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>