ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana, Chairman 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

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

TAUNJA BERQUAM, ROBERT SHERMAN, JOSEPH LEVIN, 

JAMES WINDLE, and CASEY PEARCE, Staff Assistants 

PART 5 

U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

BUDGET HEARING 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

53–602 WASHINGTON : 2009 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2010 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WITNESSES 

TERRENCE ‘‘ROCK’’ SALT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

MAJOR GENERAL MERDITH ‘‘BO’’ TEMPLE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL 

WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

GARY A. LOEW, CHIEF, CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMS INTEGRATION DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Gentlemen, we do have coffee up here and 

snacks. I am serious about that. So if you want, we are happy to 

do that. 

We have before us today the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Terrence Salt; the Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp; Major General 

Temple; and Mr. Gary Loew. They are here today to present the 

administration’s budget request for the Corps of Engineers. 

I would like to point out that though there may be some questions that relate to the recently passed Recovery Act, this is a 

budget hearing and you will have the opportunity to come back and 

discuss your implementation of the Recovery Act after the subcommittee completes its work on the 2010 bill. 

I would also like to introduce Stacey Brown. Stacey has joined 

us for the year from Corps Headquarters, and we are very glad to 

have her here. She has certainly helped to raise the intellectual 

quotient of the subcommittee, not the subcommittee staff, as a 

Tufts University graduate, and again has already been doing excellent work for us and very happy she is here. 

The fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Army Corps of Engi- neers Civil Works program totals $5.1 billion, a reduction of $277 

million from the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Beyond top line 

funding levels and requested bill language, it has been challenging 

to analyze the Corps’ budget since we have not yet received the 

project allocations or justifications. I realize that this is a trying 

time; however, the subcommittee will be asked to execute its responsibilities in something that resembles a normal year’s schedule, and it is now May 12th. The administration is making the 

timeline very challenging. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

While the total budget request for the Corps of Engineers is more 

robust than others that have come before this subcommittee, I was 

hoping myself for a greater change in this administration, in the 

way it views the Army Corps of Engineers and the priority it places 

on the Nation’s water infrastructure. The first action of this administration related to the Corps was to leave it out of any request for 

Recovery Act funding. 

Once again, Congress was relied upon to provide funding to improve flood control, navigation, and other water resource projects in 

our countries. The projects overseen by the Corps of Engineers provides exactly the types of jobs this country needs, reasonable wages 

earned while constructing something concrete that provides a longterm investment in our economy. The fact that the administration 

did not request funds was abjectly disappointing to me. 

There are many challenges as we assess what investments we 

should make in the area of water resources. I will take the time 

today to highlight just two, navigation and hydropower. As our national discussion on energy and carbon emissions moves forward, 

the carbon footprint of different transportation modes and the 

methods by which generate our electricity must by considered. 

Our national waterways are an efficient mode of transportation 

from both a carbon emission and fuel consumption standpoint. 

While we might not agree on exactly which navigation channels 

and harbors provide the best investment, I believe we can agree on 

a subset that is economically important for the Nation and the regions in which they reside. The navigation business line needs the 

administration’s attention in many areas. The first and foremost is 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. If the revenue stream is not addressed, the level of investment must be adjusted to the available 

resources. This will mean difficult political choices as projects are 

suspended until resources become available. 

Deep draft navigation requires attention on several fronts. We 

are continuing the ‘‘race to the bottom’’ as post-Panamax vessels 

become more prevalent in the industry. This requires a national examination of what ports should be deepened to accommodate these 

vessels and the economic impact of those investments. The Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund has significant balances that should be 

addressed and it is time to revisit least cost dredge material disposal as a policy. 

Energy security and issues of global climate change are increasingly important to the decisions made regarding infrastructure investment. Hydropower improvements at existing facilities provide 

a reliable, efficient, domestic, emission-free resource that is renewable. Hydropower plants have, without question, changed the natural river environment. However, with some exceptions the environmental damages of existing dams are largely complete, and further investment in modern turbines can have the benefit of improving existing water quality and fish passage issues in addition to increasing generation efficiency and capacity. 

The Corps must continue to focus on minimizing the negative impacts to the environment while maximizing the use of existing infrastructure. Hydropower benefits also include the flexibility to 

meet peak power demands, the displacement of additional thermal 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

plants, and ancillary services such as voltage stability of the transmission system and system restoration after blackouts. 

As we as a Nation decide what we should invest in, we must not 

lose sight of an issue that has been of interest to the subcommittee 

for some time: Cost estimating and project management. I have 

often said of energy policy that you can have the best energy policy 

in the world, but without solid management and oversight of the 

execution, you will never realize the fruits of that policy. We continue to expect the Corps to work towards a more systemic and realistic mode of doing business and would like to see a real 5-year 

plan one day called the Hobson plan that gives an accurate assessment of the investment necessary to meet the Nation’s water resource challenges. 

Mr. Salt, I will be interested today in hearing your defense of 

choices made in the Department’s of fiscal year 2010 budget request, fiscal year 2009 execution, and overall Corps management. 

I would also ask you to ensure that the hearing record, the questions for the record, and any supporting information requested by 

the subcommittee are cleared through the Corps, your office, and 

the Office of Management and Budget and delivered in final form 

to the subcommittee no later than 4 weeks from the time you receive them, because our time obviously is very, very tight this year. 

Given that we do not yet have budget justifications, I would indicate to all the members who have additional questions for the 

record, they will have 1 week from the time that justifications are 

made available to the public to provide them to the subcommittee 

office. 

But with those opening comments, I would like to yield to my 

ranking member and friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for any opening 

comments that he would like to make. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

add my personal welcome to our witnesses. We are facing an extraordinary compressed schedule this year and we appreciate having you here to present a budget and answer our questions. 

Before we move to your Civil Works budget submission, I want 

to commend the Corps for its work both here home and abroad. 

The Army Corps, both military and civilian, is doing incredible 

work in Iraq and Afghanistan, building bridges and roads, constructing sewage facilities, assuring water supplies, continuing to 

patch a neglected electrical systems if in fact they exist in some 

places, replacing mud classrooms with permanent school and more. 

With the increased troop levels and increased focus on Afghanistan, 

the Army Corps workload in Afghanistan will increase substantially. 

I know you are involved in the design and construction of new 

bases. Assistant Secretary Salt, Mr. Salt, and Lieutenant General 

Van Antwerp, I hope you will extend our committee’s sincere 

thanks to the men and women both in uniform and civilian who do 

some extraordinary work under some difficult and dangerous circumstances each and every day. 

Gentlemen, I can’t be more supportive of the chairman’s comments regarding the need for more budget specifics. Our country is 

facing huge economic issues and challenges. The energy and water 

portfolio won’t be and shouldn’t be spared tough scrutiny to ensure 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

we are putting limited dollars in the highest priority projects. Unfortunately, the public will suffer as a result of what appears to be 

a lack of transparency. This committee will receive, I am confident, 

the information from the Corps before we pass a bill. We need that 

information. 

That said, at $5.1 billion the administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget request is $300 million below the fiscal year 2009 appropriations. This is the $300 million cut. It is oddly a positive sign. 

This subcommittee has long recognized the importance of your 

work and has been fighting for years to ensure that you receive 

adequate funding. That position often puts us at odds with the previous administration which regularly cut the water request in favor 

of energy projects. A $300 million cut is a vast improvement over 

what we have seen previously. 

The Army Corps has always been a worthy steward of our water 

and navigation infrastructure. The taxpayers’ dollars must be spent 

wisely in an economic and efficient manner. More than ever there 

is an immediacy to prioritize projects, finish one and move on to 

others. I know in fact my colleagues on this subcommittee in Congress would agree that these important ongoing projects must be 

funded to completion. 

I have greater confidence the Corps is spending its budget properly because of the close communication we have had, and I appreciate that close communication. I was pleased that we could support $4.6 billion for the Corps in recently passed Recovery Act legislation. I thought we could have gone higher because I think you 

know there is a huge backlog of authorized projects. But I did grow 

concerned as I saw the role OMB began to play in directing your 

work. What was once a cooperative process became a black box 

with a bureaucrat at OMB at the center and not you as Corps professionals. I hope this is not a pattern that will continue, but I fear 

the current delay of your budget request may be a leading indicator, a negative one. 

I am pleased to see that someone had the wisdom to include 

beach nourishment and renourishment projects in the budget request. Let me note that I don’t represent in my district a speck of 

the New Jersey shoreline, but I do recognize that the shore on the 

East Coast and the West Coast are vital to the economic well-being 

of those states. For years Congress has funded these projects because of the vital economic development and the ecosystem restoration benefits they offer. These projects are successful partnerships. 

I underline partnerships because the Federal Government and local 

government sponsors make serious financial commitments to see 

these projects through. I guess someone over there finally heard 

the call. 

I would like to commend the Corps for its investment in harbor 

deepening projects around the country. As you know, ports are vitally important to the economic health of our country and are tied 

to national security. In my neck of the woods, the Port of New York 

and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project has been recognized for 

many years as a national priority. I live in a part of the world 

where we don’t forget 9/11, and keeping that port open for business 

I think has a lot to do with our national security and the protection 

of our people. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

Once I see your project specifics I will be looking to ensure that 

ongoing projects are being funded to completion. We must continue 

to clear the backlogs. Let’s be candid and blunt, there are also 

many projects in the queue. Lots of promises to lots of communities 

made by Congress and the Corps alike that wouldn’t see meaningful funding any time soon until we make good on our existing commitments. Ensuring that the Corps makes good on its current commitments and doesn’t raise expectations because of new projects 

will be a personal priority for me and one that I know is shared 

by many on both sides of the aisle in this committee and outside 

this committee. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a busy schedule in front of us, and I look 

forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses, thank you 

very much. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much, and I would associate myself with Mr. Frelinghuysen’s observations about beaches. I do not 

have any Jersey shoreline myself, but I do have a beach in front 

of Mount Baldy, which happens to be the highest topographical feature on the southern shoreline of Lake Michigan, I am told deposited there over 10,000 years ago, and if allowed to erode away will 

be lost forever. There is value to these beach nourishment programs. 

With that, Secretary Salt, I would recognize you and then General Van Antwerp. That would be terrific, and your entire statements will be entered into the record. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, if I could, I wanted to—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is your mike on or move it closer? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I was last in the Army in 1996 and frankly as I 

came to this position I was not prepared for the tasks that we have 

given to our Army in the missions we have given them. I couldn’t 

agree more with your comments. My deep respect for all those serving our country in uniform, civilians, active and reserve. The tasks 

they are performing for us is something I didn’t appreciate. I don’t 

think very many of us really do. I was so pleased that you made 

those comments and I couldn’t agree more. I am very proud to be 

here on behalf of the United States Army. 

Chairman Visclosky, Congressman Frelinghuysen, distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s budget for the Civil Works Program of the 

Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2010. 

In developing this budget we have sought to achieve four principal objectives: To focus construction funds on those investments 

that provide the best return from a national perspective and 

achieving economic, environmental and public safety objectives; to 

support the safe and reliable operation and maintenance of key existing water resource infrastructure; to improve Corps project planning and program performance; and to advance aquatic ecosystem 

restoration efforts, including the restoration of Louisiana’s coastal 

wetlands and Florida’s Everglades. 

The budget provides funding for the development and restoration 

of the Nation’s water and related resources within the three main 

Civil Works program areas: Commercial navigation, flood and 

coastal storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Additionally, the budget supports hydropower, recreation, environVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053602 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A602P2.XXX A602P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

mental stewardship, water supply services at existing water resource projects owned or operated by the Corps, protection of the 

Nation’s regulated waters and wetlands, the cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic 

weapons, and emergency preparedness and training. The total discretionary funding of $5.125 billion in the fiscal year 

2010 budget is the highest amount ever requested by a President 

for the Civil Works Program. The budget proposes enactment of 

legislation to authorize a lock usage fee which would over time replace the diesel fuel tax now paid by most commercial users of the 

inland and intercoastal waterways. This proposed legislation will 

address the declining balance in the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund, which affects the government’s ability to finance the nonFederal portion of the Federal capital investment in these waterways. It will do so in a way that improves economic efficiency compared to the existing fuel tax by more closely aligning the cost of 

those who use Corps locks for commerce with the capital costs that 

the Corps incurs on their behalf. The administration stands ready 

to work with the Congress and stakeholders to find a long-term solution to this issue. 

The fiscal year 2010 budget continues its Civil Works Program’s 

commitment to a performance-based approach to budgeting. The 

Army applied objective performance guidelines to focus construction funds on those investments within the three main missions of 

the Corps that provide the best return from a national perspective 

in achieving economic, environmental, and public safety objectives. 

Similarly, the Army used objective performance criteria to allocate O&M funds in the fiscal year 2010 budget. The O&M criteria 

considered both the condition of the project and the potential consequences for project performance if the O&M activity were not undertaken in fiscal year 2010. 

In fiscal year 2010, the Corps will focus efforts on developing 

new strategies along with other Federal agencies and non-Federal 

project partners to better manage, protect, and restore the Nation’s 

water and related land resource, including flood plains, flood prone 

areas, and related ecosystems. 

Sir, the administration has made rebuilding America’s infrastructure a priority. Through resources provided for the Army Civil 

Works Program in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2010, the 

Corps can help achieve this objective. Mr. Chairman, I am proud 

to support the fiscal year 2010 budget for the Army Civil Works 

Program. I look forward to working with this subcommittee and to 

your support of the President’s budget proposals. 

Sir, thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Salt follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 53602A.001
8 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 53602A.002
9 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 53602A.003
10 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 53602A.004
11 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 53602A.005
12 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

General. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member 

Frelinghuysen, it is just a real pleasure to be here today and I am 

honored to testify on the 2010 budget. If you would permit me, because we are a people centered organization, I would like to introduce our commanders. These are the people that get it done. I will 

start over here on your right. On the far right is Mark Yenter. 

Mark, stand there. Mark is the Commander of the Pacific Ocean 

Division stationed out in Hawaii and has Alaska as one of the districts, Far East District, very huge territory. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is a tough duty, isn’t it? 

General VAN ANTWERP. His travel schedule, though, he has got 

the mileage. 

Next to him is Todd Semonite. Todd commanded the North Atlantic Division up until about a week ago, and now commands the 

South Atlantic Division out of Atlanta, Georgia and has the southeast portion of the United States, Puerto Rico, and South America. 

This is Colonel Janice Dombi. She is out in the South Pacific Division out in San Francisco and does a great job out there for us. 

The former commander has deployed to Afghanistan. His name is 

John McMahon. And he’s working on those seven bases we are trying to build in Afghanistan. 

This is Ken Cox, Brigadier General Ken Cox. He is in the Southwest Division down in the Texas area and he is doing great and 

wonderful things for us. One of his major projects this past year 

is building the fence along the Mexican-U.S. border. 

And then over here, this is Brigadier General Bill Rapp. He is 

with the Northwestern Division. Bill deals with fish and Native 

Americans and all kind of wonderful things. And he is just doing 

a terrific job for us. 

This is Mike Walsh. Mike Walsh is the Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division, and he has what we call the long skinny 

division, all the way from Canada to New Orleans, where the great 

Mississippi goes out into the Gulf. 

And this is Colonel Duke DeLuca. Duke just took over for Todd 

Semonite in the North Atlantic Division, and he will do a great job. 

Just came out of theater, so he has the latest and greatest there, 

Commander of the 20th Engineer Brigade. 

And finally Mike White is sitting in for Brigadier General John 

Peabody, who had a hip replacement this weekend. He would have 

hobbled here had we ordered him to, but we gave him some grace, 

and so Mike is here to represent. 

As Mr. Salt mentioned, our fiscal year 2010 Civil Works budget 

is a performance-based budget; that is, it reflects the highest economic and environmental returns for the Nation’s investment and 

also addresses significant risk to human safety. 

I just want to mention quickly the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act just so you will know our timelines. First of all, the 

total dollar amount was $4.6 billion in the Civil Works portion, 

about $2.075 billion in O&M and $2 billion in construction. In 

O&M, we have upwards of 700 work packages that we will, by the 

end of this fiscal year, have obligated that $2.075 billion and we 

expect to be completed on all of those projects by the summer of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
13 

2010. So it is exciting. We have already, incidentally, obligated $61 

million against this Recovery Act. We only got it really about a 

week ago. So we are on the way, and we are really looking forward 

to what it will do to create jobs and do its intent. 

In the construction account, we will have two-thirds of it obligated by the end of fiscal year 2009 and we will have completed 

about two-thirds of it by fiscal year 2010. Some of the projects go 

into fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012. 

Just when you add it all together, this is a historic workload for 

the Corps. If you add our military programs in with the Civil 

Works, we will have on the books obligated about $40 billion this 

year, and probably one of the questions is going to be how will you 

get that done? We have implemented some great new tools, we 

have worked with the commanders here, we are using regional systems. If you look at one particular place down in New Orleans, 

every district in the Mississippi Valley Division has a piece of action down there. If you look at the Washington Capital Region, 

down at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, every district in the North Atlantic 

Division has a mission down there. So this is the way we are going 

to go get it done, we are going to go regional, we are going to use 

all of our capacity, and we promise that we will deliver. 

Finally, just because you brought it up, I would like to just talk 

about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan just for a second if you will 

permit me. We have had about 10,000 Corps employees, civilians, 

over the years we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan who have deployed out of the Corps of Engineers, our great civilian workforce. 

It is really an amazing thing. Right now we have about a thousand 

civilians deployed. 

We are changing some of the emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan. 

The work in Iraq is frankly tailing off. We expected more work that 

was host nation funded that hasn’t come in, I think partly because 

they put their budget together when oil was $140 a barrel. So we 

have seen that tail off. We expect by next March to be down to one 

district in Iraq and a number of large area offices. Right now we 

have three districts and a division headquarters. So we are 

downsizing there. 

At the same time Afghanistan workload is doubling this year. It 

has gone from $1.2 billion to over $2.6 billion. And so we are starting up a second district in Afghanistan and we will put in a 

deployable command post from one of our theater engineer commands in there. So one theater is decreasing, the other theater 

growing. But it is very exciting work, and we are going to be there 

for some time in Afghanistan. We are building and helping design 

seven bases to take the new soldiers coming in. 

So Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I look forward to any of your questions. 

[The statement of General Van Antwerp follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
14 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 here 53602A.006
15 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 here 53602A.007
16 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 here 53602A.008
17 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 here 53602A.009
18 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Salt and General, thank you very much. And 

it is my understanding under protocol, Mr. Salt, that I am not supposed to call you Secretary, and I am sure you don’t care and I 

don’t care. I just don’t want anybody to think I am trying to diminish your position by calling you Mr. and not Secretary. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I am honored to be here. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. As we are all are. 

Mr. SALT. You can call me Rock if you want. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Let me start with two questions and then I will 

turn to my ranking member. 

Mr. Salt, the budget request includes a substantial cut to the 

construction in Mississippi River and Tributaries Account given the 

need for water resource infrastructure that addresses changing 

needs and circumstances. How would you justify the reduction? 

Mr. SALT. As I mentioned in my testimony, sir, we developed a 

set of performance criteria that we applied essentially the same 

way nationally as we did to the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

Program. So the way the program becomes sorted out is basically 

based on various criteria for O&M for that part of the MR&T and 

the benefit-cost ratio for the construction part of the program. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That would lead to my second question, and you 

do mention in your testimony performance criteria to guide your 

recommendations, objective performance criteria. When you talk 

about O&M, you talk about the condition of the project and the potential consequences for project performance, you mentioned costbenefit ratio. The other question I would have and then again I 

would turn to my ranking member, again, we don’t have the benefit yet of all the budget justifications. Could you in some detail 

enumerate the criteria? Were the cost-benefit ratios that you 

looked at, were the thresholds the same for each category within 

Corps projects? And when we talk about condition of the project, 

is there some valuation you attach, does it vary from O&M to construction? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, the criteria were different for construction. Generally the construction account was based on a benefit-to-cost ratio, 

and I am going to say we used the same criteria for both, and I 

will verify that just to ensure I am not saying something that is 

not accurate. But the O&M, on the other hand, the Corps has a 

pretty impressive risk-based approach, perhaps the Chief or General Temple would want to talk about, to look at a number of factors that they then use as the basis for prioritizing their O&M. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Sure, that would be fine. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Basically, we look at cost-benefit ratio as 

one aspect, but life safety and human health is another one. And 

then the third category is environmental restoration and mitigation. What we have done in recent years is, survey all of our 

projects—well, not all of them, we have some to go yet. We are 

right in the middle of surveying levees, but there are also our locks 

and dams and all the things that require O&M work. We need a 

lot of O&M money and we are getting a good package of it in the 

Recovery Act, and that is very helpful, because we are able to get 

at some of the things we haven’t been able to get at for a long time. 

Are there more projects? Yes, there are more projects over time, 

but I think we have a very good start at it this year, in combinaVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053602 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A602P2.XXX A602P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
19 

tion with what we expect to get in the 2010 budget and what we 

have in the Recovery Act. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And in years past there has been some controversy about, if you would, loss of life versus property values, and 

my sense is the Corps did address some of that formula consideration a couple of years ago, if I am correct. 

General VAN ANTWERP. That is correct. We look at both Generally when a project is formulated we consider national economic 

development, so the benefit-cost ratio really does not include a lot 

of local aspects, but in the safety area it does. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. You compensate for that. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. 

Mr. SALT. As far as policy guidance, if there are life and public 

safety issues with a project, that goes ahead of the economic development aspects. Those are priorities and we would move those 

ahead in the list. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to Mr. Simpson, who is a keynote speaker at some event, actually we are trying 

to get him out of the committee hearing as quickly as possible. But 

before I yield to him, in all seriousness, I would like to put a plea 

in to your division commander. We have a lot of young people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and I often think about a lot 

of the contracts that are let here, I assume because some of them 

are so darn large you can’t get a veteran-owned business, but I 

want to put an oar in the water and make a plea to make sure if 

there are contractors, that they are out there, you know, providing 

jobs for some of these young people coming back. I know because 

I visit my installation, Army installation, I visit VA hospitals. 

There are a lot of veterans looking for work and certainly I think 

they ought to be at the top. If there is a way to do it legally and 

appropriately, I would hope that—I am sure you have that as a 

concern. 

I yield to Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate you yielding. It is a great 

deal day for my chairman and ranking member if I can’t make it 

to a hearing. So I appreciate your yielding and giving me the time 

here. 

Let me ask a couple of questions, Columbia River Channel Deepening Project. Last year the committee fully funded your budget request for that, and it is my understanding that 25 million is needed 

to complete that project. Is that in this year’s budget? Or is it being 

funded by the Recovery Act funds that were being done? Bring me 

up to date on where that is. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, that project is a priority project. I am not allowed 

to specifically answer that question, but I will just tell you it is a 

priority project that I am certain that we will resolve satisfactorily. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I find that a little bizarre. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Can I ask why? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yeah. We are the committee that funds these 

things. We put the money out there and we need the information. 

Of course we would like to know. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

Mr. SALT. That project was not on the Recovery Act list that was 

posted a few weeks ago. I can’t talk about what is in the 2010 

budget. That hasn’t been released yet by OMB, so I can’t talk about 

the 2010 budget. 

There is an advantage to moving it up in the list—not moving 

it up, it is right near the line in the list on the criteria we used 

for the Recovery Act. Obviously were we to move it up in the line, 

move the line down to pick it up in the Recovery Act, that could 

have an implication in the 2010 budget that we would then have 

to account for. So as we work through the proper way to carry out 

an important project such as the Columbia River Project, we have 

to make sure that we are—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we plan on finishing that this year? 

Mr. SALT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. One way or the other? 

Mr. SALT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, at least I know something more than I did 

beforehand. I want to ask this question, but I don’t know if there 

is an answer for it. I am increasingly frustrated with O&M, and 

not just this administration, every administration. The impact they 

have in policy by their decisions that are budgetary decisions. And 

I get frustrated when people can’t come up and talk to us because 

OMB says they can’t. And that to me is a little ridiculous. I get the 

feeling a lot of times a lot of agencies would like to talk to us and 

tell us what is going on and stuff, but they are restrained by that 

office down there. I am going to go have some legislation to address 

that. I don’t know if they are going to like it, but I am going to 

have some legislation to address it. 

Couple of other questions. Last year the subcommittee worked 

hard to determine the division of responsibility in the Everglades 

with our colleagues on the Interior Committee. And since I am the 

ranking member on the Interior Committee, is there a new plan 

under development for the Everglades reconstruction and rehabilitation? What is the stage of that plan, if there is, and what role 

is the Corps playing? And it seems like I already know all the answers to those if I ask this, why after the Appropriations Committee moved the modified water delivery project to the Interior 

subcommittee is this project element contained in the Corps budget 

request? The intent of moving that last year was to draw a clear 

line of authority for this element of the Everglades and to continue 

down that path, not to return to the split between the agencies. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, the Modified Water Delivery project is a special 

case. I am going to let the Chief and General Temple answer these 

questions, but I know a lot about that project. So I will take the 

privilege to deal with that. Up until a few months ago I was a senior official in the Department of the Interior, and it is the Department of Interior’s highest Everglades priority. It is important for 

the Corps of Engineers as well. 

The authorization for that was very open as to how to go about 

it and we have gone through a number of budget policy recommendations for how best to do that. I think the basic issue right 

now is that with the existing carryover funding there is essentially 

enough funds to handle this year’s requirements. The policy call I 

think is a carryover from executive branch policy. I don’t honestly 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 

think we spent a lot of time reviewing that particular project, perhaps not as much as we should. But it turned out the way it did 

in the budget—I guess I can’t say that either. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We didn’t hear it. 

Mr. SALT. With respect to that project, I think it is important. 

The way the split between Interior and the Army has been, is not 

helpful. We need to figure out a way to just get that funded and 

to move forward on that. 

With the rest of the Everglades program, I don’t think there is 

any change in terms of budget policy. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. So you are saying you think the Corps should 

have that responsibility, because we went through great pains with 

Interior last year to split that responsibility so there would be a 

clear line. 

Mr. SALT. No, sir, I did not mean to say that if I did. We certainly would support—I am not even sure I can say that. Let me 

say I personally agree with the decisions made last year to fund 

it out of the Interior appropriation on this particular project, and 

I will get back with—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. But it is in a Corps budget now? 

Mr. SALT. There is a small—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. A small portion, theoretically. 

Mr. SALT. Yes, there is a very small part of it that is in the Corps 

budget this year. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate it. And I apologize for having to go to 

this, and hopefully if this doesn’t take too long I will be back if I 

have some other questions. Otherwise I will submit them for the 

record. But let me say for the record also that I really appreciate 

what the Corps does in the 595 Rural Idaho Program, projects that 

you do in Idaho. Talking with local community leaders and stuff 

working with the Corps, they have nothing but high praise to say 

for the work that you have done. In fact, eventually I would like 

to get into some questions about the fact that we have come to rely 

on you more and more as project managers in the Department of 

Energy in terms of the waste treatment plant or the MOX facility 

and other things, and how that is working out for you shows a high 

degree of what this committee feels your capabilities are, and we 

appreciate that very much. So thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Salt, General Van 

Antwerp, Mr. Temple, Mr. Loew, thank you all for coming. We are 

grateful to all of you and all of the uniformed and civilian Corps 

employees here. 

I see in my other hat as chairman of the Military Construction 

Appropriation Subcommittee the tremendous work you do every 

day for our military, and this subcommittee sees what you do for 

our country in its economy, its flood control water supply, so many 

other purposes addressed by civilian Corps projects. I thank you for 

all of that. 

It seems to me the one thing that doesn’t change in my 19 years 

here is administrations come and go, Democrat and Republican, 

but somebody at OMB just refuses to adequately fund Corps budgVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053602 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A602P2.XXX A602P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
22 

ets. There are so many needs out there. You know it, we know it. 

We won’t ever try to embarrass you by asking you in public whether the administration budget proposal is adequate. I think we all 

know whether it is defined or not. There are an awful lot of unmet 

needs out there that should be high priority needs to be addressed. 

I am glad the Recovery Act addressed quite a few of those. 

I would like to ask for the record an issue we don’t talk about 

much here. It is not maybe the top priority of Corps in terms of 

its responsibilities, but is it still correct that more Americans visit 

Army Corps parks each year than visit the entire National Park 

System? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Sir, I believe that is true. We had 386 

million visitor days last year. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Is there any way, General, to interpret that into 

different individuals? How many people actually visited? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Some of those are obviously repeat visitors. We will see if we can slice it that way. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to say for the record that I think, Mr. 

Chairman, this is a vitally important part of the Corps’ mission 

even though it doesn’t rank up there in funding levels with flood 

control and other priorities, but to me the Army Corps parks are 

the American working families’ parks. The families who cannot 

particularly in tough times afford to go to Yellowstone Park or get 

on a plane and fly to Cancun, they go to the local Army Corps park 

and that is their recreation, and I just would like to raise a profile 

of that role of the Corps and I would welcome—once you have the 

2010 budget, I would welcome information on how recreation park 

funding compares to previous years and what are some of the 

unmet needs out there. It is just an area that kind of gets lost in 

the debate around here. 

Secondly, I would like to ask the question about what is the 

Corps’ policy regarding ports being dredged to their authorized 

depths? Is it the policy to see that they are authorized to their 

depths or is the policy if we have the money we will do it; if we 

don’t, we won’t? 

Mr. LOEW. Sir, our policy is to dredge all ports for which we are 

responsible to their authorized depth. However, you know funding 

is limited, so we have a basis of setting priorities for the ports that 

do get dredged based on the available funding, and primarily that 

is based on the economic benefits of the ports. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Mr. LOEW. Before I leave that, sir, we do make exceptions for 

other ports; for instance, harbors of refuge where there are other 

military or Coast Guard facilities and for key recreational or commercial fisheries harbors. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How many ports are there today in the United 

States that are not dredged to their authorized depths? 

Mr. LOEW. Probably about 700. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Seven hundred. 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How many ports are there in the United States? 

Mr. LOEW. About 900. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
23 

Mr. EDWARDS. So 7 out of 9 ports in the United States are not 

dredged to their authorized depths. Do you know what the Port of 

Brownsville is right now relative to its authorized depths? 

Mr. LOEW. Sir, I think the Port of Brownsville is close to its authorized depths for all the main channels. 

Mr. EDWARDS. But not for some of the other—— 

Mr. LOEW. Not for at least some of the side channels, yes, sir. 

Mr. EDWARDS. There was money put in there in the Recovery Act 

for that? 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. EDWARDS. How about the Port of Houston. It is one of the 

significant ports in our country in terms of tonnage coming in and 

out, exports and imports. Do you have any idea where we are? 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir. Actually the Port of Houston fared very well 

in the fiscal year 2009 budget and they also got quite a bit of 

money in the Recovery Act. So much of that money will be used 

not only to dredge the port but also to begin to construct confined 

disposal areas which they need very much in order to maintain 

them in the future. 

Mr. EDWARDS. For the record and I will finish with this question, 

for the record could you say what the inefficiencies that are caused 

for our economy and for companies and industries when ports are 

not dredged at their authorized levels? 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir, there are many inefficiencies. We have examples of losing business to other countries such as Mexico and Canada. There are tremendous inefficiencies in the Great Lakes, for instance, where ships have to light load, and it costs basically more 

per ship to move the material which eventually results in higher 

cost of steel. That is another example. 

Mr. EDWARDS. You hit the right button there. 

Mr. LOEW. We have another example of higher cost of aluminum 

in Texas as well. So there are many examples, sir. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would add one thing there. When the 

Panama Canal gets its depth in 2014, there is the need then to go 

deeper. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Chet, you primed the pump pretty well 

there. 

As I said in my opening remarks, I am pleased to see changes 

in the policy on beach nourishment and replenishment. Can you 

give us the administration’s analysis behind that change? Why is 

that? I am pleased by it. Can you provide us with a rationale and 

how did you determine which projects to include and those not to 

include? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I think when the President’s budget is released it 

will reflect the kinds of policy choices that you are talking about. 

And while those decisions haven’t been released yet, I would say 

the logical policy would be, or a logical policy would be to look at 

shore protection projects, beach projects in a similar way that we 

look at other protection sorts of projects, using the benefit-to-cost 

ratio as a way to assess the protected value of those projects, 

whether it be a new project or an existing project. I think an option 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
24 

would be for us to include a set of projects that would follow that 

logic and reasoning. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So to interpret what you said, an analysis 

will follow when the budget documents are received, a formal analysis? 

Mr. SALT. I think for budget decisions with respect to beach 

projects, a logical policy would follow the kind of policy principles 

that I have just described. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, I 

think we all know how it is derived. There is a balance expected 

of 5.34 billion at the close of fiscal year 2010. We have obviously 

a lot of harbors that are not dredged. What are you doing relative 

to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in terms of its viability and 

increasing its viability? 

Mr. SALT. I would say—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do we anticipate more resources towards 

this type of activity, towards—— 

Mr. SALT. I think the trust fund, the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund is in pretty good shape. And I will defer to the Chief or General Temple to talk about the particulars with respect to the proposed budget area. 

General VAN ANTWERP. The bottom line number for the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund is $793 million. It has over $4 billion in 

it, I believe, in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Now the Inland Waterways Trust Fund—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Inland has had the insolvency issue. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will you address that? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, it is not 

generating enough income revenues to cover the high priority 

needs—I forget who mentioned it, but those certainly are very high 

priority needs. The President’s budget proposes a new approach to 

the revenue and, as I said in my oral comments, I think this is an 

issue we have to resolve to provide for the non-budget part of that 

revenue so that we can deal with these high priority maintenance 

needs on the waterway system. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How are you working to build a consensus 

among the water user community? 

Mr. SALT. I guess I would like General Temple to—he is the head 

of the board. 

General TEMPLE. The Inland Waterways Users Board meets on 

a quarterly basis and members of the board come from industry—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You have some relief because of the Recovery Act that we passed? 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir, that is true. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is not going to go on forever. 

General TEMPLE. Once the Recovery Act activities are complete, 

subject to pending legislation, we will be back in the same situation 

that you described in the beginning. In terms of building a consensus with the various inland waterway users association and 

most particularly the users board, we are working closely with 

them in order to build a consensus to address this requirement and 

to come up with a better way of deriving revenue so that we can 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
25 

maintain the infrastructure properly. And we are also looking further ahead into the future in terms of our requirements so that we 

can layout a better long-term capital plan. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How successful have you been working with 

the water user community? 

General TEMPLE. It is my understanding that they intend to have 

a plan that will dovetail into this legislation by this coming fall in 

time for the fiscal year 2011 budget timeline, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is all about user fees here, right? 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Or another creative way to address it. 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So you are looking at those ways? 

General TEMPLE. They are. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The lines of communication are open? 

General TEMPLE. They are. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Before we leave this subject, I would point out, 

am I correct that you did not spend money out of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund you don’t have, there wasn’t an assumption in 

the budget you were going to be successful legislatively and then 

you put money in there that we might not end up having, and I 

would thank you for that. In the past we have had people come up 

and well, the bill is going to pass, the money is going to be there, 

and then when we markup the bill it is not. So I would appreciate 

in that instance a very honest budgeting. That is a big problem, 

but I would also associate myself with Mr. Frelinghuysen that I 

would encourage, and I think we all would, because we tried to 

keep things moving in 2009. We cannot do that in 2010, and we 

have tried to stress that to our colleagues, there is nobody left to 

help you now, you have got to work this out. 

Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me 

thank all of you for great service to our country, and it is really 

good to see to see you again. 

One of the lessons of Katrina was that there were too many 

cooks in the kitchen; that is, too many entities were responsible for 

some of the critical levees. As a result, the construction maintenance standards varied, and no one really took responsibility for 

putting it all together. 

Following Katrina, the Corps was authorized to incorporate these 

critical non-Federal levees so that there is a solid, consistent wall. 

What lessons have we learned, and how do we apply them to the 

Mississippi River System? One project in my district, the Alamos, 

the Colorado, the levees along the Rio Grande River. And also let’s 

take Iowa, for instance. What confidence do you have that the critical levees are protecting cities and towns, are working as a system. And thirdly, do you even know where all the levees are and 

who owns them? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Those are all great questions. First of all, 

we have learned a ton of lessons, and in one of your early questions, we are tying it all together down in New Orleans. Someone 

had to come and look at it all because the seams, those weak links, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
26 

those were exposed when you have a major event. So this new 

levee system down there, all of those links will be linked together. 

Some of the lessons learned? There have been many. I will just 

list a couple of them. One is that you can’t eliminate all the risk, 

I think we have always known that. The latest storms we had with 

Ike and Gustav had potential to be much higher than the 100-year 

storm. You can’t eliminate the risk, but you can do a lot in addition 

to the structural part, and that is something that we learned. You 

have to have good evacuation plans, and you have to have some 

other floodproofing. You can put your house up on stilts and there 

are a lot of other things to do in addition to having a levee. 

One of the other things is that we really feel that we should discourage settlement in areas that would be better utilized as a floodplain and allowed to flood. I don’t think we will ever be able to constrain all the water that falls on a parking lot and goes into a 

storm sewer, and we don’t want to run them all into the river system. It would overwhelm the system. 

There are a lot of non-Federal levees out there. In fact, we only 

own 16 percent of the levees in the United States. There is a great 

quantity of levees out there that are actually providing some risk 

reduction, but a lot of those are agricultural levees or other types 

of levees, and they aren’t part of systems. 

I think on the Mississippi River and its tributaries we have a 

much better handle on that. For all the feeders, the bigger rivers 

that come into the Mississippi, we found in the Midwest floods in 

Iowa and that area, they are really challenging because they are 

not built as a system. 

A lot of them are what we would call ring levees to protect a very 

specific area. And they aren’t tied as to a larger system. 

One of the things we are also dealing with is climate change and 

what is the possibility, what is the influence of that on our projects 

in the future. We have a lot of studies going on to determine that. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Okay. 

One other thing, General. In Afghanistan I know that you are 

going to be building many facilities also. I think you are in charge 

of maybe building some of the roads in there. 

What are your biggest challenges that you see coming, and do 

you think there is adequate funding in this budget for the requirements? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, Afghanistan is a very challenging 

place. I have been there many, many times. We are working a road 

network; we have 53 different projects that we are working on, different stretches of the road. There is essentially one ring road that 

goes around the entire country and then all other roads go off of 

it, so you have to have that main artery. We are far from complete; 

it will take another several years to complete that. There is money 

in the budget to do that, and the projects are scheduled. 

The next part is getting the materials. The materials for Afghanistan come from everywhere but Afghanistan. They are not produced there because they can’t, and so all of it has to be imported. 

In fact, we have a number of challenges in construction. Every 

day I get the reports of a hijacked convoy of vehicles bringing construction materials or local nationals that were kidnapped or something. This is a very, very tough environment. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
27 

I guess on the final top line, the most challenging thing is really 

the security of the sites, to just have security. If you don’t guard 

the site, what you have built yesterday will not be there today. So 

it is a very challenging environment. 

Mr. SALAZAR. And one final question specific to my district. 

Tamarisk eradication is one of your priorities in Colorado. And 

along the Colorado River and the other rivers of Colorado—it seems 

like they are still there, and you have been working on them for 

several years. I think Lincoln Davis and I might be able to hire a 

crew and go out there and slow them down a lot quicker. But what 

are the big obstacles you are facing to getting this job done? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I am not familiar. Is it a vegetation? I 

didn’t catch the first part. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, sir. These are trees that are foreign to the 

United States that came from the Middle East somewhere, and 

they have become an invasive species. And they are called—‘‘salt 

cedars’’ is their nickname. But they are very thirsty trees, and they 

contaminate the soil with a lot of salt. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I am not real familiar with that, but I 

will certainly look into it. 

We can provide an answer for the record on that. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you. I appreciate that. I yield back. 

[The information follows:] 

The Corps has the authority and capability to address Tamarisk (Salt Cedar) 

eradication in the State of Colorado under Section 206 of the Continuing Authorities 

Program (CAP). The two projects are: ‘‘Tamarisk Eradication, Colorado’’; the next 

step would be to initiate a reconnaissance report and prepare a Feasibility Cost 

Sharing Agreement for a Detailed Project Report and ‘‘Tamarisk Removal, Arkansas 

River, Colorado’’; the next step would be to initiate the Design and Implementation 

phase of the project. The main obstacle to completing the two projects is the tremendous interest in, and subsequent nationwide competition for, limited funding for 

these popular aquatic ecosystem restoration projects. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 

jerky today. This is in fact the healthiest committee I serve on. 

General, I don’t know how long or how close you are to retirement, but you are either trying to wait me out, I don’t know. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I am going for the longevity award. I am 

2 years away, unless something happens. 

Mr. REHBERG. I bet I am still going to ask you a question about 

St. Mary’s 2 years from now. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Fair enough. 

Mr. REHBERG. Are we getting any closer? 

And I clearly understand the mission, and the reason I respect 

and love the military so much is because you are given a mission 

and you like to accomplish the mission and you kind of hunker 

down and get it done. But this is one of the situations where, of 

course, the Bureau of Rec was not getting it done for us. 

Senator Baucus put in the water bill the authorization for the St. 

Mary’s reconstruction to the Corps of Engineers. And I know it has 

created some heartache; and every appropriation cycle I ask the 

same question, Are you playing fairly in the sandbox with your colleagues over there? 

And thank you, Mr. Salazar, for asking the question about the 

dual responsibilities of Katrina, because that is something that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
28 

frustrates us. We are frustrated, as well, when everybody starts 

doing this, pointing it off in differing directions. And I am just not 

getting a feeling from the military aspect, the mind-set of a military mind, of a ‘‘can-do,’’ ‘‘let’s get it done,’’ ‘‘we have got the responsibility now,’’ ‘‘we have got the authorization as a result of the 

water bill,’’ ‘‘you are not giving us the funding.’’ 

That is a fight that seems to be going on somewhere other than 

in the House Appropriations Committee, because we clearly get the 

fact that you now have the responsibility and we should be funding 

you. That seems to be something that is going on in Senate Appropriations. 

But are we getting any closer to you guys coming up with an 

agreement to fix it rather than—you know, it would be like watching Katrina and knowing it is going to happen and continually telling you the levees are going to fail, the levees are going to fail, the 

levees are going to fail, and when it fails you say, Whoa, jeez, why 

didn’t you tell us? 

I am telling you, this is going to fail. And then you are going to 

get to come in and clean it up and you are going to get the funding 

to fix it. But we know it is failing now. Why can’t we get to the 

point where we fix it before it fails? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have talked about this project a lot 

in the last several days. I appreciate the question. I can tell you 

that we have a capability of $250,000. And if that money is appropriated, we would definitely jump on top of that and get it done. 

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, does OMB ever have to actually 

come and sit and answer questions in this committee? 

I clearly understand what it is like. I was in the executive 

branch in Montana; and so I had a budget director, and we didn’t 

want the budget director necessarily talking to legislators. That 

was always a convenient out. 

And this seems to be a particularly convenient out, and I am so 

sorry that you have to give those kinds of answers. I know it drives 

you crazy, because it is probably not the nature of your personality 

either. But to have to sit in front of a committee and say, I can’t 

say, I wish I could. 

Mr. SALT. My comments, sir, were timing. 

Mr. REHBERG. I clearly understand. Plus, their priorities may be 

different than yours, and you don’t know how they may—unless, of 

course, you think they are going to just accept everything you have 

told them. 

Mr. SALT. We often have robust conversation about the priorities. 

At the end of the day, I think the budget that will be released is 

a good budget. I think it is based on good criteria. There are a 

number of issues that we are taking on to improve in future budgets—some of these long-standing executive branch policies that we 

are ready to think about. 

Mr. REHBERG. I guess the question I would ask the General is, 

is there a fund where money is available for St. Mary’s that does 

not need to be appropriated by Congress? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I don’t believe so, no, sir. 

Mr. REHBERG. Is there an interagency transfer that could occur 

between the Bureau of Rec and the Corps of Engineers without 

congressional authority? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
29 

General VAN ANTWERP. I guess if they have the money appropriated, we could come up with a Memorandum of Agreement. 

Mr. REHBERG. The only time we appropriate money we call it an 

‘‘earmark,’’ and we get chastised for it. If it was in the executive 

budget, it is not appropriated. The money is there for projects 

based upon need, and the administration and OMB make those priorities or those determinations. I don’t get why we have to identify 

250,000—I am sorry, but that is a rounding error in your business. 

You are telling me that you do not have the flexibility within 

your budget for $250,000? That is that tightly wound? 

Mr. SALT. Well, sir, as I understand this project, it is an old Bureau irrigation project that doesn’t compete with the priority core 

missions and functions. I think from a prioritization standpoint of 

OMB and from us, that that is where this lies. 

Now, having said that, if Congress appropriates the funds, then 

we do it. But I think the short of it is that we are working off the 

priorities that we have been talking about here. And I think that 

is where this is. 

Mr. REHBERG. I guess I would go back to my prior question. 

There certainly seem to be experts within OMB that know something about energy and water appropriations, because oftentimes in 

our committee hearings we hear, Well, OMB is studying that; they 

are not giving it to somebody from Labor and Health and Human 

Services to study. 

Do they ever come before the committee and actually have to ask 

questions about their priorities? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. My recollection is that under two different 

Chairs I attended meetings with the Office of Management and 

Budget officials who have responsibility for the core portion. And 

in both instances they, OMB, were implored by the Chairs of this 

subcommittee—not me—to be, if you would, reasoned; and particularly under Mr. Hobson, that was his push for the 5-year plan and 

looking at systems, so that if we could show there was a real plan 

of work here that there would be some reciprocity, if you would. 

That has clearly not happened. It has been a bipartisan failure. 

As I think a number of members have said today and as I said in 

my opening statement, you want to stimulate the economy, you 

want to move goods and services, you want to protect lives and 

property, and there wasn’t a penny that the administration proposed in the stimulus. So it has not been for lack of effort by the 

subcommittee or past Chair. 

Mr. REHBERG. And my message to them and to the committee 

never changes, and that is, when Congress makes a determination 

of an authorization that is passed by the House and the Senate and 

signed by the President, and then you never get any recognition of 

its being a priority, how much more can we make it a priority than 

having put it in the water bill and giving you the responsibility, 

even though it doesn’t fall within the Corps mission. 

I just—I am perplexed. I don’t know what to do anymore. Wait 

you out 2 more years. OMB, I can’t wait them out, there is more 

them than me. 

All right. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Davis. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
30 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to talk about the 

Mississippi River and its tributaries. 

Before I ask you questions, I want to make a comment. We are 

in a huge debate today about an energy policy that will make us 

self-sustainable and save our climate. It seems that there is a 

whole lot more discussion on climate change or global warming 

than necessarily energy independence for the sake of economic security and national security. And so that debate rages on. 

I believe that economic security and national security are the two 

key components of us having an energy policy that makes us closer 

and closer to being energy independent and self-sustainable. And 

so as I look at that charge that we have, I realize that back in the 

early 1950s, when we built an interstate system, that was national 

security. It became the economic core to the lifeblood that gave us 

just-in-time manufacturing for small rural communities like the 

one I represent and live in in Tennessee. 

And so I realize that—as we look at transportation and as we 

move goods and services, I believe that economic security and national security can continue to be better realized if we start using 

river traffic more and more and more. The Ohio, the Missouri, that 

come into Tennessee, the mighty Mississippi that goes down to the 

Gulf would basically transport probably 75 to 80 percent of America’s production, especially in agriculture. It would be within 100 

miles of either of those rivers to where we could transport, move 

our exports—or even imports, if necessary—and take a lot of huge 

trucks off of the interstate and intrastate systems. And so, for me, 

I hope as we engage in the debate on an energy policy that we look 

at the resources we have in America. 

So I am somewhat disappointed when I hear that we are seeing 

less and less requested from the Mississippi River Valley and its 

tributaries that will provide to those ports, many that have been 

built along the Cumberland River and many built along the Tennessee River and the Ohio and the Missouri that it will provide an 

opportunity for those to be opened back up maybe. And so I am disappointed when I hear that there is potentially a reduction in funding to be sure that we maintain, rebuild or build structures that 

are necessary to keep river traffic flowing. 

So my question is this. I know that rail is owned by private entrepreneurs. The rivers are owned by America; the Corps of Engineers obviously has a responsibility of maintaining those. And so 

it is my hope that there will at least be some plan. 

And do you have a plan, where you can work with rail, as well 

as barge—the barges are basically owned by private entrepreneurs—and work more closely with those as a Corps of Engineers, as a government entity, with those two modes of transportation? That is one question. Is that in the plans? 

Secondly, we talk a lot about hydropower using the flow of the 

current in, say, the Mississippi River. How would that impact river 

traffic if, in fact, we looked at that as one of the sources of making 

energy? 

And thirdly, do you have an estimate of how much it would cost 

to completely rehab and rebuild or build the necessary infrastructure to keep these tributaries open to what I hope will be a huge 

increase in river traffic? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
31 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will address those in order, if we can 

here. 

First of all, on the plan to work on what we would call the other 

transporters, so that we get the right intermodal and the right emphasis on our river systems, I think our river systems are a very 

strong player in the future in energy, as you said. We do have a 

number of forums. We are working with the various groups that 

represent entrepreneurs and others, so I would say that we have 

got the right forums to do this. 

I don’t know that it can be a policy that is set by any one group. 

It really has to be a policy that our country wants. So I think that 

is a big part. 

I have talked to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. I was a co-speaker at a luncheon. We talked a lot about 

navigation and the waterways. 

The second one—— 

General TEMPLE. And I was just going to add, sir, that the Committee on Marine Transportation System, which is sponsored by 

DOT and has members from throughout the government, to include 

the Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, meet regularly 

to discuss how we can improve the intermodal aspects of your question there, sir; so we are looking at it. 

Mr. DAVIS. So we are doing some of that now? 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Maybe it needs to be intensified. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think we could report back. We will get 

some details on timelines and some of the expectations. 

[The information follows:] 

The Corps is working with representatives of the Inland Waterway Users Board 

to identify a long term Capital Investment Strategy to assure reliability of the Nation’s inland marine transportation system. The report is currently under development. 

The Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS) is a Cabinet-level 

Committee comprised of the 18 Departments and independent agencies that have 

a stake in the marine transportation system. The Committee is chaired by the Secretary of Transportation. The CMTS drafted a National Strategy that was approved 

in July, 2008 to identify the needs of the marine transportation system (MTS), including the intermodal connections. The Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the 

Volpe Center of DOT, is leading an inter-Departmental effort to draft an ‘‘Assessment of the MTS’’, including the infrastructure, economic, environmental, safety, security and institutional challenges that the system faces. The Assessment will be 

completed in early 2010 and will be used to inform prioritization of needs and future 

endeavors to improve the MTS. 

General VAN ANTWERP. The second question about the hydropower—and that is a very good one—I think we have huge potential. There are developments on the horizon, I think, for river-run 

hydro, for hydropower that takes advantage of sea level conditions 

with the tidal variations. So there is opportunity I think in the future to generate more. 

Now, will we build more hydropower plants with turbines? That 

is a huge expenditure. I think our part right now is to make sure 

we are doing the operation and maintenance of those facilities so 

that they can run at peak performance. 

Mr. DAVIS. And the third question was—— 

General TEMPLE. I am sorry, sir. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
32 

We have over 70 FERC license requests for low-head hydropower 

hydrokinetic power associated with our various projects in the river 

systems. So as long as those particular projects don’t have a negative impact on the primary purposes of our projects, we are happy 

to entertain those. And I suspect that we will see some approved 

here in the not-too-distant future. 

Mr. DAVIS. And the third one, do you have an estimate of the 

cost involved for the next decade of what it would take to actually 

bring our rivers up to what we need to handle, whatever loads of 

freight may be placed in those rivers? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will tell you, we are definitely working 

on getting that number. General Walsh, he is the Mississippi River 

Division. Commander, and he is also the Chairman of the Mississippi River Commission; and so we are working to get that number of what it would take to really refurbish and maximize the use 

of the Mississippi River and Tributaries. 

Mr. DAVIS. To clarify, I do believe that we are having climate 

change or global warming. I have looked at the science and technology. There are some who may not. It is kind of like Galileo, his 

assistant asking one day, Why study the stars; they all look the 

same to me. And so I think that if we can move this debate from 

that being the issue to economic security and national security, we 

all become winners; and I think our river traffic gets a major part 

of that. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you. Mr. Alexander. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions, but I want to just make a comment first. 

I represent the area in Louisiana that—the Mississippi River 

borders my district from Arkansas down to Baton Rouge. And I 

want to thank you all for the way you have worked with our offices 

over the years. We have 1,100 miles of navigable river in the Fifth 

Congressional District. So many times we have called on you, and 

your response has been good, and we appreciate that. 

One question is, the levee districts are being asked to certify 

some levees that have been there for years and years, some constructed before there was such a thing as a levee district. And what 

I would like to avoid is having those of us that have levee districts 

in our congressional districts, we don’t want the people whom we 

represent to be exposed—landowners, homeowners, to be exposed 

to the liabilities of having to buy flood insurance when some have 

not ever bought or had to purchase flood insurance. And that is 

going to be a political nightmare that we will have to take the 

blame for and not the Corps of Engineers. 

So where are we with requiring levee districts that financially 

cannot afford to go out and finance the certification of those levees, 

again that were constructed prior to their existence? Where do we 

stand on that, and can we talk about it a little bit? 

General TEMPLE. Well, the whole dam-levee safety issue, as you 

know, was highlighted by our experiences from a few years ago 

with the hurricanes in your area. And what we are doing is taking 

a holistic look at how we address dam and levee safety by entering 

into a pretty well organized inspection program for those facilities 

that we are responsible for, and also providing technical assistance 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
33 

to localities to include levee districts that have responsibility for 

certification of levees. 

So those are the tacks that we have taken to try and support 

local entities in the certification process. But certification is not a 

Corps responsibility; it is a local responsibility. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I need to understand certification. If some of 

those levees were constructed prior to their being a levee district, 

so they are now being told that certification is their responsibility 

when the levee was constructed before their existence, is that a law 

that Congress passed? 

General TEMPLE. Sir, the way levees are certified at the local 

level requires either a study of the historic records or a technical 

assessment of the levee through soils testing and the like. Those 

are the techniques that are used, not only locally but at the State 

and Federal level, to determine the structural stability of levees 

and dams. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, I just see it as a political train wreck coming, and I would like for us to avoid that if possible. 

The second question is, we have eroding coastlines, of course, in 

the State of Louisiana and other places. And we know that those 

coastlines are not eroding—they didn’t just start doing that, it is 

something that has gone on for years and years. But we dredge rivers, we build jetties, we build locks and dams and canals, so we deprive Mother Nature of replenishing that coastline with silt from 

the rivers. 

We now dredge, and we will blow the dredge material back into 

the river to go down the river a little ways and build up and then 

we will go dredge it a little bit more and then we will blow it back 

into the river. Soon it will drop off the continental shelf. 

Well, we are filling the Gulf up with material that we can use 

along the coastline. So when we look at benefit-to-cost ratios, how 

long can we afford to do that if we, in fact, know that that material 

could be deposited along the coastline and prevent the forces of 

Hurricane Katrina and others from encroaching on our Nation 

more than just the coastline? 

We know for a fact that those hurricanes are devastating areas 

now more so than they have done in the past simply because we 

have less coastline. So how long can we look at the benefit-to-cost 

ratio and say, well, we are going to do it the cheapest way? 

We don’t need coastline going toward Cuba today; we need it 

along the Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama coast. 

General TEMPLE. Well, sir, certainly your observations are spot 

on with respect to beneficial use of dredge material and the sediment that flows down our rivers. You alluded to the current policy 

to dispose of dredge material in the least costly fashion, which 

sometimes is beneficial and other times is not. 

But we do have the capability in conjunction with sponsors to 

take care of the cost differential and moving that sediment to 

places where it might better be used. So we completely agree with 

you that beneficial use of sediment is important, and it is certainly 

very important along the Louisiana and Gulf Coast in general. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
34 

Go back to the earlier question about certification. The Corps, 

the levees in the past have been certified by the Corps; is that correct? 

General TEMPLE. For the levees that we are responsible for; that 

is correct. Often, once we build a levee system, we turn it over to 

local sponsors for long-term maintenance. So if we built the levee, 

we have the records to which the standards that levee was built 

when it was originally in place. And that is how we are able to help 

many of the local entities in establishing whether that levee is still 

certified or not. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. So, again, it was an action of the Corps and not 

Congress that said the certification process now falls upon the soldiers of the levee districts? 

General VAN ANTWERP. There are a number of different types of 

levees. You have federally built and federally operated, and then 

you have the category that General Temple just cited that was federally built, but then turned over to a local sponsor. At that point 

it does become the local sponsor’s requirement to maintain it and 

to certify it. 

What happened after Katrina was that we saw that there were 

levees that had subsided because of the foundation they were built 

on and a myriad of other things. So now we are going in and certifying. 

It is very possible that a levee that was built to standard back 

in the day is no longer to a certifiable standard and has to be fixed. 

That is the real hard thing here. Because people have never had 

to get insurance before. But now we are finding when we go and 

certify that levee, that it is noncertifiable in its current condition 

and needs some work to get it up to a standard. That is where it 

is going to be difficult. 

And a lot of those are no longer federally operated and maintained; they are operated by local boards. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Before I recognize Mr. Calvert, if I could follow 

up on Mr. Alexander’s questions on the dredge materials: General 

Temple, is that an ad hoc decision-making process with local sponsors on a case-by-case basis if there is a more costly possibility for 

the use of the materials, but one that is very beneficial? 

General TEMPLE. I wouldn’t characterize it as ad hoc, sir. 

What I would say is, we make an analysis of where the material 

might best be used, take a look at the cost, and if there is an opportunity to use the material in a different way or a different place 

and we can enter into a partnership agreement with appropriate 

sponsors that will help defray the cost differential in moving that 

material to where it can best be used, then that is what we do. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would you yield, Mr. Chairman? 

So you are working on developing a national policy or is this 

something that is left to the different divisions to sort of negotiate? 

General TEMPLE. I can’t say that we have a national policy per 

se. But what I would say is that the guidance we give to all our 

commanders is pretty consistent along the lines I just described. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, the current national policy for water resources development is contained in the Principles and Guidelines that were 

last promulgated in 1983. In WRDA 2007, the Congress directed 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
35 

the Corps to take a new look at this national policy. And we are 

in the middle of doing that, and this year we should have the new 

draft of those policy guidelines out. 

The problem that we are sort of getting to and we have alluded 

to before is, under the old guidelines, the Corps proposed projects 

largely based on their national economic development benefits, 

their economic benefits, and there really wasn’t a way to acknowledge as a project purpose some of the environmental or other purposes that you are starting to allude to. 

I think it is very important that we find a way to recognize and 

acknowledge these other sorts of benefits, so that right now the policy is, if it costs more than the benefit, the cost would have to be 

borne by the local sponsor. And that is the result of the way the 

projects were formulated and authorized by the Congress. 

I would hope we could come up with a way to better acknowledge 

and account for these other sorts of benefits so that the cost distribution would not come out the way that we are talking about, 

but would rather acknowledge the Federal interest in, in this case, 

these other sorts of purposes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And it is considered a betterment since the locals 

are picking up all the additional costs then? 

Mr. SALT. Currently. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you are working on—— 

Mr. SALT. A set of policies that may require some additional authorizations to acknowledge some of these additional benefits. I 

don’t want to get ahead of the administration or myself on any of 

that. 

But the point is, under our current national policy, we aren’t 

counting for these other benefits as well as we need to be. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And will that be in place do you anticipate before 

the 2011 submission? 

Mr. SALT. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, it is good to 

see you again. It was great seeing you back in Corona earlier this 

year to mark the completion, or partial completion, of the Prado 

Dam. As you know, it is an important project. It does a lot of downstream protection in southern California. Work still needs to be 

done. 

As you know, we have expended over $1 billion on this project so far, and recently a little more than $26 million came from the 

stimulus bill being allocated to construct Reach 9 Phase II–B component of the Santa Ana River mainstream project. 

As you know, the operation of this dam, as it is designed, a release flow of 30,000 cubic feet per second, is contingent upon completing the Santa Ana mainstream interceptor line, known as the 

SARI Line, or completion of Reach 9. Until then you are only able 

to release as I understand it about no more than 4,000 cubic feet 

per second. 

Obviously, we need to get the Brine Line relocated and complete 

Reach 9 and do both as quickly as possible. And I am hoping that 

you are asking for the additional funding to complete Reach 9 

Phase II–A. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
36 

And since we don’t have a budget to look at today, let me just 

ask you directly, does the Corps continue to believe completing 

Reach 9 is a top priority? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes, we do. 

Mr. CALVERT. What funding level will you need in fiscal year 

2010 to complete Reach 9 II–A? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have a capability of $72 million. 

Mr. CALVERT. On top of the $26 million and the $14 million that 

was in the omnibus bill? 

General VAN ANTWERP. In the Recovery Act. 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes. I am showing $27.5 million in the 

Recovery Act. 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, Mr. Salt. 

Mr. SALT. If I could ask General Van Antwerp to talk about capability. 

General VAN ANTWERP. When we talk about capability, it has to 

do with capability for a particular project. And I think you know 

that. So this has to be put in the context of the entire budget. And 

here is the statement. 

Because we could utilize additional funds up to a capability on 

any individual project, it has to have offsetting reductions in order 

to maintain the overall budgetary objectives. 

Because in each of our projects there is a certain capability, but 

that project is taken in isolation. If—for instance, if we said, Let’s 

do all the projects to the capability, it would be more than we 

would be able to do. 

But in this particular project that is our capability. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, General. 

The other issue I would like to talk about briefly is the Bay-Delta 

levees. As you know, California is in the midst of a water crisis. 

The heart of California’s water infrastructure is the Bay-Delta with 

more than 25 million Californians dependent upon the water that 

flows to the Delta as a water source, both the water source and the 

ecosystem; and it is being threatened on a number of fronts. 

I would like to talk briefly about what falls under the Corps’ umbrella. And that, of course, is the condition of the 1,100 miles of 

levees in the Delta. 

A quick quote, if the committee will indulge me: The Public Policy Institute of California describes a threat, quote, ‘‘Earthquakes 

are probably the greatest unavoidable threat to the Delta. Several 

authority investigators concluded that a major earthquake will 

likely cause a failure of many Delta islands simultaneously with a 

two-out-of-three chance of such an earthquake occurring within the 

next 30 years. Such failures would directly threaten water supplies 

and would affect thousands of roads, bridges, homes and businesses 

at the same time. The water supply cost of such an event are estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.’’ 

General, Mr. Salt, I would just like you to comment. Just like a 

100-year flood, the question about a major earthquake in a delta 

is not a matter of if; it is just a matter of when. 

So could you update us with regard to the Delta levee stability 

program? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
37 

General VAN ANTWERP. The current status is that the risk management study is complete, and we are reviewing the report and 

continue to coordinate the future activities. We are absolutely on 

track with what you were saying there and agree with your comments. We do have a capability of $3 million, $3.6 to be exact, on 

this project. 

Mr. CALVERT. How many levee projects are ready to go? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would have to get that for the record, 

sir. I don’t have that. 

[The information follows:] 

Planning efforts are currently underway on 48 CALFED levee stability projects. 

Based on the availability of funding, the Corps has prioritized several projects to 

move toward the design and construction phase during Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. These 

projects are as follows: Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District-Reclamation 

District 2028, Bacon Island-Reclamation District 2010, McCormack-Williamson 

Tract-Reclamation District 1608, Lincoln Village West-Reclamation District 2027, 

Mandeville Island-Reclamation District 554, Walnut Grove-Reclamation District 

900, West Sacramento-Reclamations District 404, and San Joaquin River Reclamation District. Some construction will likely occur in FY 2010. Pending available 

funding, significant construction could occur in FY 2011. Other projects will continue to proceed through planning as initial priority projects move into design and 

construction. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is the Corps prioritizing the levees that secure the 

major population centers in the Delta and secure a water supply 

pathway? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

General, the current capability, does that hold true in New Jersey and Indiana too? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes. That was overall; for the overall, absolutely. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Just checking. On navigation we have had a 

number of questions and discussion about it. 

But I would also lend my voice that over the last 6 months we 

have had an extended conversation in Congress, the administration, about the economy, investments, and do not believe that our 

harbors and their role in the inland waterway transportation system has certainly been given enough attention, and would hope, as 

we proceed, that all of us, in our various capacities, try to change 

that circumstance by speaking out. 

Mr. Loew, in response to one of Mr. Edwards’ questions, noted 

the 900 harbors, 700 of which may not necessarily—I won’t hold 

you exactly to the figures—fully dredge. And I believe you had 

mentioned, Mr. Loew, that you have low-use channels and harbors 

that are not budgeted by the administration, but many can be critical from other perspectives, such as, literally, a fuel to power 

plants, safety issues, you mentioned Coast Guard in your response. 

Is the administration this year going to be reviewing that policy 

of Mr. Salt in examining some of these other needs in these lowerused harbors, and if so, will you have money to do that if you want 

to do that? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I think that we have discussed looking at the 

broader questions of navigation, dealing with our backlog, dealing 

with the issues of confined disposal sites and dealing with the conVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053602 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A602P2.XXX A602P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
38 

taminated dredge materials. There is a host of moving parts for 

dealing with the navigation priorities that you have described, including the small—the lower-volume, smaller harbors and channels. And I think we will certainly look at all that and hope we will 

have some answers in our future budgets as we try and look at 

these issues. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Again, in anticipation of 2011? 

Mr. SALT. That is our intent, yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. On the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund—and, 

again, it is not as though this has not been covered, but would 

point out that the balance is expected to be $5.34 billion at the 

close of fiscal year 2010; and again, many of the harbors are not 

dredged to the necessary widths and depths. 

The problem we find on the subcommittee is, if the administration does not ask for adequate funding out of that trust, there is 

intense pressure on all of us to provide the additional funds that 

obviously depend on what our allocation is has to come from somewhere else. 

Do you have any anticipation the administration is going to start 

filling that hole themselves, given the balance that exists in that 

trust fund? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I have not had that conversation with others in 

the administration. So I will—perhaps we could answer that in the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

The Corps of Engineers’ overall O&M program is prioritized for all missions, such 

as navigation, flood damage reduction, and hydropower. Funding is budgeted for the 

diverse Civil Works missions based on the assigned priority. The balance in the 

HMTF is projected to be over $5 billion at the end of FY 2010. If the Corps were 

to allocate more funds from the HMTF, there would be a necessary tradeoff among 

other O&M activities which would be adversely impacted if the funding for those 

activities were reduced to accommodate additional funding for HMTF funded activities. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would appreciate it. And again, I, one, think it 

is just sound policy from a host of reasons. It also would help us 

along the way here as far as the budget. 

And one other point, and would recognize Mr. Frelinghuysen. We 

have had some conversation about the Modified Water Deliveries 

Project in the Everglades. My understanding is that within the construction budget proposed by the administration the Everglades 

represents about 13 percent of all the money we are going to spend 

under the proposal. And as I also said in my opening statement, 

this isn’t a hearing on the recovery package, but that package does 

have an application for the fiscal year 2010 project. 

In reviewing the course project allocations for the recovery bill, 

it has come to the subcommittee’s attention that you proposed 

funding for a new activity I will characterize as a ‘‘new start’’ in 

the Everglades site one. This seems contrary to the legislative text 

in the recovery bill which states, and I am quoting from the bill, 

‘‘Funds provided shall only be used for programs, projects or activities that heretofore or hereafter receive funds.’’ 

It is my understanding attorneys at the Corps have acknowledged that this would be a new activity. How is it this project received $41 million? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
39 

Mr. SALT. Certainly, in the previous budget submissions, it has 

been budget policy to consider that as part of a broad program. I 

think, as we discussed last week, that decision is currently under 

review, and we understand it is important to all of us to get a resolution of the issue you are raising so that we can make appropriate 

decisions. 

It was placed on the list because that was consistent with our 

previous policy. That is the question you are raising I think. We 

are reviewing that decision, and we hope to have an answer very 

soon. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And I just want to again emphasize it is a very 

important matter to the subcommittee, because if we are talking 

about stimulating the economy and now we are dependent upon a 

2010 appropriations, there is not as a lot of stimulus to the effect 

in 2009. And secondly, if it is left to hang out there, there obviously 

will be people looking at the subcommittee and say, But for you, 

because of a ball the administration got rolling, we are not going 

to get our money. 

So it has put all of us in a very difficult position, so we would 

want to stay in touch with you. 

Mr. SALT. As I said in my remarks, the Everglades is a very high 

priority to the Administration, and we are very appreciative of the 

support we have received from this committee in previous years. 

We certainly believe it is important to get some restoration on 

the ground. We have done a lot of studying and planning, and the 

Administration is very eager to actually have some restoration 

projects and achieve restoration outcomes. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And I am not arguing the importance of the Everglades. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know you are the resident expert in the Everglades. How much 

have we spent on the Everglades project to date? Sir, I know the 

figure 13 percent was entered into the record, and I just wondered, 

how much money have we spent down there? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I would break the Everglades program into two 

parts. A series of activities and projects that were authorized before 

2000: these would include the Kissimmee River restoration 

projects, the Modified Water Deliveries Projects, a host of others, 

followed by the WRDA 2000, which contains the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan which built upon that with a whole series 

of components that we have just been talking about, some of which 

were part of WRDA 2007. 

We can get the precise numbers for the record. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I understand it is a national treasure. We 

have made substantial investments. 

Mr. Loew, do you know? 

Mr. LOEW. No, sir, I can’t tell you the total amount spent to date. 

We will answer that for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

To date, the Corps has expended $1.474 billion for the Everglades. This includes 

all projects in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration (Central & Southern Florida, Kissimmee, Everglades & South Florida, and Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park). The amount included for the Modified Waters project is 

limited to funds expended that were appropriated to the Corps of Engineers and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
40 

does not include funds provided through appropriations for the Department of the 

Interior. 

Mr. SALT. I will tell you that the State has spent maybe four 

times as much as the Federal Government. So part of the issue is 

the Federal investment catching up with the significant land investments that the State has made for these projects. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And I just want to get some clarification, 

if I could. 

Mr. Alexander asked about the certification issue. We have—you 

have responsibilities for some of those levees. And then, just so I 

understand it, there are other levees that have been brought up to, 

quote, ‘‘standards,’’ which I assume is Category 3. This is what we 

are talking about here, hurricane standards? 

General TEMPLE. The various levees were built to a multitude of 

different standards over time. So if there is a record, and there are 

records for the ones that we built, it will state to what standard 

it was built. Obviously, some were built long before the hurricane 

standards that you have described even came into being. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So the answer to my question on the certification issue? 

General TEMPLE. Levees are certified in order to meet flood insurance requirements that Congressman Alexander mentioned earlier. The Corps does not perform certification for that purpose. We 

do an assessment of levees to determine whether they meet the 

standards to which they were originally designed, and so there is 

the difference between us making an assessment of a levee from a 

technical perspective and certification for flood insurance purposes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You have turned some of those levees over, 

is that right, to other stakeholders? 

General TEMPLE. That is true, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just as a lay person—obviously, Mr. Alexander is intimately familiar—there is a public perception that we 

are responsible for everything down there—you know, the Army 

Corps is—but in reality, you are saying that our portion of responsibility is somewhat limited by what you have described? 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. If it is a technical assessment of a 

levee, we provide support to local sponsors if they are responsible 

for that levee to make that assessment. If it is a certification for 

flood insurance purposes, it is under FEMA’s lead and that addresses the 100-year or 1 percent frequency of storms. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Last year the committee received testimony—thank you for your response—that the Corps was developing economic models to better determine the economic benefits 

and rate of return on your O&M projects. At that time, these models were predicted to be available in the next 2 years, and they 

would be used to rank projects for budgeting purposes, but until 

such time, the Corps projects would be ranked according to tonmiles, gross tonnage and system ton-miles. 

Where do we stand on these models and what would we anticipate, or are they still under development? 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir, we are still working on the navigation models. We are probably a year and a half to 2 years away from having 

useful models. In the meantime, we are using primarily the benefits of the major ports. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
41 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In other words, we are using the same historical economic models we had been using? 

Mr. LOEW. That is correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So there hasn’t been any change from that? 

Mr. LOEW. Not yet, no, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Where do those models fit into sort of the 

standing request of our committee for what we call our 5-year 

plans. Where are the Corps—where is the Corps in the development of its meeting its obligation to this committee? 

Mr. LOEW. Sir, we do produce a 5-year plan. And it is our goal, 

and actually a requirement of this committee, that we deliver it to 

the committee with the budget. Because the budget is late this 

year, the 5-year plan will be late also. 

Where we fall a little short in the 5-year plan is providing that 

total requirement that it would take to do everything that is backlogged over the next 5 years. Typically, our 5-year plan is more 

constrained by the budget itself. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So it is the backlog of authorized and ongoing construction work and a lot of other things? 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir. We list that work, but we don’t necessarily 

show all of it in the 5-year plan, only what we are able to budget 

for. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Could you comment, Mr. Secretary, or 

maybe Mr. Loew, after the budget justifications arrive, will we see 

any projects submitted that have remaining contract requirements 

which will require budgetary resources for termination? 

Mr. LOEW. Sir, I think we cannot answer that question yet, until 

the final budget decisions are made. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think that tells us right off. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No, I am not cutting you off. Would you yield. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be happy to. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Can I ask a general question? 

Hypothetically, we see the budget and there is an item of termination. What goes into the termination cost? And, again, I assume 

each project is unique, but what are kind of the basic elements as 

far as termination cost? 

Mr. LOEW. Sir, I will answer that because it is a complicated 

question. 

It does not apply to most of the work we do. Most of the work 

we do is fully funded with the contracts awarded. It does apply to 

that portion of the work that is funded through continuing contracts. And so if we have a continuing contract that requires funding in future years to complete it and we don’t receive that funding, 

then we would have to terminate that contract. 

The termination cost would be the cost for the contractor to demobilize and for us to put the project in a safe condition. 

I think—this year I would be hopeful, with a combination of Recovery Act funding and budgeted programs, that we would not have 

to terminate any of our ongoing work. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And if that occurs, we certainly reserve the right, 

and anybody else on the subcommittee, to come back and have a 

conversation. The concern I think we would have is, if termination 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
42 

costs are lower, but not significantly lower than completion costs, 

we would want to talk about the logic of that decision. 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir, we certainly agree with that. And even beyond that, we view a responsibility to contractors as a very important matter. And so we would seek to avoid that at all costs. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, could I? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Please do. 

Mr. SALT. Back on the 5-year plan—it is essentially our goal, my 

goal, to take into account several of the questions the Chairman 

asked earlier about our future policy, opportunities for policy 

change, to try and figure out a way to bring some of those policy 

initiatives into our 5-year plan process, so that it is not just an assumption of our existing policies and what the backlogs and all are, 

but rather what would be the projection, particularly if we were 

considering some of these new policies. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Alexander? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. No questions. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I have a couple of more questions related to the 

Great Lakes and Great Lakes projects. And, gentlemen, I think you 

have on the table in front of you a chart that the staff has prepared, looking at the backlog for the Great Lakes. 

It would appear that the Corps has dredged at less than the 

break-even line for virtually every year except 2008 in the last decade. Could you explain the rationale as to how that occurred? 

Why does Mr. Loew have to answer? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I will take the first stab at it. 

One of the real challenges with the Great Lakes is their ability 

to compete on ton-miles and other, what I would say, perhaps, are 

old factors that we need to look at. 

The Great Lakes, of course, as you know, is a system; and so, you 

have to work it as a system. I think we have done that, at least 

last year, where we really started to look at what was coming out 

of one place and what the depths need to be in all of the ports. 

But this chart is truthful; it is produced by the Great Lakes and 

Ohio River Division, and it shows how woefully inadequate the 

dredging has been to maintain what is the maintenance line along 

there. 

They do have a plan. The heavy bar there is the long-range plan 

to get healthy and address this backlog. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. For comparison’s sake, if you looked at other systems in other regions, would their chart look about the same where 

they would have hit break-even occasionally during a 25-year period of time? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think what Mr. Loew mentioned earlier 

that 700 of the 900 ports do not meet their dredging standards is 

indicative that there would be other places with charts similar to 

this. In some of the places, we get to them less frequently; so at 

a point in time we get to the prescribed and authorized depth, and 

then there is a period of time that we don’t get back to that area. 

So it all depends on the funding and the dredging funding. 

I would say there are probably other places that have charts 

similar to this, although I feel in the Great Lakes, probably—this 

is probably a greater issue. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
43 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would concur, General. In an Army Corps document from 2008, it describes the Great Lakes as having a dredging 

backlog that has, to quote, ‘‘grown to an unprecedented level in 

major navigation channels and harbors.’’ 

Is it your anticipation that in the 2010 bill–2011 bill that we are 

going to be above break-even and start catching up here with the 

Great Lakes? Mr. Loew? 

Mr. LOEW. No, sir, that is not likely. We were able to actually 

break even in the Great Lakes in fiscal year 2009. With a combination of the 2009 Appropriation and the Recovery Act funding, we 

are basically doing all the dredging in that system that the commercial dredging capability can manage. So it would be nice if we 

could maintain that in future years. 

We have been sort of negative in our testimony today about the 

amount of dredging that we are not doing. I think it is also helpful 

to point out that when we decide what to dredge, we look primarily 

at the commercial benefits of the various harbors. And for the harbors that provide 90 percent of all the commercial benefits in the 

United States, we do maintain them at an authorized depth, 

though not necessarily an authorized width. 

We are maintaining the very high-use, high-commercial-value 

projects, but there are a lot of medium- and low-use harbors similar to the situation you see here that will not get all that they 

need. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would point out that you were both break-even 

in 2008, as well, so that would be 2 years. The 2008 figure is primarily because the subcommittee added money. 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. The General alluded there is a plan, but to be 

very frank, I don’t see the plan as far as dollars. 

Mr. Loew, you mentioned the Recovery Act and the fact that at 

least we are at break-even for 2009 given a combination of funds 

we were at in 2008. But it is also my understanding that the Great 

Lakes region, encompassing eight States, received only 2 percent of 

the $4.6 billion in civil works funding. 

Do you believe that is a fair characterization? 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. When we think about geographic diversity and 

filling in the holes and getting back to even 2 percent for an entire 

region for the stimulus, where you have auto—I won’t even mention steel here—and heavy manufacturing, that region, those 

States—States like Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania and New 

York, Illinois has two Ford plants across my borders, Indiana, and 

they got 2 percent of $4.6 billion. I think that is woefully inadequate and, I think, a mistake in judgment, myself. 

I have a last question here. The Soo Locks is an important element of the Marine transportation system in the Great Lakes and 

is of interest to many in the region, including myself. As you know, 

the project is authorized at full Federal expense due to the difficulties of allocating the non-Federal cost share to the beneficiaries, 

and that authorization was not my doing. Is it Corps policy to not 

fund projects that are authorized at full Federal expense? 

Mr. SALT. No, sir. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
44 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. For a project that is authorized at full 

Federal expense, does it compete for funding on a level playing 

field where other projects have local cost share? 

Mr. SALT. I would say yes, sir. The Executive Branch often has 

a policy to fund projects, to give priority to certain projects. But in 

the case of the stimulus, I think Soo Locks was one of the projects 

on the list. And it is their project obviously, but there were others 

that had better, long-term economic benefits, and that is the way 

we did the selection. 

Mr. Alexander. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. You brought up a point that caused me to ask 

a question. You were talking about, Mr. Loew, the formula that you 

used to determine how much dredging is done at a port. You were 

talking about the economy, 90 percent. Do you look at what its 

worth to the area surrounding the port? In other words, $1,000 to 

me is a lot of money. Somebody like Mr. Frelinghuysen that is just 

pocket change. He acknowledged that. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is the Rodney Caucus. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Rodneys, we are the only ones left, except the 

chairman. 

The question is, in other words, a little isolated port up in north 

Louisiana on the Mississippi River that has a population of 4,000, 

that port is the only thing they have, so is that part of the equation 

that determines how much that port is worth as far as dredging 

is concerned; is that part of the equation or is the economy nationwide the only thing that you look at? Do you understand what I 

am asking? 

Mr. LOEW. Yes, sir, I think I do. Again, generally we have limited 

funds available to dredge the Federal channels that service our 

ports. And so an initial distribution decision is made based on the 

economic return from all of the dredging. We certainly wouldn’t 

want to be leaving a major port that has many, many ships coming 

in undredged. That is just too important. So we do work our way 

down through the list based on the commercial value of the port 

or the amount of commerce in the port. But we do look at other 

things. For instance, for some commercial fisheries ports, even 

though they are small, it is important to the industry. Again harbors of refuge are important, making sure that the Coast Guard 

has adequate stations is important. But after we have done that, 

basically we will have about 750 to 800 million available for coastal 

harbors. And when we are out of funds, we are out of funds. So certainly not every port is able to get all that it needs. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Before you leave Dodge City, I just want to 

ask a question, we talked about economic models, and we talked 

about backlogs and 5-year plans. We have seen some pretty catastrophic weather conditions. Obviously Katrina, we have seen severe drought, I mean we have seen extremes, and I don’t think it 

is accentuated just because we are, quote, getting older. I just wonder what you are doing both on the civilian and military side of the 

court, to take a look at out-of-the-box things. I don’t want to have 

the drum beat for climate change here, but what are you doing to 

sort of take an assessment tying in? Last year I was ranking on 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
45 

Commerce, Justice and Science Committee worked pretty closely 

with NOAA and NASA and NIST, and I just sort of wondered what 

are you doing to sort of look outside of the box in terms of the real 

probabilities here that you may be confronted with some hellish situations here that are way beyond our wildest dreams, so to speak. 

Mr. SALT. Let me start and then I will let the Chief and General 

Temple answer as well. You are asking a really big question, which 

has to do with how do we adapt to the big changes that are going 

on, whether it is climate change related or whether there are other 

demographic or growth or other kinds of changes that we need to 

account for. I think going back to the Chairman’s question you 

looking at your existing budget policies in light of some of these 

factors. And I think those are the overarching kinds of questions 

we are trying to understand as we put together and come up with 

appropriate policies for our budgets, and for our future authorizations. 

And I would certainly say for climate change, for the energy and 

hydropower, these are all matters that are priorities to try and get 

a better, smarter handle on our budget policy. 

I will let the Chief and General Temple add anything. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. General Temple. 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. Recently we were involved in a multigovernment agency study. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Like a TOPOFF or—— 

General TEMPLE. No, actually it was a study of climate change 

and its impacts on the various functions of government, and it was 

published by the Commerce Department pertaining to climate 

change. Also our Engineering Research and Development Center is 

performing modeling and other studies pertaining to climate 

change, and last but not least, going back to the marine transportation systems, not only are we involved in the intermodal business 

but working through the impacts on climate change on our commercial transportation systems as well, very closely with NOAA. 

Mr. SALT. Could I just add—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Salt. 

Mr. SALT. To pick up on your comment, sir, you have to wonder, 

we have had floods of record in the last 10 years, like four of them 

in the North Dakota, Minnesota area. We are having all kinds of 

different hydrologic snowmelt changes up in the Pacific Northwest. 

So it is not just hurricanes and those kind of events, but we are 

seeing events of record, droughts, floods all over. And I think we 

are looking forward with the fiscal year 2010 budget to being able 

to actually move from theory into some applications, some pilots, 

if you will, to start advancing in a more aggressive way how we 

adapt to the issues that you pointed out. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. For the record, are you budgeting some of 

this? 

Mr. SALT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Van—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. There is a consortium with USGS in the 

lead, and NOAA and Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, to 

come up with adaptation strategies for the future for our projects, 

our coastlines, our most vulnerable areas, and the USGS circular 

1331, was published on 2nd February this year. It was the culVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:27 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053602 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A602P2.XXX A602P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
46 

mination of at least a year’s work to really look at strategy. So now 

we will be looking at the strategy as projects are done on a coastline, if it is a beach project or whatever, because it helped lay out 

the future affects of what we are going to deal with, whether it be 

sea level rise or climate change or other factors. 

So it was a pretty exhaustive study to take a look at adaption 

strategies in the future. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Which I assume includes the ability to communicate instantaneously, having systems that are well protected 

and hardened so you can communicate instantaneously. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. 

General TEMPLE. Risk communication was an aspect of that publication. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much. I 

would just point out in closing a couple of things. Mr. Salt, you 

mentioned that the request by the administration was the largest 

ever made on behalf of the Corps to the Congress. And you are correct, and I would point out by one measurement great strides had 

been made. The budget’s submission for the Corps for fiscal year 

2009 was $4,741,000,000. As you point out, in 2010 the request is 

$5,125,000,000. So it certainly would acknowledge that progress. 

But the point of all of this being engaged in this exercise is to look 

at the problems we need to address in this country and to try to 

solve them. So it tends to highlight the negative, all the more reason to work together here at the beginning to solve some of these 

outstanding issues. 

And I want to make sure too because I made somewhat light, because I referenced our former colleague Mr. Hobson about the 5- 

year plan. Dave was right, and I absolutely agree with his position. 

I think Mr. Frelinghuysen supports it, too, so that we have a good 

plan of action. So I don’t want people to think I was just making 

light of the 5-year plan earlier. 

And also, would acknowledge, as many of my colleagues have in 

their opening remarks, to find people who do work at the Corps 

both on the military side as well as the civilian side, and whether 

you have risked your lives in defense of this country both as a civilian overseas or military personnel or do simply do good work every 

day, I would want you to know that I personally recognize that, 

too, and do appreciate having Stacey and would also acknowledge 

and I think again most people know the Clerk of this subcommittee 

started on this subcommittee as a detailee from the Army Corps of 

Engineers and we don’t want to let her go. So you have great people and you do a lot of good work, but we can all do better. And 

that is what we are here for, and I would hope that you take this 

hearing as an effort to let’s work together and make some more 

progress here. 

And Mr. Salt, if you can make the same progress next year in 

that differential between 2009 and 2010, that would be terrific. Are 

you going to work on that? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, we will work on that. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
47 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 here 53602A.010
48 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 here 53602A.011
49 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 here 53602A.012
50 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here 53602A.013
51 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here 53602A.014
52 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 53602A.015
53 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here 53602A.016
54 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 53602A.017
55 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 53602A.018
56 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here 53602A.019
57 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here 53602A.020
58 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 here 53602A.021
59 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 here 53602A.022
60 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here 53602A.023
61 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here 53602A.024
62 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 here 53602A.025
63 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here 53602A.026
64 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here 53602A.027
65 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here 53602A.028
66 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 here 53602A.029
67 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 here 53602A.030
68 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 here 53602A.031
69 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 here 53602A.032
70 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 here 53602A.033
71 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 here 53602A.034
72 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 here 53602A.035
73 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 here 53602A.036
74 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 here 53602A.037
75 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 here 53602A.038
76 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 here 53602A.039
77 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 here 53602A.040
78 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 here 53602A.041
79 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 here 53602A.042
80 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 here 53602A.043
81 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 here 53602A.044
82 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 here 53602A.045
83 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 here 53602A.046
84 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 here 53602A.047
85 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144/200 here 53602A.048