Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

<html>
<title> - ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998</title>
<body><pre>
[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


<DOC>
 
                      ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998

========================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

                JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania, Chairman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky               VIC FAZIO, California      
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan             PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey   CHET EDWARDS, Texas        
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi              ED PASTOR, Arizona         
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                                          
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                                             

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full 
  Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
  Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

 James D. Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, and Donald M. McKinnon, 
                            Staff Assistants

                                ________

                                 PART 1

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS

              OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

                  (CIVIL WORKS) AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

                              <snowflake>

                                ________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-581 O                    WASHINGTON : 1997

------------------------------------------------------------------------

             For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office            
        Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,        
                          Washington, DC 20402                          
                           ISBN 0-16-054950-7                           




                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS                      

                   BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman                  

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania         DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin            
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida              SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois           
RALPH REGULA, Ohio                     LOUIS STOKES, Ohio                  
JERRY LEWIS, California                JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania        
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois           NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington         
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota         
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                  JULIAN C. DIXON, California         
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                VIC FAZIO, California               
TOM DeLAY, Texas                       W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina 
JIM KOLBE, Arizona                     STENY H. HOYER, Maryland            
RON PACKARD, California                ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia     
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                  
JAMES T. WALSH, New York               DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado           
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina      NANCY PELOSI, California            
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                  PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana         
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma        THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania   
HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California   
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan              NITA M. LOWEY, New York             
DAN MILLER, Florida                    JOSE E. SERRANO, New York           
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut        
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia            
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi               JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts        
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey    ED PASTOR, Arizona                  
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi           CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida             
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York            DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina      
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington  CHET EDWARDS, Texas                 
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin             
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California  
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                    
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                   
TOM LATHAM, Iowa                       
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky              
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama            

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)



          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998

                              ----------                              

                                            Tuesday, March 4, 1997.

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                               WITNESSES

H. MARTIN LANCASTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOE N. BALLARD, CHIEF, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MAJOR GENERAL RUSSELL L. FUHRMAN, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS
THOMAS F. CAVER, JR., PE, CHIEF, PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION, 
    DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS
BRIGADIER GENERAL J. RICHARD CAPKA, COMMANDER AND DIVISION ENGINEER, 
    SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. McDade. The committee will come to order.
    Let me say, as we begin our hearings for the fiscal year 
that, first of all, I'm delighted to have so many great members 
serving on this committee. I'm sure, as my friend Martin knows, 
that they are quality people, and we'll get a good bill out. 
I'm particularly pleased to have my long-time friend, Vic 
Fazio, serving as my ranking minority member. He does a great 
job.
    I guess there couldn't be a more appropriate time to be 
having this hearing.
    I picked up the Washington Post this morning and read about 
all the disasters in these seven States, people killed, et 
cetera, et cetera, and I think there are four to five members 
of this committee directly affected by the events taking place 
in these States, and apparently, if they're correct about the 
height of the Ohio River, we're going to hear a lot more about 
it.
    [The information follows:]


[Page 2--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

    Our colleague, Jay Dickey, who is from the State of 
Arkansas, is with the President as we speak, en route to 
Arkansas because of the terrible disaster that occurred down 
there.
    So we're delighted to have you, Martin, here. As a former 
colleague, we're delighted that you're running this 
organization. We look forward to working with you.
    We recommend that you put your statement into the record 
and proceed as you wish. And you also, General, put your 
statement in the record and proceed as you wish. The podium is 
yours, Martin. Tell us what's happening.

                    STATEMENT OF H. MARTIN LANCASTER

    Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing us to appear 
before you. We are very pleased to be here with a new team, 
with you as the new chairman and Mr. Fazio as the new ranking 
member, and with several new members of the committee as well.
    But we have a new team at the Corps of Engineers, too. This 
is the first time that Major General Joe Ballard will be 
testifying as Chief of Engineers, and that--I said Major 
General--Lieutenant General. I've already demoted him. 
[Laughter.]
    I guess I'm not doing so well after all. [Laughter.]
    And Major General Russ Fuhrman, the Director of Civil 
Works; also, Fred Caver is new as well, who is our Programs 
Management Division Chief.
    Mr. McDade. Let me just say, Martin, that I had the 
pleasure of speaking with your associates as we were preparing 
for the hearing, as well as other members of the Corps, and 
we're proud of them; they're doing a great job.
    Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
    Mr. McDade. We look forward to working with them as well.
    Mr. Lancaster. Thank you. It is a good team, and as you can 
see, arrayed behind us are our division commanders from around 
the country who also complete that team and provide us great 
support in preparation for this hearing, but, more importantly, 
provide great support every day in providing for the various 
needs of the people of this country that the Corps addresses.
    As you've indicated, we do have a longer statement, but for 
the record. If you would admit in its complete form, I will 
summarize at this point.
    Mr. McDade. Without objection, Martin. We're delighted to 
have your summary.
    Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
    On February 6, the President transmitted to Congress his 
budget for Fiscal Year 1998, along with planning targets for 
the outyears. The President's five-year budget plan supports a 
steady funding level for the Civil Works Program over the next 
five years, and this is good news for us. This will enable the 
Army Corps of Engineers to more accurately predict funding 
availability and better plan for the future.
    The President's 1998 civil works budget includes $3.7 
billion in discretionary appropriations. This amount exceeds 
the 1997 appropriation by about $180 million. However, due to 
proposed changes in financing procedures for new starts, the 
amount to be spent in 1998 is estimated to be about $280 
million less than the 1997 spending level.
    The 1998 budget proposes a transition to full upfront 
funding of all civil works projects with two new proposals. The 
first proposal is to full upfront fund all of the Federal share 
of construction new starts and other new work, including new 
starts in continuing authorities programs.
    The second proposal involves advance appropriation during 
the 1998 Fiscal Year of amounts required in each year from 1999 
through 2002 for 65 ongoing projects scheduled for completion 
during that timeframe. These proposals, full upfront funding of 
new starts and full funding through advance appropriations for 
projects nearing completion, will allow construction to proceed 
on a predictable and efficient schedule, resulting in savings 
for both the non-Federal sponsor and the Federal Government.
    The administration currently is reviewing the proposals of 
a number of agencies, including the Army Civil Works Program 
for Fiscal Year 1997 emergency supplemental appropriations. 
Those appropriations will fund repairs to eligible non-
federally-operated and maintained levies and other flood and 
storm damage reduction facilities in the States affected by 
major California and Pacific Northwest floods of late 1996 and 
early 1997.
    In light of the natural disasters of the past week which 
you have just referred to, Mr. Chairman, the administration is 
now considering how to respond to the needs of those 
communities. Do we go forward with the supplemental that is now 
under consideration immediately and come back with another 
supplemental in a few weeks or do we hold up the submission of 
the supplemental until we can gather the information needed to 
respond to the needs of these additional States that have now 
been significantly impacted. That is under study at OMB now, 
and a decision has not yet been made.
    But back to California; we are continuing discussions with 
OMB and other Federal agencies on a possible reprogramming of 
1997 funds within the general investigations account to 
undertake a comprehensive basin investigation of flood damage 
reduction and associated environmental restoration in the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins in California. In 
addition to this study, the Corps plans to apply available 1997 
funding under the Flood Plain Management Services Program to 
undertake a small communities investigation that specifically 
addresses flood damage reduction solutions for smaller 
communities within the flood-affected areas of these two river 
basins.
    The 1998 budget would fund a program that balances a number 
of high-priority interests and objectives. Investments in water 
resources infrastructure development are balanced with 
investments in watershed and other environmental restoration. 
Continued funding to complete ongoing projects and studies is 
balanced with investment in new high-priority infrastructure 
and environmental projects. Continued maintenance and 
rehabilitation of existing projects is balanced with 
construction of new water resources development projects to 
serves society's current and future needs.
    The 1998 budget continues the Corps' historical role as a 
problem-solver for the Nation. The 1998 budget includes $380 
million to fully fund the Federal share of the proposed new 
investments, including $15 million to fully fund an unspecified 
number of new starts in the Continuing Authorities Program and 
the section 1135 Environmental Restoration Program. However, in 
the planning targets for the Civil Works Program for Fiscal 
Year 1999 through 2002, the amount of $200 million annually is 
set aside to fully fund the Federal share of new start 
construction projects, major rehabilitations, and other new 
work.
    The 1998 budget provides full upfront funding for the 
following new investments: ten new surveys, seven regular 
construction new starts, two major rehabilitation new starts, 
two resumptions of previously-started construction, and one dam 
safety assurance new start.
    Like the civil works budget last year, in order to reduce 
the budgetary impact of new preconstruction engineering and 
design efforts and guarantee sponsor commitment to new PEDs, 
all new PEDs are budgeted at 75 percent of their expected 1998 
cost, based on the policy that the non-Federal sponsors will 
concurrently finance the remaining 25 percent. Moreover, 
fairness to non-Federal sponsors who agree to concurrently 
finance their share of budgeted PEDs requires that we 
consistently apply this policy to any new PED or PED-like 
project added to the program by Congress.
    The 1998 budget proposes funding for several provisions of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, including two new 
starts: the American River Flood Damage Reduction Project and 
the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program, 
as well as $2 million for section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem 
Restoration, a new program. Overall, the budget includes $120 
million for the restoration of the Everglades and South Florida 
Ecosystem, including $75 million to fully fund the newly-
authorized program of critical restoration projects.
    The 1998 budget requests $164.3 million for Corps 
activities related to salmon species indigenous to the Columbia 
River Basin, including $127 million for the Columbia River Fish 
Mitigation Project.
    Throughout the year, the Army advises the Appropriations 
subcommittees of plans to reprogram funds among projects to 
more efficiently use available funding. In the current funding 
constrained environment, the need to give priority in 
reprogramming to payments owed to current contractors may limit 
somewhat the Corps' ability to take advantage of other 
opportunities to expedite work or, in extreme cases, even 
maintain announced schedules. The Corps' ability to reprogram 
funds is more critical than ever when funding is constrained. 
Your continued support of the Corps' current reprogramming 
authorities is essential to maintain this management 
flexibility.
    In conclusion, I would emphasize my commitment to work with 
this subcommittee, others in Congress, the broader array of 
interests within the administration, and the non-Federal 
partners of civil works projects to develop a new consensus on 
the priorities for the Civil Works Program to ensure that the 
Army Corps of Engineers continues to serve the vital interest 
of the Nation by providing efficient priority investments in 
public infrastructure and environmental restoration. Moreover, 
this must be achieved in a way that supports and contributes to 
the President's commitment to the balanced budget.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 
This concludes my statement.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lancaster follows:]




[Pages 7 - 24--The official Committee record contains additional material
here.]


                        STATEMENT OF LTG BALLARD

    Mr. McDade. Martin, thank you for a fine statement. We 
appreciate it, and there's lots we can agree with and maybe a 
little bit we might even disagree with, but well done, either 
way.
    Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
    Mr. McDade. General Ballard, the same circumstance; we 
would appreciate it if you would file your full statement for 
the record and then proceed informally as you wish, in the 
interest of saving time.
    General Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and 
members of the subcommittee, I'm pleased to be testifying on 
the President's Fiscal Year 1998 budget for the Civil Works 
Program, and I'm honored to be appearing before you for the 
first time as the Chief of Engineers.
    Thanks to your great support, the Civil Works Program is 
strong, is balanced, and is highly productive. I look forward 
to our continued partnership in this essential program that is 
so beneficial to our great Nation.
    I plan to be an active player in this arena. I have already 
met with several of you, and I intend to meet with everyone 
when I can get on your calendar. I plan to maintain a steady 
dialog with you on issues and areas of mutual importance.
    Mr. Chairman, with your permission, as you suggested, I 
will now summarize my complete statement. My summarized 
statement covers four topics: division restructuring, the 
Fiscal Year 1998 Civil Works Program budget, improvement of 
business processes, and the Civil Works Program execution.
    First, I want to take a few minutes to discuss division 
restructuring. I know that there is a great deal of interest in 
that area, and I want to hit that upfront. You have each 
previously been provided an outline of the plan. Rather than 
spending time describing it, I would like to address the plan's 
background and its merits. I want to make several points during 
the discussion on restructuring.
    The first point is that we've been trying to restructure 
since 1989 without success, but, with your help, I believe that 
this plan can succeed.
    The second point is that during the intervening years the 
Corps has made many significant reductions in its workforce, 
particularly at the division and the headquarters level. Much 
of the large savings envisioned as a result of division office 
restructuring have been, of necessity, achieved through other 
steps. The savings are reflected in the budget request.
    The third point is--and I think equally important is--that 
many other efficiency actions are on hold pending resolution of 
restructuring. We can't effectively proceed without knowing the 
outcome.
    Finally, the ongoing restructuring initiative has taken its 
toll on our employees and their morale, since there's a great 
deal of uncertainty about what will happen. It is important for 
all of those reasons that we come to closure on this issue.
    The plan submitted to you by the Secretary of the Army is 
executable. It responds to all of the requirements of the law. 
It assures continued presence in key areas, allows us to 
drawdown in selective areas. It maintains watershed integrity 
and optimizes our support to the Army and Air Force, which are 
also major considerations.
    Let me discuss some key points on resourcing. The Corps has 
already made significant reductions in executive direction and 
management workforce since 1989. We achieved these reductions 
through downsizing and reorganization initiatives independent 
of formal restructuring. From 1989 to the present, we reduced 
the size of the Corps' headquarters by 24 percent, and as a 
result of this action, the Corps' headquarters now accounts for 
less than 2 percent of the total civil works workforce, making 
it one of the leanest headquarters of any agency in Washington.
    In October 1996, the Corps completed a major division 
office reorganization initiative. We divested the divisions of 
operating functions such as technical review, and we eliminated 
duplications of effort. A typical division headquarters has 
been reduced from 90 Civil Works Program-funded FTEs to 76. In 
total, the Corps has reduced its general expense workforce by 
29 percent since 1989.
    The current plan, when implemented, will provide a 
framework from within which we can continue to draw down 
without hurting program execution. It allows us to 
appropriately shape the workforce consistent with program 
workloads.
    I want to thank you for your continued support in this 
difficult area. I strongly feel the plan we presented is the 
best one for the Corps and sets in place a more efficient 
organizational structure, permitting greater efficiency in the 
future, and I personally solicit your support.
    Turning now to the Civil Works Direct Program, I know that 
you've seen, and your staff has analyzed, the proposed funding 
level. Let me highlight a few points.
    The proposed funding level includes the traditional 
incremental funding plus categories called advance and full 
funding, and as the Secretary has explained, this approach is 
in support of the administration policy to fund upfront all 
Federal investments in fixed assets.
    New funding for Fiscal Year 1998 is larger by $104 million 
than the total appropriation in Fiscal Year 1997. This is 
caused by a funding spike of $380 million due to the full-
funding initiative.
    Of the proposed funding, 20 percent will come from sources 
other than the Treasury's generalfund. All but 7 million will 
come from nine existing special and trust funds. The one new source is 
a proposed special fund based on fees for permits for commercial 
applicants.
    The overall impact of this budget is positive, given the 
major efforts underway to balance the budget, which is 
important to the Nation. It provides reasonable amounts for the 
Corps' traditional missions. It also provides considerable 
funding for new starts in each of the five years to allow us to 
respond to the Nation's many pressing water resource management 
needs.
    A special concern of mine is our ability to maintain our 
existing civil works infrastructure. The facilities are getting 
older and the dollars are declining. I've tasked Major General 
Fuhrman to make this a special focus area.
    The effect of full funding on construction and our 
relations with our partners will be positive. We will now be 
able to construct projects based on the optimum schedule and 
not prolong them, thereby driving up the cost. This will result 
in lower costs and earlier delivery of these projects, which 
means happier partners, and allow the project benefits to begin 
sooner. It will also provide more certainty in the process, 
which our sponsors will appreciate.
    Mr. Chairman, we have worked hard on improving our business 
processes. There is more detail in the full report, but I'd 
like to highlight three areas as indicative of our ongoing 
efforts.
    First, we have reduced the total review time for decision 
documents from 128 days to 110. Now that's significant, but we 
won't stop there. Secondly, we have reduced the time required 
to complete project cooperation agreements by one-half down to 
60 days. Third, our alternative dispute resolution and 
partnering process have cut contractor claims by 70 percent 
over the last five years. We will actively continue to explore 
innovative ways to cut costs and improve service and value to 
customers.
    Next I'd like to say a few words about the Civil Works 
Program execution. This is a good news story. All of our 
execution rates are above 90 percent, and carryover is 
significantly lower than our historical record. And, as you 
know, these performance measures are critical ones for the 
Corps. We will keep working on this area to sustain good 
performance and improve where possible.
    In conclusion, the President's budget for the Corps of 
Engineers provides stable funding with balance among competing 
priorities. However, we must continue to find ways to reduce 
our costs and shift more of those remaining to direct 
beneficiaries of our services. Meanwhile, we will do our best 
to execute the Civil Works Program for maximum benefit of the 
Nation.
    The recently-implemented improvements in business processes 
have increased our production and customer satisfaction while 
simultaneously enabling us to participate significantly in 
ongoing efforts to downsize government. I'm confident in our 
ability to meet that challenge and continue to benefit our 
great Nation.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This 
concludes my statement.
    [The prepared statement of General Ballard follows:]



[Pages 28 - 48--The official Committee record contains additional
material here.]


                         NEGATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL

    Mr. McDade. General, thank you for your very well-delivered 
statement. I'm particularly appreciative, and I'm sure all the 
members of the committee are, in your thoughts about continuing 
a dialog. We view this as a cooperative process, a partnership, 
and we look forward to continuing that dialog with you.
    General Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. Mr. Secretary, let me begin by saying we all 
knew you had a lot of great engineers in the organization, but 
I didn't know you had such wordsmiths.
    I've been around here 34 years, 32 of them on the 
Appropriations Committee, and this is the first time I've 
encountered the phrase, ``negative supplemental.'' [Laughter.]
    It almost sounds to me like an oxymoron, but we won't get 
into that so much.
    You propose to cancel $50 million in 1997 Construction, 
General funds under this negative supplemental. Is that 
accurate, Mr. Secretary?
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir, that is. We're part of the 
President's budget proposal.
    Mr. McDade. Tell us why the negative supplemental is being 
proposed.
    Mr. Lancaster. This is to help us achieve our funding goal 
for this year, and takes into account the large number of 
projects which are not likely to be undertaken this year, but 
for which funds are earmarked, and, therefore, cannot be 
reprogrammed for other purposes. And so this is a device that 
the Office of Management and Budget has come up with to enable 
us to identify some of these funds to help us achieve this goal 
of balancing the budget.
    Mr. McDade. As I hear you, Mr. Secretary, that request was 
not made by you to the OMB; it was given to you by OMB.
    Mr. Lancaster. It was not initially a request from our 
office, no, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Is there some reason the proposal wasn't 
identified as a rescission, as would be the normal course for 
such activities?
    Mr. Lancaster. I cannot answer that. We will get you an 
answer for the record on that, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. Okay.
    [The information follows:]

               Fiscal Year 1997 ``Negative Supplemental''

    The proposal to cancel $50,000,000 from the Construction, 
General, account is part of the President's proposal for a 
government-wide supplemental appropriation. It is being made in 
the interest of more fully using funds appropriated for FY97 on 
programs of high priority to the President.
    As part of the proposal for a government-wide supplemental 
appropriation, the $50 million is, in effect, a proposed 
transfer to another agency's program, rather than a rescission.

               PROJECTS IMPACTED BY NEGATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL

    Mr. McDade. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what projects 
are going to be impacted by this proposal? Can you tell us what 
they are and where they are? Do you have a list of them?
    Mr. Lancaster. It is my understanding that such a list does 
not yet exist. It will be provided at a later date.
    Mr. McDade. Yes, furnish if you will, at your earliest 
convenience, the list, and tell us what the policy was that had 
those particular projects affected when you furnish the list.
    Mr. Lancaster. We will do so, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]

                     Projects Affected by Proposal

    At this time, we have not determined which projects will be 
affected.

                         FULL FUNDING PROPOSAL

    Mr. McDade. As you both mentioned, another very sharp 
departure in this year's budget is full funding of new 
construction activities. You started to explain the reasoning 
in terms of efficiency, et cetera. Amplify for the record 
exactly what you think you're accomplishing by going to full 
funding.
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. First of all, the Corps is one of 
the few Federal agencies that receives incremental funding. 
Most capital budget items are full funded in the other 
appropriations bills that the full committee approves. So we 
would be achieving consistency in a Federal budgeting practice 
if we went to full funding. But the concept is one which we 
believe has a positive impact on our program because it will 
allow us to better plan for our construction if we know that we 
have the full amount of funding upfront and that it will be 
available for us to execute the contract on the most 
expeditious schedule.
    We can use contracts that are the full project instead of 
in segments or in various pieces. If the contractor knows that 
he has the money upfront and is not going to be subject to 
incremental financing by Congress, which may vary from year to 
year, he can give a better price. The local sponsors in our 
communities will know upfront that their project is fully 
funded and will be completed by a date certain, instead of 
again being dependent on incremental funding. So for all these 
reasons, we believe that this is a positive development and one 
that will lead to a better executed construction program for 
the Corps of Engineers.
    Mr. McDade. Let me focus on a couple of the items that you 
mentioned. You said that contractors will be more comfortable, 
and of course I suppose they would be. Do you have any evidence 
that contractors inflate their bids because of incremental 
funding?
    Mr. Lancaster. I will ask my colleague, the Chief, or the 
Director of Civil Works if either of them has specific 
evidence. My guess is that it is, rather than specific 
evidence, simply a foregone conclusion that if you aren't 
certain when you're going to be able to complete your project 
and can't plan it through its completion, that you're going to 
build in some wiggle room. But do either of you want to respond 
further?
    General Ballard. Well, my comment, first of all, sir, is we 
have no evidence that contractors have inflated the costs, but 
we realize that most contractors have to borrow money also, and 
time is money. So the longer you stretch out a project, I think 
the greater the cost is to the contractor.
    Russ, you might want to add something to that.
    General Fuhrman. I have nothing further to add to that.
    Mr. McDade. So your testimony is that incremental funding 
increases the cost of a project; is that right?
    General Ballard. I would say that that possibility exists.
    Mr. McDade. Well, but I don't mean to try--I know it's hard 
to give specific evidence----
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade [continuing]. And I don't mean to be trying to 
pin you down because, as I said, we're going to dialog together 
and work together, but what does your experience tell you? I 
mean, you've been dealing with a lot of contractors over the 
years in all sorts of civil projects. What does it tell you? 
What does the contractor do when he bids on an incremental 
project?
    General Fuhrman. If I were a contractor looking at a 
project where I had all of the money on the front end, I would 
go at it from the aspect of laying out that project and doing 
it from the perspective of efficiency and what makes sense in 
approaching that contract from an engineering and construction 
perspective as versus a budget ceiling from year to year. And 
depending on the particular project, there would be occasions 
where there would be efficiencies in that and there would be 
other occasions where there would not be.
    Mr. McDade. Well, give me a typical example of where the 
efficiencies would occur.
    General Fuhrman. For instance, if you take a look at 
Olmstead Lock and Dam that we're constructing right now, 
thecontractor is moving out at a much faster rate than we have money 
programmed for.
    Mr. McDade. Does the incremental bidding cause slips in 
schedule? Do you find slips in schedule caused by incremental 
funding?
    General Fuhrman. I can't think of a particular project 
right now where I could give you a specific on it, but, 
clearly, if you looked at it from the perspective of am I 
constructing this project based on good engineering and 
construction principles as versus budgeting principles, you can 
make the case that----
    Mr. McDade. Well, that's the theoretical case, but we're 
looking for reality, and if you have any examples of reality, 
give it to the committee staff and furnish it for the record, 
would you?
    General Fuhrman. Sure.
    Mr. McDade. We invite you to do that on all those 
questions, if you wish to, please.
    [The information follows:]

                      Incremental Funding Impacts

    While it is the desire of the Corps to fund projects at the 
most efficient schedules, incremental funding may result in 
projects being funded at less than the optimum rate each year. 
The result of this inefficient construction scheduling is 
higher costs to non-Federal sponsors and the Federal government 
as well as difficulties in project management and scheduling. 
This is most notable during times of constrained budgets like 
we are experiencing now, when budget ceilings do not allow for 
all projects to proceed on schedule while supporting important 
new construction starts. But even in less constrained times, 
project schedules have been extended in some cases to 
accommodate the full range of projects funded. For this reason, 
the Administration believes that providing full upfront funding 
of projects will ensure that future new projects proceed at the 
most efficient schedules possible, providing the best service 
to our local sponsors. Unfortunately, current budget constraint 
limit both our ability to fund ongoing construction projects at 
the optimum levels needed and limit the number of new starts 
that can be funded.

                        REPROGRAMMING AUTHORITY

    Mr. McDade. Is there any need to change the reprogramming 
authority to ensure that resources are appropriated for full or 
advanced funding? Do you have sufficient reprogramming 
authority, if the committee decided to go your route?
    Mr. Lancaster. We believe that we do. Our hope is that the 
reprogramming authority that we have will be continued and not 
modified----
    Mr. McDade. As is?
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.

                    OUTYEAR NEW CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

    Mr. McDade. In the budget, you indicated in the years after 
Fiscal Year 1998, $200 million will be available each year for 
full funding of construction activities. Won't that limitation 
effectively preclude you from undertaking a significant number 
of projects that would go forward under current procedures?
    Mr. Lancaster. Well, of course, each year will depend on 
what the priorities of Congress are in that particular year. We 
were pleased, though, that the outyears budget does include a 
level of funding for new starts, something that previously has 
not been included in our projections. We believe that 
determining what that appropriate level is is something that 
this committee should determine in consultation with the 
administration, but we believe that this sets at least a marker 
for the next five years that we are going to do new starts, 
that we will continue to be an organization that not only 
operates and maintains what we've built in the past, but that 
we're going to continue to address the needs of the country as 
they come up on a year-to-year basis. And this is a marker, if 
you would, of approximately $200 million per year for five 
years that would be the beginning point for our discussions in 
each year.
    In the past, we have not in outyear projections included 
anything for new starts. Our outyear projections have been 
without regard to new starts, and they have been added, then, 
on a year-to-year basis. And we believe that it's appropriate, 
as we look toward a balanced budget in the year 2002, that we 
plan some level of new starts, so that we don't find ourselves 
in a situation where we are only an organization that does 
operations and maintenance of existing projects, but instead is 
an organization that looks to new needs and new priorities for 
our country.
    Mr. McDade. You look upon it as a floor and not a cap, in 
other words?
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. And you don't share the fear that's been 
expressed to me by some of my colleagues that if you put that 
number in, you're going to effectively go out of the lock 
replacement business?
    Mr. Lancaster. That was not the intention in setting this 
figure, but, instead, was a way in which we wanted to plan for 
the future in a realistic way, realizing that there are new 
starts that we should undertake in each year, and the way that 
we have projected our appropriations in the past included no 
new starts for lock replacements or for anything else. And so 
this is a beginning of looking at the budget more 
realistically, which would include some new starts for each 
year.

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUEST

    Mr. McDade. Thank you, Martin. Let me turn to the O&M 
budget briefly. The budget request for O&M is $79 million below 
the amount appropriated in 1997 and $45 million below the 
amount requested for Fiscal Year 1997. What was your request to 
the OMB?
    Mr. Lancaster. Unless one of my colleagues has that request 
figure, we would have to provide that for the record because I 
don't remember off the top of my head.
    Mr. McDade. Anybody know?
    Mr. Lancaster. Do we have it, Russ?
    General Fuhrman. One point seven five billion.
    Mr. McDade. One point seven five billion? Have the 
reductions been achieved by reducing levels of service for 
particular activities within the operations and maintenance 
program such as harbor dredging, lock operations, or operation 
of recreation areas?
    Mr. Lancaster. If I might comment very generally on 
thepolicy here, and then I will yield to my colleagues for more 
specific detail. We, of course, realize that if we are going to play a 
part in balancing the budget, that we must examine all areas of our 
program: operations and maintenance, new construction, all of our 
programs. And we believe that we must do our operations and maintenance 
smarter because every year we have new projects coming onboard which we 
have to maintain, and we have an inventory of very old infrastructure 
that becomes more and more expensive to maintain. And so we have set as 
our goal to reduce operations and maintenance by 15 percent in order to 
bring that in line on balance with the other program areas of the----
    Mr. McDade. Is 15 percent your figure or OMB's figure?
    Mr. Lancaster. No, that is our figure.
    Mr. McDade. That's a figure you think you can live with?
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir, and as a----
    Mr. McDade. Do you agree, General?
    General Ballard. Yes, sir. When we agreed upon this figure 
year between the Secretary and my office, in conjunction with 
that agreement, we formed a task force to go out and to take a 
look at this 15 percent reduction beginning in Fiscal Year 
1998. The approach that we intend to take is to benchmark our 
activities, I think along the lines that you were getting at, 
in cost of dollars per visitor, dollars per boat locked, and, 
hopefully, that process will help us to identify the outlyers 
and start to work on them.
    I can tell you that we have some sites that we're paying as 
much as $700 a visitor because of the staffing and the through-
put that we have come through some of those sites. Some locks 
are running about $8,000 a boat. The bottom line is the 
percentage of our budget that we are allotting to O&M has been 
increasing since 1980, and we simply have to, as the Secretary 
said, achieve a balance between those priorities and that of 
investing in----
    Mr. McDade. So you're looking at a question of usage and 
costs?
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. Have you decided exactly where that's going to 
impact, what recreation areas, what locks, for example?
    General Ballard. No, sir, we have not. I am anticipating 
that I'll get the final report in early spring. Once we receive 
that report, we'll brief the Secretary and OMB and work with 
the committees before we take any action.
    Mr. McDade. Yes, we would appreciate being a partner with 
you, as we have said, and moving along with it and taking a 
look at it.
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.

                  MAINTENANCE OF SHALLOW DRAFT HARBORS

    Mr. McDade. Mr. Secretary, in your statement you indicate 
that $40 million is included to maintain small boat harbors. 
How does this compare with the amount appropriated in Fiscal 
Year 1997 for maintenance of small boat harbors?
    Mr. Lancaster. It is less, and I'll ask one of my folks 
here at the table with me to come up with the exact amount. We 
do believe, however, that this is an appropriate level that 
will maintain, in particular, at the top of our priority, small 
boat harbors that communities depend on for their subsistence, 
either for receiving supplies or for putting out commercial 
fishing vessels, that sort of thing.
    What we will do is prioritize these small harbors and make 
certain that those that have a significant impact on the 
economy of the area receive the highest priority, and these 
priorities will go down to those harbors that are purely 
recreational. We hope that we will have enough money to do all 
of them, but we have to set up priorities.
    You will recall that the administration in previous years 
actually proposed to eliminate maintenance of these small 
harbors completely and to place this responsibility on States 
and local communities. We believe that this is a significant 
step forward in addressing the needs of these communities that 
are dependent significantly on the operations of these harbors 
for their economy.
    Mr. McDade. Furnish us that criteria, will you, Mr. 
Secretary----
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir, we will.
    Mr. McDade [continuing]. So that we can take a look at it 
with you?
    [The information follows:]

                Shallow Draft Harbors--Funding Criteria

    Funds are included in the Fiscal Year 1998 Operation and 
Maintenance, General, budget to maintain shallow draft harbors, 
particularly where the economies of the communities are 
significantly or moderately dependant on commercial or related 
purposes. Factors considered in development of estimates for 
harbor maintenance include: current usage, based on the latest 
waterborne commerce statistics; field recommendations, based on 
condition surveys; type of work (dredging, breakwaters, etc.); 
and experienced interval, in years, when dredging is normally 
required. While there are some individual projects that are not 
in the budget, we believe there are sufficient funds in the 
overall O&M account to keep all of these kinds of harbors open, 
as well as maintain deep draft commercial harbors. Where the 
communities' economies are substantially dependent upon 
commercial fishing and related activities, funds are included 
in our request within the context of the Administration's goal 
to balance the budget by the year 2002. Within this context, 
funding for shallow draft harbors, along with other important 
maintenance projects throughout the nation, received every 
possible consideration.

                         RECREATION FACILITIES

    Mr. McDade. You also indicate that $176 million is included 
in the budget request for O&M of recreation facilities at Corps 
projects. How does this compare with the 1997 appropriated 
amount for the same activities?
    General Fuhrman. It's less. We'll have to provide you the 
data for the record. I don't have it.
    Mr. McDade. You don't know by how much?
    General Fuhrman. No, I don't.
    Mr. McDade. Okay, get the information to us as quickly as 
you can.
    Mr. Lancaster. We will give you those.
    Mr. McDade. And we, again, would like to have the criteria 
on which you base your judgment.
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
    [The information follows:]

                Recreation Facilities--Funding Criteria

    The Fiscal Year 1998 budget request includes $176 million 
for operation and maintenance of recreation facilities compared 
to an appropriation of $201 million for this work in Fiscal 
Year 1997. To accommodate this savings and still provide 
quality service to the visiting public at Corps recreation 
facilities, we want to align the visitation usage with the 
length of the recreation season. Experience shows that the 
recreation season can be shortened in some instances, 
particularly at those sites where there are other recreation 
areas close by that could be used and thereby minimize impacts 
on the public. In addition, we are exploring the possibility 
that some campgrounds could be leased to the private sector and 
relieve the financial burden from the general taxpayer. Some 
cost savings can be achieved by reducing the hours of operation 
at Corps visitor centers, especially during those periods of 
time when visitation is low.

                        RECOGNITION OF MR. FAZIO

    Mr. McDade. I'm pleased now to yield to my friend from 
California, the ranking member, Mr. Fazio.
    Mr. Fazio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think on 
behalf of all the people who have served on this committee in 
recent years, we want to welcome you. I want to say how pleased 
I was, when we got together, that you indicated you wanted to 
follow the great tradition that Mr. Myers and Mr. Bevill 
established for the last 20 years in the way this committee has 
functioned in a bipartisan manner. I can't think of anybody 
more likely to bring that about than Joe McDade. So we're all 
very, very pleased to have you.
    Mr. McDade. I look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Fazio. I thank you, and we look forward to that.
    I also want to welcome the new team from the Corps. There's 
no question that we have a lot of new faces in this room, and I 
just want to say to my dear friend Martin Lancaster how sorry I 
am that this isn't his fourth budget that he's presenting. 
[Laughter.]
    Because talk about OMB-driven policies, I think it's really 
time for the Corps to present its own ideas and initiatives, 
and I think we've begun to see that emerging this morning.
    I just want to say to you, General Ballard and General 
Fuhrman, I look forward to getting to know you both as well, 
and welcome you. I think, to be very blunt, we have some tough 
decisions to make. This academic discussion we've been having 
about full, up-front funding is just that, I think, because we 
can't afford it, even if it is in some ways an adjustment that 
perhaps is warranted by other agencies in the budgeting 
approach they take. This committee hasn't yet seen its 
allocation from the Budget Committee, but if it's anything like 
recent years, we'd better not be spending money on scoring 
reform, when we've got a lot of problems out there in the 
country.

                          CALIFORNIA FLOODING

    And if I could ask my colleagues to give me a little bit of 
latitude, I've got a lot at stake in this bill this year 
because of what's happened out in California, which is very 
similar to what's happening in the Ohio River Valley as we 
speak, and I'm sure we'll hear from Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dickey 
when he gets back, and others. But I would like to just remind 
some of our colleagues, because it's a couple of months old 
now, at least in term of headlines, but we've had some terrible 
floods in California, and I think my actions on this committee, 
at least this year, are going to be heavily focused on trying 
to remedy some of the problems that we've already seen. 
Hopefully, we've seen the end of them, because if we get 
another so-called ``pineapple special'' moving through 
California, when we've got 200 percent of normal snowpack in 
the Sierras, we could be at the beginning and not the end of 
the disaster. We hope we've seen the worst of it.
    The worst of it means nine deaths, about $2 billion in 
estimated losses, $150 million in agriculture and $100 million 
in the forests as part of that. We at one time or another had 
100,000 Californians out of their homes. We had a very serious 
problem and we're not out of the woods yet. We have, I think, 
as these photos over here would display--and the Corps normally 
does this kind of show-and-tell, but since I gathered you 
weren't going to, I thought I'd supplant you. [Laughter.]
    This is a levee break on the Feather River, which is an 
area adjacent to where Mr. Herger and I come together. You can 
see we've got about 20 square miles of flooding as a result of 
that. Two small levee breaches on the Bear River were 
contained, but a major break there could well have sent flood 
waters all the way south to the river, the American River, that 
separates the city of Sacramento from the Natomas area, which 
is undergoing tremendous development.
    The Sutter Bypass break shows how many of our people were 
actually protected by a system that's been in place for many 
years. The bypass itself is designed to carry water when the 
Sacramento River and other rivers in the area can no longer 
contain within their banks what is a tremendous flow. People 
look at this from the Bay Area and say, ``PoorSacramento, 
they're under water.'' Well, this is what's supposed to happen, and, 
frankly, we may need to build a similar system in the San Joaquin Basin 
to bypass the San Joaquin River.
    We did have a levee break, as I alluded to a minute ago, in 
this bypass that resulted in a good deal of flooding, and the 
little town of Meridian became a national symbol of a plucky 
willingness to fight their way through and protect their 
community.
    But, you know, it's very, very problematical as to whether 
many of my constituents are going to be high and dry through 
April, and I say that because there are many, many communities 
that are very much threatened by the saturated levees that 
continue to be a problem for us, land that remains under water, 
which has yet to be fully pumped out or to flow by gravity into 
the Delta.
    We have some serious problems out there and I want to take 
this opportunity, frankly, to express my deep appreciation to 
the Corps. General Capka is sitting here, and there are others 
who know very well what we've been through and what we're 
fighting to limit in the next couple of months out there.
    And while in an environment where a disaster occurs you can 
never make people happy, we do have to, I think, look at what 
the disaster could have been, had we not in the last couple of 
years made some major improvements in the Sacramento area which 
kept the most urban region of this flood project protected.

                            AFTER 1986 FLOOD

    I would like to ask some questions, if I could, to get on 
the record some things that I think the Corps needs to be 
upfront about, and that is we had some flooding in California 
in 1986 which kicked off a tremendous interest in, for example, 
issues like Auburn Dam, which came to no resolution in the last 
Congress, but we have been making progress. I've alluded to 
some in the Sacramento area. And I'd like to ask, what have we 
really accomplished since the flooding of 1986? We talk about 
100-year floods; they seem to be coming about every 10 years.
    Mr. Secretary, can you help us?
    Mr. Lancaster. We've even had multiple 100-year floods in a 
year in some cases, Mr. Fazio.
    Of course, following the 1986 flood, a plan was developed 
which was to be built in multiple phases that should not yet be 
completed, and will be completed by the year 2000. But we have 
completed the phases in sequence, according to the original 
plan, and while it would have been very helpful if the work to 
be completed by 2000 had been completed before this flood, we 
were on schedule, and, unfortunately, those projects were not 
completed. We believe that the plan will be completed on 
schedule, and it will provide further protection in the future.
    I don't know if either general would prefer to--would like 
to say anything further.

                          COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

    Mr. Fazio. Well, I'd like to ask if it's possible--and I've 
begun to believe it is--if we could perhaps accelerate the 
completion of this fourth phase that is remaining to be done. 
It also seems to me that if we learned anything from the review 
investigation you alluded to in your comments, looking at the 
existing system as is, that we ought to be somehow in a 
position to inject those fixes, those levee repairs, whatever 
it may require, into our work program over the next several 
years. Is there any possibility for acceleration or perhaps 
reprioritization based on what we learn as we review the system 
that's just been under such stress?
    Mr. Lancaster. Well, I think that is our purpose in doing a 
comprehensive review which we have begun the process of 
reprogramming the funds to begin that study. Of course, at the 
time we put this budget together we did not know of this need, 
and so there are not funds to complete that study in the 
request. But a comprehensive look at the entire area we believe 
is appropriate. We can, then, make adjustments in the 1986 plan 
as necessary and at the same time look at new ways to address 
the issue of flooding in this area. There may be nonstructural 
alternatives that were not considered in 1986 that are now 
appropriate. There may be ways to set back levees that were not 
considered in 1986. There may be bypassing, as you have 
indicated, that might have the same impact in the San Joaquin 
that they have in the Sacramento. Of course, as you know, we 
visited one of those bypasses when I was in California, and 
it's an incredible engineering feat because for most of the 
year it's wonderful agricultural land, but at a time when it 
doesn't need to be farmed, provides a safety valve. So I think 
that we certainly can and should look very comprehensively at 
the entire area and make adjustments as necessary to the 1986 
plan, as well as plan for the future.
    Mr. Fazio. This survey that we hope to, I guess, complete 
this summer, but certainly begin this summer, would cost $5 
million; is that correct? I think I've seen that number 
somewhere.
    General Ballard. That's the current projection, sir.
    Mr. Fazio. And you have that available from existing funds 
with reprogramming authority; is that correct?
    Mr. Lancaster. We have the money available to begin the 
process. I don't believe it is anticipated that we can complete 
that this year. It will require follow-on funding with efforts 
into next year.
    Mr. Fazio. Did you want to comment on that, General 
Fuhrman? I saw you getting some input from the program 
department. [Laughter.]
    General Fuhrman. It would just be a recount and obviously 
following on with 1998 funding to continue that piece of it.
    Mr. Fazio. Well, I'm particularly anxious to update the 
survey that we did between 1986 and 1989, which has been the 
basis upon which we've spent a little more than half of the 
money that we were originally planning to spend to make those 
improvements, and I'd like to work with you to make sure that 
we do as much as we can do within our capability--that term we 
throw around in these discussions: what is our capability?

                             FLOOD RECOVERY

    But I'm particularly also focusing on the flood recovery. 
We'd like to get our system up and operating at least in the 
shape it was in at the beginning of this winter by the time the 
next one comes along. Could you tell us what we're doing to 
make sure that we can meet that kind of a standard, which 
General Capka so generously agreed to--in front of a very 
interesting group of Californians, led by our senior Senator, 
Diane Feinstein, not too long ago----
    Mr. Lancaster. Would you like to respond to that?
    General Fuhrman. We're working very closely with General 
Capka, and there is not a week that goes by that the two of us 
don't talk at least two or three times on the phone, working 
that effort to do everything that we can to reduce the 
bureaucracy and working concurrently with my staff up here and 
his staff out there, in conjunction with a levee restoration 
piece. The first priority that we have out there is to restore 
those levees, so that they're ready for the next flood season. 
At the same time we're trying to take advantage of the CALFED 
initiative, as you know, to roll that in and work on longer-
term, more environmental-type solutions where that's 
appropriate.

                                 CALFED

    Mr. Fazio. For my colleagues, we'll be hearing a lot about 
CALFED in this hearing and with the Interior Department. This 
is an unlikely effort that we in California are making to work 
together in the Delta at every level of government, and from 
the environmental side to industry and agriculture, to try to 
find the cooperative approach to fixing our Delta water 
quality. But now I think, in light of the flooding and the need 
for flood protection, we have an opportunity for some win/win's 
with some facilities that may hold water and help us in wet 
winters and provide it in dry years, in the summer when the 
Delta may not have an adequate amount of water. So we're going 
to be confronted with a new administration initiative on this, 
but it does give us a chance to work the Corps into that 
process, and I'm looking forward to having the Corps be at the 
table on CALFED when it's reauthorized.
    Mr. Lancaster. Interestingly, we were not at the table when 
CALFED was initially put together, but we recently joined as a 
formal member of CALFED, and look forward to being a part of 
the interagency process.

                       COST OF LEVEE RESTORATION

    Mr. Fazio. But could you tell me at this point, Mr. 
Secretary, what do you think it's going to cost to get this 
system back up to the level of protection we had when we 
entered into this very wet winter? That doesn't mean better 
than it has been. Obviously, we'd like it to be improved, and 
we need to do that. I'm hearing estimates of $350 million, with 
$50 million perhaps spent thus far. Does that sound to you, 
General Fuhrman, like something that is in the realm of reason?
    General Fuhrman. Yes. To date, we have spent, as you said, 
about $50 million in the flood fight piece of it, and as you 
well know, we still have high water out there on a large number 
of levies. So we won't know what the final number is until we 
can get in and take a look at some of those, but those numbers 
are in the ball park.
    Mr. Fazio. Would you say at least $350 million? Could it go 
higher? Or have you taken into consideration the fact that we 
don't have all the answers and fudged it up a little bit? 
[Laughter.]
    Which way did we fudge, is what I'm looking for.
    General Fuhrman. We try to be conservative, but the bottom 
line is until--especially down in the lower Delta, as you're 
well aware, sir, until the water gets off those levees and we 
can get in there and see what we have, any guess would be 
premature.
    Mr. Fazio. Okay. I understand, as of last Friday, this 
study that we're doing to determine how we're going to repair 
this system has been held up at OMB and at the Counsel on 
Environmental Quality in order to bring--the term is ``more 
interagency support'' and resources to it. I get nervous when I 
hear bureaucratic phrases like that because sometimes that 
support comes at great cost.
    I'm wondering, do you think this is going to be a long 
holdup, and is this going to impede--I realize we're talking 
Meander-belts. We've learned from the Galloway report on the 
Mississippi that there is more than one way to do this. I'm not 
opposed to making changes in how we get back to the same level 
of protection. What I'm concerned about is delays that make it 
impossible for us to meet that time schedule. You know what I'm 
fearful of. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
    Mr. Lancaster. Well, Mr. Fazio, we are anxious to move out 
as smartly as we can, but we also are anxious to work with 
other agencies to make certain that, when we do it, we do it 
right and with the full support of those agencies who can make 
life very difficult for us as we do these repairs.
    Mr. Fazio. In other words, if you don't get them involved 
upfront, there will be an impediment down the road?
    Mr. Lancaster. That is a possibility for which we have to 
plan.
    So we're very anxious to involve all agencies from the very 
beginning. We hope that it will not be unnecessary delay in the 
process.
    Mr. Fazio. Well, could you make available for the record, 
maybe in a very short time frame, the time table we hope to 
follow in order to make it possible for us to not miss that 
repair of the system that we all need to have as our No. 1 
priority between now and, say, next September? We don't want to 
have any problems here in a bureaucratic sense that are going 
to cause the Corps to slip its own self-imposed commitment 
schedule.
    [The information follows:]



[Page 61--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Fazio. Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to my 
colleagues for taking as much time as I have on something 
that's as parochial as this is, obviously, but it's exceedingly 
important, and I hope that as time goes on other members of the 
committee will appreciate the degree to which this is an 
ongoing crisis in our State. And I'll now yield back and wait 
for the second round for further questions.

                   RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN ROGERS

    Mr. McDade. Thank you, Vic. We're now pleased to recognize 
Chairman Rogers of Kentucky.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like Mr. Fazio,let me 
join the chorus on this subcommittee in saying welcome as our Chairman. 
We think we've got the best there is and we're delighted to call you 
Chairman.
    And, Mr. Fazio, I'm shocked; that's the first time anyone 
has ever been parochial on this subcommittee. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Fazio. Mr. Rogers, you should be the last one to be 
shocked. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rogers. I think we have to forget our local problems 
and look only at the national picture. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Secretary, it's certainly good to see you again, an old 
friend from the House, and we knew that one day you'd climb to 
great heights, and, lo, there you are, and we're delighted that 
you're there, and it's good to see the Generals and the 
officers of the Corps here, and as has been said, to see so 
many new faces. It's amazing how things change, and there's 
lots of experience out there and lots of dedication that we're 
all thankful for.
    Colonel Jansen, the Ohio River Division Commander, of 
course, could not be here today, because he is touring the 
flood areas in Kentucky, I understand, even as we speak.
    So far, it looks like in Kentucky--and the crests have not 
been reached yet on many of the rivers, including the Ohio, but 
in Kentucky alone about half the counties have been declared 
disaster areas by the governor with about a quarter of a 
billion dollars damage, which is really very preliminary 
apparently so far, with some record flooding, apparently, in 
some areas, maybe even in Louisville, which has some real 
records that they can share with you. But it is a devastating 
condition in the three or four States of the Ohio River 
Division particularly, and of course the tornadoes in Arkansas 
that came almost simultaneous.
    Interestingly enough, the new flood wall that you built in 
Frankfurt, the State capital, works.
    General Ballard. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. And, apparently, all the dams are closed, and 
you're storing water as hard as you can, even spilling water on 
all the tributaries and rivers. No one, I don't guess, can say 
how much that may have relieved the problem, but certainly it's 
clear that it has to some degree. So what you're doing does 
count.

                              FULL FUNDING

    On the fully funding suggestion, you're proposing for us to 
appropriate the full cost of a project in the first year, even 
though your capability in that first year would be a fraction 
of the total cost; correct?
    Mr. Lancaster. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. Now you're asking for 12 new starts in your 
request, and I think the total of those is $365 million; is 
that correct?
    Mr. Lancaster. As I recall, that's about right.
    Mr. Rogers. What is the capability in the first year of 
those 12 starts with a total cost of $365 million?
    General Fuhrman. It's around $45 million, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. So what would you do with the $320 million that 
we've given you for that full project while you finish them 
out? You can only spend $45 million in the first year. You're 
going to have $320 million left; right?
    General Fuhrman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. So are you going to put that in the bank and 
draw interest on it or what?
    General Fuhrman. I don't believe we get interest, sir. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Rogers. So what are you going to do with that money?
    General Fuhrman. It would remain there for the remaining 
years, just as many of our projects that we have now with 
particular earmarked funds for them do.
    Mr. Rogers. So it would be--after a couple or three years, 
that could become a very big slush fund, couldn't it?
    General Fuhrman. It would be a considerable fund, yes, sir, 
but I don't know if I would use the term ``slush fund'' to 
describe it, but a considerable amount of money as we move 
through the programs. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rogers. It could become a very big pile of money?
    General Fuhrman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Out of which I suppose you could request that 
we reprogram some of that money for another purpose or project; 
is that right or wrong, Mr. Secretary?
    Mr. Lancaster. It's my understanding that reprogramming 
would be possible out of this to other priorities.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you have any idea how much--how many new 
starts you would be proposing the next year, the 1999 fiscal 
year? Does anyone have a handle on that?
    Mr. Lancaster. No, sir, that's something we've not even 
thought about yet.

                        AVERAGE YEAR NEW STARTS

    Mr. Rogers. Well, the $365 million of new starts--do you 
consider that a small amount or an average amount or a large 
amount, or is it a typical amount for a year that you would 
anticipate?
    Mr. Lancaster. I think that it is less than average, but I 
can't give you specific figures. In an average year, I believe 
it's some over a billion dollars a year in new starts.
    General Fuhrman. If you look back since 1990, the projects 
that we initiated for new starts in those particular years, the 
total amount would be $1.4 billion per year.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, a billion four here and a billion four 
there, and--what's that phrase?
    Mr. Lancaster. Senator Dirksen thought that added up to big 
money--real money. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Fazio. Called real wealth.

                            HARLAN, KENTUCKY

    Mr. Rogers. You're asking for 12 brand-new starts at $365 
million. At the expense of sounding parochial, I want to 
describe to you very quickly and briefly a project that you're 
78 percent complete on that happens to be in my district; it 
could be anybody's district that has an unfinished project. I 
know about this one, and you do, too, Mr. Secretary. It's the 
Harlan Project.
    You've already spent $140 million on a huge project to 
rechannel the river through tunnels under the mountain to avoid 
the town, building flood walls around the two or three towns 
that comprise that complex there, and you're relocating the 
river downstream at little places called Loyal and Rio Vista in 
order to achieve a three-phrase project that's an expensive, 
complicated, but necessary project. It's expensive.
    As I've said, you've spent already $140 million and you're 
78 percent complete, and with just a few more dollars, those 
people can have flood protection that they've never had before. 
They wish today that you were finished--with the flooding 
that's going on. I don't know how, when I go into a town 
meeting there shortly, I can explain to them--perhaps you can 
help me--I don't know how I'm going to explain that the Corps 
wants to cut this project off cold turkey as it is and leave 
you in the mud and the flood, and your streets torn up and your 
homes flooded; they want to stop that project, although you're 
78 percent finished, and start a new one, start 12 new ones 
somewhere else, leaving them in the lurch. Now what can I tell 
them, Mr. Secretary?
    Mr. Lancaster. I wish that I had a good answer for you, Mr. 
Rogers; I don't. In setting our budget priorities for the 
coming year, we thought that it was appropriate to include new 
starts which keep faith with our project sponsors that have 
gone through the study process and have had their projects 
fully authorized by Congress, and are now prepared to go 
forward.
    As you know, the 202 projects in your district and in other 
districts in your region are projects that have not been 
supported by this administration or previous administrations 
for funding----
    Mr. Rogers. None of them ever have; I mean, it's been a 14-
year, year-by-year struggle.
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. The Corps would include monies in their request 
to OMB, and OMB would always say no.
    Mr. Lancaster. We have requested the funds in our initial 
request to OMB to complete this project.
    Mr. Rogers. And I appreciate that.
    But there are several just like this, not just in my 
district, but throughout the country, where you've got 
something; you've signed local contracts with the local 
authorities who are pitching in part of the cost. You sign 
those agreements with those local mayors and governors saying, 
okay, you've put so much dollars; we've put up so many dollars; 
we're going to do this. We're coming to the rescue. We're going 
to save you from the floods. And you get about two-thirds 
finished and you cut and run, and you break the contracts with 
those mayors and local officials. You've got to pay off your 
contractors, I assume, who have contracts on these projects, 
and you're going to spend a heck of a lot of money just 
shutting down and doing nothing more, after having spent 
millions, and it's just absolutely insane. I don't know who's 
responsible; I assume it's the budgeteers at the OMB. I don't 
think the intelligence level in this room would permit that, if 
you had a choice, but it doesn't make any sense.
    I mean, in Harlan you've already invested $140 million, 
which would be worth nothing. Actually, it would cost a lot of 
money just to get them out of the mud. But how can you justify 
that? Not you, but how could a budgeteer justify that downtown? 
Anybody want to volunteer?
    Mr. Lancaster. No, Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I could mention Williamsburg, 
Middlesboro, Pike County, all those projects, Martin County, 
Salyersville, and so on, that are zipped out. I trust the 
subcommittee, as they have for 14 years, will help us overcome 
the idiocy that sometimes infects the White House--in fact, all 
the time infects the White House.

                  QUESTION FROM CONGRESSWOMAN EMERSON

    Now let me ask a question quickly on behalf of Joanne 
Emerson from Missouri, whose husband Bill, you know, had been 
working on a project, the St. John's Bayou, New Madrid Flood 
Control Project. You included $100,000 for construction in 
1997. Now can you give us an update on that project? Do you 
foresee any problems affecting construction this year?
    General Fuhrman. I don't have that information. We'll have 
to provide that for the record, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. I'd appreciate that very much.
    Mr. Lancaster. I have met with Congresswoman Emerson 
recently with regard to this project and can't give you 
details, but can respond in general terms. Of course, we have 
here two parallel projects, and it is a very complex problem in 
dealing with the two because you have pumping stations in one 
project, one of which will have no benefit until you complete 
the second project, and so it really is a very complicated 
situation of how you proceed in a way that maximizes the 
benefit, does not build project elements that have no 
beneficial use until another piece is finished. It is a fairly 
complex question, and it would be better, I think, Mr. Rogers, 
if we could provide you a detailed answer for the record.
    Mr. Rogers. That would be fine. I would appreciate that 
very much, and I know Mrs. Emerson would do the same.
    [The information follows:]

         St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Flood Control Project, MO

    An expedited schedule is being implemented in accordance 
with Congressional guidance and local requests to accommodate a 
new construction start in Fiscal Year 1997. While there are 
always a number of challenges associated with such a 
complicated project, the most difficult in this instance is 
addressing environmental concerns in a timely manner. This 
issue is being coordinated with appropriate state and Federal 
agencies to try and achieve a balanced approach to these 
concerns acceptable to all. We have scheduled award of a 
construction contract in August 1997 and believe we will meet 
that schedule.

                  RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN VISCLOSKY

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but I can 
defer to a second round. Thank you very much.
    Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you. I have some number of 
pages of questions about projects that happen to be in the 
State of Indiana, and with the Chairman's permission, I would 
like to ask that those questions be entered in the record and 
that they be answered. I don't simply want to belabor my 
colleagues' time; they are very important to me and would 
appreciate your response.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]


[Pages 67 - 72--The official Committee record contains additional
material here.]


                 RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN KNOLLENBERG

    Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. McDade, and welcome, Mr. 
Chairman.
    I want to compliment you, Mr. Chairman. We're looking 
forward to working with you and delighted that you're there. 
We'll work, obviously, with everyone on this committee, but 
it's nice to know that we have a comfortable gentleman in the 
chair. So we're comfortable with you. Thank you.
    Mr. McDade. I look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Secretary, good to see you and your 
panel of Generals and officers.
    I have a couple of questions, and they may be directed to 
you; it may be that we'll direct them to General Ballard or 
General Fuhrman.
    Sometime very recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with 
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Hade and Mr. Scott Parker from the 
Corps of Engineers from the Detroit District office, and you 
can probably begin, perhaps, to get a sense of the questioning 
that I am getting to. I think, General Ballard, you talked 
about in your remarks getting that out in the open in a hurry. 
So we want to come back to that point and discuss this whole 
matter of the 1997 Conference Report which actually cemented 
the number of offices.
    And I think that currently we have the 11 divisions, 
andaccording to the Conference Report of last year, the Corps must--and 
I've got the language of the report, and I'm sure you're very familiar 
with it--the Corps must implement a plan by April 1 of 1997 that will 
have no less than six and no more than eight divisions.
    Incidentally, let me preface my questions by saying that 
that visit with those gentlemen had nothing to do with my 
questions. I was prepared to ask them anyhow, and, in fact, we 
had a conversation last year--you may not recall--along this 
line.
    The concern that I have is there may appear to be, with the 
current way that you've got it styled, there appears to be 
redundancy perhaps because it looks to me like we have, it 
seems to me, still 10 division offices. Now, according to the 
report, there should be no more than eight, no less than six. 
And I cite that because, according to the restructuring map 
that you have been kind enough, or someone has, to present to 
us, that's the new look, and of course this is the old look 
which is somewhat different.
    The way I look at this, and let me just ask you a couple or 
three quick questions. If somebody, for example--I'm looking 
for maybe some duplication here, if there is any, and there is 
an appearance, and I want to get to the bottom of it perhaps, 
determining if there is anything to the appearance.
    But when--like the levee that my colleague, Mr. Fazio, 
pictured, when the integrity of that levee must be checked, and 
his, of course, was something that didn't check, when the call 
is made, where does the call go into? Does it go into the 
district office? Which office responds to that particular 
situation?
    Mr. Lancaster. That sort of thing is handled at the 
district level. The division offices are for regional interface 
and for oversight of the districts, but where you go to for 
help, where your constituents go to for help on a day-to-day 
basis or when an emergency arises is the district.
    Mr. Knollenberg. When a harbor needs to be dredged, the 
same question--it's the same story?
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. It's the district office?
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Or general maintenance of any kind, same 
story?
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Okay, sir. The read that I get is that 
currently we have the ten offices but two of them are known 
as--ten division, but two seem to be known as regional offices; 
is that true?
    General Ballard. Well, first of all, without any 
modifications to the plan, the plan that you just showed there, 
we have one division office, and that's where the general 
officer will be located, the division commander--it may not be 
a general--the division commander.
    The plan envisions in the near term of having a deputy and 
a senior civilian, probably an SES, one located in Chicago and 
the other one in Cincinnati from the outset. I think it's very 
important, as you so indicated, we did nothing to the 
districts. The folks in the north central division, in the 
Chicago area, will still respond to the same district office 
for most of their needs--in fact, all of their needs. Their 
entry point will be at the district. We made no changes at that 
level. It is at the oversight level from the outset where we 
will make most of the changes, and that's in compliance with 
the law.
    I felt that it was very important that we did nothing that 
would jeopardize where we think we have to go. As I stated in 
my opening statement, we have achieved most of those savings 
which was the intent of Congress back in 1989 when we first 
started this process. A typical division office in 1989 was 
about 300-plus people. Today at a division office we're looking 
at about 104 individuals, and of that 104, only about 76 of 
those folks are civil works folks; most of them are support 
staff.
    The actual work that's done at the division office is 
really command-and-control and oversight of the districts.
    Mr. Knollenberg. These two regional offices?
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Why did you invent that structure, a 
regional office?
    General Ballard. Why did we do that?
    Mr. Knollenberg. Yes. I mean, from the view that I have, 
the Great Lakes--Ohio River Division, which is the one I want 
to zero-in on, is a pretty compact area. When you look at some 
of the others, you look at the Mississippi Valley Division, 
you've got over 900 miles between Vicksburg, Mississippi and 
Minneapolis, Minnesota. In the South Atlantic, it's over 600 
miles between Atlanta and Miami and it's over 3,000 miles 
between--in the Pacific division--between Anchorage and 
Honolulu. So it's not distance, and I'm trying to figure out 
why do we have these two new regional offices that supplant the 
call of the language in the Conference Report to reduce it to 
no more than eight. So it seems like we still haven't gotten 
there to me. It appears to me that nothing has changed; we have 
really still ten offices, ten division offices.
    General Ballard. If I understood the intent of the 
language, the language was there to gain some efficiencies and 
some savings.

                    SAVINGS FROM RESTRUCTURING PLAN

    Mr. Knollenberg. Let's talk about that, then, because 
that's interesting to me, too. What about the savings? I know 
you've talked briefly about that, but, for example, do you have 
a cost analysis of this restructuring for the future, not the 
present, but for the future? For example, the new restructuring 
program, have you done a cost analysis of that?
    I think that requests have been made to the Chairman or the 
Secretary, and maybe they were just very recent, and you 
haven't had time to respond to that, but I believe that our 
Chairman has made a request, and I believe that Chairman 
Livingston has also made a request, as to a cost analysis for 
the entire restructuring program to be submitted in writing. To 
my knowledge, I'm not aware of that having been received. I may 
be wrong, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. We have sent a letter over.
    General Ballard. If I might, Mr. Chairman, the response was 
made as a result of a visit that I made to Chairman Livingston 
and Chairman McDade to discuss this plan. We're in the process 
of developing an implementation which involves the cost 
analysis breakout of where we intend to take efficiencies, and 
we have committed to come back to both Chairman Livingston and 
Chairman McDade sometime in late April with the breakout of 
that, of that plan.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Okay. I believe the date was the 1st of 
April; is that not true?
    Mr. Lancaster. We can't begin implementation until April 
1st.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I see.
    Mr. Lancaster. So it's difficult to do the analysis until 
we are clear that we can proceed because, of course, there is 
always the possibility that congressional action will take 
place between now and April 1st which would render that moot.

                    GENERAL EXPENSES BUDGET REQUEST

    Mr. Knollenberg. In looking at the budget, and of course 
the budget is for Fiscal Year 1998, it really doesn't take into 
consideration these things, does it?
    General Ballard. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Well, if it does then--go ahead. If it 
does, where is it?
    General Ballard. The budget, I think the figure is $148 
million. When we submitted the budget, at that time we had 
eleven divisions, as we still have now, but we submitted it 
with eight divisions in mind.
    Mr. Knollenberg. What was that number again you said?
    General Ballard. I think it was $148 million.
    General Fuhrman. A hundred and forty-eight million is in 
our Fiscal Year 1998 GE request.
    General Ballard. But it was--and that $148 million was 
intended to support a structure of eight division and 
headquarters?
    Mr. Knollenberg. So you intend to get there, but you're not 
there yet, obviously. There is an appearance as though nothing 
has changed. You still have ten in operation. But I guess a 
further questioning would have to go in the direction of 
finding out whether those folks are----

                           REGIONAL INTERFACE

    Mr. Lancaster. If I might comment on another important 
purpose of the division offices, and that's regional interface 
with State and local governments--in the case of North Central, 
what will now be the Ohio River-Great Lakes, and International 
interface through the IJC. It was felt that it was appropriate 
to maintain a focus on the Great Lakes and a focus on the Ohio 
River. We were given the choice--and, in fact, the last plan 
submitted would, in fact, have closed the Chicago office and 
would have had only one office in the Ohio and Great Lakes 
division. Because of the concerns, we believe legitimate 
concerns, raised by Great Lakes interests, we thought that it 
was appropriate to maintain a regional presence in Chicago to 
deal with these Great Lakes and Canadian interests.
    The same is true in the division that is proposed in this 
plan that is now the Northwest. Again, we have the Missouri 
River interest and the Columbia River interest, and we felt 
that it was appropriate to have a presence in these two 
important areas through a regional office. We thought that was 
important.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Are they doing things differently?
    Mr. Lancaster. It's the regional interface. It's not what 
they are doing.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Well let me ask this question, Mr. 
Secretary, because if you created this situation for the 
Chicago, Ohio, Illinois area, I guess that division goes by 
another name. It's the North Central Division. If you did that 
there, are we to anticipate maybe the same kind of thing 
happening in other regions of the country, other parts of the 
country, and if not, why not? Because it seems to me that there 
would be reasons for people to regionalize their interest and 
localize their interest to create this same kind of thing.
    What I am really driving at here, and I think it's fairly 
simple, is are we getting bigger? Are we duplicating? Are we 
doing--we're not?
    Mr. Lancaster. No, Mr. Knollenberg. The fact of the matter 
is, under the existing division structure, these regional 
interests are addressed in the divisions. But when we were 
required to reduce those division numbers, then we were faced 
with significant regional interests that felt that they were 
not going to receive the attention, say if you were in Omaha, 
that you would not receive the same kind of attention out of 
the Portland Division Office that you would out of Omaha.
    Now we of course could very well deal with a situation if 
Congress feels that it is appropriate to say the plan that you 
have submitted is not adequate and you should in fact close 
Chicago and you should close Omaha. We will deal with that. We 
will deal with it perhaps not as well as we believe we can with 
regional offices, but we will deal with it. But we're hearing 
from significant regional interests that felt that a division 
structure that came down to eight would in fact short change 
some regions of our country. We chose to deal with that with a 
regional office that will work for the division commander.
    We believe that over time these offices will come down to 
reflect the workload of those offices. But that's something 
that's a part of implementation. It's only after we get into it 
and see what this regional interface is, what the necessary 
oversight from these regional offices will be that we will be 
able to give you a dollar figure and an FTE figure for these 
regional offices.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Some of my questions I will reserve for 
another round relative to the future on this thing when we can 
begin to look at the FTEs and some of the other things, which I 
know General Ballard has some information on. So I accept the 
suggestions, comments you are making. We're just, I guess, a 
little antsy about looking at how you can more closely maybe 
mirror the language of the report, the conference report.
    Mr. Lancaster. I think the important thing to note is 
something that General Ballard has said here this morning. That 
is, when this process started, division offices were much 
larger. It has taken us so long to get this far, that we 
couldn't afford to wait until that point to draw down our 
division structure because of declining budgets. So already the 
division offices have been drawn down dramatically from what 
they were when the process started. So the savings that would 
have been achieved in 1989 if we had been able to move forward 
at that point have been achieved through another way.
    Mr. Knollenberg. It's the bringing on line of the regional 
office that I really am pointing to, it's not the district 
office and it's not the division office. It's the regional, 
which seems to be the new name on the block.
    General Ballard. We're not really bringing on, and I think 
maybe that's where the perception is. What we are doing is 
drawing down.
    Mr. Knollenberg. I guess that's the explanation we have to 
see. We'll get into some of that in the next round. So thank 
you very much. Thank you.

                   RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS

    Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, since this is my first meeting, 
let me say it's a privilege to be on your committee. I look 
forward to serving with you. So I might start out in a proper 
way. I might ask you a parliamentary question. Is it safe for 
me to assume that I do not get allocated Mr. Viscloskey's extra 
nine and a half minutes? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Edwards. Reasonable assumption.
    Mr. McDade. We're glad to have you with us.

                         TRIBUTE TO CHET TAYLOR

    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it would be 
appropriate, I think as I begin my service on this 
subcommittee, I would like to pay tribute to someone that I 
think represents the thousands of Corps of Engineers employees 
who work week in and week out in service of their country, year 
in and year out with very little public credit or attention. 
Mr. Chet Taylor, who was chief of the construction division of 
the Fort Worth District until February 21st of this year, when 
he died an untimely death as a result of heart surgery. Mr. 
Taylor served the Corps of Engineers and the country for 35 
years. In the 1960s he was part of building Cape Canaveral for 
NASA. In the 1970s, he worked as a major manager in Saudi 
Arabia for important facilities. In the 1980s, he worked in 
Europe and Israel. I would like to extend on behalf of this 
committee and all its Members, our heartfelt gratitude to Mr. 
Taylor's family for his great service to the Corps of Engineers 
and to the country.
    Mr. McDade. Well said.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            PORT OF HOUSTON

    Mr. Secretary, it's a privilege to be with you today and 
General Ballard, General Fuhrman. I would like to begin, if I 
could, with several questions--I will submit others for the 
record--but several questions about a couple of projects in 
Texas, the first of which would be the Port of Houston, the 
Houston-Galveston navigation project.
    It's my concern that this project could conceivably be a 
victim of the full funding approach. I would want to express my 
gratitude for your efforts in making this a new start for 
fiscal year 1998. But as I understand it, the administration 
request of $119.1 million is only about half the $240 million 
required for the full project. It's my understanding that the 
Port of Houston is a major player in this project having 
approved over $100 million in bonds. They will be the major 
local contributor of funds, but actually can not enter into a 
PCA because under the project as envisioned in this budget 
request, the deepening and the widening of the Galveston-
Houston Channel wouldn't even reach the Port of Houston. So it 
wouldn't even be legal for them to use their bonds in support 
of that project.
    Mr. Secretary, I guess my question would be as a 
representative of the administration, could you work with the 
Port of Houston to try to resolve that serious problem?
    Mr. Lancaster. We will, Mr. Edwards. In fact, we are doing 
so as we speak. That matter is before OMB for their review now, 
on whether or not a PCA that will cover the entire project can 
be signed with the full funding philosophy that is reflected in 
this budget request.
    We of course included this project as a new start as we did 
in two pieces because of the difficulty in putting such a large 
project into the budget as a new start with full funding. We 
wanted to demonstrate for the committee that under full funding 
this is the way we would proceed on very large projects that 
might otherwise fall victim to this approach. So we worked very 
hard to try to figure out a way to get this project started and 
to fund an element of it with full funding up front, but at the 
same time recognize that we would have to come back later for 
the balance of the project. We are working with the local 
project sponsors and with OMB trying to work out a PCA that OMB 
will approve and that will be acceptable to the local sponsors.
    Mr. Edwards. I appreciate your efforts on that. Is it my 
understanding if we use the standard funding process, that 
actually only $15 to $25 million rather than $119 million would 
be needed this year. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lancaster. I believe that is correct.
    General Fuhrman. The $15 million would be the number.
    Mr. Edwards. So under this budget plan, if we use the 
present procedures, you would actually free up perhaps $100 
million for other important priority programs in other parts of 
the country. Is that correct? If the committee did take that 
approach?
    Mr. Lancaster. If that was your decision, yes, Mr. Edwards.
    Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you. One other question on that. 
Under traditional funding policies, could the Corps sign a PCA 
for the entire project?
    Mr. Lancaster. If it were incrementally funded, yes.

                            WALLISVILLE LAKE

    Mr. Edwards. Okay. On the Wallisville Lake project, what is 
the Corps' fiscal year 1998 capability for completion of the 
project, Mr. Secretary?
    Mr. Lancaster. I believe General Fuhrman can respond to 
that.
    General Fuhrman. Let me take that on. Let me preface it by 
a disclosure statement that although project and study 
capabilities reflect the readiness of the work for 
accomplishment, they are in competition for available funds and 
manpower Army-wide. In this context, the capability for that 
particular project by itself without reference to the rest of 
the program is $14.4 million. However, it is emphasized that 
the total amount proposed for the Army Civil Works Program in 
the President's budget is the appropriate amount consistent 
with the administration's assessment of national priorities for 
Federal investments, and the objectives of avoiding large 
budget deficits, and the serious adverse effect that Government 
borrowing is having on the national economy.
    In addition, the total amount proposed for the Army Civil 
Works Program in the President's budget is the maximum that can 
be efficiently and effectively used. Therefore, we could again 
utilize the amount of $14.4 million, but must realize that this 
would be offset from requirements.
    Mr. Edwards. If that amount, that $14 plus million is not 
funded, you would have to stop the project. Could you tell me 
for the record, what the cost of closing that project if it's 
not fully funded and completed?
    General Fuhrman. In the neighborhood of $12 million, sir.
    Mr. Edwards. So it would cost, similar to Mr. Rogers' 
questions, it would cost almost as much if not more, because I 
think there are some other costs that would associated with 
that. It could cost more not to fund the project than to fund 
it and complete it. Is that correct?
    General Fuhrman. Yes, sir.

                       GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

    Mr. Edwards. Very good. Another project, and none of these 
is in my district, but I think all are important for Texas. 
This particular one has implications for any trade along the 
intercoastal waterway, which obviously has a tremendous 
regional and national economic impact.
    It's my understanding, Mr. Secretary, that you have been 
working to try to develop a plan to protect the endangered 
whooping crane, but that plan is not funded in this particular 
budget. Do we get into potential legal problems if that project 
is not funded in this fiscal year with the Endangered Species 
Act?
    Mr. Lancaster. Possibly.
    Mr. Edwards. So in fact, it's my understanding that there's 
even a possibility that you could have, through court action, 
the shutting down of maintenance for the intercoastal waterway. 
Is that a possibility?
    Mr. Lancaster. That is a possibility, Mr. Edwards.
    Mr. Edwards. What kind of economic impact would that have, 
Mr. Secretary, if you were to stop maintenance and potentially 
stop travel on the intercoastal waterway? Do you have the exact 
figure?
    General Fuhrman. There's about 15 million tons of commerce 
that moves through that waterway, sir.
    Mr. Edwards. Okay. Great. The approved capability for 
fiscal year 1998 would be how many million dollars for this 
project? If you were given the funds, what could you use?
    General Fuhrman. Subject to the usual qualifications, sir, 
$17.6 million.
    Mr. Edwards. Okay. Very good. Mr. Chairman, thank you for 
your time and courtesy.

                RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN FRELINGHUYSEN

    Mr. McDade. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's great to 
be on your committee and to be working with you directly.
    Secretary Lancaster, good morning.
    Mr. Lancaster. Good morning.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. One thing that's true about this 
meeting, it's hot as heck in here. I have been out in the hall 
to some other hearing, and it's about 15 degrees cooler. I'm 
not sure it's a good sign, Mr. Chairman, this clock is frozen 
at 9:00. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You may be here for quite a long time, 
Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. McDade. In at 9:00 and out at 9:00.
    Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Frelinghuysen, at Chapel Hill, Dean 
Smith always keeps the arena very hot because his players are 
used to playing in that environment. The visiting team isn't. I 
wonder if that's what you folks are doing to us. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Stick around, you'll find out.

                            SHORE PROTECTION

    Coming from the northeastern part of the United States, I 
know I speak on behalf of a lot of my colleagues that represent 
the New York, New Jersey metropolitan area. I specifically come 
from northern New Jersey. I would like to focus some questions 
on coastal protection in the first instance, and if time 
permits, the whole issue of dredging of the New York, New 
Jersey port area, which is critical to our economy in a big 
way, and something which is prevalent around the Nation, but 
certainly true in our part of the country as well, the whole 
issue of flood control.
    Let me throw a few bouquets though. I have had a very good 
working relationship with General Hunter and his staff. They 
are absolutely great, on the ball. They have served to educate 
me as a relatively new Member of Congress. They have worked 
very closely with our governor and other members of the 
delegation. But they have been absolutely great. I just wanted 
to bring that to your attention.
    Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Relative to coastal protection, why are 
so few coastal protection projects budgeted in the fiscal year 
1998 budget proposal, given the direction of Congress in the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996? Let me quote from the 
House Report on WRDA 96, section 228, ``This section makes it 
clear that one of the missions of the Army Corps of Engineers 
is to promote shore protection projects that encourage the 
protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches. 
Subsection (a) is a declaration of policy which amends existing 
law in order to make it clear that it is the intent of Congress 
that the Federal government shall assist in those shore 
protection projects that involve the replacement of sand on 
beaches.'' Why has the Corps decided to basically somewhat go 
against the will of Congress, as reflected in your budget? I am 
not the only Member on this committee that represents shore 
communities, but I would like to get your reaction to what we 
put in our budget last year.
    Mr. Lancaster. First of all, Congressman, this is not in 
any way a rejection of the Corps of Engineers of its 
traditional role in shore protection. In fact, this budget has 
$69 million in shore protection funds. However, these funds are 
not for new projects, but are for ongoing projects either that 
are under construction or for the periodic maintenance of the 
shore protection projects that is required under contracts that 
were entered into when the protection plans were implemented in 
these various communities.
    But it is that long-term commitment, in some cases as much 
as 50 years, in fact in most cases 50 years, and some as little 
as 35 years, that has the Office of Management and Budget and 
the Corps of Engineers concerned about the future of this 
program. In a constrained fiscal climate, and in one where we 
are trying to balance the budget and keep it balanced for the 
future, the long tail of shore protection is what creates 
significant problems for us in setting budget priorities when 
it comes to shore protection.
    Furthermore, it is these projects where there is the 
greatest likelihood that the economic benefits experienced by a 
community because of this Federal assistance would enable them 
to be a bigger player, perhaps do the whole projectthemselves 
or perhaps look at a different way in which to create these projects. 
All of our other flood control projects in the Corps of Engineers 
require an up front Federal expenditure and local cost share for the 
construction of the project. But once that flood protection is put in 
place, it then becomes the responsibility of the local project sponsor 
to maintain those structures for the future.
    In shore protection, which is a flood protection project, 
in fact, the Federal Government continues for 35 to 50 years to 
play a part in the maintenance of the structures. Perhaps this 
committee needs to wrestle with this problem and to look at it 
in a different way. Perhaps it is time for local communities 
with the revenues that are generated by these beaches, to take 
on the full responsibility of maintenance, just as other 
communities take on the full responsibility of maintaining 
other flood control structures.
    These are all issues that need to be debated. We of course 
hope that we can be a part of that debate. But the fact of the 
matter is, if we are going to balance the budget and keep the 
budget balanced, we have to make some hard choices. Shore 
protection is one of those where this year there is not a new 
start. Last year there were two because of the unique nature of 
those projects. This year there happen not to be one ready to 
go forward. But there is still a strong commitment to shore 
protection, as is reflected by the $69 million that's included 
in this budget for that purpose.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So you are basically saying that you are 
not going to do anything new, but you are going to finish up 
what you have been doing in the past?
    Mr. Lancaster. That is correct.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. That's somewhat at odds with the 
direction we gave you, the specific direction we gave you last 
year. I would suspect that we would probably give you similar 
direction in budget language in this cycle.
    Mr. Lancaster. Well, we hope that as a part of the 
deliberations on that language we can debate how we go into the 
future with these plans, because as I indicated, the really 
difficult issue here is not the initial construction. Sometimes 
that is a fraction of the total life cost of these projects. 
When you consider that you are going to continue to put sand on 
a beach for a 50-year period on a periodic basis, that often 
times is the most significant part of the overall cost of these 
projects.
    So we hope that as we look at shore protection, we can 
perhaps look at new models that might take into account the 
benefits to the communities and the revenues that will be 
coming in, and look at a new way to fund these projects.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. But in reality, many states, including 
New Jersey, do put some of our own money into shore 
replenishment and protection. Your testimony is replete with 
references to the need to recognize the negative impact of 
disasters on communities, the economic support and activity 
that's negatively affected in many cases on an annual basis. I 
know that you have to juggle a lot of things given a limited 
amount of money, but it's certainly true to communities that 
depend on shore protection.
    I can tell you for the record that we are going to be right 
in there, plugging, obviously, for responsible actions within 
those States relative to those shore situations. But in the 
reality, we do send our fair share of tax dollars to 
Washington. It is very important to tourism to our area, as 
well as the costs associated with the devastation that comes 
from coastal disasters. We're talking about $15 or $20 billion. 
So it's a major hit to us.
    I have a specific question, Mr. Secretary, which may have 
to go to General Hunter. In the North Atlantic Division, were 
there any projects or studies reduced or phases not funded in 
the budget submission due to the administration's policy on 
shore protection? And could you provide the amount, those 
amounts needed in fiscal year 1998 for the record?
    Mr. Lancaster. I don't know if General Hunter is prepared 
or perhaps one of the members of this panel to respond, or it 
might be more appropriate to do that for the record if that 
would be acceptable to you.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. That would be fine.
    Mr. Lancaster. We will provide that for the record.
    [The information follows:]



[Page 84--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I have a number of other questions that 
relate to coastal protection, if I could submit those for the 
record.
    Do I have some additional time or should we move on?
    Mr. McDade. We would be very pleased to have you move on. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. All right. I want to get back on the 
second round if I can, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. McDade. There may not be one, so if you need to keep 
going.

                       NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I will. I'll be brief. Relative to the 
New York, New Jersey harbor, the dredged and material disposal 
crisis last year, the Vice President announced a compromise 
agreement for addressing dredging needs in our harbor area in 
New York/New Jersey. Recently it's been reported in the press 
that this agreement is falling apart. Namely, permits are not 
being granted to dredge the harbor. It's my understanding that 
the Gore proposal called for the speedy issuance of a number of 
permits, maintenance dredging for 10 top priority Federal 
navigation channels by the end of 1997. I would like to know 
where we stand relative to this much touted agreement. Is it 
falling by the wayside? There is $75 billion involved in this 
port on an annual basis, lots of jobs.
    Mr. Lancaster. It is not falling apart. We always knew that 
there would be challenges in meeting the schedule, and there 
have been, and continue to be. A meeting was held yesterday in 
New York to address these challenges. We are putting the 
resources necessary from the Corps' perspective to get the job 
done.
    To be honest, some of the challenges are challenges over 
which we have no control. One is the capacity for testing of 
the dredge material before it is removed so that it can be 
classified. The labs are not as responsive as we had hoped. We 
hope that we can address this in other ways, but that is a 
serious problem. We also of course have to deal with other 
State, Federal, and local agencies. We hope that they have the 
same commitment to making this work that we do. The meeting 
yesterday reaffirmed that. We will look forward to their 
actions to back up the words of that meeting.
    We believe that if we all work together, that we can meet 
this deadline for completing the ocean disposal by September 
and continuing with the plan laid out. But there will be 
challenges. There's no question there will be challenges. It 
will require the cooperation of all levels of governmentand the 
private sector in order to meet these deadlines. But it is certainly 
not falling apart.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. It's absolutely critical. I mean 
there is going to be a flight of these container shippers out 
of that area. It would be totally devastating to the New York/
New Jersey metropolitan region if we don't address that issue. 
But you are basically telling me that there's nothing that the 
Corps is doing that in any way is slowing down the process. You 
are working to expedite the process and get all the parties to 
the table.
    Mr. Lancaster. We are indeed.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are. For that I thank you. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I have additional questions, may I enter 
them into the record?
    Mr. McDade. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



[Pages 87 - 100--The official Committee record contains additional
material here.]


                       RECOGNITION OF MR. PASTOR

    Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Arizona.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After being gone two 
years, it's an honor to come back on the committee, and I look 
forward to working with you and my colleagues in a bipartisan 
manner.
    Mr. McDade. We're delighted that you are back.
    Mr. Pastor. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
that. I just have a few questions. Though they appear parochial 
in nature, they have a national, in some case an international 
interest. So let me--I know we're getting close to lunch hour, 
so I'll ask my four questions.
    But first of all, I would like to thank Secretary 
Lancaster. I have to tell you that your Los Angeles District 
and your South Pacific Division and people from your office 
have been very cooperative, and I look forward to working with 
you and the two generals and all their staffs as we go forward 
with this subcommittee. So I would first of all like to thank 
you for all the cooperation you extended to me.
    I am also very happy to see that the Corps is pursuing 
environmental restoration projects. I think that's a new 
element that will have more attention, as I have learned from 
you and your staff. One of the projects that I have an interest 
in is the Rio Solado feasibility study. As you know, it is 
extremely important to the cities of Phoenix and Tempe that the 
Rio Solado project be included in the next Water Resources 
Development Act. Could you expedite the process to ensure that 
this project is included in the 1998 reauthorization of the 
Act?
    General Fuhrman. I don't have the answer to that question. 
I could provide it for the record or I could have General Capka 
answer it.
    Mr. Pastor. That's fine, if General Capka would like to do 
it. For the record, I would appreciate it.
    General Capka. Good morning, Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. Good morning, General.
    General Capka. Yes. We have in fact taken a look at the Rio 
Solado project. It looks like right now we'll have the report 
ready by March of 1998, which would be in time for the WRDA 
1998. We have been ready to do that with some advanced 
coordination at all levels through the Corps.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, General. Also, do you have a current 
estimate for the completion of the feasibility study?
    General Capka. Sir, the current estimate for the completion 
of the feasibility study is March of 1998.
    Mr. Pastor. March of 1998, okay. As you know, Congress has 
worked with the Corps in qualifying the section 1135 project 
for Tempe as part of the overall Rio Solado project. Could you 
give us a status of when these funds will be available?
    General Capka. Sir, we are looking at the 1135. I'm not 
sure right now whether that will be recommended since we do 
have a feasibility study looking at the project. As to whether 
or not and when those funds become available, of course they 
compete with other projects within the Corps.
    Mr. Pastor. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, we have been 
working well with the South Pacific Division.
    Another project that also is an environmental restoration 
project is in Tucson, Pima County. It's again innovative and, I 
think, an exciting project. It's the Ajo Detention Basin. My 
question is, will you be able to initiate and complete a 
project modification report in fiscal year 1997?
    General Capka. Yes, sir. We will.
    Mr. Pastor. What is your capability for completing plans 
and specification, initiating construction in fiscal year 1998?
    General Capka. Sir, I don't have those specific details 
with me. If I could provide those for the record.
    [The information follows:]

                          Ajo Detention Basin

    A Project Modification Report is scheduled for initiation 
in March 1997 and completion in September 1997. There is an FY 
1998 capability of $2,775,000 for preparing plans and 
specifications and initiating construction.

    Mr. Pastor. I would appreciate it. As you know, we have 
been working with the Corps in trying to construct the 
pedestrian bridges over the Rillito River. We have had 
correspondence and communication with the Corps. My question 
is, do you have sufficient funds to initiate and complete 
construction for that project?
    General Capka. Yes, sir. We do.
    Mr. Pastor. And the last one, Mr. Chairman, is the Tucson 
drainage area feasibility study. It's a flood control plan 
that's being considered as part of the overall feasibility 
study. It's environmentally sensitive and it's an innovative 
design.
    My question is, do you see any problems of this being 
included in the next Water Resources Development Act in 1998?
    General Capka. Sir, the feasibility study is scheduled to 
be finished in July of 1997. With the feasibility study done by 
that time, we should be able to have that ready for the WRDA 
1998.
    Mr. Pastor. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I will have questions for 
the record. Thank you for your indulgence.

                     QUESTION FROM CONGRESSMAN HORN

    Mr. McDade. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I was contacted 
during the proceedings by Representative Steve Horn. Steve 
represents, as you'll recall, southern California.
    Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McDade. And he has very deep interest in the Los 
Angeles County Drainage Area project. I am going to submit some 
questions to you. We would appreciate it if you would give me 
your detailed attention.
    Mr. Lancaster. We will.
    Mr. McDade. So that we may advise him. We have a series of 
other lengthy questions for you which we are going to give you 
and let you answer for the record. If there are no other 
questions, the committee will stand adjourned until 10:00 
tomorrow morning.
    We thank you all for your testimony. It was very helpful.
    Mr. Lancaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McDade. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]



[Pages 103 - 409--The official Committee record contains additional
material here.]



                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                           CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                         SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

                                                                   Page
1997 Ohio River Flood............................................   409
Advance Appropriations...........................................   354
After 1986 Flood.................................................    57
Amount Requested to OMB for Section 202 Project Elements.........   365
Annual Flood Damage Report.......................................   155
Authorized Projects..............................................   138
Average Year New Starts..........................................    63
Balance to Complete Report.......................................   185
Budget Levels....................................................   352
Cal-Fed..........................................................    59
California Flooding..............................................    56
Changes in Fiscal Year 1998 Capabilities Compared to Amounts 
  Requested in OMB Submission for Kentucky Section 202 Elements..   363
Changes to Nationwide Permit 26 (NWP 26).........................   342
Channel and Harbor Maintenance...................................   318
Channel Improvement..............................................   264
Civilian Employment..............................................   150
Coastal Inlets Research Program..................................   242
Coastal Protection...............................................    87
Commerce Moving Through Navigation Projects......................   153
Commercial Traffic Through Navigation Locks......................   154
Competitive Bid for Hopper Dredging..............................   137
Comprehensive Review.............................................    57
Construction New Starts..........................................   139
Continuing Authorities Program................................ 320, 328
Continuing Authorities Program...................................    16
Continuing Authorities Program Projects Underway.................   227
Continuing Authorities Program Proposed Amounts for Fully Funded 
  New Construction Starts........................................   241
Continuing Construction Projects.................................   405
Cooperation with Other Agencies--Bureau of Reclamation...........   121
Corps Hopper Dredge Fleet Schedule...............................   137
Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS)...........   138
Corps' Response to '95 Floods....................................   332
Cost of Levee Restoration........................................    59
Criteria for Reduced Funding.....................................   110
Current Flood Situations.........................................   330
Deferred Maintenance.............................................   135
Detailed Savings.................................................   111

                                   (i)



                                   ii

Detroit vs. Chicago Regulatory Authority.........................    70
Disaster Recovery Phases.........................................    61
Division Restructuring...........................................   133
Division Restructuring...........................................   117
Dredging Data and Lock Performance Monitoring System.............   244
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research...................   243
Emergency Requirements for Natural Disasters Contingency Fund....    21
Environmental Data Studies Program...............................   222
Environmental Issues.............................................   341
Environmental Stewardship........................................    19
Feasibility Phase Studies Without Executed Agreements............   291
Fiscal Year 1997 Supplemental Appropriations................... 103-104
Fiscal Year 1997 ``Negative Supplemental''.......................   356
Fiscal Year 1997 ``Negative Supplemental''.......................   105
Fiscal Year 1997 ``Negative Supplemental''.......................    49
Fiscal Year 1998 Capabilities for Selected Section 202 Elements..   360
Food Control and Coastal Emergencies--Civil Works Program Budget.    20
Flood Damage Reduction...........................................    18
Flood Fights in California.......................................   351
Flood Recovery...................................................    58
Full Funding.....................................................    62
Full Funding of New Construction Activities......................   106
Full Funding Proposal............................................    50
Funding by Major Functional Area.................................   210
Funding for Hydropower Maintenance and Rehabilitation............   152
Funding Shortfalls...............................................   136
FY 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act..........   215
General Expenses.................................................   247
General Expenses Budget Request..................................    75
General Investigations......................... 216, 221, 222, 224, 226
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993................ 123, 130
Gulf of Mexico Program...........................................   218
Harbor Maintenance Projects......................................   254
Harbor Maintenance Tax Constitutionality.........................   211
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund....................................   213
Hopper Dredge McFarland........................................ 99, 137
Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Policy......................    17
Hydropower.......................................................    18
Incremental Funding Impacts......................................    51
Inland Waterways Trust Fund......................................   212
Inland Waterways Users Board Investment Program..................   405
Interagency and International Support Program....................   222
Joint Study of the Cumberland and the Tennessee Rivers...........   119
Keeping Congress Informed........................................   135
Levees...........................................................   339
Lock and Dam Projects............................................   405
Lock Operations and Management of Recreation Facilities..........   286
Long-Term Flood Control System Requirements......................   337
Maintenance Dredging of Boston Harbor............................   328
Maintenance of Adequate Depths...................................   135
Maintenance of Shallow Draft Harbors.............................    54
Major Rehabilitation.............................................   405
Minimum Dredge Fleet Study.......................................   100
Mississippi River and Tributaries Funding........................   385
Missouri River Basin Collaborative Effort........................   326

                                  iii

Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review and Update.....   325
NAD Studies or Projects Impacted by the Administration's Shore 
  Protection Policy..............................................    84
National Recreation Reservation Service..........................   244
Nationwide Permit 26 (NWP 26)................................. 374, 377
Navigation.......................................................    18
Navigation Lock Operations.......................................   308
Negative Supplemental............................................    49
New Feasibility Studies Included in Budget.......................   142
New Preconstruction Engineering and Design Activities............   114
New Reconnaissance Studies.......................................   139
New Start Construction...........................................   388
New Starts.......................................................   356
Operation and Maintenance Funding................................   109
Operation and Maintenance Request................................    53
Operation of the Assets on Both River Systems....................   119
Outyear New Construction Funding.................................    52
Pacific Northwest Forest Case Study..............................   220
Percentages Complete for Kentucky Section 202 Project Elements...   364
Permit Fees......................................................   353
Permit Issues....................................................    70
Personnel Costs by Account.......................................   122
Planning Process.................................................   112
Policy Impacts on Coastal Projects...............................    88
Preconstruction Engineering and Design and Construction Projects 
  scheduled to Be Complete in FY 1997............................   148
Private Industry Hopper Dredging.................................    99
Programs or Projects Not Included in the Budget..................   396
Programs or Projects with Earmarked Funds........................   396
Projects Affected by Proposal....................................    50
Projects Impacted by Negative Supplemental.......................    49
Projects in Litigation...........................................   178
Projects Receiving First Year Funding for Preconstruction 
  Engineering and Design in FY 1998..............................   147
Public Law 84-99.................................................   350
Question from Congressman Horn...................................   102
Question from Congresswoman Emerson..............................    65
Recognition of Congressman Edwards...............................    77
Recognition of Congressman Frelinghuysen.........................    80
Recognition of Congressman Knollenberg...........................    73
Recognition of Congressman Rogers................................    62
Recognition of Congressman Visclosky.............................    66
Recognition of Mr. Fazio.........................................    55
Recognition of Mr. Pastor........................................   101
Rconnaissance Studies............................................   351
Reconnaissance Study Completion Schedules........................   287
Recreation.......................................................    18
Recreation.......................................................   276
Recreation Area Management.......................................   309
Recreation Facilties.............................................   111
Recreation Facilities............................................    55
Recreation Facilities--Funding Criteria..........................    55
Recreation Operations......................................... 295, 300
Reduced Levels of Service........................................   109
Reduced Operation and Maintenance requirement for Fiscal Year 
  1998...........................................................   325

                                   iv

Reductions in Force..............................................   135
Regional Interface...............................................    76
Regulatory Program...............................................   245
Regulatory Program--Funding Level................................    20
Regulatory Program--User Fees....................................    20
Remaining Items..................................................   357
Reprogramming in a Funding Constrained Environment...............    17
Reports Language.................................................   215
Reprogramming Authority..........................................    52
Savings From Restructioning Plan.................................    75
Section 1135 Environmental Modifications.........................    17
Section 202 Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request......................   359
Section 204 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material..................    17
Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.......................   241
Shallow Draft Harbors............................................   111
Shallow Draft Harbors--Funding Criteria..........................    54
Shore Protection.................................................    80
Shore Protection Projects........................................   115
Small Harbor Dredging............................................   392
Special Investigations Activity..................................   217
Statement of Honorable H. Martin Lancaster.......................  1-24
    Balance Among High Priority Interests and Objectives.........    12
        Balance of Priorities in the FY 1998 Budget..............    12
        Budget Allocations for Future New Investments............    12
    Conclusion...................................................    21
    Contents.....................................................     8
    Government-Wide Fixed Asses Initiative.......................    11
        Full Up-Front Funding of New Starts......................    11
        Advance Appropriations for Ongoing Projects with Near-
          Term Completions.......................................    12
        Incremental Budgeting for the Other Projects Under 
          Construction...........................................    12
    Introduction.................................................     9
    Opening Remarks..............................................     1
Overview of the Army Civil Works Budget..........................    10
        FY 1998 Civil Works Budget...............................    10
        Emergency Operations for Flood Fighting and Flood 
          Recovery...............................................    10
        Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive 
          Study..................................................    10
        Joint Study of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers.......    11
    Summary of the FY 1998 Civil Works Program...................    13
        New Civil Works Investments..............................    13
        New Starts and Other New Work............................    13
        Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996...........    13
        Continuing Program Highlights............................    14
        General Investigations...................................    14
        Construction, General....................................    15
        Operation and Maintenance (O&M), General.................    18
        Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T)..    19
        Regulatory Program.......................................    20
        Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies....................    20
        Improving Government Efficiency and Effectiveness........    21
Statement of LTG Ballard......................................... 25-48
    Conclusion...................................................    46
    Corps of Engineers Financial Management System...............    39
    Corps Vision and Strategic Plan..............................    45
    Decision Document Review/Approval............................    35

                                   v

    Direct Program...............................................    32
    FY98 Civil Works Program Budget..............................    31
    Government Performance and Results Act of 1993...............    38
    Headquarters Responsiveness to Field Offices.................    36
    Improvement in Business Processes............................    35
    Introduction.................................................    29
    Partnering...................................................    37
    Program Execution and Outlook................................    40
        Balancing New Construction and O&M.......................    45
        Construction, General....................................    40
        Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies....................    44
        Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.........    42
        General Expenses.........................................    44
        General Investigations...................................    40
        Operation and Maintenance, General.......................    42
        Regulatory Program.......................................    43
    Project Cooperation Agreements...............................    37
    Reimbursed Program...........................................    34
    Restructuring................................................    31
    Staffing.....................................................    35
Status of Kentucky Section 202 Elements That are Under 
  Construction...................................................   360
Study Status.....................................................   397
Support for Others...............................................   208
Topographic and Bathymetric Nearshore............................   222
Tribute to Chet Taylor...........................................    77
TVA..............................................................   355
Unobligated Balances.............................................   149

                          PROJECTS AND STUDIES

Acequias Irrigation System, NM...................................   275
Addison, NY......................................................   143
Ajo Detention Basin........................................... 102, 383
Alenaio Stream Flood Control Project, Hawaii, HI.................   148
Alexander and Pulaski Counties, IL...............................   256
Alpena Harbor, MI................................................   317
Alpine, TX.......................................................   144
Alton to Gale Organized Levee District, IL & MO (Resumption).. 139, 258
American River Levees, CA........................................   345
American River Watershed, CA.....................................   139
Amite River--Darlington Reservoir, LA............................   143
Anacostia River and Tributaries, MD & DC...................... 143, 248
Anacostia River Federal Facilities Impact Assessment, MD & DC....   250
Anacostia River Federal Watershed Impact Assessment, MD..........   143
Anacostia River and Tributaries, MD & DC.........................   139
Anchor Point Harbor, AK..........................................   142
Aniak, AK........................................................   142
Appomattox River, VA.............................................   254
Area South of Carolina Beach, NC.................................   284
Arkansas River Levees............................................   390
Arkansas River Levees, Plum Bayou, AR............................   389
Arkansas River Levees, Tucker Creek, AR..........................   389
Arroyo Pasajero, CA..............................................   147
Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook, Marine Terminal, NY & NJ......    95
Arthur Kill, NY & NJ.............................................    91

                                   vi

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, LA............................   265
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................................   265
Atlantic Coast of Maryland, MD...................................   251
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Great Bridge, VA...............   148
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, 
  VA.......................................................... 144, 248
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Highway Bridge at Great Bridge, VA   140
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC............................ 144, 278
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, VA...............................   255
Baltimore Harbor and Channel, MD.................................   253
Barbers Point Harbor Modification, HI............................   320
Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, HI...................................   321
Barbourville, KY.................................................   359
Barnegat Bay, NJ.................................................   143
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, NJ.......................... 84, 89
Bayou La Batre, AL...............................................   148
Bayou Tigre, Erath, LA........................................ 143, 256
Beach City Lake Dam Safety Assurance, Muskingum River Lakes, OH..   307
Beals Creek, Big Spring, TX......................................   148
Bethel Bank Stabilization, AK....................................   148
Biscayne Bay, FL.................................................   278
Black Bayou Diversion, LA........................................   145
Blackstone River Watershed Restoration, MA & RI..................   143
Blair Waterway Navigation Study, Tacoma Harbor, WA...............   144
Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration, CA.........................   142
Bonneville Powerhouse Major Rehabilitation, Phase I, OR & WA.....   148
Bonneville Second Powerhouse, OR & WA............................   148
Boston Harbor, MA............................................. 148, 327
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet Absecon Island, NJ... 84, 89
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, NJ...................   249
Brunswick County Beaches, NC.....................................   279
Brunswick Harbor, GA.............................................   147
Buford Powerhouse, GA (Major Rehab)..............................   139
Burns Harbor, Major Rehabilitation, IN...........................    67
Cahaba River Watershed, AL.......................................   142
Canaveral Harbor, FL.......................................... 182, 281
Cape Cod Railroad Bridge.........................................   329
Casino Beach, IL.................................................    70
Catskill Creek, NY...............................................   254
Central and Southern Florida, FL.................................   285
Channel to Victoria, TX..........................................   273
Charleston Estuary, SC........................................ 139, 277
Chaska, MN.......................................................   148
Cheat River Basin Ecosystem Restoration, WV......................   144
Chemung River Basin Environmental Restoration, NY................   143
Chena River Watershed, AK........................................   142
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal St. Georges Bridge Replacement, MD.   253
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, VA........................... 84, 89
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Poquoson, VA.......................... 84, 89
Chester River, MD................................................   254
Chesterfield, MO.................................................   145
Chesterfield, MO, and Festus and Crystal City, MO................   257
Chicago Shoreline, IL............................................   315
Chicopit Bay, FL.................................................   143
Chief Joseph Dam Pool Raise, WA..................................   298
Chignik Harbor, AK...............................................   148

                                  vii

Clear Creek, TX..................................................   275
Coastal Connecticut Ecosystem Restoration, CT................. 139, 327
Coastal Studies Navigation Improvement, AK.......................   142
Colonias Along the Texas-Mexico Border...........................   380
Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers, OR & WA....................   300
Columia River Fish Mitigation, ID, OR & WA.......................   299
Columbia Slough Ecosystem Restoration, OR........................   143
Columbia/Snake River Basin Projects, ID & OR.....................   177
Compton Creek, CA................................................   344
Condition and Operations Studies.................................   285
Conemaugh River Basin, Nanty Glo Environmental Restoration, PA...   147
Cook Inlet, AK...................................................   298
Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, SC (Resumption)......... 140, 279, 285
Coralville Lake, IA........................................... 143, 313
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX............................... 144, 267
Coyote Valley Dam and Dry Creek (Warm Springs)...................   295
Crescent City Harbor, CA...................................... 148, 394
Cypress Creek, Houston, TX.......................................   272
Cypress Valley Watershed, TX.................................. 144, 270
Dade County Beach Restoration Project, FL........................   178
Dade County, FL..................................................   282
Dallas Floodway Extension, Trinity River, TX.................. 272, 381
Dardanelle Lock and Dam, Powerhouse, AR..........................   391
Delaware Bay Coastline, Broadkill Beach, DE..................... 84, 89
Delaware Bay Coastline, Port Mahon, NJ.......................... 84, 89
Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet and Lewes Beach, DE..... 84, 89
Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas, NJ.............................. 84, 89
Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas, NJ...............................    84
Delaware Coast Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehoboth Beach to 
  Dewey Beach, DE............................................... 84, 89
Delaware River at Camden, NJ.....................................   254
Delaware River Main Channel Deepening, DE, NJ, & PA..............   148
Des Plaines River, IL............................................   314
Dewey Lake, KY...................................................   367
Dog River, AL....................................................   142
Duluth-superior Harbor, Minnesota, WI............................   318
Dutch Harbor, AK.............................................. 145, 298
Duval County and Manatee County, FL..............................   282
Duwamish and Green Rivers, WA....................................   146
East Ridge, Hamilton County, TN..................................   304
East River, South Brother Island, NY.............................    91
Eastern Arkansas Region (Comprehensive Study), AR................   148
Elizabeth River Basin Environmental Restoration, Hampton Roads, 
  VA.............................................................   144
Elk Creek Dam, and Lake, OR......................................   178
Elk Creek Lake, OR...............................................   299
Emergency Operations for Flood Fighting and Flood Recovery.......    10
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL........ 139, 280
Everglades National Park, FL.....................................   181
Festus and Crystal City, MO......................................   145
Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, NY.............................   252
Flint River Basin, GA............................................   143
Flushing Bay and Creek, NY.......................................    91
Folsom Dam Reoperation...........................................   347
Fort Pierce Harbor, FL...........................................   143
Fort Worth Sumps, 14 & 15, Upper Trinity River Basin, TX...... 147, 271

                                  viii

Frankfort Harbor, MI.............................................   317
Freeport Harbor, TX..............................................   378
Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, ND..............................   181
Garrison Dam and Powerplant, ND..................................   324
Georgetown Harbor, SC............................................   277
Gila River, North Scotsdale Drainage Area, AZ....................   145
Gila River, Santa Cruz River Basin...............................   289
Gila River, Santa Cruz Basin, AZ.............................. 145, 289
GIWW--Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, TX.................... 271, 372
GIWW--Brazos River to Port O'Connor, TX..........................   270
GIWW--Port O'Connor to Corpus Christi Bay, TX....................   270
GIWW--Sargent Beach, TX..........................................   274
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.................................   342
Grand Forks, ND..................................................   147
Grand (Neosho) River, KS.........................................   269
Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, PA................   305
Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ........................   251
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, NJ................... 84, 89
Great Miami River, Oxbow Area, OH & IN........................ 139, 302
Green and Barren Rivers Navigation Disposition Study, KY...... 143, 303
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.......................................    80
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway--Brazos River to Port O'Connor, TX....   144
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway--Port O'Connor to Corpus Christi Bay, 
  TX.............................................................   144
Harlan, KY..................................................... 64, 359
Helena and Vicinity, AR..........................................   263
Hillsboro Inlet, FL..............................................   278
Homme Dam, ND....................................................   316
Honolulu Harbor Modification, Oahu, HI...........................   139
Hopper Dredge McFarland..........................................    99
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX........... 140, 148, 272, 370
Howard Hanson Dam, WA......................................... 147, 148
Hudson River Channel, NY Side....................................    91
Humboldt Harbor..................................................   396
Iao Stream, HI...................................................   321
Imperial County Watershed, CA....................................   145
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Beach Nourishment...............    68
Indiana Harbor and Canal, IN (Dredging and Disposal).............    68
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, IN....................................   316
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN..............................    71
Indianapolis, White River (North), IN.......................... 71, 304
IWW, Palm Beach County, FL.......................................   278
Jacksonville Harbor, FL..........................................   147
Jackson, KY......................................................   366
Jamaica Bay, NY..................................................   254
James Canyon Dam, NM.............................................   182
Jefferson County, KY.............................................   407
Jennings Randolph Lake Reallocation, MD & WV.....................   250
Joint Study of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers...............    11
Joseph G. Minish Waterfront Park and Historic Area, NJ...........    98
Kanapolis Lake, KS...............................................   323
Kankakee River Basin, IL & IN....................................   143
Kansas Citys, MO & KS......................................... 139, 322
Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor, HI...................................   321
Kenai River Navigation, AK.......................................   142
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ................. 95, 250

                                   ix

Kill Van Kull, NY & NJ...........................................    91
Kimmswick, MO....................................................   146
Kissimmee River, FL..............................................   285
Klamath River....................................................   398
Kuskokwim River, AK..............................................   142
Lake George, IN Fish and Wildlife Restoration....................    69
Lake Michigan Diversion, IL......................................   317
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, LA..............................   260
Lake Shore Drive/Airport Bridge, Waco, TX........................   381
Lake Washington Ship Canal, WA...................................   144
Lakes Earl and Talawa............................................   395
Las Cruces, NM................................................ 139, 148
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland 
  River, WV, VA, & KY......................................... 307, 359
Lexington, Fayette County, KY....................................   143
Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, IN.................    69
Little Calumet River, IL & IN....................................    67
Lock and Dam No. 3 Rehab, Mississippi River, MN (Major Rehab)....   139
Lock and Dam Replacement, William Bacon Oliver Lock and Dam, AL..   183
Long Beach Island, NY...................................... 84, 89, 148
Los Angeles County Drainage Area.............................. 293, 393
Los Angeles Harbor Pier 400 Deep Draft Navigation Project........   343
Loves Park, IL...................................................   315
Low Commercial Use Harbors.......................................   394
Lower Brazos River, TX...........................................   378
Lower Cape May Meadows-Cape May Point, NJ....................... 84, 89
Lower Eel and Mad Rivers.........................................   396
Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV................................   143
Lower Mississippi Valley Division Reservoirs.....................   263
Lower Platte River and Tributaries, NE...........................   146
Lower Potomac Estuary Watershed, VA & MD.........................   144
Lower River Des Peres, MO..................................... 146, 257
Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction.......................   293
Lower Thorofare, Deal Island, MD.................................   254
Lower Truckee River, Pyramid Lake, Paiute Reservation, NV..... 146, 147
Lower Truckee River, Washoe County, NV........................ 146, 147
Lower West Branch Susquehanna River Basin Environmental 
  Restoration, PA................................................   144
Maintenance Dredging of Boston Harbor............................   328
Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, NJ........................... 84, 89
Manatee Harbor, FL...............................................   281
Manistee Harbor, MI..............................................   317
Marina Del Rey and Ballona Creek, CA.......................... 145, 287
Marquette Harbor, MI.............................................   318
Maui Second Harbor, HI...........................................   320
Maumee River, OH.................................................   139
May Branch, Forth Smith, AR......................................   145
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, AK........... 276, 390
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, L&D, AR & OK....   274
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL...............................   315
McKinney Bayou, AR...............................................   257
Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS......................................   144
Memphis Metropolitan Area, TN & MS...............................   263
Metro Atlanta Watershed, GA......................................   143
Metro Center Levee, Davidson co, TN..............................   147

                                    x

Metropolitan Cincinnati, Northern Kentucky, KY...................   303
Metropolitan Louisville, Miss Creek Basin, KY....................   143
Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, KY...........................   145
Miami Harbor, FL.................................................   282
Middle Brazos River, TX....................................... 373, 377
Middle Rio Grande Flood Protection, Bernalillo to Belen, NM......   274
Middlesborough, KY...............................................   361
Mill Creek, Local Protection Project, OH.........................   306
Milton, PA.......................................................   144
Mispillion River, DE.............................................   254
Mississippi River at Quincy, IL..................................   143
Mississippi River Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, MO & IL..   259
Mississippi River Levees.........................................   264
Mississippi River Mainline Levee Enlargement and Berm 
  Construction Project, AR, LA, & MS.............................   177
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA..........   259
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, LA................................   258
Mississippi-Louisiana Estuarine Areas, LA & MS...................   266
Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS, & MO....................   324
Missouri River Levee System, Units L455 and R460-471, MO & KS....   323
Missouri River Main Stem Projects, MT, SD, ND, NE KS, IA & MO....   180
Mojaje River Dam, CA.............................................   142
Montauk Point, NY............................................... 84, 89
Montgomery Point, Lock and Dam, AR............................. 16, 387
Morganza, LA, to Gulf of Mexico..................................   263
Moriches Inlet and Shinnecock Inlet, Long Island, NY.............   184
MRLS Units L455 and R460-471, MO & KS............................   146
Myrtle Beach, SC.................................................   284
Nansemond River Basin, VA........................................   144
Napa River Flood Control Project.................................   394
Napa River, Salt Marsh Restoration, CA...........................   142
Natomas..........................................................   348
Neches River and Tributaries, Saltwater Barrier, TX........... 271, 379
New Jersey Coastal Feasibility Studies...........................   250
New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Environmental Restoration, NJ..   143
New York-New Jersey Harbor.......................................    85
New York-New Jersey Harbor Disposal Crisis.......................    90
New York-New Jersey Harbor Mud Dump..............................    93
New York-New Jersey Harbor (Decontamination Technologies)........    94
New York-New Jersey Harbor (Dredged Material Management Plan)....    93
New York and New Jersey Harbor, NY & NJ........................ 96, 146
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, NY & NJ...................    96
Newark Bay Channels, Newark Bay, Hackensack & Passaic Rivers, NJ.    91
Newport Bay Harbor...............................................   290
Nome Harbor Improvements, AK.....................................   145
North Branch Potomac River Environmental Restoration, WV, MD, & 
  PA.............................................................   144
North Las Vegas, Channel ``A'', NV...............................   143
North Shore of Long Island, NY.................................. 84, 89
Northern California Streams, Cache Creek Environmental 
  Resotration, CA................................................   145
Northern California Streams, Colusa Basin, CA....................   142
Northern California Streams, Dry Creek, Middletown, CA...........   142
Northern California Streams, Fairfield Streams and Cordelia 
  Marsh, CA......................................................   142
Northern California Streams, Middle Creek, CA....................   145
Northern California Streams, Vacaville, Dison, and Vicinity, CA..   142
Northern California Streams, Watershed Management Plan, CA.......   142

                                   xi

Northern California Streams, Yuba River Basin, CA................   147
Northwest El Paso, TX............................................   144
Noyo Harbor......................................................   397
Noyo Harbor Breakwater...........................................   395
Ocean City Harbor, MD............................................   254
Ocean City, MD and Vicinity......................................    89
Ocean City, MD and Vicinity Water Resources, MD..................   248
O'Hare Reservoir, IL.............................................   148
Ohio River Main Stems Systems Study..............................   302
Onondaga Lake, NY................................................   311
Ouachita and Black Rivers, LA....................................   262
Pacific Northwest Salmon Program.................................    16
Palm Beach County, FL............................................   283
Passaic River Preservation of Natural Storage, NJ................    98
Passaic River, NJ................................................    98
Patuxent River Water Resources, MD...............................   143
Pearl River Watershed, MS........................................   258
Pedestrian Bridges for Rillito River.............................   384
Petersbury, WV...................................................   148
Pike County, KY..................................................   361
Pillar Point Harbor, CA..........................................   145
Pinellas County, FL..............................................   284
Plainview, Brazos River Basin, TX............................. 146, 270
Ponce de Leon Intel, FL....................................... 147, 278
Poplar Island, MD................................................   252
Port Everglades Harbor, FL.................................... 145, 277
Port Fourchon, LA................................................   257
Port Hueneme, CA.................................................   147
Port of Houston..................................................    78
Port Washington Harbor, WI.......................................   318
Port Wing Harbor, WI.............................................   318
Powerhouse Rehabilitation, AR....................................   390
Prado Basin Water Supply, CA.....................................   145
Prado Dam, Santa Ana River Mainstem Project......................   295
Prevention of Obstructive and Injurious Deposits and Collection 
  and Removal of Drift...........................................   255
Provo and Vicinity, UT...........................................   146
Puget Sound Confined Disposal Sites, WA....................... 146, 298
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, NJ............. 84, 89
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, NJ............................ 143, 249
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, NJ--Union Beach, NJ..............   146
Raritan Bay Beach, NY & NJ Channels..............................    91
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ................. 97, 148
Ray Roberts Lake, TX.............................................   148
Raymondville Drain, TX...........................................   379
Red Hook Flats Anchorage, New York Harbor........................    91
Red River Basin Chloride Control Project, TX & OK............. 275, 380
Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA....... 259, 262
Rhode Island South Coast.........................................   327
Rhode Island South Coast Habitat Restoration and Storm Damage 
  Reduction, RI..................................................   144
Richard Russell Dam and Lake, SC & GA............................   179
Richmond Harbor..................................................   293
Rillito River, AZ................................................   148
Rio Chama, Abiquiu Dam to Espanola, NM...........................   269

                                  xii

Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.......................................   145
Rio Grande Ecosystem Restoration, CO & NM........................   267
Rio Salado.......................................................   383
Rio de La Plata, PR..............................................   285
Rio Grande Ecosystem Restoration, CO & NM........................   139
Roughans Point, Revere, MA.......................................   327
Russia River, Ecosystem Restoration, CA..........................   142
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study......    10
Sacramento River Bank Protection, CA.............................   348
Sacramento River Flood Control Project...........................   333
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Little Holland Tract...............   290
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Western Delta Islands, CA....... 145, 291
Salina, KS.......................................................   143
Salyversville, KY................................................   366
Sam Rayburn Dam and Reservoir (Dam Safety), TX...................   148
San Antonio Creek, CA......................................... 145, 289
San Diego Harbor (Deepening), CA.................................   142
San Francisco Bay Bar Channel, CA................................   142
San Joaquin River Basin, Arroyo Pasajero.........................   290
San Joaquin River Basin, South Sacramento County Streams, CA.....   147
San Joaquin River Basin, Stockton Metropolitan Area, CA..........   145
San Joaquin River Basin, Tule River..............................   290
San Joaquin River Basin, West Stanislaus County, CA..............   142
San Juan and Aliso Creeks Watershed Management, CA...............   145
San Juan Harbor, PR..............................................   148
San Lorenzo River................................................   294
San Timoteo Creek................................................   294
Sand Point Harbor, AK............................................   147
Sandbridge, Virginia Beach, VA............................. 84, 89, 148
Sandy Hook Channel, New York Harbor..............................    91
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ.................................   251
Santa Barbara County Streams, Lower Mission Creek, CA............   145
Santa Margarita River and Tributaries, CA........................   142
Santee, Cooper, Congaree Rivers, SC..............................   144
Sarasota County, FL..............................................   284
Saugerties Harbor, NY............................................   254
Savannah Harbor Expansion, GA................................. 145, 277
Savannah/Chatham County Regional Flood Control, GA...............   143
Schuylkill River Basin, Schuylkill Haven Area, PA................   249
Sedona, AZ.......................................................   384
Seward Harbor, AK................................................   298
Sheyenne River, ND...............................................   316
Sitka Cruise Ship passenger Transfer Facility, AK................   142
Skagit River, WA.................................................   146
Smith Island Environmental Restoration, MD.......................   143
Souris River, ND.................................................   148
South Florida Eocsystem Restoration..............................    16
South Sacramento Streams, CA.....................................   349
South Shore of Long Island, NY...................................   143
South Shore of Staten Island, NY................................ 84, 89
Southeast Louisiana, LA........................................ 16, 261
Special Area Management Plans....................................   344
Stillaguamish River, WA..........................................   144
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Flood Control Project, MO............    65
St. Louis Flood Protection, MO...................................   139

                                  xiii

St. Lucie Inlet, FL..............................................   279
St. Tammany Parish, LA...........................................   256
Susquehanna River Basin Water Management, NY, PA, & MD........ 144, 249
Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, MO................... 144, 322
Table Rock Lake, MO, Dam Safety..................................   274
Tahoe Basin, CA & NV.............................................   143
Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation, AL & MS........   281
Tennessee-Tombigbee Water (TTW), MS..............................   183
Tensas Basin, AR & LA............................................   265
Terminus Dam.....................................................   296
Tioga River Watershed, PA & NY...................................   144
Toldeo Harbor, OH Long Term Management Strategy..................   319
Topeka, KS.......................................................   143
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ...................... 84, 89, 249
Tres Rios, AZ....................................................   145
Truckee Meadows, Reno, NV........................................   143
Tuckerton Creek, NJ..............................................    99
Tucson Drainage Area Feasibility Study...........................   384
Trukey Creek Basin, KS & MO......................................   322
Tygart Lake, (Dam Safety), WV................................. 140, 304
Tygart River Basin, Three Watershed Ecosystem Restoration, WV....   144
Tygart Valley River Basin, Grassy Run Environmental Restoration, 
  WV.......................................................... 146, 304
Ueda Parkway.....................................................   347
Upper Delaware River Watershed, NY...............................   143
Upper Guadalupe River, CA........................................   147
Upper Jordan River Restoration, UT...............................   144
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River Navigation Study......   312
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 9'' Channel 
  Projects, IL, IA, & MO.........................................   183
Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program.........   314
Upper Mississippi River System Flood Profile Study, IL, IA, MO, 
  MN, & WI.......................................................   143
Upper Mississippi River System Profile Study.....................   310
Upper Penitencia Creek...........................................   290
Upper Penitencia Creek, CA.......................................   145
Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction.......................   294
Upper Susquehanna River Basin Environmental Restoration, NY & PA.   143
Upper Thorofare, Deal Island, MD.................................   254
Upper Trinity River Basin, TX................................. 268, 381
Ventura Harbor Sand Bypass, CA...................................   143
Vernal Pools.....................................................   395
Vichy Springs....................................................   398
Village Creek, Jefferson County (Birmingham Watershed), AL.......   142
Virginia Beach (Reimbursement), VA...............................   148
Virginia Beach, VA............................................. 89, 253
Waco Lake, TX....................................................   382
Walker River Basin, NV........................................ 141, 293
Walla Walla River Watershed, OR & WA.............................   144
Wallisville Lake, TX.............................................    79
Wards Point Bend, NY & NJ Channels...............................    91
Washington Harbor, DC............................................   254
West Bank--East of Harvey Canal, LA........................... 148, 262
West Bank Hurricane Protection Project, LA.................... 182, 183
West Des Moines, Des Moines, IA..................................   148

                                  xiv

West Pearl River Navigation Project, LA..........................   179
West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, LA...............................   143
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...................................   266
Willamette River Floodplain Restoration, OR................... 139, 297
Willamette River Temperature Control, OR.........................   299
Williamsburg, KY.................................................   361
Willoughby Spit and Vicinity, Norfolk, VA....................... 84, 89
Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening, NC...........................   139
Wilmington Harbor, Northeast Cape Fear River, NC.................   279
Wilson Lake, KS............................................... 143, 323
Wolf River, Memphis, TN....................................... 144, 263
Wood River Drainage & Levee District, Madison County, IL.........   147
Wrangell Harbor, AK..............................................   145
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Watershed, SC...............................   144
Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, MS...................   266
Youghiogheny Lake Storage Reallocation, PA & MD..................   303
Youghiogheny River Lake, Storage Reallocation, PA & MD...........   144

                                  <all>

</pre></body></html>