U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–695 PDF 2008

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2009 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

(110–95) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

VACANCY 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

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

Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................ 9 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 9 

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

Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................... 9 

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

Works, Department of the Army ........................................................................ 9 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 39 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 40 

Duncan, Hon. John J., of Tennessee ...................................................................... 43 

Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado ........................................................................ 50 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker ..................................................................................... 53 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H. ................................................................................. 70 

Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert ............................................................ 80 

Woodley, Jr., Hon. John Paul ................................................................................. 86 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 

Responses to questions from Rep. Mitchell ........................................................ 59 

Responses to questions from Rep. Oberstar ....................................................... 62 

Responses to questions from the Subcommittee ................................................ 65 

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

Works, Department of the Army, responses to questions from the Subcommittee .............................................................................................................. 104 

vi 


40695.001
vii 


40695.002
viii 


40695.003
ix 


40695.004
x 


40695.005
xi 


40695.006
xii 


40695.007
xiii 


40695.008
(1) 

HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 

2009 BUDGET REQUEST FOR ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Thursday, February 7, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Committee will come to order. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses from EPA and the Corps. 

From the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin Grumbles and 

Susan Bodine will testify. I would like to welcome John Paul 

Woodley, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and 

Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp, Chief of Engineers for 

the Corps of Engineers. 

As is becoming more and more apparent, the Nation is in economic distress, and yet the President’s budget cuts programs and 

projects that put Americans to work on projects that will benefit 

Americans. Enhanced funding of EPA water infrastructure and 

Corps projects provide direct benefits to the economy while at the 

same time supporting the Nation’s priorities of enhanced human 

health and safety and environmental restoration and protection. 

Simply put, this budget is not adequate to meet the Nation’s 

needs. The Administration fails to recognize that continued investment in water-related infrastructure is a key element for stimulating and improving the U.S. economy, an economy built on the 

investments of our predecessors. 

States and local communities have warned that reduced funding 

for wastewater infrastructure programs make it difficult to respond 

to failing wastewater infrastructure and can force the delay of essential upgrades to improve water quality. 

The President’s budget for the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund program does nothing to reassure the public on this front. 

Given the needs of communities, rich and poor, to deal with toxic, 

hazardous waste sites, the Superfund budget does little more to address their concerns. Since this Administration came into office, the 

President’s budget has almost halved the annual number of Superfund cleanups achieved by the Clinton Administration. 

2 

Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers does not fare any 

better in this proposed budget. It continues cuts that affect the 

ability of the agency to carry out its mission. 

The budget also fails to fund any of the important projects that 

were authorized by the WRDA 2007 bill which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. For example, in my own district, 

the President’s budget fails to adequately fund the recently authorized Dallas Floodway Extension Project. 

This flood control project along the Trinity River provides critical 

flood protection for downtown Dallas and the neighborhoods of Oak 

Cliff and West Dallas, raising the level of flood protection and protecting the lives and livelihood of some 12,500 homes and businesses in Dallas. The city estimates that this project will prevent 

an excess of $8 billion in flood damages and provides additional 

recreational opportunities for those visiting the Dallas metropolitan 

area. 

I am certain that every Member of this Committee could identify 

similar important projects that are targeted for elimination or reduction in this budget. 

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

Corps’ ability to vital operations and maintenance activities for 

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

taken a toll and has created the real possibility of catastrophic failure of essential transportation linkages or flood protection projects. 

As the Nation learned in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, poorly constructed or maintain flood control structures can result in tremendous economic and personal hardship and loss of life. 

This budget forces the Corps to do more with less money. It bets 

the continued reliability of our infrastructure on the hope that it 

will hold together for just a few more years. We cannot under-invest in the Nation’s infrastructure or its environment. We have an 

obligation to future generations to provide a cleaner, safer and 

more secure world for them to live. 

I welcome our witnesses here, and I look forward to today’s testimony. 

I now recognize Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am filling in once again until a new Ranking Member is named 

in place of Mr. Baker, and I certainly am familiar with the importance of the Trinity River project to your district because you had 

me down there when I chaired this Subcommittee. 

Let me begin by saying that I support the President’s efforts to 

control Federal spending. However, the agency programs that we 

are examining today are truly investments in America. These are 

important programs that benefit our economy and improve the 

quality of life for our citizens. 

While I believe we must be diligent in our oversight of these 

agencies to be sure that programs are run effectively and efficiently, I do not support cutting programs that have a proven 

record of providing economic benefits. In fact, as part of the economic stimulus program, we should increase our investment in programs such as those that both produce jobs, American jobs, and deliver economic benefits. 

3 

The Administration’s budget for fiscal year 2009 continues a 

trend of under-investing in our water resources. As a result, the 

general condition of our flood protection and navigation infrastructure has declined. Investing in flood damage reduction projects protects the people and businesses in cities and towns all over the Nation. It makes good economic sense to protect existing development 

rather than have to pay for the losses and cleanup that come from 

hurricanes or floods. 

In the global economy, the Nation’s farmers and businesses must 

compete with their counterparts overseas for customers all over the 

world. The importance of modern waterways and ports has never 

been more critical to the Nation’s economic well being as it is right 

now. 

Yet, the Administration’s budget cuts the Corps of Engineers’ 

construction budget by nearly $900 million compared what it was 

enacted for fiscal year 2008. If we follow this lead, projects will 

take longer to complete and cost more and have the benefits delayed. 

In addition, the budget cuts funds for feasibility studies by 46 

percent compared to what Congress appropriated this year. These 

studies are necessary to produce the modern and beneficial projects 

that we need in the future. 

There is very little from previous budget requests for the Corps’ 

operations and maintenance account. After many years of inadequate funding resulting in deferred maintenance, the funding 

level is still too low. 

The chronic problem of deferred maintenance is impacting the 

navigability of many of our waterways and causing ships to leave 

certain ports only partially loaded or, in some cases, to divert to 

foreign ports. This has a huge impact on the reliability of this important mode of transportation. 

In the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, those of us on 

this Committee are disappointed that the Administration continues 

to inadequately fund the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program. This is a highly effective and very important program. 

The Superfund and brownfields programs are budgeted at a flat 

rate compared to previous funding levels. These are important programs that make contaminated areas fit for redevelopment. Many 

of the smaller and easier cleanup projects have already been done, 

so the remaining work tends to be more complex and more expensive to complete. We will have to invest more in these programs if 

we want to release properties for redevelopment at the same pace. 

Those are general comments. 

Two or three things more specific that I am interested in: It is 

my understanding the Corps is now conducting a study that compares different projects and how they have been completed. I am 

told that the study is called the Good, Bad and the Ugly, and this 

sounds like a very worthwhile effort to me. I suspect that my colleagues on this Committee, as well as other Committees, will be 

very interested in the results of this study, and I would like to hear 

the status of that. 

In addition to that, the Olmsted Locks and Dams project on the 

Ohio River was authorized by Congress in WRDA 1988 at an estiVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:53 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\40695 JASON
4 

mated construction cost of $775 million. Its construction began in 

1991 and was supposed to have been completed years ago. 

Today, so far, we have spent $900 million on the project. It is 

now estimated completion cost is just under $2 billion, and its completion date is now sometime in 2015. I think the Subcommittee 

should receive a report on that. 

Finally, for more than 30 years, the Corps budget has identified 

project specific amounts in the operations and maintenance portion 

of the Corps budget. 

This year in the fiscal year 2009 proposed budget for the Corps’ 

civil works program, for the first time, this program is divided into 

O&M funding, into 54 river subsystems without providing the 

project specific amount for the individual projects within each subsystem. I think we need to know about that as well. 

With those comments, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Today, we are examining the President’s budget request for the 

EPA Superfund program, a program that has been very much on 

the minds of my constituents of late. They, like me, are concerned 

about the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale 

which last month experienced a terrible failure. 

On January 16th, without warning, residents were confronted 

with a three-day tap water ban. Worse, as water customers began 

lining up for bottled water and our local businesses began scrambling for ice, we learned that for as much as 16 to 24 hours prior 

to the implementation of the tap water ban, residents had been exposed to water containing more than 4 times the permissible concentration of trichloroethylene or TCE, a suspected cancer-causing 

chemical. 

Investigations are ongoing, but it appears, at least initially, that 

a mechanical failure at the Miller Road water treatment facility is 

at least partially responsible. Alarming, this is the same facility 

that was found to have emitted impermissibly high levels of TCE 

for a period of eight days in October. 

When news of the October TCE incident became public, which 

frankly is a whole disturbing story in itself, I asked the EPA to 

find out what was going on at that facility. I was assured and reassured, both by letter and by phone, that steps were being taken to 

guard against TCE emissions at Miller Road. However, when I 

turned on the local news a couple weeks later, there was the same 

plant, only this time it was having a bigger TCE emission problem. 

And so, I come here today with a lot of questions for the EPA, 

questions about why a plant that had already experienced TCE 

emission problems wasn’t fixed, about why a machine responsible 

for protecting the public from TCE emissions was left unattended 

and why no one discovered the machine had failed for up to 16 

hours, about why the reverse 911 system activated by the water 

company to notify customers about the tap water ban failed to 

reach so many of the company’s customers and why the system relied on an estimation of customer contact information instead of 

the actual customer contact information the company had on file. 

5 

I believe my constituents are entitled to some answers, and I 

hope we can get at least some of them here today. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the rest of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the panel for being here today. You are doing 

very important work throughout the Country and especially in my 

district of Sacramento. As you all know, Sacramento has significant 

flood issues. I know the President recognizes the flood concern in 

the capital of California as well. 

Since coming to Congress, I have fought aggressively to bring 

vital Federal funding to my district to ensure that my constituents 

are protected. Unfortunately, while the President has recognized 

the need for flood mitigation efforts, the Administration has not 

provided the funds that we need to ensure these efforts are realized. 

As a result, States like California often front the funding on flood 

projects. This is certainly the case in the Sacramento region where 

State and local flood control organizations are aggressively pursuing needed project improvements. 

I feel that the Country needs to update the current funding process to encourage States and locals to move quickly to protect our 

constituents. They should not question whether the Federal Government will support their efforts to move quickly to build necessary and oftentimes vital projects. I hope the Administration will 

be there to provide the necessary support to our local and State 

Governments. 

We have been working most recently in the Sacramento region 

on the joint Federal project and funding for the watershed. I know 

that the Administration has taken note of these projects, and I look 

forward to talking about them with you today. 

Another issue that I am sure you are aware of is in the Natomas 

Region in Sacramento. Last week, the Army Corps of Engineers 

and FEMA received a copy of the letter that Chairman Oberstar, 

Subcommittee Chairwoman Norton and I sent. The letter announced an upcoming hearing on the Corps’ levee certification and 

FEMA’s flood zone designation processes. 

We can all agree that with flood protection, the public safety always comes first. With that in mind, I am supportive of exploring 

additional ways to fast-track the locals’ already aggressively construction schedule for the Natomas Basin and would expect that 

the Federal Government would provide the necessary assistance. 

Next week, I want to hear how the Corps and FEMA procedures 

are changing and how they expect to implement these changes in 

the future in my district and throughout the Country. 

Once again, I thank you all for being here. I look forward to discussing the Corps’ budget priorities. 

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Dr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

After Hurricane Rita, I was able to get authorized and appropriated monies for the first ever hurricane and flood protection 

6 

study in southwest Louisiana, and I have worked closely with the 

New Orleans Corps Office to move forward on this project. The reconnaissance study was completed, I believe this past May, and the 

project has moved to feasibility. I was able to secure additional 

money in the fiscal year 2008 budget in the omnibus bill to make 

sure that the project doesn’t stall. 

In addition, Congress directed the Corps to expedite completion 

of the feasibility aspect of this in WRDA, and yet the President’s 

budget proposes no funding for the southwest Louisiana ongoing 

study in fiscal year 2009. So I hope to hear from you two gentlemen on this issue as we hear your testimony and get into the questions. 

Additionally, the Louisiana delegation has worked to secure authorization for the Morganza to Gulf Hurricane Project in WRDA. 

We have worked with the Corps to make sure that WRDA contained adequate language to enable the Corps to move swiftly forward on this project, and there is some concern now that despite 

this hard-fought authorization there are additional hurdles that 

will stall the project. And so, I hope again this can be addressed. 

Then, finally, in the operations and maintenance part of the 

budget, I have a little concern about the dredging funds for the 

Calcasieu ship channel which is very important as we look at the 

import of liquified natural gas into this Country. This ship channel 

is critically important. It is going to be the point of inflow for 

liquified natural gas into the Country. 

So I see that keeping this channel dredged is of strategic importance, not just for Louisiana but for the Country, and so I hope we 

can perhaps have some discussion on this as well. 

I thank you all for being here and look forward to the testimony. 

I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I also would like to thank today’s panelists for appearing before 

us, and I want to express my appreciation for their efforts on behalf of their agencies. I particularly want to express my appreciation to the Army Corps of Engineers for the really inspired work 

that they do in my district and how responsive they have been to 

many of the issues that we have raised with the Corps. 

However, let me say that once again I am distressed to see that 

the President’s budget proposals sacrifice the long term health of 

our environment and the protection of our coastal communities for 

short term and essentially insignificant reductions in our deficit. 

The Administration’s continuing retreat from the protection of our 

environmental resources under the pretense of expanding economic 

growth is very distressing and essentially an eight-year pattern. 

I think we can all agree that the economy is ailing, but as someone who represents over 300 miles of coastline and numerous communities that depend on tourism and a pristine local environment, 

I find it difficult to see a correlation between damaging our shoreline and growing the economy. 

7 

For 2009, the Administration’s budget cuts EPA funding by 4.4 

percent from the 2008 enacted levels. Much of this decrease is attributed to large cuts on grants to States. 

The budget cuts heavily the EPA Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund, a 19.4 percent reduction from this year’s enacted budget and 

an astounding 58.8 percent reduction since President Bush took office. These cuts directly affect my constituents on Long Island and 

constituents all over the Country by preventing much-needed improvements to wastewater infrastructure. 

Sadly, it seems as if the President is determined to leave as his 

legacy nearly a decade of misguided environmental policies, and so 

I look forward to hearing from the panelists, how we can best make 

sense of what has been proposed and how we can hopefully effect 

it positively so that we can all truly protect our environment and, 

in my case, preserve our shoreline. 

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

time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the panel for coming in and being part of this 

process. 

The Corps supports activities of critical importance to my district 

including the Ports of Charleston and Georgetown, as well as the 

Atlantic and the coastal waterway. 

Additionally, since the First District is a coastal district, almost 

every construction project brings with it some concerns over wetlands. After the Corps, the EPA and the White House issued long 

awaited wetlands guidance last summer, I am glad to report that 

the Charleston district has been one of the most aggressive in moving to process outstanding and new wetlands permits. I thank you 

all for that. 

I do, however, have concerns over the funding level provided to 

the Corps’ regulatory program in this budget and look forward to 

discussing that with our witnesses. 

Overall, I am disappointed and, unlike last year, I cannot praise 

the Administration for making the Army Corps a priority in this 

budget. Sadly, comparing requests year to year, the Corps’ budget 

is reduced this year. 

While there is a lot of focus on the calculations made in determining which construction projects are funded, there is little attention paid to the maintenance needs of so many Corps projects that 

go unaddressed year after year. 

Unfortunately, under the current environment, Congress ensuring that the Corps has funding to maintain a lock or dredge in the 

harbor to keep ships coming in is painted in a bad light while the 

maintenance needs continue to mount with little or no attention 

from the press and public. Investments in these facilities are not 

just economic stimulus. They are economic security. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about this 

and many other issues facing our Nation’s water infrastructure. 

I yield back the balance of my time and thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. 

8 

Mr. Shuler. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

As a former real estate developer, I am very familiar with the infrastructure requirements for a new development. 

I know firsthand how geosynthetics can support long-lasting, 

newly constructed roads, waterways and improve in erosion sediment control. The performance of roads built with geosynthetics 

was always superior to those built without them. Geosynthetics are 

also better for the environment by improving drainage roadways. 

My personal experience with geosynthetics is a big reason why 

I am advocating for the expanse in use of geosynthetic products 

and materials. They will help the government and businesses to 

save money on projects of all sizes. 

In the late 1980s, the Bureau of Reclamation concluded a series 

of tests and investigations to evaluate the use of geosynthetic systems lining canals throughout the western United States. The report concluded that geosynthetics led to a 90 percent reduction in 

leakage and a 50-year increase in the life span of canals. 

In the early 1980s, the EPA mandated the uses of HDPE liners 

as subsurface barrier layers in the Nation’s landfills and waste 

storage facilities. This resulted in the American Society of Civil Engineers offering the highest grade given to areas of solid waste 

management in their report card of America’s infrastructure. 

The evidence suggests that requiring the lining of canals, pipelines, reservoirs and dams for water conveyances with geosynthetic 

materials will improve the life spans of these infrastructure 

projects while reducing waste and saving taxpayers’ monies. 

I hope that this Committee will strongly consider taking steps to 

promote the use of geosynthetics in the Water Resource Development Act of 2008. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

We will go now to our witnesses. We are pleased to have the distinguished panel of witnesses this afternoon, and we have Assistant Administrator Benjamin Grumbles from the Environmental 

Protection Agency Office of Water and the Assistant Administrator 

Susan Bodine from the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. 

Then Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable John Paul Woodley will testify following them, and our 

panel will conclude with testimony from Lieutenant General Robert 

Van Antwerp from the U.S. Corps of Engineers. 

We are pleased that all of you are here this afternoon. 

Mr. Grumbles. 

Your full statements can be placed in the record. So we would 

ask if you could limit your testimony to five minutes and proceed 

as one finishes. 

9 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE HONORABLE SUSAN 

PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID 

WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY; THE HONORABLE JOHN PAUL 

WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR 

CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the 

Subcommittee. It is always an honor to appear before the Subcommittee and have the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request as it relates to water programs for the 

U.S. EPA. 

The request constitutes $2.5 billion which is 35 percent of the 

Agency’s overall budget, and the request will allow us, with our 

State, tribal and local partners, to continue to make progress in ensuring America’s waters are clean, safe and secure and, above all, 

sustainable. The key that we are focusing on and continuing to emphasize in our budget request is sustainability, particularly with 

infrastructure but also on holistic and integrated watershed approaches. 

Infrastructure financing: Water infrastructure is a lifeline for 

community health and prosperity. EPA is committed to developing 

innovative, sustainable and market-based approaches and solutions 

for managing and financing infrastructure with public and private 

partners. 

We will continue to build on our well established Four Pillars of 

Sustainable Infrastructure, focused on improved asset management 

and management of utilities, secondly, full cost pricing, thirdly, 

water efficiency, and fourthly, an integrated watershed approach. 

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program provides funds 

to capitalize state revolving loan funds. In this budget request, 

EPA will be on track to meet its total capitalization target of $6.8 

billion for the periods from 2004 through 2011. At this funding 

level, the Clean Water SRF will provide an average of $3.4 billion 

in loans annually. 

We believe that the seed money that goes into the state revolving 

fund is a very important tool. It is not the only tool, and we are 

committed to working with you on additional tools and practices 

and revenue sources and mechanisms to continue to meet the infrastructure needs. 

The drinking water infrastructure funds, the SRF, the Administration is requesting a slight increase above what was enacted. It 

is $842 million. 

A very important, an innovative part to meeting water infrastructure needs is Water Enterprise Bonds. The Administration 

continues to request that Congress move on a Water Enterprise 

Bond proposal that would be to amend the tax code to remove the 

artificial cap, the barrier. It is called the Unified State Volume Cap 

on the use of public-private partnerships for water and wastewater 

infrastructure. We think that can lead to new money, new revenues 

of up to $5 billion a year. 

10 

Another important component of sustainability for water is the 

WaterSense program and advancing concepts of water efficiency at 

every turn. More than 125 different models of high efficiency toilets 

and 30 bathroom faucets have earned the EPA label, and almost 

600 manufacturers, retailers and utilities have joined the program. 

By promoting this easily recognizable, consistent national brand, 

EPA believes WaterSense will make water efficient products the 

clear and preferred choice among consumers, and this is good news 

for the whole Country, particularly for areas of the Country that 

are experiencing water restrictions and drought. 

Homeland security is a theme that continues to be a high priority for the Administration, and it remains that in this budget request. EPA is seeking over $35 million for strengthening the Nation’s water and wastewater infrastructure systems. Primarily, that 

focuses on drinking water, but it also involves partnerships with 

wastewater utilities. 

For wetlands, one of the Nation’s most critical natural resources, 

a part of our natural heritage, we are seeking $39 million in this 

budget request. That is to carry out our regulatory responsibilities 

and also advance the President’s vision of cooperative conservation 

through stewardship so that we can meet the overall gain of wetlands goal that the President has articulated. 

Two key activities will be implementing the 2006 decision of the 

Supreme Court in Rapanos and working with our Federal agency 

partners to accelerate the completion of the digital wetlands data 

layer in the National Spatial Data Inventory. What this means is 

working with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. We 

are all making progress to have better maps, more accurate maps, 

more comprehensive maps for wetlands across the Country. 

Watershed protection is a theme and a priority that runs 

throughout the budget and the U.S. EPA strategic plan. We 

launched a green infrastructure strategy in January of this year to 

reduce sewer overflows and stormwater runoff, and we look forward to working with the Committee and others to advance this 

strategy that emphasizes not just the gray infrastructure but the 

green infrastructure to control overflows and manage stormwater. 

For the Great Lakes, a unique and extraordinary resource, the 

agency is requesting $57 million. Thirty-five of that is for the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act to clean up contaminated sediments. It is a very 

important part of our budget and a priority as the Interagency 

Taskforce. 

For the Chesapeake Bay, we are requesting $29 million. We are 

committed to accelerating restoration of the bay’s aquatic habitat 

and achieving the pollution reduction targets for 2010. 

For the Gulf of Mexico, the agency is requesting $4.5 million. We 

will continue to support efforts with the States in the Gulf Region 

to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds and reduce the size of 

the hypoxic zone by identifying the top 100 nutrient-contributing 

watersheds in the entire Mississippi River Basin and using a computer mode to determine where the major sources of nitrogen and 

phosphorus are located and where to target reduction efforts. 

Madam Chair, in conclusion, I would say that we appreciate the 

opportunity to highlight key components of the budget request. 

11 

Water is a public trust, and EPA’s Office of Water takes this responsibility very seriously. We are committed to working with you 

on not only sustaining the core programs under the Clean Water 

Act but also on developing innovative tools and approaches to meet 

the needs of the 21st Century. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Bodine. 

Ms. BODINE. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. I, too, would like to say that it is a pleasure to be back 

here in 2167 Rayburn. I have spent a lot of hours here. 

I am very pleased to appear before the Subcommittee to talk 

about the President’s fiscal year 2009 request for the brownfields 

and Superfund programs as well as other programs that fall within 

this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request provides the necessary funds for EPA to carry out our mission efficiently and effectively, to protect human health and safeguard the environment. 

This budget request continues strong support for the brownfields 

program. It maintains funding for further progress in cleaning up 

Superfund sites and continues an emphasis on homeland security 

and emergency response efforts. The President’s budget requests $165.7 million for the brownfields program. Of that amount, $93.6 million is for assessment, revolving loan fund and cleanup grants. It is estimated that 

with the 2009 funding, that we will produce 1,000 brownfields 

property assessments, clean up 60 properties, leverage 5,000 jobs 

and leverage $900 million in cleanup and redevelopment funding. 

EPA will continue its land revitalization efforts which cut across 

all of our cleanup programs as well as working with partners in all 

levels of government and the private sector and nonprofit sectors. 

The goal of land revitalization is to restore our Nation’s contaminated land resources so that will allow Americans’ communities to 

safely return these properties to productive use. 

In addition, by incorporating green and sustainable approaches 

into our brownfields redevelopment program, we can further increase the environmental benefits from land revitalization. 

Now I know that in today’s tight budget climate, EPA faces challenges. Our Superfund program continues to address large, complex sites, but I want to assure you we are managing that challenge. The President’s request of $1.264 billion for the Superfund 

program maintains steady funding for cleanup. 

We also have other sources of funding in addition to current year 

appropriations. Through aggressive management of our contracts, 

since 2001, we have been able to de-obligate more than $840 million of excess funding that was in closed out contracts. 

Through our enforcement efforts, we have been able to collect 

settlement dollars from responsible parties that is used toward site 

cleanup. In fiscal year 2007, we received commitments from responsible parties to provide over a billion dollars worth of cleanup work 

and funding. 

As you know, when we settle with responsible parties, we can 

settle either for work or for cash, and when we settle for cash we 

put that funding into special accounts. We currently have more 

12 

than one billion dollars in special accounts that are dedicated toward cleanup of specific sites. 

At the end of fiscal year 2007, cleanup construction had been 

completed at 1,030 Superfund sites. That is 66 percent of the National Priorities List. Building upon the 24 sites where construction 

was completed in 2007, the 30 that we expect to complete in 2008 

and the 35 that are our goal for 2009, we are on track to meet the 

target in our strategic plan. 

Construction completion is one way of assessing Superfund program progress. It was developed about a decade ago as a measure 

of interim progress. But it is important for you to understand that 

it is not a measure of long term protection. 

To better address long term protection, in 2007, we adopted a 

new measure called Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use, and this 

is a measure of progress after construction is complete. To be ready 

for anticipated use, all of the cleanup levels for productive use of 

the land have to be met and all of the institutional controls that 

ensure that the land is used safely into the future have to be in 

place. 

Last year, we had a goal of 30 sites. It was the first year we had 

that measure in place. We achieved 64. The goal is still 30 for 2008 

and 2009. In the future, though, as we make progress in this, I expect that we will adjust that goal to raise it higher. Obviously, it 

has been very successful. 

But I want to stress the importance of this measure because, 

without it, we didn’t have a measure to ensure that all the institutional controls are in place that are part of the remedy, because 

they are a part of the remedy that get STET implemented after 

construction is complete. 

The President’s budget request will also fund our removal and 

emergency response programs. To date, EPA has completed more 

than 9,700 removals at hazardous waste sites, and those removals 

address immediate threats to human health and the environment. 

The budget request also includes $55.8 million for the Homeland 

Security Emergency Preparedness and Response program. 

Now that request is $12 million above the fiscal year 2008 request, and I want to explain that those additional resources are 

going to strengthen EPA’s ability to respond to multiple incidents 

of national significance that might occur. We expect that if something happens, if a terrorist act happens, it is probably not going 

to be just one. It will probably be multiple incidents. 

So, we are seeking that funding to expand our laboratory capacity, including additional mobile labs. We want to provide for additional training and exercises and additional equipment including a 

second airplane that we use for aerial monitoring to detect releases. 

In addition, our 2009 budget requests funds for our oil spill program at $13.9 million. Now this program focuses on preventing oil 

spills, reducing risk to people and the environment, and responding 

to oil spills. Every year, EPA evaluates thousands of spills to determine if Federal assistance is required, and we manage actions to 

oversee private party response at about 250 to 300 sites per year. 

That concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

13 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Assistant Secretary Woodley. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Madam Chairwoman, distinguished Members of 

the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today with General Van Antwerp, the 52nd Chief of Engineers, to 

present the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget for the Civil Works 

Program in the Army Corps of Engineers. 

The Civil Works budget provides funding for development and 

restoration of the Nation’s water and related resources primarily 

within the three main program areas of commercial navigation, 

flood and coastal storm damage reduction and aquatic ecosystem 

restoration. 

The budget also supports hydropower, recreation, environmental 

stewardship and water supply storage at existing Corps projects. 

Finally, the Civil Works budget provides for protection of waters 

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

The budget for the fiscal year 2009 annual Civil Works program 

is $4.74 billion. In addition, the President’s budget requests $5.761 

billion in fiscal year 2009 emergency appropriations for the Federal 

share of the additional funds needed to reduce the risk to the 

greater New Orleans, Louisiana area from storm surge that have 

a 1 percent annual chance of reoccurring. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $1 million in the Investigations account for independent peer review requirements of Section 

2034 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The Investigations account also includes $2 million for a high priority study, 

authorized by Section 2032(b) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2007, of the vulnerability of the U.S. to damage from flooding. 

The budget again proposes performance criteria to allocate funds 

among construction projects. These criteria give priority for funding 

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

upon objective performance criteria. 

The budget allocates funding among ongoing construction 

projects based primarily on benefit to cost ratio. Priority is also accorded to projects that reduce significant risk to human safety and 

to dam safety assurance, seepage control and static instability correction projects. 

For operations and maintenance of Civil Works projects, the fiscal year 2009 budget provides nearly $2.6 billion in the O&M account and $163 million in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The total is $16 million higher than the fiscal year 2008 

budget for comparable activities which, by the way, in turn, provided a substantial increase itself over prior years’ O&M levels. 

The budget provides $729 million to be appropriated from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operations and maintenance of 

commercial navigation channels and harbors. The growth of the 

trust fund balance and ways to address this balance are being discussed within the Administration. We will continue to work within 

the Administration to develop policies to effectively use the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund. 

14 

Like the budgets of the past two years, the fiscal year 2009 budget proposes to allocate operations and maintenance funding on a regional basis. The budget proposes to allocate operations and maintenance funding among 54 areas based on the USGS subwatersheds. This approach will improve the overall performance of Civil 

Works assets because managers in the field will be better able to 

properly maintain key infrastructure, adapt to uncertainties and 

address emergencies and other changed conditions over the course 

of the fiscal year. 

As anticipated at this time last year, the fiscal year 2009 budget 

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

proposed legislation will be transmitted to Congress after the Executive Branch interagency review of the proposal is completed. 

Prompt enactment of such legislation is needed to address a declining balance in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund which otherwise will run out of funds around the end of the 2008 calendar year 

and to support ongoing and future inland waterway projects. The budget provides $185 million for the Corps of Engineers 

share of the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration program which is the most ever budgeted or appropriated for the 

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

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

fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The budget also includes $20 million for the Louisiana coastal restoration effort including $10 for its important science program. The budget provides $180 million for the Corps Regulatory Program to protect wetlands and other waters of the United States. 

This is the same amount as in the budget and appropriations for 

fiscal year 2008 and represents a $55 million increase since 2001. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget proposes to authorize the New Orleans Area Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System to 

be constructed with the State of Louisiana as the single non-Federal cost-sharing partner and subsequently maintained and operated by the State. 

Pre-Katrina, risk reduction for the greater New Orleans area was 

built as a collection of separately authorized projects, designed with 

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

Based on statutory language proposed in the budget, the nonFederal sponsor would provide $1.5 billion for the non-Federal 

share of this work. The New Orleans area system will be not only 

higher but also stronger than the pre-Hurricane Katrina system. 

Upon passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, 

Madam Chairman, the Chief of Engineers and I established a joint 

team to oversee its implementation. I meet biweekly with this joint 

WRDA implementation team to establish policy, issue implementing guidance and assess progress. 

Priority for implementation guidance is being given to national 

policy provisions, most of which are in Title II, and to those project 

and program provisions for which funds are currently appropriated. 

In summary, Madam Chairman, this budget does not include 

funding for all the good things the Corps of Engineers Civil Works 

program could do in fiscal year 2009. However, at $4.74 billion, it 

15 

does provide the resources the Civil Works program needs to pursue investments that will yield very good returns for the Nation in 

the future. 

This is the last time I will have the opportunity to appear before 

the Subcommittee to present the Army Civil Works budget on behalf of President Bush. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t especially thank the Chairwoman 

and the Members for their many courtesies during my tenure and 

especially for your courtesy in forgiving me last year for not appearing because of my inability to get out of my neighborhood because of the inclement weather. I am delighted that my principal 

deputy, Mr. Dunlop, was able to appear in my stead, but I would 

like to especially mention that as something that I appreciate the 

Committee having done for me. 

Perhaps this is the least of the many, many courtesies and many 

opportunities I have had to learn from each of you, to visit with 

many of you in your districts and in your offices and to learn to 

appreciate the very significant water resource needs of the Nation 

that you are responsible for authorizing. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you so very much. Don’t celebrate yet. We 

might criticize you before you leave. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is my honor to appear before you and Members of the Subcommittee. This is my first time before this Committee. I was appointed in May of last year, and I look forward to building and 

growing relationships with this Committee and working with you 

over time. 

I am committed to at least four years. So, while this might be 

Mr. Woodley’s last, this is my first, and I look forward to a long 

association. 

It was a real busy year in 2007. We have a military program, 

and that isn’t what this is about, but it is the largest we have ever 

had since World War II. We are growing the Army. We are restationing the Army. We are doing base realignment and closure, and 

it is an awesome thing to see out there at our installations, many 

of which are in your districts. 

As part of that business, Civil Works completed over 10 navigation projects last year that we are very proud of, restored over 

5,000 acres of wetlands ecosystem restoration, dredged 175 channels in some of our Nation’s biggest ports, going to 50 feet to really 

enhance the economy of this Country. 

We had 368 million visitor days out to our 4,490 parks and recreation areas, a place where we really are able to touch the American 

people. 

We supported FEMA in response to 10 national emergencies, and 

I am glad to report that none of those were hurricanes that hit 

southeast Louisiana. We were thankful because that is the one 

thing we don’t need now as we are in the restoration process. 

We processed over 87,000 permits, a big load and a challenge for 

us. 

We instituted several initiatives to improve our cost estimates, 

and one was covered in WRDA. It is in the 2009 budget. That is 

16 

for independent review. We think it is very important. We are 

doing both external and internal independent review to make sure 

that we get our project recommendations right. 

This fiscal year 2009 budget is performance-based, focusing on 

the highest economic and environmental returns. That is how we 

stacked up 79 projects for construction, 11 dam safety, 16 life safety, 52 ongoing and completing 12 projects in 2009. 

We have learned a lot of lessons from the Gulf that have helped 

the whole Country, that have helped in levees and other things in 

California and other places. I think this is important to the Country. It would be a crime to have gone through that and not have 

gotten better as a result. So that is what we are committed to. 

Life cycle management, inspections, the Good, Bad and the Ugly 

that was discussed here is really our project review and program 

assessment that we intend to report out this summer. 

I want to just mention as you look behind me here, many members in uniform, the Army Corps of Engineers is an expeditionary 

force. What you can’t see are members in civilian clothes here that 

have also deployed, many of them behind me. Today, we have 800 

members of the Corps of Engineers, mostly civilians, deployed in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, 4 districts doing 4,300 projects and making 

our Nation proud and I would say giving both those countries a 

start. 

It is our commitment in the Corps for continuous improvement, 

and we count on you and accept what you say and work with you 

to make sure that happens. We want to deliver quality. We are absolutely committed to teamwork with our cost-sharing partners in 

your districts and good stewardship of every dollar that is appropriated. 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, General. 

We will now hear questions from the Subcommittee for the panel. 

Mr. Boustany, do you want to begin? 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Before I yield to Mr. LoBiondo because he has a meeting to attend to, I just want to say thank you all for begin here today. I 

want to particularly thank Secretary Woodley for his service. It has 

been a very challenging time on the Gulf Coast for us all, and, 

General Van Antwerp, I am glad that you are up to the challenge. 

So with that, I will yield to Mr. LoBiondo and then follow up 

later with questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I thank my colleague very much and, Madam 

Chair, thank you for holding this important hearing. I appreciate 

our panel being here today. 

General, let me tell you that in my involvement with the Corps 

over the years, I can’t find the right vocabulary to say what a great 

job your folks are doing, continue to do with energy, enthusiasm, 

focus, cost in mind. Everything that we would want and expect, I 

have seen at least in my district, above and beyond the call of duty, 

not just once but time and time and time again. They deserve a 

great big thank you, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for the 

outstanding job they were doing. 

17 

But having said that, Secretary Woodley, I am just absolutely astonished. It is just totally unbelievable to me, and I am outraged 

that OMB continues to zero out these projects. 

It is my understanding that Federal law dictates the policy of the 

United States to promote beach nourishment and periodic beach replenishment, and these are projects that are fully vetted by Congress. The project agreements have been signed with the local 

sponsors to share the costs. All of the Ts were crossed and Is were 

dotted. They are cost-effective, and yet we continue to receive zero 

dollars. 

I can’t believe how shortsighted OMB can be in understanding 

the math that if we have a hurricane or a disaster along our coast, 

you are willing to come in with Federal Government resources and 

hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, but yet we are denied 

the ability to secure life and property for basically a few million 

dollars in each and every one of our communities. I just don’t understand this rationale. It is different than the way it was when 

I first got here. 

These communities are at risk tremendously. I know in my district, the Second District of New Jersey, the estimates differ on 

how overdue we are for a category three, four or five. The law of 

averages at some point is going to catch up to this. The communities are doing everything they can to make sure the protections 

are there, first of all, for the safety of the residents and, secondly, 

for the property. 

I would just like you to help me understand how these decisions 

are made and how we are all left out of the equation. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Sir, thank you so much for sharing your views on 

this. This is something that has been a matter of discussion between the Committee and the Congress and the Administration, 

not just this Administration, but I believe administrations in the 

past. 

But the policy we are advocating is that we will support the 

project and do support numerous projects in the initial construction 

phase and that in the renourishment phase, we are advocating a 

policy under which, with certain fairly substantial exceptions, the 

renourishment phase is a local or State responsibility. 

I understand that there are reasonable minds that differ on the 

wisdom of that policy, but the Administration is suggesting that in 

this way we leverage our scarce Federal resources and that it 

would provide for, in the long run, a more balanced approach to 

maintaining these beach types of storm protection. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I understand. Mr. Secretary, you do understand 

you are dooming these communities just as surely as if the Federal 

formula had been flipped to 35 percent Federal share. You are 

dooming most of the communities to not being able to do this because they just don’t have the resources. They can partner to do 

the resources. 

I think this is very shortsighted because if that disaster hits, you 

are going to be there and you are going to be there to the tune of 

a factor of hundreds of times more than it would be right now. 

Madam Chair, thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mitchell. 

18 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 

you, Assistant Administrator Grumbles and Assistant Administrator Bodine, for being here today. 

I will try to get through as many questions as I can, but since 

I know our time is limited I will be following up with you after the 

hearing with some additional questions in writing. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, the North Indian Bend 

Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale, Arizona has had some serious 

problems of late with which the most serious problem has been 

with excess TCE emissions. 

EPA is currently conducting a full investigation of these problems. My question is do you know when we can expect the final results of an EPA investigation? 

Ms. BODINE. Congressman, let me take that question. I spoke 

with the regional administrator, Wayne Nastri, about this yesterday. I didn’t ask your question, and I apologize that I didn’t and 

I will ask and get back to you immediately. 

I do know, though, that his staff are working very aggressively 

and diligently on that. In fact, what they are working on is coming 

up not just with an investigation of what happened but, even more 

importantly, what are we going to do to take the steps that we 

know we have to take to restore confidence in this system and to 

restore your confidence and the confidence of your constituents. We 

also know that that is a very high bar. 

Mr. MITCHELL. You don’t know the time? 

Ms. BODINE. I failed to ask that question. I will get back to you 

on that immediately. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

The Miller Road water treatment facility which serves the North 

Indian Bend Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale now has had two 

TCE emission episodes in a period of three months. In your experience, is this common for Superfund site water treatment facilities? 

Ms. BODINE. No, not at all. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Are you aware of any other facilities that have 

had multiple episodes such as this in such a short period of time? 

Ms. BODINE. No, I am not aware of any other facilities. 

Mr. MITCHELL. This is the only one that you have? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. This situation is one that we haven’t encountered before and one that we have to be very aggressive about addressing. 

Mr. MITCHELL. It appears that at least part of the problem at the 

Miller Road treatment facility was due to a blower that malfunctioned shortly after the operator left for the day at approximately 

2:30 p.m. The blower’s malfunction was not discovered until 6:30 

a.m. the following day. 

Does it seem reasonable to you that the blower which is responsible for protecting the public drinking water from dangerous levels 

of TCE was left unattended for 16 hours? 

Ms. BODINE. As part of investigating what went wrong and, more 

importantly, looking forward to how to fix it in the future, we are 

going to be looking and the Region 9 staff are going to be looking 

at what needs to be done in the future, again to make sure this 

cannot happen again. 

19 

All alternatives are being looked at, including redundant systems, including requirements for monitoring, including requirements for operator attendance. They are looking at all of that to 

put together a plan which I will ask them to share with you, again, 

because we know we have to restore the confidence of your constituents in this system. And so, we want to make sure that our 

plan meets that standard. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I understand that the EPA issued a draft risk assessment in 2001 entitled TCE Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis 

and Characterizations. Did the EPA ever take any subsequent action on that report? 

Ms. BODINE. The TCE risk assessment was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, and the NAS issued a report about a 

year ago—I don’t remember the exact date—that recommended 

that the Agency use different studies to develop a TCE risk number. 

Our Office of Research and Development is looking at that matter, and continues to look at that in responding to those recommendations. If our Office of Research and Development used the 

data, what the NAS committee was recommending, that would result in allowable exposures to TCE that were 70 times higher. As 

you can imagine, they are looking very seriously at that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. This report came out in 2001. It is now 2008. Was 

there ever a final version of this report that you know of? 

Ms. BODINE. No. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And no final recommendations at all? 

Ms. BODINE. No. That’s the issue. It had gone to the National 

Academy, and the National Academy came out with a report, and 

our Office of Research and Development is reviewing that and determining how to proceed and how to go forward. 

Mr. MITCHELL. When do you expect that to come out? 

Ms. BODINE. I would have to get back to you for the record on 

that and inquire, again, because that work is being done in a different office. 

Mr. MITCHELL. We are talking about the standards of TCE, what 

is acceptable in water, right? 

Ms. BODINE. No. Oh, no. I’m sorry. 

Ben, do you want to respond? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. The question about risk assessments and 

ARARs, the research office in the agency has been working on 

TCE. It is relevant to the water office. It is relevant to the Superfund office. In the meantime, we have in place a current standard 

for TCE. 

Of course, we want to gather the information, the scientific information continuously to look at existing contaminant maximum concentration levels to see if they need to be revised. So the research 

office is working on that through the risk assessment, updating it. 

Mr. MITCHELL. But EPA had done a draft risk assessment, and 

they have done nothing since then. Is that right? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Continue to review the issue. It has been under 

review based on the input from the National Academy of Sciences, 

and that work continues. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

20 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will, again, submit 

some other questions 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I mentioned at the outset several concerns I had and one being 

the southwest Louisiana study which we completed the reconnaissance study, had some additional money for the feasibility study, 

and then in WRDA we have it as expedited or it is under the expedited area in WRDA to move forward, and yet the fiscal year 2009 

budget basically has nothing for this. 

Secretary Woodley, General Van Antwerp, are we ignoring this 

aspect of WRDA or when do you anticipate going forward on southwest Louisiana? 

Mr. WOODLEY. No, sir, we are certainly not ignoring any aspect 

of WRDA. 

The bill was enacted somewhat late in the calendar year, as you 

recall. By that time, our budget is pretty well built, and we were 

able to put a few things in from WRDA that I discussed, that we 

were able to get in. But, generally speaking, we are looking for, as 

we build the 2010 submission to look toward the things that were 

put into WRDA to request funding in that process. 

I can ask, if I could, the Chief to respond to the level or the current status of the planning efforts for all of south Louisiana. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I appreciate that because that would help us in 

planning to secure the local cost-share funding that is going to be 

necessary to proceed. I have meetings back home with local officials 

and State officials on this, and so I just want to make sure we keep 

the ball rolling on this and don’t lose the momentum. 

Likewise with the Morganza to the Gulf project, again, if you 

could make sure that we have good contact back and forth as to 

what is going on because this is a massive undertaking, recognizing 

it is going to be multiple years in the works. But I want to make 

sure that we don’t lose time needlessly because of poor communication going forward. So if you will work with my office on these two 

issues, I would be greatly appreciative. 

On the operations and maintenance part of the budget, I saw the 

$14 million for the Calcasieu Channel which is not quite enough 

to take care of things. I know we have some issues with beneficial 

use of the dredge material we need to work out, but I am very concerned about this because we need to keep that channel dredged 

at the fully authorized depth and width because of the LNG activity that is anticipated with two new facilities under construction 

and scheduled to go online fairly soon plus the expansion of a third. 

I think this is critical beyond just Louisiana, as I mentioned earlier, and so again I want to urge that this should be a priority to 

make sure that we have adequate dredging funds available and 

also a plan for the use of that dredge material. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. We thank you for the $5.761 billion for the levees in New Orleans. It is critically important for safety. We are concerned about the $1.8 billion that the State is going 

to have to put up in cost share. We are still trying to recover from 

these hurricanes. Do you have any ideas? Short of getting that 

21 

cost-share level changed statutorily, are there any other flexibilities 

that you are prepared to mention today that I could bring back 

home to the State of Louisiana with regard to that? 

Mr. WOODLEY. We will be working very closely with the State. 

I am committed. The law does provide the Secretary a pretty wide 

latitude on exactly when to require payments and, while I don’t 

want to set bad precedents anywhere in the Country, I will be looking to use those flexibilities and to work closely with the State. 

When the Federal Government—well, we feel that there is a really strong partnership going on now with the Federal Government 

and the State of Louisiana, and so that is something that we are 

going to foster. You can tell them that to expect us to work closely 

with them, to use our available authorities to minimize what we 

understand is a very heavy burden. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that and 

let me again say thank you on behalf of the State of Louisiana for 

the great work that the Corps is doing. It has been a very good 

partnership as we face some significant challenges. The Corps officials on the ground have done a magnificent job with the resources 

they have been given, and we are certainly appreciative. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

To the Lieutenant General, under the operations and mainte- nance account, the fiscal year 2009 budget is a 2 percent of $44 

million decrease from fiscal year 2008, and the budget provides no 

detail as to how this operations and maintenance will be spent. 

There is a list of systems and the O&M need for the system but 

no detail within the system budget, and this impedes the Congress’ 

ability to provide adequate oversight of the budget process. Why 

isn’t there some detail as to how this budget will be spent? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, ma’am, thank you for the question. 

We did divide this into 54 subwatersheds to look at systems and 

look at what would be required. There are efficiencies that you 

gain. For instance, if you have a holding basin upstream, you may 

not need levees downstream. If you have multiple locks within that 

reach or that subwatershed, there could be exchanges of parts and 

other things to keep the system operating. 

We do have working documents. We have been in conversation 

with OMB, and the current time we have put this out in broad categories of those 54 subwatershed systems. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Can you provide with detail of that budget for 

each of the systems? I don’t mean at this moment. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I think that as long as we are able to do so in 

a way that is not misleading, we would be delighted to do so at the 

appropriate time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay. The Committee request a complete and detailed O&M budget for fiscal year 2009 including the capability of 

each project. That gives us an idea as to how we will proceed with 

requests as well. Thank you. 

Administrator Bodine, a few weeks ago, the publication, Inside 

EPA, ran an article suggesting that the U.S. Department of Defense was again considering a push to limit their environmental 

cleanup and management responsibilities under the Superfund law 

and other environmental statutes. 

22 

As you know, in 2003, the then Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency testified before the Senate of her concern 

with exempting the Department of Defense from compliance with 

the Nation’s environmental laws and her belief that contrary to the 

opinion of the Department of Defense, she was unaware that these 

laws had in any way affected military readiness. 

The Inside EPA article suggested that instead of statutory 

changes, DOD was pursuing administrative relief from Superfund 

and other environmental statutes. Are you aware of any effort by 

DoD to administratively limit its responsibilities under these laws? 

Ms. BODINE. No, Congresswoman, I am not, and I didn’t see that 

Inside EPA article either. I certainly would have inquired, and I 

will inquire now. 

Ms. JOHNSON. What is the position of EPA with respect to the 

DoD statutory responsibilities under the Superfund? 

Ms. BODINE. DoD has extensive responsibilities under Superfund. 

Section 120 of the statute spells those out. When a site is on the 

NPL, we enter into a Federal facility agreement with DoD that 

puts in enforceable requirements on DoD to ensure that those responsibilities are carried out. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay. I would request that you ensure that this 

Committee is kept informed of any administrative or legislative 

proposal of DoD to limit its statutory responsibilities under the Nation’s environmental laws in the name of readiness. 

Ms. BODINE. Okay. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I have to go to the floor, and I am going to ask Ms. Matsui if 

she will take the Chair. 

Ms. MATSUI. [Presiding] We will yield time now to Mr. Boozman 

for questions. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I will yield to Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Ms. Chair. 

Mr. Woodley, in Charleston, we have the Port of Georgetown and 

the Port of Charleston, and I noticed every year we have to really 

negotiate the budget for Georgetown because there is never enough 

appropriated and we have to go back to the appropriators to get the 

money. 

You know all the bad words we have now with earmarks which 

is basically I am having to get earmarks, number one, to keep the 

harbor open at Georgetown. Is there anything that we might be 

able to do particularly in light of the new earmark restrictions that 

we are going to be probably facing? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Congressman, I will have to look into that and get 

back to you. I certainly hope so because I have been an advocate 

for navigation in South Carolina and along the entire Atlantic seaboard and I would hate to see anything done that would degrade 

our capability, given the fact that there is so much commerce that 

is taking place and such an engine of prosperity for that region and 

the Nation as a whole. 

Mr. BROWN. I appreciate you doing that because I know I have 

just have the last year, but it has been kind of a cumulative thing 

since I have been a Member of Congress, that the Georgetown Harbor last year was actually allocated about $2 million, but it took 

23 

$6 million to make it work. So we had to go to the appropriators 

to get the additional $4 million. 

I have a letter from the Corps, not from the Corps but from the 

port, saying that they could focus, they could actually send more 

cargo into the Georgetown Harbor if it was better set up to make 

it work. And so, my question would be if we could be a little bit 

more proactive rather than reactive. 

I know that you have some guidance based on tonnage. I believe 

it is what? Is it a million tons or something? What is your cutoff? 

Mr. WOODLEY. You are correct. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, one million tons for budget navigation projects. 

Who set that number? 

Mr. WOODLEY. That is a number that is set within the Administration. Obviously, it is rather arbitrary, but it is intended to give 

us a dividing line on which we can make decisions. 

But I think that we have some ability to look beyond that, and 

I would like to look into Georgetown which is one I have not had 

an opportunity to really study and see what we can do. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. Well, I appreciate that because I think if we 

could focus more shipments into Georgetown, we probably could 

take some transportation off the highways by using barges and 

other mechanisms there. 

Another problem we always deal with every year is the deepening of the Intracoastal Waterway, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. I know last year about $800,000 was appropriated through 

the budget, and we had to go to the appropriators for another $1.3 

million. 

I know this year $724,000 is being asked. Just to get back to 

where we were last year is going to require $1.4 million. But you 

know and I know it is probably along the whole Intracoastal Waterway. It is probably about $20 million deferred maintenance on 

dredging that to keep it open. 

To give you idea, back to the Georgetown Harbor, this year’s request is $690,000. You know $690,000 wouldn’t hardly do anything 

if there is a $6 million need. I believe it is an additional 2.1 this 

year, but anyway if you could look at that because it is a continuing problem. 

Like I said, we are having to use earmarks chargeable to me in 

order to keep that port open and certainly the commerce there. We 

have the steel mill and the paper mill and some other items that 

we need to continue to keep going. If we don’t keep that harbor 

open, those industries won’t be able to continue. So I appreciate 

your looking into that. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I apologize. I have been to Georgetown Harbor. I 

know what you are talking about. I am sorry. I just caught it to 

mind. It has been a couple years now, but I will certainly look into 

that. That is a very fine harbor and a very fine operation they are 

running down there, and I would be very concerned to learn that 

we were not able to maintain their channels. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay, because like I said, in light of the new earmark concerns, I am not so sure what kind of flexibility we might 

have in this year’s appropriations. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for being here. Ms. Bodine, good seeing you again. 

24 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Woodley, I thank you very much and, General 

Van Antwerp and all of you, for being here. I want to thank you, 

especially Secretary Woodley, for your kind attention to Sacramento. We do have a lot of flood control problems. 

I have a question regarding I am happy that the President’s 

budget requested funding for the Joint Federal Project, which you 

know is a joint project between the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation, to capability in fiscal year 2009 of $9 million. Now the 

bureau has already begun excavation, and I believe the Corps will 

be ready for their part of the construction, fiscal year 2010. However, this will require a greater commitment of funds. 

Now, does your budget reflect the necessary commitments to 

funding for this project in fiscal year 2010 and beyond so construction can proceed? 

As you know, we have a target date of completion of about 2015 

and every additional year would add somewhere around thirty or 

forty million dollars to the project, and we would like to get this 

done as quickly as possible. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Ma’am, I will not be here next year. 

Ms. MATSUI. I realize that. 

Mr. WOODLEY. As long as I am here, that project will have the 

highest priority within the Civil Works of the Corps of Engineers 

that I am capable of giving it. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

I am looking ahead, though, because I think this is something 

that should be put out there that these projects are multi-year. 

They need to have the capabilities every year. 

I have a question probably for you, Secretary Woodley, and 

maybe General Van Antwerp. I understand the Corps is supportive 

of watershed approaches to flood protection, and I support this approach as well. However, as you know, it has been very difficult to 

justify projects within your current rules unless there is a favorable 

benefit to cost ratio, which does not adequately take into consideration the value of human life and devastating consequences of 

major catastrophic flooding. 

Oftentimes, nonstructural watershed approach projects don’t 

have a BCR because it is not a dam, a levee or a weir. It might 

provide open space for high water events and ecosystem restoration, wastewater management, et cetera. 

I would like to see the Corps work on a method of providing better tools for analyzing all categories of project benefits, not just easily quantifiable ones, so that we can give OMB, you and Congress 

what we need for these types of projects and approaches. Are you 

currently actively working on that? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I believe that concept is among those requirements that are mandated and called for by WRDA 2007, and we 

are indeed actively working on the new set of metrics and new analytical tools that will allow us to address the WRDA provisions. It 

will not be easy. It is not a short term effort, but I believe we have 

seen what the Committee has put forth and what the Congress has 

put forth, and we endorse it and are going to seek to embrace it. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

As you know, in Sacramento, we have been on the leading edge 

of levee work. Next to New Orleans, we are the most at-risk river 

25 

city. So, therefore, we have been dealing with strengthening our 

levees, and we have been working on this for quite a long time, 

feeling that we have met the standards. 

After Katrina, we are reassessing, obviously. We are on the leading edge, and we find out that our levees don’t meet the so-called 

standards. 

Now we want, obviously, safety first. That is very important to 

us. However, as we move forward, I think nationwide we are going 

to be finding that this is going to be happening across the board. 

Now Congress authorized a new National Levee Safety program 

in WRDA 2007 with annual funding of $20 million, and this program is designed to continue the ongoing levee inventory but also 

to create a committee that is to report back to Congress within the 

180 days with recommendations for a new National Levee Safety 

program and a strategic plan for implementation. 

This budget only provides $10 million for levee inventory. Is this 

adequate to conduct the levee inventory and create the committee? 

The justification sheets seem to indicate that the committee will 

be formed but does not indicate that the program recommendations 

will be completed. So, if you would follow up on that, is that accurate and why is the Corps not going to complete this important policy component in a timely manner? 

I realize this is all wrapped up in a compound question, but it 

is something that we are all concerned about as we move forward. 

We need to get a handle on how we deal with some of these levee 

questions, knowing that there are regional differences certainly in 

California and the Midwest. So, if you could just answer, that 

would be great. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, ma’am. We were able to address only a limited number of the WRDA initiatives in our 2009 submission, and 

that is one of them. We have addressed that in the levee inventory 

line item, and we have begun it at what I would have to describe 

as a low initial level of funding sufficient to establish the committee. 

I think the 180-day deadline is probably not going to be met. 

Ms. MATSUI. Just to follow up, it is just so important as we move 

forward. I think everyone here who has levees is worried about the 

situation, and this is going to be an ongoing situation. So I encourage you to look at this and perhaps more emphasis on this. 

So, thank you. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Grumbles, as you know better than any of us, the Nation’s 

infrastructure as far as the wastewater, things like that, is just 

wearing out. Many of our communities, I have communities that 

literally it is the same pipes, the same whatever that were there 

when the community started. 

As you all get more aggressive, which you should, in an effort to 

continue to protect the environment and things like that, it is really very difficult for them to come up with the resources to get 

things fixed. The Clean Water State Revolving Funds, you are proposing that we actually not do what we have done in the past even, 

much less than increase that. 

26 

So I think we are kind of putting these places in a catch-22 situation. I mean we are getting aggressive. We are asking them to do 

things that they need to do and yet are reluctant to help with the 

funding. Yet, I understand that there is a limited amount of funding. 

But many of these, they have exhausted their ability as far as 

municipal bonds. They are trying to do the right thing. They go 

into the open market, and it is so much more expensive. So there 

is a less amount that can be done if they can even do that. 

Can you comment on that and kind of give us some guidance as 

far as the agency’s thinking? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I certainly can, Congressman, and I can tell you 

that one of the Administrator’s highest priorities this year is to 

focus in on water and wastewater infrastructure and to use technology, innovation and partnerships to have a more sustainable approach for the future because, as you point out, the needs grow as 

the pipes get older, the plants age, the water quality standards and 

requirements continue to increase, which I think the American 

public supports and EPA certainly does, and also as population 

pressures increase. 

So the vision for us, that is also part of this budget request is to continue to deliver on the commitment of the $6.8 billion 

through 2011 for Federal seed money for capitalization of those 

SRFs which continue to grow, but it is also to work with our State 

and local and tribal partners, particularly at the utility level, on attributes of effective management. 

What that means is working together using technologies and improved, more cost-effective ways to monitor the health of the infrastructure which is often out of sight and out of mind, these buried 

assets that are community assets, to be able to monitor their replacement and repair and rehab and find more cost-effective ways 

of doing that. Our research office has been working on that, and 

we are committed to it as well. 

It is also coming up with innovative approaches which is what 

the Water Enterprise Bonds are all about. We want to increase 

local choice and opportunity so that if a community wants to issue 

a bond that has substantial involvement by the private sector, they 

are not confronted with a barrier under the current U.S. Tax Code. 

We think that is one important, innovative tool to add to the toolbox. 

The other one, though, Congressman, is the more we increase the 

awareness and the importance of water and wastewater infrastructure and work with elected officials at the local level the more we 

will continue to see a move towards full cost pricing, water rates 

that reflect the true value of the services and the need to invest 

over time. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No, and I agree, and I think that is great as you 

go forward with some of the technology and things. It is difficult 

for the communities, the older communities in good faith of trying 

to do things right, and it just costs an awful lot of money. 

I guess I am for aggressively doing our best to protect the environment and clean things up, but unless we provide additional 

funding with the additional requirements, then basically we have 

an unfunded mandate, and so I would just really encourage you all. 

27 

Also, I want to thank all of you. I have worked with all of you 

very closely, and I do appreciate the hard work, and I know where 

your hearts are at in this. Again, we are all struggling. We wish 

that we could just snap our fingers and give you all the money you 

needed, but I do appreciate you. 

I wish you really would look at that and fight for all you can get 

because each year there is a lot of this stuff if you let stuff go. 

Right now there is a lot of stuff, and I see this with so many 

things. You have the ability to fix it now, but if you let it go a little 

longer, then it becomes irreparable and then you have to rip it out 

and then it becomes much more expensive. 

So if we can help by giving that encouragement and giving, not 

giving but working with our communities, which you are trying to, 

like I say, it would be much appreciated. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have some questions I think for you, Mr. Woodley or for the 

General. I just want to go over some numbers. I want to make sure 

I have them right, and then I would ask you to help me understand 

them. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Corps budget for the Westhampton beach nourishment project, which is a court ordered project, was $3.4 million. Pardon me, in fiscal year 2008, that number is. In fiscal year 

2009, the request is $1.25 million. 

For the west of Shinnecock project, a project designed to prevent 

a breach in the event of a serious nor’easter or a serious stuff, the 

fiscal year 2008 number is $2.5 million. The fiscal year 2009 number is $400,000. 

The Fire Island to Montauk Point reformulation study, fiscal 

year 2008, we are budgeting a million dollars. Fiscal year 2009, the 

President’s budget requests $500,000. 

So, A, my question is do I have these numbers right, and B, if 

I do have them right, how do you suggest that that shoreline be 

protected in the two areas that are the most vulnerable, the 

Westhampton dune area and the west of Shinnecock area? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Bishop, those numbers don’t immediately correlate to the numbers that I had previous been provided. So I am 

going to have to take the matter you raise for the record and get 

back to you on it to give you the exact numbers on it. I thought 

the figures were somewhat higher. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. I would appreciate it if you would do that. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I hope they are. 

Mr. BISHOP. I hope your memory is correct also because these are 

two very important projects and, as I said at the outset, I think the 

Corps has done great work in our district and I would hate to see 

us backslide because we are not providing appropriate resources for 

the Corps to do its work. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I am particularly interested in the one where we 

are discharging obligations pursuant to the court. 

Mr. BISHOP. The West Hampton dunes beach nourishment 

project, yes. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I will take your matter for the record if I may and 

get back to you as soon as possible. 

28 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

My second question is for Mr. Grumbles. The history of the EPA 

budget over the course of the Bush Presidency has been an unfortunate one. Each year, we lament the fact that the budget is cut 

from the previous year. In my opening statement, I cited, for example, the eight-year decline in the Clean Water State Revolving 

Loan Fund. 

I just heard your response to Mr. Boozman’s question. It continues to seem to me, and I heard you say the State Clean Water 

Revolving Fund is a very high priority for the Administrator, but 

I have a hard time squaring that with a one-year reduction of almost 20 percent and an eight-year reduction of almost 60 percent. 

Also, the other problem that I have is I think we all have an obligation to be fiscally responsible. I read in the New York Times that 

Mr. Nussle, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 

says that in sheer dollar terms the deficit doesn’t mean anything. 

We have had Vice President Cheney say that deficits don’t matter. 

If those are assertions are correct, if deficits don’t matter, if the 

sheer dollar amount of the deficit means nothing, why is it that we 

are not more vigilant about seeing to it that the environment receives its fair share of the Federal budget? 

I mean the numbers that we are talking about in the context of a $3.1 trillion budget are not daunting numbers. 

I guess my question is why is there not the commitment, at least 

in the area of water projects, that I think most reasonable people 

would think that this Nation ought to be putting forth, particularly 

given the fact that we have a crumbling infrastructure and particularly given the fact that our environment has such an intimate relationship with our economic well being? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, our view is that $2.5 billion is a 

substantial and reasonable investment in the context of the Federal EPA budget. What we are focused on doing is building more 

sustainable approaches, particularly in the water arena that I am 

familiar with. 

We know that earmarks and unrealistic authorizations are not 

going to get the job done. We know that more needs to be done, 

and it needs to be done through innovative approaches. The investments in this budget for infrastructure and for the watershed programs and for standards setting will keep us on course for making 

progress, but we know that to accelerate the progress, it require innovative approaches. 

State programs continue to mature. They, in most cases, are carrying out the Clean Water Act regulatory programs, and so we 

have an oversight responsibility and ensuring that sound science is 

part of that. So we believe that this budget will continue to make 

progress, and we are also committed to using new tools. 

Congressman, you have a lot to be proud of in the Long Island 

Sound area, the concept of innovative market-based approaches for 

nutrients, nutrient loadings to the Sound. 

For us, we view the wave of the future is through water quality 

trading. 

We can do more with less, with less Federal taxpayer dollars, get 

more environmental results. The way to do that is by working with 

States and with the private sector and with the utilities. It includes 

29 

using innovative approaches and clean water reg permits. That 

doesn’t translate necessarily into an increase in our EPA budget, 

but we think it is going to translate into improved environmental 

results. 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Bishop, could you submit the rest in writing, 

the rest of the questions? 

Mr. BISHOP. I would be happy to. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Grumbles, the EPA’s gap analysis assumes that municipalities can borrow below market rates. But if they have to borrow at 

market rates to make up for the shortfall in available capital in the 

State Revolving Funds, how much more money is it going to take 

to finance the needed infrastructure improvements at market 

rates? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, the gap analysis laid out various 

assumptions and different approaches to this important question. 

What we found was that over a 20-year period for clean water capitalization needs, that if you made an assumption of an increase in 

revenues of 3 percent above inflation, that the capital infrastructure gap would be $21 billion over a 20-year period. 

If you don’t assume an increase in the revenues, then it would be a higher number, $45 billion. I am sorry. It would be a higher 

number. It would be approximately $270 billion. [Subsequent to 

hearing, edited to read: approximately $122 billion.] 

So what we recognize in the gap analysis is we need to have 

these pillars of sustainability where we are finding and helping 

find more cost-effective approaches to capitalization as well as the 

maintenance of infrastructure systems. 

We think the Water Enterprise Bonds, now is the time for those 

because there is a willingness in the private sector to invest in 

water and wastewater projects. These are community assets. It is 

a community decision whether or not to have some private sector 

involvement in it. 

And so, what our proposal is to help accelerate the progress on 

narrowing the gap between needs and revenue sources. We want 

to remove the barriers in the tax code to investment by the private 

sector through the use of private activity bonds if and only if the 

community wants to go down that road. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Secretary Woodley, we are starting to see demand for water outstripping supply, and now we are seeing disputes among the States 

both in the eastern part of the Country and the western part of the 

Country. What do you see the role of the Corps being in helping 

to ensure an adequate water supply and working through these 

disputes? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Congressman, I see the role of the Corps as the 

Federal Government’s and, indeed, the Nation’s engineer in that 

context. 

I think the Corps of Engineers should support the efforts of 

States to resolve any disputes among themselves with expert advice as to what the capabilities are of the currently existing infrastructure, how that infrastructure itself and its operations can be 

30 

modified to support the goals of the States and the needs of their 

communities, and what options may exist for additional measures, 

which may run the whole gamut of measures from conservation to 

new construction that can be done in an environmentally sustainable way to meet the needs of the future. 

I do not, emphatically do not see the Corps of Engineers as having a role as a referee among the States or as an arbiter among 

the States or as a determiner of winners and losers in water resource negotiations. I would reject any attempt to place the Corps 

of Engineers in that role, but these issues cannot be resolved in 

many cases without the participation of the Corps of Engineers 

along with many other Federal agencies in an effort to inform decision-makers of their options and to inform them of consequences of 

various courses of action that may be proposed. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

General Van Antwerp, in looking at the operations and maintenance budget request, it is only slightly above what the President 

requested for fiscal year 2008. 

There is concern that expected maintenance may not be met and 

there will be again more deferred maintenance. What do you think 

the dollar amount is at this time for current maintenance backlog 

and is this backlog growing? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would say that the backlog is growing. 

I don’t have a figure. We can try and pull that together. 

What we really looked at is we have emphasized performance 

and we have emphasized criticality to safety and those other 

things. So, for instance, let’s take the dams. We are going after 

those high priority dams and the levees, part of the levee inventory 

is to get at those that are most important to be done right now. 

There is, I would say, a huge backlog without giving you a number, but we are prioritizing that so that we are looking definitely 

at the health and safety and welfare first. We use what we call a 

risk-based approach, and that is how we prioritize these projects. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I think it would be useful for the Committee to 

be able to track that backlog year in and year out and have a number that the Corps provides, using some kind of consistent methodology because it may give us some insights into how we might 

change the way we are doing things, working with you guys. 

So, I thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of our 

witnesses. I am grateful for the Corps for many, many things especially for your help in the 19th District of New York where we have 

suffered from three 50-year floods in the last four years. 

I was in Los Angeles, two weekends ago and was told just before 

I landed that there had been a tornado that touched down in Hollywood. This past Tuesday morning, my wife and I were awakened 

in Dover Plains, New York, in upstate northeastern New York, by 

a February 5th thunderstorm. Little did we know that later that 

same evening, storms would hit across several States in the South 

that would kill 50 people at last count. 

With this in mind and with climate change appearing to be underway, I wanted to ask Administrator Grumbles about a memoVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:53 May 01, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\40695 JASON
31 

randum you issued last March 1st, stating, ‘‘The National Water 

Program and its partners should take prudent steps now to assess 

emerging information, evaluate potential impacts of climate change 

on water programs and identify appropriate response actions,’’ and 

laid out a schedule leading to the finalization of that strategy in 

late 2007. 

Could you tell us what is the current state of that document? 

Where is it in the approval and vetting process and when can we 

expect for it to be finalized and published? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Congressman. 

You are referring to a draft National Water Program Climate 

Change Strategy. I have talked to Chairwoman Napolitano about 

it as well and others. 

It is going through internal review. We are also coordinating 

with other agencies. We recognize that water is such a critical component of successfully confronting climate change. So, in terms of 

a timetable, the one that I laid out in that memorandum was an 

aggressive and ambitious one, but I am certainly committed to 

making progress on it. 

I can tell you, Congressman, as folks are reviewing the document, we are also thinking of real-time issues that are arising. 

Utilities, wastewater, water utilities, State water and drinking 

water agencies are also giving us their views on climate change 

and the range of issues. I am very pleased with the progress we 

have had so far on draft and getting comments on it and look forward to finalizing it in the coming weeks. 

Mr. HALL. Excuse me. I only have a short time. Can you give us 

a guess as to the date when we may see this document? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. My goal would be to put it out for public comment in the coming weeks. 

Mr. HALL. Okay, thank you. 

According to EPA, the Superfund budget request for this year is $1.264 billion which is just about flat from last year’s levels. EPA 

claims that this will allow them to complete remedies at 35 sites 

even though last year only 24 sites were completed in fiscal year 

2007 with about the same funding levels. How do we expect to do 

more remediation this year with roughly the same resources? 

Ms. Bodine, do you want to answer that? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. Yes, thank you very much. 

The number of sites that we expect to clean up in 2008 and then 

in 2009 under this budget is up. It is based on where sites are in 

the cleanup process. 

So we have 35 sites that have gone through the study phase and 

the phase for selecting the remedy and designing the remedy. So 

we expect that those sites then will proceed to the completion of 

cleanup, using the resources in the 2009 budget. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. 

Ms. BODINE. So those numbers are based on where the sites are. 

Mr. HALL. There are different degrees of effort and scope or 

scale? 

Ms. BODINE. Cleaning up a site is not a one-year process. It is 

a multiple year process. When the construction of a site is completed, it is based on all the work that was done in the years before, and we identify the number of sites that we expect to be 

32 

cleaned up in a year based on the ones that we see coming and 

moving through the process. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. If I could ask a couple of questions and if we 

don’t have time, maybe I could get the answers in writing. 

Ms. BODINE. Sure. 

Mr. HALL. One is does the budget including any funding to update the human health standard for TCE? I have a TCE Superfund 

site in my district as well as Mr. Mitchell does in his. 

Ms. BODINE. Right. 

Mr. HALL. How does the ready for anticipated use differ from 

construction complete, the tradition measure of a Superfund cleanup? 

If at the end of fiscal year 2009 you expect roughly 100 construction completes but only 64 ready for anticipated use sites, what do 

we make of the protective measures of the remaining 1,000 NPL 

sites? 

That is a lot of questions in a row but if you could. 

Ms. BODINE. On the amount of the Office of Research and Development budget that is going towards the TCE risk number, I would 

have to ask them to answer that for the record. 

On the ready for anticipated use measure that we have that is 

under the Superfund program, I would dispute that construction 

completion should be considered the traditional measure of Superfund progress. It is an interim measure. It means that the construction of the remedy is complete, but it doesn’t mean that we 

have met all of the cleanup standards and it doesn’t meant that we 

have controls in place. 

If you have cleaned up to one level, when it is residential, then 

you don’t need controls. But if you have a commercial or industrial 

cleanup standard, you have to put controls in place to make sure 

that the property is only used for those purposes, and that is how 

you ensure long term protectiveness. 

So, the ready for reuse measure then goes beyond construction 

complete and makes sure that the land is ready for reuse and that 

the institutional controls are in place. 

The low numbers that you were citing do not reflect this. We are 

doing much. We are doing well with this. Because it was a new 

measure, we had a target of 30. We are doing very well with it. 

The issue that this measure is intended to address is the fact 

that we haven’t done a good job in the past of getting our institutional controls in place, and we are aggressively going after that 

issue, and this measure is a way for us to put management attention and management pressure on that issue. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I will ask more questions in writing. 

I yield back. 

Ms. BODINE. Thank you. 

Mr. KAGEN. [Presiding.] Mr. Boustany, do you have any other 

questions? 

Mr. BOUSTANY. No, I don’t. 

Mr. KAGEN. In that case, having no questions, I will recognize 

myself. Thank you for coming before us. 

I think I am the next in order unless you would like to go first, 

Mrs. Napolitano. You can start the clock now. 

33 

It is interesting that where I come from in the real world, there 

is a lot of teamwork where we identify a common goal, a common 

problem and we work together to try and solve that problem, and 

I have to admire the EPA and the Corps for working together as 

a team. 

What I am astonished about as a newcomer to this place is that 

the President of the United States would sign an executive order, 

making certain that everyone understands he values and treasures 

the quality of the water of the Great Lakes, and yet he doesn’t invest in his budget proposal in cleaning up those Great Lakes. So 

allow me to ask you a question. 

Are you aware that cleaning up the hot spots in the Great Lakes 

will have a very beneficial effect on businesses and on human 

health, Mr. Grumbles? It is a yes or no. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, there is a half a billion dollars investment in the Great Lakes. I would just say that there is a recognition that the Great Lakes are a treasure and it is important 

for the Federal Government to invest. So there is an investment in 

this budget as in previous budgets. 

On the areas of concern—— 

Mr. KAGEN. Let me interrupt because in the Great Lakes Legacy 

Act, you wanted to spend $34 million or $35 million dollars, and 

yet appropriated was an amount of $50 million. So there is a disconnect between what you say you are for and what you are willing 

to spend your money on. 

Where I come from in Wisconsin, it is really a reflection of your 

values as to how you spend your money. So maybe you can explain 

to me why there is a difference of $35 million to $50 million or $54 

million. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, we have consistently requested 

more funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act than has been appropriated by Congress. The $50 million that you are referring to is 

the authorized level. 

We have, in the past, sought full funding. Right now, what we 

are focused on is requesting $35 million. 

We share your view that investing in the accelerated cleanup of 

those hot spots brings environmental and economic progress. So we 

are committed to working with the Congress on that, and that is 

a priority, one of the priority areas for the EPA when it comes to 

the Great Lakes. 

Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Grumbles, are you aware that the water levels 

of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior appear to be declining rather 

rapidly? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I have heard about that. I understand that that 

is an area of concern, a growing concern. 

Mr. KAGEN. In your budget, how much money have you budgeted 

for study that issue? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. EPA takes very seriously our proper roles and 

responsibilities under the law, whether it is WRDA or the Clean 

Water Act. So we, as an agency, do not get in water quantity or 

water allocation or water levels for the Great Lakes. 

We do have in our budget request, $22 million for the Great 

Lakes National Program Office who partners with other agencies 

34 

that are studying lake levels and effects, climate-related or other 

effects. 

Mr. KAGEN. Let me direct that question to the Army Corps. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, Congressman, as we look at the 

budget from 2008 to 2009 and get into details—and this concerns 

dredging primarily—it was $92 million in 2008, $89 million in 2009 

but more dredging in 2009. 

There are non-dredging items in there to include studies of water 

quality and quantity and different ports and their subsistence levels and all of that. So there is more dredging in the 2009 budget 

than there was in the 2008 for the Great Lakes. 

Mr. KAGEN. I appreciate that. 

In April of this year, I believe on April 18th, we are going to have 

a field hearing, a Congressional hearing in Green Bay, and I look 

forward to hearing in greater detail and greater length your testimony and findings as to what your reasoning might be for the decline in water level in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. We will 

take a look at that. 

Which of your agencies is primarily responsible for eliminating 

the invasive species that now predominate the Great Lakes, Mr. 

Grumbles? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. One of the priority issues for the taskforce that 

the President set up in the executive order in May of 2004, the 

interagency taskforce which EPA chairs, one of the priority issues 

is invasive species. We have a role. Army Corps of Engineers has 

a significant role in it, as Mr. Woodley can testify to. 

Mr. KAGEN. Are you able to give me a dollar amount as to what 

you have requested in funding to study and remediate the invasive 

species issue? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think the question should be posed also to the 

Coast Guard and to NOAA and to USGS. 

In terms of the EPA, we have as part of that $22 million. I am just saying as part of that $22 million for the Great Lakes National 

Program Office, we are working on invasive species, the rapid response plans that we have developed. But we are not the primary 

agency in terms of either regulatory or funding for invasives, but 

it is a priority issue, Congressman. 

Mr. KAGEN. I look forward to covering that in some detail on 

April 18th in Green Bay, Wisconsin. 

I yield my time. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn’t mean to cut 

you off. I thought you were going to close the meeting, and I still 

have many questions. I will submit them for the record. 

But first, I want to tell my colleagues that EPA and the Army 

Corps have been great supporters in the California area that I represent. I have worked extensively on many projects, and I really 

thank for the support that we have been getting whether it is in 

my Subcommittee or in dealing with you. 

I have questions that I am going to have for the record but more 

importantly, as I was listening to the answer to Ms. Matsui’s question in regard to the Federal Government, the Department of Defense limiting the environmental law under the Superfund, I have 

a Superfund site in my area in the tank farm that has JP4 and 

35 

JP5 operated by the Air Force with subcontracting to Kinder Morgan. It has been under cleanup for many years. 

Now, as I am finding, I think it is more than just us in California. The Department of Defense is probably going to sell off 

properties without finishing the cleanup. 

That sets a lot of questions in my mind about whether or not the 

developer that is going to be purchasing that property will be able 

to do it to the extent that is required or find additional contaminants that might then cause that project to fold and then it goes 

back to the community as a generation of funds for the general 

fund and, of course, the contaminations in those areas. 

So I am going to put a question in writing to both the EPA and 

to the Army Corps, and we have talked extensively with EPA on 

the water quality. 

The other questions have to do with the Army Corps on the 

Whittier Narrows Dam which is a high risk designation. There are 

issues there again that it is owned and operated by the Corps on 

the San Gabriel River. It is kind of a holding of runoff so it doesn’t 

go into the ocean. 

Apparently, in the past, there had been a question as to whether 

or not they could raise the amount of water because it surrounded 

by communities all around it, raise the amount of water it could 

hold. But because there were oil rigs in the area, oil operations, 

they were concerned that it would flood those wells. 

Now they are gone. The wells are no longer operable, and so we 

are asking the Corps to take a look at being able to increase the 

captivity of that runoff to be able to provide more water for the settling ponds to go into the aquifers. That is another one. 

Let’s see. I would like to sit down and work and possibly get a 

commitment on being able to work on that as soon as possible since 

we are into the rainy season and being able to capture as much of 

that rainwater for the benefit of that whole area. 

In my mind, I am hearing you talk about invasive species up in 

the Great Lakes. We have invasive species in Texas in the canals. 

We have invasive species in many other areas. 

We need to ensure that whatever your findings are, that those 

invasive species, that you find how to address them, how to be able 

to go in, what is the research and development coming up with because those are taking up a lot of the water. We need to understand that if we don’t take proactive steps, we are going to be in 

a world of hurt. We need all the water we can get. 

Another question for Mr. Grumbles. In the U.S.-Mexico border 

infrastructure, apparently, there are a lot of issues with the U.S. 

and Mexico with treated drinking water. Both sides are affected, 

especially with the wastewater. The untreated sewage flows from 

Mexico into the U.S. basically, and so the issues are health issues. 

There is $209 million in unspent funds that have been obligated 

to the water infrastructure projects remaining in NADBank. The 

Administration is cutting significant funding from its Mexico border water infrastructure assistance program due to the program’s 

slow rate of project development over the last 10 years. 

What agency in the Federal Government has responsibility to ensure that the border infrastructure funding of $209 million is spent 

promptly, prudently and effectively and why has this large amount 

36 

of money not been allowed to be utilized or why has it gone 

unspent? 

Then what agency in the Federal Government has responsibility 

to ensure that the project development does not occur at a slow 

rate and, given the needs of both borders, why has the project 

taken such a long time? 

And there you have it, five minutes worth of questions. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I will go first. 

On the invasive species front, you are absolutely right. It is a 

growing national challenge, environmentally and economically, and 

there is growing investment in the solutions. 

Prevention and detection and rapid response are the keys. Ballast water, we are working with the other agencies on cost-effective 

treatment technologies and different types of response regimes, and 

the Coast Guard is a key component of that. 

We know that it is various and different types of species. In the 

Great Lakes, for instance, it is 160 new species that are in the 

Great Lakes, non-native invasive species. 

On the U.S.-Mexico border, the border environmental infrastructure—— 

Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Grumbles, let me interrupt. Could you please 

answer her in writing for us in the interest of time? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Don’t worry. I’ll be in touch. Thank you. 

Mr. KAGEN. I now recognize my good friend, Gene Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for the 

inconvenience to Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mr. Woodley, how much money is in the President’s budget request for the mandatory buy-out of properties for people whose 

homes were either destroyed or damaged during Hurricane 

Katrina? The key word there is mandatory. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I heard that word. I don’t know of any money in 

the President’s budget for that purpose. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Could I get that in writing from you? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The reason I say that is I am glad this meeting is 

now and not last fall because I have had about six weeks to calm 

down. 

When the word appeared in the local newspapers in south Mississippi to folks who had lost their homes, been screwed by their 

insurance companies, borrowed to the hilt to rebuild their homes, 

that the Corps of Engineers was going to come take their houses 

away, you can imagine the reaction. It came to the Corps’ words 

versus mine. 

Again, so I am normally, 99 percent of the time, a huge fan of 

the Corps, but I cannot begin to tell you how poorly your agency 

handled that entire situation. Just as a word of advice to other 

Corps employees, again folks who know they have a job a year from 

now, don’t ever make that mistake again. 

I am sure that people went to the hospital over this. They were 

so upset. 

You normally do, your agency normally does better. They handled that very poorly. I will say it as politely as I can. Six weeks 

ago, I wouldn’t have been so polite. 

37 

The second thing, recently, one of the counties affected by Hurricane Katrina that had chosen to do its own debris removal and, 

more specifically, take care of what were called hangers and 

leaners. These are the trees that died as a result of the storm. 

They were still hanging on and they were leaning over rights of 

way for roads. They were a public safety menace and, therefore, removed. 

There was a problem with FEMA reimbursing those counties. We 

had asked the Corps that had the responsibilities for some coastal 

counties for that exact same problem, that they had contractors to 

do the exact same thing, to release those numbers. How much did 

they pay for this exact same procedure so that this county could 

justify their expenditures to FEMA? The Corps refused to release 

those numbers. 

Now I am on the Armed Services Committee. I can get the cost 

of a cruise missile. I can get the cost of a next generation of aircraft 

carriers. Why on Earth should something as simple as debris removal be considered proprietary information? 

That is silly, and it caused a great deal of heartburn to the largest county in my Congressional district. Again, it is just uncalled 

for, and you need to do better. 

The third thing is a continual frustration with the Corps on the 

desire of south Mississippi to do beneficial use with our dredge material. We lost a heck of a lot of coastal marshes during the storm. 

We lost large portions of our barrier islands. 

The Corps has several publicly maintained channels, Federally 

maintained channels that have periodic dredging and periodic need 

to dispose of that material, and yet it seems like every time I am 

not looking. I will be driving around south Mississippi. I will see 

a dredge. I will see a discharge, and there is open water disposal 

when you have all these needs that are going unmet. 

Again, it shouldn’t take the local Congressman hounding the 

local Corps office. It if is the policy of this Nation, it ought to be 

the policy of this Nation every time and not just when I am looking. 

Again, I would very much request in writing an answer to the 

first. I would like to hear your answer for the second and third because, again, I am a big fan of the Corps. I defend you at my public 

meetings, but those three actions aren’t defendable. 

So let’s start with why did anyone in your agency think it should 

be proprietary information to embargo the cost per cubic yard of 

moving debris or removing dead trees? 

Mr. WOODLEY. The answer, I don’t know the answer to that 

question. 

Mr. TAYLOR. We contacted your agency. We gave your agency a 

number of opportunities to answer that question. 

The contractor, who did the work, gladly gave us the information. 

The last guy we thought would give it to us gave it to us. 

The question is that is public money. That ought to be publicly 

available. Again, it should have been a no-brainer. 

The third one, okay, beneficial use of dredge material. 

Mr. WOODLEY. We support the beneficial use of dredge material. 

Unless there is some cost issue associated with where the concept 

of beneficially using it is cost-prohibitive, then I would say we 

38 

should be using it in every case. There is a cost issue involved, so 

we would have to look at each individual situation. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, if I may, this goes back at least six 

years where I have even been asking for the designation of sites 

ahead of time, working with the State of Mississippi which owns 

all the bottom lands. This will be our site when we dredge this 

channel. This is going to be our site when we dredge this channel. 

Six years later, those negotiations haven’t taken place. I mean in 

the General’s aid, I have great respect for the General, but this is 

what the Army calls a slow roll. I think I am going to outlive the 

folks who are slow-rolling me, but I shouldn’t have to. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Let me just ask. Are these observations in the 

portion of your district that is managed by the Mobile District? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. Again, the sooner you can get me the letter 

about no mandatory buy-outs, today would not be too soon. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KAGEN. Very good. 

I just had one more question for both agencies. If you could 

please provide the Committee with the report on your existing personnel and who is ready to retire and how you are planning to replace those people, we would certainly appreciate it, so we can understand your needs a little bit better. 

Any other questions at all? 

There being no other questions, I will ask for an adjournment. 

How does that sound? 

Thank you very much for being here. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

39 


40695.009
40 


40695.010
41 


40695.011
42 


40695.012
43 


40695.013
44 


40695.014
45 


40695.015
46 


40695.016
47 


40695.017
48 


40695.018
49 


40695.019
50 


40695.020
51 


40695.021
52 


40695.022
53 


40695.023
54 


40695.024
55 


40695.025
56 


40695.026
57 


40695.027
58 


40695.028
59 


40695.029
60 


40695.030
61 


40695.031
62 


40695.032
63 


40695.033
64 


40695.034
65 


40695.035
66 


40695.036
67 


40695.037
68 


40695.038
69 


40695.039
70 


40695.040
71 


40695.041
72 


40695.042
73 


40695.043
74 


40695.044
75 


40695.045
76 


40695.046
77 


40695.047
78 


40695.048
79 


40695.049
80 


40695.050
81 


40695.051
82 


40695.052
83 


40695.053
84 


40695.054
85 


40695.055
86 


40695.056
87 


40695.057
88 


40695.058
89 


40695.059
90 


40695.060
91 


40695.061
92 


40695.062
93 


40695.063
94 


40695.064
95 


40695.065
96 


40695.066
97 


40695.067
98 


40695.068
99 


40695.069
100 


40695.070
101 


40695.071
102 


40695.072
103 


40695.073
104 


40695.074
105 


40695.075
106 


40695.076
107 


40695.077
108 


40695.078
109 


40695.079
110 


40695.080
111 


40695.081
112 


40695.082
113 


40695.083
114 


40695.084
115 


40695.085
116 


40695.086
117 


40695.087
118 


40695.088
119 


40695.089
120 


40695.090
121 


40695.091
122 


40695.092
123 


40695.093
124 


40695.094
125 


40695.095
126 


40695.096
127 


40695.097
128 


40695.098
129 


40695.099
130 


40695.100
131 


40695.101
132 


40695.102
133 


40695.103
134 


40695.104
135 


40695.105
136 


40695.106
137 


40695.107
138 


40695.108
139 


40695.109
140 


40695.110
141 


40695.111
142 


40695.112
143 


40695.113
144 


40695.114
145 


40695.115
146 


40695.116
147 


40695.117
148 


40695.118
149 


40695.119
150 

Æ 


40695.120