ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

ROB BLAIR, JOSEPH LEVIN, ANGIE GIANCARLO, 

LORAINE HECKENBERG, and PERRY YATES, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 5 

U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
PART 5—ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

ROB BLAIR, JOSEPH LEVIN, ANGIE GIANCARLO, 

LORAINE HECKENBERG, and PERRY YATES, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 5 

U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

71–034 WASHINGTON : 2011 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2012 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011. 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FY 2012 BUDGET 

REQUESTS 

WITNESSES 

HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR 

CIVIL WORKS 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to bring the meeting to order. 

Thank you all for your patience. Good afternoon, everyone. 

Our hearing today is on the Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for 

the Civil Works Program for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I 

would like to welcome our witnesses: 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy, 

thank you for being here. 

Chief Engineer Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp, thank 

you. 

Mr. Loew, Major Grisoli, thank you as well. 

General, I understand your tenure as chief comes to an end in 

May so this likely will be your last hearing with us. I wanted to 

thank you for your service to our nation and the Corps. You have 

performed your duties admirably. The motto: Duty, honor, country, 

comes to mind, and you have lived it. 

So, too, the committee would also like to salute others of you in 

uniform, and those civilian Corps employees (all volunteers), for 

your key roles in the War on Terror supporting construction and 

combat efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. While civil works are this 

committee’s prime focus, we are all mindful of your service and 

thank you for it. 

As I mentioned at our hearings last week, I want everyone who 

appears before this subcommittee to understand that it is highly 

unlikely there will be any new funding in fiscal year 2012 for our 

subcommittee. Our subcommittee must do its part to reduce spending and bring down our deficit. 

However financially limited, we must find the right balance of investments into our most critical infrastructure needs, with an eye 

towards those that protect our nation, and support and improve 

our economy, and yes, provide jobs! 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

I firmly believe that the projects and activities undertaken by the 

Corps of Engineers fall into this category of spending necessary for 

a robust and thriving economy. A centerpiece, of course, is the civil 

works program responsible for maintaining our inland and coastal 

waterways in support of navigation. In 2009 alone, U.S. ports and 

waterways handled more than 2.2 billion tons of cargo, including 

more than 1.15 trillion dollars in foreign commerce as well as 16 

percent of all domestic freight. 

At the same time, this year, the Administration proposes to divert the harbor maintenance tax revenues—collected for the very 

purpose of dredging these waterways—to other uses. I don’t see 

how diversions of this magnitude will support the President’s focus 

on American competitiveness or his goal of doubling exports by 

2015 and keep our ports and waterways dredged. 

The President’s budget request before us today represents a $298 

million, or 6 percent, cut from the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution level. Historically, the Administration’s budget request 

comes in lower than the level for the year before and Congress 

takes on the task of finding the additional funds necessary to meet 

our nation’s water resources needs. 

In these times of focusing on cutting such additional means—not 

increasing—spending, it will be much more difficult for Congress to 

find any additional money for the Corps. That makes it even more 

important for Congress to understand how the Administration 

prioritizes Corps projects. This hearing will hopefully aid in that 

process. 

Again, I’d like to welcome our witnesses to the subcommittee. 

Secretary Darcy, please ensure that the hearing record, questions 

for the record, and any supporting information requested by the 

subcommittee are delivered in final form to us no later than four 

weeks from the time you receive them. Members who have additional questions for the record will have until close of business tomorrow to provide them to the subcommittee office. 

With that, I’ll turn to Mr. Pastor for his opening comments. 

Mr. PASTOR. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

Good afternoon. Ms. Darcy, welcome. It is good to see you again; 

I appreciate your time here today. 

General Van Antwerp, I would associate myself with the Chairman’s comments. We all very much appreciate the leadership 

you’ve brought to the Corps. I’d like to point out to those who don’t 

know—your service to the nation is especially notable because you 

could have retired 31⁄2 years earlier had you not accepted the challenge to lead the Corps. I’m not sure that everyone in that position 

would have chosen the path you took, but I’m glad that you are 

heretoday. 

To the matter at hand, the Corps 2012 budget request. 

The Congress has historically appropriated funds for the Corps 

in excess of the budget request—adding an average of $450 million 

each year over the last 17 years—and the Administration has historically asked for less than what is necessary knowing that Congress would pick up the slack. As the Chairman noted, this has 

happened regardless of the party in either branch of government. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

The budget situation that we find ourselves in today is different 

from any other in recent memory—constrained funding and no congressional earmarks. Today we consider an agency budget that has 

been characterized as nothing more than a collection of earmarks. 

In this case, they are Presidential earmarks, but they are earmarks 

none-the-less. 

The Chairman has noted in every hearing this year that it is 

highly unlikely that any agency will receive funding in excess of 

the budget request. I am concerned that the circumstances of the 

new budget reality have not yet caught up to the Administration’s 

budget process for the Corps. Ms. Darcy, I do not expect, nor do I 

want, you to follow in Mike Parker’s footsteps, but I fail to see how 

this budget request meets the nation’s needs for water resource infrastructure. 

I understand that the Administration had to make difficult 

choices in a constrained fiscal environment, but providing adequate 

and efficient navigation channels and flood control to the nation 

are vital to our economy, and are a factor in maintaining and adding jobs. We will have to make difficult choices as a nation to reduce the deficit and everyone will have to do their part. Though I 

think, perhaps more than an 800 million dollar reduction from 

2010 may be a little more than what should be the Corps’ share. 

Investing in our future must not be sacrificed in the pursuit of 

fiscal austerity. As we saw on the gulf coast, the costs of rebuilding 

after a disaster far exceed the cost of prevention, and maintaining 

our marine navigation system is a necessary condition for the imports and exports that drive our economy. This budget request does 

not provide the resources necessary for these objectives. 

Ms. Darcy, General Van Antwerp, I will be interested today in 

hearing your defense of the choices made in the Corps’ budget request, current execution and overall Corps management. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the time. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

I am very pleased that the full committee chairman is here, 

Chairman Hal Rogers from Kentucky. 

And I welcome you. Thank you. I know you have some remarks. 

I suspect you have some questions. And I would like to yield the 

floor to you. Thank you for being with us. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And congratulations on your selection to chair this important 

subcommittee. I know you will do a great job, as you have done in 

the past. 

Welcome to all of you for being here with us. This is a truly historic time. I don’t need to tell you that the nation is finding itself 

at a crossroads. Over the last 2 years, we have increased discretionary spending by 24 percent. If you include stimulus funding, it 

has been increased by 84 percent. We find ourselves now in the 

red; for the year, it looks like around $1.7 trillion. We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend. So we have truly reached 

not just a crossroads but I think a crisis. 

So we have got to get serious about reducing spending and putting a dent in our record setting deficit. I think we can all agree 

with that. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

We have got some tough choices ahead of us. We look forward 

to hearing from you today about the Administration’s priorities. I 

am pleased that the budget contains $132 million for ongoing repairs to Wolf Creek Dam in my congressional district. But I have 

got to state my dismay after continued delays and cost overruns 

that have been a perennial challenge where this project is concerned. The resultant drawdown at Lake Cumberland by 40 feet 

has wrought havoc on the economies of the surrounding counties. 

That lake, as you know, is 100 miles long and covers a lot of economic ground. 

Corps decisions have virtually shuttered some marina operations, 

jeopardized the livelihoods of their employees throughout the region, not to mention ancillary tourism-related businesses, like the 

houseboat manufacturing industry, which is practically gone. 

I need two more hands to count the number of times Corps officials have committed to raising that lake back to historic levels. 

And yet 5 years later, here we are behind schedule and over budget. We were told at the outset this might take a couple of years. 

We are into year 5 now and way over budget. 

So I am extremely interested in hearing your take and hoping for 

your commitment to getting this important dam safety project back 

on track. But I am not going to hold my breath as I have in the 

past. 

I also look forward to obtaining your thoughts on the Corps’ regulatory responsibilities under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Your budget request includes a $6 million increase for that purpose, but I have to ask myself whether this truly will make a difference. For months, dozens of mining permits have been held up 

in the so-called Enhanced Coordination Process with the EPA. 

Since 2009, in my congressional district, the Corps has issued two 

individual permits; 190 were requested. You issued two. Two years, 

two permits. 

So what is so enhanced about that process? These delays are 

costing my people their jobs. It is costing the nation a lot of energy. 

More than half of our electricity is produced by that coal; 92 percent in Kentucky. And yet here we are. You have approved two 

permits. 

Under the law, the Corps is the lead agency for issuing 404 permits. You all have been in this business for decades. And yet now 

you have capitulated, in my judgment, to the politically driven regulatory agenda of an out-of-control EPA. The common perception in 

my region is that the Corps is simply being steamrolled. And I, 

along with Congresswoman Capito, introduced legislation yesterday 

that would limit the EPA to a 60-day review period of your permit 

recommendations. No longer would they be allowed to sit there interminably on your recommendations, in effect vetoing one that you 

would approve. Procedure and control of substance. We want to end 

that. I am anxious to hear your thoughts on whether such a change 

to section 404(c) would expedite the permit review process and 

eliminate this backlog that is killing jobs in Kentucky and across 

Appalachia. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

I think the chairman would like a response, but maybe, Madam 

Secretary, you could give your remarks. I would recognize you. 

Thank you. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity today to 

present the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the Civil Works 

Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I will summarize my 

statement and ask that my complete statement be included in the 

record. 

The budget requires new appropriations of $4.63 billion. In keeping with the Administration’s program to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path, this is $836 million or about 15 percent below 

the 2010 enacted amount of $5.445 billion. It is about 6 percent 

below the 2011 budget for Civil Works. 

The budget concentrates funding primarily in the three main 

Civil Works programs: commercial navigation, flood and coastal 

storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The 

2012 budget continues the Army’s commitment to a performancebased approach to budgeting in order to provide the best overall return from available funds in achieving economic, environmental, 

and public safety objectives. The budget provides $50 million for a comprehensive levee safety 

initiative to help ensure that Federal levees are safe and to assist 

non-Federal entities as they address safety issues with other own 

levees. The Operation and Maintenance Program also includes a 

new environmental and energy sustainability program to reduce 

energy consumption at Corps projects and buildings. 

The 2012 budget places priority on collaboration with other Federal agencies in the development of funding allocations for aquatic 

ecosytem restoration. In 2012, this collaboration is reflected in five 

ecosystems: the California Bay Delta, the Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf Coast. The budget provides 

for use of $758 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

to maintain coastal commercial navigation channels in harbors. 

The Administration plans to develop legislation to expand the authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund so that its receipts are available to finance the Federal share of other efforts in 

support of commercial navigation through the nation’s ports. No decisions have been made yet on what additional costs would be proposed to be paid from the Harbor Maintenance Trust fund. 

Inland waterways capital investments are funded in the budget 

at $166 million, of which $77 million is financed from the Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund. This is the total amount that is affordable 

in 2012 with the current level of revenue coming into the trust 

fund. The administration plans to work with Congress and stakeholders to authorize a new mechanism to increase the revenue paid 

by commercial navigation users of the inland waterways. 

The Administration also plans to work with Congress and stakeholders to explore ways to support broader recapitalization of the 

Corps’ aging infrastructure, modification of its operations, or deauthorization as appropriate, consistent with modern-day water resources principles and priorities. 

Last year, President Obama established the America’s Great 

Outdoors Initiative to promote innovative community level efforts 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect Americans to the outdoors. The Civil Works Recreation Program is closely aligned with 

the goals of America’s Great Outdoors Initiative and includes a variety of activity to reconnect Americans, especially our young people, with the nation’s outdoor resources. 

We continue to strengthen the Corps’ planning expertise, including through greater support for our Planning Centers of Expertise 

and continued support for the development of revised water project 

planning Principles and Guidelines. A number of lower-priority 

programs and activities received reduced or no funding in the 2012 

budget. For example, funding for maintenance of navigation harbors and waterway segments that support little or no commercial 

use is reduced by about half. Also, no funding is provided for small 

projects in several of the Continuing Authorities Programs. The 

budget proposes to reprogram $23 million of prior year funds from 

these lower-priority programs to finance ongoing phases of projects 

in higher priority Continuing Authorities Programs. 

In summary, the President’s 2012 budget for the Army Civil 

Works program is a performance-based budget. It supports water 

resources investments that will yield long-term returns to the nation. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I look forward 

to working with you in support of the President’s budget. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 71034A.001
8 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 71034A.002
9 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 71034A.003
10 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 71034A.004
11 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 71034A.005
12 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 71034A.006
13 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 71034A.007
14 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 71034A.008
15 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you for your testimony. 

General Van Antwerp. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Mr. Rogers. 

I am honored to be here today to testify with Ms. Darcy. If you 

would permit me, I would like to just introduce the commanders 

behind me so you know where they are from. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me, for the record, it is Major General 

Grisoli. I apologize. The record shall so stand. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Major is a very good rank. We like that, 

too. 

I would just like to introduce the Commanders behind me. We 

have nine divisions in the Corps of Engineers. We have eight of the 

Commanders behind us. The ninth, who is not here, is the Commander of the Transatlantic Division, Major General Ken Cox. 

They do all military overseas. That is why he is not here. 

If you could just raise your hand. This is John Peabody. He is 

with the Lakes and Rivers Division, Major General John Peabody. 

Major General Mike Walsh, he is with the Mississippi Valley Division. He has Katrina recovery and some of those big efforts. This 

is General Duke DeLuca. He is out of the North Atlantic division 

in New York. This is General John McMahon with the Northwest 

Division out on the West Coast in the great Northwest. And then 

off to my left, your right, is Major General Todd Semonite. He is 

with the South Atlantic Division out of Atlanta, Georgia. Then we 

have Colonel Ed Kertis out in Hawaii, the Pacific Ocean Division, 

and he is doing a lot of great things in the Pacific, to include about 

a $12 billion program in Korea, which is little known but is a great 

effort for us. This is Colonel Bill Leady. He is the Commander of 

the South Pacific Division. And then on his left is Brigadier General-Select Tom Kula, who is the Commander of the Southwest Division of the Corps of Engineers. Bill is with South Pacific, if I 

didn’t mention that. 

That is our eight division teams here. Who is doing the work 

while these guys are up here? Well, they have great districts. We 

have 45 districts in the Corps of Engineers that do the heavy lifting for the Corps. The program is about $40 billion altogether, 

counting Military Programs. 

The fiscal year 2012 Civil Works budget is a performance-based 

budget, focusing on projects and activities that provide the highest 

net economic and environmental returns or direct or address significant risks to human safety. The budget funds 92 construction 

projects, including 55 flood and storm damage reduction projects, 

3 of which are budgeted for completion this year; 16 commercial 

navigation projects; 19 aquatic ecosytem restoration projects. Two 

of these construction projects are new starts. 

The budget supports restoration of nationally and regionally significant aquatic ecosystems with emphasis on the Florida Everglades, the Gulf Coast, California Bay Delta, the Great Lakes, and 

Chesapeake Bay. 

The budget includes $104 million for activities in the Investigations Account. It funds 58 continuing studies and 4 new studies. 

Funding is also included for the Water Resources Priorities Study, 

which is an evaluation of the nation’s vulnerability to inland and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

coastal flooding. The budget supports our continued stewardship of 

water-related infrastructure. The Operation and Maintenance Program for the fiscal year 2012 budget includes $2.314 billion and an 

additional $131 million under the Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries Account. The focus is on the maintenance of key commercial 

navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and hydropower facilities. 

Corps teammates continue to respond wherever and whenever 

needed to help during major floods and other national emergencies. 

The budget provides $27 million for the preparedness for floods, 

hurricanes, and other natural disasters, including $4 million in 

support of the Levee Safety Initiative with States, called the Silver 

Jackets. 

A quick update on the Corps’ preparation as we look at potential 

spring flood events, and we are looking at some straight in the eye. 

Several of our Commanders have been involved this last week in 

looking at those, like Mike Walsh out in North Dakota. We are 

working with FEMA and the National Weather Service to monitor 

the high probability of spring flooding, especially in the great 

Northwest and North Central United States, specifically the Red 

River of the north, the upper Mississippi River, and the Minnesota 

River. Based on these projections, our commanders have already 

requested advanced planning dollars and are taking advanced 

measures. We have verified the availability of key flood-fighting 

materials already on station. They are engaging State to State, 

local, and Federal authorities, in a couple of words, I would say we 

are as ready as you can be for what is on the horizon. 

On the international front, I am very proud of our work on missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Men and women from across the 

Corps, all volunteers and many of whom have served on multiple 

deployments, continue to provide critical support to our military 

and humanitarian missions. Currently we have 1,168 Corps employees, mostly civilian, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Last month, Ms. Darcy and I traveled to Afghanistan, and we 

both witnessed the amazing work that these folks are doing and 

their dedication and commitment. In Afghanistan, the Corps is 

spearheading a comprehensive infrastructure program for the Afghan National Army, and also aiding in critical public infrastructure projects. 

The Corps of Engineers is committed to staying at the leading 

edge of service to the nation. We are committed to change that ensures an open, transparent, and performance-based Civil Works 

Program. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my comments. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 71034A.009
18 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 71034A.010
19 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 71034A.011
20 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 71034A.012
21 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 71034A.013
22 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 71034A.014
23 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 71034A.015
24 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you for your comments. 

Again, we thank you for the work of certainly those in uniform 

as well as your civilian programs, truly dedicated in a very hostile 

and dangerous environment over there. We appreciate it and recognize it. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to you. I think maybe you 

deserve some responses from the Corps relative to some of the 

issues you raised. I would like to yield to you 5 minutes or as long 

as you wish to do it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that kindness. I don’t 

want to interfere with the regular operation of the subcommittee. 

But could you respond to the Wolf Creek Dam question I asked 

or points that I made? This dam was said by the Corps to be the 

biggest potential disaster we had on our hands at that time. I can 

believe that because we have already spent $600 million on it. 

What can you tell us? 

Ms. DARCY. I can tell that you that in this year’s Presidential request for Wolf Creek Dam, our request is to fund that to capability, 

which is $132 million. I understand that that will help both phase 

1 and phase 2. We also will have to deal with that before we can 

raise the pool level. So I think we are looking out to 2013, but I 

might defer to the Chief or to General Peabody. 

Mr. ROGERS. 2013 before what? 

Ms. DARCY. Raise the pool. 

Mr. ROGERS. Back to historic levels. I have been hearing that for 

4 years now. What makes you think I ought to believe this one? 

General VAN ANTWERP. First of all, the foundation of this dam 

is very complicated, and we are finding it is much easier, as in a 

building, to build a new one than to restore an old one. No question 

there have been serious issues and problems as we have looked inside that dam. And we are doing our level best. We have learned 

a lot on this. I wouldn’t say hold your breath until 2013, but I will 

say we are pretty certain that we are going to make that date. 

When we talk to the local boat owners and others in our town hall 

meetings, that is what we are telling them, too. And we have good 

confidence with this budget that we can get there. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am told that the important part is what they 

call critical area one, which is apparently where the earthen and 

concrete dams meet. I gather you are going full-blast ahead on 

solving the problems at that particular part of the dam, is that 

right? 

General PEABODY. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. When do you expect to finish critical area 1? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. For the record, General Peabody. 

General PEABODY. It is the long pole in the tent. We had delays 

last year while we did slope stability studies because when we did 

the low mobility grouting in critical area one, we had indicators of 

movement/cracking. We have resolved that issue. We are modifying 

the construction technique to ensure we don’t have slope instability 

or soil failure while we are executing the construction there. We 

are negotiating with the construction contractor for cost and time 

extension due to these delays. The critical area one will be the last 

element of the construction project that is completed. And we are 

projecting that to be December, 2013. As the Chief indicated, that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

is a soft date, but that is what our current estimates tell us when 

we will complete. 

Mr. ROGERS. December of 2013. So it is really 2014. 

General PEABODY. Fiscal year 2014, that is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is with everything happening, good. 

General PEABODY. It is possible it could move back to the left, 

but that is our best estimate. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I don’t need to repeat to you the terrible economic problem this is causing my whole region, with the tourism 

shot to the head because of the 40-foot draw down of the lake; and 

houseboat manufacturers going out of business, loss of hundreds of 

jobs, and the marinas having the same difficulty. So, you know, 

and I have told you a thousand times how important it is economically what you are doing there. 

But I understand the difficulty, and I know it’s a long lake, and 

it is a long dam, and it was built on caverns in the first place. That 

is another thing we could talk about one of these days. 

Secondly, Madam Secretary, the 404 permit process, who actually decides whether or not to issue a 404 permit? Is it you or the 

EPA? 

Ms. DARCY. The Army Corps of Engineers issues 404 permits. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, can you tell me why you have only issued two 

in the last 2 years. 

Ms. DARCY. In June of 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior to do 

what you mentioned in your opening statement, which was to develop an enhanced review procedure for 79 permits. And in doing 

that, it has delayed some of those permits; you are quite accurate 

on that. Some of the permits that were part of that enhanced program have been withdrawn. I believe that we currently have 26 

pending permits. We just issued a permit in Kentucky on the 3rd 

of March, I believe it was, a permit for the Czar Mine. It is taking 

longer to review the permits. Ultimately, the decision to issue a 

404 permit lies with the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is all fine and good but the MOU that 

was entered into in 2009 practically handed over the judgment on 

whether or not to issue a mining permit to the EPA. And they have 

held back approving your recommendations now for these 2 years. 

They have issued two permits or allowed to be issued two permits 

out of 190 applications in the last 2 years. And I have got coal 

mines closing and people being laid off. And they say, why can’t 

you do anything about the EPA and the Corps of Engineers? So 

what should I tell them? 

Ms. DARCY. Sir, we are trying to review the permits as expeditiously as possible. As I say, with the enhanced review process, it 

is taking longer because the consultation process is taking longer. 

Some of these permits have now gone to the State level, and sometimes that takes additional time. 

Mr. ROGERS. Enhanced review process is an accurate description 

of what is happening because you have practically stopped issuing 

permits. So companies that mine coal are shutting down, moving 

out, laying off people, and they stop buying local products. That is 

a huge, huge impact on my district, which has at least 20,000 diVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:43 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 071034 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\71034P2.XXX 71034P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

rect employees in mining, with another 150,000 probably in indirect work around coal mining. This Administration, I think, has decided to shut down Appalachian coal mining. I don’t understand 

that. Can you help me with that? 

Ms. DARCY. Sir, the enhanced permit review process is designed 

or the intent of it is to have stricter environmental review on some 

of those permits. It is not designed to shut down coal mining. It 

is designed to improve the environmental output from the coal mining. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, Lisa Jackson has taken over the Corps of Engineers; the EPA. 

Ms. DARCY. We are, as I said, in an agreement with the EPA and 

the Office of Surface Mining at the Department of Interior to review these permits. 

Mr. ROGERS. It isn’t an agreement. It is a surrender. I think you 

have surrendered to the EPA on issuing permits. And that is sad. 

And we will find a way to correct it. But you are making it awful 

difficult. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Somewhat apropos to the chairman’s remarks, I have a few questions for you. 

Madam secretary, your budget request seems to place a very 

high priority on environmental projects, especially within the Investigations Account, where the only new starts and the only completions are environmental projects. How did the Corps determine 

that these new starts for environmental projects were a higher cost 

benefit return to taxpayers than a construction project like the 

Chickamauga Lock? 

Ms. DARCY. Within—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Which in this committee we had quite a 

focus on over the last 10 years. Having been there, I am familiar 

with that project. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Within our priorities for our budget, we consider each of our mission areas, including navigation, flood and storm risk management 

reduction projects, as well as environmental and ecosytem restoration projects. Our ecosytem restorations projects are viewed as 

helping to correct some environmental impacts from a Corps 

project. 

So, in doing that, we evaluate each of the projects within their 

project mission area, weigh them against other competing uses and 

other competing interests, and make our decisions based on that. 

In this budget this year, the two new starts, as you mentioned, one 

is—both of them we consider also have to have impacts on risks to 

life and safety issues because they are also flood risk management 

and reduction projects. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. By what criteria do these environmental 

projects rank higher than dredge deepening projects, which are all 

about bringing in cargo to our ports and are all about jobs and the 

economy? 

Ms. DARCY. As I said, within each of our mission areas, we take 

a look at all of the projects that are out there and determine within 

that area which of those meet the criteria. In the construction acVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:43 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 071034 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\71034P2.XXX 71034P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

count they have to meet a 2.5 or better benefit-to-cost ratio. And 

within the funds that we have, we make determination of the priorities within that group of projects. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So why do the environmental projects seem to be your primary focus? We have about a $60 billion, $79 billion, 

$80 billion backlog here. With all due respect, we ought to be focusing on making sure that we have navigable rivers, ports. Why this 

shift in focus on so many environmental projects? 

Ms. DARCY. Sir, the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration portion of our 

budget is about 18 percent of our budget this year. I would not 

characterize it as a shift. It is a priority, along with our navigation 

mission as well as our flood risk management mission. And we also 

think that in these ecosystem restoration projects, we also are 

going to find other benefits, economic benefits, so that they are 

weighed that way. The ecosystem restoration projects are not valued or calculated in the same way because they do not have a benefit-to-cost ratio as the other projects do, such as the flood risk 

management projects. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just for instance, the new Panama Canal 

lock is scheduled to open in 2014. As a country, are we ready to 

receive ships coming through the canal or actually the next generation of ships? 

Ms. DARCY. I think we are poised to do that. We have two ports 

right now which are being dredged to 50 feet because the Panamax 

ships, it is anticipated the largest one coming through the Panama 

Canal will need a 50-foot depth. And we have two of our ports, we 

have New York-New Jersey as well as Sacramento Deepwater Ship 

Channel in California. We also have ongoing studies for deepening 

some of our projects. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Where does the cost-benefit ratio relate to 

job creation and keeping, let’s say, America open for business? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, it has the benefit-to-cost ratio. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Vis-a ́-vis these environmental restoration 

projects. We are sympathetic towards those restoration projects. 

But where is the benefit to our economy? 

Ms. DARCY. Of benefit to the economy for the ecosystem restoration projects, they restore the ecosystem to its function, its original 

function, hopefully. It also creates jobs in the projects. For example, 

in the Everglades. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So you have metrics here that would show 

that eco-restoration jobs or systems would have X numbers of jobs 

and keeping ports open for business and dredging would have—certainly, there must be overwhelming evidence that most of our ports 

generate tens of thousands of jobs compared to the type of jobs that 

would be involved with those types of restoration projects. 

Ms. DARCY. We do use a metric for each of the types of projects. 

I don’t know the answer to what the number is for the jobs generated for ecosystem versus jobs generated for navigation. I would 

have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, I think many of us feel that a lot of 

the Corps’ historic responsibilities have somewhat been neglected 

and put on the back burner in favor, should we say, of a new wave 

of environmental restoration, just speaking for myself. 

I am happy to yield to Mr. Pastor. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The question asked frequently by other members is the continuing resolution—we have one for 2 weeks, and I guess next 

week we will deal with how long we extend it. And we stripped all 

the earmarks. In your work, and you said you have a lot of 

projects, some are about to be done and construction is about to 

terminate. Some are halfway. Some are starting. You have some investigations going on. What are you going to do with that abundance of projects that you have, and how are you going to deal with 

them? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will address that first, if I may. First 

of all, during the short-term continuing resolution, we are continuing all projects that were funded in the prior year, fiscal year 

2010, in this case, to accomplish either the budgeted scope of the 

work as included in the FY11 Budget or at the lower of the House 

or Senate amounts that were in the reports for fiscal year 2011. So 

we are looking at fiscal year 2010 funding levels in fiscal year 

2011, in keeping those projects going. 

All projects, therefore, may continue at some level, except for 

those that received zero dollars in the House and Senate reports 

in fiscal year 2011. As you know, that is one of the issues of funding that is over a period of years and extends out the projects. But 

we are trying to keep the projects going. 

We are also talking about what would happen if H.R. 1 would 

pass and the first priority would go to those projects that are in 

the fiscal year 2011 budget. We would continue those first. And 

then, as we had additional money, we would go to the other 

projects. There are a lot of projects that were in the ‘‘add’’ category 

in the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. 

I don’t know if that answers your question. 

Mr. PASTOR. It does. It gives some parameters. It is dependent 

on how much the continuing resolution is carrying an amount of 

money and how deep the cuts are. The parameters, I guess, that 

you set for yourselves that were in the 2010–2011 reports that you 

are still trying to figure out, to the best of your ability, how much 

money can they sustain and be able to be carried? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. All of our District Commanders 

and Division Commanders, we look at the projects. We look for: Is 

there a phase that could be constructed preferably some usable increment? But sometimes you are not able. The worst case for us 

would be to have to button them up and close them down and tell 

the contractor to go away, if we thought we were ever going to 

come back, because that is a very expensive proposition. 

Mr. PASTOR. Especially if you are halfway through, to button it 

up would probably cost you more or be more expensive. 

General VAN ANTWERP. In the long run, no question. 

Mr. PASTOR. Ms. Darcy. 

Ms. DARCY. I concur with what the chief said. 

Mr. PASTOR. I am sure that other members are going to ask on 

the budget so I am going to take a different tack here. 

Recently, I have been reading more on climate change. And I am 

one of the guys who believes it is occurring. From what I have 

read, it is either mitigation of the carbon footprint or adaptation 

in how we adapt to the changes that are coming. One of the things 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

that several authors have pointed out is that Federal agencies 

sometimes know of the models that can be used and what the effect 

of climate change will be and what will be the consequences and 

timelines, et cetera—and that Federal agencies sometimes in their 

planning or looking to the future, even though they have these 

models, that there is a reluctance to adapt or an unwillingness. Or, 

if they do adapt, it is probably minimal. 

And I guess the question that I have, is the Corps looking at the 

various models, and is adaptation something that you are considering, especially in the coastlines and areas that may be diminishing in terms of as we look out to the future? 

Ms. DARCY. The Corps of Engineers is part of the Administration’s Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. And what we are 

doing is working with other Federal agencies to see what each 

agency is doing to adapt to climate change. We, in the Corps of Engineers, acting through our Institute for Water Resources as well 

as our research lab down in Vicksburg, are doing lots of modeling 

to determine how we can use adaptation in our planning process 

so that when we are looking at planning for a project, we are looking long term at the possibility of sea level rise, at the possibility 

of storm surges as a result of climate change. And we are incorporating that into our planning process so that we are able to, 

within the project development phase, adapt it as climate change 

evolves. 

General VAN ANTWERP. One practical example of that is down in 

the New Orleans Hurricane Risk Reduction System. We are looking 

towards what the sea level rise would be while building the levees 

today, knowing that probably 25 years from now and then 50 years 

from now, we are going to have to put additional height onto the 

levees. So that is accounted for as we got the real estate and as 

we built what we have there, that it could be added to, with the 

knowledge that there will be some sea level rise. It is already 

measurable. That is on the screen. 

Mr. PASTOR. I know that the Florida Everglades has problems 

currently right now. But looking to the adaptation, it is kind of the 

bridge to nowhere that a lot of the models use as an example. In 

some of the examples I have seen, basically, it said that even 

though we are investing billions of dollars for the restoration, if you 

look at the models, that all that money being invested is going 

down the Everglades because sometime in the future, all of that 

will be inundated and will all be underwater. 

What is your model on the Florida Everglades in terms of adaptation and whether or not the investment we are doing today is in 

fact a good investment? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would say the investment we are putting in there today is a good investment. I think our models are 

showing more towards the lower end. You have a wide range. The 

gradient on the Everglades is so small, the slope is so small, that 

a small amount of sea rise does affect a large area, especially as 

you get down into the Florida Keys. 

Way off to my left is a gentleman, Dr. Jeff Holland, and he is 

our director of our Engineer Research and Development Center. 

They have extensive studies. We feel we have a good feel for how 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

it is going to be. But, some of it is speculation, depending on snow 

melt and other climate change adaptations. 

We think what we are doing today is well spent and will have 

a long life, so to speak, and a good benefit of doing it. And that 

goes into our benefit-cost ratios. We take time factors and other 

factors into consideration there. 

Mr. PASTOR. I yield back. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. Alexander, thanks for your patience. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon to all of you. 

Secretary Darcy, in response to something Chairman Rogers 

asked about a while ago, you were talking about enhanced reviews. 

Is that the result of congressional action, or was that a decision 

made inhouse? 

Ms. DARCY. It was a memorandum of understanding between the 

three agencies: the Corps, EPA and Surface Mining at the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. So you can’t blame that on us. 

Ms. DARCY. No, sir. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Talk a little bit about harbor maintenance 

funds. Tell the committee where those funds come from, what they 

were intended to be used for, what they are being used for. You 

said there was a suggestion that those funds be used for something 

else. Can you tell us a little bit about that? 

Ms. DARCY. Sure. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was established in 1986, and it is a tax, an ad valorem tax, that exporters 

pay. Sorry, importers pay. The export tax was ruled unconstitutional in the Shoe case back in 19—I forget what the year was. But 

that money is collected. It goes into the trust fund. The purpose of 

the trust fund under the legislation was to help with navigation 

and maintenance of coastal channels and ports. 

Currently, in this year’s budget, $738 million from that trust 

fund—$758, excuse me—is in the President’s budget for that use. 

The balance of the trust fund goes to the general treasury. It is anticipated that this year we will probably have $1.4 billion come into 

the trust fund. And the President’s budget recognizes $758 million 

for the purposes of maintaining and navigation channel. The balance of the fund, as I say, goes to the Treasury. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. A couple more questions. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It goes into the general fund. But how 

many billion dollars is in there now with the designation from the 

method of, shall we say, taxation that caused it to be there? 

Ms. DARCY. About $6 billion. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So $6 billion—if the gentleman would give 

me some leeway here—you are planning to expand, give other 

agencies the ability to come in and take some of that money? 

Ms. DARCY. What the Administration is considering is to have 

some other uses for that trust fund money for the ports. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just for the ports? 

Ms. DARCY. The Federal share of the cost for the ports. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So it actually will continue to be dedicated 

to the ports and issues that relate to navigation in those ports? 

Ms. DARCY. Navigation and ports, as well, whatever port requirements there are. As I said, this is under consideration within the 

Administration. No decisions have been made. As you know, it will 

take legislation in order to change the dedicated purposes of the 

fund. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield. 

So there aren’t sufficient dredging problems out there, so you 

have to go looking for more ways to spend that money? I don’t understand it. Surely, there is a dredging backlog. There is annual 

dredging, and then there is a variety of other types of dredging. 

Isn’t there a whole backlog of things that need to be done across 

the nation, ports, rivers? 

Ms. DARCY. There is some backlog, sir, but within the current budget and fiscal environment, the Administration believes $758 

million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should be used 

for those purposes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think we will be involved in helping you 

make the right decision. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I yield back to you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I am not nearly as stupid as I look. I will yield 

to the chairman any time. 

You all know how concerned I have been, as others are, about 

where we see FEMA advancing with their flood maps. They are 

going to be drawing flood maps, we assume, in some areas as if the 

levees don’t exist. We know that is going to create a burden for 

those out there that have never had to buy flood insurance before. 

Now they will be told that they have to buy. It is going to devalue 

property, personal and commercial property. 

Our concern is that you may take another 100 years to get flood 

maps redrawn if those levees are indeed built back up to what we 

consider they need to be, the level they need to be to be safe. How 

are you all working with FEMA and trying to help us solve a potential problem that I think is going to be a lot larger than some 

would like to think? 

General VAN ANTWERP. That is a great question. The National 

Flood Insurance Program that is administered by FEMA requires 

that you have a levee that has the ability to withstand a 1 percent 

chance event or a 100-year event. And based on the condition of the 

levee and its ability to carry that load is whether or not it is certified for FEMA purposes. If it is not, the maps will be drawn as 

if that levee is not present. 

But we are taking a very reasonable person approach here, I 

would say, and we are working with FEMA. We have about three 

different ways, all the way down to the Silver Jackets at the 

States, where if there is a plan to get it done and we are starting 

to move in that direction, we are all going to take a real reasonable 

person approach. 

The flip side is what if it is not certified and the map is drawn 

that way and you have flood insurance, what if after that, you 

come in and build that levee back up? We are talking with FEMA 

about how quickly can we get restored for the flood maps so that 

there is credit for that. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

The important end right now is how do you get your levees to 

the condition, if they are not there already, to make sure that levee 

is recorded on the flood map and you are protected? But our biggest 

obligation is to make sure of the public safety and that there are 

not people who think they are protected at the 100-year event and 

they are not. So that is the hard part. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. In my opinion, it is somewhat misleading to the 

public to tell someone that lives out there behind the levee system, 

okay, this levee is not safe, but if you buy a flood insurance premium and pay us for it, your family is safe. That is not right. 

General VAN ANTWERP. A flood premium to me does not say you 

are safe. It says that your property will be covered in an event. But 

I would move to higher ground when that water starts to come in. 

I guess that would be my approach to it. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I just think it is going to be a problem that is 

going to be unbelievable if we get to that point. 

One more question about dredging on the Mississippi River. 

What do you need to do the job that needs to be done now? How 

much money do you need? How much are you spending? The lower 

portion of the Mississippi River contains a lot of that dirt I suggested we do DNA testing on so we can tell what State it is coming 

from. We would get more help then from States up north. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I am going to just open this and then I 

will turn to General Walsh here, because that is his territory. I get 

a report daily on the condition of Southwest Pass, for instance, at 

my level. We are looking to make sure we have the 45 feet of 

depth; what the width is; what is the Coast Guard doing? 

Right now, we are in good shape. We just actually awarded a 

contract for a third dredge down there. But I will let General 

Walsh take a shot at this, if you don’t mind. He is the expert. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. General, keep it short. Then we are going 

to go to Mr. Olver. 

General WALSH. Typically, in the last 2 years, we spent on average about $85 million to dredge the mouth of the Mississippi. The 

project was appropriated $63 million. The previous 2 years we have 

looked at reprogramming funds from up river to keep the mouth 

open. This year, what we are looking at is to keep the dredging at 

the $63 million, working from a navigability perspective, so that we 

may not be able to get full width and depth, but keep the width 

and depth with the funds available. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Olver, thank you for your patience. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am trying to get my hands around this budget. As I look at it, 

you are a little over $4.5 billion. The largest single piece of that 

is for navigation purposes; maybe close to 35 percent. There is a 

little bit less than a third that is apparently for storm damage reduction. And then, as I see it, there is 15 percent or so has to do 

with environmental kinds of remediations directly. I think that is 

the case. 

Now, navigation, we had a little bit of questioning about that. I 

am not sure it is in your testimony, but I have in front of me the 

idea that deep-draft ports move 99 percent of U.S. overseas trade 

by volume and only 64 percent by value. I am surprised that the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

value of overseas trade isn’t higher than the percent of the trade 

that is moved by volume. But I don’t want to dwell on that. 

Deep-draft ports, how deep are those? What is the minimum definition of a deep-draft port? 

Ms. DARCY. Forty-five. 

Mr. OLVER. Forty-five feet. The question was earlier asked about 

50-foot ports, and I think that you said it was New York and New 

Jersey, and then was it Stockton, California? 

Ms. DARCY. It is Sacramento. I misspoke. 

Mr. OLVER. Are there other 50-foot ports planned, and if so, what 

ones are planned? Which ones are in your horizon, your alreadyplanning horizon? 

Ms. DARCY. Let me just find my list because I have a list of the 

ongoing studies. 

I will tell you what is ongoing and what is planned. 

Mr. OLVER. I well, ongoing is before planned. The ones that are 

already complete are the Sacramento and the New York-New Jersey. They are being enhanced—I am not sure whether I ought use 

that word any longer today—but to go along with the New YorkNew Jersey and Sacramento. What were the ongoing ones? 

Ms. DARCY. We currently have 50-foot channels at Norfolk and 

Baltimore, and the construction of New York-New Jersey will get 

us to 50 feet by 2014. So we will have three East Coast ports at 

50 by 2014; 2014 is the date that Panama is expected—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. East Coast. There are West Coasts ports 

also. 

Mr. OLVER. There are other 50-foot ports already in operation in 

the West Coast. Sacramento is in the final stages? 

Oakland is 50. On the West Coast, Oakland is 50. 

Ms. DARCY. Then we have 45-foot channels currently in Houston, 

Galveston, Corpus Christi, Freeport, Mobile Harbor, Charleston, 

Morehead City, and ports located on the Mississippi River between 

Baton Rouge and the Gulf of Mexico. Delaware River to the Port 

of Philadelphia is currently under construction to 45 feet. 

Mr. OLVER. Look, obviously, a lot of trade goes there; a lot of jobs 

go into the navigation that goes into the trade that comes from 

those locus points. I may well ask you for what ports are at what 

levels, and you could easily chart that out as to which ones for 

which levels are going to be coming down the road if you are successful. 

Madam secretary, in your original comments, you mentioned that 

there were three projects that you expected to complete this year? 

These were projects over the whole range of the things you do. 

Which ones were those? And that depends, of course, on the funding. What were the three that you had mentioned would be completed this year? 

Ms. DARCY. I know there are two. If you give me a minute, I can 

tell you. 

Mr. OLVER. There must be somebody that has that quickly because I don’t want to take up all my time. 

Ms. DARCY. We will provide that before we leave here today. 

Mr. OLVER. All right. My question was going to be, in your overview, you point out that water resources infrastructure projects 

produce high economic and environmental returns. Well, the ecoVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:43 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 071034 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\71034P2.XXX 71034P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

nomic returns can come from the flood damage benefits and also 

from the navigational benefits. The environmental benefits come 

from whatever you have been doing in that 15 percent of the budget. 

You then mentioned five major areas, which include the California Bay Delta and the Chesapeake Bay. I would like to pinpoint 

and ask you, because I have a sense we have lots of ports, and you 

just said so—Norfolk and Baltimore are 50-foot ports. They have 

high capacity ports. They are associated with the Chesapeake Bay 

area. And the Great Lakes, of course, everything that comes out 

the St. Lawrence Channel comes from some of those. 

I wonder if you could tell me what is the balance of environmental and economic benefits, as you see it, and maybe some of the 

description of what some of those would be for the Chesapeake 

ones and for the Great Lakes ones that are of high interest in what 

you are doing. Probably that is something the key people for those 

regions, whoever wants to answer it. 

Ms. DARCY. You specifically want to hear about the Great Lakes 

region? 

Mr. OLVER. The Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay. 

Ms. DARCY. The question is, what benefits do we see coming out 

of those ecosystems? 

Mr. OLVER. What is the balance of environmental and economic 

benefits there, and are these—would I find that, of your projects, 

your three projects or others that may be in stages, are actually 

part of a much larger group of projects that come out of the Chesapeake Bay and out of the Great Lakes region? You are not going 

to finish the Great Lakes program all at once at any time. 

Ms. DARCY. No. 

Mr. OLVER. Or the Chesapeake Bay, I think. 

Ms. DARCY. The large ecosystems that you are referring to, we, 

the Corps of Engineers, have projects ongoing in each of those 

areas, and we are in collaboration with other members of the Administration, the Federal family, to come up with an ecosystem approach for those programs. For example, in the Great Lakes, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has ongoing projects in that area, and 

what we are trying to do is maximize the Federal interest there by 

collaborating with each of the other Federal agencies in order to 

get an economic benefit as well an environmental benefit. 

Mr. OLVER. Right. But they have their own budgets. You have 

budgets which are related to the Corps’ operations that have economic or environmental interests. And that is the balance that I 

was really seeking to understand. 

It can’t be done in a short answer, I think. I have probably already used my time in trying to ask the question. So maybe these 

could be answered in some form for the committee. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, could I just tell you the two completions that I couldn’t find that we are budgeting for in this budget? 

One is in Crookston, Minnesota; the other is the Dover Dam in 

Ohio. 

Mr. OLVER. Those are not huge projects, although the one in 

Minnesota probably has something to do with the Mississippi 

River, I take it. So these are individual projects which might be 

part of a much larger overall program. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. I am not sure if the Santa Paula Creek is part 

of the Bay Delta or not. I would have to look to my Division Commanders. 

Mr. OLVER. I am sorry. I didn’t get a lot of information. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. For the record, there are 92 construction 

projects in the President’s budget. 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And outside that we have got hundreds of 

other projects that are not in the President’s budget which of 

course are of keen interest to this committee. 

Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROGERS. There are 92 projects specified in the President’s 

budget request? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you call these earmarks? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Certainly, I wouldn’t think of it. Yes. They 

are Presidential earmarks. 

Mr. ROGERS. I thought we did away with earmarks. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You don’t get equal time. 

Mr. Nunnelee. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up somewhat along the line of questions Mr. 

Alexander asked, regarding cooperation with FEMA and flood 

maps. Mr. Alexander was referencing FEMA maps as it relates to 

levees. In Mississippi, we have those issues on the western part of 

the State; but on the Gulf Coast, we haven’t found a levee that will 

keep the Gulf of Mexico out of our State yet. And then we have 

other flood mapping issues throughout the rest of the State that 

may not necessarily involve levees. 

So how does the Corps cooperate with FEMA in this flood map 

modernization project? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, our part with FEMA is we have 

some inspections that we perform, and we actually have a part of 

the program where we have Corps-built and Corps-operated levees. 

So they are also in that program. They do provide protection and 

risk reduction for people. So we are also part of that program. But 

we have about 14 percent of the levees that are in that category. 

There are many, many more levees that are owned and operated 

by the local entity. And that is really where the issue comes on 

this. 

Those where they are under National Flood Insurance Program, 

they have to meet the 100-year level of protection. And many of 

those levees do not or they did at once when they were built and 

they don’t any more because of seepage problems or things over 

time that happen. Just because that levee has been there and been 

there for 50 years, there is a likelihood or a possibility that that 

levee could not be certified at what it was built for. 

General GRISOLI. Representative, if I may offer an additional 

comment. Your question referenced, how we work with FEMA. I 

would offer we try to work with them in several ways, taking a 

look at when the mapping is due. First of all, we have established 

an interagency task force that is led by FEMA and with the Corps 

of Engineers participating to take a look at flood plain management, et cetera. We have intergovernmental efforts, where we work 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

with the States and the local entities to make sure that information is out there. There was a lot of confusion, so we wanted to 

make sure that we are looking horizontally across the Federal Government and then vertically down through to the local entities to 

make sure they understand better. It is a challenge. And we are 

still trying to get that word out. 

The Silver Jackets Program also provides information to States 

so folks understand if you have a particular levee, as the Chief 

mentioned, whether it is Corps-built and maintained or Corps-built 

and locally maintained, what does that really mean to you as far 

as your responsibility as a local community to get your levee accredited as far as the FEMA program itself? We have worked very 

hard to work with FEMA and the other Federal agencies to get the 

information out. It is not all there yet, but we continue to work it. 

General VAN ANTWERP. My experience with them thus far is, if 

the local community has a plan and they have a funding plan to 

get it done and they know what they are going to do, that we are 

taking a very reasonable approach as a group of agencies. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. Obviously, you want the flood map to be an accurate representation of the risk involved. But I get calls on a regular 

basis from constituents that don’t feel that the flood map is an accurate representation of the risk involved, and I just don’t understand what the problem is. 

General VAN ANTWERP. There is a forum for that. And we would 

encourage and we can go out and touch them. If we get the people 

that are saying that, we can go and touch them. Part of the Silver 

Jackets program in States was to make sure that they have a voice 

that is being heard and that has a forum. We are part of that. 

FEMA is part of that. So that we do hear those things. And we will 

investigate. Because FEMA doesn’t want to draw a map that is not 

accurate. We want the most accurate. But we want to reflect for 

the public’s safety benefit what is really there. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We had an excellent opportunity to view some of the labs over 

the weekend in New Mexico, and I appreciate the opportunity and 

the trip. I learned a lot. 

The Army Corps is doing an extraordinary amount of work here 

at home, but you also are doing work abroad. You have over 1,100 

employees in Iraq and Afghanistan. When do we think that their 

work is going to wrap up? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will take the two big countries. Iraq 

has a December 2011 timeframe to come out, unless something 

changes between now and then. 

Mr. FATTAH. Afghanistan? 

General VAN ANTWERP. In Afghanistan, right now the mark on 

the wall is 2014 to turn security over to the Afghan people. That 

is not an exit time, however, for us. Traditionally, if the Iraq experience is anything, right now we are in there closing bases. We 

have gone from over 500 bases down to 75 bases. That is engineer 

work. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

Mr. FATTAH. You are doing a great job. I just wanted to know 

what the timeline was. 

General VAN ANTWERP. The timeline is December 2011 for Iraq. 

Mr. FATTAH. December, 2014. 

General VAN ANTWERP. 2014 for security turnover to the Afghans. That is not a pull-out date. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me move on. 

I was at the 75th anniversary meeting of the Mississippi Flood 

Control Council. The Corps has done extraordinary work over 

many, many years. And attempting to manage Mother Nature is a 

significant challenge. So, your work is deeply appreciated. 

However, let me focus on New Orleans. Are we going to meet the 

100-year requirement? 

And if you could, for the committee’s purposes, can you provide 

us some information in writing on the unobligated dollars? Are we 

going to meet this requirement, and when? 

Ms. DARCY. The 100-year flood protection for the city of New Orleans is on schedule to be completed to be able to defend against 

a 100-year flood by June 1 of this year. That is the beginning of 

hurricane season. And we are on target, on schedule, to be able to 

complete that. 

Mr. FATTAH. In one of your other trust funds, I note that in the 

New Hampshire Engineering Lab you are going to be purchasing 

some property. 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. That is in the budget proposal. 

Mr. FATTAH. It is in the President’s budget proposal. I would love 

to get some background material on that activity because I am very 

interested in being supportive of the lab’s work. 

Let me get closer to home. In Philadelphia, we have the Delaware River Basin Compact. The Federal Government is a member. 

There is no money in the President’s budget for the Federal participation, even though there is a statutory requirement in the 2007 

Act for the Secretary of the Army to make provisions. If you could 

take a look at that and provide some information to my office, that 

would be helpful. 

Ms. DARCY. We can do that. We serve on that Commission. 

Mr. FATTAH. We get 60 percent of our water in Philadelphia 

through the Delaware River and the other 40 percent through its 

major spinoff, which is the Schuylkill River. So we have a lot of interest in this matter. Of the ports on the East Coast that you mentioned, did you say Philadelphia? 

Ms. DARCY. I didn’t say Philadelphia in the 45- or 50-foot range, 

sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. What range would Philadelphia be in? 

Ms. DARCY. The Delaware deepening project I believe is 45-foot. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am sorry the chairman left. This is a perfect example why we shouldn’t assume all the wisdom—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The chairman is still here. 

Mr. FATTAH. The chairman of the full committee. I am sorry. 

That we should not believe that all the wisdom exists in the executive branch. The fact that they get a chance to decide 99 percent 

of the funds means that we should probably have retained our 1 

percent ability in this committee. I think by working with the 

Corps over the years a lot has been done. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

So I want to thank you for your work. I would like to follow up 

appropriately about the Compact and about the Philadelphia port. 

I am all for returning to the time in which Congress would exert 

some authority in these matters. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are going to try to exert as much authority as we can, given, shall we say, the new rules of the House 

relative to earmarks. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. Simpson, a fellow traveler. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for missing your opening statements. I walked in on 

the middle of a conversation that I want to pursue a little more because some of these might already have been answered. 

Two of the accounts that I have always had a great deal of interest in are the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has 

funds, $5.5 billion. You are proposing to expand the type of activities that could be funded out of that trust fund. Do we know what 

type of activities you are talking about yet? 

Ms. DARCY. No, we are still developing that proposal, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you have a plan, a 5-year, 10-year, 20-year plan 

for which harbors we are going to dredge, what dredging needs to 

be done, what the backlog is of dredging needs, and so forth? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe we do. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We know what the current backlog is. 

We know the dredging needs, as authorized today, but we have a 

number of studies ongoing to see if those ports and harbors should 

go to a greater depth with what is predicted in the future. We have 

a number of studies ongoing also. 

For instance, for a port like in New Orleans, it has a certain authorized width and depth. When we dredge, that is what we try to 

get to. A lot of our ports and harbors are not to the authorized 

depth or the authorized width. We prioritize, and we try and do the 

best we can with funds available. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are you suggesting that we couldn’t use the $5.5 

billion in dredging? Do we have to find another use for it? The reason I ask this is I have noticed on this committee every year when 

we talk about dredging, particularly with industry folks that come 

in in the Great Lakes, every community that is located on the 

Great Lakes has a harbor that they want to dredge deeper to make 

them more competitive. We are obviously not going to dredge every 

port throughout the Great Lakes. Is there a plan on which ones we 

are going to dredge to take the deeper ships and so forth or the 

larger ships and that type of stuff, and how those connect with the 

railroad system and the highway system and other things? Is there 

any overall plan in this country of why we do what we do? 

I know you ask that of Congress all the time. I am just wondering if there is a plan to address—and this is the frustrating part 

to me—a lot of times, back when we did earmarks, we would put 

money in to dredge a port of whomever the favorite Congressman 

was there, not knowing whether that was a good investment versus 

the overall system or not. Do we have a view of where we want to 

be? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

I get concerned when we are taking money out of the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund and using it for other purposes when I 

don’t yet know what the needs are for dredging around the country. 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t believe that we have a comprehensive longterm plan that you are talking about. Through our study process 

we are looking at deepening various harbors around the country 

and what those needs will be post-Panamax and what we should 

be doing. But as far as what I think you are describing, a comprehensive plan for the entire navigation system and what the future needs are, I don’t believe that we have a national vision of 

what that is. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would just like to add, just to make a 

slight distinction; there is deepening, which would be a new project 

to go to a deeper depth. But there is maintenance dredging. The 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund pays for the maintenance dredging part of it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It doesn’t do any of the deepening? 

General VAN ANTWERP. No. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Doesn’t pay for any of the deepening. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Deepening would be a construction 

project. For example the New York-New Jersey Harbor is in this 

budget funded in the construction account to do the deepening of 

the harbor. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund just maintains current levels. 

General VAN ANTWERP. That is its purpose. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I would think we would know what the backlog is 

of maintenance requirements. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We know what the dredging need is for 

the authorized depth and width. We do for each harbor. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we have a total? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We could provide that total to you. I will 

just give an example that we looked up. Of our 59 ports that transport 90 percent of the U.S. commercial cargo in this country, we 

are at authorized depth and width only about 35 percent of the 

time. We prioritize those. We work with industry. Sometimes you 

can be of less width if you are at depth, you just bring one ship 

in at a time instead of pass two in the night. Those are the considerations. They don’t like to be out on anchorage. They want to get 

in. They want to offload. They want to load and get back and 

steaming. Sometimes they are not able to do that as efficiently because we don’t have the width or depth. 

But we work with the industry, and we are trying to do the best 

we can with the resources we have. We know what it takes. We 

know what it would take to get all to authorized width and depth. 

Mr. PASTOR. I was going to ask you to yield for a question. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. PASTOR. We are talking about the Panama Canal, and we 

give the date 2014. I heard that New York-New Jersey, I guess we 

are going to deepen it to be able to receive enhanced—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Not every ship that goes through the 

Panama Canal will take 50 feet of draft. 

Mr. PASTOR. I understand that. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

General VAN ANTWERP. So every port doesn’t have to be 50 feet. 

But if you wanted to take a fully loaded Panamax ship at 50-foot 

depth, you are going to have to have 50 feet underneath your keel 

or the waterline. 

Mr. PASTOR. You also have harbors that are a lot closer to Panama that may have the infrastructure—Miami, Jacksonville. I don’t 

know whether or not Brownsville would fall in that category. New 

Orleans. I guess my question is, what criteria did you use to determine New York-New Jersey as compared to Jacksonville, Miami, 

and some of those ports that are also in the range to receive more 

cargo from the Panama opening? 

General VAN ANTWERP. They compete using performance metrics 

which ultimately comes down to a benefit-cost ratio. It has to do 

with other modes. Once you offload ships, do they have the ability 

to handle it? What is the volume of the port now? What is the expected volume in that port? It isn’t necessary that you are the closest one to the Panama Canal to be the deepest necessarily, because 

it depends on the distribution systems maybe coming out of that 

port. There are a lot of factors that contribute to a benefit-cost 

ratio. 

Ms. DARCY. Could I just add, in the deepening projects as opposed to the maintenance, if you want to deepen, the Corps of Engineers needs to have a cost-sharing sponsor for that additional 

depth. 

Mr. PASTOR. The reason I ask that, I think last year, Miami, they 

were hot and heavy, and they were cost sharing. They were also 

very interested in getting traffic from the opening of the Panama. 

And I didn’t hear that mentioned. Obviously, today they have some 

capacity because they are taking in a hell of a lot of containers 

coming from Central and South America. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think Ms. Darcy hit on a very important point. You have to have a cost-sharing partner. It is not just 

that you want that port to go to depth. You are going to have to 

bring your share to do it. And they are very expensive projects. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Just out of curiosity, what would it take to put together a master plan, transportation plan, in this country where 

we connected our harbor system, our inland waterway system, our 

railroads, our highways so that we knew when we were lifting load 

limits on highways, that we were offloading things at a certain 

port, that there was rail transportation that could handle it and 

roads that could handle it with the weight systems and that kind 

of thing? 

I feel like—not because of you or anything—but because of what 

we have developed over the years that I am kind of putting BandAids on things and trying to patch together, instead of an overall 

plan where we want to be 20 years from now. What would it take 

to put something like that together? It would include a lot of different entities, obviously. 

Ms. DARCY. A lot of different entities, not only government entities but the stakeholders and the shippers and the rail, the barge 

owners. It is a major undertaking. You are exactly right on the way 

you describe it. It is having to look holistically at the country, not 

just the water transportation system. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is fascinating—something needs to get done. And 

I don’t know how to proceed with trying to develop something like 

that. I would think the stakeholders would be interested in that. 

I would like to know when I unloaded a ship that I brought into 

harbor that there would be something to pick stuff up, that it 

makes sense. 

General VAN ANTWERP. In some cases, it is like ‘‘Field of 

Dreams.’’ If you build it, they will come. The shippers know where 

they can go in, get offloaded quickly, have the depth, don’t have 

other requirements. That can drive the system in some ways. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That would help us as an appropriations committee when we are deciding, well, we want to make sure we maintain these harbors or we want to deepen these harbors because of 

the larger ships or whatever. Right now, I kind of feel like we are 

just kind of going at it, and I am sure that I have got a simplistic 

mindset of this, but we are just going at it kind of haphazardly. 

I don’t mean that to criticize what you are doing or anything else. 

But without some goal of where I want to be, I feel a little frustrated sometimes in how we do things here. 

Inland Waterway Trust Fund, broke, pretty much, right? 

Ms. DARCY. We do not have enough revenue in there to meet the 

needs. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The Bush Administration made a proposal to go to 

the lockage fee away from the diesel fee? The shippers rejected 

that; came back with a proposal; you rejected that. Where are we? 

Ms. DARCY. Where we are, sir, is that we are committed to work 

with the stakeholders to try to come up with a funding mechanism 

to help fix this trust fund. 

Mr. SIMPSON. When? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How hard are you working on that? Do you 

have a group put together on this? 

Ms. DARCY. We are setting up a meeting—we haven’t set it up 

yet, but we have reached out to the industry. We recognize the fact 

that the mechanism currently is not funding efficiently or going to 

meet the needs, and we need to address it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Would it be helpful to have language in an appropriations bill directing this conference to occur and come up with 

a solution or a proposal for Congress to consider? 

Ms. DARCY. That is always a possibility, sir, but we are reaching 

out, as I say, to the industry right now to try to develop it within 

the Administration and the stakeholders. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I hope that industry understands that we are serious that we need a solution. Hopefully, it is a solution that both 

the government and industry can agree on. If not, it will be a solution that is imposed, which nobody really likes. So we hope you are 

successful in that regard. And if there is anything we can do to 

help spur that along, I would be more than happy to do it, I am 

sure. 

One last question. I appreciate the work that has been done on 

the Columbia River and the deepening projects there that have 

been finished. It has been a great success in the area. What about 

the jetties that need to be fixed in the area to maintain it? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

Ms. DARCY. As part of the Columbia deepening, sir? I am not 

sure of that status. I will call on General McMahon, our Division 

Commander. 

General MCMAHON. I am John McMahon, the Commander of the 

Northwest Division in Portland, Oregon. There is an 8-year, $250 

million plan that is predicated on funding in 2011 to be determined 

and consequently in 2012 or subsequently in 2012, to begin to purchase rock, big rocks, to reconstruct the jetties at the mouth of the 

Columbia River, which there are three. This plan is well thought 

out. It is an 8-year effort. But it is predicated on doing some things 

between now and then. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I appreciate the work you do. I know that the 

Army Corps does fantastic work, and sometimes we have tasked 

you to do things that aren’t really in your scope just because we 

think you do good work. We appreciate that. And thanks for all you 

do. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. 

Last year, the subcommittee, when Mr. Pastor led it, became 

aware that there were some inconsistencies across the districts in 

terms of updating the cost-benefit ratio projects. Where do we 

stand in terms of that issue, and where are we moved toward in 

terms of consistency and accuracy? 

Ms. DARCY. We identified 36 projects where the benefit-cost ratios had not been updated in accordance with our policies. It does 

not mean they were inaccurate. It was just that they hadn’t been 

updated. So, as a result, what we have done is we identified which 

projects must have updated BCRs for the fiscal year 2013 budget, 

and we have also initiated an Engineer Inspector General investigation. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are well prepared, I can see. 

Ms. DARCY. And to provide some feedback. We have identified a 

couple of problems. One of the problems is that the guidance was 

unclear. We are going to redo the guidance so that our districts and 

divisions will know just exactly what is required. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So without waiting for the guidance, how 

has the information you have obtained changed the way you formulate your budget request? 

Ms. DARCY. I am not quite sure—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is not your budget for a project that 

falls below a certain BCR, even if it is 80 percent complete. Is there 

some sort of a percentage? 

Ms. DARCY. Do you mean if we discover an 80 percent completed 

project is going to fall below a certain BCR? That is less than unity 

or less than the 2.5 for this budget. I think that is ongoing, and 

we will help develop that in the guidance. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So, at some point here, you could terminate 

projects, too, if they didn’t meet criteria, is that right? 

General VAN ANTWERP. If they fell below—basically, we have 

four levels. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What percentage would it be? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, right now, for a new start, the benefit-cost ratio required was 2.5. But we have four levels. Some of 

them have just minor things that have changed, but there are some 

of these projects where the conditions have changed. So those you 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

need to go back and do a new benefit-cost ratio to make sure you 

are on target and you are properly prioritizing. That is really what 

this is about, is to make sure we are properly prioritizing. By fiscal 

year 2013, under the new system, all of these projects will have the 

BCR ratio done that way. The draft guidance is out. It is not like 

we are not doing anything. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Under the new starts and investigations 

category—I think we talked about this—you are initiating four new 

studies. 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. All environmental. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the criteria that you use to select 

those studies? Because there are a lot of other studies out there, 

what, 50 or 60? What were the criteria you used to choose those, 

and new ones, and we have a backlog of old ones? 

Ms. DARCY. These were selected in competition with others, but 

we selected these because we felt that they were of the best and 

the most value to the nation. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What do you mean by competition? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, as you said, there are many studies out there, 

many study requests, from all of our project and mission areas, and 

these were the four that were new start purposes for this year, 

were the priority for this Administration. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the criteria? We have a competitive 

process. Is there a consistent application across—what is the criteria? 

Ms. DARCY. We look at each of the study requests and then base 

it on what we think is the ultimate value to the nation. In our new 

studies, like thosing ongoing, we need a cost-sharing partner. We 

have identified partners as well. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, for the record, would you provide a 

ranking of all projects by account and program line considered for 

the fiscal year 2012 request? This ranking should clearly show the 

criteria by which the rank was determined. And for the record, 

please clearly outline the cutoff line below which funding was not 

allocated for projects. 

Can you say something about capability funding? We talked 

about it earlier. 

General VAN ANTWERP. The capability estimate for each study or 

project is the estimate of the most that we could obligate efficiently. If you added all those up, though, if we funded everything 

to capability, and it went to all these Commanders, it would probably overload the system. But for any given project, it is that 

amount that we could efficiently fund and move toward completion 

of that project. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Getting back, we haven’t heard the term 

shovel-ready lately. Could you just give the committee a summary 

of what you accomplished with the stimulus money that you were 

given? 

Ms. DARCY. Sure. The Corps of Engineers got $4.6 billion in stimulus money. We had over 800 projects; 400 of those projects are 

complete. The other 400 are ongoing and expect to be completed 

soon. We have expended $3.1 billion of that $4.6 billion. We have 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

done a number of projects. As you know, the legislation gave us 

more latitude in some areas. For example, the legislation directed 

us to spend at least $200 million on water infrastructure, something that the Corps of Engineers and the Administration have not 

budgeted. So we were able to work on some of those projects. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Were any of those projects left stranded at 

the moment? 

Ms. DARCY. No. 

Mr. PASTOR. I want to follow up on your cost-benefit ratio. I 

think last year we heard the cost of a project is reviewed frequently 

and at least on a yearly basis, so we know ongoing what the cost 

is going to be. The cost-benefit ratio was done periodically or a 

longer period of time. And in the different divisions, obviously, 

there were inconsistencies. Some divisions did it one way. Now you 

have guidance. I don’t know what the guidance is. 

It is my belief that this is a political process. As much as we 

don’t want to admit it, it is. So you can have the cost of the projects 

and the benefit. Obviously, you can use various models. In whatever model you use, there will be some subjective processes that 

come in. So we try to be as objective as we can, but obviously, the 

models aren’t perfect and people are going to determine how much 

a particular benefit this is and somebody may interpret it a little 

bit different. 

In your answer to the chairman, especially on these investigations, what four were chosen and how were they chosen, I think 

there are all these cost-benefit ratios. There are costs and then 

benefits to the nation, which is pretty significant—I mean, pretty 

subjective. And so, in many cases, I believe the benefit to the nation is who has requested it and who is it at OMB asking for the 

project. So I don’t blame the Corps for that. I don’t blame the Corps 

for that. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are not suggesting the system is political here. I mean, they are Presidential earmarks and House and 

Senate earmarks. 

Mr. PASTOR. I started with that: this is a political process. I 

think every administration does it. 

General VAN ANTWERP. If I could clarify one thing. There is a difference between construction and planning. The construction 

projects that are new starts, the two in here, have gone through 

the entire process and have a benefit-cost ratio. A planning project, 

it does not have a benefit-cost ratio yet. It will get one later, and 

then it will either be thrown out because it is below unity or it will 

stay in the process. 

Mr. PASTOR. But you can be in construction and circumstances 

change, so that the cost-benefit ratio changes. So, then, obviously, 

then you have to start making different determinations. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Generally, we would like to go to completion. 

Mr. PASTOR. What I am saying is even if—whether you are on 

construction or investigations, the process, you can use different 

models, benefit-cost ratios, how much money the agency that you 

are dealing with is going to share the cost. I mean, I asked that 

question, why wasn’t the Port of Miami chosen, and you said, well, 

cost-benefit ratio and other factors. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

General VAN ANTWERP. And other factors. 

Mr. PASTOR. That is what I am talking about; the other factors. 

General VAN ANTWERP. There is a methodology on that. 

Mr. PASTOR. I am not laying blame on the Corps. But in making 

these determinations, there are a lot of subjective factors that come 

in. And so it is very difficult to ask the agency because they probably had very little input into making that decision. Obviously, 

they gave their models. They gave their cost-benefit ratios, and all 

that. But some decisions basically are based on more subjective 

benefit to the country. Well, okay. Good luck in defining that one. 

So I think frankness and honesty go a long way. And I appreciate the answers. I am a country boy from Claypool, Arizona. I 

know the process. And sometimes we respond to your answers, but 

we understand there are other factors that enter that cause the determination. 

One more and then I am going to quit. But I am going to talk 

about the 404; my experience, anyway. The Corps goes through this 

process of reviewing the permit, and they pick up data, and they 

make conclusions. So the Corps is about to make a recommendation. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We also consult with the other agencies, 

too. They are in the game, too. 

Mr. PASTOR. But let me get to the consulting part. Basically, you 

take the data and you have recommendations based on your personnel, your staff, of where it ought to go. And then you take it to 

consult. And then, obviously, there are other factors that other people different from the process begin saying, well, I don’t agree with 

this; I don’t agree with the data, or I don’t agree with the conclusion. And then what happens, there is an impasse. But out here, 

you have people who are waiting for this 404 because it is time and 

money. And I guess some of the frustration that the people out 

here, including us, that we face, is that the resolution, because 

there is a difference of opinion on the data or the conclusion, sometimes just gets interlocked and there is no movement. I guess at 

least for me, it would be if there was a way to have resolution of 

that difference of opinion, whether it be on the facts or on the conclusion, because sometimes they are at loggerheads with the other 

agency and your determination, that things don’t move, and that 

causes a lot of frustration. 

So I don’t know, when you become deadlocked, how you deal with 

it when you did that memorandum of understanding. But that is 

a real—that causes a lot of frustration. And so questions you get 

about the 404 are usually because people have a 404 process, and 

we are getting called; you know it has been a year, it has been 2 

years. And it is interlocked and a difference of opinion between the 

two agencies that just causes that to not move forward. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Part of what we are changing and trying 

to change under enhanced review, which has been used a lot here, 

is to start consultation very early in the process. So those are being 

identified in parallel. Then, as you go to public forums, you are 

really fleshing out what the issues are that could loggerhead you 

later and try and get those resolved a lot earlier in the process. 

That is part of what we are trying to do. It is hard. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

Mr. Simpson. 

Then we are going to wrap up after that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I sympathize with Mr. Pastor. We tried to get the cost-benefit 

analysis to work out for that Port of Phoenix, but we could just 

never get it. It was far too costly to get those ships there. 

Mr. PASTOR. We will trade those big rocks from Arizona for some 

of the water in the Columbia River. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The Army Corps will buy them. 

A question that might seem a little strange in this hearing, but 

I am the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee. The 

administration has come out with America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, one that I happen to support. Within the Federal Government, 

the Corps of Engineers is the number one provider of outdoor recreation. Most people don’t realize that. I didn’t realize that until I 

read that. 

Ms. DARCY. Three hundred seventy million visitor days. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is surprising. You have proposed or in your 

budget there is a proposed 7.5 percent cut in funding for recreation 

contained within the budget request. How is that going to affect 

your ability to advocate this America’s Great Outdoors Initiative? 

Will it close any parks? Where will these cuts come from within 

your recreation program? 

Ms. DARCY. The $259 million in this year’s budget is about $21 

million below fiscal year 2011. Yes, we are going to have to maybe 

close some parks. We may have to have shorter hours. We may 

have to have fewer summer hires than we usually do. But you are 

right in the recreation program the Corps of Engineers provides to 

the whole country. We have more than 422 recreation sites around 

the country. And the reason we have so many visitors is most of 

them are close to urban areas. People can get to them. They are 

part of another project—a reservoir for flood control—for example, 

but provide benefits such as fishing, camping and recreation. 

We are trying to highlight that. And we also recently developed, 

for the first time, a 5-year strategic plan for how we are going to 

spend our recreation dollars and where we should put them. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we have a priority list, if we are going to close 

parks, which ones are we going to end up having to close, or have 

we gotten that far down the road yet? 

Ms. DARCY. We have not gotten that far yet. 

General VAN ANTWERP. A lot of parks have multiple recreation 

areas, so we wouldn’t close the whole park. We might close one 

boat ramp and keep two open. The last resort would be to close the 

entire thing. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I will be interested next year during this hearing 

to find out how that worked out and what the impact was of closing 

that. Because I think the administration has a good initiative here 

that I support. I just never thought about it that the Army Corps 

was the number one provider of recreation within the Federal Government. That is something most people don’t think about. 

Ms. DARCY. I tell Secretary Salazar that every time I have a 

chance. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I will mention that to him the next time I see him, 

say, you know what I heard. Thank you. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On that note, I want to thank our witnesses for their time and the men and women who back them up. 

Again, General Van Antwerp, good luck in your retirement. 

I would also like to recognize Gary Loew, seated at the table 

here, retiring after 40 years of service. It is a hell of a long time. 

General VAN ANTWERP. For as young as he is. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On behalf of so many people who may 

never know who you are, I would like to enter into the record that 

we thank you for your dedication to obviously many administrations and to the people of the nation for what you have done. With 

that, we stand adjourned. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 71034A.016
49 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 71034A.017
50 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 71034A.018
51 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 71034A.019
52 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 71034A.020
53 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 71034A.021
54 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 71034A.022
55 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 71034A.023
56 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 71034A.024
57 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 71034A.025
58 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 71034A.026
59 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 71034A.027
60 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 71034A.028
61 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 71034A.029
62 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 71034A.030
63 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 71034A.031
64 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 71034A.032
65 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 71034A.033
66 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 71034A.034
67 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 71034A.035
68 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 71034A.036
69 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 71034A.037
70 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 71034A.038
71 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 71034A.039
72 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 71034A.040
73 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 71034A.041
74 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 71034A.042
75 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 71034A.043
76 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 71034A.044
77 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 71034A.045
78 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 71034A.046
79 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 71034A.047
80 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 71034A.048
81 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 71034A.049
82 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 71034A.050
83 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 71034A.051
84 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 71034A.052
85 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 71034A.053
86 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 71034A.054
87 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 71034A.055
88 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 71034A.056
89 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 71034A.057
90 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 71034A.058
91 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 71034A.059
92 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 71034A.060
93 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 71034A.061
94 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 71034A.062
95 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 71034A.063
96 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 71034A.064
97 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 71034A.065
98 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 71034A.066
99 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 71034A.067
100 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 71034A.068
101 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 71034A.069
102 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 71034A.070
103 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 71034A.071
104 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 71034A.072
105 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 71034A.073
106 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 71034A.074
107 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 71034A.075
108 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 71034A.076
109 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 71034A.077
110 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 71034A.078
111 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 71034A.079
112 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 71034A.080
113 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 71034A.081
114 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 71034A.082
115 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 71034A.083
116 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 71034A.084
117 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 71034A.085
118 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 71034A.086
119 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 71034A.087
120 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 71034A.088
121 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 71034A.089
122 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 71034A.090
123 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 71034A.091
124 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 71034A.092
125 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 71034A.093
126 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 71034A.094
127 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 71034A.095
128 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 71034A.096
129 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 71034A.097
130 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 71034A.098
131 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 71034A.099
132 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 71034A.100
133 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 71034A.101
134 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 71034A.102
135 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 71034A.103
136 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 71034A.104
137 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 71034A.105
138 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 71034A.106
139 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 71034A.107
140 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 71034A.108
141 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 71034A.109
142 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 71034A.110
143 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 71034A.111
144 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 71034A.112
145 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 71034A.113

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(147) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FY 2012 BUDGET 

WITNESSES 

MICHAEL CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

REED MURRAY, DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT OFFICE 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I’d like to call this hearing to order. Good 

morning, everyone. Our hearing today is on the fiscal year 2012 

budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the request for 

the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA). 

I’d like to welcome our witnesses, Michael Connor, Commissioner 

of Reclamation, and Reed Murray, Program Director for the 

CUPCA Office. 

As I have mentioned at all of our hearings this year, I want everyone who appears before this subcommittee to understand that 

it is highly unlikely there will be any new funding in fiscal year 

2012 for our subcommittee. Our subcommittee must do its part to 

reduce spending and bring down our deficit. 

Our task this year is really no different than any other year, 

however we must find the right balance of investments into our 

most critical needs, with an eye towards those that protect our nation, and support and improve our economy and add jobs. 

It is clear that water and power remain fundamental to the economy of the western United States, and the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

activities are critical to meeting these needs. 

Reclamation’s fiscal year 2012 budget request reflects a reduction 

of 3 percent from the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution. Within this overall funding, however, water and energy management activities continue to be cut disproportionately when compared to 

funding for fish and wildlife activities. 

Your mission clearly states your primary responsibility is to meet 

the water demands of the West while protecting the environment 

and the public’s investments in these structures. While I have been 

a long-time supporter of environmental conservation programs, I’m 

not sure now is the time to be making this shift of priorities away 

from your historical mission of water and power. 

These tight budget times make it even more important that we 

use every dollar efficiently and effectively. The subcommittee will 

take a hard look this morning at the criteria—both quantitative 

and qualitative—used to develop the specifics of your budget request. We may end up agreeing with the Administration’s decisions 

or we may not, but we will not know until we fully understand 

your rationale. 

Again, I’d like to welcome our witnesses to the subcommittee. 

Mr. Connor, please ensure that the hearing record, questions for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

the record, and any supporting information requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us no later than four 

weeks from the time you receive them. Members who have additional questions for the record will have until close of business tomorrow to provide them to the subcommittee office. 

With that, I’ll turn to Mr. Pastor for his opening comments. 

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Connor, Mr. Murray, welcome back to the subcommittee. I look forward to your testimony and thank you for joining us today. 

The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for providing agricultural, municipal and industrial water supply in the West. Economies, ecosystems, and communities all rely on the availability of 

clean water. At a time when demand is increasing and many regions have been hit by extended drought, the Bureau is being 

asked more and more to provide solutions to the West’s water 

needs while being good stewards of our natural resources. I hope 

to hear today how the fiscal year 2012 budget request reflects this 

responsibility with a reduced budget. 

Reclamation’s budget request for Water and Related Resources is 

a 12 percent reduction from that of 2011. We are all interested in 

finding appropriate places to cut, and as the Chairman has said, 

it will be especially important that we understand the specific 

methodology in arriving at this particular set of projects and activities. I am principally concerned that this request does not adequately provide for two important programs within the Water and 

Related account: dam safety and rural water. 

Much of the Bureau’s infrastructure was built nearly a century 

ago—in fact, over half of the Bureau’s dams are more than 60 

years old. It is critical that Reclamation maintain this aging infrastructure, and I hope today to explore how the budget request provides funding levels that meet the Bureau’s responsibility to keep 

Americans safe while maintaining its dams in proper working 

order. 

Reclamation plays a vital role in delivering water to tribes and 

rural communities that could not otherwise access clean water. The 

rural water budget request is a significant cut to this activity, and 

today I look you, Mr. Connor, to shed light on how the Administration’s proposal addresses our water supply commitments to tribes 

and meets the needs of rural communities. 

We are all interested in ensuring that every dollar is spent effectively and efficiently, I look forward to your testimony today on 

how Reclamation and CUPCA plan to accomplish this task. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the time. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. Mr. Connor, good 

morning. 

Mr. CONNOR. Good morning. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thanks for being with us. 

Mr. CONNOR. I think I might rather be here today than outside. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOR. That’s a strange thing. 

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Pastor, and 

members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss the 

President’s FY 2012 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

With me today is Bob Wolf, Director of Program and Budget, with 

respect to Reclamation’s testimony. 

The 2012 discretionary request for Reclamation is approximately $1 billion. I have submitted written testimony, which presents a 

detailed summary of the request. Overall, the budget reflects a 

comprehensive set of actions and initiatives to support Reclamation’s mission. The budget continues to emphasize working smarter 

to address the water needs of a growing population in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner, and assisting 

states, tribes, and local entities in solving contemporary water resource challenges. 

Certainty and sustainability, our primary goals with respect to 

the use of water resources, requires Reclamation to take action on 

many fronts and our budget proposal was developed with that principle in mind. The FY 2012 budget request for Reclamation focuses 

on six priority areas, which I briefly want to touch on in my remaining time. 

Infrastructure. Overall, our budget continues to support the need 

to maintain infrastructure in a safe operating condition while addressing the myriad challenges facing water users in the West. Approximately 51 percent of our Water and Related Resources budget, 

or $407 million, is dedicated to operation, maintenance and rehabilitation activity. These activities include the Dam Safety Program, Site Security Program, and RAX, which is shorthand for Replacement, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance. 

WaterSMART is the second priority area in our budget. We have 

established as a high priority goal, approving and funding actions, 

to increase available water supply for agriculture, municipal, and 

industrial and environmental uses in the Western United States by 

490,000 acre feet by the end of 2012. WaterSMART concentrates on 

expanding and stretching limited water supplies in the West to reduce conflict, facilitate solutions to complex water issues, and meet 

the needs of expanding municipalities, the environment, and agriculture. 

Reclamation proposes to fund WaterSMART at $59 million in FY 

2012. The three ongoing WaterSMART programs include the 

WaterSMART Grant Program, Basin Studies, and the Title XVI 

Water Reuse Program. In FY 2012, WaterSMART will also include 

the ongoing Water Conservation Field Services Program and a pilot 

project to initiate the Cooperative Watershed Management Program, which was authorized in 2009. 

Ecosystem restoration is the third priority area. In order to meet 

Reclamation’s mission goals of producing power and delivering 

water in a sustainable manner, we must continue to focus on the 

protection and restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments affected by our operations. 

Ecosystem restoration involves a large number of activities including our Endangered Species Recovery programs. Simply put, 

healthy aquatic ecosystems have a wealth of benefits and are fundamental to Reclamation’s ability to continue water and power operations for the benefit of our customers. 

Approximately 20 to 25 percent of Reclamation’s FY 2012 budget 

is allocated to activities in support of ecosystem restoration. This 

amount includes the request for operating, managing, and improvVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:43 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 071034 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\71034P2.XXX 71034P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

ing California’s Central Valley Project. CVP-related funding will 

support completion of the Red Bluff pumping plant and fish screen 

on the Sacramento River, the Trinity River and San Joaquin River 

Restoration Programs, and protecting and enhancing California’s 

Bay Delta region, an area that is critical to the water needs of millions of Californians. 

Our budget request also supports ongoing implementation of the 

Lower Colorado River Multispecies Conservation Program, the 

Platte River Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program, and the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Programs. Additionally, funding requested for the 

Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery Program will implement 

required biological opinion actions associated with the Federal Columbia River Power System. 

Finally, funding is also sought for the Klamath, Rio Grande, and 

Yakima projects to support extensive initiatives to improve habitat, 

water delivery systems, and overall operations to address the competing demands of agricultural, tribal, municipal, and environmental needs. 

Cooperative Landscape Conservation and renewable energy production, a fourth area of focus, are Departmental initiatives in 

which Reclamation is actively engaged. As a threshold matter, we 

are developing and implementing approaches to understand and effectively adapt to the risks and impacts of climate change on Western water management. The Basin Studies Program is part of Interior’s integrated strategy to respond to climate change impacts on 

the resources managed by the department and is also a key component of the WaterSMART program. 

In FY 2012, the Basin Studies Program will continue West-wide 

risk assessments focusing on the threats to water supplies from climate change and other sources. We will also continue responsive 

actions with the Department’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. 

Included within Reclamation’s Science and Technology Program 

is research targeting improved capability for managing water resources under multiple drivers including climate change and 

invasive species. Reclamation is also working in partnership with 

the Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers in identifying opportunities to address the President’s Clean Energy Goals 

through the development of new sustainable hydropower capacity 

as well as integrating renewable energy into our operations. 

A fifth initiative I wanted to discuss is a very important one for 

the Administration. Reclamation has a longstanding commitment 

to the Secretary’s goal to strengthen tribal nations. The request includes funding for ongoing settlement activities such as the 

Animas-La Plata Project, Avogal Project, and other settlement 

needs in Arizona. 

On December 8th of last year, the President signed the Claims 

Resolution Act, which authorized four new Indian Water Right Settlements. The primary responsibility for developing water infrastructure on these settlements was given to the Bureau of Reclamation. Mandatory funding was provided to the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) and Reclamation for a portion of the funds obligated 

under the Act. We anticipate that Reclamation will begin expendVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:43 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 071034 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\71034P2.XXX 71034P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

ing some of this mandatory funding in the future to work with all 

parties to begin implementation of these settlements. 

I would also note that the FY 2012 budget request also requests $36 million for ongoing, authorized rural water projects. Several 

projects benefit tribal nations including Mni Wiconi in South Dakota, the Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota, Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie in Montana, Jicarilla Apache Reservation in 

New Mexico, and Rocky Boys in Central Montana. 

Finally, Youth Employment is the sixth area of focus. Consistent 

with the Secretary’s priority for youth employment, Reclamation is 

working to engage young men and women, aged 25 and under, in 

conservation careers either through internships with Reclamation 

or as part of a conservation work crew in conjunction with a 

partnering organization. Further, Reclamation will seek ways to 

expand opportunities for youth engagement through ongoing activities in partnerships. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my verbal statement. I am happy 

to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here 71034A.114
153 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here 71034A.115
154 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here 71034A.116
155 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here 71034A.117
156 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here 71034A.118
157 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 71034A.119
158 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 71034A.120
159 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here 71034A.121
160 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here 71034A.122
161 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Connor. Mr. Murray, good 

morning. I see you are a child of this project. I see from your resume you started back in 1982, is that correct? 

Mr. MURRAY. That’s correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yeah, so we are going to learn something 

from you as to what you are up to. 

Mr. MURRAY. Right. I hope so. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pastor, my name is Reed Murray. I serve as 

the program director of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 

Office under the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science in the 

Department of the Interior, and I am pleased to provide the following information about the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

request for implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion 

Act. 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act provides for completion 

of the Central Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes funding for fish, wildlife, 

and recreation mitigation and conservation, establishes an account 

in the Treasury for deposit of these funds and other contributions, 

establishes the Utah Reclamation, Mitigation, and Conservation 

Commission to coordination mitigation and conservation activities 

and provides for the Ute Indian Rights Settlement. 

The Department has established an office in Provo, Utah with a 

program director to provide oversight, review, and liaison with the 

District, the Mitigation Commission, and the Ute Indian tribe, and 

to assist in administering the responsibilities of the Secretary 

under the Act. 

The 2012 request for the Central Utah Project Completion Account provides $33 million for use by the District, the Mitigation 

Commission, and the Department, to implement the Act, which is 

$9 million less than the 2010 enacted budget. 

The decrease in funding for the 2012 budget is due in part to accelerated funding of $50 million provided in 2009 through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and in part to the Administration’s effort to reduce the deficit. 

The request for the District includes $28.5 million to fund the design, specifications, land acquisition, and construction of the Utah 

Lake System and to implement water conservation measures. The 

request includes $2 million for the Mitigation Commission to implement fish, wildlife and recreation mitigation and conservation 

projects and to complete mitigation measures, all of which are necessary to allow for CUP operation. 

Finally, the request includes $2.5 million for the program office 

for endangered species recovery and operation and maintenance 

costs associated with instream flows and fish hatchery facilities 

and for program oversight and administration. 

This concludes my statement. I appreciate the subcommittee’s 

support and this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, 

and I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
162 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 71034A.123
163 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 71034A.124
164 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, thank you. Thank you both. I was 

looking over your resume, Mr. Connor, and you have been at this 

for a long time. 

Mr. CONNOR. I have. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Working for the Senate and then working 

for the Department of the Interior for a number of years, so you 

are indeed—I guess both of you—resident experts. So, I hope you 

use this opportunity to educate us. 

We spent quite a lot of time yesterday with the Army Corps of 

Engineers trying to get a handle as to how they prioritize the criteria that they use to move ahead with their projects, and as you 

know from your time in the Senate, there’s a keen interest. Every 

member of Congress has some relationship with the Corps in their 

congressional district. And the House and the Senate appear to be 

sort of forsaking earmarks, but my focus initially here is to figure 

out from you how you prioritize your budget. Could you explain to 

the committee the methodology you use to determine what projects 

to fund and at what levels? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Could you sort of give us a rundown of how 

you do it? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. It is not entirely 

formulaic or an exact science with respect to our budget preparation, but there is a thoughtful set of criteria that we use to allocate 

between our different program areas and then within the program 

areas themselves. 

So, I think we start off primarily by looking at what is fundamental to operating and maintaining our facilities, the physical operation maintenance. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And you are responsible for 58 power 

plants or something, I read. 

Mr. CONNOR. Fifty-eight power plants. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And a lot of other—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Like 476 dams, large dams, diversion dams and 

structures, canals, et cetera. In a lot of those instances we have 

contractors who are responsible for paying for a good share of the 

O & M. In a lot of those cases there is also a Federal obligation 

to pay for a portion of the O&M, which is our piece. And even in 

some cases where contractors are responsible for some of the O&M 

activity, we have to pay it first and then we get reimbursed, so that 

comes out of our appropriations. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are some of the communities involved here 

sharing in those costs as well? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So, it is not unlike the Corps in some ways. 

Mr. CONNOR. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. People step up to the plate. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, some of our stakeholders are stepping up to 

the plate. Some of them prepay a lot of the O&M, so that is very 

helpful from an appropriations perspective. That is kind of the fundamental place that we start. Then we look at our infrastructure 

needs, our infrastructure programs. Beyond typical maintenance, 

annual maintenance activities, what are the large-scale rehabilitation activities we have to do? Dam safety? What are the security 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

fortifications that we need to do, and what are what we call extraordinary maintenance? Things that we do not do on a year to 

year basis but over time for which we have to do some major rehabilitation? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Dam safety is a critical mass, is it not? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. Dam safety is a substantial amount of our $1 billion budget. This year we are in the $84 million range 

for our Dam Safety Program. We have been up to $100 million in 

past years, so it has really taken an upswing over the last five to 

eight years. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If you had to have a pyramid, would dam 

safety be right up there? 

Mr. CONNOR. It is right up there. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yeah. 

Mr. CONNOR. Operating and maintaining, those fundamental 

needs, and we look at our infrastructure needs and we do risk assessments and that is how we come up with our budget request. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So, do you have a benefit to cost ratio and 

do you do sort of a percent complete? And where do things like Endangered Species Act compliance come in and other factors? 

Mr. CONNOR. All right, so let me—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How do you put it all together? 

Mr. CONNOR. Let me separate those. I will kind of go through the 

different program areas and then I will talk about cost-benefit, 

schedule to completion, et cetera, which I think is how we look at 

different categories. 

So, after we get through operation and maintenance type activities, infrastructure needs, then we look at legal requirements. 

Legal requirements are things from the Endangered Species Act 

compliance, those things, that as I mentioned in my testimony, are 

fundamental to our water operations and power delivery generation. So, we need to comply with the ESA through those programs 

in order to maintain water deliveries and power generation. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But the ESA in the overall scheme of 

things is a more recent obligation, or legal obligation. 

Mr. CONNOR. I think more—yes. Relative to the ongoing—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. To the traditional—— 

Mr. CONNOR. To the traditional—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. View of the BOR. 

Mr. CONNOR. Certainly. And a lot—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not minimizing it, but there were historic responsibilities of the BOR—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Which impacted—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are interested in making sure, obviously, you keep your historic responsibilities, you know, primary. 

Mr. CONNOR. Right. It is relatively new, but I think it is fundamental to those responsibilities, quite frankly, the Endangered Species Act protection activities. 

Other legal obligations we have, which typically have tight deadlines to maintain, implement and successfully carry out the settlement as opposed to allowing it to fail. We have other legal obligations such as court orders, such as responsibility to implement 

drainage systems in the San Luis unit, and the—project, so that is 

kind of a third area. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 

Then we go to, I think, the good water management—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You have Indian Water Rights here, too? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, absolutely. Indian Water Rights Settlements 

are fundamental to the legal obligations that we look at. 

Then we look—— 

Mr. WOMACK. My next question is more toward personnel—and 

a number of Federal agencies have shown that over the next decade, there will be a number of people entering retirement. Does 

Reclamation have that—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. We have aging. In addition—— 

Mr. WOMACK [continuing]. Aging employees? 

Mr. CONNOR. An aging workforce. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me help you out. 

Mr. CONNOR. And it is something over time, just with respect to 

how we are staffing. Let me just put it on the record that our staffing level at the Bureau of Reclamation in 1993 was 7,239. In 2000, 

it was 5,632. In 2004, it was 5,750. And in 2011, we estimate it 

to be 5,116. 

So, from my perspective, the Bureau of Reclamation has been on 

a downward trend as far as our FTEs. We are very cognizant of 

the need, in particularly tight budget times like this, to be very 

prudent to look across the board, not just at our program activities, 

but our administrative costs in the level of administration that we 

have. 

Now, as we move forward, the discussions that we’re having are 

about the aging workforce because of the talent and expertise and 

experience we have, particularly in our Denver Technical Center, 

which supports a lot of our dam safety and infrastructure activities. 

But at the same time, we want to be realistic about what our 

long-term expectations are. And we are thinking strategically 

about, as people retire, what do we really need to do as far as replacing that expertise, and where do we think we might be able to 

rely on external contractors in some of those forums. 

So it is something that we have a great and deep experience, a 

talent pool that exists. But I think we have to recognize that budgets are only going to get tighter in the future. And as people retire, 

we will look very judiciously about how to replace them, and 

whether to replace them. 

Mr. WOMACK. So is it safe to say that in your succession planning, that outsourcing, which is the term I use; I think you just 

said ‘‘external contractors’’—some means of outsourcing may be 

part of that strategy? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. 

Mr. WOMACK. Okay. Any specific areas of expertise that we are 

having trouble finding in today’s climate? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think we’ve done a lot of review about that. And 

I think that is a good one for me to expand on in the record. 

I would just say—you know, some of the expertise we have in 

dam safety, a lot of folks have been involved in construction of 

dams and the ongoing maintenance of that. And that is a skill level 

that, I think, over time there are less people out there. 

There has been a—just talking about our work with the Corps 

of Engineers. There has been some level of competition between 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 

ourselves and the Corps with respect to that talent pool. Rather 

than to handle that inefficiently, we are looking very closely at integrating our risk management services with the Corps of Engineers, and seeing if we can’t partner up and do things a little bit 

more efficiently overall. But that is one area that I would identify 

that we have concerns about ongoing expertise. There are probably 

others that we have looked at, so if I can expand upon that for the 

record for you. 

Mr. WOMACK. Sure. I appreciate that. 

And, finally, you had indicated earlier in some of your programs 

that you evaluate risk, which is a key component of your decisionmaking criteria. I am assuming—I am sure you would agree—that 

aging personnel, and the loss of institutional knowledge also plays 

somewhat into that risk, does it not? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. Yes. And for that reason, part of our 

succession planning is not only looking to those things that we can 

possibly outsource, but also how we are developing younger engineers, and giving them exposure to these very experienced folks in 

trying to develop them in-house. 

Mr. WOMACK. Thank you for your testimony. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you. 

I read a very interesting article in the New York Times entitled 

‘‘Danger Pent Up Behind Aging Dams.’’ I assume you saw that. Is 

the Lake Isabella Dam in California one of yours? 

Mr. CONNOR. Lake Isabella? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Doesn’t ring a bell. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOR. It is a State dam. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I was interested in what they said here. Of 

the nation’s 85,000 dams, more than 4,400 are considered susceptible for failure according to the Association of State Dam Safety 

Officials. 

How many dams are you responsible for? And how many would 

be on this watch list? 

Mr. CONNOR. We have—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I assume—this is obviously a highly legitimate group, I assume, that do these analyses. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. We’re responsible for—and, quite frankly, in 

our data I have seen two figures, which I am still trying to get to 

the bottom of—476 dams or 480 dams. And, as I mentioned, a lot 

of those are diversion dam structures, very small dams, low-risk 

dams from that standpoint—but a lot of very major facilities. 

And I think, once again, we are very concerned about the safety 

of our dams. We’ve had this ongoing safety of dams program. 

Certainly Folsom Dam in California has been up there as a highrisk, because of the circumstances surrounding the Sacramento 

River and the condition of the facility. We are addressing that. I 

think Glendo Dam in Wyoming is another one we are concerned 

about its condition. 

And a lot of it is—our primary concerns, given the fact that we 

have done a good job, overall, of taking care of this infrastructure 

over time, are operational conditions, changes in information in hydrology that have affected our view of how those dams might perVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:43 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 071034 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\71034P2.XXX 71034P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
168 

form—like Glendo Dam in Wyoming. We also have a dam in Utah 

that we are looking at. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, some are on the list that this article 

refers to. I assume there is an annual. Or, you know, there is a 

look-see by this group. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And I would be interested in knowing, for 

the record, how many are on—of the 476 to 480—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. To 480. 

Mr. CONNOR. We will get you an answer for the record. Reclamation currently maintains 476 dams. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have heard from some of our members 

some concern about the WaterSMART grants, the type of projects 

that are being funded, that sometimes we aren’t getting the, shall 

we say, the best bang for the buck. 

Can you describe the type of projects that have been funded? And 

what are some of the benefits of these projects? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, the WaterSMART program, the grant program that has been going on for, I think, about the last five or so 

years does a lot of water conservation activities within irrigation 

districts. So a lot of opportunities to improve the efficiency to which 

we can deliver agricultural water. So canal linings, taking out of 

service open canals and having piping and pressurized systems, 

those types of activities. 

We have also had some very good municipal water conservation 

programs. We have helped support southern Nevada’s water authorities, their very aggressive conservation program. 

So we have participated in the agricultural sector, the rural sector, in rural communities, as well as the large communities, the 

municipal sector. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So have there been some differences among 

members of Congress in these areas about the effectiveness of some 

of what we have been doing here, in terms of these grants? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I have heard some of the debate. I actually 

think that our WaterSMART grant program, and the water conservation activity that we support through it is probably the most 

successful way that we have to generate new water supplies. 

Over time, over that last five, six year period, with respect, we have invested, overall, the Bureau of Reclamation, $93 million in 

WaterSMART grants. We have leveraged $232 million of non-Federal funding to partner up with that $93 million. So overall, we 

have invested $325 million. 

And our view is that we have secured a yield of about 700,000 

acre-feet of water through the water savings activities associated 

with those grants. So that makes WaterSMART grants—if you average it out, we are investing and paying $455 per acre-foot. You 

look at it—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is a significant achievement, but that 

is one of the underlying criteria. 

Mr. CONNOR. That is absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOR. So we are trying to generate water, and we are trying to do it as efficiently as possible. So $455 per acre-foot. You 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
169 

compare that with Title XVI, which is widely implemented in 

water-short areas—because I think the water managers for municipal districts view that as a very good investment, and it is a good 

investment. 

But over time, we have invested $542 million in Title XVI 

projects. We have leveraged, overall, $2.168 billion in funding. We 

have got a yield of 260,000 acre-feet. And the total cost per acrefoot is $8,340 per acre-foot—substantially more than the 

WaterSMART grants. But still, viewed from the water manager’s 

perspective, is a very good investment. 

You start talking about new storage and the cost per acre-foot 

with respect to new storage—now, granted, new storage may be important in many basins over time. But even the Black Rock Reservoir in Washington State that we looked at and did a final EIS 

and feasibility study for within the last two years, that project was 

going to cost $6.1 billion for a yield of 366,000 acre-feet. So that 

is $16,727 per acre-foot. So that is over—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think you win the statistical battle. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are the second largest producer of hydroelectric power—— 

Mr. CONNOR. That is correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. In the western United States, 

with 58 power plants. 

Are you involved in the issue of who pays for what, in terms of 

those who consume that power? 

Mr. CONNOR. Ahh—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I mean some of us in the northeast grind 

our teeth endlessly about, you know, power marketing, and lack of 

competition, and things of that nature. 

Are you involved in that? 

Mr. CONNOR. Typically, not. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Because, obviously, if you are providing 

this essential service, you basically own the operation. You are responsible. And, you know, a lot of money has been put into these 

power plants for their upkeep. 

Assure me that you can extract for me, as you did with the other 

issue, that the people in other parts of the country where there is, 

shall we say, a more competitive environment are not, you know, 

paying for, shall we say, somewhat subsidized power in these 

areas? 

Mr. CONNOR. With respect to—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Without having a whole avalanche of members come on my case after this. 

Mr. CONNOR. [Laughs.] Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is a tricky area. 

Mr. CONNOR. I do not want to get into, you know, Bonneville or 

anything. Like my prior experience in the Senate Energy Committee—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You know, it is one of these things that 

really makes some of our blood boil, up in our neck of the woods, 

you know. I look more to the TVA than I do to you. 

But just educate me. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
170 

Mr. CONNOR. With respect to— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Then I will go to Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir. 

With respect to our power operations, there are two aspects of it. 

There is the marketing of the power on an annual basis, which we 

actually do not involve ourselves in. We provide—generate the 

power, we put it on the market to Western Area Power Administration, and Bonneville Power. And they assess the rates, which involves the public power piece of that, in the annual costs associated 

with paying for the electricity. 

We do, though, from Reclamation’s standpoint, are still securing 

repayment of the original investment for our facilities—the dams 

and the infrastructure and the hydroelectric facilities, et cetera. So 

we have allocated the costs for that to our customers, and that 

part—that goes into the cost equation. So we view ourselves as receiving repayment over time for the initial investment in those facilities. And that part of the cost structure that exists. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So does that—is that payment really, how 

would you characterize that payment? Is it, shall we say, up to 

speed? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is based on the original cost of those—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Investments. But I assume, if 

we were to continue to substantially improve the viability of these 

different power plants, through new technology and whatever, that 

would be reflective in whatever information you pass on. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. To those who are—— 

Mr. CONNOR. It is reflective, the initial rate structure and the repayment is over time, with interest. That is correct—on the power 

sector. So we are recouping that investment. 

But as you note, we are continually making new investments. We 

are upgrading and operating our facilities. So, another quick statistic. Over the last 30 years, through our efficiency and upgrade 

program, we have created an additional 1,800 to 2,000 megawatts 

of capacity. That is the equivalent of a Hoover Dam. 

But those investments are typically paid by the power sector up 

front. Not all the time, but typically. So we are working with customers to get new investments to pay for those upgrades on those 

facilities, to increase efficiency, et cetera. 

So we do think that we are up-to-date in allocating the costs to 

the beneficiaries of the power. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you for your response. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. I guess it is all relevant, because some of the customers will yell back and say they are coming too fast and too 

quick. And I will give an example. 

Several years ago we were concerned about the security of Hoover Dam. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. 

Mr. PASTOR. And, obviously, we came—I guess you came forth 

with a plan how to secure Hoover Dam. And there were additional 

costs. And we were trying to recoup some of those costs by sharing 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 

some of the costs with the customers. And they were not happy 

campers I know for many years. I do not know if that finally settled down. But the whole security issue—and this happened during 

the Bush administration, as I remember. It was their Commissioner of Reclamation. And I know that many of the customers 

really had him on the hot seat. 

Where are we on this—because you did mention security—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Right. 

Mr. PASTOR [continuing]. Has a cost. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. 

Mr. PASTOR. How are you doing with that one? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, let me speak to that, and then I will talk to 

the security in general. 

You are absolutely correct that the situation with respect to security costs at Hoover Dam has calmed down because, essentially, 

Congress in 2008 capped what we could seek as far as reimbursement from the power users for security costs. And it was viewed, 

at a certain level, that the enactment of that legislation in 2008, 

it would increase over time with respect to inflation. 

So the reality is that we are continuing to evaluate our security 

needs. And some of that is guards and those types of costs. Some 

of it is infrastructure and hardening, as we call it, of our facilities, 

and investments in surveillance, and investments in strengthening 

fortification of some of our facilities. Some of it is increased patrols 

and security. That is an ongoing area. But what that legislation 

has caused us to do is to try and look and be as efficient as possible 

with respect to those annual security costs that we have in place. 

We are also looking, over time, at an ongoing active set of inspections, and monitoring with respect to security needs. So we continually have an updated tick-list about infrastructure needs, as well 

as reassessing the security aspects. We are continually doing a lot 

of exercises, both tabletop exercises—just to work through who we 

would need to inform, how would we react to certain situations— 

to actual on-the-ground exercises like we had at Folsom at the end 

of last year, where we coordinated with a lot of local response, the 

emergency response personnel from both the sheriff’s office, the 

county, the municipality in the area, EMTs, et cetera. Carried out 

the whole mission in an exercise that demonstrated a takeover of 

Shasta Dam in California, in a hostage situation, where there was 

an initial explosion. 

So we have exercised actual scenarios, which helps us learn 

through and improve our coordination with local law enforcement, 

with Federal law enforcement. And it is an ongoing process. 

Mr. PASTOR. Let me go back to my second issue that I had, with 

rural water. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PASTOR. I think you reduced the 2011 request, I think, by 

42 percent. And it is a 71 percent reduction from Fiscal Year 2010. 

And does this mean that we have met our commitments to the 

ongoing projects? And can we expect a lower level of funding to 

continue? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, there is $1.3 billion in backlog in our Rural 

Water Program right now—— 

Mr. PASTOR. Right. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

Mr. CONNOR [continuing]. With respect to construction. So, 

viewed on the authorizations that we have before us, and the expectations, I do not think folks would say that we have met our obligations, because of their ongoing need out there and that $1.3 billion backlog. 

It is—with the reduced funding levels that we had, 5 percent 

below our 2011 budget, it has been a tough set of decisions that 

we have had to make with respect to funding levels. And I think 

in the Rural Water Program area, after going through the priorities 

and the needs that we have, that was the investment that we 

thought was responsible, given this year’s budget—the $36 million—taking into account the obligation we have to fund O&M for 

some of the projects, and leaving some level of construction dollars 

available to try and complete Mni Wiconi, which is the priority, 

given how close it is to completing construction of that facility. 

But we also looked at this in the context of the Recovery Act. We 

initially committed $200 million of Reclamation’s towards the 

Rural Water Program, and that was a terrific set of investments 

that allowed us to get over some of the real expensive items in 

some of those projects, such as water treatment plants. And if we 

can get over the water treatment plant investment needs, then we 

can work on laying pipeline and taking the water supply out to 

communities. 

So what we did, also, which was part of our calculation here, is 

not that rural water is not a priority. We looked at rural water in 

the Recovery Act and ended up investing $232 million. So we added 

an additional $32 million over the last—at the end of 2010 to increase the investment, to phase in certain more aspects of that 

project, and so that was welcome, certainly welcome, by those 

project sponsors for those many projects. 

But where that leaves us this year is that there was one area 

that is not funded as high as it has been in the last couple years. 

I think the $36 million figure was higher than it was 4 or 5 years 

ago, but it had gotten up, I think, in the 2010/2011 budgets somewhere close to the $62- to $64-million range. So we have got to go 

back and assess what is realistic with respect to Rural Water Programs in the future as we deal with these reduced budgets. 

Mr. PASTOR. So again, I think I heard that one of the deciding 

factors for the reduction was, again, the $232 million of recovery 

money that went to the construction of water plants, and so that 

was one of the factors in deciding for this reduction. Am I correct? 

Mr. CONNOR. That was one aspect of it. We thought we had made 

a good—a significant investment and had got ahead of where we 

thought we were going to be with several other projects because of 

the availability of the Recovery Act. But still, there are significant 

needs out there. 

Mr. PASTOR. It was $1.3 billion I think I heard you start 

your—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely, $1.3 billion is what we have as far as 

the authorized level for projects that we still have, given what we 

have already invested. That is the remaining investment that is 

out there, so that is going to be difficult to secure those kind of resources in this budget environment given the other demands on our 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 

budget. We have also got something to the tune of a $1.5 billion 

backlog for Indian Water Rights Settlements. 

We have got another $1.5 to $2 billion backlog for environmental 

restoration and ESA compliance activities. We have got a billiondollar backlog that we have estimated with respect to aging infrastructure needs. We have got Title XVI projects, approximately a 

$600 million backlog of those projects. We have got an agency 

where we are viewed as critical to help the West address its water 

needs in a lot of different areas, including rural water. And we are 

trying to make the best investments we have within the overall 

funding levels that we can expect. 

Mr. PASTOR. I am going to go back a little bit to your testimony 

and then I am going to try and connect some of your budget decisions. You talk about the Bureau as very active in climate change 

strategies. And I think from your testimony you have adaptation 

as one strategy and I think you have mitigation as another, and 

I will start with adaptation. 

Have you connected that, your models of adaptation strategy, in 

dealing with the increase of WaterSMART? And if you have, how 

have you used that strategy to pick the projects that you have decided? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I would say fundamentally up until this point 

we view, whether you look at climate change and the projections— 

some of the projections are pretty scary. You look at the Colorado 

River Basin and people are—the various reports out there publicly 

so far project a 7 percent to 45 percent reduction in inflow into the 

Colorado River System for a river that is already over-subscribed. 

If you look at projected snow pack reductions in the Sierra Nevada 

of 7 to 20 percent; reduction for California’s primary water—natural water storage, the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada. Those are 

alarming pieces of data. 

But just look at drought, what we know from drought historically 

and given increasing needs. So we have looked at WaterSMART 

and other areas, Title XVI, the Conservation projects that we do, 

as just good investments for good, smart water management. We 

have not necessarily tied those to any specific adaptation strategies 

for climate change. Our view up until this point has been there are 

good water management needs out there. More efficiency is good to 

address whatever the challenge is, whether it is overpopulation, environmental needs, climate change, or drought. So those are just 

viewed in general as things that we need to support to reduce the 

oversubscription of water in the West. 

We now have very modestly in this budget, I would say, a more 

aggressive set of programs to take into account climate change, 

what is going to happen, and how to adapt to it. We are doing a 

basin studies set of programs. We are working with stakeholders 

in the basins. They are cost sharing on a 50 percent basis to look 

at supply and demand imbalance basin by basin. We did Colorado 

River Basin, Yakima River Basin, Milk River in Montana as the 

initial three, and we have got six more basin studies going on. We 

are working in partnership to look at the imbalances projected, the 

limits in supply over time, and trying to develop specific adaptation 

strategies with those stakeholders in those basins. We are going to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

see the first reports related to specific adaptation strategies start 

to come out towards the middle and end of this year. 

We are also, under the Secure Water Act which Congress passed 

in 2009, doing an assessment, a West-wide risk assessment and a 

report on the projected impacts of climate changes on the major 

river basins that Reclamation has projects in across the West. And 

so that is going to be the first—for some of those basins, like the 

Colorado River Basin, it will add to the level of analysis and modeling that is already out there. For other basins, such as the Rio 

Grande or the Klamath or other basins, it may be the first real assessment of what is out there with respect to identifying risks because of climate change. 

So we are moving from general good water management activities to specifically looking at the impacts of climate change, trying 

to better understand it, and working with the people who will be 

affected by it to develop adaptation strategies. And we are going to 

start seeing that towards the end of this year coming out in more 

specificity. 

Mr. PASTOR. I only have two questions. In your testimony, you 

talk about you are working with, I guess, DoE to use renewable energy on some of your—I am trying to find it here—in some of your 

operations. You are identifying opportunities to address the President’s clean energy goals through the development of new, sustainable hydropower capacity as well as integrating renewable energy 

in your operation. So I guess my interest is in the ‘‘integrating renewable energy’’ in our operation. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. We have got a very active program in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and Department of Energy. And 

it is involving sustainable hydro, but I am thinking you want to 

focus on—— 

Mr. PASTOR. Right. 

Mr. CONNOR [continuing]. Other renewables. 

Mr. PASTOR. Right, the other renewables. 

Mr. CONNOR. We are looking at—you know, it is part of this 

whole energy-water nexus. How can we be more efficient? Moving 

water can create energy production opportunities. And we exist out 

in the West, where there are a lot of renewable resources, such as 

solar. So we have done things such as—as simple as, in our ClosedBasin Project in Southern Colorado, integrating the use of solar 

panels to create energy generation to power and provide some of 

the power for our pumps associated with groundwater pumping 

that we do in the Closed-Basin Project. 

Our WaterSMART grant programs and the Title XVI funding criteria—they are grant programs. There are a range of priorities that 

we look at and we score grant proposals. One of them is the integration of renewable energy into specific projects. So in one of the 

situations or maybe a couple in Oregon that we have funded is taking out of service an open canal, using a pressurized pipe system 

to deliver water to an irrigation district, and they have incorporated a turbine in that pressurized system, a 1 megawatt turbine 

into that system. So we are creating renewable energy, integrating 

that within water operations, recapturing some of the energy that 

is used to pressurize that system. That is just good, smart water 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
175 

management. And, oh, by the way, that also conserved something 

like 20 to 23 CFS of water that got dedicated to in-stream flows. 

We are now going back with respect to some of these opportunities in the Navajo-Gallup Pipeline Project—and we are just at the 

design phase there—to initiate a lot of solar resources, a lot of 

pumping stations associated with pumping water long distances. 

We are going to go back and thoroughly assess what we might 

do as far as distributed generation and use to offset some of the 

project needs that we have, and we will do that in areas associated 

with our projects. Our view is if we can make use from a financially—in a way that makes sense from a financial perspective and 

get the investments we need to integrate renewables into our operations, we use a good amount of our own project—or the hydropower that we generate, a lot of it goes for our own projects. If we 

can take some of that off, get some of our project power from renewable sources and take that offline, then we can put more power 

on the grid from our hydropower resources. So those are the type 

of opportunities that we are good at with respect to our operations 

and funding water operators to incentivize them to incorporate renewables into their operations. 

Mr. PASTOR. All right. You mentioned—and this will be my last 

question, Mr. Chairman—Title XVI in response to my question. 

And as I recall, most of the Title XVI, the funding was kind of 

project-specific. And for many years, that was probably how things 

were funded, but now I see you converted to a grant program and 

you referred to it as converted to a grant program. What made you 

do this and what are the some of the criteria? 

I heard one on how you use renewable energy to be integrated 

in the project, but what—because you have had some longstanding 

projects out there for many years, Title XVI, what happens to them 

under this grant program? And other than integrating renewable 

energy, what other criteria do you use to provide the grants? 

Mr. CONNOR. Sure. I will just first mention what the motivation 

was when we had Recovery Act funding, we allocated $135 million 

for Title XVI projects. And we went through basically a selection 

process where we developed criteria that were specific to some of 

the Recovery Act items, but also more general water management 

goals that we were trying to achieve. That process went pretty well 

to allocate money to authorized Title XVI projects. So that was an 

incentive to develop a set of criteria that we thought were a proper 

way to prioritize the investments in Title XVI projects given the 

limited resources that we have and the backlog that we have. 

So that is why we have proposed and we have come out with our 

criteria. Now we had a Federal Register process note and took comments, integrated those comments, and have come out with our 

final criteria. Some of the criteria for the Title XVI are water supply-generated, the acre feet that you can generate through reuse. 

How sustainable is that supply? Is it going to be available in times 

of drought? 

I think that is one area where Title XVI has an advantage over 

some of our WaterSMART grants. If there is a drought, you do not 

get as much water through a canal. You do not save as much as 

you do in Title XVI where it is a more reliable supply. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

The completion schedule, so projects that are in progress and are 

near completion, we want to take that into account. Readiness to 

proceed, are the local communities available? Are they ready to go 

with the next phase? Do they have their cost share ready to go? 

Environment and water quality benefits associated with that, renewable energy integration is one. The overall cost per acre-foot 

that a project has and whether it addresses a number of needs 

from a watershed perspective is part of the regional partnership 

that addresses a lot of different problems. 

Those are—I do not know if that is exhaustive, but I think those 

are the primary factors. There may be a couple more that are in 

our criteria, but those are the kind of things that we are looking 

at in scoring the proposals that we get and making an intent. We 

have not got this program up and going yet because 2011 was the 

first time we proposed it and we have not yet received our 2011 

appropriations, but that is our intent to score them against those 

type of criteria. 

Once again, we are talking about authorized Title XVI projects. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think there is one last question, then we are going to wrap up. The BoR receives $80 million annually from 

Bonneville for operations and maintenance funding. Is that right? 

Mr. CONNOR. That sounds right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And over a million for small capital improvements and replacements? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is that—obviously you are pleased to have 

that money. Are there any other similar type arrangements with 

any other? 

Mr. CONNOR. There are. I believe now some of our O&M that we 

have obligations associated with our power facilities, and I think 

that Western Area Power Administration is now up-fronting some 

of that O&M. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is it a good model for others? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Certainly from your perspective it would 

be, but—— 

Mr. CONNOR. It is. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yeah. 

Mr. CONNOR. And I think it is more efficient rather than have 

federal appropriations go and this getting paid back. I think the 

model is—particularly when these are year-to-year costs, it just 

makes more sense for them to be provided up front, whether it is 

the Bonneville Power or whether it is irrigation districts. And a 

number of them are providing us funding up front. We are trying 

to increase that and make that—Reclamation has done a good 

job—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is a goal. 

Mr. CONNOR. That is a goal, exactly. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And so, for the record, would you be willing—would you provide the Committee at some point in time sort 

of what that landscape looked like now. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You can do that. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

Mr. CONNOR. I can do that. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And as we conclude, Mr. Murray, you have 

not had a chance, if you will pardon the expression, to get your oar 

in the water. Is there anything you would like to say for the record 

besides your statement? 

Mr. MURRAY. No. I would just like to thank you for your past 

support of the program and I appreciate the opportunity to have 

been here to—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We know Utah is front and center by the 

virtue of you being a witness today, so we will not forget that. 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So, Mr. Pastor and I and the entire Committee would like to thank you all for the work you do each and 

every day. Thank you, Commissioner—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Mr. Murray. 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, appreciate it. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are adjourned. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 71034A.125
179 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 71034A.126
180 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 71034A.127
181 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 71034A.128
182 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 71034A.129
183 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 71034A.130
184 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 71034A.131
185 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 71034A.132
186 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 71034A.133
187 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 71034A.134
188 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 71034A.135
189 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 71034A.136
190 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 71034A.137
191 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 71034A.138
192 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 71034A.139
193 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 71034A.140
194 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 71034A.141
195 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 71034A.142
196 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 71034A.143
197 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 71034A.144
198 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 71034A.145
199 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 71034A.146
200 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 71034A.147
201 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 71034A.148
202 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 71034A.149
203 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 71034A.150
204 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 71034A.151
205 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 71034A.152
206 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 71034A.153
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Connor, Michael ....................................................................................................... 147 

Darcy, Jo-Ellen ......................................................................................................... 1 

Murray, Reed ........................................................................................................... 147 

Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert ............................................................ 1 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING