U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–873 PDF 2005

THE ADMINISTRATION’S FY 2006

BUDGET AND PRIORITIES OF THE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,

THE NATIONAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, AND

THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

(109–5)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 10, 2005

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

TED POE, Texas

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana,

Vice-Chair

VACANCY

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Jacquez, Hon. Albert S., Administrator, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................... 9

Knight, Hon. Bruce I., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 9

McCullough, Hon. Glenn L., Jr., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority,

Knoxville, Tennessee ............................................................................................ 9

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

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 9

Woodley, Hon. John Paul, Jr., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Army (Civil Works), U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. .......... 9

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, of Oregon ......................................................................... 47

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 49

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 50

Salazar, Hon. John, of Colorado ............................................................................. 70

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Jacquez, Hon. Albert S ............................................................................................ 52

Knight, Hon. Bruce I ............................................................................................... 59

McCullough, Hon. Glenn L. .................................................................................... 64

Strock, LTG Carl A .................................................................................................. 71

Woodley, Hon. John Paul, Jr .................................................................................. 80

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Knight, Hon. Bruce I., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.:

USDA/NRCS Watershed Dams that will Reach the End of their Design

Life, chart .......................................................................................................... 30

Watershed Rehabilitation Needs, FY2004-2009, chart ..................................... 31

(1)

THE ADMINISTRATION’S FY 2006 BUDGET AND

PRIORITIES OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS, THE NATIONAL RESOURCES

CONSERVATION SERVICE, THE TENNESSEE

VALLEY AUTHORITY, AND THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Thursday, March 10, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:55 a.m., in Room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr.

presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to go ahead and call the subcommittee to

order. I am going ahead here, ahead of everybody, because I am

going to at least get my statement into the record.

Unfortunately, we are going to have to break here in just a few

minutes for a journal vote. But I want to welcome everyone to the

second of our fiscal year 2006 budget hearings. Everybody is all

worked up about the budget. Everybody is coming to see us, and

I tell people that the House committees make some changes, the

Senate committees make some changes, the Budget committees,

the Appropriations committees, and then we have supplemental

and omnibus appropriations. There are going to be a lot of changes

before everything is said and done by the end of the year.

I want to welcome all the witnesses. Today we will hear from officials representing the Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee

Valley Authority, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and

the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation on their

budgets and priorities for fiscal year 2006. All of these agencies are

involved in some aspect of managing the Nation’s water resources,

primarily for transportation, flood control, ecosystem restoration,

and electric power generation, and I appreciate all of you taking

time out of your very busy schedules to be here with us this morning.

While I support the President’s efforts to control Federal spending, I do have questions and do not support some of the cuts of investments in America that have proven economic benefits, particularly investments in transportation infrastructure. This view is

shared by Thomas Donahue, President and CEO of the U.S. Cham-
2

ber of Commerce, who said recently: ‘‘The Nation’s transportation

system is the lifeblood of our economy. Without additional investment in our infrastructure, our system of commerce is impaired,

our mobility is restricted, our safety is threatened, our environment

is endangered, and our way of life is compromised.’’ And I agree

with that statement by Mr. Donahue. In fact, I just met with him

a few minutes ago.

Just yesterday, the American Society of Civil Engineers released

their 2005 Report Card for America’s infrastructure. They gave the

condition of America’s navigable waterways a grade of D-. That is

down from the D+ waterways received in 2001. The Budget Request says we can not pay for everything. I agree. The Request

says we need to establish priorities, and I certainly agree with

that. Unfortunately, the priorities in this Budget Request are not

based on what many people feel is a coherent transportation, flood

control, or ecosystem restoration policy.

For example, in allocating funding to the Corps of Engineers for

operating and maintaining our waterways, the Budget Request

would eliminate funding for many tributary waterways because

they do not carry as much cargo as the main stem waterways. This

rationale demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how

the inland waterways system works by ignoring the fact that twothirds of all tonnage on the system, two-thirds, either begins or

ends on these tributary waterways. If you eliminate them, you

threaten the economic viability of the entire waterway transportation system.

For the construction of Corps navigation and flood damage reduction projects, the Budget Request proposes to allocate most funding

based on the ratio of a project’s remaining benefits to remaining

costs. This method of establishing priorities puts a large thumb on

the scale in favor of projects that are near completion because

water resource projects often will have no benefits until the project

is completed. If you compare 100 percent of the benefits to less

than 100 percent of the costs, the benefit-to-cost ratio will appear

large.

Finishing ongoing projects is important, but it can not be the

only policy basis for allocating funding, particularly when you are

talking about projects that are part of an intermodal transportation

system. A budget based on transportation policy would look at

which projects are most necessary for the efficient functioning of

our intermodal transportation system and place priorities on those

projects. If this Request to evaluate waterways projects is part of

our intermodal transportation system, it would recommend funding

for the ongoing construction of the Chickamauga Lock. Secretary

Woodley came at my request and, I think, learned during his visit

last year that the Tennessee River is a vital part of the transportation system in America. If the Chickamauga Lock fails, the Tennessee River will be closed to transportation, cutting off Knoxville,

Oak Ridge, and other communities to waterborne transportation.

If only half of the cargo that is handled by this lock switches to

trucks, an additional 45,000 tractor trailer trucks will be congesting the roads of East Tennessee. I want to say that again. If only

half of the cargo handled by this lock switches to tractor trailer

trucks, an additional 45,000 large trucks, tractor trailer trucks will
3

be congesting the roads of East Tennessee. For Oak Ridge it means

that equipment that is too large for truck transportation will not

be delivered at all. This is unacceptable transportation policy and

is unacceptable on national security grounds as well.

I also would like to point out that even applying the

prioritization system adopted by this Budget Request, the Chickamauga Lock would be eligible for funding. If we fail to construct

a replacement lock, the lock will fail. Everyone agrees with that,

everyone. Compared to letting the lock fail, the remaining benefits

of building the authorized 600 foot lock are 4.2 times greater than

the remaining costs associated with the project, even using a 7 percent discount rate used in the Budget Request, instead of the 6.1

percent discount rate used in the Chief’s report, which under current law is the correct discount for the evaluation of this project.

That is a little bit technical, but this means that Chickamauga

Lock has a higher remaining benefits to remaining cost ratio than

30 projects funded by the budget request, and a higher net benefits

to total cost ratio than 58 of the projects funded by the budget request.

I have heard the excuse that no funding could be allocated to the

Chickamauga Lock because the Chief’s report is still under review

at OMB. OMB has had this report under review since January

15th of 2003, even though the Chief of Engineers completed his

technical report on May 30th of 2002 and Congress authorized the

project on February 20th of 2003. Claiming you couldn’t fund the

project because you did not choose to complete a review of the report is like my son telling me he couldn’t finish his homework because he didn’t choose to change the lightbulb on his desk lamp.

I don’t want to hear anymore excuses about this.

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

Seaway. There are transportation policy issues raised by the Seaway’s budget request as well. In particular, how does the proposal

in the Budget Request to impose tolls on the use of the Seaway

consistent with DOT’s efforts to promote increased use of the Seaway to help relieve congestion in other transportation modes? Also,

I am concerned about the policy choices implied in the allocation

of funding for flood control.

The Budget Request for the Corps arbitrarily sets a high priority

for dam safety projects, without any analysis comparing the risk of

flooding if those projects with the risks of other flood control

projects. For other flood control projects, a strict benefit-cost analysis does not recognize the policy objective of providing all communities with at least a 100 year level of flood protection, even if the

community is small or has no high cost housing, reducing the benefits associated with the project. Instead of providing flood protection to small communities, the Budget Request would zero out

funding for the small watershed program of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, even though these are small cost-effective

projects that protect our water and our land in rural America. The

policy basis for recommending construction of aquatic ecosystem

restoration projects by the Corps also is problematic.

I must express concern with one ecosystem restoration project

recommended by the Corps’ budget: the Modified Water Delivery
4

Project in Florida. Congress has not authorized the Corps of Engineers to fund this Department of Interior project, nor do we intend

to. I am surprised that the Budget recommends unauthorized funding.

Finally, I want to comment on TVA’s budget for fiscal year 2006.

There is no agency more important to the people of my district

than the Tennessee Valley Authority. Unlike the other agencies before us today, TVA is self-financed, drawing its revenues from the

eight million people in the seven States that it supplies with electricity. In recent years, in the interest of sound business practices,

TVA has emphasized reducing its statutory debt, which currently

is more than $23 billion. There has been some dispute within

TVA’s board about whether TVA is doing all it can to cut costs and

reduce debt. I plan to look closely into that issue.

Let me just say I went ahead, because of our journal vote, with

my statement and also because it was a little longer than usual.

We started a little bit early. I am going to let Ms. Johnson either

choose to go ahead with her statement now or we will break for the

vote, whichever you prefer.

I don’t know whether you have had time to catch your breath or

not, but I just went ahead and wanted to get my statement in the

record and get that part of the hearing out of the way. So now that

I have had my say, do you want to go ahead now?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, I will go ahead.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was headed to the

Capitol for this 10:00 vote and thought we would come later, so

that is why I was running a little late, I had to reverse things. But

I thank you for holding this hearing today on the fiscal year 2006

budget and its impact on the agency programs and priorities within

the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.

As I stated in our last hearing on budgets and priorities for Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Federal agency witnesses here today

will have a difficult time convincing me that this budget is adequate to meet the Nation’s needs. The funding levels and presidential priorities reflected in this budget fail to uphold the Nation’s

priorities of protecting the environment, increasing investment in

the critical water-related infrastructure, and taking the steps necessary for continued economic prosperity.

The President’s budget takes a shortsighted view of the Nation’s

economy by making improvement cuts in programs that have proven essential for the Nation’s long-term economic health in order to

make a short-term savings in Federal spending. This Administration fails to recognize a continued investment in our Nation’s

water-related infrastructure is a key element for stimulating improving the U.S. economy, one that not only helps current generations, but provides for continued economic growth, job creation, and

economic stability for generations to come. Our current economy is

built on the investments of our predecessors. Cutting investment

today and exploding the future deficits will combine to deny economic opportunity to succeeding generations.

For example, the President’s budget eliminates funding for the

Dallas Flood Way Extension Project in Texas. The flood control
5

project along the Trinity River would provide critical flood protection for portions of downtown Dallas and the neighborhoods of Oak

Cliff and West Dallas, raising the level of flood protection to standard flood protection levels and protecting the lives and livelihoods

of some of those 12,500 homes and businesses. I have seen water

up to their ceilings, where you couldn’t even see the windows in

some of these homes.

The City of Dallas estimates that the Flood Way Extension Project, when completed, would prevent an excess of $8 billion in

flood damage and would avoid the potential of massive economic

disruptions and relocations that would occur should this area experience widespread flooding. In addition, the Flood Way Extension

Project calls for the restoration of 123 acres of critical habitat and

wetlands along the Trinity River and would provide additional recreational opportunities for the citizens and visitors to the Dallas

metropolitan area.

And this is just one example in my district of the impact of the

Corps’ budget. I am certain that many members of this committee

could identify similar projects of importance that are targeted for

elimination or reduction by the budget proposal. These cuts are not

limited to the Corps of Engineers, but also to the budgets of other

Federal agencies represented here today.

The small watershed program in the Natural Resource Conservation Service is completely eliminated. There is no consideration of

termination costs, no consideration of State or local investment.

This budget simply walks away from rural communities, and I

hope the witnesses will listen to the concerns over the cuts proposed by the President’s budget and will understand the real impact behind these numbers and will convey to the White House and

OMB the real needs for continued investment in our Nation’s economy. The implications of insufficient investment in our Nation’s

water-related infrastructure to both current and future economies

are massive. This committee understands the potential impact;

however, clearly, we need to do a better job of educating this Administration on this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Ms. Johnson.

And as I said, unfortunately, we are going to have to run for this

vote, so we will be in recess for about 15 minutes. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to call the subcommittee back to order. I

gave my opening statement and Ms. Johnson gave her opening

statement before we broke for the vote. That means that next we

would go to Mr. Osborne.

Mr. Osborne, do you have an opening statement?

Mr. OSBORNE. No.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think my constituent, Yogi Berra, coined the phrase best when

he said it’s like deja vu all over again. The annual battle over the

Army Corps’ budget begins again. It is easy for OMB to advocate

for big cuts in the Corps’ budget from their ivory tower here in

Washington, D.C., but on the ground, in districts like yours, Mr.

Chairman, and mine, and in all the rest of us here, the cuts to the
6

Corps’ budget threaten to hold up countless important projects. For

example, the fiscal year 2006 budget proposal zeros out funding for

the Peckman River Flood Control Feasibility Study. This is a

project authorized by this very subcommittee. People in my district

are up in arms about this matter of life and death. The flooding

along the Peckman River was so bad during Hurricane Floyd that

the community lost one of its residents.

Molly Anne’s Brook Flood Control Project has been severely impacted by budget cuts. This project was completed, for the most

part, four years ago, but Floyd could not have hit at a worse time.

The Corps was at the ending stages of the project. When the storm

hit, it caused tremendous damage to the project. If another storm

as significant as Hurricane Floyd comes through this fall, this incomplete project would not prevent as much damage as it should,

obviously.

There is one additional item which I would like to bring to your

attention. Many of the cities along the Passaic River are badly in

need of new commercial, industrial, and residential investment,

and have abundant and underutilized waterfront land. Much of

this property, however, is now of limited value because past industrial activity has turned the Passaic River into one of the most contaminated rivers east of the Euphrates.

Now, how in God’s name can we be spending for infrastructure

in Iraq when we are failing to address those very same needs in

our own Country, in our own backyards? There is no rationale

whatsoever. So it is deja vu, as Yogi would say.

The ongoing Lower Passaic River Restoration Project is pooling

a host of resources from your agencies, the EPA and the State of

New Jersey, to achieve the best results for this comprehensive

cleanup in the shortest amount of time possible. I believe that the

Lower Passaic Restoration Project, while solution-oriented, will ensure that polluters who are still around will pay their fair shares

of restoration costs. And we have come to an agreement with those

polluters, staying out of the courts, the very thing that down the

street is always harping about. We have done it in New Jersey; it

is the model for the entire Country. We can not do it without the

assistance of the Corps. We need to work together to make sure the

Corps is putting up their fair share, as we want to move forward

at a more rapid pace, obviously.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns about this budget, as

do all of us, and I wish the panel lots of luck in defending the Administration’s request today; they are going to need it. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Pascrell. We are

always honored to have the chairman of the full Science Committee, the immediate past chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Boehlert, with us. Mr. Boehlert, do you have a statement.

Mr. BOEHLERT. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I was prepared for some cuts in this budget, and I think everyone was prepared for that; it has been the rule rather than the exception, but particularly this year were we ready for it. But I think
7

it is fair to say that the President’s budget assigns more than its

fair share of cuts to this budget.

Perhaps I shouldn’t complain; the one new project started is in

the District of Columbia. But that is a Federal project which was

an offer that the President almost could not refuse. When you look

at this map here, this is a flood control project on a floodplain

which involves areas that include virtually the doorstep of the Capitol and the White House. So if that is what it takes to get a new

project, that you have to come to the official Federal presence in

order to get a project started up, I can only express my condolences

to the American people, because it looks as though you live in a

floodplain anywhere else, you are out of luck.

Now, if I may say so, nobody lives here. Nobody lives in the Capitol; somebody does live in the White House. And I am not objecting

to this project by any means. I think this project should have started a long time ago. I think what has probably put it in the budget

this year is you have got the World War II Memorial right down

there now, and I think the Government would be sorely embarrassed if, after putting this project off for decades, we had a terrible flood—the Potomac River, as we all knows, flows right by this

area—if we had a flood that, in fact, engulfed part of the mall and

part of our great monuments. But as grateful as I am to have this

matter dealt with finally, I can only accept this project with deep

regret for the many projects which are not only not started, but are

left in the lurch.

One of the worse things you can do, particularly if you want to

save money is to take a project you have already started, already

invested in, and walk away from it. And that is what this budget

mandates throughout for many projects that have already started.

And some of these are flood control projects, where people live.

These are huge and dangerous cuts. And walking away from

projects where you have already invested, already done the work

is the functional equivalent of a contractor walking off the job, except that this contractor is the United States of America, it may

be the Corps forced to leave a project. This is irresponsible. Most

of the projects we have to pick up at some point later. And I recognize that there are huge and horrible tradeoffs here, but I can not

understand that kind of tradeoff with greater costs in the future,

and probably some loss and often considerable loss of the investment the Government has already made. I predict layoffs here of

skilled personnel. I don’t see how you can have these kinds of cuts

while in fact keeping this personnel. That I particularly regret, because we are already losing very skilled personnel in the Federal

service, so much so that another committee I am on is very troubled that we are unable to replace them, especially at the levels

where the Corps and other agencies involved work.

Finally, let me note, Mr. Chairman, that on the floor today, of

course, we intend to finish the transportation infrastructure bill.

Now, everybody recognizes, perhaps because everybody rides over

a road, the importance of the highway infrastructure to any great

nation. The real difference between an underdeveloped nation and

a developed nation is often roads that allow the economy to go.

This budget does not show that there is an understanding of how

important the waterways infrastructure is to our Country, as if it
8

doesn’t matter. We are, I think, taking economies that are foolish.

I know everything costs money, but I think to make these huge

cuts out of one budget is nothing short of irresponsible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And I

want to thank the witnesses for coming to testify today. I know

your sense of anticipation to testify before Congress is nothing

short of your anticipation of probably Christmas morning or things

like that.

What I would like to do just very briefly, because I have another

meeting at 11, so I might not get my questions in, but I just want

to make my sense of things.

Depending on where you live, depending on what your geography

is, and depending on how long you have lived there pretty much

depends on what your economy needs or you think your economy

needs. I come from a very rural area. Agriculture is predominant,

fishing, tourism, hunting, etc. What I would be interested in is having the Corps, NRCES, whoever, maybe work together on a cost

benefit analysis to see how much or what the difference is between

nature’s infrastructure and human infrastructure costs are.

For example, what does it cost to build and maintain a sewage

treatment system to cleanse the water before it goes into a stream,

and what does it cost for a forested wetland to do the same kind

of thing? For example, in the Chesapeake Bay, the C&D Canal.

What does it cost to maintain the C&D Canal now, at 35 feet, versus what would it cost just to let it silt in a little bit, then actually

you would have a barge route there for the Port of Baltimore.

Flood control has been mentioned already. What does it cost for

dams and berms and all these other prostheses that we put in versus a forested wetland or a wetland or open space? In Ocean City

in Assoteague, what does it cost for beach replenishment on an annual basis from now until the sun burns out, I guess, versus taking

a few jetties down and let that sand naturally migrate back and

forth?

So I think it would be interesting to see the cost-benefit analysis

of what we put into things and what benefit we get back in human

infrastructure versus a cost-benefit analysis when we allow open

space or try to restore or expand open space of the natural processes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.

Judge Poe.

Well, we are ready to proceed with the testimony, and I already

told the witnesses that I do appreciate the fact that they have

taken time out of their busy schedules to be here. Mr. Gilchrest

said he thought their anticipation was like Christmas morning; it

is probably more like when they have to go to the dentist or something.

At any rate, we are pleased to have the Honorable John Paul

Woodley, Jr., who is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of

the Army for Civil Works; we have Lieutenant General Carl A.

Strock, the Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers for
9

the army; we have the Honorable Glenn L. McCullough, who is the

Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority; we have the Honorable Bruce I. Knight, who is Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service; and we have the Honorable Albert S. Jacquez,

who is the Administrator for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.

Thank you very much for being here. We always do proceed in

order of the witnesses listed on the call of the hearing, and so, Secretary Woodley, you can begin.

TESTIMONY OF HONORABLE JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL

WORKS), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON,

D.C.; LTG CARL A. STROCK, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; HONORABLE

GLENN L. MCCULLOUGH, JR., CHAIRMAN, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE; HONORABLE

BRUCE I. KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND HONORABLE ALBERT S. JACQUEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

assure you it is indeed a delighted pleasure, comparable in some

ways to Christmas, to appear before the subcommittee. And the

reason I say that is very simple: General Strock and I, when we

appear before this subcommittee, know that we are appearing before a group of leaders and legislators who understand and appreciate the inexpressible value of the work of the Corps of Engineers

in communities across the Nation.

Since I appeared before you last, Mr. Chairman, I have had the

opportunity to visit many of these communities in many of the districts that you represent. Wherever I go I am astonished at the

work that the Corps of Engineers has undertaken and has undertaken through the years that makes a difference in people’s lives

everyday.

So I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify before you

today, and I am delighted to be accompanied by Lieutenant General Carl Strock, the very distinguished fifty-first Chief of Engineers.

I ask your permission, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to include my

complete statement as written in the record of the hearing.

Mr. DUNCAN. All full statements will be included in the record,

and you may summarize, if you wish to do so.

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2006 budget for the Army Civil Works Program includes about $4.5 billion in Federal

funding. My complete statement includes a breakdown of this funding by mission area or business program area, as defined in the

Civil Works Strategic Plan.

In addition to the budget justification materials already provided,

we plan to provide a five-year budget plan later this month. This

budget plan will help with long-range planning for this program.

Allocations in fiscal year 2006 budget for planning, design, and

construction reflect a focus on those studies and projects with the

highest expected returns in the Corps’ primary mission areas of
10

commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and

aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget sets priorities for construction using seven performance-based guidelines. A copy of the

guidelines is attached to my complete statement.

Of the 105 construction projects that are funded, the budget

bases the level of funding on relative performance. For 35 lowerperforming, previously budgeted projects that will have ongoing

contracts, the budget provides funding to either complete or terminate each contract depending on the Corps of Engineers’ assessment of the relative cost of completion versus termination for that

contract. The budget also proposes to replace existing authority to

award continuing contracts with new authority to award multi-year

contracts to gain greater control over future costs.

The Corps’ regulatory program to protect aquatic resources re- ceives $160 million, an increase of $10 million from fiscal year 2005

budget and an increase of $15 million from the fiscal year 2005 enacted appropriation. This funding will enable more effective protection for waters and wetlands and more timely Corps permit evaluations.

Mr. Chairman, this budget and the forthcoming five-year plan incorporate performance budget principles. Many high-performing activities would be will funded, and it is certainly true that other activities, although highly justified and entirely worthy of support,

would be deferred, at least for the time being. In all, the budget

moves ahead with many important investments that will yield

enormous returns for the Nation’s citizens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Secretary Woodley. We will

get to questions later, but I do applaud the Administration for recommending $275 million more than they did last year in their

budget for the Army Corps, but I do agree with Mr. Pascrell; we

are spending approximately $100 billion a year, or $8 billion a

month in Iraq and Afghanistan, mainly Iraq, and it seems to me

$4.5 billion for all the water projects all over the Country, I wish

we could spend at least as much here as we are spending on this

same type of work in Iraq.

General Strock?

General STROCK. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of

the committee, I too am honored to be testifying before you today,

along with Mr. Woodley, on the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget,

and I too will summarize my points here today.

This budget is a performance-based budget that reflects the realities of a national budget supporting the global war on terror. This

budget focuses on funding 47 projects that will provide the highest

returns on the Nation’s investment, plus 14 dam safety projects.

Funds will be used for critical water resources infrastructure that

provides quality of our citizens’ lives and provides a foundation for

national economic growth and development.

The budget incorporates performance-based metrics for a continued, efficient operation of the Nation’s waterborne navigation, flood

control, and other water resource management infrastructure, fair

regulations of wetlands, and restoration of important environmental resources such as the Florida Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River, and Coastal Louisiana. It also improves the quality
11

of recreation services through stronger partnerships and modernization.

This budget provides approximately $48.9 million to complete 13

projects by the end of 2006. As part of a comprehensive strategy

to reduce the construction backlog, the fiscal year 2006 budget

funds 44 other projects that provide high returns and are consistent with current policies. In all, 105 projects are funded so that we

can provide benefits to the Nation sooner.

The fiscal year 2006 budget includes $2.142 billion for the Operations and Maintenance Program, and I can assure you that I will

continue to do all that I can to make these programs as cost-effective as possible.

The Corps is undergoing sweeping transformational changes as

a result of our customer and stakeholder input. We have implemented USACE 2012 within the Corps becoming a matrix team,

and our business processes are also focused on eight Corps regional

business centers to more efficiently serve the public and the Armed

Forces.

We continue to strengthen our management of resources, streamline our planning processes, and we invite the involvement of other

Federal, State, and local agencies, sponsors and interested organizations to participate early in the planning process to ensure that

concerns are addressed up front rather than at the end of a plan.

The Corps continues to strengthen its regulatory program to ensure wetlands mitigation is effective in retaining the quantity,

quality, and functions of those critical resources.

We also look forward to continue the use of external independent

review of major Corps project studies to help ensure those studies

sufficiently address national, economic, and environmental considerations.

Domestically, more than 2,000 USACE volunteers from around

the Nation responded to the call for help from their fellow citizens

when four hurricanes struck the southeast last fall, and again after

this winter’s heavy rains across the Nation. Our dams, levies, and

reservoirs provided billions of dollars in flood damage reduction to

protect lives, homes, and businesses.

The Corps has also played an integral role in the global effort to

provide relief for victims of the massive tsunamis triggered in the

December 26th earthquake off the coast of Indonesia. A Corps of

Engineers employees from the Engineer Research and Development

Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi, three Forward Engineering Support Teams from Japan, Alaska, and Arkansas; and the Corps

249th Primary Power Battalion were all sent to help in the area’s

recovery.

Finally, the Civil Works Program is continuing to prove invaluable as soldiers and civilians of the Corps of Engineers help to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to support

the military forces deployed there. Currently, approximately 600

members of our organization are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq,

sharing their knowledge and expertise with local engineers and

other professionals. And, to date, over 3,000 Corps civilians have

volunteered and served in the theater of operations, sharing the

same dangers and hardships as those we support. Almost as impor-
12

tantly, we are using technology in support of those deployed team

members to leverage the full capability of the organization.

Sir, in closing, let me assure you that the Corps is committed to

serving the Nation by contributing to our national defense, to the

quality of our environment, and to our economic prosperity, and I

truly appreciate your continued support in this end.

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

concludes my statement.

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

Next we have the Honorable Glenn L. McCullough, who is Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Chairman McCullough,

you heard me say in my opening statement that the agencies we

deal the most with in this subcommittee are the Army Corps and

the water programs of the EPA, about 40 percent of their budget.

But I just want to say I know that your term as Chairman I think

expires in May, but you have, I think, worked very, very hard and

have always tried to do what was right, and I admire and respect

the work that you have done as Chairman of the Tennessee Valley

Authority, and I just want to salute you on that. I have been concerned about the huge debt that TVA has had for a number of

years. I think you have tried to bring that down, and I think you

have tried to be fiscally conservative in the operation of the Authority, and I appreciate what you have done for our region.

With that, you may begin your testimony.

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of TVA and personally, thank you very much for those kind words. It is an honor for

me to serve with you and for me to be here today.

Madame Ranking Member, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the TVA Board of Directors and our employees, I want to

thank you for this opportunity to appear here today. I am Glenn

McCullough, and I have served as Chairman of TVA since July of

2001.

TVA was created in 1933 by the TVA Act. TVA is entirely selfenhancing and we receive no funding from Congress. TVA provides

electric power to more than 8.5 million people in the Tennessee

Valley through 158 local power distributors, and 62 directly served

customers. Our mission is to deliver excellence in three key areas:

generating affordable, reliable electric power; stewardship of the region’s natural resources; and sustainable economic development in

the seven-State region that we serve.

TVA provides power for the region through a unique blend of

coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and gas-fired generation. TVA’s power

system achieved its best performance in our 72-year history in the

year 2004. TVA met an all-time power demand of 29,966

megawatts in July. Our fossil plants set both production and reliability records. TVA is bringing online the Nation’s first nuclear reactor in the twenty-first century at Browns Ferry. I am pleased

that we are currently on budget and on schedule for a May of 2007

restart of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1.

In addition, we will increase emission-free generation by 750

megawatts in our hydroelectric dams along the Tennessee River

system. And for the fifth year in a row TVA’s 17,000-mile transmission system achieved a 99.999 percent reliability for our customers.
13

TVA effectively manages the Tennessee River system. In 2004,

TVA began implementing a new reservoir operations policy to better manage the competing needs that are served by the river system.

Now, while we deliver affordable, reliable energy to our customers, TVA is working to improve air quality by conducting one

of the most aggressive emissions reduction programs in our Nation.

By the end of the decade, TVA will have invested $6 billion to reduce emissions. Now, in order to comply with increasingly stringent

emission reduction requirements, TVA also plans to make minimal

use of purchased emission allowances that are consistent with regulatory requirements.

Since TVA’s beginning, economic development has been at the

heart of our mission. TVA aggressively works to retain and to attract jobs to the Tennessee Valley. In 2004, over 50,000 jobs were

either created or retained in the Tennessee Valley, along with a

capital investment exceeding $2.1 billion.

In 2004, while we are achieving excellence in energy and the environment in economic development, we are also striving to increase our financial flexibility. Last year, TVA reduced total financing obligations by $278 million, which is $53 million more than our

target. For fiscal year 2006, we are projecting more than $8.1 billion in revenue. We plan to invest more than $1.3 billion in capital

projects for our power system, including clean air projects, the recovery of Browns Ferry, and transmission system reliability. Now, we expect to invest $85 million in stewardship activities,

which is about the same level as previous years. TVA also plans

to reduce total financing obligations by $150 million.

We have an aggressive goal to reduce total financing obligations by $5.6 billion by the year 2015.

Beginning with our annual report in fiscal year 2006, TVA will

begin filing financial reports with the Securities and Exchange

Commission, as required by the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations

Act. TVA has been increasing its transparency and disclosure for

several years, and we support measures that would make TVA

more open to the people we serve.

The same legislation makes a major structural change in TVA’s

governance. The bill creates a new nine-member board, instead of

TVA’s current three-member full-time board. Board members will

continue to be nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate. The new board will hire a chief executive officer, which currently TVA does not have.

The year ahead poses new challenges. TVA employees are ready

to meet those challenges. We are committed to working with Congress, with the Administration, with stakeholders throughout the

region on issues that will shape the future of the Tennessee Valley.

Thank you again for this opportunity to be with you today, and

I would be happy to answer your questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Chairman McCullough.

Mr. Knight?

Mr. KNIGHT. Chairman Duncan, members of the subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee

today to discuss the water resource program activities of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In my remarks I will focus on
14

our ongoing efforts in this area of our jurisdiction and discuss our

budget priorities for fiscal year 2006.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service water resource programs provide communities and landowners site-specific technical

expertise for watershed planning and financial assistance for watershed project implementation. The programs provide a process to

solve local natural resource programs, including flood damage mitigation, water quality improvement, ensuring an adequate rural

water supply, water conservation, soil erosion control, and fish and

wildlife habitat improvement.

Local governments and other sponsors initiate projects with the

help of NRCS, and conservation districts are empowered as decision-makers to build State and local partnerships and acquire funding contribution.

The President’s 2006 budget recommends funding based on the

relative priority of the three accounts in the NRCS water resource

programs budget. The Watershed Surveys and Planning program

helps communities and local sponsors assess natural resource

issues and develop coordinated watershed plans that will conserve

and utilize their natural resources. This include floodplain management studies, cooperative river basin studies, flood insurance studies, watershed inventory and analysis, as well as development of

Public Law 566 watershed programs. Over 65 percent of these

plans are used to enable local planning efforts, while the other 35

percent guide experts and sponsors in the implementation of watershed projects to solve natural resource problems.

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2006 proposes to focus on

funding existing Watershed Survey and Planning efforts. The budget request is $5.1 million. To help approximately 40 communities

complete their ongoing watershed planning efforts.

The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations component in

the fiscal year 2006 budget proposes to redirect this program’s resources to other high-priority programs. This decrease in funding

for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations account will enable

the Administration to divert limited resource to other priorities,

such as accelerating technical assistance to help agricultural producers meet regulatory challenges, particularly in the area of helping them manage livestock and poultry waste.

Mr. Chairman, I would note that the funding for this program

is over 105 percent allocated by the earmarking process, which has

effectively removed the Department’s ability to manage this as a

standalone program. The intense level of congressional directives

does not permit the agency to prioritize projects based on merit or

local need, or give us the ability to coordinate program efforts in

order to meet overall strategic natural resource goals.

The President’s budget funding request for fiscal year 2006 does

include funding for Watershed Rehabilitation activities involving

our aging dams. These projects involve dams with a high risk of

loss of life and property. To date, 134 watershed rehabilitation

projects have been funded and 37 have been completed. Sixty-six

dams have rehabilitation plans authorized and implementation of

the plans is underway. The Administration requests $15 million to

address critical dams with the greatest potential for damage.
15

To sum, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has

accomplished much in the water resource programs over the last 50

years. Economic, social, and environmental benefits from these programs have been significant for both agricultural and urban communities, which will continue to enjoy reductions in erosion, improved water quality, flood mitigation, and greater productivity of

crop land and range land, as well as many recreational opportunities. In the context of the new budget request for fiscal year 2006,

we will prioritize limited resources to ensure that we are well positioned to meet the most pressing challenges ahead.

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

questions.

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

Administrator Jacquez?

Mr. JACQUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Johnson, members of the subcommittee.

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

wholly-owned government corporation and an operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. It operates,

maintains, and promotes the Saint Lawrence Seaway with its Canadian counterpart, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. The unique binational nature of the Seaway requires 24-

hour, year-round coordination on rules and regulations, day-to-day

operations, traffic management, safety, and security.

The President’s budget request supports the Corporation’s mission to ensure a safe, secure, and reliable waterway by providing

the resources necessary to implement our priority projects and programs.

Since the subcommittee has my written statement and our budget essentially is a current services budget, I will focus the remainder of my remarks on the element of the budget that has created

the most interest.

That element is the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request

to reestablish U.S. Seaway commercial tolls as a financing mechanism for self-funding the corporation. A legislative proposal will be

presented to Congress that will allow the Corporation to collect fees

to support its operations, maintenance, and capital needs. The intent of this initiative is to make the Corporation more self-sufficient by providing it a certain degree of financial flexibility and stability.

The Corporation was funded through commercial tolls from its

inception in 1959 to 1987. Since that time, the Corporation has

been funded primarily by an appropriation through the Harbor

Maintenance Trust Fund, coupled with its other non-Federal revenues such as interest income and pleasure craft tolls.

The nearly 50 percent split between toll revenue and traditional

appropriations from the Trust Fund in the fiscal year 2006 budget

request is based on the assumption that U.S. toll collections would

begin at the start of the 2006 navigation season. That season would

begin in late March or early April, or about the halfway mark of

the fiscal year. Beginning in 2007, the proposal calls for the Corporation to be completely self-sufficient.
16

The toll levels established will be based on the type of cargo

being shipped, as well as the vessel charge based on the gross registered tonnage of the vessel.

The reinstitution of U.S. Seaway tolls would require diplomatic

coordination and collaboration with Canada to conform with the

1959 Seaway Tariff of Tolls Agreement. U.S. Seaway tolls would

also be subject to a U.S./Canadian Seaway toll negotiation process

that includes negotiations on both the toll levels of each commodity

and the revenue split between the two corporations.

The 10-year savings from the toll collection proposal credited to authorizes would equal $170 million. OMB will work with Congress

to reclassify these enacted fees as discretionary beginning in fiscal

year 2007.

The Administration supports efforts to improve service delivery

and believes this proposal would enable the Seaway Corporation to

function more like a private corporation. It would also bring operations more in line with our Canadian counterpart, which directly

supports its maintenance and operations through fees.

The Seaway Corporation’s budget reflects our commitment to

providing a safe, reliable, and efficient waterway for the movement

of commercial goods through the Great Lakes region of North

America. I am confident the Corporation’s excellent safety, reliability, and customer performance record will remain strong.

Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I would be happy to respond to any of the questions the committee may have.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Jacquez.

We will go first for any comment he has or any questions to Mr.

Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.

Welcome, Secretary Woodley. You were recently in my district in

California. I have everything around the Prado Dam and the Santa

Ana mainstream.

General Strock, welcome. It is good to have you here this year.

I, until recently, had Colonel Thompson, and he has been reassigned to Iraq. We had a really good relationship. I was kind of sad

when he left, but Colonel Dormstotter has taken his place, and we

have had numerous conversations and had several issues, because

my area has a real problem with flooding in those areas, and I

have to say I have been most impressed by him. I was sad to see

Colonel Thompson leave, but I have no regrets with Colonel

Dormstotter. He is responsive, cooperative, and I would say very

professional. So I couldn’t speak higher of any individual from

Army Corps than I could of him.

A lot of people do a lot of complaining at you. I have nothing but

praise for you. You have been great in my district, and responsive,

and we have many issues because of the Endangered Species Act

and mainstream beds in our area we are always having to deal

with you on, and you have done a tremendous job, and I would like

you to know I am very pleased with the assignment Colonel

Dormstotter had.

My first question, Mr. Woodley, I know you have had a chance

to visit the Prado Dam recently, and because of the storms how

much do you think this set the project back, the recent storms we

have had in California?
17

Mr. WOODLEY. Sir, I would have to check with the chief on that

to be absolutely sure, but my understanding is that they are making every effort to bring that project back on schedule. Of course,

they have had to take the water out from behind the coffer dam

and clean the mud out of the works, but I understood that they

would not lose any of the work, and the contractor was able to get

all of his equipment that would be damaged by the overtopping of

the coffer dam out of the works and so suffered no loss in that way.

So it certainly has set us back, but my understanding is that the

district and the contractor intend to aggressively proceed to get

back on schedule with that project, which is just so vital.

Mr. MILLER. Do you know how much has been set back, do you

have any idea at this point?

Mr. WOODLEY. In terms of?

Mr. MILLER. Time-wise what the setback would be.

Mr. WOODLEY. Time? A matter of weeks, I believe.

Mr. MILLER. So it is not that significant.

Mr. WOODLEY. It is not dramatic. It is significant, but not dramatic.

Mr. MILLER. The benefit-cost ratio on the Santa Ana mainstream

was currently up to 3.8, which is pretty good. Has it become a

greater priority for the Corps because of the recent floods we have

had in California?

Mr. WOODLEY. It was already a very high priority.

Mr. MILLER. Would it be moved up from the 3.8 because of that,

do you believe, or not?

Mr. WOODLEY. The chief informs me that they have recalculated

the expectation of benefit, and that it would show a higher benefit

at this point. And since our current construct, which the Chairman

has mentioned, does need work and needs to be refined, and we appreciate that, but under our current construct it would remain a

very high priority project.

Mr. MILLER. That dam and that mainstream are extremely important not only because of flood issues in California, but we have

a tremendous water problem in California. And I will say the Army

Corps of Engineers in the last couple years worked with us in raising that dam level four foot. I can not tell you how much that was

appreciated. In fact, General Flowers back then did a written okay

overwriting the normal process to allow for one year, and really

was a tremendous benefit. And what was sad was last year, after

those big fires we had, we had to dump all that water out of that

dam because of silt.

But I just want to say that when the last proposal was made,

Mr. Chairman, to cut the Army Corps budget, I know we all fought

to have that turned around and we were able to do that. One thing

I would not support, and will do everything I can to oppose, is any

concept of cutting your budget, because I think of no greater asset

to my area, and especially the United States overall, than the

Army Corps of Engineers.

Like I said, I couldn’t be happier. You have always been responsive, very professional, and if there is a way of resolving a problem,

you have always done that. So I know you get a lot of complaints,

but I have nothing but praise for you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much.
18

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

Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.

Let me express my appreciation again for the witnesses appearing.

Assistant Secretary Woodley, you referred to high expected net

economic returns and most worthy projects. For flood control and

storm damage reduction projects, this generally translates into protecting high value property. For navigation projects, this means

high volume, high value cargo. In the translation in the real world

it means taking care of the wealthier areas and the low-income

areas get deferred. Large ports get improvements; smaller ports get

deferred. The same concept as the rich get richer and the less affluent and less powerful are left to take care of themselves.

How do you justify a policy that provides the least for those who

are in the most need?

Mr. WOODLEY. Ms. Johnson, our economic development models

that we use are based on the principles and guidelines, which are

matters of longstanding established throughout the Federal Government for evaluation of water resource projects. But the idea

that they are the be-all and end-all I think is erroneous. And to the

extent that we use them, I certainly agree that we should use them

in a way that takes into account the concerns that you address.

And I would like to certainly offer, as we go forward, to work with

you and the other members of the committee to craft more sophisticated measure of performance for our water resource development

projects that can take some of those very important societal concerns into account to the extent they are not already taken into account through our program. That is certainly a want, as a Nation,

to have a program that was entirely characterized in the way that

you described.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Has this policy, the guidelines that

you are working under, been evaluated on the Executive Order

12898, relating to environmental justice?

Mr. WOODLEY. I believe that we do, throughout our program, adhere to the principles of that Executive Order. In the area of environmental restoration, we do not use economic development models

or cost-benefit analyses, so I would say we are not subject to that

same amount of distorting influence in that arena as we are in the

arena of either flood damage reduction or navigation.

Ms. JOHNSON. Do you have copies of the analysis?

Mr. WOODLEY. I am sure that we do, yes, ma’am.

Ms. JOHNSON. Could I please have a copy?

Mr. WOODLEY. Of the analysis of the projects—

Ms. JOHNSON. Of how you justify your guidelines.

Mr. WOODLEY. How the guidelines are justified in accordance

with the—

Ms. JOHNSON. Executive Order.

Mr. WOODLEY.—Executive Order? I would certainly be delighted

to provide that to you.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

General Strock, your testimony refers to 13 projects that will be

completed under this budget, and current law requires that mitigation for fish and wildlife losses be undertaken either advance of

construction or concurrent with construction. When these projects
19

are completed in fiscal year 2006, will the mitigation for these

projects also be complete?

General STROCK. I would have to answer that for the record on

the specific projects, ma’am, but generally that is our policy, that

that would occur.

Ms. JOHNSON. How do you monitor to determine the success of

the mitigations?

General STROCK. We have mechanisms in place. We have mitigation requirements identified and, in fact, in all cases we do not always arrive at the conclusion that mitigation is necessary, but

when it is we set objectives and put processes in place to accomplish that mitigation, and then we follow up to ensure that that in

fact does occur.

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay. In my area we have a number of species

that are native to the area that are no longer there because of

water pollution. When there is such a thing, does it influence decisions or priorities?

Mr. WOODLEY. Certainly, the national policy as expressed in the

Endangered Species Act is a very important policy that we do follow in formulation and operation and maintenance of projects.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I think my time has expired.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.

Dr. Boozman?

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is really good to see you all here. I want to compliment all of

you.

I live in a very beautiful part of Arkansas and we have a lot of

dealings with the Corps, and I want to compliment you all. Our

dealings have been very, very good not only at the national level,

but all the way down to the guy that is fighting the battle and trying to make the people welcome and to fight the little battles there.

One of the things that has come up with us—and I know we are

talking about budgets and things, but I think this is very, very important. We have a situation in Arkansas, on the Arkansas River,

where we are trying to rehabilitate a dam on the Ozark, and I

know the General is very familiar with that. And we are told that

the numbers are such that it is just right there, and maybe even

with reworking some things and adding it will be there to go forward. We have got some money appropriated for it.

I just got back from Europe, though, and the Europeans are very

concerned, as are many people, about things like global warming.

And you can argue as to how much that is going on, but, besides

that, the alternative to this is burning fossil fuels, whether natural

gas or coal-fired or whatever, to generate electricity. And this dam,

when it was constructed, I guess the generators weren’t that good

to begin with, are just in total disrepair now and just aren’t working, so the water is just flowing over.

So I have really got a couple questions. First of all, from a conservation effort and everything else, this is a very safe form of energy, a very environmentally-friend form of energy and things. Is

there anything put into the formula that has to do with that?

The other thing is if we work hard and when we worked hard

to get the money appropriated through the auspices of the Corps
20

agreeing with us—this is a good project, this is something you need

to work on—what happens to the money that we get appropriated

that is just sitting there?

Thank you.

General STROCK. Sir, we are in the midst of reevaluating how we

look at projects, and one of our objectives is to look at a more

multi-objective approach, and I think the example you cite is a

great one, that we would look at the potential for hydroelectric

power generation. Certainly on low-head dams like that one it

makes all the sense in the world from an environmental perspective.

For the monies that are appropriated and waiting to be expended, we have a process in which we try to maximize on a national level the effects of the resources you put before us, so we do

on occasion use those monies on other projects, with the idea that

they will come back when needed for that project. We continue to

develop justification and plans for execution, and at such time

when we are ready to go ahead with construction, we put those

funds back to work on that project.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, thank you very much. I do appreciate all

that you all are doing. Thank you.

General STROCK. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened, Mr.

Chairman, and I am a staunch supporter of the Army Corps, and

the record will indicate, as is everyone on this panel here.

I know you are the messengers, but the fact remains that these

projects are out there. You know, when you look at the budget

itself, there are 275 projects that were funded in the 2005 appropriations. We have gone from 275 to what you are proposing as

105, and there is no way that you are going to justify that. So you

can use all the cliches, and I have heard them: highest returns,

cost-effective, efficiently, limited resources. They are all there.

There is a pattern. You go to this room, you go two rooms down,

you will hear those patterns as justification. So while I am a

staunch supporter of all of you, and have said so publicly and privately, this is outlandish.

I would like to know, General, can you tell me how cutting funding on agreed needed water projects helps us on our war on terror,

to use your words?

General STROCK. Sir, at the risk of repeating those cliches again,

I think that what we attempt to do is, at a national level, invest

those resources that provide the highest return on investment. At

at a time of constrained funding, we have two choices, and that is

essentially to continue to spread wide and thing and essentially get

nothing done and nothing completed, or to concentrate the available resources on projects which do provide a return. And that is

the approach we have elected to take, and it is regrettable, because

as a result of this, every project that is on the books now is economically and environmentally justified, and it is unfortunate that

we cannot proceed with those projects, but we think, from a national level, generate as many returns on these investments in as

short a time as possible is an appropriate way to go.
21

Mr. PASCRELL. Isn’t it true, General, through the chair, isn’t it

true that every one of those projects was approved?

General STROCK. Yes, sir, it is.

Mr. PASCRELL. So we are going backwards. We are sliding backwards, there is no two ways about it. And there is no justification

of this, none whatsoever.

You know better than I do these impact on folks all over the

Country, rural areas, suburban areas, urban areas. And you know

that if you look at the State, that these projects, we can not ask

anymore of the States and we cannot ask anymore of the municipalities to increase their shares. Most of these projects have joint

procedures. I don’t know what the solution is, but this budget, as

so many other budgets, we have gotten to the position now, got

down the road after five years that we have to consider Draconian

cuts in the very projects that we have approved.

Now, I realize that you are the messenger, and you are all the

messengers. It is mind-boggling that we are considering raising

tolls on the Saint Lawrence. No other place does this happen. I

mean, that is an outrage. I don’t want to go there because that is

not my main focus. My main focus is these projects. The projects

have been approved, and what you are telling me is that the Corps,

because of what budget constraints you have right now, are not

able to complete or go on with those projects.

And I will go back and tell my constituents on Monday morning,

I will go back and tell them exactly what your words are. So those

folks who live in the one example that I gave, before the Peckman

River, I want them to know what we are all about. Elections have

consequences and budgets have consequences, and we are looking

straight at them. I am a former member of the Armed Forces. I

strongly support what you are doing, but I am telling you the

Corps is not living up to its history, and you are not getting the

money to do that, and it is my job to deliver for my community,

as it is everyone here on this panel. And we are not asking anything that is unreasonable or outrageous that we haven’t already

approved. I mean, this is logic.

Straighten me out if I am wrong, General.

General STROCK. No, sir, you are correct.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. Osborne.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.

I would like to thank members of the panel for being here today

and I would like to address my questions primarily to Mr. Knight.

I am very interested in NRCS, and I note in your testimony that

the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operation program has been

pretty much eliminated in the budget, and this is a concern to me.

I also note that you state that the funding for this program is over

105 percent allocated by the earmarking process, which has removed the Department’s ability to effectively manage the program.

So it appears like you have got a lack of funding. The Administration has not seen fit to do much in this area. Then, also, you have

got Congress maybe getting in the way a little bit too, here, and

that you have no discretion. So I am guessing that maybe the reason the Administration felt this program was not a good one was
22

that you had so little flexibility to implement what you feel would

be your priorities.

I wonder if you can amplify on that a little bit without getting

yourself in great trouble. I am really interested in your Department

and your ability to perform effectively.

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Osborne, as you are well aware, the budget is

a priority setting document, and there is clearly several messages

to be sent here. We are 105 percent over appropriated in this particular program, which is starting to cause a great deal of pain in

being able to manage staff resources from State to State, because

it has dramatic shifts from year to year on whether there is a need

and if you have adequate staff in one State versus another in being

able to manage and integrate the program.

As far as the priorities go, the role of NRCS goes well beyond the

slice that we are discussing today of watersheds, and one of the top

priorities for NRCS is to help farmers and ranchers come into compliance with local, State or national rules and regulations. One of

the greatest challenges that we are faced with right now is helping

farmers and ranchers come into compliance with animal waste regulations that are coming at them, commonly known as the AFO

and CAFO rules. The President’s budget is actually proposing a

$37 million increase in funding in one program alone, conservation

technical assistance. That is in tended to have us focus on the planning needs between now and the end of 2006 to be able to help our

customers reach their needs in this particular very difficult regulatory scenario.

Mr. OSBORNE. Well, I appreciate that very much, because I am

involved in an area where NRCS is very important and EQIP, all

of those things that you help administer, and the lack of technical

assistance is so crucial. And as we have expanded EQIP from $200

million to about $1 billion and we are exponentially increasing the

number of projects, we really need your help. Do you feel that you

are adequately funded to where you are able to provide technical

resources in those areas?

Mr. KNIGHT. The proposed budget for EQIP gives us an effective

increase from this past year to 2006. This year along we will have

a little over $1 billion to invest in EQIP with adequate technical

assistance to be able to do that. That $1 billion, to put it in perspective, is larger than the amount of funds for EQIP in the entire

previous farm bill. So we have been under an explosion of growth,

but we are starting to wear away on the backlogs there. We serviced nearly 46,000 EQIP customers in contracts last year; we now

have about 159,000 contracts nationwide.

Mr. OSBORNE. Well, we appreciate that and we see a real boost

in the EQIP contracts being serviced. Last question. Since small

watershed projects have a high economic return on investment,

very important to small rural communities, do you feel that maybe

we should do a little bit better job of funding some of these

projects, because they really do enhance quality of life? There is a

definite rural economic development component to those, and I

know you are constricted by the funds you have. Do you have any

comment on those areas?

Mr. KNIGHT. With the priorities that have been established in

the 2006 budget, we are now looking at how to more fully and
23

robustly integrate the planning that we are able to do in our watershed programs with our other programs, so that you have a fully

integrated approach and are able to look at what are the needs in

the whole watershed and ensure that we are able to utilize our resource-based programs in a better coordinated fashion with the

structure-based programs in an attempt to maximize the return

from those planning investments.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Bishop.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and the

ranking member for holding this hearing.

I have some questions for Secretary Woodley with respect to

Army Corps projects in my district. I represent New York I, which

is the eastern half of Long Island. We have several hundred miles

of coastline. Secretary Woodley, I have essentially the same questions for you I had a year ago. In fiscal 2005, the budget proposed

the elimination of Army Corps funding for the Fire Island and

Montauc Point Reformulation Study. We were successful in restoring that funding here in the Congress. Once again in fiscal year

2006, the President’s budget eliminates the funding for that really,

really important project. We need $1.7 million and we are about 14

months away from completing the study, which has been going on

for about 15 years now.

So my question is what is the rationale for the Army Corps’ position. Is it that you don’t think we need to complete the study or

do you think the completion of the study ought to be a local town

and county government responsibility? Why would we cut the funding when we are so close to completing this vital project?

I am sorry, Secretary, you are going to find that there is money

in the budget, if that is what you are looking at. That money is for

a court-ordered beach nourishment project, it is not for the continuation of the study. There is a discreet part of the budget that was

to complete the study, and that money has been zeroed out.

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. I will have to get back to you on that,

sir, because I had understood there was funding in there for the

project. So I have obviously been misdirected on that, so let me get

back to you on that.

Mr. BISHOP. Okay, I would appreciate you doing that. And just

to be clear, what is in there is money for a court-ordered beach

nourishment project in the area called West Hampton Dunes. But

there is no money to complete this study for an 83-mile stretch of

coastline that is vital. And just so that you understand my focus

on it, this is a study that would help protect $1.5 billion worth of

economic activity and almost $3 billion worth of real estate. So this

is a study that is absolutely vital to the economic vitality of my district.

Equally important, the budget, once again, carries forward a recommendation that beach nourishment projects largely be the responsibility of local communities. The Corps would take the responsibility for the initial construction phase, but then ongoing management and maintenance, so to speak, of a beach nourishment project

would be a local responsibility. And my question again is why is
24

that the Corps’ position and how would you justify it? Because,

again, in my district, for the most part, the beach nourishment

projects that we either have or need are as the result of Corps

projects. We have significant erosion down-drift of groins that are

Corps-installed groins, down-drift of inlets that are Corps-installed

and maintained inlets. Why would it be the responsibility of the

town or the county to maintain, in effect, the implication or the

manifestation of a Corps project?

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Bishop, I am very pleased that you focus on

that because that is exactly the point on which our proposal for the

fiscal year 2006 has been modified from the position that the Administration took in fiscal year 2005. The Administration agrees

completely that those cases and the Montauc one that you mentioned is one—and those cases in which the feasibility study or

other report on the project indicates an impact to nourishment

based on existing generally Federal navigation activities and

projects, that that should and properly be a Federal responsibility,

and we are budgeting fully to maintain that responsibility. We continue to maintain, though, that there should be a parallelism between the policy that we operate on the inland side and the policy

that we operate on the coastal side, and the logic that we seek to

apply is that the Federal responsibility will be in the very, very

high dollar arena of establishing the berm and establishing the

flood control, or storm damage reduction is the more precise term,

structure, and that then the maintenance of the structure should

be a responsibility for the local sponsor.

I understand the arguments that can be made in contravention

of that, and I can only say that that is our position. We are making

an exception, which is a very substantial exception, for those areas

in which the renourishment is interfered with in some way by a

Federal navigation project or other Federal activity.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much.

Judge Poe?

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank all of you for being here. A couple observations. We are

talking about a budget of $4.5 million. To me, it seems to me like

that is wholly inadequate. On the other side, the Administration is

budgeting $1.9 billion to Egypt. Why don’t we take half that

money, or all of it, and bring it home. Charity starts at home. It

doesn’t make much sense to me why we are doing that. So I commend you for working within the parameters that you have, and

you certainly could use more money.

I represent Southeast Texas, Sabine River area. On the other

side of Sabine River is Louisiana. The Sabine River doesn’t exist

to keep those folks from Mr. Boustany’s area in Louisiana out of

Texas, or more likely keep Texans out of Louisiana, but the Sabine

Nature’s Riverway, which most Americans have never heard of,

harbors two ports, Port Arthur and the Port of Beaumont. The Port

of Beaumont, number four port in the United States in tonnage.

One-third of the military cargo going to Iraq goes out of the Port

of Beaumont, and lining the Sabine Nature’s Riverway are petrochemical plants, five refineries. One-third of the pipelines of the

United States go through that area.
25

And I have a couple of questions for you, General. One, would

you say the Sabine Nature’s Waterway would fit under the Corps’

principles and guidelines for selecting high priority projects within

the Corps’ limited resources?

General STROCK. Yes, sir, it would, sir.

Mr. POE. Thank you. We have worked with the Corps and I have

talked to the folks that you have got down in Southeast Texas, and

they are doing as good a job as they can with the fact they don’t

have any money. My second concern, however, in 1987 the Senate

authorized a fact-finding authorization to study the widening and

deepening of the riverway, and anyway I add it, that was eight

years ago. Now, it took the United States only 10 years to build

the Panama Canal after we took it over from the French, after they

had treaded water—no pun intended—and I asked the question

why does it take so long to study? I mean, I have tried criminal

cases. I had juries decide death penalty cases, and it never took

them eight years to make a decision. Why does it take so long to

study before we start moving dirt?

General STROCK. Well, sir, every project has its own aspects that

need to be considered. I can not tell you specifically on the Sabine;

I could give that for the record. But a big part of the issue here

is the level of funding we are able to achieve on that project. We

have a capability to move the study further along faster, but we

are unable to fully fund it at that level, sir.

Mr. POE. Well, it is maintenance, studying to widen and deepen

still doesn’t resolve the issue of whether the port is going to be

wider or deeper. I understand maintenance funds. The colonel

down in Southeast Texas is worried just about maintenance now.

So I hope we can figure out a way to at least maintain the port.

It would be nice to be able to get that cargo over to Iraq without

the silt coming into the channel there. But if you can help us out

on these studies. When all is said and done, more is said than

done. So if we can do something with these studies to get a verdict

and a decision, because as pointed out by the other side, it is costing a lot of money just to do these studies, and if we stop in the

middle of a study, then that money is sort of wasted. So if you can

help us figure out a way to have a start and a finish date, and then

make a decision, then maybe we can do what is right for the Country there. But thank you for your work, General.

General STROCK. Yes, sir. Sir, this budget does fund both the

study and the O&M to a level. We also, within our authorities, are

looking. We recognize the need to improve our planning processes,

so we have taken a number of initiatives to improve the planning

process, specifically focused on the timeliness of that process, sir.

Mr. POE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Judge Poe.

Ms. Schwartz.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity, and I appreciated your comments.

I really think this question is really for the General, if I may. I

wanted to talk with you about the oil spill that happened just

about four months ago on the Delaware River in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. There was a hearing that the Coast Guard Sub-
26

committee had, and we had very good testimony from Lieutenant

Colonel Ruck, who really was very straightforward. There were a

lot of compliments about the Army Corps’ handling of the spill. It

was a pretty substantial spill, as you know, and very costly, and

the cleanup will continue to be costly.

There were some very interesting issues that were raised, that

came up during that hearing, two specifically. One was whether in

fact whether the Army Corps had adequate authority to remove

some of the obstacles that they find when they actually do do

sweeps of the Delaware River. That was a serious concern to the

chairman of the subcommittee, and to me as well, and we wanted

to be sure that in fact there is explicit authority for the Army

Corps, when they identify an obstacle in the Delaware River, that

they don’t just tag it or note it, but they actually can remove it.

And he wasn’t sure that they had the authority to do that, so that

is a serious problem, obviously, because we know that this vessel

hit an obstruction that was not tagged, was not known about, could

have shifted. I think they are still doing the investigation.

So my first question is do you know whether the Corps has the

authority, once they identify an obstacle, to not just tag it, not just

try and find who dumped it, but to actually remove it so that the

Delaware River, and I’m sure other rivers across this Country,

would be safe for large oil tankers who are moving through the

Delaware and cause this kind of very serious damage to the Delaware River?

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am, it is my understanding that if the

obstacle presents an impediment to navigation in a Federal channel, we have the authority to do that, and certainly have a responsibility to mark and note those. We have a limited authority,

though, outside the dimensions of the channel, and as I understand

it, we suspect that the obstruction that that vessel hit was outside

the Federal channel, and we did not have the authority to operate

in that area.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. It just was in a different part of the river, you

mean?

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am, outside the channel. When it gets

up close to the berth, it is the local responsibility to maintain

depths next to their berths. We have a responsibility for the channel.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. You mean the owner of that particular peer? Is

it in private hands at that point?

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am, private or local agencies.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. And then do you provide notification to whoever

owns that particular part of the river who is supposed to remove

the obstruction? Do you provide notification?

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am. If it is navigable waters, we do

have the authority to provide notification.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Is there some enforcement or follow-up? What if

they don’t do it and just leave it there, it is just an obstruction in

the waterway and there is no enforcement to remove it?

General STROCK. If it is an impediment to navigation, we also

have an enforcement authority under our Title X regulatory authorities.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. And how long does that take?
27

General STROCK. I can not tell you specifically, it is situational.

I would have to evaluate each case on its own merits, ma’am.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. So it could be months, it could be years, or we

don’t know? Well, it is something that I know I am concerned

about, and I think that answer is not wholly adequate. I mean, this

was a pretty serious oil spill. You are talking about tens of millions

of dollars to clean it up, consequences for the river that will go on

for years, closing down the port for a number of hours, losing economic value in the area. It seems too uncertain to say, well, it was

on the other side of our line, we can not do anything about it. So

I would like to have some more dialog on what your suggestions

might be about whether the Army Corps needs more authority to

cross over those lines, whether in fact there is some enforcement

or fines or penalty for not removing an obstacle. It seems to me

that it is just not adequate to say it was on the other side and we

are going to put both natural resources and people and the economy at risk for the future. Do you agree?

General STROCK. I agree, certainly, with that, yes, ma’am, and

I would welcome the opportunity to amplify that answer in the

record.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. That would be helpful.

Let me just follow up on the other question. The other question

that came up was whether in fact the sweeps for obstacles is done

frequently enough. There was some suggestion that in fact while

there are some new technologies being used more frequently, I

guess laser and that sort of thing, that in fact actually real sweeps

across the river are not done very frequently, mostly for the reason

of resources and lack of funding. There was somewhat of agreement that potentially doing more frequent sweeps to look for obstacles is the first step, and I had understood that the Corps would

be interested in doing that if they had the resources.

Now, do you agree it is a question of resources? Do you think it

is a question of technology? What would your answer be as to what

would—again, the consequences are so significant economically, as

well as to the environment, to not take more preventative action.

We were very interested, certainly locally, both New Jersey and

Pennsylvania, in what could be done to prevent such an oil spill in

the future.

General STROCK. Well, intuitively I would say the answer is not

one of technology, because we have very sophisticated technology

for hydrographic survey. I am sure that it does come down to a resource, and the frequency at which we do those surveys would be

driven by the resources available.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Would that something you would be interested in

having more resources for in the Delaware River? And, again, it

could exist elsewhere, but this is my district, that is what I am particularly interested in.

General STROCK. Yes, ma’am. Certainly, it is a matter of risk

management, where we anticipate the likelihood of an obstruction

and the likely result if that obstruction does occur. So it is a matter

of risk management, where are we going to put the resources.

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay, thank you.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you very much, and I look forward to following up with you.
28

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. And let me apologize to the

other members. We will get to your questions. I had hoped we

could get to everyone before I came back to my questions, but I

have a meeting that I need to go shortly, and I am going to jump

in here for just a minute.

Administrator Jacquez, you mentioned the proposal for tolls in

the budget, yet I understand that the Seaway is already operating

below capacity. Do you think these proposed tolls are going to decrease the traffic, and are you considering a reduction in the tax

to offset that, or what is going to happen, do you think?

Mr. JACQUEZ. Well, the first thing I would like to say is we are

very concerned about our capacity. We are operating at about 50

percent capacity right now, and both the U.S. and Canadian Seaway Corporations have worked very hard for the last five or six

years in particular to try and come up with ways to both decrease

the total cost of the transit, as well as to make it more efficient.

With respect to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Administration is aware that if tolls are collected, it would be an additional burden, and we are currently exploring ways in which to address that. As I mentioned in my statement, the Administration

will be submitting legislation soon, and I hope and anticipate that

that issue specifically will be addressed.

With respect to the total impact of tolls, let me first say it is difficult to estimate what exact impact that would have. What we

have done is looked at a couple of issues, and if you would allow

me I can go into them briefly. First we looked at a historical impact

of tolls. As you know, the U.S. Seaway collected tolls from 1959

until 1987, and then stopped collecting tolls after that date. We

looked at the cargo levels five years before we stopped collecting

tolls, so the five years before 1987, and we looked at the cargo levels after we had stopped collecting tolls. The tolls had obviously

gone down because the Canadians continued collecting tolls

throughout that period. What we found was that the cargo levels

actually were minimally impacted. In fact, the cargo levels were

higher when both countries were collecting tolls than they were the

five years after we had stopped collecting tolls on the U.S. side.

Another thing that I think is important to understand is when

a shipper or a broker is making a decision about how and where

to move its goods, they don’t look at discreet costs; they don’t look

at the cost of tolls, they don’t look at the cost of pilotage, or any

other costs associated with the voyage of the vessel that is going

to be carrying their goods. They look at the total costs and actually

the total through-cost, and that includes a variety of things: stevedoring, wharfage, things like that. Tolls, at least as they were collected through 2004 by the Canadians, represented only about two

to three percent of the total cost of that voyage and the total

throughput costs. So what the impact is I am not sure. The intent

of the proposal, however, is not to make the seaway less cost competitive, but to provide more flexibility, and some of those flexibilities are unrelated to the toll portion of the proposal. But, again,

cost is always a concern, and it is something we are going to be

looking at very closely.

Mr. DUNCAN. How much below capacity are you operating now?

Mr. JACQUEZ. Fifty percent.
29

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Knight, how many of your dams have already

reached the end of their design life?

Mr. KNIGHT. I would have to come back to you on the record on

that. We have about 11,000 that we have constructed, and I have

got quite a number that are starting to approach the end of that

design life. That is one of the reasons why the rehabilitation program was one that we have retained as a priority in trying to bring

those back up to standard, especially in those cases where the

change in the community, growth in that community makes it more

important to bring those dams up to standard and rehabilitate

those.

[The information received follows:]
30
31

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you have some type of estimate on your anticipated rehabilitation needs say over the next five years?

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, I do, and I can submit those to you for the

record.

[The information received follows:]
32
33
34

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much.

Chairman McCullough, you may know, I think you know, that

when I first came into this job—I am now in my seventeenth

year—I guess I was about the first one to start harping on the TVA

debt, because around that time it got to the point where TVA was

spending 34 cents of every dollar just to service the debt. I did

write, a few years ago, the Federal Financing Bank, and we got

them to let you refinance some of the debt, and that helps some,

and you have made some efforts to bring that debt down. And I will

say this, these debts were primarily almost entirely run up long before you ever came to the TVA, and I recognize that. Primarily,

they were run up under what people used to call the Freeman

twins back in the 1970s and so forth. And you mentioned in your

testimony the efforts that you were applying toward this. I think

rather than calling it debt, what did you call it, financing charges,

or something to that effect?

And I said I have a great, great respect and admiration for you,

but you know Director Baxter was a law clerk for me when he was

still in law school, and you both—and I have great respect for both

of you, but you had a disagreement about this debt situation, and

I am not sure I fully understand it. The way I understood it was

he didn’t think TVA was doing enough toward reducing the debt,

and there was a 2 to 1 vote, which is kind of unusual. You haven’t

had that many, have you?

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. No. That is right.

Mr. DUNCAN. Would you explain that to me and tell me what the

situation is?

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Yes, sir. First, Mr. Chairman, the board is

united in recognizing the importance that TVA should place on reducing we use the term total financing obligations. That means

statutory debt and every other financing mechanism which is fully

disclosed, such as lease, leasebacks, discounted energy units, the

prepay agreement that we have with Memphis Light, Gas & Water.

We have got to drive it all down aggressively. The respectful disagreement on the board was essentially how far and how fast.

TVA’s purpose is to keep the lights on at affordable rates, do our

part for cleaner air and water, and to ensure that the people of the

Tennessee Valley have job opportunities. That is our reason for

being. In order to achieve our purpose, we have got to grow financially more flexible. So the board has said let us drive down total

financing obligations, including all debt and debt-like instruments

as aggressively as possible.

We would like to meet with you and go into more detail about

our plans to accomplish that challenge, but I can assure you that

the board does agree that we need to be financially stronger. Under

this board, since 1999, TVA has reduced its debt more than any

board in TVA’s history.

Mr. DUNCAN. From what to what?

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. From $27,700,000,000 back in 1997 to you

noted statutory debt 23 and change today.

Mr. DUNCAN. $27.7 billion?

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Yes, sir. And you also recognized the burden

of debt, which is how much does it cost the rate payers to finance

it. It was 34 cents of every revenue dollar. Today it is about 18
35

cents. We are going to do more, and we are not satisfied, and we

want to work with you toward that end.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, you are having to do much more toward fighting air pollution and so forth, aren’t you? What was the plan on

that or the amount on that, the increase that you have done?

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Mr. Chairman, we are investing about $1 million a day to ensure that TVA does its part for cleaner air, and the

good news is the air is cleaner today than it has ever been before

in the Tennessee Valley. We had the cleanest ozone season in 25

years of record. That will be $6 billion by the end of the decade.

Mr. DUNCAN. I think that is an important point that you have

just made. I have said before, and Secretary Leavitt, who was the

head of the EPA until just a short time ago, said, you know, we

keep raising the standards, and we are raising them again, but the

air is much, much cleaner. People don’t realize that because there

are some groups that, in order to keep getting in contributions,

they have to keep telling everybody how bad everything is and how

much worse it is getting. But the air is cleaner than it has ever

been in the Tennessee Valley.

All right, thank you very much, and I will be happy to meet with

you to go into more detail about that.

Secretary Woodley and General Strock, you know what I am

going to ask about, and this will close it out for my part. You know,

last year at about this time, Secretary Woodley, a little bit later

than this, I asked you to come to look at the Chickamauga Lock,

and you did that, and I appreciated that. And you told Congressman Wamp and I at that time that you had good news for us, that

it was going to be included in the President’s budget. And, of

course, I have told you that this is important to Congressman

Wamp. In fact, I read that at a hearing of the Appropriations Committee the other day, he said he had three priorities: Chickamauga

Lock, the Chickamauga Lock, the Chickamauga Lock.

Now, to be honest with you, I wouldn’t say that; I have more priorities than that—and I am sure he does too—but it is very important. It is important to him and it is important to me, because as

I said in my statement, you are talking about 45,000 more tractor

trailer trucks on the highways of East Tennessee if just half of that

river traffic has to be diverted to trucks. And I said at the hearing

last year I don’t think anybody has ever come to that lock who has

said that that work didn’t need to be done.

Now, I would be interested to see—I know there were 271

projects that had been funded that we started spending money on.

I have done it kind of hurriedly, but I believe the tenth largest of

those was the Chickamauga Lock. Now, 105 have been funded in

this budget. Two hundred seventy-one projects, though, that we

have already spending money on, have been terminated, and there

is not even termination costs in the budget except, they tell me, for

34 of those. Now, that is a potential problem as well.

But what are we going to do about that? You told us that you

agreed that the Chickamauga Lock work needed to be done. Are

you going to try and be an advocate for us with the OMB? Will you

and General Strock both commit today to continuing to tell the people at OMB how important this Chickamauga Lock work is?

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir.
36

Mr. DUNCAN. General Strock?

General STROCK. Yes, sir, I will. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. We have got funds. We have got funds in there to

continue working on this right now, but I just want to tell you that

this is a major, major concern of mine, Congressman Wamp, Senator Frist, and Senator Alexander, we are going to appreciate any

assistance you give us on that. You do still agree that the work

needs to be done, that this project needs to be completed?

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir.

General STROCK. And that is a recommendation we forwarded,

sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right.

All right, thank you very much. I am going to turn the chair now

over to Vice Chair Boustany. I am sorry, I do have to go to some

other meetings.

Mr. BOUSTANY. [Presiding] Thank you. I want to show my appreciation and extend my welcome, as well as the new vice chairman

of the committee, and I would like to ask if Mrs. Johnson has any

additional questions at this time.

Ms. JOHNSON. Have you completed your round?

Mr. BOUSTANY. No, I haven’t.

Ms. JOHNSON. Why don’t you go ahead and complete the round?

Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Connie Mack from Florida.

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you there.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Secretary Woodley, I would like to say hello. I don’t know if it

is just me, but this mike sounds really loud, so I will try to tone

it down a little bit. But it is good to see you again, and I appreciate

you down in my district and the chance we had to talk about some

of the priorities that we have. As you know, my district in Southwest Florida, on one side is the Gulf of Mexico and our beautiful

beaches, and on the other side is the Everglades. So you and I will

be spending probably a lot of time together.

But there is a specific issue that I would like to bring up and get

some comments on from you. In the last couple weeks we have had

a tremendous outbreak of red tide in Southwest Florida. In fact, in

yesterday’s newspaper, in the district, it talks about 16 manatees

have died just in the last couple days because of the outbreak of

red tide.

And for those of you who aren’t familiar with red tide, it is an

algae bloom that releases a toxin that kills the fish, that makes it

very difficult for people or tourists that come down to Southwest

Florida to breathe. And you can imagine what it smells like with

a bunch of dead fish floating around and floating up on shore.

And there are lots of different theories on how the red tide comes

about, if it is sand that is blown half way across the world that

lands in the gulf and creates the bloom, or if it is the discharge

from Lake Okeechobee. But I think we all understand that research is really what needs to be done to ensure that we are able

to find a way to eradicate and to stop these algae blooms and red

tide.

I know that in fiscal year 2005 Congress included a provision

called the Aquatic Plant Control Program, and it was funded at
37

$4.5 million. And my question is has that money already been allocated, been spent? I have come across a couple of people who have

worked on red tide, Moat Marine from Sarasota, Florida, that is a

private research organization that has been doing a lot of research

on red tide, who has suggested to me that they have tried to get

funding and have been turned away. So I am just wondering if all

that money has been utilized, and then, if so, how come it doesn’t

seem to be going towards any red tide projects.

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you very much for that question, because

I think that our aquatic plant research deals with a large variety

of issues, everything from the water hyacinth in our fresh water

areas to this one you mentioned. I do understand that we have an

effort underway on the red tide issue in conjunction with the University of Florida, and I will be getting you the details on that. I

would be very interested in hearing from the research organizations you describe as to what they could bring to the effort as well,

because I certainly agree that it is a very difficult issue and one

that merits all of our attention.

General STROCK. If I might add, that is correct. The money supporting that research effort is coming from the act, so we do have

a portion of the funding, about $480,000, as I understand it. But

it is a one-time contract, it is not funded in fiscal year 2006.

Mr. MACK. And that total amount, did that go to the University

of Florida project?

General STROCK. Sir, we are currently negotiating that contract

now, but we are negotiating with the University of Florida, and

that is about the amount of money we have available.

Mr. MACK. All right. I would just like to—being an alumni of the

University of Florida, I am glad to hear that. But at the same time,

there are research organizations around—not just in Florida, but

Woods Hole; I am sure you are familiar with Woods Hole in Boston—that have done extensive research, and we know that if we

can continue to move the research forward, that we will be able to

identify the cause of the algae blooms, and then we won’t have—

you know, so much of what you do as well as to try to ensure the

safety of endangered species like the manatees, and here we have

16 manatees dying in the last couple days, as compared to three

deaths since the beginning of the year due to boater accidents. So

this poses a much bigger risk not only to our fisheries, but also to

the people who live in Southwest Florida and the economy of Florida altogether.

One last bit on this. How can I be helpful to you to ensure that

we get the funding we need to make sure that the research is being

done; that we are not going to have to stop and start, stop and

start research projects, but the research can continue to find solutions to red tide? What can I do to help you?

Mr. WOODLEY. I think you have already been very helpful in that

regard, congressman, and I would particularly get directly in touch

with the organization that you mentioned, and if I can visit with

them on my next trip to your district or if they have an opportunity

to be in Washington at any time, I would be delighted to help them

at the Pentagon, and we can bring in some of the people from the

Corps and talk about how to go about crafting a really robust program in this regard.
38

General STROCK. Sir, my answer is normally just raise the issue

with your local congressman. I am not sure how we do that here,

but I think the secretary has got a better answer here.

Mr. MACK. And I think, Mr. Secretary, that we will probably

take you up on that, and the local congressman has been notified.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fortun ̃ o from Puerto Rico.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My questions will be addressed to General Strock. I want to

thank you, before I begin, however, and commending you for the

work you are doing in Puerto Rico, and your team in Puerto Rico,

especially your chief of construction division, Mr. Rosado, who has

been extremely helpful in getting us up to speed.

The Corps has undertaken a number of flood control and navigation projects in Puerto Rico in recent years which were authorized

in this committee. We appreciate both the committee’s efforts and

the excellent job that the Corps has performed so far. Among the

Puerto Rico high priority projects are the Arecibo River, the

Portoguesa and Bucana Rivers in Ponce, the Rio Puerto Nuevo

project, Rio Fajardo, and the San Juan Harbor, as well as Canyon

Martin Pena and Rio La Plata. Unfortunately, due mainly to budgetary constraints, many of these projects have fallen behind in

their schedule. I am committed to work with the Corps and this

committee to ensure that these high priority projects get the funding necessary to move forward as scheduled.

Talking specifically about the Rio La Plata project, which was

authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, the

preconstruction engineering and the sign has long since been completed, and construction funds were appropriated in each of the

years 1995 through 2004, yet, physical construction has yet to commence. The project has been on the President’s long-term recovery

action plan for Puerto Rico. A project corporation agreement for the

project was signed in June 1995, following appropriation of initial

construction funds. The initiation of the physical construction, however, has been delayed principally due to the fact that the non-Federal sponsor has not yet provided the Corps the lands required to

award the initial construction contract.

I am not advised, however, that these lands will be available by

the end of this calendar year. I urge you to move this project to

construction at the earliest possible time. My question will be what

is your capability for this project in fiscal year 2006.

General STROCK. Sir, the capability for that is $8.1 million.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Okay. And when could construction commence, assuming the necessary lands for the initial construction contract are

provided by the end of this calendar year?

General STROCK. Well, also assuming that the funding was available then, we could begin construction in fiscal year 2006.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Is there anything the State government can do to

expedite this process?

General STROCK. The main issue is the land acquisition, sir. That

is the main thing the State can do at this point.
39

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Okay, I am told and advised that indeed that has

apparently been solved. So if that is the case, then we would certainly appreciate you moving forward.

There is another project, which is the Rio Puerto Nuevo project.

Rio Puerto Nuevo is located right at the heart of the Puerto Rico

metropolitan area. Severe floodings in the area affect 7500 residents and 700 commercial and public structures valued at over $3

billion. However, for the last two years, construction on the project

has been very slow, and at times the project has been halted.

What are the reasons for halting the construction and, in your

opinion, what can I do at the local level to facilitate completion of

the project as scheduled?

General STROCK. Sir, I am not familiar with the specifics on Rio

Puerto Nuevo, but I can answer that for the record.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Certainly. I would appreciate that.

Finally, I would like to ask about the Arecibo River project,

which is another important flood control project authorized by the

Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The President’s budget

proposes an allocation of $3.8 million for fiscal year 2006. What is

your capability for the project in 2006?

General STROCK. Sir, it is $7.6 million.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Okay.

Before I end, I met recently with the major of Fajardo, and he

has municipal funds to be allocated for the Rio Fajardo project. He

has at least $1.5 million. When you have a major who is willing

to put up money in these difficult times, certainly it caught my eye.

So I just wanted to let you know to see what we can do to hep that

mayor in the eastern part of Puerto Rico.

Finally, I will ask you if you could provide a list of all projects

in Puerto Rico that are owed paybacks and the timing for that payment.

General STROCK. We can certainly do that, sir, and I can assure

you that the timing will be when the project will expend the funds,

the funds will be there. And I can give you specifics by project for

the record.

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Okay. I would appreciate that.

Thank you very much, and I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brown from South Carolina.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to address my questions to Secretary Woodley and

General Strock.

I represent the first congressional district in South Carolina,

which involves a lot of coastline, and I guess I have some of the

same concerns as Congressman Bishop from up in New York. I am

really kind of put back at the Administration or whoever is making

those decisions to do away with the commitment they have had all

along that changed the rules as far as beach renourishment is concerned, and I am just wondering if there is some influence we

might be able to offer to try to change that decision.

Mr. WOODLEY. Certainly, we respond to advocacy at all levels in

that regard, Congressman. As I was indicating, we have been able

to modify the policy to make it have less of an impact on those

cases in which we have interference with renourishment based on
40

a Federal project, and we have been able to support work under

this budget under that policy. The view of the Administration is

that the formulation I described is an appropriate balance of the

equities and burdens between the Federal Government and the localities, but that is something subject to judgment and subject to

change of policy from time to time. I would encourage you to continue the very effective advoacy that you have initiated with me

and with others in the Administration over the past year.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I guess I am looking for some guidelines. We

recognize that we had a 65:35 ratio or agreement. I know they

tried to change two years ago to give 35 support from the Federal

Government and 65 support from the local government, and we

were able to change that around. It now looks like to me they are

just backing off completely. I know you said the berms is sort of

a permanent thing, then after that you leave it to the locals. But

I think it has been determined in our particular area, where storms

are certainly a threat all the time, if a renourished beach certainly

attributes to less storm surge, less storm damage than one that is

not renourished, so that is a major concern of ours. And we certainly addressed that with the FEMA folks too, because we feel like

in their preventive arena that this would certainly fall within their

category. So any support or any direction you might be able to give

me and the other guys that represent the coast I think would certainly be of some benefit to all of us.

Another area that I am very much concerned about—and we

have talked about this in the past—is the commitment to the intercostal waterway. We have an intercostal waterway that goes along

the coast that is being neglected. I notice in this particular budget

request it is only $467,000 for South Carolina, and by our accounts

it is going to take some $6 million to be able to maintain the openness of that intercostal waterway, and I just wondered what is your

position on that.

Mr. WOODLEY. Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway in that part of the

system has been neglected for some time, and the justification is

that the passage of commercial traffic has substantially declined

over the years. I don’t think that neglect is the right answer to

that, so I have asked in this budget for a special allocation of

$1,500,000,000 to be used by the Corps to study ways in which to

either find appropriate justification to allow the support for those

or to find ways to leverage Federal resources with other interested

parties to maintain those waterways, which I am very sorry to see

in a state of neglect. They are in a state of neglect in my State of

Virginia as they are in your State of North Carolina.

Mr. BROWN. And you know, Mr. Secretary, I guess the greater

neglect is going to be certainly an influence on the amount of traffic that is going to be able to support, because eventually in some

places it is already filled in to the point where you can not get traffic through. So that is a major concern.

Another concern, if my time is still available, is the Georgetown

Harbor. I know we feel like it would take about $6 million to maintain that channel, and I noticed only $1.3 million was recommended. Could you help me on that?
41

Mr. WOODLEY. No, sir, I am afraid I am not familiar with the details on Georgetown Harbor, and I will have to return to you on

that, unless the chief is aware of it.

General STROCK. No, sir, I am not familiar with the details.

Mr. BROWN. Well, we had the steel mill go bankrupt, and now

it is back in operation, and we certainly need to keep that channel

open to maintain supplies coming and going there.

One little issue of a personal note is that the Corps office in

Charleston looked like to me the realignment is to shift the resources from Charleston to Wilmington or down to Savannah.

Could you enlighten me on that? We feel like Charleston, with a

major port, certainly ought to have a major presence of the Corps.

We have got nice facilities there at the Citadel. I was just amazed

at the new direction that the Corps is going. Could you elaborate

no that?

General STROCK. Yes, sir. As you know, the Corps of Engineers

at the district level is a project-funded organization, so they can

only support the workload that the projects they oversee brings to

them. So the workforce is related to workload and, unfortunately,

the workload in the Charleston district is decreasing. We have recently moved to a regional business operating process, where when

we recognize it will still be a requirement for those kinds of skills

in Charleston, we are concentrating capabilities in other districts

that have the workload that justifies their presence that will be

available to Charleston. There is no intention to move people and

to do away with jobs in Charleston at this point. Any shifts in the

mission will be accomplished through attrition. And we will continue to use the people in Charleston, to the degree we can,

through virtual means, through technology to keep them engaged

effectively.

Mr. BROWN. All right, thank you very much.

Mr. BOUSTANY. The Chair now recognizes my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Baker.

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Woodley, I know you probably have no personal knowledge of the facts which I am about to recite, but I wanted to get

on the record and have the matter brought to your attention for

further review.

Under the rivers and harbor navigable waterways, there are a

system to determinations required by statute and by Federal court

precedent to determine navigability, which then enables the court

to exert its jurisdictional control over matters in that water body.

The criteria relate to the responsibilities of the division engineer

and a whole set of determinations which are triggered in a very

lengthy process which I am sure you are aware of and I will not

bore the committee by reciting. The act goes on to say that determinations of navigability are not solely conclusively made by administrative agencies, but in concert with judicial precedent. In

light of that, findings today indicate that ebb and flow of tide, current or historic utilization of the waterway for interstate or foreign

commerce and that later actions on the water body that do not enable transportation do not vacate the finding of navigability.

But the point that I want to make is a body of water changes

from navigable to non-navigable at a point of demarcation, in read-
42

ing from the statute it appears major fall, rapids or other place

where there is a marked decrease in the navigable capacity of the

river. I want to add a paragraph to that, because the case about

which I am to make reference, where you have a lot of dirt and

trees growing on it, that is usually an impediment to navigation.

In my view, for the first time in the act’s 100 year history, the

court ha snow invoked Section 10 on an inland area that has no

adjacent waterway, that is questionable in its determination as

being a navigable waterway, but we will see that. What has happened is a timbering operation with literally millions of dollars of

assets on the ground has been issued a cease and desist order not

to reclaim its assets and to be precluded from further timbering activity going forward based on what I believe to be a determination

not consistent with the regulatory requirements. And my request

of the agency is to dispatch, in accordance with the regulations, a

review of this circumstance, and I hope that the finding will not

conclude that inland properties are navigable waterways. It would

be a precedent of great scope and consequence; we would have to

buy our firewood in Canada. I mean, it is going to be devastating.

So it is a sincere policy question. I have no interest in nor concern about the timbering operation itself, but the application of the

Section 10 standard in this case seems to be a bit of overreach. I

thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, sir.

The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor, is recognized for

five minutes.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all you gentlemen for sticking around this long.

General Strock, number one, I want to thank the Corps for the

tremendous cooperation we have had in South Mississippi on maintaining our navigable waterways, and in particular for the work

you have done on some environmental restoration projects. You

have actually added to a State-owned island by the name of Deer

Island; I think you added 40 acres using the dredge material from

the Blassie Ship Channel recently. To that point, one of the things

that has prevented similar type opportunities from taking place

has been a requirement that states if there is additional cost to

doing beneficial use with your dredge material, as opposed to the

cheapest way of disposing it, if there is additional cost, I think 20

to 25 percent has to come from a non-Federal source.

I used to be in city government, State government. I think most

everybody here has had a similar experience. If you are going to

ask a city or a county that has got people telling them they have

potholes to be fixed, sewer and water lines to be fixed, streets that

need to be policed, etc., etc., if you are going to tell them that the

only way you can do something good with that dredge material is

to take that money out of police protection, fire protection, fixing

streets, it is not going to happen, I regret to say. And I can not

blame the local officials who decide that way, because they would

probably get beat in the next election if they did.

With that in mind, there are certainly some Federal benefits to

these programs. Obviously, the environment is better the more

marsh we have out there. We have an agency called the Environmental Protection Agency. Actually, the seas are cleaner with more
43

marsh out there. We have groups called the National Marine Fisheries that are interested in clean seas, and no one is interested in

clean seas. So to that point, what would be your response to the

thought that we change that language from a non-Federal sponsor

to a non-Corps sponsor, which could include the EPA, which could

include NOAA, which could include NIMPS? If doing these things

is good for the environment, and if NIPS or NOAA or the EPA can

acquire additional acreage of marsh for 20 cents on a dollar, then

they are way ahead, at least to my way of thinking; and I think

we would see a lot more of these projects taking place. They all

have budgets for things like that. I think it would be a way of

stretching their budget. And hopefully these good things that you

are doing in Mississippi—and I understand you are also doing

them in some other States—we can do them more frequently.

Again, your thoughts on that, because I am obviously fishing for

some help on this, and any positive reinforcement we could get

might help me convince my colleagues to do that.

Mr. WOODLEY. Congressman, I think that is a very interesting

concept, well worthy of exploration. I don’t have a position on it to

express to you today, but I am delighted to work with you on that

going forward. Certainly that is the kind of thing that we want, to

have incentives in place and not disincentives for beneficial use of

dredge material, and that is entirely consistent with our policy.

Mr. TAYLOR. The other thing that I would ask you is I understand that the Louisiana delegation is pushing for a rather large

coastal restoration project, and I want to let you know that what

is good for Louisiana in that instance is also very good for Mississippi. But to that end, I was curious if the Corps has given much

study to the opportunity that will eventually take place in two

places. Number one, there is an existing structure at the Violet

Canal which already diverts water from the Mississippi River into

the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, which in turn spills into Lake

Borgne. It is a fairly small structure. But my experience in trying

to get things done, particularly with the permitting process, I found

it a heck of a lot easier to grow an existing permit than to start

from scratch with an idea.

So with the goal of trying to get some of that Mississippi River

water into Lake Borgne, into the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, has

the Corps explored the opportunity or the possibility of making the

Violet Canal control structure larger, since we know that the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has been a major cause of salt water intrusion and, therefore, the loss of wetlands?

Second thing that I would ask you to at least give me your

thoughts on is some day the locks at the industrial canal adjacent

to the Coast Guard Basin New Orleans will be replaced. I realize

that some day keeps getting kicks down the line, but some day it

is going to happen. Again, I see an opportunity there of putting

some sort of a flow control structure at the industrial canal locks

that would get some fresh water from the Mississippi River into

the industrial canal which flows into the Mississippi River Gulf

Outlet and, therefore, into Lake Borgne and the Mississippi Sound.

Have you explored that, since the Nation already owns the property adjacent to that, which is the Coast Guard base, which is

going to come down in a few years anyway, and you already are,
44

again, dealing with waterways that have already been built at considerable expense to the taxpayer and already in use, as opposed

to digging a new canal at Bonnie Carrier or some other place?

Mr. WOODLEY. Let me ask if the chief is aware of whether that

has specifically been studied. I know we have a very comprehensive

study that is underway for any number of options to be looked at

in this regard, and we have asked the Congress—the Congress approved $8 million in the current fiscal year. An additional $20 million is in our request to continue to feasibility level studies of just

this type of concept, and I certainly would hope that both of these

would be looked at alternatives as we go forward in crafting the

most cost-effective and least environmentally detrimental or most

environmentally beneficial plans.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, one last, if you don’t mind.

We have one of the more popular programs in the Corps, the 592

program, where you have assisted local communities with their

wastewater and water infrastructures. I have a very good idea of

what the request is just from South Mississippi, and it is in the

hundreds of millions of dollars. For the record—I don’t expect you

to know this—I would be curious what your requests are on a nationwide basis, because I have got to believe it is enormous in the

amount that we are actually funding is fairly miniscule compared

to the requests from the local communities. But if you could get

that for the record, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Before I ask my questions, and I have just a couple, I would like

to ask the ranking member if she would like to make any comments or ask any further questions.

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, thank you. I do have a couple of questions.

General Strock, your testimony refers to 13 projects that will be completed with $48.9 million requested in this budget, and this is

a revision to the budget documents that referred to a request of

$114 million to complete 20 projects. Why did this number change

and what were the 20 projects and what are the 13 projects, and

where did the $65.1 million go?

General STROCK. Well, certainly, I think the delineation of the

projects is best left for the record. As far as the budget decision to

move money around, I would also like to do that for the record.

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay, I would like to get a little bit further explanation in writing later, if you don’t mind.

Let me express my appreciation for the good work that the Corps

of Engineers actually do. And I want to offer my assistance or help

in any way I can, short of changing parties. I have listened this entire committee, and it is very clear to me that decisions are very

partisan when they are made. This is not a real partisan committee, and we function, and if you can justify that not being, I would

like to hear it.

Mr. WOODLEY. Well, I can only say, Ms. Johnson, that I have

participated now for two years in the process that has resulted in

the recommendations, and I don’t recall a single expression of partisan feeling or animus in the course of that. And I would be very

concerned if I saw any patterns that developed in that regard or

that could be demonstrated in that regard, and I would look into
45

them and see what could be done to remedy that, because my impression of this program is that it is a program that is for all the

Nation, in every State in the territories, in the commonwealth of

Puerto Rico. Wherever the Nation needs water resource development, that is, in the area of flood control, storm damage reduction,

navigation or aquatic ecosystem restoration, that is where this program needs to concern itself, and it does not need to concern itself

with partisan matters in any way.

Ms. JOHNSON. I would agree with you totally, but I have been sitting here this whole meeting like you have, and it is very apparent

when you hear results and expectations. All of the disappointments

pretty much have been expressed on the Democratic side. And I

just imagine that if we took a poll, everybody in this audience has

noticed it. And I am not accusing you of it being your fault; maybe

it is OMB. I don’t know who it is, but it is very apparent to me.

And if I can help you understand that better or help solve it, I am

offering my services. Thank you very much.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Secretary Woodley and General Strock, I have a question for you.

My district is Southwest Louisiana, the seventh congressional district, and we have a port down there, the Port of Lake Charles,

which is a very significant port; it has national implications, and

the Cowcashu Ship Channel has an authorized depth of 40 feet and

a width of 400 feet. This port is critically important. Several oil refineries depend on this port and this one channel for crude oil supplies. Certainly, Cowcashu is also home to the Nation’s largest

LNG terminal, which is currently undergoing expansion to double

its capacity, and there are several additional LNG facilities

planned in the near future. My concern is that we have not been

able to maintain these authorized specifications on this channel

and, as a result, the port has been forced oftentimes to decide

whether to maintain the depth or the width of the channel. Currently, we are at about 280 feet, maybe to 300 feet, in width. LNG

tankers take up 150 feet leaving very little room on the sides. This

presents itself as a problem.

Currently, it is at least expected that it will take about $17 million to bring this back to the authorized specifications, plus an additional $15 million annually to maintain it. The current request

in the budget is $9 million. Do you consider this a priority? Do you

have any suggestions as to where we might go with this?

General STROCK. Well, sir, based on an explanation of how we arrived at our budgeting numbers, the fact that we do have $9 million indicates that it certainly is a priority. It appears to be inadequate, though, to get as far as we would like to get, but we recognize the importance or the channel, certainly. It is a very high use,

very important channel to the economy and to the Nation.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes. It certainly serves the Nation’s energy

needs. In fact, I think in the 1990s, when there was a problem that

obstructed shipping flow through that channel, the Clinton Administration had to open up oil reserves for the benefit of the Country.

So I think this should be a priority. I would hope you would give

it more consideration.

Let me just close by saying a major concern for all of us down

in Louisiana is the rapidly eroding coastline. Some others here
46

today have mentioned it briefly. This is a national problem. It truly

is a national problem. And I hope, as we move forward in the

Wooda reauthorization, that it will be given some due consideration. And I would welcome any comments that you might have on

this.

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. We and the Administration could not

agree more with that point. The chief and governor of Louisiana,

at the end of January, have issued and forwarded to my office the

draft of the chief’s report, which is a feasibility level study for programmatic authorization of the measures designed to make addressing the issue you describe a national priority in the area of

ecosystem restoration, and that is something we fully support. I

will be examining the report as it comes through my office and

working within the Administration to prepare that for authorization at the earliest possible time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you.

Gentlemen, I want to thank all of you for your testimony on behalf of Chairman Duncan and myself and the ranking member.

Thank you for your willingness to come to the Hill and testify.

Thank you for your patience, and thank you for your answers to

our questions.

The meeting stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96Æ