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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–524 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 110–1242 

EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED FISCAL 

YEAR 2009 BUDGET FOR THE CIVIL WORKS 

PROGRAMS OF THE U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

AND THE IMPLEMENTATION THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT (WRDA) OF 2007 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 11, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 11, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia .......................... 2 

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................... 4 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 5 

Alaxander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 6 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 7 

Bond, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ..................... 8 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 9 

Voinovich, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ............................. 10 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 76 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 87 

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph, U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 88 

Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 89 

WITNESSES 

Woodley, Hon. John Paul Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army .......................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Response to an additional question from Senator Bond ............................... 26 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 26 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 32 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 33 

Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert Van, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Response to an additional question from Senator Warner ........................... 43 

Responses to additional questions from Senator: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 43 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 43 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 66 

Senator Lieberman .................................................................................... 69 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET FOR THE CIVIL 

WORKS PROGRAMS OF THE U.S. CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION 

THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 

ACT (WRDA) OF 2007 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Cardin, Klobuchar, Voinovich, Isakson, 

Vitter, Craig, Alexander, Bond, Barrasso 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U. S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. We will call this hearing to order. 

I am going to put my full statement into the record and we will 

give everybody 3 minutes for an opening statement. 

Today the Committee meets to conduct oversight of the Corps’ 

implementation of WRDA 2007. We will also review the 2009 budget of the Civil Works program and we are examining these issues 

together because it is the annual budget request that truly demonstrates the priorities of the Administration. And of course, in this 

case, the priorities of this Committee, which in most part has been 

very bipartisan when it has come to issues such as WRDA. 

For me, I ask the question, are we committed to protecting lives, 

to enhancing the environment? Are we committed to growing the 

economy? As I look at this budget, it falls short, for me. 

Last year, I was pleased to join with Senator Inhofe, the Ranking 

Member of the Committee, and all the members of this Committee, 

to lead the floor fight to overturn the veto of WRDA 2007. By a 

vote of 79 to 14, the Senate overwhelmingly told the President that 

there was more than one branch of Government in the Nation and 

that shoring up America’s water infrastructure was long overdue 

and must be a priority. 

Secretary Woodley and Chief Van Antwerp, welcome to both of 

you, and thank you for appearing before the Committee today. I 

work closely with both of you and I have great respect for both of 

2 

you. Your job is a tough one and very important one for the Nation. 

Your agency provides communities with flood protection. You restore ecosystems, such as the once vast wetlands of America. You 

do help grow the economy through more efficient navigation. 

My home State of California has some of the Nation’s most critical needs. Indeed, my State’s capital, Sacramento, as you all well 

know, is four times as likely to see catastrophic flooding as New 

Orleans was in 2005. I am very pleased to see that the Sacramento 

area flood control was not ignored in this budget. I also appreciate 

that the budget includes more than $5 billion to complete the repair of levees in New Orleans. These emergency funds are an important step to rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, but 

they certainly can’t be the last step. 

I will never forget the visit we made to New Orleans, many of 

us here on this Committee. I just think we must shore up our Nation’s water and flood control infrastructure before catastrophe 

strikes, not after. And the President’s budget request for civil 

works program is $4.741 billion, this is a decrease, a decrease of 

$851 million from the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level of $5.592 billion. So it is shocking to me the proposed 2009 budget includes a 

36 percent cut in construction for flood control projects authorized 

by Congress. I just don’t see how we could go this way. 

So I will put the rest of my statement into the record, because 

I have so many questions, I want to leave time for my other colleagues and their questions as well. I will call on Senator Isakson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. General Van 

Antwerp, welcome today, Secretary Woodley, glad to have you. 

Two points I would like to make. No. 1, I was very disappointed 

that the Savannah River project money was not included in the 

2009 budget. I had significant conversations both with Mr. Nussle 

at the White House as well as the Corps, and had hoped that 

would make it. 

As you know, the 1999 WRDA Act authorized the deepening of 

the Savannah Channel, subject to environmental studies, from 42 

to 48 feet. As you probably also are aware, the Port of Savannah 

is now the second largest port on the eastern seaboard of the 

United States in terms of tonnage. The State of Georgia had 

pledged $50 million a year to match the $78 million that we had 

asked for from the Feds. 

Timing is of the essence in this. The Panama Canal expansion 

and the new PanaMex ships will be coming through, I believe in 

2014 is the date I remember. It is going to be essential to maintain 

our competition with those types of ships coming through, that the 

Port of Savannah be able to have that channel widening and deepening. So I would appreciate hearing from you in your remarks 

about that particular subject. 

Equally important to our State, obviously, has been what is 

termed by many the water wars between Georgia, Tennessee and 

Alabama. But in fact, it is not really a war as much as it is a complex problem that must be dealt with. I am very appreciative that 

Secretary General of the Corps made the announcement that they 

3 

would begin the work on the water control manuals for the ACF 

and the ACT. We are operating one of the largest metropolitan 

areas in the United States of America and the waterway that 

serves it based on water control manuals that are over 20 years 

old. It is impossible to be able to do that, so I am very happy to 

hear that both the ACF and the ATC manuals are in place. I am 

hoping you will be able to confirm for me that the funding in this 

budget is sufficient for you to carry out the completion of those two 

projects. 

I know that Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne is very supportive. As you know, he recently wrote to the Governors of Georgia, Florida and Alabama that he is going to take over implementing the operation of that watershed, since the Governors were 

unable to reach a final agreement. In the end, I hope the Governors 

will, but I commend Secretary Kempthorne for what he is doing. 

I commend the Corps for its commitment of the water control 

manuals, and I hope this hearing will get us a confirmation that 

the money is in fact included to ensure that will go forward without abatement and we will be able to complete it hopefully within 

the next 2 years. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Isakson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Thank you Madam Chairman. These types of hearings are a good opportunity for 

us to learn about the Army Corps’ priorities, and about what we can do as partners 

with the Corps to ensure it meets its goals in a fiscally responsible manner. We require the Corps to do a number of things in the best interests of our Nation, and 

I have a number of issues I am eager to hear from the Corps on. I am interested 

in hearing whether they believe their fiscal year budget request, a decrease from 

fiscal year levels, provides adequate funding for civil works projects. To be candid, 

I do not believe it does. I am also interested in hearing in what the Corps is doing 

to reduce its backlog of projects, as well as to improve its business practices. 

On the local level, I am very disappointed that the Corps failed to realize the strategic importance of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP). This is a 

project that has been under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

in various stages for a decade, and was authorized in the Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 1999) to deepen the channel from 42 to as much as 

48 feet, subject to completion of environmental and cost benefit studies. 

These studies are nearing completion, and I anticipate that they will show an extraordinary combination of high benefits versus costs. I also believe that they will 

reflect the most transparent, rigorous, and accurate compilation of environmental 

and economic analysis of any river and harbor project in the Nation. 

Since the initial authorization in WRDA, the Port of Savannah has become the 

fastest growing container port in the United States, and is now the second largest 

container port on the East Coast. Cargo volume has more than doubled in the past 

10 years, Savannah is now responsible for moving more than 16 percent of the East 

Coast’s overseas container cargo, and both the State of Georgia and private companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in land-side facilities to increase 

efficiency. However, the ability of the port to continue to expand and accommodate 

the economic growth of business activity throughout the East Coast and Midwest 

will be dramatically weakened if the port cannot be expanded to accommodate the 

larger ‘‘Panamax’’ vessels that will shortly dominate ocean commerce. 

It was vital for this effort that the President’s budget request for fiscal year included sufficient funds to begin the first year of the estimated 4 years of construction required for the project. Release of the funds would have been subject to completion of the required environmental resource and administrative approvals. Senior 

officials of the Corps, from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on 

down, assured me this project would be included. I am looking for answers from the 

witnesses as to their views of this project’s strategic importance, as well as why it 

was not included when all indications were that it would be. 

4 

As many of you know, for 17 years now the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, have been negotiating over how to share the resources of water in the AlabamaCoosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river basins. 

Late last year, the Governors of the three states as well as the Interior Secretary 

and the Army Corps of Engineers sat down to continue their talks over how to resolve the 17-year-old water dispute. The Governors emerged from the meeting saying they were hopeful they will reach an agreement by March. 

On March 2, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton sent a letter to the Governors of Alabama, Georgia and Florida. While acknowledging that more progress has been made 

over the last few months than in the previous 18 years, Secretary Kempthorne and 

Chairman Connaughton said the Governors have been unable to cross the finish line 

with an agreement. 

In the letter, Secretary Kempthorne and Chairman Connaughton told the Governors that the Federal Government will now begin a process to review interim operations that will replace the current program before it expires on June 1, 2008. 

Federal agencies may subsequently issue further revisions as may be warranted by 

Federal law, changing hydrological conditions and new information. Any future 

changes in interim operations will be necessary only until the water control plans 

and manuals are revised. 

Secretary Kempthorne and Chairman Connaughton express disappointment with 

the states’ continued course of legal action against one another. If the states refuse 

to work with one another, Kempthorne and Connaughton State that the revised 

operational decisions will integrate important information and perspectives gained 

from the negotiations, but regrettably, it will necessarily be a solution being directed 

to the States instead of their much hoped for solution coming from the States. 

It is my hope that the three Governors will come back to the table so the states 

can take advantage of the productive talks and agree on a resolution. Key to any 

agreement between the States is an update of the nearly 20-year-old water control 

manuals for the ACT and ACF River Basins. Army Secretary Pete Geren showed 

real leadership when he announced that the update of these manuals would go forward. I am interested in hearing from the witnesses whether the Corps had budgeted in this budget the necessary funds to begin these updates. 

With that Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

This is the order of arrival. It is Isakson, Craig, Alexander, Vitter 

and Bond. So Senator Craig, you are next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, 

U. S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And again, thank 

you for your due diligence in having this hearing. It is important 

for all of us. 

Because I think what we will hear today, from us to you, General, and to you, Mr. Secretary, are, while we may think in broad 

terms, we become very parochial when the issue is water and watersheds and flooding and ports. Most people don’t appreciate the 

fact that Idaho has one of the furthest inland seaports of the Nation because of the slack waters of the Columbia and Snake River 

system. 

And so I am constantly on point as it relates to that system and 

how it operates, that we maintain our dredging to maintain our 

depths. And of course, as you know, completion of the project from 

the Port of Portland out to the ocean improves the whole system 

because of the size of the freighters that can move into the Port 

of Portland, the locks at the John Day Dam, they become critically 

important to all of us. I will be asking you questions about that. 

I think that the Chairman mentioned Sacramento and flooding. 

And of course, the Sierras, especially the Northern Sierras, have 

seen unprecedented snowfalls this winter. It is also true in northern Idaho in several of our watersheds up there as it relates to the 

5 

Kootenai and the St. Joe Rivers. In fact, at one point, we had a historic depth of snow on ground in the valleys in the Coeur d’Alene 

area. And of course, everybody watches closely, to date, our fingers 

crossed, have allowed reasonable warmth and settling of that snow. 

But we all know that certain events can trigger substantial flooding beyond the capacity of those watersheds to handle it. It is certainly true in the Sierras, it is also true in that region of Idaho. 

So I will be looking forward to any comments there. 

Again, thank you both for being here. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this important hearing, and thank you for being here. 

It is important to have these hearings, because the budget is 

more than just numbers, it is also an expression of the value of our 

Country. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 authorized 

$23 million for projects around the Country, projects that protect 

State environments, economies and basic needs, such as drinking 

water. I am disappointed that the President’s budget provided almost no funding for these projects. 

Just to give you a few examples from my own State of Minnesota, these projects would help communities like Roseau, Minnesota, which suffered massive flooding just a few years ago, build 

a flood mitigation system to prevent future devastation, or help the 

city of Willmar build a wastewater treatment plant, or fund navigational improvements in the Port of Duluth, where lake levels are 

at record lows because of climate change. These projects would provide for continued economic growth, job creation and economic stability while protecting human lives and ensuring reliable transportation of goods. 

I was proud to join 78 of my colleagues in casting my vote to 

override the President’s veto of WRDA last year. The overwhelming 

bipartisan nature of that override speaks volumes about the critical 

nature of these projects. 

I firmly believe that we need to change priorities in this Country. 

I am a believer in rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts for the 

wealthiest, people making over $200,000 a year. Maybe that’s because a bridge fell down in the middle of our State and we understand more poignantly than many the need to invest in infrastructure proactively. Investing in our national infrastructure is one of 

the most efficient means of creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Each billion dollars invested in infrastructure creates upwards of 47,000 new jobs and up to $6 billion in additional revenues. 

That is why I am very concerned that the Corps’ construction account and the Corps’ investigation account were dramatically reduced below what Congress appropriated in 2008. These low funding levels continue to exacerbate problems in our infrastructure 

while doing nothing to stimulate our economy. 

So I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming 

months to start filling this serious investment gap in our Nation’s 

6 

infrastructure, a gap whose filling will mean so much more for our 

safety and for our economy. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator ALEXANDER. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

General Van Antwerp and Secretary Woodley, thank you for 

being here. As you know, there is strong support in this Committee 

on both sides of the aisle for roads and bridges and airports and 

locks and infrastructure that helps our Country grow new jobs. I 

appreciate the priority that the Corps has tried to put, for example, 

on the Chickamauga Lock near Chattanooga, which is badly in 

need of repair and which, when it is finished, would take 100,000 

big trucks off I–75 every day, helping us with clean air, with climate change, with transportation costs and dependence on foreign 

oil, all those things. So there is an example of how investment in 

infrastructure helps. 

There is one other area I would like to call to your attention, and 

that is the Center Hill Dam in Tennessee, which I believe should 

be considered, repairs to the Center Hill Dam should be considered 

necessary for dam safety. Like Wolf Creek Dam in Kentucky, not 

far away, both Center Hill and Wolf sit on a kind of limestone 

which erode over time and creates instability. I assume dam safety 

is the reason why the Center Hill Lake has been lowered, the 

water level has been lowered, and repairs are underway. If that is 

the case, I think that it should be designated as dam safety. That 

has a great effect on ratepayers in Tennessee, and it has an effect 

on other Tennesseans as well. If it is not designated for dam safety, 

then the ratepayers have to fork over $300 million of extra money 

on their electric bills to pay for the repair. 

Second, the delay in dam safety, in repairing Center Hill, means 

that water is not available downstream. Senator Isakson talked 

about the water problems in Georgia. We had them in Tennessee 

last year as well, lakes and streams dried up that have not ever 

dried up before. And with the Center Hill Lake at a lower level, 

the amount of water is not available downstream during a drought 

which is still a problem. 

Finally, if it is not designated for dam safety, it will take longer 

to fix it, longer to repair it. And that means that people in the middle Tennessee area will be paying about $100 million more a year 

for their electric bill. So I would encourage you to consider Center 

Hill Dam’s repair work as dam safety repair work, because it is the 

same kind of problem that Wolf Creek has, and Wolf Creek, repairs 

there are designated as, the repairs are necessary for dam safety. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Alexander. 

Senator VITTER. 

7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for 

holding this very important hearing. I would like to thank our witnesses and the Corps of Engineers for all the important work that 

you are doing, particularly in the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast. 

Obviously your work is vital to our future. 

In this hearing, I wanted to specifically focus on three big issues 

to the recovery and three big concerns. One is, the money and work 

for the completion of a new 100 year level of protection. First of all, 

I want to thank you and the President and the Administration for 

a major commitment of an additional $5.8 billion in Federal funds 

to complete that 100 year level of hurricane protection. Obviously 

that is a major commitment that is vital to the entire future of our 

area. 

I do have two very strong and very specific concerns with that, 

however. One is the timing of that money coming to the Corps on 

the ground. As you know, the Administration has requested that in 

this Fiscal Year 2009 budget and has clearly made a decision not 

to request it in the context of the next supplemental spending bill, 

which will happen sooner. I believe this ensures, not maybe, I believe this ensures to back up completion of that crucial work and 

have us miss the 2011 deadline for completion of that work. And 

as you know, 2011 is in itself 1 year pushed back from the original 

2010 deadline. Every additional hurricane season that passes with 

the present vulnerability of the Gulf Coast is a very high level of 

risk. 

The second concern I have with that is that the proposed cost 

share for several of the programs involved specifically, like Pontchartrain vicinity and SELA, is well below the historic cost share. 

So I strongly disagree with that. 

Second key issue is the outfall canals. The Corps has been studying the correct solution to reinforcing strengthening the outfall canals where the breaches happened which led to the flooding of 

probably 70 percent of the city of New Orleans. I want to know 

when that final recommendation is going to come to us and if it is 

going to be the recommendation which embodies the best alternative in terms of safety and engineering, not merely the least expensive, because I have strong concerns about that. 

Also, I want to re-urge you to look at the pump to the river option as part of that work, which would add great reassurance and 

added protection to the people of the region. 

Finally, the Morganza to the Gulf hurricane protection project. 

As you know, this vital project has been in the works for 15 years. 

It was 1992 when the Corps was first asked to look at the Federal 

interest in that project. In 2000, the project was actually authorized in the WRDA bill, contingent on a final Corps chief’s report. 

Unfortunately, the Corps missed that deadline for the chief’s report, so that entire authorization went away. 

Finally, in this last WRDA, WRDA 2007, we include full authorization, 15 years after the start, for this vital hurricane and flood 

protection project. Yet after all of that, the Corps now takes the position that essentially, nothing substantial should move forward as 

the entire project is re-looked at with a brand new cost benefit 

8 

analysis. I have grave concerns that is foot-dragging of the highest 

order and true bad faith, since this was announced a few weeks 

after we passed the WRDA bill and the Corps never spoke before 

that point to advise us that we should include a higher authorization figure. 

I will look forward to addressing all of these concerns in our discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOND. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Madam Chair, Secretary Woodley, General Van 

Antwerp, we thank you very much for this hearing today and for 

your testifying. 

I am very disappointed, Madam Chair, that the Administration 

continues to undermine our efforts to modernize our water infrastructure. Despite overwhelming and bipartisan support for the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2007, or WRDA, the President’s budget does not provide money to update the depression-era 

locks and dams on the Illinois and the Mississippi Rivers. Not only 

are we unable to update our locks and dams, this proposal provides 

a sure path to kill the most environmentally sound and cost-effective mode of transportation we have. 

The Administration has stated they will propose a tax increase 

on our barges to replenish the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, which 

pays for our water infrastructure. They already pay a tax. This 

budget gimmick will do nothing to address our decaying waterway 

infrastructure. The proposal will raise the price of river transportation and thereby discourage river traffic. If these materials can’t 

be shipped on the river, they will be on our roads and our railways. 

Taking the materials from the most environmentally sound and 

efficient method and putting them on crowded highways that are 

already heavily over-used makes no sense. One barge tow carries 

the same amount of cargo as 870 trucks. How would you like the 

prospect of barge tows moving to highways with 870 trucks each 

time? 

Now, my colleagues today have done a good job of pointing out 

and criticizing the lack of funding for extremely critical resources 

in their regions and their States. In the past, we have been able 

to change the budgets to reflect the priorities that come from the 

people we serve in our States, to whom we listen, to whom we turn 

for their support and to whom we owe our responsibilities. This has 

enabled us to overcome some bad decisions of OMB in the past. 

But I think we are all aware that there are major populist efforts 

to end all congressional changes, enhancement or additions to the 

President’s budget. The populists say, well, we are costing money. 

We are not costing money, we use our power to determine better 

priorities. And we who serve the States from which we are elected 

have a much better idea of what those priorities are. 

I would urge my colleagues to exercise great caution. There is a 

move going on in the Hill right now, seems to be popular, apparently all the Presidential candidates are getting behind it, to end 

congressional ‘‘interference’’ with their budget. I used to be an execVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
9 

utive. I didn’t like having Congress or having my general assembly 

interfere. But that is what members of a legislative body are supposed to do. We cannot turn over all the direction of spending, 

which we are empowered under Article 1 of the Constitution to authorize and to spend to a group of un-elected accountants in OMB, 

OMB which recommended vetoing of the WRDA bill. 

Congress has its legislative priorities. They are focusing on appropriations now. Anybody who has served on this Committee 

knows how bad the budgets that we have gotten out of OMB in Republican and Democratic years have been. I frankly think that the 

Country would be far worse off if OMB, un-elected bureaucrats, 

were to be the ones to make all the spending decisions. If we are 

going to exercise our responsibility, we have to be able to change 

the budget requests. The President proposes, but we are the ones 

who dispose. 

Madam Chair, this is serious, this and so many areas. I thank 

my colleagues for their consideration. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Now we will go to Senator Barrasso, and if no other Democratic 

colleague shows up, we will go to Senator Voinovich, and then we 

will start the questions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

appreciate your holding this hearing. 

I have been raising some issues with the Army Corps regarding 

TCE, trichloroethylene, which is a chemical that is contaminating 

the water in the city of Cheyenne in the wells at Belvar Ranch, 

which is west of Cheyenne, Wyoming. The Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality believes that this contamination is directly 

linked to a former nuclear missile site known as Atlas IV. The 

cleanup is being done, the city of Cheyenne folks are paying for 

that now. Your department is aware of this TCE leakage from the 

site. 

But in a recent letter to me, you stated that your information 

does not support the conclusion that the missile site is the cause 

of the water contamination. It is baffling, because the Army Corps 

believes that there is a 6.5 mile plume of TCE emanating from the 

Atlas missile site, no debate about that. The city of Cheyenne has 

tested their wells and found TCE eight and a half miles from the 

Atlas missile site in one of the city’s wells. It only stands to reason 

that there is one big plume of TCE. But the Army Corps is suggesting that there are two plumes, one that is from the missile site 

and one that is from an unknown source. 

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the city of 

Cheyenne and any of us who have been to these sites cannot fathom what other cause there can be for this TCE, given the terrain 

and the rural setting of the site. Anyone who goes out there to take 

a look, and I would be happy to go with you, would say this has 

to be one, not some other site. 

So I am glad that you are willing to work and continue to study 

this, but this has been going on for a long time. It seems that there 

may be some ignoring of the reality of this situation. So I will look 

10 

forward to asking specific questions when it comes around to questions, Madam Chairman, of this situation. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. I can 

understand your concern. 

Senator VOINOVICH. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would just like to comment about Senator Bond’s comments. I 

think all of us on this Committee ought to understand, until we do 

tax reform and entitlement reform, where we take in more money, 

we are never going to be able to do the job. We keep talking about 

extending the tax reductions. We need more money. We ought to 

get it through tax reform and not helter-skelter raising of dollars. 

The sooner we wake up to the fact that we don’t have enough 

money, that we are not getting the job done, the sooner we will be 

able to deal with some of the problems that these people have. Because when they go to OMB, OMB says, here is your number and 

come back with it. And you have to eat it, whether you like it or 

not, you eat it. And our infrastructure problems in this Country are 

overwhelming. They have been swept under the rug for too long 

and it is about time we said something about it. 

The fact that we harass you and others that come before this 

Committee is partly our fault. Partly our fault, because we haven’t 

faced up to it. This Country is in deep trouble today, a budget that 

is out of control, national debt, dollar that is going down and we 

just sit here like nothing is going on. We have a crisis in this Country and I am hoping the Presidential candidates have the guts to 

face up and tell the American people the truth. It is about time we 

faced up to the truth. Do you hear me? About time we faced up to 

the truth. We have been playing games around here for too long 

and I am fed up with it. 

I am going to put my statement into the record and I would like 

you to respond to it. I will take care of the questions when they 

come up. Thank you, sir, thank you, Madam. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OHIO

Mrs. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing on the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to thank Administrator Johnson for being 

here. 

As a former Governor and Mayor, I know firsthand the enormous challenges that 

you have to address when crafting a budget. This is a process that requires responsible prioritizing and fiscal discipline to avoid breaking the bank. 

And this leads me to a point I’ve made time and time again: We must find a way 

to balance our nation’s environmental, energy and economic policies. It might make 

us feel good to set lofty environmental goals, but those goals do little good when 

they are unachievable due to practical or economic considerations. They are even 

less good when they impose economic hardship to those who can’t comply. 

The issue of unfunded mandates is a problem that is pervasive throughout government, but nowhere more so than in environmental regulation. At best, standards 

are set with little consideration as to how they will be met. At worst, standards are 

set without regard to the costs of compliance. The national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) and the Clean Water Act are prime examples of this disconnect 

between our policy objectives and a case study in unintended consequences. 

11 

Leaving a discussion of the standards setting process to another day, I will simply 

say that if we set environmental standards, we must be ready, as a government, 

to help communities meet those standards. 

In regard to this year’s budget proposal, I am concerned about funding for the 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). DERA was designed to help meet our nation’s air quality standards by reducing emissions from the nation’s legacy fleet of 

over 11 million diesel engines. DERA authorized $1 billion over a 5-year period 

($200 million annually). Properly funded, and leveraging match requirements for 

State and local governments at a ratio of $2 to $1, EPA estimated that DERA had 

the potential to contribute to a 70,000 ton reduction in PM emissions and generate 

$20 billion in economic and health benefits. 

You have requested $49.2 million for fiscal year in what will be the third year 

of a 5-year program. I can’t stress enough the need for increasing DERA funding 

as we begin the appropriations process. DERA is a well balanced policy to reduce 

air emissions and it would be a shame to let the program sunset before its benefits 

can be fully realized. 

I am also disappointed to see that the administration’s proposed funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act is $35 million for fiscal year 9. This is a significant decrease 

from the $49.6 million that the administration proposed 2 years ago. This program 

shows results—hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated sediments 

have been removed from the Great Lakes—and I strongly encourage you to work 

to increase funding for this program. 

Administrator, working with the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, you have 

worked to make the restoration and protection of the lakes a priority at EPA. As 

co-chair of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, I am eager to find ways to improve 

the Collaboration’s efforts and ensure the Great Lakes programs, like the Legacy 

Act, receive the funding they need to be successful. 

As a member of this Committee, I have sought to bring attention to the nation’s 

wastewater infrastructure needs. But as with previous years, EPA’s budget is woefully inadequate. In fact, your request represents the lowest funding level in the 

program’s history! 

Continued cuts to the SRF program—when EPA estimates the nation’s need for wastewater treatment and collection at $193.5 billion—makes no sense. This especially concerns me because my State of Ohio has one of the largest needs in the Nation at $11.7 billion. 

Here are a number of examples from Ohio alone: The city of Defiance, which has 

a population of 17,000 and recently lost 950 auto industry jobs, is required to spend 

$60 million over 20 years to fix the city’s combined sewer overflow problems. In response, the city is being forced to double its rates. The city of Fostoria, population 

of 14,000, is facing a $35 million project. This city has lost 10 percent of its jobs 

over the past 2 years, in part due to their increasing water rates. They are being 

forced to increase their rates by $100 per year over the next 15 years. EPA is requiring the city of Fremont, population of 26,000 people (49 percent are considered 

low-income), to spend $63 million. Their rate increases will be 150 percent. 

EPA is simply not stepping up to the plate to assist the thousands of communities 

across the country facing substantial costs to comply with EPA orders. I must tell 

you that from my experience as a former mayor, county commissioner, and Governor, I consider this to be an unfunded mandate. 

Administrator, we are asking our communities to do the impossible. If the Federal 

Government is going to impose these costly mandates on struggling State and local 

governments, then it should provide funding and flexibility for compliance with 

those mandates. 

Again, I would like to thank you for your attendance today, and I look forward 

to hearing your thoughts on these issues. Thank you, Mrs. Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Voinovich, don’t hold back. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I love it. I think it is good that you are speaking 

from the heart. 

I did want to say, before we call on our panel, I know there are 

going to be disagreements from the Republican side and maybe 

even on our side, on the budget. But the budget does attempt to 

shake things up and change things, and does add back $1.2 billion 

to your budget. It does go to $300 million over last year, because 

our budget priorities are infrastructure, jobs and boosting the economy. So again, there will be a lot of debate on the floor over that, 

12 

but I hope colleagues will realize that we do our best in this budget 

to restore the funding and give it even $300 million over where we 

were last year. 

Gentlemen, we are so happy you are here. Are you both going to 

speak to us today, or just one of the two of you, with prepared remarks? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Chairman Boxer, I believe we are both prepared 

to. 

Senator BOXER. That is good. 

Mr. WOODLEY. But if you would prefer—— 

Senator BOXER. No, we would like to hear from both of you, actually. So 5 minutes each if you can. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

Mr. WOODLEY. I will summarize the statement briefly and ask 

that the complete statement be included in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. WOODLEY. The civil works budget provides funding for development and restoration of the Nation’s water and related resources, 

primarily within the three main program areas of commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget also supports hydropower, recreation, environmental stewardship and water supply storage at existing Corps projects. 

Finally, the civil works budget provides for protection of waters 

and wetlands, cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic weapons and emergency preparedness. 

The budget for the Fiscal Year 2009 annual civil works program is $4.74 billion. In addition, the President’s budget requests $5.761 

billion in Fiscal Year 2009 emergency appropriations for the Federal share of the additional funds needed to reduce the risk to the 

Greater New Orleans, Louisiana area from storm surges that have 

a 1 percent annual chance of occurring. 

I would first like to talk about the annual civil works program. 

The budget includes $1 million in the investigations account for 

independent peer review requirements of Section 2034 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007. The investigations account 

also includes $2 million for a high priority study authorized by Section 2032(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 of the 

vulnerability of the U.S. to damage from flooding, including assessment of comparative risks faced by different regions of the Country. 

The budget again proposes performance criteria to allocate funds 

among construction projects. These criteria give priority for funding 

to the projects that yield the greatest returns to the Nation based 

on objective performance criteria. The Fiscal Year 2009 construction performance criteria mirror those for Fiscal Year 2008, except 

that priorities accorded to projects that can be completed in Fiscal 

Year 2009. The budget allocates funding among ongoing construction projects based primarily on benefit to cost ratios. Priority is 

also accorded projects that reduce significant risks to human safety 

and to dam safety assurance, seepage control and static instability 

correction projects. 

13 

For operation and maintenance of the civil works projects, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget provides nearly $2.6 billion in the operation and maintenance account, and $163 million in the Mississippi 

River and Tributaries account, a total of $16 million higher than 

in the Fiscal Year 2008 budget for comparable activities, which in 

turn provided a substantial increase over prior O&M levels. The budget also provides $729 million to be appropriated from 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operation and maintenance of commercial navigation channels and harbors. The growth 

of the Trust Fund balance and ways to address this balance are 

being discussed within the Administration. We will continue to 

work within the Administration to develop policies to effectively 

use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Like the budgets for the last 2 years, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposes to allocate operation and maintenance funding on a regional basis. The budget proposes to allocate operation and maintenance funding among 54 areas based on USGS sub-watersheds. 

This approach will improve the overall performance of civil works 

assets. Managers in the field will be better able to maintain key 

infrastructure, adapt to uncertainties and address emergencies and 

other changed conditions over the course of the fiscal year. 

As anticipated this time last year, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget 

is based on enactment of proposed legislation to establish a lockage-based barge user fee and phase out the existing fuel tax. The 

proposed legislation will be transmitted to Congress very soon after 

an executive branch inter-agency review of this proposal is completed. Prompt enactment of such legislation is needed to address 

the declining balance of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which 

otherwise will run out of funds around the end of the 2008 calendar year, and to support ongoing and future inland waterway 

projects. The budget provides $185 million for the Corps of Engineers’ 

share of the South Florida Everglades ecosystem restoration program, which is the most ever budgeted or appropriated for the 

Corps in 1 year for these activities. This level of funding for the 

Corps is an increase of $54 million, or 41 percent, compared to the 

Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level. The budget also includes $20 million for the Louisiana Coastal Area Restoration Effort, including 

$10 million for its science program. 

The budget also provides $180 million for the Corps’ regulatory 

program to protect wetlands and other waters of the United States. 

This is the same amount as both the budget and appropriation for 

Fiscal Year 2008, and, Madam Chair, represents a $55 million increase since 2001. 

I’d like to turn to the proposed emergency appropriation, $5.76 

billion. The Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposes to authorize the New 

Orleans Area Hurricane and Storm Damage and Risk Reduction 

System to be constructed with the State of Louisiana as the single 

non-Federal cost-sharing sponsor and subsequently maintained and 

operated by the State. 

The pre-Katrina system for the Greater New Orleans area was 

built as a collection of separately authorized projects, designed with 

differing standards, subject to different requirements for non-Federal cost-sharing and managed by different local entities. Based on 

14 

the statutory language proposed in the budget, the non-Federal 

sponsor would provide $1.5 billion for the non-Federal share of this 

work. The New Orleans area system will be not only higher, but 

also stronger, than the pre-Hurricane Katrina system. 

Upon passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, 

the Chief of Engineers and I established a joint team to oversee its 

implementation. I meet bi-weekly with the Joint WRDA implementation team to establish policy, issue implementing guidance and 

assess progress. Priority for implementation guidance is being 

given to national policy provisions, most of which are in Title II, 

and to those project and program provisions for which funds are 

currently appropriated. 

In summary, at $4.74 billion, the Fiscal Year 2009 Army Civil 

Works annual budget provides the resources for the civil works 

program to pursue investments that will yield very good returns for 

the Nation in the future. As in past years, this budget does not 

fund all the important work the Corps could do in Fiscal Year 

2009. However, it represents wise use of funding to advance worthy 

mission-based objectives. 

Chairman Boxer and members of the Committee, this is my last 

time to appear before you to present an Army Civil Works budget 

on behalf of President Bush. I want you to know that it has been 

a great pleasure and privilege to work with you, Senator Inhofe 

and all the other members of the Committee from time to time. I 

think it would be wrong of me not to mention that I believe this 

Committee is served by one of the most professional and knowledgeable staffs of any committee in any legislature anywhere in the 

world. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. WOODLEY. We have a very complex program and they understand it and serve you very well, serve you and the people of the 

Country very well. 

I want to also say that many of the efforts, as you will see in 

the coming year, represent a very, very substantial effort to implement the provisions of WRDA 2008. Much of our budget was developed and submitted in the early fall, well before WRDA 2007 was 

enacted. We were able to do some things late in the budget cycle 

to respond to the important initiatives of WRDA 2007. I appreciate 

the committee’s disappointment that more was not done. But it 

really did come at a very late stage in our process. We would like 

to have done more and we will do more, I am confident we will do 

more in Fiscal Year 2009. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodley follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before the Committee, and to present the President’s Budget 

for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2009. 

OVERVIEW

The fiscal year Budget for Army Civil Works provides funding for development 

and restoration of the Nation’s water and related resources within the 3 main Civil 

Works program areas, namely, commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Budget also supports hydroVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
15 

power, recreation, environmental stewardship, and water supply services at existing 

water resources projects owned or operated by the Corps. Finally, the Budget provides for protection of the Nation’s regulated waters and wetlands; cleanup of sites 

contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic weapons; 

and emergency preparedness. The budget does not fund work that should be the responsibility of non-Federal interests or other Federal agencies, such as wastewater 

treatment and municipal and industrial water treatment and distribution. Total discretionary funding for the fiscal year annual program is $4.741 billion. This is $130 million less than the fiscal year budget and $846 million less than Energy and Water Development appropriations for fiscal year 8. Within the total Civil 

Works budget, $2.475 billion is for activities funded in the operation and maintenance (O&M) account. This is slightly higher than the funding level for operation 

and maintenance proposed in the President’s fiscal year budget, which in turn was 

a substantial increase over prior budget or appropriation levels for comparable O&M 

activities. 

The Budget also provides $5.761 billion in an fiscal year emergency appropriations request for the Federal share of the additional funds needed to reduce the risk 

of storm surge damage to the greater New Orleans, Louisiana area. Based on statutory language proposed in the Budget, the non-Federal sponsor would provide 

$1.527 billion for the non-Federal share of this work. This proposal is discussed further below. 

A budget Five Year Development Plan (FYDP) is under development and will be 

provided to the relevant Committees of Congress. 

Enclosure 1 displays the current estimate for the distribution of new discretionary 

funding among 8 appropriation accounts; 8 program areas; supervision and general 

administration of the Civil Works program; policy direction and oversight by the 

Army Secretariat; and 5 funding sources, including the general fund of the Treasury 

and trust funds. Enclosure 2 is a crosscut between appropriation accounts and program areas. 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING

The fiscal year Budget reflects a continuing maturation of the Army’s performance-based approach to budgeting. Competing investment opportunities for studies, 

design, construction, and operation and maintenance were evaluated using multiple 

metrics. Objective performance criteria guided the allocation of funds among construction projects (see below). 

The Budget includes initiatives leading to the development of a more systematic, 

performance-based budget and improved asset management. For example, the Budget allocates operation and maintenance funding among 54 geographic areas based 

on USGS sub-watersheds. This approach will improve the overall performance of 

Civil Works assets by enabling managers within each of these regional areas to 

focus on their key facilities and address emerging needs. 

The focus on Civil Works program performance has a number of foundations. 

First, the 2004–2009 Civil Works Strategic Plan provided goals, objectives, and performance measures that are specific to program areas as well as some that are 

crosscutting. A new Civil Works Strategic Plan is under development for 2009–2014. 

Second, each program area has been assessed using the Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART). Progress to improve the performance measures was made on several 

programs during the past year. Summaries of all completed civil works program assessments can be found on the Administration’s new website, www.ExpectMore.gov. 

The Civil Works Strategic Plan and the PART-based program evaluations are works 

in progress and will continue to be updated. 

HIGHLIGHTS—WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS

Studies and Design 

The fiscal year Budget provides $91 million for the Investigations account and $1 

million for investigations in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The 

Budget funds 65 studies and preconstruction engineering and design (PED) activities. We selected these for funding based on their likely performance. For instance, 

the projects funded for PED were those with benefit-to-cost ratios (BCRs) of 3.0 to– 

1 or higher. 

Within this $91 million, $10 million is for studies and PED under the Louisiana 

Coastal Area ecosystem restoration program and $10 million more is for the science 

program that supports, and is an integral component of, this Corps effort to help 

protect and rebuild the ecosystem. In addition, $21 million is for other project-speVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
16 

cific studies and design, $17 million is for research and development, and $33 million is for other coordination, data collection, and study activities. 

The Administration urges the Congress to support the President’s Budget for the 

investigations program, which limits the number of proposed projects funded at the 

study or design stage. The Corps has a very large backlog of ongoing construction 

work. Adding to the number of projects heading for a construction start or to their 

funding will delay the completion of ongoing projects and realization of their benefits to the Nation. The enactment of WRDA 2007 has heightened this concern. 

The Civil Works budget includes $1 million to comply with the independent peer 

review requirements of Section 2034 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2007 (WRDA 2007). This covers only the studies funded in the Budget. If the Congress were to increase the number of studies or their funding, the Corps would likely need more than $1 million to comply with section 2034. 

Independent review previously was funded through individual study line items as 

study costs shared with the non-Federal sponsor. Under WRDA 2007, the costs of 

independent review are now fully Federal. In future Budgets, we expect to include 

these costs under individual study line items after studies requiring Section 2034 

independent review are identified and accounting codes are set up to distinguish the 

fully Federal independent review costs from the other study costs, which the nonFederal sponsor will share. 

The fiscal year Budget includes 2 new studies: The Investigations account includes $2 million for a high-priority study of the vulnerability of the U.S. to damage 

from flooding, including an assessment of the comparative risks faced by different 

regions of the U.S. This study will provide background for a subsequent effort by 

policy officials to develop recommendations to improve existing Federal programs, 

authorities, and roles. The other new study is the Atchafalaya Basin Land Study 

in the Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries account, for which the Administration has repeatedly requested funding. I urge you to fund this study. It has 

a high priority because land acquisition is an important component of the overall 

flood damage reduction plan for this watershed. The fiscal year Budget also specifically identifies $100,000 for Corps support to the efforts of the inter-agency Committee on the Marine Transportation System, established by the President in the 

2004 Ocean Action Plan. Costs to support the Committee previously were included 

in the Coordination with Other Agencies allocation in the Investigations account. 

Construction Program 

The Budget provides $1.402 billion in the Construction account and $76 million 

for construction projects in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. 

Many more construction projects have been authorized, initiated, and continued 

than can be constructed efficiently at any one time. The funding of projects with 

low economic and environmental returns and of projects that are not within Civil 

Works main mission areas has led to the postponement of benefits from the most 

worthy projects, and has significantly reduced overall program performance. 

To remedy this situation and to achieve greater value to the Nation from the Civil 

Works construction program, the Budget again proposes performance guidelines to 

allocate funds among construction projects. The guidelines give priority for funding 

to the projects that yield the greatest returns to the Nation, based upon objective 

performance criteria. The fiscal year guidelines mirror those for fiscal year 8, except 

that priority also is accorded to projects that can be completed in fiscal year 9. 

Under the guidelines, the Budget allocates funds among construction projects 

based primarily on these criteria: BCRs; contribution to reducing significant risk to 

human safety or to dam safety assurance, seepage control, or static instability correction concerns; capability of high performing projects to be completed in fiscal year 

in order to bring significant benefits online; and the extent to which projects costeffectively contribute to the restoration of nationally or regionally significant aquatic 

ecosystems that have become degraded as a result of Civil Works projects, or to a 

restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited. The construction guidelines are provided in Enclosure 3. 

The 79 construction projects funded in the Budget consist of: 11 dam safety assurance, seepage control and static instability correction rehabilitation projects; 16 

projects funded to address a significant risk to human safety (including 2 new deficiency correction projects); and 52 other projects (including 5 in the Mississippi 

River and Tributaries program). 

17 

Operation and Maintenance Program 

The fiscal year Budget proposes $2.475 billion for the Operation and Maintenance account and $163 million for maintenance activities in the Mississippi River and 

Tributaries account. The total amount is $16 million higher than the fiscal year 

Budget for comparable activities. 

The Budget emphasizes performance of existing projects by focusing on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. The proposed funding would enable the Army Corps of 

Engineers to carry out priority maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitations, and priority initiatives such as the development of asset management systems. 

As in the fiscal year and 2008 Budgets, the operation and maintenance program 

includes 4 activities that are directly related to the operation and maintenance of 

Corps projects, but previously were funded in the Construction program—compliance with the Endangered Species Act at operating projects; rehabilitation of existing projects; replacement of sand due to the operation and maintenance of Federal 

navigation projects; and construction of facilities, projects, or features (including islands and wetlands) to use materials dredged during Federal navigation operation 

and maintenance activities. The Budget transfers responsibility for these activities 

to improve investment decisions on project operation and maintenance and better 

provide accountability and oversight for those decisions. For the inland navigation 

rehabilitation projects budgeted in the Operation and Maintenance account, one-half 

of the project funding would be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

Construction, replacement, and expansion of inland waterways projects continue to 

be budgeted in the Construction account. 

Like the Budgets for the past 2 years, the fiscal year Budget proposes to allocate 

operation and maintenance funding on a regional basis. Last year, the Budget proposed allocation of funding by 21 watersheds identified by the U.S. Geological Survey’s watershed and sub-watershed identification system. This year, in order to 

more clearly identify the systems among which funding is allocated, the Budget proposes to allocate funding among 54 systems. Within these 54 systems, the justification materials allocate funding for illustrative purposes to flood and coastal storm 

damage reduction, commercial navigation, hydropower, stewardship, recreation, and 

water supply program areas. Funding operation and maintenance using this framework will increase efficiency in the operation and maintenance of Civil Works 

projects. Managers in the field will be better able to properly maintain key infrastructure, adapt to uncertainties, and address emergencies, as well as other changed 

conditions over the course of the fiscal year, while complying with congressional direction for the appropriations. 

HIGHLIGHTS—PROGRAM AREAS

The Army Civil Works program includes 8 program areas; commercial navigation, 

flood and coastal storm damage reduction, environment, recreation, hydropower, 

water supply, emergency management, and the regulatory program. The Budget 

also funds the supervision and general administration of the Civil Works program 

in the Corps headquarters and the eight division offices; and the policy direction 

and oversight for the program by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works). Budget proposals for all areas are discussed below. 

Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, and Emergency Management 

The fiscal year Budget provides $1.322 billion for flood and coastal storm damage 

reduction and $58 million for emergency management. 

Among the 79 construction projects funded in the fiscal year budget, 50 are for 

flood and coastal storm damage reduction, including 11 dam safety and seepage control and static instability correction rehabilitations, 2 deficiency correction projects 

at St. Louis Flood Protection, Missouri and Wood River Levee, Illinois; and 29 other 

projects that address a significant risk to human safety or were selected based on 

their benefit-to-cost ratios. 

The Budget for the emergency management program includes $40 million in the 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to fund preparedness for flood and 

coastal emergencies and other natural disasters. This funding is needed in fiscal 

year to maintain and improve the Corps of Engineers ability to respond to disasters. 

Specifically, this funding would cover review and updating of emergency response 

plans, periodic exercises to test and evaluate plans, training, procurement of critical 

supplies and equipment, and pre-disaster coordination with State and local governVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
18 

ments and other Federal agencies. The fiscal year Budget reflects the strong belief 

of the Army in the importance of providing regular funding for emergency preparedness, rather than relying on supplemental appropriations to finance emergency preparedness. The emergency management program also includes $6 million for the 

National Emergency Preparedness Program and $12 million for facility protection, 

both of which are funded in the Operation and Maintenance account. We continue 

to fund facility protection as a remaining item in the operation and maintenance 

account. In the past, we allocated these costs among the 8 program areas. This year, 

we included these costs instead under the emergency management program area. The Budget includes $14 million in multiple accounts for Actions for Change—a 

set of actions identified by the Chief of Engineers to aggressively incorporate the 

lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita into the way the Corps plans, designs, constructs, and maintains its infrastructure. The program is being executed 

by 4 national teams. All actions are interrelated, but each of the 4 teams has one 

of the following focus areas: comprehensive systems approaches; risk-informed decisionmaking; risk communications; and professional and technical expertise. A common theme throughout the program is increased accountability for public safety. 

The Corps is working toward the goal of making these changes self-sustaining. The fiscal year Operation and Maintenance account includes $10 million for the 

National Levee Inventory/Inspection and Levee Safety Program. These funds will be 

used to continue the national levee inventory, assessment, and data base development that were begun with emergency supplemental appropriations of $30 million 

in fiscal year 6. Funds also will be used for administrative and travel costs of the 

National Levee Safety Committee established pursuant to Title IX of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Title IX broadened the authority under which the 

Corps conducts the levee inventory program and is being implemented under the ongoing levee inventory and inspection program. The national levee inventory is an 

interagency effort to improve management of the Nation’s flood and storm damage 

reduction infrastructure. The results of the national project inventory and riskbased project assessments will be linked to the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s ongoing flood mapping program, as well as to the Corps levee rehabilitation and inspection program. 

The Budget provides funding for all work currently planned to remedy the most 

serious (Action Class I and II) dam safety, seepage, and static instability problems 

at Corps dams. The planning, design, and construction of these projects are funded 

at the maximum amount that the Corps estimates that it can use efficiently and 

effectively. 

The Budget continues to support Federal participation in initial construction, but 

not in re-nourishment, at beach nourishment projects that provide storm damage reduction or ecosystem restoration outputs. 

Commercial Navigation 

The fiscal year Budget provides a total of $1.892 billion for the commercial navigation program area. 

The amount budgeted for inland waterway construction projects (construction, replacements, and expansions in the Construction Account, and rehabilitations in the 

Operation and Maintenance account) is about $326 million, which includes funding 

to continue 14 inland waterway projects; 3 seepage and static instability correction 

rehabilitation projects; completion of 5 projects; and continuation of construction on 

5 other projects. Half of the funding for these inland waterways investments, about 

$167 million, would be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, reflecting 

both concurrent financing of 50 percent of construction costs on most projects and 

rebalancing of the proportion where prior expenditures from the general fund of the 

Treasury exceeded 50 percent. 

The fiscal year Budget is based on enactment of proposed legislation to establish 

a lockage-based barge user fee and to phase out the existing diesel fuel tax for the 

inland waterways. The prompt enactment of such legislation is needed to address 

the declining balance in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which otherwise will 

run out of funds around the end of the 2008 calendar year, and to support ongoing 

and future inland waterways projects. The funding in the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund, which comes from the diesel fuel tax, will not be sufficient after fiscal year 

to support needed levels of investment in these waterways. 

Enactment of the Administration’s legislative proposal would ensure that the commercial users of the Corps locks continue to cover their share of project costs. The 

amount of the user fee would be tied to the level of spending for inland waterways 

construction, replacement, expansion and rehabilitation work. The proposed legislation will be transmitted to Congress shortly. 

19 

The Budget includes $170 million to construct channel and harbor projects. 

The Budget focuses navigation operation and maintenance funding of $1.375 billion on those waterway segments and commercial harbors that support high volumes of commercial traffic, such as the heavily used Mississippi and Ohio Rivers 

and the Illinois Waterway. The Budget also funds maintenance of harbors that support significant commercial fishing, subsistence, safety, harbor of refuge, national 

security, or public transportation benefits. 

The Corps continues development of techniques to identify and compare the marginal impacts on the Nation’s waterborne commerce of varying maintenance levels 

for coastal channels and harbors. The fiscal year Budget provides for $729 million 

to be appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operation and 

maintenance. The growth of the trust fund balance and ways to address this balance 

are being discussed within the Administration. We will continue to work within the 

Administration to develop policies to effectively use the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. 

The Budget continues the policy of funding beach replenishment, including periodic re-nourishment, where the operation and maintenance of Federal navigation 

projects is the reason for the sand loss on shorelines. 

Environment 

The fiscal year Budget provides $511 million for environmental activities overall, 

including $286 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration. The costs of compliance 

with Biological Opinions at existing projects are not included in the above figures. 

The Budget includes these costs as part of the joint operation and maintenance costs 

of the affected projects and allocates these costs among the program areas served 

by the projects. 

Within the $286 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration, $185 million is for the 

Corps of Engineers share of the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration 

Program, which is the most ever budgeted or appropriated for the Corps in 1 year 

for these activities. This level of funding for the Corps is an increase of $54 million, 

or 41 percent, compared to the fiscal year enacted level. The increase reflects the 

program’s priorities for 2009—which include more funding for the Modified Water 

Deliveries to Everglades National Park (Mod Waters) project, a key element of this 

effort that both the National Park Service and the Corps are funding (+$40 million); 

and funding to restore a 90 square mile area west of the Everglades known as Picayune Strand, which will provide habitat suitable for the endangered Florida panther 

and other species (+$24 million). The Budget for this program also emphasizes continued construction of the Kissimmee River restoration effort; and studies and design work under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP. Finally, 

the Budget also continues construction of the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration ‘‘Critical Projects,’’ and the South Dade County (C–111) and 

West Palm Beach Canal (C–51 & STA 1-E) Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) 

projects. 

The Budget provides $20 million for the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program and $20 million for the Louisiana Coastal Area restoration effort, including $10 million for its important Science Program, which will 

assist the State and Federal managers of the LCA Ecosystem Restoration Program 

by providing science support aimed at improving implementation. The Science Program will inform and guide the program by reducing uncertainties and insuring 

that effective tools and processes are available for use by the project delivery team. 

The Budget includes $95 million for environmental stewardship. The Corps administers lands and waters covering 11 million acres, an area equal in size to the 

States of Vermont and New Hampshire. Funded activities include shoreline management, protection of natural resources, support for endangered species, continuation of mitigation activities, and protection of cultural and historic resources. 

The Budget provides $130 million for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 

Program (FUSRAP) to clean up contamination at sites resulting largely from the 

early atomic weapons program. This funding will enable completion of remedial action at one site (Linde Air Products Soil operable unit) and support continued 

progress toward completion of remedial actions at a number of other FUSRAP sites. 

Regulatory Program 

The fiscal year Budget provides $180 million for the Corps Regulatory Program 

to protect wetlands and other waters of the United States. This is the same as the 

amount in both the Budget and appropriations for fiscal year 8, and represents a 

$55 million increase since 2001. The funding will be used for permit processing, enVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
20 

forcement and compliance actions, and jurisdictional determinations, including the 

significant additional field documentation, coordination and evaluation work associated with the Supreme Court’s Carabell and Rapanos decisions. 

Investing in the Regulatory Program has a win-win result, since it protects valu- able aquatic resources while enabling over $225 billion in economic development to 

proceed annually. The Corps will also use the requested funding to develop and implement improvements such as electronic permit applications and data sharing with 

other agencies and the public, consistent with Sections 2017 and 2040 of WRDA 

2007. 

Recreation 

The fiscal year Budget provides $270 million for recreation operations and related 

maintenance. The Budget re-proposes the Corps of Engineers recreation modernization initiative, which first was developed as part of the fiscal year and fiscal year 

budgets. This initiative, which requires legislation to implement, would allow the 

Corps to upgrade and modernize its recreation facilities through an expansion of the 

current fee structure. It would also enable the Corps, working at the national, state, 

and local levels, to pursue voluntary public/private partnerships and other means 

to help finance the recreation program. 

Hydropower 

Hydropower is a renewable source of energy. The Civil Works program is the Nation’s largest producer of hydroelectric energy. The Corps provides one quarter of 

the Nation’s hydroelectric power generation capacity and satisfies 3 percent of the 

Nation’s total energy needs. 

The fiscal year Budget provides $319 million for hydropower. This investment will 

help to reduce the forced outage rate, which remains well above the industry average. In addition, the 4 ongoing replacement projects, once completed, will produce 

enough power to electrify 37,000 homes and reduce carbon dioxide emissions into 

the atmosphere by 190,000 metric tons. 

Water Supply 

On average, Civil Works projects provide 4 billion gallons of water per day to 

meet the needs of municipal and commercial users across the country. The Budget 

includes $6 million for this program under the operation and maintenance account. 

These costs can be broken into 5 categories: costs to manage water supply contracts 

and to operate and maintain specific water supply facilities; ongoing water reallocation studies; the National Portfolio assessment of water reallocation possibilities; the 

allocated share of costs for compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and the 

allocated share of other project joint costs. The water supply program manages 307 

water supply agreements that cover 7.2 million acre-feet of storage space in 136 of 

the Corps’ multiple purpose reservoir projects. This storage space has an assigned 

repayment value of $9.8 billion. These costs are repaid directly to the U.S. Treasury 

by the water users. The opportunities that are being identified through the National 

Portfolio assessment to reallocate storage space in existing reservoirs can assist in 

addressing unmet demand for municipal and industrial water supply without building additional projects. 

Management Expenses of the Army Corps of Engineers 

The fiscal year budget provides $177 million for the Expenses account to cover the 

costs of the Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters, Major Subordinate Commands 

or Divisions, and national support Corps offices such as the Humphreys Engineer 

Center Support Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, and the Finance Center. 

Army Secretariat Policy Direction and Oversight 

The fiscal year Budget includes $6 million for the Office of the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army (Civil Works). The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has 

oversight responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of the Army for all aspects of the 

Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers; for the Army Cemeterial Expenses budget and program for Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and 

Airmen’s Home National Cemetery; for reimbursable support by the Army Corps of 

Engineers for other domestic agencies; and for all international activities of the 

Army Corps of Engineers except those directly in support of U.S. forces overseas. 

This account finances the personnel and other direct costs of the Assistant SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
21 

retary’s office in the energy and water development appropriation, consistent with 

recently enacted appropriations for this office. 

PROTECTION OF THE METROPOLITAN NEW ORLEANS AREA

In addition to fiscal year regular appropriations for the Civil Works program, the 

fiscal year Budget recommends enactment of fiscal year emergency appropriations 

of $5.761 billion for the remaining Federal share of the New Orleans Area Hurricane and Storm Damage and Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS), which is designed 

to reduce the risk to the greater New Orleans, Louisiana, area from storm surges 

that have a 1 percent annual chance of occurring and to improve internal drainage; 

to restore and complete construction of hurricane and storm damage reduction features in surrounding areas to previously authorized levels of protection; and to incorporate certain non-Federal levees into the Federal system. The fiscal year Budget 

also proposes to authorize the HSDRRS to be constructed with the State of Louisiana as the single non-Federal cost-sharing partner and subsequently maintained 

and operated by the State. Pre-Katrina, the HSDRRS was built as a collection of 

separately authorized projects, designed with differing standards, subject to differing requirements for non-Federal cost-sharing, and managed by different local entities. 

The new HSDRRS system will be not only higher, but also stronger than the preHurricane Katrina system. Armoring of critical elements will improve resilience during storm events. New pump stations, water control structures, and floodgates will 

add perimeter protection to reduce the threat of storm surges from outfall canals 

and navigation channels. Completing the Southeast Louisiana urban drainage 

project within the geographic perimeter of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity and 

West Bank and Vicinity projects will enhance the effectiveness of interior drainage 

systems. 

Based on the proposed statutory language included in the President’s Budget, 

local entities would be responsible for 35 percent of the cost of the Southeast Louisiana project located within the geographic perimeter of the Lake Pontchartrain 

and Vicinity and West Bank and Vicinity projects, and for 35 percent of the increment of levee raises and other enhancements needed to the Lake Pontchartrain and 

Vicinity and West Bank and Vicinity projects above currently authorized levels to 

reduce the risk to the greater New Orleans area from storm surges that have a 1 

percent annual chance of occurring. Local entities would also be responsible for 100 

percent of the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation cost. 

OTHER BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

General Provisions 

The Budget includes proposed statutory language to authorize continuation of limits on reprogramming with certain proposed changes; to replace the continuing contract authority of the Corps with multi-year contracting authority patterned after 

the authority available to other Federal agencies; and to prohibit committing funds 

for ongoing and new contracts beyond the appropriated amounts available, including 

reprogramming. 

Improved Cost Estimating 

With my full support, the Chief of Engineers is undertaking several initiatives to 

strengthen the Corps performance in project cost estimating. The Chief will discuss 

these initiatives in detail in his statement. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

Upon passage of WRDA 2007 on November 7, 2007, the Chief of Engineers and 

I established a joint team to oversee the implementation of this lengthy, complex, 

and costly Act. We have designated a senior Corps policy analyst to lead our joint 

efforts. I meet at least bi-weekly with the joint WRDA implementation team to review and approve guidance for major policy and project provisions of WRDA. 

The purpose of implementation guidance is to ensure a common understanding of 

the policies and procedures that will be used to meet the requirements of the law. 

Provisions that require development of implementation guidance are being identified and prioritized, and the writing of the guidance is underway. Implementation 

guidance for those provisions directly affecting work within the Divisions and Districts is being developed in consultation with the appropriate District, Division, and 

22 

Headquarters Regional Integration Team. Due to the large number of provisions in 

the law, it will take time to issue guidance on each of the provisions. Priority for 

implementation guidance is being given to national policy provisions (mostly in Title 

II) and to those project and program provisions where funds are currently appropriated. 

Following are some examples of WRDA provisions receiving priority for implementation guidance: 

Section 2003—Written Agreements for water resources projects 

Section 2027—Fiscal Transparency Report 

Section 2031—Water Resources principles and guidelines 

Section 2032—Water Resources priorities report 

Section 2033—Planning 

Section 2034— Independent Peer Review 

Section 2035— Safety Assurance Review 

Section 2036— Mitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses 

Title VI—Florida Everglades 

Title VII—Louisiana Coastal Area 

Title IX—National Levee Safety Program 

Working through the joint implementation team, we are making excellent 

progress in implementation strategies for the significant policy provisions and numerous individual project provisions. 

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

The Army Civil Works program is pursuing 5 government wide management initiatives, as are other Federal agencies, plus a 6th initiative on real property asset 

management. ‘‘Scorecards’’ for the Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies can be found at the following website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/scorecard.html. 

For the first quarter of the 2008 fiscal year, the scorecard rates the Corps status 

as red on one initiative, yellow on 4, and green on one. I am pleased that the Corps 

is rated green on progress on all 6 initiatives. The Corps has worked diligently to 

achieve these ratings, and I am proud of their efforts. The Army is hopeful that the 

Corps of Engineers will receive an audit opinion in the very near future from the 

Inspector General of the Department of Defense for its fiscal year and 2007 Civil 

Works financial statements. This would be the first time ever that a major component of the Defense Department has received an audit opinion. The opinion is expected to be qualified, and it is anticipated that the auditors will recommend a number of areas that need improvement. With a qualified opinion in hand and this guidance from the DoD Inspector General, the Army has every expectation that the 

Corps can achieve an unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year financial statements. 

CONCLUSION

In developing this Budget, the Administration made explicit choices based on performance. The sustained level of O&M funding, transfer of activities from construction to O&M, emphasis on construction projects based on their returns, and focus 

on preparedness for flood, hurricane, and other natural disasters, for example, all 

reflect a performance-based approach. 

At $4.741 billion, the fiscal year Army Civil Works annual budget provides the 

resources for the Civil Works program to pursue investments that will yield good 

returns for the Nation in the future. With the proposed $5.761 billion in fiscal year 

emergency appropriations, the Corps can also complete the Federal share of work 

necessary to significantly reduce the risk of storm surge damage to the greater New 

Orleans area. 

This Budget represents the wise use of funding to advance worthy, mission-based 

objectives. I am proud to present it. 

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Committee, for this opportunity 

to testify on the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget for the Civil Works program 

of the Army Corps of Engineers. This is the last time I will appear before this Committee to present the Civil Works budget on behalf of President Bush. It has been 

my pleasure working with this Committee. 

23 


85524.001
24 


85524.002
25 

ENCLOSURE 3 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL WORKS BUDGET 

FY 2009 CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES 

1. Project rankings. All ongoing specifically authorized construction projects, including projects funded in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account, will be assigned based upon their primary purpose to one of the main mission areas of the 

Corps (flood and storm damage reduction; commercial navigation; aquatic ecosystem 

restoration) or to hydropower. Flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower projects will be ranked by their total benefits divided by 

their total costs (BCR), calculated at a 7 percent real discount rate. Aquatic ecosystem restoration projects will be ranked by the extent to which they cost-effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic 

ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a civil works project, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited (e.g., because 

the solution requires complex alterations to the hydrology and hydraulics of a river 

system). 

2. Projects funded on the basis of their economic and environmental returns. Ongoing flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower 

construction projects with a BCR of 1.5 or higher and ongoing aquatic ecosystem 

restoration construction projects that are cost-effective in contributing to the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has become 

degraded as a result of a civil works project or to a restoration effort for which the 

Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited will receive at least the amount needed to 

pay estimated contractor earnings required under ongoing contracts and related 

costs. In allocating funds among these projects, priority will be given to those with 

the highest economic and environmental returns and to projects where the Corps 

can complete physical construction of the project and/or related administrative activities in the budget year. 

3. Projects funded to address significant risk to human safety. Flood and storm 

damage reduction projects that are funded to address significant risk to human safety will receive sufficient funding to support an uninterrupted effort during the budget year. 

4. Projects with low economic and environmental returns. Ongoing flood and 

storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and hydropower construction 

projects with a BCR below 1.5 will be considered for deferral, except for flood and 

storm damage reduction projects that are funded to address significant risk to 

human safety. Likewise, ongoing aquatic ecosystem restoration construction projects 

that do not cost-effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally or regionally 

significant aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a civil works 

project, and do not cost-effectively address a problem for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited, will be considered for deferral. 

5. New starts and resumptions. The budget could include funds to startup new 

construction projects, or to resume work on ongoing construction projects on which 

the Corps has not performed any physical work under a construction contract during the past 3 consecutive fiscal years, only if the project would be ranked that year 

in the top 20 percent of the ongoing construction projects in its mission area. The 

term ‘‘physical work under a construction contract’’ does not include activities related to project planning, engineering and design, relocation, or the acquisition of 

lands, easements, or rights-of-way. For non-structural flood damage reduction 

projects, construction begins in the first fiscal year in which the Corps acquires 

lands, easements, or rights-of-way primarily to relocate structures, or performs 

physical work under a construction contract for non-structural project-related measures. For aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, construction begins in the first fiscal year in which the Corps acquires lands, easements, or rights-of-way primarily 

to facilitate the restoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems including wetlands, riparian areas, and adjacent floodplain, or performs physical work under a construction contract to modify existing project facilities primarily to restore the aquatic ecosystem. For all other projects, construction begins in the first fiscal year in which 

the Corps performs physical work under a construction contract. 

6. Other cases. Projects will receive the amount needed to ensure that they comply with treaties and with biological opinions pursuant to the Endangered Species 

Act, and meet authorized mitigation requirements. Dam safety assurance, seepage 

control, and static instability correction projects that are funded in the construction 

26 

program will receive the maximum level of funding that the Corps can efficiently 

and effectively spend in each year. 

RESPONSES BY JOHN PAUL WOODLEY JR. TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOND

Question 1. In regards to the drainage deficiencies at the L–385 levee at Riverside 

MO. There was a flood on the Missouri River in May 2007; following this flood the 

levee district inspected the gate wall pipes as part of their routine maintenance. 

Problems were noted in several locations. The Corps has planned to install seals 

where the joints have failed and are due to be installed prior to April 1, 2008. The 

local sponsor has objected that they should not be responsible for the cost of the 

repair because they have already paid for the design and construction. However, the 

Corps concluded that the repair is subject to cost share even if it is determined to 

be a design or construction deficiency. What time table has the Corps set to determine the cause of the pipe failures? If it is deemed a design deficiencYt why will 

the non-Federal investor be penalized for a Corps mistake? I also request that the 

Corps do a complete evaluation of the entire project to see if any other features are 

not working properly prior to the local sponsor taking over the operation and maintenance of this important flood control project. 

Response. Seals have been installed at all the failed joints and the pipes are now 

fully functional. This effort was completed March 19. In addition the Corps has initiated a thorough investigation to determine the cause of these failures. The investigation will be conducted by an Architect Engineer (AE) firm and completed in September 2008. At that point the Corps will be able to determine whether it is a design construction or material deficiency and will take the appropriate follow-on action. If further corrective action is required the estimated cost for that action will 

also be available at that time. 

I understand the sponsor’s concern about sharing the cost of the repair. However 

this is a post-WRDA 86 cost shared project subject to the applicable cost-sharing 

provisions of the law. The Corps is required by law to follow the cost sharing requirements set forth therein. 

With regard to a complete evaluation of the entire project the Corps and the sponsor have completed an inspection of all structures. All levee features are fully functional and no other deficiencies were found. Although the sponsor has not officially 

taken over the project, the sponsor has been operating and maintaining the project 

since 2005. 

RESPONSES BY JOHN PAUL WOODLEY JR. TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Since WRDA 2007 became law on November 8, 2007, insufficient 

progress has been made on the programmatic changes known collectively as Corps 

Reform. While the law was enacted on November 8, the conference report was filed 

on August 31. The Corps and the Secretary’s office have had over 7 months to know 

what the new requirements would look like. Two of the most significant of the programmatic changes, independent review and improvements in the mitigation program, became effective upon enactment and certainly came as no surprise since 

similar language was in both chambers’ bills. How are you implementing the requirements to include specific mitigation plans in project study reports—requirements that include mitigation success criteria, monitoring responsibilities, a description of lands to be acquired, and contingency plans should initial mitigation efforts 

fail? 

Response. The Corps of Engineers is conducting a gap analysis on Section 2036(a) 

of WRDA 2007 requirements; the new Regulatory Mitigation Rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2008; and applicable Civil Works Planning policies to identify those areas where the Civil Works program may need modification to comply with the mitigation standards and policies of the regulatory program. Detailed implementation guidance to correct any deficiencies will be developed based on the identified gaps. The gap analysis is scheduled to be completed 

by May 23, 2008. The gap analysis will be used to develop implementation guidance. 

Implementation guidance will be developed based on the resulting recommendations 

and should be completed by July 31. Any significant issues identified may result in 

interim guidance until resolution. 

Question 2. Has implementing guidance been issued? If not, when will it be? If 

so, please provide a copy. 

Response. The implementing guidance has not been issued. Implementation guidance will be developed based on the recommendations arising from the gap analysis 

27 

and should be completed by July 31, 20008. Any significant issues identified may 

result in interim guidance until resolution. We will provide you a copy of the implementing guidance when completed. 

Question 3. How many projects studies have been modified to reflect the new requirements? Specifically list each project and how it has been modified. If projects 

have not been modified, why not? 

Response. The Corps of Engineers is currently gathering data from district offices 

on ongoing project studies that include or will include mitigation and whether or 

not the project studies have been modified to reflect the new requirements. Due to 

the effort required to respond, the comprehensive list will be provided as soon as 

possible. 

Question 4. Are there studies that include mitigation that have been completed 

or noticed for public comment since WRDA 1907 was enacted? Please identify the 

studies. Have they complied with the new law? 

Response. The Corps of Engineers is currently gathering data from district offices 

on ongoing project studies that include or will include mitigation. Due to the effort 

required to respond, the comprehensive list will be provided by the end ofJune. 

Question 5. Section 2036(b) ofWRDA 1907 requires that a status report on mitigation be submitted concurrent with the submission of the budget request. Has that 

status report been submitted? When will it be? 

Response. The Corps of Engineers is currently gathering data on the major elements ofSection 2036(b) including the status of mitigation for all projects under construction, all projects that have requested funding, and all, projects that have undergone construction or completed construction but not completed mitigation. An interim status report based on this data will be provided to you by the end of June 

2008. In addition, the Corps of Engineers is developing a data base and protocols 

for data collection in order to submit a more detailed status report with the next 

budget. 

Question 6. Section 2034 of WRDA 1907 requires independent review of projects 

meeting certain criteria, and it includes a look back to studies initiated up to 2 

years ago. For what projects have you initiated independent reviews? What are your 

plans to initiate independent reviews? 

Response. USACE has had independent peer review guidance for project feasibility studies formally in place since May, 2()05 (EC 1105–2–408), and a number of 

independent external reviews have been completed since that time. The Corps is 

currently in the process of consolidating and upgrading all of its Civil Works product review guidance with new policy to cover all work from feasibility studies 

through design, construction and operations and maintenance programs. The new 

review policy will comply with Section 2034 and Section 2035 of WRDA 2007; Section 515 ofPublic Law 106–554 (referred to as the ‘‘Data Quality Atoll); and the 

Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review by the Office ofManagement and 

Budget. This will strengthen the quality and reliability ofCorps studies, designs and 

projects by adjusting and supplementing our current review processes. Section 2034 

of WRDA 2007 identifies some potential exemptions from external review for routine 

actions that may be expensive but routine (such as replacing hydropower turbines 

in place, etc.). The Corps has not exercised any exemptions to date. 

Question 7. How many projects currently under study are subject to the requirements of section 2034 for there to be independent review? Provide the Committee 

a list of project studies subject to the independent review provision. 

Response. [continuing]. USACE currently has 63 General Investigation studies 

slated for independent external peer review. The attached list is comprised of efforts 

that have been confirmed and approved by the respective Major Subordinate Commands (Corps Division offices). This list is not all inclusive since we are in a dynamic environment, but it represents the firm list to date. 

Question 8. Do you have the resources in the budget to accomplish the independent reviews? Your request for independent reviews in the Investigations account lists only $1 million. 

Response. The amount budgeted for independent peer reviews represents a careful 

consideration of all the competing budgetary requirements and was deemed to sufficiently cover those studies included in the Budget. Should additional funds be required during fiscal year or fiscal year 9, funds will be sought from within study 

allocations or possibly through reprogramming, is excess funds available for this 

purpose can be identified. 

Question 9. In developing the independent review section, the conferees worked 

very hard to ensure that any potential delays in the study process were eliminated 

28 

or minimized. Will your delay in implementing WRDA 1907 cause delays in completing studies, including independent reviews? 

Response. Provisions for incorporating independent review into the Corps study 

process and scheduling have been in place since May 2005 (EC 1105–2–408). Strategies for review are part of each study’s Project Management Plan (PMP), and are 

designed to avoid any added delays due to review. Inevitably studies’ schedules may 

change for a variety of reasons including review, but there is no systematic effect 

of independent review delaying study completion. Section 2034 of WRDA 2007 

changed the cost sharing for independent review to be fully Federal (up to $500K) 

which may lead to a funding constraint until fiscal year when this requirement will 

be incorporated into the normal process. Should additional funds be required during 

fiscal year or fiscal year 9, normal budgetary procedures requiring close cooperation 

between the Congress and the Administration to fund the newly enacted provisions 

will be used to seek funds where independent external peer review funds have not 

been appropriated. 

Question 10. Section 2031 of WRDA 1907 requires a revision of the planning principles and guidelines which the Corps uses to develop project recommendations. 

What is the status of the revisions? Will the revisions be completed within the 

2 years required by law? 

Response. We have already initiated revision of the Principles and the Standards 

(Chapter 1 of the current GuideliJ;le). The Principles and Standards focus on the 

basic water resources planning process including the national objectives that drive 

choices among alternative plans. We intend to finish revising the Principles and 

Standards by November of this year. I have also directed the Corps to initiate a survey of needs for revising the remaining segments of the current Principles and 

Guidelines. This segment contains the Procedures in Chapters II through IV of the 

current Guidelines on how to evaluate the benefits of water resources projects. Revising these Procedures is a matter of considerable scope and detail; a greater effort 

will be required for revising the Procedures than for revising the Principles and the 

Standards. The Corps survey of Procedures will include a schedule and cost estimate for completing revision of these Procedures. We will make every effort to meet 

the 2 year statutory requirement. 

Question 11. Do you have the necessary resources dedicated in the budget to accomplish the revisions in the time called for? 

Response. For the present effort of revising the Principles and Standards, we have 

dedicated sufficient resources within our available General Expense appropriation. 

Question 12. What steps are you taking to ensure consultation with other Federal 

agencies, as required, and what steps are you taking to solicit and consider public 

and expert comments? 

Response. I have notified the agency heads specified in Section 2031 seeking their 

suggestions for revising the P&S and I have requested their assistance in establishing staff designees to carry out the consultation requirements. On June 5th, 

prior to release of draft revisions of the Principles and Standards, I will hold a 

meeting here in Washington with the interested public to hear their ideas for revisions to the Principles and Standards. We also will be taking written suggestions 

from the public. The Federal Register clerk has our notice for this meeting, and we 

are issuing a press release to publicize the meeting through the Corps Public Affairs 

Office. 

In addition we will be following prescribed procedures for vetting of guidance. 

When the draft revision is complete we will publish this draft on the Corps web site 

and place a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comments. We will receive 

comments for thirty days. 

With regard to receiving expert review and comments, our plan is to contract with 

a nationally recognized institution to establish a consulting committee of experts, 

and we’re moving expeditiously to put that proposal in place through a contract. 

Our vision is that the institution with which we contract will hold a conference in 

early August where an in dependently chosen panel of experts will review the draft 

revision of the Principles and Standards. By that time the comments from the public 

review of the draft revision also will be available to the independent panel. Furthermore, this independent review panel conference will be open to the public and will 

provide an additional opportunity for water resources interests to participate in the 

process. Therefore, I am confident that the process we envision will solicit and fully 

consider expert review that is fully integrated with public participation. 

29 


85524.004
30 


85524.005
31 


85524.006
32 

RESPONSES BY JOHN PAUL WOODLEY JR. TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. Secretary Woodley, last year’s budget stated that we need to increase 

revenues into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This year’s budget includes only 

the broad outlines sofa proposal-namely, moving from the current diesel tax to lockage fees yet your written testimony states that prompt enactment is needed. When 

will we see the actual proposal? 

Response. We expect to submit proposed legislative language to the Congress in 

April 2008. 

Question 2. Will the proposal be accompanied by any analysis of the impacts on 

users of the inland waterways system as a whole,’’ as well as the impacts on users 

of different portions of the system? 

Response. The Corps has this information. We would be happy to provide it to 

the Congress. 

Question 3. The budget request includes funds for a National Portfolio assessment 

of water reallocation possibilities. One of the problems some of the communities in 

Oklahoma have run into is that even when there is available storage at, existing 

reservoirs, the Corps’ policy on pricing that water supply storage makes it prohibitively expensive. How long has it been since this policy has been reevaluated? 

Response. First, let me explain the two different pricing methods under current 

policy. Both methods involve the administrative reallocation of water storage, which 

is authorized in and limited by the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. 

The first pricing method applies to existing storage that was authorized for water 

supply, but which has never been under contract. In these cases, the price is a proportional share of the original project cost, plus interest after a 10-year interest free 

period. This is intended to recover part of what it actually costs the Federal Government to construct the project, which was authorized to include storage for water 

supply from the beginning. 

The second pricing method applies to the reallocation of storage from one user to 

another or there assignment of the use of existing storage space from one use to 

another purpose, as in a transfer from flood control or hydropower to water supply. 

In these cases, the price is based on the highest of the following: the value of benefits forgone; the revenues forgone; the replacement cost; or the updated cost of construction. 

The pricing policy for the first method goes back to the Water Supply Act of 1958, 

which says the costs that the Federal Government incurs to provide storage for municipal and industrial water supply shall be paid by the beneficiaries of that storage. 

The pricing policy for the second method has been in effect since 1979. Also, a community may qualify for a reduction in price under either method, as provided in Section 322 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990. 

Question 4. Will you commit to working with me to see if we can improve this 

policy so that communities can afford the water supply storage opportunities the 

National Portfolio assessment may present? 

Response. We always are willing to reexamine policies to ensUre that they are 

in the national interest. 

Question 5. Sometimes on the other side of the issue, hydropower interests have 

expressed frustration with the Corps’ policy of compensating them for lost generation due to reallocations. Will you work with me to see if we can find a compromise? 

Response. We are sensitive to the impacts that reallocations from hydropower 

storage may have on power production and the corresponding effects on the rates 

that the regional power administrations charge their customers. We also are sensitive to the water supply needs of the public, especially the needs of growing communities across the country. We attempt to balance power production and water 

supply needs to maximize the benefits that Corps projects provide. The current policy is to charge a water supply user an amount sufficient to compensate the regional 

power authorities for their lost revenues. The hydropower interests prefer compensation based on replacement costs, which is generally higher. We are willing to 

work with the Congress to identify other possible ways to address such competing 

uses of storage space in Corps reservoirs. 

Question 6. Secretary Woodley, as I have stated in previous hearings and meetings, I am very supportive of the concept mentioned in your testimony of allowing 

the Corps to use the fees it collects to operate, maintain and improve recreation opportunities. Unfortunately, we have consistently run into budget scoring problems 

that have prevented us from enacting such a proposal. Will you please commit to 

working with me to see if we can come up with other ways to accomplish this goal 

of improving recreation opportunities that don’t have the same scoring hurdles? 

33 

Response. Yes I will. However, the Administration’s legislative proposal does not 

involve allowing the Corps to use the fees that it now collects. Generally, the Corps 

would spend the additional revenues in the fiscal year after it collects them. Therefore, our proposal would not have a significant net scoring impact over a 10-year 

period. 

Question 7. Could you please give more detail on implementation of Title 9 of 

WRDA 2007, the National Levee Safety Program? I am particularly interested in 

the estimated timeframe for receiving the recommendations from the Committee on 

Levee Safety. 

Response. On November 8, 2007, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 

(WRDA 2007) was enacted into law. Title IX of this WRDA is the National Levee 

Safety Act of 2007 (the Act). Section 9003 of this Title authorizes a Committee on 

Levee Safety (Committee), which would develop recommendations for a national 

levee safety program, including a strategic plan for implementing this program. 

The Committee would consist of 16 members. The Secretary of the Army and the 

Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or their representatives, are two of the members. The Secretary of the Army would select the other 

14 members as provided in section 9003. The members have not yet been selected. 

However, we anticipate that it should take the Committee about 180 days to develop 

recommendations, counting from the date of its first meeting. Of course, the actual 

schedule will depend on the views of the members and the nature of their recommendations. 

In addition, section 9004 of Title IX authorizes the Secretary of the Army to inventory and inspect certain levees. The Corps has already begun this work using 

the $30 million in fiscal year supplemental appropriations that the Congress has 

previously provided. 

RESPONSES BY JOHN PAUL WOODLEY JR. TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARPER

Question 1. As you know, chief among the WRDA 2007 reforms is the new requirement for independent review of all Corps projects that are controversial or valued at more than $45 million. I’ve been a strong supporter of this requirement, 

which will improve the safety, quality, and environmental and fiscal soundness of 

water resources projects. Where is the Corps along the path to independent review 

compliance? Have any independent reviews been conducted yet? Are certain projects 

exempt from the independent review requirement? If so, which kinds? Could you 

provide this Committee with a comprehensive list of projects slated for independent 

review? 

Response. The Corps has had independent peer review guidance formally in place 

for project feasibility studies since May, 2005 (EC 1105–2–408), and a number of 

independent external peer reviews have been completed since that time. The Corps 

is currently in the process of consolidating and upgrading all of its Civil Works 

product review guidance with new policy to cover all work from feasibility studies 

through design, construction, and operation and maintenance. The new review policy will comply with Section 2034 and Section 2035 of WRDA 2007; Section 515 of 

Public Law 106–554 (referred to as the ‘‘Data Quality Act’’); and the Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review by the Office of Management and Budget. This 

will strengthen the quality and reliability of Corps studies, designs and projects by 

adjusting and supplementing our current review processes. Section 2034 of WRDA 

2007 identifies some potential exemptions from external review for actions that may 

be expensive but are routine (such as replacing hydropower turbines in place, etc.). 

The Corps has not exercised any exemptions to date. 

The Corps currently has 63 Investigation studies slated for independent external 

peer review. The attached list is comprised of efforts that have been confirmed and 

approved by the respective Major Subordinate Commands (Corps Division offices). 

This list is not all inclusive since we are in a dynamic environment, but it represents the firm list to date. 

Question 2. The costs of independent review are to be fully covered by the Federal 

Government and capped at $500,000. I want to know if the Corps was able to properly budget this year, given the new review requirement. Does the Corps understand they are to work the costs of independent review—and fish and wildlife mitigation for that matter—into their project costs? 

Response. In these times of constrained budgets, the amount requested for independent peer reviews represents, a careful consideration of all the competing budgetary requirements. The fiscal year budget for the Civil Works program includes $1 

million for independent peer review of budgeted studies, which we determined was 

sufficient to cover those budgeted studies that would likely require peer review. In 

34 

some cases, the amount budgeted for a specific study already includes an estimate 

for independent review. It is standard practice for study cost estimates to include 

funding for mitigation investigations, including funding for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to conduct its Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act review. 

Question 3. I wish highlight the, growing concerns about the Port of Wilmington’s 

capacity to store dredge material. I believe the situation at Wilmington reflects a 

nationwide problem of maintaining and enhancing our existing infrastructure to 

meet growing demand. The primary storage site—Harbor North—is closed and the 

Corps is currently looking for a new site. What does the Corps see as the long-term 

plan for assuring adequate access to Port of Wilmington given the increasing siltation rates at the mouth of the Christina River? 

Response. The long-term plan for assuring adequate access to the Port of Wilmington requires the use of additional new dredged material disposal sites in the 

vicinity of the Port. Using funds added by Congress in .fiscal year 2008, the Corps 

is conducting a Dredged Material Management Plan to identify new disposal sites 

and establish a path forward to bring the sites on line. The management plan will 

include geotechnical analysis, designs, cost estimates, NEPA documentation, real estate requirements, and coordination with local, State and Federal agencies. The 

draft Management Plan is scheduled to be completed by September 2008. 

Question 4. While protecting the Gulf Coast is a clear priority, there are also a 

number of venerable areas along the East Coast that are threatened by catastrophic 

storms and sea level change. Is the Corps approaching its projects and priorities 

with due diligence paid to the increasing potential for sea level rise? If so, how? 

Response. Corps of Engineers current sea-level rise policy (published in 2000, developed in 1988) is being updated. The current policy directs that two specific rates 

of sea-level rise (a historic rate and a future projection) be considered in project 

planning and design. The future projection currently specified is based on the 1987 

National Research Council report. This projection is generally considered to be extreme, even today, and is much greater than more recent projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Additionally, while the current policy directs studies to consider ‘‘the risk associated with a substantial rise, it does 

not provide any guidance on how to consider that risk. The Corps currently is updating this guidance based on the findings presented in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The updated sea-level rise policy will include more recent efforts 

to project future sea-level rise rates and will provide more detailed guidance on how 

to estimate sea-level rise for specific locations, how to properly incorporate these estimates in an economic analysis, and how to assess coastal vulnerability and risk 

from sea-level rise. This effort will include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

The Corps is in the process of analyzing other risks associated with climate 

change, which have varying levels of scientific uncertainty and/or impact on Corps 

missions. The Corps is collaborating with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA, 

USGS, and State and regional agencies to understand how climate change affects 

water resources and to develop planning processes to address the impacts. These efforts include studies in the Western United States to evaluate the observed trend 

to warmer temperatures and the associated changes in precipitation (snow vs. rain) 

and earlier spring runoff on flood risk, water supply, and ecosystems. 

Question 5. Since 1986, the Corps has been required to include a detailed mitigation plan for all civil works projects that have more than minimal adverse impacts. 

These directives have not been closely followed: A May 2002 GAO report found that 

the Corps failed to mitigate at all for 69 percent of projects constructed since 1986. 

WRDA 2007 fleshes out the requirements of a mitigation plan, and imposes additional requirements including monitoring and consultation. Could you please provide me with an update on the Corps’ efforts to become compliant with the new 

mitigation requirements? Has the Corps begun consulting with State and Federal 

agencies regarding the progress of mitigation for each project? 

Response. The Corps of Engineers is conducting a gap analysis on Section 2036(a) 

requirements; the new Regulatory Mitigation Rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2008; and applicable Civil Works Planning policies to 

identify those areas where the civil works program may need modification to comply 

with the mitigation standards and policies of the regulatory program. Detailed implementation guidance to correct any deficiencies will be developed based on the 

identified gaps. The gap analysis is scheduled to be completed by May 23, 2008. Implementation guidance will be developed based on the resulting recommendations 

and should be completed by July 31. Any significant issues identified may result in 

interim guidance until resolution. 

35 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) is the vehicle by which Federal 

agencies (USFWS, NMFS) and State wildlife agencies use to comment on Corps 

projects. This also includes mitigation plans. Many USFWS recommendations under 

the FWCA concern mitigation needs and goals. Section 2036 requires a formal consultation process and the Corps is developing protocols for that process. 

36 


85524.028
37 


85524.029
38 


85524.030
39 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. I will be asking you about that. 

We have enjoyed working with you all over there as well. 

General. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General Van Antwerp. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee. It is really an honor for me to 

be here before you this morning and testify. 

Fiscal year 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 have been busy 

and challenging for the Corps. In addition to the subject of this 

hearing, in our military programs, our program with Base Realignment and Closure, Grow the Force and Restation the Force has had 

such things as $2 billion, $3 billion at some of our installations. I 

think we are seeing a re-facing of our installations across the 

Army. So we are privileged to be a part of that. 

Now, in civil works, as we look back, just to take a glimpse, we 

have completed 10 navigation projects in 2007. This particular 

budget here completes 12 projects in 2009. We restored over 5,000 

acres under ecosystem restoration, dredged 175 channels, 368 million visitor days at our recreation sites, supported FEMA in response to 10 national disasters and processed over 87,000 permits. 

So as we look forward to the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, it is a performance-based budget. It reflects the focus on projects and priorities that provide the highest net economic and environmental returns and/or addresses significant risks to human safety. It allocates funding for 79 projects for construction. It includes 11 dam 

safety projects, 16 life safety, and as I said, completes 12 projects 

in Fiscal Year 2009. 

One of the emphases we will have in the Corps this year, and 

as this budget in 2009 reflects, is in the cost-engineering improvement area. We are really working hard to improve our cost estimates and accuracy of those costs as we go through the development process. We’ve stood up an independent review of cost estimates by a center of expertise in the Walla Walla District. 

Finally, I’d like to say that the Corps is a very expeditionary 

force. Today we have over 800 civilians deployed. We have four districts, three in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. We have many heroes 

out there that are doing wonderful things for the Country. 

Then finally, I want to State our commitment to continuous improvement. We are moving on what we call good to great, stealing 

from a great author who wrote the book, Good to Great. But it is 

where we want to go as a Corps. That means we have to deliver 

quality, we have to continuously improve and incorporate lessons 

learned, be good stewards and team with our cost-sharing partners. 

That concludes my statement, and I look forward to taking questions. 

[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Antwerp follows:] 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL, ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee, I am honored to be 

testifying before your committee today, along with the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Civil Works), the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr., on the President’s Fiscal 

40 

Year 2009 (FY09) Budget for the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil 

Works Program. 

My statement covers the following 4 topics: 

• Summary of fiscal year Program Budget, 

• Construction Program 

• Cost Engineering Improvements, and, 

• Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation’s Economy, and to the Nation’s 

Defense 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR PROGRAM BUDGET

Introduction 

The Fiscal Year 2009 Civil Works Budget is a performance-based budget, which 

reflects a focus on the projects and activities that provide the highest net economic 

and environmental returns on the Nation’s investment or address significant risk 

to human safety. Direct Program funding totals $5.242 billion, consisting of discretionary funding of $4.741 billion and mandatory funding of $501 million. The Reimbursed Program funding is projected to involve an additional $2 billion to $3 billion. 

In addition, the Budget requests $5.761 billion of emergency funding for continuing 

efforts to improve storm protection for the greater New Orleans area. 

Direct Program 

The Budget reflects the Administration’s commitment to continued sound development and management of the nation’s water and related land resources. It proposes 

to give the Corps program managers more flexibility to properly maintain our key 

facilities. The Budget incorporates objective performance-based metrics for the construction program, funds the continued operation of commercial navigation and 

other water resource infrastructure, provides significant funding for the regulatory 

program to protect the Nation’s waters and wetlands, and supports restoration of 

nationally and regionally significant aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida Everglades and the Upper Mississippi River. It also would improve the quality 

of recreation services through an expanded fee structure and stronger partnerships, 

in support of modernization. Additionally, it emphasizes the basic need to fund 

emergency preparedness activities for the Corps as part of the regular budget process. 

Reimbursed Program 

Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program we help nonDOD Federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, and other countries 

with timely, cost-effective implementation of their programs. Rather than develop 

their own internal workforce to oversee large design and construction projects, these 

agencies rely on Corps of Engineers capabilities. Such intergovernmental cooperation is effective for agencies and the taxpayer by using the skills and talents that 

we bring to our Civil Works and Military Program missions. The work is principally 

technical oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is totally financed by the Agencies we service. 

Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 70 other Federal agencies 

and several State and local governments. Total reimbursement for such work in fiscal year is projected to be $2.0 billion to $3.0 billion. The exact amount will depend 

on assignments received from the Agencies. 

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as possible for 

the Nation from available funds. Our Fiscal Year 2009 Budget of $1.478 billion (including $76 million under the Mississippi River and Tributaries program) furthers 

this objective by giving priority to the continued construction and completion of 

those water resources projects that will provide the best net returns on the nation’s 

investment for each dollar invested (Federal plus non-Federal) in the Corps primary 

mission areas. The Budget also gives priority to projects that address a significant 

risk to human safety, notwithstanding their economic performance. Under these 

guidelines, the Corps allocated funding to 79 construction projects, including 11 

other dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction 

41 

projects, 16 projects that address a significant risk to human safety, and 52 other 

projects. 

The Budget uses objective performance measures to establish priorities among 

projects and, through a proposed statutory change in Corps contracting practices, 

would also increase control over future costs. The performance measures used include the benefit-to-cost ratios for projects with economic outputs; and, for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration projects, the extent to which the project cost-effectively contributes to the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem 

that has become degraded as a result of a Civil Works project or to an aquatic ecosystem restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited. The 

selection process also gives priority to dam safety assurance, seepage control, static 

instability correction, and to projects that address a significant risk to human safety. Under each of these criterions, resources are allocated based on performance. 

This approach significantly improves the realization of benefits to the Nation from 

the Civil Works construction program and will improve overall program performance by allowing the Nation to realize the benefits of the projects with the best net 

returns (per dollar invested) sooner. 

Maintenance Program 

The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the Corps of Engineers are 

aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are working to ensure that its key features continue to provide an appropriate level of service to the Nation. Sustaining 

such service poses a technical challenge in some cases, and proper maintenance is 

becoming more expensive as this infrastructure ages. 

The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year Budget includes $2.638 billion (including $163 million under the Mississippi River and Tributaries program), with a focus on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, 

flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. Specifically, the 

operation and maintenance program supports completed works owned or operated 

by the Corps of Engineers, including administrative buildings and laboratories. This 

program includes, for example, significant funding for our efforts in the Columbia 

River Basin and Missouri River Basin to support the continued operation of Corps 

of Engineers multi-purpose projects by meeting the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act. Other work to be accomplished includes dredging, repair, aquatic plant 

control, removal of sunken vessels, monitoring of completed coastal projects, and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in the various River and 

Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. 

COST ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS

The Corps has implemented some cost engineering improvements in an effort to 

ensure the development of quality project estimates in support of our Civil Works 

customers and partners for the successful accomplishment of projects. Three initiatives have been implemented that will provide more reliable project recommendations at the feasibility phase of the project by developing project cost contingencies 

using a standard cost risk analysis program. Cost risk analysis is the process of 

identifying and measuring the cost impact of project uncertainties and risks on the 

estimated total project cost. 

The first initiative mandates that the National Planning Centers of Expertise coordinate with the Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise at the Walla Walla District for independent review of cost estimates, and include contingencies in all decision documents requiring congressional authorization. This approach will provide 

consistency in business practices and in the use of cost engineering tools. 

The second initiative, which went in effect on October 1, 2007, requires that Corps 

project delivery teams conduct a cost risk analysis to develop contingencies for Civil 

Works total project cost estimates of all decision documents requiring congressional 

authorization for projects exceeding $40 million. 

The third initiative requires that project managers and their project delivery 

teams use project risk management principles and methods in developing a project 

risk management plan that includes a risk assessment and analysis and a risk response plan to support the cost risk analysis. Together the project risk management 

plan along with the cost risk analysis will produce a defensible assessment of the 

Civil Works total project cost estimate. This gives the management team an effective tool to assist in managing the planning study and will assist decisionmakers 

in making project recommendations. 

The Corps will be incorporating lessons learned into its cost estimating practices 

on an ongoing basis. Our goal is to improve the accuracy of our cost estimates much 

42 

earlier in the development of a proposed project—at the project formulation stage— 

in order to provide greater assurance in determining whether the alternatives that 

we are exploring are highly cost-effective. 

VALUE OF THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM TO THE NATION’S

ECONOMY AND DEFENSE

We are privileged to be part of an organization that directly supports the President’s priorities of winning the global war on terror, securing the homeland and contributing to the economy. 

The National Welfare 

The way in which we manage our water resources can improve the quality of our 

citizens’ lives. It has affected where and how people live and influenced the development of this country. The country today seeks economic development as well as the 

protection of environmental values. 

Domestically, Corps of Engineers personnel from across the Nation continue to respond to the call to help re-construct and improve the hurricane and storm damage 

reduction system for southeast Louisiana. The critical work they are doing will reduce the risk of damage from future storms to people and communities. 

The Budget also includes a 2009 Emergency Appropriation in the amount of 

$5.761 billion for the Federal Share of additional funds needed to provide risk reduction from hurricane and storm surges for the greater New Orleans, Louisiana, 

area. These funds will be used to restore and complete construction of hurricane and 

storm damage risk reduction features into the Federal System. The Budget also proposes that the existing systems be authorized as a single, integrated project, and 

that cost-shares of this re-authorized project be made consistent with cost-shares 

that are applied nationally. 

Research and Development 

Civil Works Program research and development provides the Nation with innovative engineering products, some of which can have applications in both civil and 

military infrastructure spheres. By creating products that improve the efficiency 

and competitiveness of the nation’s engineering and construction industry and providing more cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil Works 

program research and development contributes to the national economy. 

The National Defense 

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. 

I also want to recognize the many Corps of Engineers civilians—each of whom is 

a volunteer—and Soldiers who are providing engineering expertise, quality construction management, and program and project management in other 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 Iraq, the Gulf Region Division has overseen the initiation of more than 4,300 

reconstruction projects valued in excess of $6.5 billion. More than 500 projects valued at $2.6 billion are ongoing. These projects provide employment and hope for the 

Iraqi people. 

In Afghanistan, the Corps is spearheading a comprehensive infrastructure program for the Afghan national army, and is also aiding in important public infrastructure projects. 

CONCLUSION

The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading edge of service to 

the Nation. We’re committed to change that ensures an open, transparent, and performance-based Civil Works Program. 

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. This concludes my 

statement. 

43 

RESPONSE BY ROBERT VAN ANTWERP TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR WARNER

Question. For the Roanoke River Flood Control project, the Corps had budgeted $5 million in FY’ 05 and FY 06. Then $8.3 million in FY 07 and $10.16 million in 

FY 08. For FY 09, the Corps only budgeted $1.075 million. Can you assure the committee that the Roanoke River Flood Control project remains a viable project for the 

Corps and does the Corps expect the project to save property and lives? 

Response. Yes, sir. The Roanoke River, Upper Basin, Virginia project remains an 

economically viable and environmentally sound flood damage reduction project that 

can potentially save lives and reduce flood damage to properties. The $1.075 million 

funding level was the capability level of funding, or the most that the Corps could 

efficiently and effectively spend during FY 09. 

RESPONSES BY ROBERT VAN ANTWERP TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. General Van Antwerp, the Committee has noted for the last several 

years that the balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund continues to grow, 

even as many of our nation’s ports are not operating at authorized depths due to 

lack of funding. The American Association of Port Authorities has estimated that 

at least $1.3 billion is needed for fiscal year 2009 for operation and maintenance 

activities that are funded through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Would you 

agree with that estimate? Response. Senator we agree that $1.3 billion is an estimate of what could be budgeted for these activities, in Fiscal Year 2009 to maintain our coastal navigation 

projects. The 2009 Budget effectively balanced the Corps’ diverse portfolio ofCorps 

infrastructure projects, of which coastal navigation channels are a part. 

Question 2. What is the Corps’ capability for fiscal year 09? 

Response. The Corps’ capability for maintenance of coastal navigation projects in fiscal year could be as high as $1.3 billion, which includes additional dredging, 

dredged material placement site construction and maintenance, and jetty, breakwater and certain bridge maintenance. However, a number of external factors could 

reduce this capability estimate substantially, including natural events, the timing 

of appropriations bill passage, etc. 

RESPONSES BY ROBERT VAN ANTWERP TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. [Provide] a list of QM and CO backlog projects. 

Response. NOTE: Similar question from Rep. Boustany, Transportation and Infrastructure Hearing on deferred maintenance and similar questions from Visclosky 

QFR #60 on O&M backlog and similar answer. 

The Construction and O&M Backlog Tables are attached; however, this backlog 

listing of projects does not represent a prioritization of work either within the O&M 

account or among different accounts in the Corps. For instance, some of this backlog 

is relatively high priority whereas other work may be a lower priority relative to 

funding needs in other Corps areas. 

Question 2. [What is] the total that the Corps has spent on Katrina related 

projects. What would be the Corps objectives for working to decrease this backlog 

of projects? 

Response. Sir, the Corps has expended $2.7 billion on Katrina related projects. 

With the fiscal year Budget of $5.761 billion in emergency appropriations the goal 

is to have100-year protection by the end of 2011. Some features that dentate 100- 

year protection are scheduled to complete after 2011, including permanent pumps 

at the three outfall canals and features of the Southeast Louisiana interior drainage 

project. The work in Mississippi has been completed, other than administrative legal 

processes which could take a number of years due to the appeals process. 

Question 3. How much money is in the Hub or Maintenance Trust Fund? 

Response. The balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as of January 31, 

2008 (latest report available from Treasury) is $4.349 billion. 

Question 4. How much money has the Corps allocated to the Great Lakes in the 

fiscal year budget for dredging and what are the Corps capabilities for these dredging projects? 

Response. The table below lists the estimated Great Lakes Dredging in the fiscal 

year President’s Budget and our capability by project. Please note that the amounts 

represent an illustrative distribution of funding that may change and should not be 

considered to be budget estimates. The total, illustrative, estimated funding for 

44 

Great Lakes dredging in the Budget is $36,075,000, and the capability is 

$62,211,000 for all channels and harbors, regardless of size or commercial tonnage. 

45 


85524.007
46 


85524.008
47 


85524.009
48 


85524.010
49 


85524.011
50 


85524.012
51 


85524.013
52 


85524.014
53 


85524.015
54 


85524.016
55 


85524.017
56 


85524.018
57 


85524.019
58 


85524.020
59 


85524.021
60 


85524.022
61 


85524.023
62 


85524.024
63 


85524.025
64 


85524.026
65 


85524.027
66 

RESPONSES BY ROBERT VAN ANTWERP TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VITTER

Question 1. In 2007, the Corps of Engineers released a technical report on the alternatives for the outfall canals and pumping stations near Lake Pontchartrain. 

This technical report was required by section 4303 of the P.L. 110–28. This report 

discusses an option 280 to pump to the river, and provides discharges directly to 

the Mississippi River in Jefferson parish. Please further describe the advantages 

and operational effectiveness of option 2a. 

Response. It should be noted that the option to discharge directly to the Mississippi River in Jefferson Parish was not considered as a stand-alone solution because it does not satisfy the purpose of the project, which is to provide hurricane 

storm surge protection for the three outfall canals (17th Street, Orleans Avenue, 

and London Avenue), while not impeding evacuation of storm water. Therefore, the 

advantages and disadvantages and operational effectiveness of the option to discharge directly to the Mississippi River in Jefferson Parish were considered in addition to those of Option 2. The additional advantages and operational effectiveness 

for this option are listed below. 

• Increases interior drainage capacity and reduces local flooding. The area of Jefferson Parish served by this diversion would have supplemental or redundant drainage capacity (local). It would also allow that area of Jefferson Parish to be less dependent on Orleans Parish drainage operations and from any dependence upon conditions in the 17th Street Canal. 

• Reduces the required flow in 17th Street’’Canal, which reduces the required 

canal size for Option 2 and the size of the pump station at Lake Pontchartrain for 

either Option 1 or Option 2 if constructed prior to a new pump station at or near 

the lakefront on 17th Street Canal. 

• Provides potential for better floodplain management capability by subdividing 

the basin and providing operational flexibility between sub-basins. If an interconnection link between the 17th Street system and the new Jefferson Parish system is provided it would provide operational flexibility for both systems. Operational 

reliability and flexibility is increased because this diversion would allow for crossparish pumping during emergencies in either Jefferson or Orleans Parish. 

• Provides a mechanism for by-passing some of the;,lt7th Street Canal flow during 

construction of the deeper canal sections associated with Option 2. If this option 

were in place prior to construction of Option 2, then there would be additional flexibility to redirect flows during construction. 

• However discharging interior drainage from Jefferson Parish to the Mississippi 

River is approximately three times as expensive as discharging the same amount 

of volume of water through the 17th Street Canal to Lake Pontchartrain. 

Question 2. Would combining option 2a with one of the technical options (in the 

report) provide the best technical alternative that would provide the most comprehensive flood control measures for Jefferson Parish compared to any of the other 

technical options (in the report) being utilized by itself? 

Response. The studies associated with this project have not considered ‘‘the most 

comprehensive flood control measures for Jefferson Parish’’, Alternative analysis has 

been more closely focused on the development of features for the Hurricane and 

Storm Damage Risk Reduction System for protection of the three outfall canals. The 

information generated and the conceptual studies performed to date cannot be extrapolated to determine the most comprehensive flood control measures for Jefferson 

Parish. 

Question 3. While the technical report evaluated option 2a only with option 2t the 

report also noted that 2a could be linked to option I as well since it may provide 

additional operational flexibility to option I. Therefore which of the technical options 

when combined with option 2a would provide the best technical option when combined. Which combination of option 2a with another technical option would be the 

best technically advantageous and more operationally effective option when combined? 

Response. Option 2a when combined with any of Option It Option 2, or Option 

3t does not change the preliminary evaluation described in the Report to Congress 

for P.L. 110–28, Chapter 3, SEC 4303: 

• Options I and 2 appear more technically advantageous over Option 3 because 

they are more effective in reducing risk of flooding. Option 3 results in a much 

longer line of protection against hurricane storm surge and therefore has more exposure to hurricane storm surge and a higher risk of overtopping. • Option I could be more advantageous considering the engineering challenges 

and construction complexity of Option 2. 

67 

• Option 2 is generally more technically advantageous overall and may be more 

operationally effective than Option 1 because it would have fewer pump stations 

that offers greater reliability and further reduces risk of flooding. 

Some of the reported advantages of Option 2A are associated with a smaller deepened canal; however with the construction issues associated with Option 2 those advantages would not be applicable to other options that did not include a deepened 

canal. Therefore advantages of reduced canal size associated with Option 2a would 

only be realized in combination with Option 2. • However it must be also acknowledged that there are also disadvantages to Option 2. Namely that discharging interior drainage from Jefferson Parish to the Mississippi River is approximately two and one half times as expensive as discharging 

the same amount of volume of water through the 17th Street Canal to Lake Pontchartrain. 

Question 4. I understand the Corps of Engineers is also working on an economic 

analysis and an environmental analysis of the alternatives for the outfall canals and 

pumping stations near Lake Pontchartrain. When is the actual date of release of 

the upcoming Corps report(s) on the economic analysis and environmental analysis? 

Will the report also include the technical aspects the Corps analyzed as well? 

Response. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the 

Corps of Engineers is investigating the effects of the proposed options on environmental and socioeconomic resources and preparing an Individual Environmental Report (IER 5). IER 5 is expected to be released to the public for comment in Mayor 

June, 2008. As part of the evaluation of alternatives, technical components of all 

considered alternatives are described in the report. IER 5 references the Report to 

Congress cited above. A full economic analysis of the alternatives is not currently 

being conducted or planned. 

Question 5. After over 15 years since studying had begun, the Morganza to the 

Gulf project was finally authorized within Sec. 1001 of WRDA 2007. When did the 

Corps of Engineers come to the opinion that the cost for the Morganza to the Gulf 

project would exceed 20 percent of the number supplied to Congress in the context 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 conference? 

Response. It was in late 2007 that the Corps came to the opinion that the cost 

of the Morganza to the Gulf project would exceed 20 percent of the cost authorized 

in WRDA 2007. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, new hydraulic designs were developed using the updated surge models. With our focus being on determining new 

post Hurricane Katrina IOO-year elevations for New Orleans and vicinity, this analysis for Morganza to the Gulf region was not completed until late 2007. The analysis 

showed that the elevation of the levees and structures would need to increase by 

8–12 feet to provide a IOO-year level of protection. This represents an increase of 

approximately 70 percent over the elevations used to develop the cost estimates included in the feasibility study. Significant revisions were also made to the design 

criteria as a result of lessons learned during Hurricane Katrina. Revisions to the 

design criteria were not complete until late 2007. 

Question 6. During the hearing, Assistant Secretary Woodley said he did not believe the Corps of Engineers had a new cost estimate for the Morganza project, yet 

the Corps of Engineers has been holding up work moving forward on this project. 

How could the Corps of Engineers determine the project costs could exceed 20 percent of the authorized level without a revised cost estimate? How can the Corps of 

Engineers hold up work on the Morganza project when they did not have a new cost 

estimate on the Morganza project? 

Response. The Corps has not stopped working on the Morganza to the Gulf 

project. We are continuing to develop detailed designs for the Houma Lock and 

Floodgate Complex and will have completed 50 percent of the plans and specifications by mid summer 2008. A new project cost for the Morganza to the Gulf could 

not be developed until the new hydraulic data was available and the design criteria 

for 100-year protection had been revised to reflect the updated surge models. A new 

cost estimate is currently being developed for the Morganza to the Gulf project and 

the scheduled completion date is July 2008. As a result of the 70 percent increase 

in the required elevations of the levees and structures and the changes to the design 

criteria, we are confident that the total project cost authorized in WRDA 2007 will 

increase by more than 20 percent. Morganza to the Gulf was authorized in WRDA 

2007 but a Record of Decision (ROD) has not been signed. Given the significant 

changes in project costs and benefits, we need to reaffirm that tMe project remains 

economically justified before we would proceed further with the project. Also, as a 

result of new hydraulics and revised design criteria, the potential environmental impacts associated with the project have changed significantly. A revised programmatic EIS documenting the new project footprint and revised environmental 

68 

impacts will be needed before the ROD can be signed. The increased project cost 

will require congressional re-authorization but that would only be needed prior to 

exceeding the authorized cost. A post authorization change (PAC) report, scheduled 

for completion in the summer of 2009, will be prepared to support re-authorization. 

Assuming that the project remains justified and with updated environmental information completed in the summer of 2009, the Corps could sign the ROD. 

Question 6. Instead of holding up the entire project, how could the Corps of Engineers move forward with aspects of the project which are ready to go, like the 

Houma Lock? 

Response. Since the Houma Lock is not a separable element of the Morganza to 

the Gulf project, the economics of the project will have to be reaffirmed and a revised programmatic EIS completed, including assessing site specific impacts of the 

lock, before we could sign the ROD. Funds will have to be appropriated for construction of the project before we could move forward to construction. 

Question 7. Why has the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) work been halted with regards to the Houma Lock? Please supply citations for the law that backed 

such decisionmaking, the names of those who made such a determination, dates and 

any written communication (internal and external) that discussed and/or instructed 

the EIS work to be stopped. 

Response. We have not stopped working on the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the Houma Lock and Floodgate Complex. As discussed above, a revised 

programmatic EIS will be prepared to document changed conditions and we are incorporating all constructible features into this document. Completion of the revised 

programmatic EIS is currently scheduled for the summer of 2009. Once the revised 

programmatic EIS has been completed and the ROD has been signed, all environmental clearances will in place to begin construction oft? Houma Lock and Floodgate 

Complex. 

Question 8. What solutions can the Corps of Engineers suggest that would still 

allow flexibility for the Corps by placing projects under one umbrella, but not increase the historic nonFederal cost share for either of the Lake Pontchartrain and 

Vicinity (LPV) project nor the Southeast Louisiana (SELA), so that it does not place 

an undue financial burden on Louisiana that is still struggling with hurricane recovery efforts? 

Response. A system authorization proposed by the Administration for Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (LPV), West Bank and Vicinity and Southeast Louisiana 

(SELA) would allow greater flexibility to adjust to changes in conditions; environmental factors; technical situations; the market; and the movement of funds already 

appropriated by Congress to project features or contracts that require additional 

funding. While working within the overall appropriations provided, a system authorization would facilitate programmatic management and optimum use of resources 

to design and construct a comprehensive, quality system and advance schedules to 

meet the operational goal of completing the system in the June 2011 timeline. We 

will implement the project in accordance with cost sharing policy. 

Question 9. How many cubic yards of clay material will be needed to complete 

projects in the Hurricane Protection System? Do you anticipate finding and transporting enough clay material of appropriate quality to complete projects within the 

2011 time frame? If not, what? 

Response. The Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS) 

requires over 100 million cubic yards of borrow material, approximately 20 Superdomes worth, to build 350 miles of earthen levees throughout five parishes. 

The Corps is pursuing three alternatives to acquire borrow material: ‘‘Government 

Furnished,’’ which means the Corps identifies the borrow source location, investigates and approves the borrow material as suitable for use and acquires real eState interests over the land through the non-Federal sponsor; ‘‘Contractor Furnished,’’ which requires a construction contractor to provide their own borrow material from an approved site; and ‘‘Supply Contracts’’, under which supply contractors 

bid for task orders for the supply of borrow material for HSDRRS projects. A recently issued Sources Sought Inquiry yielded approximately 60 responses and identified potential suppliers with the capacity to deliver large quantities of clay for construction of HSDRRS projects. 

Applying this three pronged approach to the acquisition of borrow, and working 

in collaboration with the non-Federal sponsor, the Corps remains confident that the 

required quantities and delivery schedules can be met. 

69 

RESPONSES BY ROBERT VAN ANTWERP TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Question 1. Clear, navigable waterways are vital to the economic health of Connecticut and dredging projects are needed to maintain access to our ports and New 

London submarine base. I am concerned that the President’s budget only requests 

$1 million in 2009 to develop the Long Island Sound Dredged Materials Management Plan (DMMP). This plan is essential to ensure that dredged materials are 

managed in an economically sound and environmentally responsible manner. Without adequate resources over the next few years, the DMMP will not be finished in 

time to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s deadline and the New London 

disposal site will be forced to close. 

The fiscal year President’s budget requested $2.8 million and Congress appropriated $3.5 million in fiscal year for this work. What is the rational for the signification reduction in funds in fiscal year 09? What impact will ibis reduction have 

on the Army Corps’ ability to complete the DMMP on time? 

Response. The Project Management Plan for the Regional Dredged Material Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact statement for Long Island 

Sound, October 2007, identifies a funding need of $4.8 million through fiscal year 

09. The fiscal year appropriated amount of $3.525 million plus the fiscal year President’s Budget amount of$1 million compares favorably ($4.8 million vs. $4.525 million) with the needs of the project through fiscal year 09. While the $4.525 is slightly less than the estimated amount through fiscal year 09, this is not expected to 

have an adverse impact on the schedule for completing the DMMP. Given the high 

defamed and keen competition for Operation & Maintenance funds, the preliminary. 

cost estimate for the DMMP and the early stage of the DMMP study at the time 

funds were budgeted for fiscal year 09, the requested budget amount of $1 million 

in fiscal year 09 was considered adequate. 

Question 2. I understand that Army Corps is beginning to look at entire ecosystems, rather than specific projects, when making assessments. I am concerned 

however, that environmental costs and benefits are not readily assessed in most 

construction funding decisions. When construction projects were prioritized in the 

fiscal year request, how much weighting was applied to environmental costs or benefits? What was the rationale for this weighting? 

Response. There is no explicit weighting that occurs during the budget 

prioritization process. Rather, environmental costs and benefits are incorporated 

into the plan formulation and evaluation process during the course of the feasibility 

study. During the pre-construction study process, interactions with other projects in 

the system and potential project effects on the environment are considered when 

evaluating alternative solutions to the various water resources problems. The Corps 

also considers any ecosystem benefits that a project would provide. The studies include consideration of the array of information necessary for compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and numerous other environmental statutes. 

During design, the Corps continues to consider changed conditions and revise its 

cost estimates to incorporate current data. The costs of avoidance, minimization and 

mitigation of potential negative affects on the project and the costs of positive environmental features are included in the total project cost. These costs are part of the 

benefit/cost ratios which are one of several factors considered in making recommendations for funding. For flood damage reduction and navigation studies, another factor used in determining funding priorities was whether the project also produced ecosystem benefits and was a part of a more comprehensive watershed plan. 

Question 3. The fiscal year request for Operations and Maintenance was broken 

down into 21 watersheds. The fiscal year request allocates O&M funding by 54 sub 

watershed systems. What was the rationale or this change? What process was used 

to break down the 21 watersheds into 54 sub-watershed systems? For example, the 

U.S. Geological Survey identifies 10 specific subregions in the New England watershed, but the Army Corps budget is divided into a Northern New England subregion 

and a Southern New England subregion. 

Response. For Operation and Maintenance (O&M), the fiscal year and 2008 budgets proposed allocations on a regional basis, allocating funding by 21 watersheds 

identified by the U.S. Geological Survey’s watershed and sub-watershed identification system. 

The fiscal year Budget proposes to allocate O&M funding on a more refined systems basis, still based on the USGS watershed and sub-watershed identification system. In order to more clearly identify the systems among which funding is allocated, 

the Budget proposes to allocate funding among 54 systems. These 54 systems more 

closely align with how projects are managed in the watersheds. 

70 

Funding operation and maintenance using this framework will increase efficiency 

in the O&M ofCivil Works projects. Managers in the field are encouraged to think 

systematically when assessing risks and establishing maintenance priorities early in 

the budget process. Also, they will be better able to adapt to uncertainties and better able to address emergencies, as well as other changed conditions over the course 

of the fiscal year, while remaining consistent with congressional appropriations decisions. 

Question 4. The Army Corps has recently revised the standards by which levees 

are considered safe, but has not provided local governments with the resources 

needed to meet these new requirements. This has presented a financial hardship for 

the local communities responsible for maintaining the levees and the homeowners 

needing flood insurance. For example the East Hartford levee in Connecticut historically met all of the requirements from the Army Corps but was deemed deficient 

under the new criteria. The local community had to pass a bond measure to finance 

work that was previously not required. Why has the Army Corps not provided greater financial assistance to local communities responding to these more stringent requirements? What is the Army Corps doing to help local communities bring their 

levees back into compliance? 

Response. In light of the problems experienced during Hurricane Katrina the 

Corps is more actively enforcing the requirements of levee maintenance. These requirements are consistent with the original Operation and Maintenance Manuals 

provided communities at completion of Federal projects with the exception of more 

stringent vegetation removal requirements. Strict enforcement of levee maintenance 

requirements is necessary to ensure projects provide the designed level of protection 

and minimize the risk to public safety. The operation and maintenance is a local 

responsibility under the original project cooperation agreement. The Corps will continue to inspect levee projects to identify maintenance deficiencies and work with 

owners to correct these deficiencies in a timely manner. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I will start off, I think we will each take 5 minutes. 

Let me say, I want to talk about Corps reform. And I understood, 

Mr. Woodley, that you were sort of saying not enough time, not 

enough time. Well, the law was enacted in November. The conference report was filed in August. And the Corps has now had 

over 7 months to know what the new requirements would look like. 

And two of the most significant of the programmatic changes, independent review and improvements in the mitigation program, became effective upon enactment and certainly were not surprise. 

So has implementing guidance been issued? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, we already have a great deal of guidance 

in place covering independent review.—— 

Senator BOXER. No, since the law, has new guidance been issued 

since the law was passed? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t believe we have yet issued our new guidance for peer review. But I know that we are certainly working 

very hard to do so.—— 

Senator BOXER. OK, how many project studies have been modified to reflect the new requirements? 

Mr. WOODLEY. However many are required to be modified. 

Senator BOXER. Well, how many have already been modified? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t know, but—— 

Senator BOXER. Do you have staff who could tell you how many? 

Any staff there that knows that, or sir, do you know that, Lieutenant General, how many project studies have been modified to reflect the new requirements of Corps reform, independent review 

and the mitigation program? 

General Van Antwerp. We will get you the number, but we are 

doing independent review on all our projects. We have thresholds, 

because we have our internal review and we have external review. 

71 

But we are doing peer review on all of our projects today. We can 

get you the number and those specific projects. But we have incorporated that in. 

Senator BOXER. I understand. But my understanding from my 

staff, which Mr. Woodley praised and praised by both sides, is that 

it is not in conformance with the new law. Section 2036(b) of 

WRDA 2007 requires that a status report on mitigation be submitted concurrent with the submission of the budget request. Has 

that status report been submitted, sir? Sirs? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t believe so. 

Senator BOXER. OK. When will it be submitted? You are in violation of a law here. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I am sure we will get in compliance with it as 

soon as we possibly can. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, let me just say to colleagues, whether 

you like the law or you don’t like the law, you have to follow the 

law. Or we are just a lawless society here. Now, Senator Feingold 

worked very hard on Corps reform. He wanted to take it way further than a lot of us were willing to go. Senator Inhofe and I 

worked very closely together to get to some place where we could 

all live with it. And you are not even doing that. 

So Section 2034 of WRDA 2007 requires independent review of 

projects meeting certain criteria, it includes a look-back to studies 

initiated up to 2 years ago. As far as I know, you haven’t initiated 

any of these. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, we have initiated that in every case, 

every single activity underway has been, is—— 

Senator BOXER. So every—— 

Mr. WOODLEY [continuing].—actively under review to determine 

its—— 

Senator BOXER. But it is under your old guidance, not under the 

new guidance in the new law, is my understanding. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Well, it is being scrubbed, there is no new guidance, but we are operating under the law. 

Senator BOXER. Well, there is new guidance, it is called the law. 

Mr. WOODLEY. There is new guidance—— 

Senator BOXER. Did you, when you—— 

Mr. WOODLEY [continuing].—it is called the law. That is exactly 

right. 

Senator BOXER [continuing].—handed in your budget request, did 

you or did you not follow the law, which says, a status report on 

mitigation be submitted concurrent with the submission of the 

budget request? And you didn’t do that. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t think we were able to get that done. 

Senator BOXER. Right. That is my point. Do you have the resources in the budget to accomplish the independent review and everything else you have to do under the new law? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Well, we certainly have included additional funding in the investigations account to cover the independent review 

for any project that didn’t otherwise have it, and then that is an 

additional million dollar allocation that we got in the investigations 

account. As you know, that account has not been increased in our 

budget request for many years. 

72 

Senator BOXER. Section 2031 of WRDA 2007 requires a revision 

of the planning principles and guidelines which the Corps uses to 

develop project recommendations. Where does that stand in the 

process? Where are you in that process? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I have created an interagency team to begin that 

process. I am preparing the schedule on that, and we are moving 

very aggressively to complete that. 

Senator BOXER. OK, well, if I could just close here, because my 

time is up and I will come back later, you are working off of the 

old, as I understand it, pre-Katrina rules in terms of independent 

review. And that is a problem. Because after Katrina, we all moved 

in a different direction here. So I am just a little bit befuddled by 

the lack of response, I am a little concerned about it. So I hope we 

can meet with you perhaps after this hearing is over, maybe you 

do need more resources and maybe you can’t tell us. Maybe Senator Voinovich is right, that you just don’t have enough to do the 

job you are supposed to do. 

But you didn’t do what you were supposed to do in your budget 

request and it is disturbing to me. I will withhold my other questions until my second round. 

Senator ISAKSON. Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Woodley, in my discussions and my staff’s discussions 

with the staff at the Corps, as we were working toward this year, 

it was my understanding that staff recommendations were to include the Savannah expansion project, and it did not end up getting in the budget. Where was the decision made to not do Savannah in Fiscal Year 2009? 

Mr. WOODLEY. The decision was not a peculiar one to Savannah. 

The decision was to establish the criteria on which we would base 

our budgeting decisions, and Savannah did not meet one or more 

of those criteria. I believe there is still NEPA work underway that 

needs to be completed before we can proceed with Savannah. But 

I would have to be brought up to speed on that to be exactly sure 

what it is. 

Senator ISAKSON. General Van Antwerp is nodding his head. Is 

that correct? 

General Van Antwerp. I think I can add. We have funded this to the capability which is $700,000. It is to complete the Record of 

Decision which is scheduled for June 2009, completion of that 

Record of Decision. 

Senator ISAKSON. So if you would, Secretary Woodley or General 

Van Antwerp, whichever one is appropriate, if you could send me 

a communication to my office to let me know what criteria it is that 

Savannah needs to be able to be included in the next budget, which 

will be Fiscal Year 2010, I would greatly appreciate those points 

of criteria. 

I understand the inclusion of the completion of the Oakland Harbor in California. We in Georgia benefited from the Corps’ commitment to complete Brunswick years ago. So I understand that. But 

I am equally very desirous of getting the Savannah enhancement 

project started, so that when the Panama Canal project is completed, we can remain the second largest port on the Eastern Seaboard, and I don’t think anybody else can really take our place caVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
73 

pacity-wise, anyway. So it is essentially in the best interest of the 

United States to do that. 

Secretary Woodley, with regard to the ACT and the ACF and the 

water control manuals that the Corps has committed to complete, 

is the money sufficient in this budget to do that process? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. On both of them? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I believe so, yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. OK. Check, because if I believe so means 

maybe—— 

Mr. WOODLEY. No, no. No, sir, I am not in doubt. That activity, 

we regard that as a very high priority activity within the operation 

and maintenance of those facilities on those two waterways or watersheds. Although I would have to look at the schedule, I don’t 

know that we are budgeting in 2009 to complete that process. However, we are budgeting fully to continue all activities associated 

with that process. I believe it is not able to be brought to full completion in 2009, but that we are certainly fully funding our activity, 

because I agree with you and have long advocated the updating of 

those manuals to allow us to appropriately manage the Federal responsibilities on both of those watersheds. 

Senator ISAKSON. My understanding, I think you are correct, my 

understanding, and you all can correct me, is that this is really a 

2-year project. My question obviously is, is there sufficient money 

to do this year’s Fiscal Year 2009 in the, what should be, I guess 

there is enough money in the current 2008 to begin the project and 

in 2009 to continue the project, and if necessary in 2010, there 

would need to be money to complete the project. So it is a 2-year 

project, 18 to 24 months. It is also my understanding the Corps has 

brought in a person not previously affiliated with all this to oversee 

both of these water control plants, is that correct? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

General Van Antwerp. That is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. So some time in the next 2 years, and we do 

have the person on board who is going to lead the charge? 

General Van Antwerp. Mr. Isakson, if I might just add, there is 

a 1.8 in this budget, Fiscal Year 2009, and then that leaves about 

1.9 after 2009. But what is in the budget right now will take us 

through so we can be engaged throughout that time. But it is a two 

to 3 year process, largely because of the environmental part. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you again, 

gentlemen, for all of your leadership and work. 

I want to go right to the three topics I enumerated in my opening 

statement. First, the additional funds for the 100 year level of protection. Again, thanks to the President, thanks to the Administration for that commitment. 

But I am concerned about timing. General, isn’t it true that the 

original timeframe for that work was to complete it by 2010, but 

that has now slipped to 2011? 

74 

General Van Antwerp. I believe that is true. I know that the slippage, it is now, we are targeting the 2011 hurricane season, so the 

June timeframe. 

Senator VITTER. Now, Corps officials beneath you have said they 

need this money appropriated by the start of the fiscal year, October 1st, to stick to that timeframe, is that accurate? 

General Van Antwerp. That is accurate. We have looked at when 

we need to award contracts and put those contracts out. We need 

a good portion of this money right at the beginning of Fiscal Year 

2009, October-ish. 

Senator VITTER. Great. General, do you know the last time Congress has acted on the Corps appropriation bill in a timely way by 

October 1st? 

General Van Antwerp. Not in memory, sir. 

Senator VITTER. In 1999. Do you know many times Congress has 

done that in the last 10 years? Once in the last 10 years. 

So given the obvious emergency nature and significance of this 

work, why are we asking for it in that model, which ensures, absolutely ensures, particularly in a Presidential election year, further 

slippage? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Perhaps I had better answer that, Senator. I can 

tell you that when we submit a budget, we do it on the assumption 

that it will be prepared and that there will be an appropriation by 

the beginning of our Fiscal Year and we plan our execution on that 

basis. 

I agree that it is becoming more rare than it ought to be. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Secretary, let me suggest, this goes to the 

future of the New Orleans region, the survival of the New Orleans 

region. So why are we building assumptions in to our work that are 

patently false? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I do not have a good answer for that question, 

and I would say that if Congress does not intent to complete this 

process within the current Fiscal Year that alternate provisions 

should be made in order to ensure that no delays are experienced 

on the ground. 

Senator VITTER. It is true, is it not, that this is being requested 

as emergency spending not under the cap? 

Mr. WOODLEY. That is correct. 

Senator VITTER. So for all these reasons, I believe we should 

clearly move this to the supplemental, which presumably will happen sooner. And my second concern under this category is the cost 

shares. As you know, components of this work are being requested 

by the Administration at a higher cost share to the State, at a 

more demanding cost share to the State than ever before. SELA is 

normally 75/25 Federal/State. You are asking 65/35. Lake Pontchartrain vicinity is normally 70/30 Federal/State. You are asking 

65/35. 

After we have gone through Katrina and Rita, why would you 

make the cost share more demanding rather than at least stick to 

the historical cost share or even offer some additional help? 

Mr. WOODLEY. You remember that the cost share applies only to 

that portion of the work that is in excess of what had previously 

been, prior to Katrina, had been authorized by Congress. So the 

vast majority of the work being undertaken is being undertaken at 

75 

full Federal expense. I think that is entirely appropriate and I 

agree with that. 

The issue of cost share being more demanding is really related 

to another issue, which is the absolute imperative that I feel to operate, plan, authorize and manage the construction and the ongoing operation and maintenance of this set of works as a single system. The great lesson, if we have a lesson, of Katrina is that is 

what was not done. So we had a series of fragmented works that 

were done to different standards and that sort of thing. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Secretary, you can do all that integration 

and ask the State for a different number. That has no impact on 

the level of integration you bring to the work, correct? I mean, we 

are talking about what bill you hand the State, what number you 

had the State, one number or a lower number. That has nothing 

to do with the integration in terms of the ongoing work you are 

talking about. Does it? 

Mr. WOODLEY. It establishes, it seemed to me to establish that 

principle on the most firm basis. And certainly you are exactly 

right, we are perfectly capable of managing the accounting in a different way if Congress should so propose. 

Senator VITTER. Well, again, these two programs I am talking 

about, SELA and Lake Pontchartrain, have been around a long 

time. You are asking for a more demanding cost share for that 

work than ever before, than the historical share, that which was 

re-confirmed in WRDA, than that which was re-confirmed in the 

supplemental over the last several years. And that seems particularly odd, given the extra pressure and demands that we have gone 

through because of the hurricanes. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Vitter, would you, your time is up, I 

would like to engage you in a question, because I don’t understand 

it, either. It is baffling to me, this 65. Did that just come out of 

the blue? We didn’t legislate it. 

Senator VITTER. Not the blue, OMB. 

Senator BOXER. It came out of OMB. But we did not legislate 

that change. 

Senator VITTER. No, in fact, we legislated the opposite. We have 

said several times, in WRDA and before that in the supplemental, 

we re-confirmed the historical cost shares which for one of these 

projects is 75/25, for another is 70/30. So we have only not said 

that, we have said the opposite. 

Senator BOXER. Well, OMB is once again wrong. OK. 

Senator BARRASSO. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate 

it. 

I wanted to get, if I could, back to some of the things I mentioned 

in my opening statement, about Cheyenne, Wyoming, concerns 

with the water supply there, and trichloroethylene, which is a 

chemical that is used to clean engines, rocket and motor parts, and 

there is a long history of the people in Wyoming and their commitment to our military and the missile systems which are there and 

in the ground. And the concern is this plume that people agree is 

there and folks living there think is one, related to the missile site 

and the Department is saying no, maybe several causes. 

76 

Why does the Army Corps think that it is not all one plume? And 

I don’t know how specifically you are familiar with the situation. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, I have no responsibility for the program 

that is managing that. But fortunately, the Chief of Engineers 

does. I believe he is prepared to respond to that. But that is a formerly used Defense site program, which is managed as a military 

program within the Defense Department structure. 

General VAN ANTWERP. First of all, I would say we are going to 

do the right thing here. There is a remedial investigation going on 

and there is some difference in the values that were found in the 

data from the investigation that was done by the city of cheyenne 

and done by the remedial application. We have to come to grips 

with that. 

We are doing a feasibility study, that is underway. We have the 

money for that and we will come to grips with this. I agree with 

you, what are the other contributing factors, if there are contributing factors to it, apart from this plume that we know came from 

this remediation site. So we will get to the truth on that and get 

that to you. 

Senator BARRASSO. The concern is, and I appreciate your comments that you are going to do the right thing, there does seem to 

be needless delay in this. I know I wrote to you back in December 

with concerns, because there was a letter written by the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality back in 2006, and several 

months later there was a meeting but not a formal letter response. 

I got a letter back from the deputy director of military programs, 

Joseph Tyler, dated February 8th. He talks about, he apologizes 

that there wasn’t a response back to the letter. That is where I 

think we have needless delay. 

Then he says that there is going to be a joint agency meeting 

March 11, 2008, which coincidentally is today. I know this hearing 

was initially set for a month ago, and I was going to at that time 

ask you, can you assure me that by the hearing, March 11th, today, 

that we really do get answers to this. So this probably will be held 

after our discussion. 

But we are very serious in Wyoming about saying, we are not 

used to needless delays. In Wyoming, we like to get things done 

right away. 

General VAN ANTWERP . We owe you an answer. I believe that 

is being held today. We will get you the results of that. So I owe 

you an answer to that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

[Presiding] Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

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

First let me welcome our witnesses, and I am sorry I couldn’t be 

here to listen to your entire testimony. 

Secretary Woodley, I appreciate your call yesterday in regard to 

Chesapeake City. I am glad to see that is moving forward. I want 

to just concentrate on the Mid-Bay report that is due in regards to 

the next chapter of restoration and dredging for the Chesapeake 

Bay. The last time we had a chance to talk, I was under the imVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
77 

pression that it is on schedule. I just really want to make sure that 

we can anticipate the report being delivered on time. We anticipate 

acting in this Committee on the next round of authorizations. It is 

important that we have that report in a timely manner for our 

Committee to act. 

I just want to take this opportunity, General, or Mr. Secretary, 

if you could comment on that and give us assurances that the report will be timely filed, I will feel a little bit better. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Sir, we just checked on this last night, 

as everyone was engaged here. It is another good thing, a lot of 

things happened before the hearing. That is good. But we are on 

schedule, it will go before the Civil Works Review Board in July 

2008. And I am expecting the Chief’s report by the end of September, beginning of October. 

Senator CARDIN. That is even a little bit earlier than I think you 

told me the last time. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We are trying to deliver on this. 

Senator CARDIN. And I thank you, and I thank you for your cooperation. We have had a good working relationship in trying to 

make sure we stay on schedule. I thank you for that. 

Madam Chairman, I am going to ask that my full opening statement be made part of the record. 

[Presiding] Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator CARDIN. It is basically very complimentary of the work 

that you all do and the importance to our State from the western 

part, on flight control, to the eastern part, on serious erosion issues 

and weather problems. The Army Corps has been extremely helpful 

in maintaining and help us make sure that our channels are open 

for recreation and business use. 

Our challenge, quite frankly, is not with the two of you but with 

the budgets that have been submitted, as I am sure the Chairman 

has pointed out. We are going to do everything we can to help in 

that regard. It is a little disappointing to see all the work that we 

do, particularly on the Water Resources Reauthorization Act and 

on the programs that you all have done so much work to get ready 

and then find that the appropriated dollar amounts make it difficult for you to do the right investigations or the right construction 

or maintenance. I can assure you that we will do everything we can 

to make sure that the dollars are available for the good work that 

you all do. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. 

Maryland has a geography and topography which makes the Chesapeake Bay particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of erosion. This erosion contributes to five 

millions of cubic yards of sediment deposited annually into the bay, adversely affecting water quality, destroying valuable wetlands and habitat, and clogging navigation channels. 

Along our Atlantic coast, powerful winter storms and tropical cyclones can cause 

considerable beach erosion—threatening the economic vitality of our premier Atlantic coast resort city, Ocean City. 

In the mountains of the western part of the State, runoff from heavy rains contributes to the potential of flooding in western communities. 

78 

Maryland relies heavily upon the Army Corps of Engineers’ civil works programs 

which are of high value to the health of our Chesapeake Bay, the configuration of 

our Atlantic and Bay coastlines, and to overall health our State’s economy. The 

Corps of Engineers has projects and provides assistance to virtually every jurisdiction in the State of Maryland. 

The Chesapeake Bay is the nation’s largest estuary. The Corps’ oyster and habitat 

restoration, shoreline protection, and sediment management programs are integral 

to our efforts to restore the Bay. The oysters represent more that just a source of 

income for the oysterman who harvest them, they are also natural biological filters—continually cleaning up the Bay. 

The Port of Baltimore is one of the largest ports on the east coast and a vital engine of economic activity, contributing $2 billion to the State’s economy and employing 18,000 Marylander’s directly and tens of thousands more indirectly. 

There are 126 miles of shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore. Maryland also has more than 70 small navigation projects supported by the Corps around 

the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean. These navigation projects are critical to 

commercial and recreational fisherman, to local and regional commerce and to local 

economies. 

Along Maryland’s 31 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline, there are two critical 

Corps projects—a hurricane protection project at Ocean City, and a mitigation of 

shoreline erosion project at Assateague Island National Seashore. 

We rely heavily on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood protection in communities in Western Maryland and for water supply. 

As you can see, the civil works programs of the Corps have widespread beneficial 

impact throughout our state. Indeed similar impacts can be seen all across the 

Country. States need these resources to protect their communities from potential 

natural disasters and to improve the overall quality of their environments. 

Unfortunately, the President’s proposed budget underfunds the Corps at a time 

when there is a significant backlog of projects to be completed. The budget places 

an unrealistically large burden on States to fund these projects (like beach renourishment). Furthermore, the budget does not even begin to implement many of 

the priorities of WRDA passed just last year. 

The hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on beach restoration today may mean 

saving many times over those amounts to clean up that beach and provide assistance to property owner’s following a significant storm. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the priorities of the President with respect to the Corps’ activities. 

The Corps’ work is critical. We need a level of commitment that is commensurate 

with its importance. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. 

Senator VOINOVICH. First of all, I want to say thank you, Mr. 

Woodley, for your service to our Country, and General, thank you 

very much for your service. I am sure that sometimes you think 

that ours is not to reason why, ours is just to do or die. We are 

asking a lot of things from you and quite frankly, the money is not 

there. 

I would like to just talk about a couple of things that are on my 

mind in terms of Ohio. We have the Cleveland Port Authority. It 

is very, very important to the economy of northeastern Ohio. The 

President’s budget has provided $6,710,000 for dredging. We need 

$16,810,000 for the dredging. This is a very important project, and 

I am expecting that somebody is going to figure out how we are 

going to get that money to do it, or we will have to close the port. 

What bothers me is that there is $4.5 billion in the fund, the 

dredging fund that has been set aside. And for some reason, that 

is not being used. Well, the reason it is not being used is that the 

Administration is using that to balance the budget. They are borrowing trust funds, like they are Social Security, to hide the real 

costs of this budget. In other words, they just show a deficit of X 

number of dollars but the fact of the matter is, they only show the 

79 

public debt, they don’t show the Government debt. That to me is 

being, it is unacceptable. 

Second of all, we have a little project down in Finley, Ohio, 

where they have had the worst flooding that they have ever had 

in the city’s history. It is a continuing authority and we need the 

money to just do the feasibility study for that project. It is not a 

whole lot of money. I would like to know when are we going to be 

able to get that money so that can be taken care of for that community, so they get some idea of what it is they can do to help themselves and to eliminate the situation they have. We have the public-private partnership there, we have the businesses that are interested, they may even come up with some money to fund the 

most important project that might make a difference for their community. But we can’t get it done unless we have the feasibility 

study done and I am hoping that we are going to figure out how 

to do that. 

I appreciate the fact that you have money in for the Everglades, 

that was my legislation, for the CERP, Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan. That is moving along. And I am not from Florida, 

but the fact is, that is a very important ecological project, I think 

one of the most important in the Country. That gets me back to 

the Great Lakes. The President issued an executive order creating 

the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The Corps is a participant in both of those. 

The question I have is, can you tell me what actions, if any, the 

Corps has taken in response to the release of that strategy report? 

So there are three things. Strategy, feasibility and what are you 

doing about the Great Lakes? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Let me talk about first of all Finley. I think we 

are on track for that. We have money in the 2008, it is a continuing 

authorities project, so it is not one that we individually budget for. 

We budget for the program. But I believe that is on track with 

2008 funding, and we understand and agree with you that it is an 

important priority within that program. 

The Great Lakes, we have participated of course with the interagency teams on that, we have some very interesting studies ongoing that are aimed at facilitating the restoration, including one 

that is creating a comprehensive tool for people who are interested 

in restoration to be able to access on a web basis, through the 

Internet, to understand what the options are and what various programs they can bring to bear on local issues for restoration within 

the basin. 

The other thing that I think is very interesting and that is underway in that regard in Ohio is the Ashtabula project that is, I 

believe we are going to be able to complete during this fiscal year. 

That will return that very important port facility in Ashtabula to 

service and deal with the contamination, the historical contamination of that watershed. I think that is a remarkable, very substantial achievement that we have in partnership with our colleagues 

at EPA. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Although the budget that EPA is asking for 

to do that kind of contamination removal is putrid. I started that 

dredging and contamination project when I was Governor of Ohio 

80 

back in 1995 and earmarked $6 million of State money. Finally we 

are getting it done, amen and hallelujah. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Nice to see you smile, sir. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am sure I will make you smile again. 

Mr. Woodley, in your written testimony you mentioned that the budget for the emergency management program includes $40 million in the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to fund 

preparing for flood and coastal emergencies. Specifically you mentioned that this funding would cover review and updating of emergency response plans. 

Back in Minnesota, several counties were devastated this summer. I was there the day afterward, cows floating by, in last summer’s flooding, and still these counties are still preparing their 

emergency response plans, they are very complicated for these 

small counties to handle. Until some of these communities, such as 

the ones in Fulmer County, get their emergency response plan approved, they cannot receive certain small business rebuilding loans 

from FEMA. 

Does the Corps intend to prioritize any funds in the Flood Control and Emergencies account for helping communities who have 

not fully prepared emergency response plans? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, I am not aware of how those funds are 

used in conjunction with the localities. So I will have to research 

that and get back to you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, if you could. It has just been very difficult for them, they are trying to cross all the T’s and dot all the 

I’s. But what has been happening is they can’t receive these small 

business loans. I have been at these stores and these places along 

their main street and they literally have been, every business was 

devastated. So they are trying to get help with that, so we can 

work with your office on that later. I appreciate it. 

The other thing I am just following up on, what Senator 

Voinovich asked about with the Great Lakes, could you just tell me 

what work the Corps is doing with these lake levels? We are very 

concerned with Lake Superior. It is at its lowest level in 80 years. 

It has been affecting our barge traffic. We believe it is climate 

change because the ice has been melting and the water 

evaporating. Nevertheless, it is a problem. Could you illuminate 

what the Corps is doing in that regard? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I can tell you that our work on that is done in 

conjunction with the International Joint Commission on the Great 

Lakes. So we deal with the IGC on regulating lake levels where 

they are to be regulated. 

The other significant action that is underway in that regard is 

the St. Clair River study that we are trying to determine whether 

the dredging that has been undertaken in the St. Clair River area 

is having a hydrological effect that was unintended there. It is not 

clear whether it is. So we have work underway with the IGC to determine that. 

But we recognize that the lake levels are down and it is having 

an effect on operations across the basin. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

81 

I talked in my opening comments about how I believe the Administration’s budget is far below the Corps’ capability for investment 

in navigation, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration 

programs. I mentioned some of the work that needs to be done in 

Minnesota. Assistant Secretary Woodley, what amount do you believe the Corps could effectively invest in Fiscal Year 2009? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t know that I have a particular figure, Senator, but it is well in excess, in the construction account, of the 

amount that we were able to devote to that in the President’s budget. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

We are going to start second rounds, 5 minutes each, and then 

you will be done. This question is for the General, actually both 

these questions, because these are longer term questions. I talked 

in my opening statement about Sacramento, and I am very grateful 

that you really have been dedicated to it. I guess what I want to 

do, since I have you here on the record, is to just make sure that 

this dedication is not just for the budget year, but until the project 

is done. If you could expand on that a little. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Absolutely, ma’am, it is long-term. There 

are some short-term aspects having to do with looking at all the 

levees right now, making sure what the standards are, getting 

them up to standard. But it is also a longer term, as we look at 

climate change, other things that will be affecting that. So we are 

with you for the long term. 

Senator BOXER. That is good, because again, just for the record, 

this flood plain is home to half a million people, it contains 165,000 

homes, 1,300 government facilities, including our State capital of 

the largest State in the Union, and businesses providing 200,000 

jobs. So this is, I mean, I could argue cost benefit ratios about a 

lot of places but this is open and shut, as far as it goes. Then to 

think that the predictions were worse for that area than for Louisiana, I mean, it really gets me going, gets me concerned. 

I will be working very closely with you throughout. I am going 

to go back up there and take a look-see myself. But I just would 

hope that we would have some transparency here if there are any 

problems, if you see problems on the horizon, because we know it 

is going to be very expensive. But the cost of doing nothing, in 

terms of lives and property damage and the rest of it, is just really 

almost untold. 

Then the other question I had revolves around the Napa River 

flood control project. I understand the budget has $7.39 million in 

it. But my understanding is the capability, meaning the project, 

could take up to $22.8 million. So I want to confirm that is accurate. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Ma’am, I am actually showing capability 

of $24.6 million. And you are correct on the 2009 budget. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, I hope we can work together. If we are 

fortunate enough and Congress does move and does restore funding, and I think Congress will, this budget may pass by, I don’t 

know if it will or won’t. We have Presidential, we have some illnesses, et cetera. But if this budget does pass, we will have a big 

82 

restoration of dollars in the budget itself, and then of course in appropriations we will work as well. 

So would you be open to looking at that project, since it is capa- ble of $24.6 million, if you do have more resources, can we talk 

about that? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Those were my two issues, and I would ask 

Senator Vitter if he would like a second round. 

Senator VITTER. Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Morganza to the Gulf, as I said in the opening statement, it is 

an enormous frustration to me and everybody who cares about this 

project in Louisiana. It appears that the Corps is determined not 

to do this project, no matter what Congress does. Why do I say 

that? It is because the Corps first started looking at this, was directed to in 1992. The project was authorized in WRDA 2000, pending a chief’s report by a certain date, and the Corps missed the 

deadline. The project is authorized again fully in WRDA 2007. And 

a month after WRDA 2007 passes, the Corps says, no, nothing 

doing, because we think project costs will exceed 20 percent of the 

authorized level, everything is on hold. 

That appears to us as complete bad faith and complete determination to not do this work, no matter what Congress says. What 

is the status of Morganza to the Gulf right now, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Right now the project is authorized, based on a 

feasibility study that is several years old. I think it is entirely prudent that we predetermine, because of the dramatic events that 

have taken place, and the dramatic changes that have taken place 

in the cost of construction in that part of the world, that go, that 

we move aggressively and quickly to determine an up to date cost 

estimate for the project and advise you of that cost estimate at the 

earliest possible date. 

Senator VITTER. When was it determined by the Corps that you 

think project costs will exceed 20 percent of authorized level? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t know exactly when that particular determination was made. I do know that it has been apparent for some 

time that the feasibility study completed in 2002 had been overtaken by events. 

Senator VITTER. Why isn’t the Corps doing what happens all the 

time in big projects when there are new, open questions, that you 

move forward with certain work and you continue to refine and answer those open questions? That is done all the time in big 

projects, but not here. We are just calling a halt to any progress 

here. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I believe that the rules under which we operate 

call for us, when a project has, when it is apparent that a project 

is going to go very substantially over its authorized level, that we 

return to the authorizing committee for further instructions. 

Senator VITTER. Well, let me go back to that time line. Because 

we passed WRDA in November 2007. Then on December 13th, 1 

month later, the chief of engineers’ office informs the local sponsor 

that they expect the costs to go over 20 percent of authorized levels. Why didn’t you say boo to us when we are putting the number 

in WRDA, rather than wait a couple weeks after WRDA passes and 

say essentially, gotcha? You think you have an authorization? You 

83 

don’t. Why isn’t that clear evidence of basically bad faith, a determination to not do this project on your part? 

Mr. WOODLEY. We have made no, by no means have we made a 

determination not to do the project. 

Senator VITTER. You made a determination not to do any work 

in the foreseeable future, even though we just passed the authorization. 

Mr. WOODLEY. We made a determination, I believe, to update the 

cost estimate and to advise the Congress of the fact that the authorized cost estimate is probably inadequate to complete the 

project. 

Senator VITTER. Do you have a new cost estimate? 

Mr. WOODLEY. As of today, I don’t believe that we do. 

Senator VITTER. So you don’t know that it is over 20 percent of 

the authorized level? 

Mr. WOODLEY. It would astonish me if it were not. 

Senator VITTER. OK, but you don’t have a new cost estimate? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t believe we do. 

Senator VITTER. So why can’t we move forward with aspects of 

the project which are ready to go, like the Houma Locks? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would say that, if that lock is a separable element that can be separately justified, that we can proceed with 

preliminary work like the preconstruction engineering and design 

with respect to that. 

Senator VITTER. Let me move quickly to another big topic that 

I mentioned, which is the outfall canals. When will the final report 

be given to Congress regarding the preferred solution to the outfall 

canal issue? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Let me ask the Chief if he could address the operational aspects on that. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We are looking at all alternatives for 

that, sir. One of the things that we are looking at very closely is, 

should we remove the existing stations, as you have seen, and we 

have all seen down there. We are proceeding with, we want to go 

design-build for this. And I think that, I don’t know, Don, would 

you have a date when we might be complete with the report? 

Speaker. No, sir, the design-build contractor will give us—— 

Senator VITTER. I believe there has been a technical report, we 

have that. 

General Van Antwerp. Right, that is correct. 

Senator VITTER. I believe there is a cost economic report due, and 

I thought it was very soon. Is there not a tentative date for that 

report? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We don’t have a date for that report. Let 

me get that to you. But what we are going to do with the designbuild, then we will get, as that designer and builder comes on, we 

are going to get accurate cost data. 

Senator VITTER. Madam Chair, can I just follow up on this one 

topic? 

Senator BOXER. One more minute. 

Senator VITTER. Will that cost economic report include a specific 

recommendation in terms of one of the four options, 1, 2, 2(a) or 

3? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes, sir. 

84 

Senator VITTER. That decision has not been made yet? 

General VAN ANTWERP. No, it has not, to my knowledge. 

Senator VITTER. OK. If that decision has not been made, why is 

the cost of one particular option build into the budget submission? 

That is the fact. You have submitted a budget. That budget assumes a cost for this work. That is the cost of one of those four options, not all of them, one of them. So it seems to us that everything has been pre-judged. Why am I wrong in coming to that conclusion? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will have to dig deeper into that. I can’t 

answer that question. 

Senator VITTER. Finally, Mr. Secretary and General, I would just 

point out that the technical report, I think, gives clear evidence 

that option 2, including the possibility of 2(a), is superior in terms 

of the top goal, flood protection. It says, option 2 is generally more 

technically advantageous and may be more effective operationally 

over option 1, because it would have greater reliability and further 

reduces risk of flooding. I think it is very clear that option 2 is 

more robust and reduces the risk of flooding much more than option 1. The problem is, even though you say a decision has not been 

made, the funding level is the funding level of option 1. That obviously causes us great concern that things are being pre-judged by 

folks like OMB, being driven by cost over engineering. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, I think you have made your point here. 

I think it would be very important for the Corps to explain themselves, because if you are saying a decision has been made, yet you 

have put a certain amount in, have they put in, Senator Vitter, the 

largest amount? 

Senator VITTER. No, they put in a smaller amount for option 1. 

Senator BOXER. That is why that doesn’t seem to make any 

sense, you are right. If they put in the larger amount to be conservative and say, well, if we have to go there, it makes sense. I think 

Senator Vitter has made some important points. I hope you will get 

back to him on this, because it does sound odd to me. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like a letter from you, Secretary, on 

the backlog of your OM projects. What is the backlog of your OM 

projects. I would also like to have a letter on the backlog of construction projects. We added a lot more with the last WRDA bill. 

But I would like to have that list of how much we—— 

Mr. WOODLEY. Which backlog do you want, Senator? 

Senator VOINOVICH. The whole darned backlog, the backlog of 

the projects that you have that have been, all the engineering work 

has been done and a local share is in place. I want to know what 

it is. 

I would also like to know, and all due respect to Senator Vitter, 

I would like to know how much money has the Corps spent on 

Katrina since this has all been started. I want to know how much 

money we spent there. Yes, sir, go ahead. 

Mr. WOODLEY. With respect to construction on flood damage and 

storm surge reduction works, is that what you had in mind? 

Senator VOINOVICH. I have the construction projects that you got 

for the Army Corps of Engineers, including Army Corps projects 

and the environmental restoration, which we continue to lay on top 

85 

of the Corps of Engineers. If there is a question about what it is, 

I want whoever is going to draft the letter to come to my office and 

we will sit down and talk about it. We will look at the options, so 

that we are comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Absolutely. That is what I am concerned about. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Let’s get that scheduled. I want to get that 

done with a week’s time with you, OK? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Absolutely. We are available for that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. All right, we will see what that is. 

The other thing is, I want to know how much money is in that, is it $4.5 billion in the dredging fund? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I don’t think it is quite that much, but it is a lot 

of money. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It is a lot of money. And it is just sitting 

there? 

Mr. WOODLEY. It is just sitting there. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, sir. And I have already talked about the 

fact that Cleveland Port Authority is not going to have the money 

to do the dredging. I would like to have the number that you have 

allocated for dredging in the Great Lakes and what the actual cost 

is of doing the dredging in the Great Lakes, so we have that number in place. 

Last but not least, the Chairman of the Committee has raised 

the issue about prioritizing. I notice in this written testimony it 

says that ‘‘Many more construction projects have been authorized, 

initiated and continued than can be constructed efficiently at any 

one time. The funding of projects with low economic and environmental returns and of projects that are not within Civil Works’ 

main mission areas has led to the postponement of benefits from 

the most worthy projects and has significantly reduced overall program performance. To remedy the situation and to achieve greater 

value to the Nation from the Civil Works construction, the budget 

again proposes performance guidelines to allocate funds among construction projects.’’ 

I think the Chairman was talking about, we try to come up with 

a new prioritization of how you go about doing these projects. I 

think, Madam Chairman, you said that they haven’t done it yet. 

Senator BOXER. That is right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I think that is one of the things that we 

ought to be doing. We ought to be looking at prioritization. I know 

when I was Governor, I came in and they had $26 billion of highway projects. So we spent 3 years coming up with an objective as 

to determining which ones are priority one, priority two and priority three, so we had some semblance of just where we should be 

going with this. 

And I would at least like the Corps to do what we asked them 

to do in the last WRDA bill, and the Chairman of the Committee, 

Madam Chairman has talked about starting another WRDA bill. 

Maybe as a parting shot or contribution to America, Mr. Woodley, 

maybe you ought to write us a letter and say, if you really wanted 

to get this done in terms of prioritization and get things, kind of 

a semblance of what is No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 priorities, understanding 

that you get lobbied from all of us for our own pet projects, I would 

like to know some objective, your ideas on how we could be more 

86 

objective in getting at this backlog and in conveying to the American people just what it is. 

That is our problem. They don’t get it. They don’t get it. They 

just think that money is coming out of—something. They don’t understand that we are $9 trillion in debt. They don’t understand 

that our dollar is worth very little today. They don’t understand 

that our debt now is being purchased by the Arab nations and the 

Chinese and others. They don’t get it. 

So we need to get those facts in front of us. I know Senator Clinton and I and others have an infrastructure commission that we 

would like to get done. It is sitting over in the House. We need to 

do that, as a national priority, Madam Chairman, we need to have 

a comprehensive, we did it with highways, for this Country, so that 

we all understand just exactly what the challenge is. Because we 

have been sticking our head in the sand too long. We are going to 

wake up and we are not going to have the infrastructure that we 

need to be competitive in this global marketplace. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Voinovich, I so much appreciate your 

comments. I will work with you on this. 

Do you have any further comments? 

Senator VOINOVICH. That is it. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Let me just say, rather than ask any further 

questions, I will be sending a letter, just because, General, I was 

very pleased that you mentioned global warming. Because in all of 

your plans, I am assuming you are now really looking hard at that. 

Am I correct? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Ma’am, we are looking hard at climate 

change. I will use those words. Because we know that the climate 

has actually been very schizophrenic, even here in the United 

States, some places in the southwest were just inundated, and of 

course, we have drought in other places. So it definitely is part of 

it. Sea level rise is another thing that has to be accounted for in 

projects. 

Senator BOXER. What I am going to do is send you a letter, because right now, in California, the reason we are at such risk due 

to global warming is because with rising temperatures, and as we 

know, that has nothing to do with what the temperature is today 

or tomorrow, it is temperature over time, as the scientists have told 

us, and they have given us their crystal ball, and they are 90 percent certain that they are right. 

So we have this crystal ball the scientists have given us, they say 

look at it, and with rising temperatures, we are going to see the 

rate of the melting snow pack will cause increased runoff, increasing the flood elevation, making flooding more devastating. We are 

already seeing that snow pack melt sooner. It means you have to 

be very mindful of releases from different reservoirs and so on and 

so forth. 

So I am going to send you a letter. I am going to ask you how 

you are incorporating the impacts of the snow pack due to global 

warming into the Corps’ plan and into your operating procedures 

for existing reservoirs. Because I will tell you, if you don’t look at 

it, and we make a plan for one set of circumstances, it turns out 

to be inadequate because we didn’t build this in, it is a real problem. 

87 

And as you probably know, there are some insurers who have 

stopped insuring properties that are along the coastlines now. This 

is serious stuff. The United States of America, we are big business. 

And you are part of it. Without your work, as Senator Voinovich 

says, we can’t have the kind of economy that we have to have. We 

need that infrastructure. So it has to fit the times. 

Now, I am going to work hard with others to try and avert the 

worst damaging impacts. I would recommend to you a book called 

Six Degrees. If you haven’t read it, you ought to read it. This is 

a national—and I hope maybe Senator Voinovich will read this 

book. What this individual does, he writes for National Geographic. 

He shows what would happen for every degree of warming over 

time. It just puts it into some very stark terms. Those of us who 

are working hard know we can’t avert it all, but we can avert the 

worst if we move forward. I hope you are taking it into account. 

I think you have seen a lot of strong feelings today in front of 

you. I hope you realize that we care about the work you do. We 

want to give you the tools to do the best that you can. We want 

your honesty. Let OMB put on their eye shades, and let them tell 

us what their priorities are. Guess what? They are not elected and 

they don’t have the jobs you have. We are going to restore the 

money for the Corps. We don’t care what they say. We are going 

to restore it. We did it last time, we are going to do it again. Why? 

Because we have to be able to address the infrastructure needs of 

our people. 

So we are going to do that. So get ready to plan that. That gets 

to Senator Voinovich’s last point about prioritization. I asked you 

about a couple of projects that I know well. And it is important for 

you to be thinking, if we do get that funding restored, and when 

you have Senator Inhofe and everybody work together to restore it, 

it will be restored. We hope you will move quickly to tell us what 

projects you think are worthy of moving forward. 

And that gets again to Senator Voinovich’s point, which ones are 

ready with the local share, the reports are done, the environmental 

impact assessments are done. We need to be ready, because my 

view is you will get additional funding. Because we are not going 

to be cutting the Army Corps’ budget. It is just not going to happen. It can’t happen for a great Country like this. 

So we thank you very much. If we were tough on you, understand it is out of deep commitment to the work that you do that 

we are kind of tough. 

Thank you very much. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you Chairman Boxer for holding this hearing, and thank you Secretary 

Woodley and General Van Antwerp for testifying before us today. 

Today’s hearing is to look at the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for 

the Corps of Engineers as well as the implementation of WRDA 2007. Let me first 

say a few words about WRDA 2007 before I speak to the budget request. Many of 

us on this committee worked very hard for several years to enact what should have 

been WRDA 2002. Instead, we had 5 extra years in which project cost estimates increased significantly and many local communities had to hope that the delay 

wouldn’t prove disastrous. We owe these local communities and Federal taxpayers 

nationwide better than that. 

88 

In order to avoid these circumstances going forward, Senator Boxer and I have 

both previously indicated how important we feel it is to get back on a 2-year cycle 

by working on a WRDA 2008. Today I want to reaffirm my commitment to doing 

so. We should not underestimate how important the many project authorizations and 

policy improvements in WRDA 2007 are to the country’s economy, public safety and 

environment. I look forward to hearing from the Assistant Secretary and the Chief 

what their plans are for speedy implementation of these many important provisions. 

As far as the President’s budget request for fiscal year 9, I have to say that I was 

extremely disappointed to see that this request was not only a significant decrease 

from fiscal year enacted levels, but that it was even a decrease from the fiscal year 

budget request. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for a Presidential budget request 

to come in under the previous year’s enacted levels. It doesn’t seem to matter which 

party is in the White House or which party controls Congress, Congress typically 

does more to acknowledge and address our water resources needs than does the executive branch. To see a reduction from last year’s budget request, however, is truly 

disheartening. 

As a fiscal conservative, I strongly support the overall goal of reigning in government spending, but I firmly believe that the two things the Federal Government 

should spend money on are defense and infrastructure. It may not be as exciting 

or headline-grabbing as some other areas of government spending, but a robust and 

well-maintained national infrastructure system is what allows our economy to remain strong and continue to grow. 

I was pleased to see the Administration acknowledge the need for continued investment in our inland waterways system. Just from a parochial perspective, I know 

that the McKlellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in Oklahoma and Arkansas could function much more efficiently and productively if we proceed with 

deepening it to 12 feet from its current 9 foot depth. I am not fundamentally opposed to user fees where appropriate, but I plan to wait for more details before deciding whether to support or oppose this proposal. 

Finally, let me convey my appreciation for the Corps’ work in subsidence reporting, cleanup and resident assistance at the Tar Creek Superfund site. The Corps 

has consistently responded quickly and helpfully to the variety of issues that have 

arisen during our efforts at this site. 

I look forward to hearing the witness testimony and to discussing these issues in 

more depth during the question and answer period. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Thank you Madam Chairman for convening this important hearing to discuss the 

Fiscal Year 2009 President’s Budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers. In 

my home State of Connecticut, we rely heavily on the work of the Army Corps to 

keep our harbors open, our rivers navigable, and our cities dry. I am greatly aware 

of the important work this agency does and believe it is essential that they are provided with sufficient resources to complete their work in the most efficient and environmentally responsible manner. With those resources comes the responsibility for 

improved management and increased transparency into the decisionmaking process. 

I hope that the witnesses here today will elaborate on specific actions that are being 

taken in this regard to meet the requirements in the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2007. 

While the Army Corps is beginning to place greater emphasis on performancebased budgeting when making construction prioritization decisions, I believe more 

must be done to increase the use of environmental metrics in their benefit to cost 

analysis of projects. WRDA recognizes the importance of responsible environmental 

management, and yet I fear that the Army Corps failed to consider environmental 

factors as part of its benefit to cost ratio when setting construction priorities for 

2009. Given the diverse environmental implications of the work that the Army 

Corps undertakes on this Nation’s behalf, not including the environment as part of 

the benefit to cost ratio is unacceptable. 

While environmental considerations may not have played a large role when setting construction priorities, I want to applaud the Army Corps for beginning to look 

beyond individual projects toward the broader watershed implications of their work 

and solutions to problems in the area of operations and maintenance. A more holistic view is essential to preserving the environment and I am pleased to see that the 

Army Corps is beginning to use the US Geological Survey’s sub-watersheds as a way 

to allocate funding among 54 geographic areas. Unfortunately, details on how specific sub-watersheds were identified and the actual implementation of this sub-waVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:04 Jul 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85524.TXT VERN
89 

tershed allocation of operations and maintenance funding are not very clear. I hope 

the witnesses today will provide specific details on how this management approach 

will be used and how it differs from the watershed allocations from the Fiscal Year 

2008 budget. 

I am also interested in hearing from these witnesses on the progress the Army 

Corps is making in implementing a number of the reforms called for in WRDA. I 

am a strong advocate for greater transparency in the decisionmaking process the 

Army Corps uses to select and fund projects. For example, the use of peer review 

can be an effective tool to ensure that projects are appropriately assessed and a 

wide range of impacts fully considered before significant funds are allocated for a 

project that may have been improperly scoped. I am interested to know what 

progress the Army Corps is making on identifying projects that meet the peer review criteria established in WRDA and how the peer review process will be implemented in the future. 

The Army Corps faces a number of challenges as it undertakes ambitious management reforms. I thank the witnesses for being here today to help us navigate the 

contents of the Fiscal Year 2009 request for the Army Corps of Engineers, including 

the steps that are being taken to comply with the requirements of WRDA, and welcome them to this hearing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Good Morning Madame Chairwoman and colleagues on the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee. I thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss 

the President’s proposed budget for the civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers and also to discuss the implementation of last year’s Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) bill. 

As my colleagues are aware, the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for 

the Army Corps of Engineers is $4.741 billion, an amount that represents a decrease 

of $851 million from the fiscal year 8-enacted level of $5.592 billion. I am concerned 

about this decrease in light of the passage of WRDA 2007 and the growing infrastructure needs of our Nation. This hearing is a good first step, as we open dialog 

to budgetary concerns and the needs of our nation’s civil works program provided 

by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

I was glad to see the passage of WRDA in 2007, legislation that was long overdue. 

Today, I look forward to an engaging discussion about the progress made by the 

WRDA reforms and the progress that remains to be seen. As we look back on the 

efforts we have made, I am confident that we can create a successful WRDA for 

2008. 

Last, I’d like to note the good work that the Corps has been doing and is doing 

in my state, Virginia. Divided amongst five Army Corps districts (Baltimore, Huntington, Nashville, Wilmington, and Norfolk), Virginia has been lucky to have extremely competent and talent leaders at each outpost. Their professionalism and 

dedication have furthered projects across the state—from flood control projects in 

the city of Roanoke and Town of Grundy, to the development of Craney Island in 

Norfolk, to oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake. I have been pleased to work 

with all of these districts and praise their good work. 

Madame Chairwoman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning, and 

for holding this important hearing. 

Æ