84


34780.040
85


34780.041
86


34780.042
87


34780.043
88


34780.044
89


34780.045
90


34780.046
91


34780.047
92


34780.048
93


34780.049
94


34780.050
95


34780.051
96


34780.052
97


34780.053
98


34780.054
99


34780.055
100


34780.056
101


34780.057
102


34780.058
103


34780.059
104


34780.060
105


34780.061
106


34780.062
107


34780.063
108


34780.064
109


34780.065
110


34780.066
111


34780.067
112


34780.068
113


34780.069
114


34780.070
115


34780.071
116


34780.072
117


34780.073
118


34780.074
119


34780.075
120


34780.076
121


34780.077
122


34780.078
123

Æ


34780.079