Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
AGENCY BUDGETS AND OTHER PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
Wednesday, February 10, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, at 2:10 p.m., pursuant to other business, in room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood Boehlert [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. BOEHLERT.The subcommittee will resume activities.
The Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on agency budgets and priorities for Fiscal Year 2000. We will hear from agencies under our subcommittee's jurisdiction, and Members will have the opportunity to examine the Administration's fiscal and program priorities.
Secretary Westphal, we appreciate your presence here today. I think that we share some common goals: maximizing the resources and opportunities available to the Corps of Engineers to carry out its missions, and early enactment of a Water Resources Development Act for 1999. We also expect a spirited debate over harbor financing proposals as the year unfolds and as we prepare for the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Let me also welcome my friends from the Environmental Protection Agency. As you can imagine, the subcommittee is extremely disappointed over the Administration's budget request for clean water State revolving funds. That disappointment is on a bipartisan basis, I might add. It is not just a partisan thing. We feel very strongly about the need to have some adequate resources and clean water State revolving funds. I, personally, find it irresponsible and indefensible to propose dramatic funding cuts in what most observers believe to be our Nation's most effective environmental program. The last clean water infrastructure needs survey sent to us by EPA placed our Nation's water infrastructure needs at $139 billion. Now we are dealing with, comparatively speaking, petty cash. I have to believe that in your heart of hearts within EPA that you are disappointed in the Administration's request, although I wouldn't expect you to trumpet that.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You can expect continued bipartisan resistance to cuts in these essential clean-water programs. You can also expect continued efforts by this subcommittee to bolster Clean Water and Drinking Water infrastructure programs and to improve programs regarding wetlands, beach and coastal water quality, non-point sources, and watersheds.
The bipartisan Superfund Reform and brownfields revitalization continue to be high priorities, and, as I mentioned earlier in our organizational meeting, we applaud many of the actions taken administratively by EPA. You are doing some good work. We just want to codify that good work.
I hope that the Administration will work together with a growing coalition of Members looking for meaningful, reasonable reforms that simply cannot be done administratively no matter how well intentioned the Administrator and her staff might be.
Let me also welcome our distinguished witnesses from the Tennessee Valley Authority, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I anticipate continued review of TVA's power and non-power programs, and NRCS's small watershed program, particularly the increasing of aging infrastructure should also receive considerable attention by this subcommittee.
With that, let me turn to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to hear the President's budget proposals and priorities as we head into the legislative session.
As in years past, I find many areas of agreement with the President, and areas where I would like to see a greater commitment.
For example, I am pleased to see the Administration abandon the deep cut in spending for the Corps of Civil Works Program that was proposed in the last budget. Like many Members of this Committee, I am deeply interested in the proposed harbor services user fees both in terms of how it will be constituted and whether the fee should fund the Federal share of construction costs.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the EPA budget, I am pleased by the continuing commitment to addressing non-point source of pollution, and, conversely, I join with you, Mr. Chairman, in your disappointment that the budget seeks to cut $550 million from the Clean Water Act State revolving loan fund.
I am also quite interested in a proposal for Better American Bonds. The proposal creates the opportunity to infuse $9.5 billion into our communities to create a more liveable environment through both green space and redevelopment. I may have some ideas of how to use these bonds in the City of Philadelphia, but I also wanted to make sure that I compliment my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, who is a big proponent of liveable communities.
In other programs that will be discussed today, my reaction to the President's budget is similar. Where the budget reflects and investment in the infrastructure or in environmental protection, I am pleased to support it. However, I believe that the budget requests include too many reductions in spending for the very programs which the public so strongly supports. Programs such as Clean Water. Unfortunately, while an adherence to spending caps may preclude necessary investment in infrastructure and improving the environment, in these times of prosperity, we should be increasing our commitment to protecting the environment and improving our infrastructure. If we cannot address the backlog of needs now, how will we ever do it?
Mr. Chairman, I hope that this Subcommittee can work together to convince the Administration and the Leadership in the House that investment in America's future is money well spent. Prior generations made that commitment for us. We should do the same.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Borski.
Does any other Member seek recognition? If not, let's proceed.
Our first panel consists of Dr. Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary for the Army for Civil Works, representing the Army Corps of Engineers. And from the Environmental Protection Agency, my good friends, Mr. Chuck Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water, and Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. Westphal, we will let you go first.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; CHARLES FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR., ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, and to share with you the Administration's priorities and our budget submission proposal for Fiscal Year 2000.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I have submitted a statement for the record, and I ask you to accept that.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, all statements will appear in the record in their entirety.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. And they will be read carefully.
Dr. WESTPHAL. OK, and I will just summarize some of the major points of that. I know that time is probably limited today, and I will just summarize a few major points.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I really believe that the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget funds a very strong civil works program. We wanted to be consistent with the funding levels enacted by Congress in recent years, and we wanted to be consistent with the President's overall domestic priorities, his commitment to a balanced budget, and his goals of protecting social security.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The President's budget for the Army Civil Works program for the Fiscal Year 2000 includes $3.9 billion for the discretionary program comparable to the amount appropriated for the Civil Works program in Fiscal Year 1999. It is significantly above last year's budget proposal. The President is committed to working with Congress to find a proper balance for this program in the out years.
With the non-Federal contributions, the total funding for the Army Civil Works program in Fiscal Year 2000 will be approximately $4.2 billion, and I think that this clearly demonstrates the strong commitment made by your constituents, our non-Federal sponsors. We are also keenly aware of their needs and interests and want very much to work towards a greater efficiency in getting projects completed in a timely manner.
But let me just take a couple of minutes to outline some parts of our Fiscal Year 2000 proposal. First, I want to emphasize our commitment to water resources development, and to the bi-annual authorization cycle. A strong water resources development program is a sound investment in our Nation's economic future and environmental stability. Communities across the country benefit from water resource projects to reduce flood damages, compete more efficiently in world trade, provide needed water and power, provide recreational opportunities and protect and restore rich aquatic resources. In this regard, we would like to work with you to complete a Water Resources Development Act in 1999, building on the progress that we made last fall on the proposed WRDA 1998. This Administration is committed to all of these important missions.
As you know, the Army, on behalf of the Administration, submitted to Congress a WRDA bill in 1998, and this formed the basis for the House/Senate version of WRDA that included important Administration policy initiatives.
We believe that, based on our bill, and the work of your committee and that of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, we can come to closure on a WRDA 1999 bill early this year, and this would put us back on track on both policy initiatives and specific projects. Further, it would put us in a better position to address any new policy and project needs in the year 2000 on a WRDA bill for 2000.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In addition, the President has strongly advocated linking economic growth with protection of the environment. He has also demanded that we do a better job building partnerships with State and local governments and communities. This program is ideally suited to performing both of these missions, and we are working very hard to make them a success.
One way to meet these objectives is to continue to support projects that feature strong economic benefits as well as incorporating environmental restoration and enhancement where appropriate.
One example of this is the Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation initiative. We are proposing this again, as it was proposed in WRDA 1998 and is better known as the Challenge 21 Program.
We are also implementing FUSRAP, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, which is an environmental cleanup program that was transferred by Congress from the Department of Energy to the Department of Army's Civil Works Program in the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations. We are continuing the smooth implementation of needed cleanup of contaminated sites. This year's budget includes $150 million for this program, an increase of $10 million over the past two years, and this will help to improve the rate of cleanup of these contaminated sites.
For the Fiscal Year 2000 for the Army Civil Works Program, we provide a lot of new strength to the program. The budget includes $80 million, in Fiscal Year 2000, for new investments, with total capital costs of $1.8 billion. Of that, $520 million will be financed directly by non-Federal sponsors, including lands, easements, rights of way, and relocations. And the Federal share is $1.3 billion.
Our program of new work includes one new survey and 19 new construction starts. The new construction starts include five commercial navigation projects, three flood damage reduction projects, two environmental restoration projects, seven major rehabilitations, and two dam safety assurance projects.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
A key component of the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget for the Army Civil Works Program is the Administration's proposal for a new Harbor Services User Fee and a Harbor Services Fund. As you know, the Supreme Court ruled that the Harbor Maintenance Tax was unconstitutional as applied to exports. Assumed in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget proposal is the assessment of a Harbor Services User Fee and a creation of a Harbor Services Fund. The objective of this proposal is to provide a reliable source of funding for important navigational needs, including both operation and maintenance and construction.
This proposal will address all of the biggest problems associated with the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund. First, we will stop collections on imports, domestic shippers and passengers under existing Harbor Maintenance Tax, eliminating the uncertainties involved with our foreign trading partners.
Second, we will institute a new fee mechanism based on vessel type, linking the fee with the level of service provided to certain types of vessels. Those fees would be placed in the new Harbor Services Fund along with the remaining balances from the old Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. A portion of those balances will be used to fund the program in the first year of Fiscal Year 2000.
And third, the proposal will link the amount of fees collected with the funds appropriated thus avoiding the buildup of balances. Our proposal will result in significantly greater funding for those port and harbor activities.
We will be able to proceed at an optimal rate of nearly all operation and maintenance and construction activities related to ports and harbors using funds contributed by the users.
Last year, Mr. Chairman and Members, when I assumed the position of Assistant Secretary of the Army, the Administration was considering submitting a proposal to Congress on the Harbor Services Fee to be included, at some point, in WRDA 1998. I asked OMB to allow me to discuss this proposal with various stake holders and with committee staffs prior to doing this—committee staffs of both houses. Upon completion of that process, I made the decision that we needed to address some of the major concerns of stake holders and sent the proposal back to staff for further analysis and incorporation of many of those concerns. Thus, the proposal was not included in the WRDA 1998, and we are continuing to work out the details of the fee structure in light of discussions and comments from the interest groups, and we plan to have further discussions with the interested parties in the very near future. While I cannot give you a precise date, I anticipate that we will present the legislative proposal to Congress sometime in March, and we plan to pursue the harbor service legislative proposal separately from the Water Resources Development Act.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, I am personally very anxious to work with you and your staffs on a wide array of issues and will further strengthen our mutual resolve to grow the economy, protect the environment and provide the necessary infrastructure to protect our citizens. The leadership that you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member, Congressman Borski, and Chairman Shuster and Congressman Oberstar, bring to these issues is vital, and I look forward to working with you and your staffs in our efforts to see a WRDA 1999 and a WRDA 2000 bill pass.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
And now it is a pleasure to welcome Mr. Fox in his new capacity as Assistant Administrator for Water. His performance in his previous position in the Office of Re-invention earned him this elevation, and we are glad to have you here.
Mr. Fox, the floor is yours.
Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a real pleasure to be here today——
Mr. BOEHLERT. We for sure want to hear what you have to say.
Mr. FOX.It is a real pleasure to be here today before this committee. I wanted to talk briefly about some of the priorities that we face in the Office of Water, that our Nation faces with water resources, and briefly about our budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2000.
I wanted to make three basic points today. First, despite remarkable progress over the past 25 years in improving water quality, we still face many serious and widespread water pollution problems around the country.
Second, at the same time, we and our State partners have a series of very effective water pollution control programs including the Clean Water Action Plan that was recently announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And, third, we believe that the Administration's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2000 will give us the financial resources that we need to support our water protection goals, particularly the Better America Bonds proposal that the Chairman mentioned.
First, regarding some of our water pollution challenges, the Clean Water Act calls on the States to develop bi-annual reports on the condition of their waters. These findings are presented for different kinds of water bodies, and I have an attachment to my testimony that you might want to take a look at. In general, what this shows is that, for example, for rivers and streams, 36 percent of the rivers and streams in this country are impaired; meaning that they do not meet their water quality uses. I have also attached to my testimony a recent assessment that was done by the States called the ''Unified Watershed Assessment,'' and they assessed 2,000 watersheds and roughly showed that about 40 percent of them are not meeting water quality goals and are in need of attention.
With respect to the causes and sources of water pollution problems, the States report that the single most significant cause of today's water pollution problems is runoff from diffuse sources of non-point pollution, from agricultural lands, urban and suburban areas, and forestry and mining activities.
Second, regarding water pollution control programs, the Clean Water Act authorizes an essential set of core programs that are a foundation for protecting water quality, ranging from national industrial standards to programs for reducing non-point source pollution and protecting wetlands. And EPA relies very heavily on our partnerships with the States to implement key elements of these programs.
To build upon the success of these core programs, the President and Vice President asked EPA and other Federal agencies to develop the Clean Water Action Plan last year. This action plan sets out clear goals for the national clean water program and includes a number of specific actions that we are in the process of implementing. I am happy to say that we are doing very well in implementing the Clean Water Action Plan. Some of the key themes of that plan include; protecting watersheds, building strong Federal, State and Tribal standards, assuring natural resource stewardship of public and private lands, and strengthening the information that we provide citizens and government officials.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Regarding the Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 proposal to Congress, I wanted to highlight three key elements, but I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have on other items in the budget, and I suspect that I might get just a few of those.
First, on the Clean Water Action Plan itself, the budget does include funding to fully implement the Clean Water Action Plan, and I wanted to thank Members of this committee who helped us last year secure an additional $100 million for the Section 319 Non-point Source Pollution Program.
Second, our budget this year includes what I think is a very new and exciting proposal that would allow up to 20 percent of the Federal capitalization grants for the SRFs to be given to non-point source pollution projects by the States in the form of grants. This would, hopefully, allow for more non-point source projects to go forward where currently they cannot put together the financing mix to make some of those projects work.
And, third, I wanted to highlight the Better America Bonds proposal that is included in the Administration's budget initiative. We believe that many local governments want to foster more liveable communities and make investments in open space, clean up abandoned industrial sites, and protect riparian areas, drinking water sources and wetlands.
The Administration's proposal proposes Federal tax credits in lieu of interest payments for investors. This proposal will provide approximately $9.5 billion in bonds over 5 years and result in dramatic increases in investment in liveable communities throughout the country.
In conclusion, I have seen, Mr. Chairman, time and again when the American people are asked what makes their community valuable or liveable, they cite water resources, their beach, their lake or their river. In a recent Rebuild America survey, 74 percent of Americans indicated that they were willing to pay even 1 percent more in taxes for improved sewage and water treatment systems.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Why do Americans feel strongly about clean water? They understand the tremendous economic, recreational, and ecological value of water resources, and they can see what their monitoring data tells us: that too many waters have pollution problems.
The budget the Administration has proposed will maintain our longstanding commitment to environmental protection. It will provide States with new resources to create innovative financial packages, and it will provide municipalities with a significant financial incentive to make major investments to protect open space and improve our water for years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Fields?
Mr. FIELDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to talk to you about the waste cleanup programs at the EPA and the Fiscal Year 2000 availability for those programs.
I am very pleased, like Mr. Fox, about the Better America Bonds, and particularly the application of that program to help in furthering brownfields' revitalization activities as well. Focusing on the programs in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, I am pleased to say that the President's budget request provides the funding needed to continue EPA's success in protecting public health and the environment as we deal with toxic waste sites, Brownfields sites, oil spills, and underground storage tanks in this country.
Let me start with Superfund. The President's budget requests $1.5 billion for the Superfund program. This will allow us to complete 85 construction completions, 300 emergency response actions and implement an aggressive enforcement program in Fiscal Year 2000.
Mr. Chairman, the Superfund program, we believe, has become a real success story. As you cited, with the administrative reforms, we think that we have done a lot of good. We have reformed the program. It has allowed us to move faster, cheaper, to be more fair in implementing that program. Five hundred and eighty-five sites have been completed. Another 457 have construction on the way. Others have removal activity for a total of 90 percent of the Superfund-site universe having either construction complete or construction underway.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We believe that the Fiscal Year 2000 budget will allow us to continue the pace of cleanup that we have implemented over the last six years.
Next, the Brownfields program which we believe has also been a great success. The President's budget request provides for $91.7 million for Brownfields. We believe that this program, which has provided needed resources to date to 227 communities across America, will allow us to continue to assess cleanup and help redevelop properties that are contaminated for beneficial reuse. The program that we have implemented has leveraged, $1.2 billion in private-sector investment for the Brownfields dollars that we have given out to date over the last three years. We plan to fund, in Fiscal Year 2000, another 100 Brownfield Assessment Grants.
And during Fiscal Year 1999, the current fiscal year—we thank Congress for your support—we are implementing, for the first time, an aggressive program of revolving loan funds to help provide low interest loans to help facilitate clean up, as well, in 63 communities this year and 70 more communities in Fiscal Year 2000.
Thirdly, the President's budget requests $15.6 million for the oil program. That program has been very critical in responding to major oil spill responses each year for providing a prevention of major oil spills from major oil storage facilities that are located above ground, and assisting the Coast Guard and others in major oil spill activities. Over the last three years alone, we have responded to 275 very severe oil spills, have received 35,000 notifications of oil spills across this country, and have shared responsibility with the Coast Guard at 475 other responses. So we think that $15.6 million is well spent each year.
And, finally, the President's budget requests $71.6 million in leaking underground-storage tank trust fund money to carry on the program of cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks in this country. Eighty-five percent of that money will go to States and tribes; 81 percent to States to help them oversee cleanups going on in the States, another 4 percent where EPA will utilize the dollars to do cleanup on Indian lands. Budget requests will allow us to do 21,000 cleanups of underground storage tanks in Fiscal Year 2000.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, in closing, we believe, in terms of waste cleanup and the Fiscal Year 2000 budget, Mr. Chairman, the Fiscal Year 2000 budget will allow the Administration to respond to the problems posed by waste cleanup, we will be able to address the necessary toxic waste dumps, brownfields program agenda, oil pollution spills that occur, and address the 21,000 leaking tanks that we need to cleanup.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to respond to any questions by the subcommittee.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Fields.
The Chair will announce that it will continue the practice that we have had in the past. That is, during the question period, first come, first serve regardless of seniority. If you happen to be the most junior member of the committee, and you are here first, you ask the questions first.
Secondly, we will try to adhere to the five-minute rule, but obviously there will be some leeway granted by the Chair to allow members to complete thoughts.
And in this regard, we will also try to have consideration for special circumstances. And a special circumstance has been brought to my attention by Dr. Horn, who is always first here, and he is here on a regular basis, he has to exit. So the Chair will yield his time to Dr. Horn, and then I will take my time in the sequence under ordinary circumstances.
Dr. Horn?
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
Secretary Westphal, we thank you for all you have done to solve the number of problems that exist in this country on flood control projects. Let me ask you a few questions in relation to the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, LACDA project, that affects 500,000 people, 8 congressional districts. It is a major problem to finish it up. The FEMA has imposed the mandatory insurance on the 500,000 people, or so, in that area, and what I would like to know, on the re-certification of when that would be done, what is the process that the Army Corps of Engineers follows, and does it apply—can you get it to—if you are almost done, can you re-certify, or do you have to be completely done?
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Technically we have to be completely done. And, in fact, on that LACDA project, I took some action earlier at the beginning of this year with the Corps to move that process a lot faster than it was moving because, as I think that you pointed out, there is a lot of people in great need there, and it is a very unique project because we are incorporating a lot of environmental restoration along with the recreation and aesthetics and a whole bunch of things in that project in addition to the primary objective of flood control. So, we are moving along as fast as we can to try to get that re-certification done so that we can——
Mr. HORN. Well, I want to thank you for your recommendation this year. You recommended $30 million in the coming fiscal year. Last year, the President's budget had only $11 and we did get $60 million out of the House, and then the Senate had $40 million. The compromise was at $50 million, and that is in effect now. So, the worry that we have is the capability of the Corps to finish the project in the next year or two. And my understanding of the capability for this current fiscal year was a $60 million area just in the number of contracts they had had to issue and all the rest of it. And I am told that if we can get $50 million for the coming year that we can absorb that and then we could finish it off with about $12 million. And that is due to your speed up process there, I gather.
And, so, I guess I would ask, how much coordination goes on between the Corps and FEMA in terms of the insurance levies that are going? Does it mean that we simply can't get that burden off the 500,000 people before the—well it is $50 million, hopefully another $50 million and $12 million to finish it off?
Dr. WESTPHAL. I will be honest with you. That part of how much coordination there is before it is done, I really don't know. But let me make it a point to get you an answer on that right away because I made it a high priority, and I told the Corps that it would be a high priority so that we can get the FEMA re-certification done. And so, if you will allow me the opportunity to get me a response directly on that, I will do that.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HORN. Well, I thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have it in the record at this point, if I might.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[Insert here]
Mr. HORN. If you can secure appropriations for LACDA, the $12 million, would we have to wait until the last penny of that $12 million is—because that is the third year. We are just finishing one; we are in another $50 million; we hope to get another $50 million. But it is very tight around here, too. And then, $12 million, or could they, say, ''Look, it is obviously clear that we are finishing this thing. Can we take off the burden of insurance?'' That is the real problem, and that is what has upset people by the thousands in rallies and everything else on both sides of the river.
Dr. WESTPHAL. I will get you an answer on that. I don't know the answer. Technically, I understand it to be that it has to be completed and that a report has to be in, but whether we can get to some accommodation before that, I don't know the answer, and I would like to get you the correct answer.
Mr. HORN. Well, I would like to plant an idea with you and see if it meets and change the law, but the fact is that with the insurance money, maybe you ought to go to the construction of the project, if they have to mandatorily impose that insurance. Let's spend it, finish the project, and then we don't have to worry about all of the insurance. That might be something that the Army would want to propose, and hopefully we could get it into law, and that would guide FEMA and bring it closer together to putting the people's money to solve the problem.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. OK.
Mr. HORN. Anything that you can do, I would appreciate it.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Horn.
Mr. Borski?
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Westphal, let me start with you, if I may.
A recent news article stated that more than 6,000 acres of wetlands have been drained in southeastern North Carolina since the Tulloch rule was overturned last year. Have you any estimates from national losses associated with draining activities? What is the Administration's plan to address these losses, and should this issue be addressed in the first wetlands bill to come along?
Dr. WESTPHAL. I don't have those estimates, but I know them to be significant from every report that I get. We are very concerned about it, and we understand that there is legislation that is going to be moving in this Congress to address wetlands issues whether it is a mitigation banking bill or a clean water reauthorization. And we hope that the Congress—and we will work with the Congress to address the Tulloch rule. We believe that there are some remedies that can accommodate that significant loss. And we are really concerned about it because we—it is hard to estimate since these wetlands are being essentially drained without, necessarily, any reporting being done to the Army Corps of Engineers. There is no need to seek permits, so we don't know the extent of it. But we are concerned about it.
Mr. BORSKI. I wanted to ask you, also, about the harbor maintenance and construction activities. Do other countries fund harbor maintenance and construction activities with user fees?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. We don't know of any of the developed nations that do that. I haven't got any information on developing countries. But we would be——
Mr. BORSKI. But the ones that we do most of our trading with do not?
Dr. WESTPHAL. We don't know of any.
Mr. BORSKI. Do you know of any—is it just out general funds?
Dr. WESTPHAL. We assume that is where they get it, right.
[The information follows:]
[Insert here]
Mr. BORSKI. And we're going to hear your proposal in March, did you say?
Dr. WESTPHAL. We will hope to get you a proposal sometime in March. I am still trying to work it to the schedule. I have timed it to be able to explain the proposal to the various stake holders and give them an opportunity to have a look at it, and certainly give the initial proposal to your staffs and let them also look at it and give us some opinions before we give you a final version. So, we estimate that time to be sometime in mid March, maybe end of March.
Mr. BORSKI. OK, thank you.
Mr. Fox, if I may. The President's budget appears to state that funding for the SRF program will be complete when $2 billion is available annually for clean water infrastructure. The most recent EPA needs survey places needs at over $139 billion. Do you have projections that there will be a significant reduction in these needs or in elimination of these needs? Or how could $2 billion annually conceivably cover the depth of the problems that we have?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOX. In fact, Mr. Borski, the needs that you cited there, that is the most recent needs survey that we have done on, by and large, waste water needs alone, are at $139 billion. There are additional drinking water needs that are comparable to that to improve drinking water systems around the country, and then there are, in fact, additional needs that aren't included in those needs surveys. For example, on non-point source pollution, some of the estuary projects that are emerging around the country.
So, I think that it is important that we recognize that there are significant needs that we face in this Nation.
It is also important to compare apples to apples at some level. And those needs numbers that are very high are, in fact, 20 year number totals. And so, we are then ultimately going to have to figure out what that translates into in annual needs figure. Obviously, that will be a much smaller fraction of that. And then we need to compare what the Federal contribution is to that annual share versus what States and locals are controlling—we are doing some of that work presently to find out where the gap might be and what is the gap and the needs. And as this information gets put together, we would be happy to share it with you. We are working with some of our State colleagues in this regard.
Regarding the $2 billion level, I think that it is worth just clarifying. I put an attachment in my testimony. There has always been a commitment—and it has approached consensus, if you will, at some level—that the SRF account, over the long term, will revolve at a $2 billion annual level. And under the Administration's proposal, albeit a reduced one from last year, we will achieve this goal of revolving at a $2 billion level on average by the year 2002. Whether or not that is the right level to revolve at, certainly that is a debate that Congress hasn't had in some time. It hasn't been, in fact, debated since the last reauthorization which phased out the SRF program, I believe, in 1994 under current authorization.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I will come back in now taking Dr. Horn's place who took my place, and so, here we go back again.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'll continue along the line of Mr. Borski, to show the spirit of bipartisanship. It is unconscionable what the budget requests. And when you add in that you are going to have to redo the needs estimate because you are going to have to add in the cost of dealing with non-points source pollution, and I appreciate the fact that you are working very hard on that, you are talking about the next 100 years and we won't even deal with all of the problems at a spending rate of $2 billion a year.
So, please let the word go forth from here that, on a bipartisan basis, we feel that this is one area of the budget where the Administration has failed and failed miserably. It reminds me of what Lyndon Johnson used to do when I was a young staff guy. People used to tell Lyndon Johnson that you can't have guns and butter during the Vietnam War. So, Lyndon Johnson would always propose that we cut the school milk program—I was a staffer. Now, knowing full well that Congress would never do it, he would say, ''Well, I tried.''
Well, you have to know that Congress is not going to find it acceptable this diminished request for replenishing the SRF. We have got to get serious about this, and I look forward to working cooperatively with you. And I know that I can sense the anguish that you must feel inside as you deal with OMB on this subject matter.
Let me throw a softball to you, Secretary Westphal. You know that we did not do a WRDA bill last year, the Water Resources Development Act, and it is our commitment to move one early this year, and that commitment is shared by our colleagues in the Senate. I would assume that you would be very supportive of moving a bill early. Is that assumption correct?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Absolutely.
Mr. BOEHLERT. And with an early movement of the bill, we also recognize that there are some new Members of Congress. There are some new needs that will be identified. We are going to try, essentially, to move last year's bill early this year with the thought that we will go in 2000 with another bill, so two consecutive bills and then we will get back on the bi-annual basis. Is that something that you would find acceptable?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that we understand your work load. You identified it at the beginning of this hearing, actually, when you were doing your business session. You have got a pretty busy agenda this year with possibilities of Clean Water, Superfund, and we just felt that if we could get this legislation done early you would be free to work that part of your agenda, and we would be able to bring forth a 2000 bill and put in a new set of initiatives and policies.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes, the one thing that held it up, and we all know it, last year, was how to most effectively and fairly deal with the American River situation. And let me report, in the interim, since the adjournment of the last Congress and before this first hearing in the new Congress of this committee, we have had a conscious effort to include all parties, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Matsui, Republicans, Democrats, all parties to come and reason together to come up with the best possible solution to the problem. Once we get that behind us, it is going to be smooth sailing.
Now, where we are not going to have equally smooth sailing is in the area of Superfund reform. Am I interpreting some of the signals that I am getting correctly from the Administration that the enthusiasm is waning for Superfund reform? Mr. Fields, would you respond to that?
Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir, I would be happy to respond.
We obviously believe that Superfund legislation will be helpful. I think that there is a difference, though, in terms of the size of the road map, however. We do believe, and we have given a lot of thought to this, Mr. Chairman, over the last several months. We looked back and reflected on where we have been over the last six years in the 103rd, 104th, 105th Congresses. We believe, in terms of where we are now in this program, with 41 percent of the site construction complete, 90 percent of them either complete or done, and 90 percent of the remedies having been decided for non-Federal sites by the end of the year, and the reforms that we have implemented, we now need to look at what types of reform do we really need. We think that we ought to focus on a smaller set of more targeted reforms that we can all agree on in terms of what our Superfund legislative agenda ought to be.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, we agree that Superfund legislation is needed, but I think that we need to come together and talk about what is really necessary at this state of the program to date, where we are with a lot of the cleanups already done.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Good. So, you are saying we do need reform and we do need legislation. So, you are not telling us that we don't need legislation, we don't need reform.
Mr. FIELDS. We are not saying that we don't need any legislation. We believe that we ought to focus on targeted legislative reform primarily some liability relief that we would need to provide to certain parties to help facilitate reuse, redevelopment activities in brownfields and other——
Mr. BOEHLERT. Because I would like to read a brief statement for you—you probably think that I said it. But I will read it. ''I have said repeatedly over the last four years, and I say again today, legislative reform is needed to improve Superfund. I think that there is a consensus in this committee, and something should be done legislatively to strengthen the program and enable it to fulfill its potential for improving the quality of life in our country and in community after community.''
That statement was made in the last Congress, not by me, or Mr. Borski, and either one of us could have said it. It was made by your Administrator, our partner, Mrs. Browner.
Finally, the red light is on, so I will go to the next member of the panel, but I am sort of disappointed that you ended your presentation, Mr. Fields, in talking about the leaking underground storage tank program because we don't have prime jurisdiction there, and secondly, its acronym, LUST. I don't want the acronym to show that this committee focused on how we are going to be dealing with lust in this Congress.
[Laughter.]
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With that, let me now go to Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for saving us from ourselves.
I would like to begin by acknowledging my deep appreciation for the Administration's proposals regarding liveable communities. I had an opportunity a couple of times this last week to express that sentiment to both the President and to the Vice President, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that our subcommittee might be the staging area for the liveable communities agenda in the 106th Congress.
I was also impressed with some of the proposals that have found their way into the President's budget proposal dealing with salmon restoration in the Pacific Northwest. I think that it is money well spent on a very important natural resource, and I, likewise, strongly support the money for the Everglades, the $129 million. Both of these have national implications, and I am hopeful that there are ways that we can explore being able to focus in and support those initiatives.
I had but one specific question, and I would direct it to Dr. Westphal. The history of projects in this country built to fight flooding and related problems is at best checkered, and we are starting to find that some of the engineered solutions have not solved the problem, but, in fact, they have made it worse, or simply transferred it elsewhere. And I had really appreciated the Corps taking a broader view of what role it should take in harmony with the environment, not simply responding with concrete and structural efforts that may be politically popular at home for some occasionally, but end up being expensive solutions that cause greater problems in the long run.
To that regard, I was very interested in your reference to Challenge 21. It is my impression that we may be seeing some adjustments in current policies which make it easier for the Federal Government to supply money for concrete as opposed to passive, greener solutions. Greener solutions that may be more cost effective, may be more efficient. But right now, the system discriminates against them because the Federal Government will throw more money at concrete than it will at other alternatives. And I wondered if you could describe how Challenge 21 might level that playing field, might not skew the decision-making process so that communities, the Federal Government and our other partners will make better choices for what will make more liveable communities.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Sure. By the way, you mentioned the Everglades, and that is probably one of the better examples of work that the Corps did back in the 1940's which was done very well, very efficiently and resolved some of the issues back then, but today, with the huge population growth of Florida, the Everglades and that sensitive ecosystem, we find that that solution was not the right one in the long term, and we are having to redo it at a pretty large expense but a worthwhile one.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. At a tremendous cost.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Right. First of all, I think that it is important to understand that it needs to be a community-driven effort. And communities, many of whom now numbering almost 50, have come to the Corps to say that they would like to explore opportunities for Challenge 21 even though it hasn't been authorized or funded yet.
The idea is that communities who think that this would work for them have a chance to do a non-structural solution to potential flood damages in the future. And that is why we are calling it flood-damage reduction, as opposed to flood control. We are attempting to reduce the damages of floods rather than just put a structure there to control the floods.
So, for those communities who are willing and able and interested in moving forward to restoring the floodplain and doing some environmental restoration as well as some movement of people outside of the floodplain, this is a program that will hopefully work for them.
There are other communities that cannot accommodate that, don't need to accommodate it, don't want to accommodate it, and the structural solutions will be there for them.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that we as a committee can change corps funding mechanisms to assure that we are not biasing the tools our communities use to solve flooding problems. I wholly agree with this notion that these efforts are community driven, and if we can level that playing field, we will make an important contribution. It won't cost more money. In fact, we will probably save money in the long run, by giving people incentives to make the right choices. And I hope that the Subcommittee will be able to focus attention on that in our work load ahead.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The Subcommittee will, and I appreciate your contribution in that area. Let the Chair state that the Chair is against undue bias.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sherwood.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fox and Mr. Fields, being from the Northeast with our soils that don't perk very well and the large number of people that are moving to rural areas and our little lakes that used to be summer dwellings, people living there year round—we have a huge need to increase and improve our sewer treatment. I am very disturbed by the fact that in your budget, instead of increasing the amount of money that is available to help put in new sewer systems and fix our old ones that aren't working as well as they should be, you have got a $550 million decrease in the State revolving loan fund. And then, also, 20 percent of that is set aside for non-point source pollution, and that, again, potentially syphons off money which would be used to clean up and upgrade our sewer systems. And, in the light of what we are trying to do for clean water, I don't understand this decrease of funding, and I would like you to explain to me how the Administration feels that we are going to accomplish these objectives without spending the money.
Mr. FOX. Mr. Sherwood, I appreciate the question very much, and I have learned here very clearly, beginning with the Chairman's terms of ''irresponsible'' and ''indefensible'' that there is a lot of concern on this Committee for our proposal, and you can trust that I will take that back to the Administrator.
We do believe that the proposal that we have put forward is consistent with the commitments that we have made in the past about having this account revolve at a $2 billion level. And I would say that on the set aside for non-point source pollution, the way that we set that up it is an option for the Governors. They don't have to do that if they don't want to. We just thought that some of the Governors wanted the flexibility to allow that some of these funds in the SRF account could be used to deal with non-point source pollution problems, and that was our intent with that proposal. They don't have to do it. It was just an option for the Governors.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SHERWOOD. Well the 20 percent wouldn't bother me if the funding was there to start with. But it looks like that is going to take us 60 years to sort of get up to where we ought to be, and I don't see how we can operate that way.
Additionally, your proposed budget, as near as I can tell, doesn't include the $205 million in grants for waste water infrastructure that were earmarked in the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations bill.
Mr. FOX. That is correct. There were a number of earmarks, as I think Members of this Committee well know—in fact, my numbers are higher than that. They approach the $400 million category when you look at all the different EPA accounts. And you are correct. This Administration's budget proposal, like, I think, many Administrations before us probably going back at least to the Reagan Administration, did not include those earmarks in its budget.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Just out of curiosity, I know that there are a lot of magicians in this town, but by what magic do we come up with that $2 billion figure to start with? I mean, that would take 60 years, as Mr. Sherwood just pointed out, to address the needs survey that has to be amended and significantly increased on met demands. Where did that $2 billion average annual figure come from?
Mr. FOX. If you excuse this in terms of the rough numbers that I am about to give you, because we would have to do some more analysis, but these are going to be in the ballpark. That overall needs survey of roughly, say, $138 billion, translates into an annual cost to the Nation of probably something on the order of $12 to $15 billion, just like a mortgage on a house. You can make some downpayment in year one. And then you try to figure out, if that is my annual need of say $12 billion, how do I approach that share from various Federal, State, and local sources to make sure that I am meeting those needs. And that $2 billion is something that came up a long time ago, but it was a number that I think was based on an appropriate assessment of what is the Federal share of solving these problems versus the local share and versus the State share, and that is generally how the mix was determined.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. That's assuming that as a national policy we are willing to accept the basic proposition that, to deal with an urgent national need, we should take 60 to 70 years to deal with it.
I will excuse you because I know that you are not the one who was identified. Your fingerprints are not on there as one of the original authors, so I am not going to ask you to defend something that you were not a partner to.
Mr. Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. Yes, Mr. Boehlert. No questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. It's a pleasure to have you here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. CLEMENT. Wide awake and all, right? I do have some, but not for this panel.
Mr. BOEHLERT. OK, thank you.
Mr. Doolittle?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fox, your testimony states that EPA intends to use its regulatory authority to promote smart growth policies. Could you explain what you mean by that?
Mr. FOX. I don't have my testimony in front of me. I certainly know that our attempts to promote smart growth are generally not regulatory in nature, Mr. Doolittle, and I will be happy to look at the testimony.
The primary proposal that we have is what we call the Better America Bonds which we intend to implement, if Congress approves this, virtually without any regulations whatsoever. Our goal is to get State and local governments to use different funding sources to help them identify their priorities. In my home State of Maryland, for example, there are a number of open space land preservation ideas that are in need of some different funding tools that could make these deals work on a financial basis. And the Better America Bonds proposal is intended to do just that.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There are other incentives that we are looking at in emerging regulations that, again, would give flexibilities to State and local governments to encourage smart growth, and that might be the reference in my testimony.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I have been trying to understand just exactly what the Better America Bonds proposal is. Could you explain to the Subcommittee what EPA's role is and who would select the projects and what criteria would be used.
Mr. FOX. First, this is still emerging, and we are still intending to work with Congress to help define this. But as the proposal has been developed initially, EPA would actually receive proposals from State or local governments, EPA would make some evaluations as to their value in achieving environmental objectives such as protecting the Nation's waters or preserving open space, and then EPA would then authorize that bonds could be issued with a tax credit so that these bonds would be, in effect, yielding at zero interest rates. It is a way of giving local communities the flexibility to help finance a project that wouldn't otherwise happen. The total value of this, our estimates are, is about $9.5 billion as we have proposed it. And again, the idea is to give more tools to State and local governments and not have the Federal Government in any way, shape or form, dictating how local governments make decisions about land use.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So, then, it is your understanding that whatever land is purchased with these bonds, it would have to be used consistent with the local plans and zoning decisions?
Mr. FOX. Well, in fact, the ideas would come from the local governments. We wouldn't generate those ideas.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, is it true that under the Administration's proposal, non-public entities, such as the Sierra Club, for example, or others, could receive a Federal financing subsidy under this new bonding authority?
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOX. I think that is among the questions that we are going to have to look at as this gets more developed. Certainly I would imagine that the vast majority of this program is going to be supporting the work of State and local governments and the work that they are trying to do right now in preserving open space.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So the Administration has introduced this bonding program, and basically you are saying that it has yet to determine what that program actually is?
Mr. FOX. No, sir. What I meant to suggest was that we are going to authorize that State and local governments, as well as what we call 501(c)(3), non-profit organizations, which are many land trusts, would be eligible for this as we have initially conceived it. The Sierra Club, if they are, in fact, a 501(c)(3), and they are engaged in land preservation, they very well might be eligible for this under our proposal. We are still working out the details of this, and we will be submitting more detailed proposals to Congress soon.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, all right, I think that the Sierra Club definitely is a 501(c)(3), but how do we know then—well, that is certainly not the local governments, so what mechanism would be used to ensure that whatever is done with these Better America Bonds is consistent with the zoning policies of the local government?
Mr. FOX. That is a good question. I can tell you this. The Administrator's intent with this is that it will support the work of State and local governments, and as we get through and develop more specifics, I would be happy to include some of those ideas in it.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I just have one last question on this matter. Has the Administration studied the impact of these Better America Bonds on the local tax base and its impacts on private property?
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOX. I think that this is still emerging, Congressman, so I don't think that we have done that kind of analysis at this time.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I assume, Mr. Chairman, that we would be able to receive follow-up responses to our questions in written form from the witnesses?
Mr. BOEHLERT. By all means. That is a program that we are vitally interested in following every aspect of because you point out some very important observations that need to be considered, by EPA anyway, in dealing with this program.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baird, and welcome to the Committee.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to give a sense of background to where I come from because that will be relevant to the questions that I am about to ask.
The third district of Washington State is the southwest corner. It is bordered on the north by the capitol, Olympia, then the south border is the Columbia River. It cuts from the Columbia Gorge past the Port of Vancouver. It heads up north a little bit and then heads out to the coast. So, we have coastal issues, river issues, and Puget Sound issues. Obviously a number of Corps of Engineer projects.
One of the central projects that we are concerned about, Dr. Westphal, as I am sure that you are aware, is the whole issue of channel deepening on the Columbia River. The Columbia River is the port of exit for 43 percent of the Nation's wheat, it is one of the major ports on the west coast, and if we can deepen that a few more feet, we can get deeper draft ships through there and more fully loaded ships in the current class.
I wanted to ask two things. First of all, as we anticipate the water bill and funding for your operations, we may need to look at some contingent funding because the channel deepening project, as you may be aware, is dependent on EIS approval down the road. Any thoughts on where we might be at in terms of the water bill, deepening of the Columbia River channel and allowance of contingent funding authorization language?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, you ask a tough question because contingency authorization always pose a serious problem because the process that we have has a lot of checks and balances. It includes the Corps, a Chief's report. It includes the completion of the environmental impact statements and all of those other Federal requirements. And then, of course, it requires some assessment of that, some review, by OMB and by my office. And pending all of that, sometimes people want to speed the process up a little bit, bypass some of those processes, and sometimes we find things in those reports that are just not accurate, they are not right. So, we are very hesitant to do that. But we will—I will personally work with you on that particular issue, and with you and the Administration and the OMB to find a way to get that moving, because I know that is important. I was out there recently looking at all the projects along the Columbia and Snake Rivers, and there are a lot of very, very difficult issues facing that region of the country. And we are trying to do the best that we can to come up with some solution.
Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the work, and we appreciate the presence, and so, I appreciate your willingness to work on that together. We are not trying to bypass anything, we just want to expedite things so that, assuming those various approval steps are met, we can move forward.
Second question, actually for Mr. Fox, maybe you can help me a bit. My district has a combination of urban areas along the I–5 corridor and then a number of rural towns. And these are small communities. Some of them are adversely impacted by timber cutbacks and relatively curtailed tax bases. Many of them are currently facing water treatment, sewage, clean water issues. What is being done to sort of reach out to these communities and let them know what monies are available so that they can apply effectively and get the kind of assistance that they need. These small towns probably don't have the resources to effectively lobby back here. That's why I am here, I suppose. But what do you do to outreach to these communities?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOX. That's a very good question, and we have a fairly extensive program to provide information to the communities largely run through the States. I would be happy to follow up if you think that there is additional work that we can do.
Basically, the way that the Federal program is set up, the States have the lead on this, and they can make down to zero interest loans to some of the communities depending on the overall State priorities. For some of the forestry related impacts, we actually have other funding sources available that would include grants. It doesn't get as much into the sewage side of it, but the Administration last year had a $100 million increase in the non-point source account which would help some of those communities. And this new proposal this year that would allow a certain part of the SRF to be set aside for non-point could also help in some of those types of situations.
I would be happy to follow up with your office with more information about that.
Mr. BAIRD. That would be much appreciated.
Finally, one final, brief question. I'm not sure if any of your organizations are involved with any non-indigenous, or exotic, species. Would that be appropriately addressed to you, Mr. Fox, or would we look more at NMSA for this?
Mr. FOX. I would save some of those questions for some of my colleagues at NOAA. I would say that the President last week issued an Executive Order on invasive species and created a task force that is largely being led by the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We will serve on that task force. There are some issues related to discharges from vessels in coastal waters, and that is an issue that we are looking at with the Coast Guard to see what is the appropriate authority to protect the environment.
Mr. BAIRD. Just to give you a sense of the issue, we have vital oyster beds and crabbing industries, shellfish industries in the Willapa Bay and elsewhere, who have been threatened by spartina grass, by the green crab, and actually, fortunately, the Columbia River system has not been invaded by zebra mussels, but, were it to be so, we would have an enormous problem. And whatever monies we could allocate today to prevent the zebra mussel invasion on the fresh waters west of the Rockies would be well spent, I am sure of that.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and let me state to you that this Subcommittee is very interested in that invasive species issue. Mr. LaTourette has provided some real leadership, and I can see you partnering with him as we go forward, and we are going to be most interested with the Corps and EPA to let you know on oversight hearings on the Invasive Species Act. So, thank you very much.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess, I have a series of questions. The first one, I suppose, is directed to both Mr. Fox and Dr. Westphal.
Does the Administration have any kind of a strategy where the Clean Water Action Plan interfaces with the Corps diminishing role with wetlands protection via the recent decisions the Tulloch rule and Wilson case? On the Clean Water Action Plan, you have some fascinating proposals in there based specifically on total maximum daily load, but then, at the same time, we have some problems with being allowed to excavate, drain wetlands, as Mr. Borski mentioned earlier, and the difficulty of protecting isolated wetlands.
And one last comment, in your answer, Dr. Westphal, can you give me some sense as to the direction of the enforcement branch of the Corps to continue to aggressively pursue protection of wetlands, criminal prosecution and how that interfaces with EPA's role?
Dr. WESTPHAL. OK. Well, we have asked——
Mr. GILCHREST. I would like to say that I want to commend all three of you on your public service. It is a great way to spend your life.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you very much.
We have asked this year for some additional monies in our regulatory program. We have an increase in our budget proposal for regulatory because we see, not only with the new Nationwide permit that regulations that we put out in draft stage and which we are moving through the process right now, but in the future administrative appeals process and all aspects of wetlands permitting and enforcement, we see a lot more activity in the future.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Is the Administration proposing any changes in legislation to overcome the Tulloch decision?
Dr. WESTPHAL. We have not proposed anything to date, and we are simply waiting for your committee to take action on——
Mr. GILCHREST. Does the Administration have a position on the Tulloch decision?
Dr. WESTPHAL. We have a series of discussions that are underway and that have been going for a long time. We decided not to appeal the final Court of Appeals ruling.
Mr. GILCHREST. No, I understand that, but I mean now is the position to try to include in section 404 the idea that you can't drain a wetland, and then it is not a wetland, and then you can do whatever you want on it without a permit. Is there something specific from the Administration that they are going to come down here in the next six months and say, ''Can we help you with this legislation to include it as an amendment to section 404?''
Mr. FOX. Mr. Gilchrest, the Corps and EPA have spent a good deal of time on this issue, and it is true, as Dr. Westphal suggested, that we don't have a specific piece of legislation for you.
Mr. GILCHREST. Can you give us some recommendation as to what we should do as far as the Administration's position today?
Mr. FOX. We could certainly do that. We do believe that the decision left us with a glaring loophole in the wetlands law that does, in fact, lead to additional wetlands losses. We do have to respond to the court decision with regulatory action. I think that it is fair to say that we would be happy to work with you on the legislative fix, if that is something that you would want.
Dr. WESTPHAL. The Administration is working a series of options on Tulloch, and we expect to be involved with you as you develop legislation whether it is Clean Water reauthorization——
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Do you want us to call you or are you going to call us, or what should we do?
Dr. WESTPHAL. We'll call you.
Mr. GILCHREST. It would be difficult—I mean the TMDL program, the whole Clean Water Action Plan, I think, can lead to some very positive things, including—Mr. Fox being from Maryland realizes—we have a lot of very strong environmental trust out there that are trying to preserve open space, agricultural farms for the future. There are a whole range of very positive things that can happen. But if you just can't protect these isolated wetlands, and you can go ahead and drain a wetland—we have really got to work as a team on some of these things and develop a strategy to get it through this wonderful Congress that we have here.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Now, you brought up a very interesting point which I don't think that we ever really considered in the development of the Clean Water Action Plan, and that is the relationship between TMDL's and their future impact on the clean water program and our wetlands regulatory program. So, I think that is something that we need to look at, and Chuck and I will get together on that.
Mr. GILCHREST. I am going to try to hurry up before the red light comes on, and I will get these questions to you, but just to give you a heads up, this is specifically to the Corps—a wonderful group of people.
What is driving the deepening of the ports in the United States? Who is driving the dredging projects around the country? Is it us or is it the foreign steamship owners? Who is doing it? How does the Corps arrive at their—when you do your preliminary design study—ten more seconds, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[Insert here]
Mr. BOEHLERT. For you, I will give you more than that.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.
How does the Corps arrive at the financial justification for any project around the country? And I am alluding, specifically, to the Vice President standing in New York, saying that they are going to work to get this project through which will be billions of dollars over many years. Was the financial justification there, concluded, analyzed, rechecked when the Vice President made that statement as to the taxpayers contributing money to deepen the Port of New York? And who oversees the math accuracy of that? Was the Environmental Impact Statement reviewed and justified at that particular point? Is the Environmental Impact Statement of the deepening of the Port of New York concluded? And is there a sound policy as to where are you going to put the dredge material right now when it gets deepened to 55 feet, and is the Environmental Impact Statement concluded and the economic justification concluded for digging in the—for drilling into the bedrock?
[The information follows:]
[Insert here]
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, the answer to all those questions is absolutely, yes, and we spent quite a bit of time working very closely with EPA at the regional level to address all of those issues. As you know, New York Harbor poses some very difficult issues with contaminated sediment, but the——
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. So, the taxpayers of Maryland are going to benefit from the deepening of the New York Port.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, I think the taxpayers of the United States are going to benefit all over. I think the New York Port—New York-New Jersey Port——
Mr. GILCHREST. I guess my question—and I don't mean to interrupt, but Mr. Boehlert is about to cut me off—you had several ports vying for the business of Maersk and Sea-Land, Baltimore being one of them. Was it appropriate for the President of the United States to—you are not going to answer that question, I know that, and I don't think you ought to——
[Laughter.]
—but at that particular point when there was competition between ports to get the business from Maersk and Sea-Land for that sort of staged event was interesting.
I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr.—what State are you from, Mr. Chairman?
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and the point is well taken, but the flip remark from the Chair is that the decision on the Port of New York was merit-based, but that is the flip response.
[Laughter.]
The fact of the matter is you are on the path to try to determine in a logical, rational way how decisions are made so that you will feel comfortable reporting to your constituents that they are merit-based. Of course, obviously, I am happy with the remarks from the Administration regarding the Port of New York, but that is a parochial interest. You are taking the broader interest, and I commend you for that. Thank you very much for that contribution.
Mr. Pascrell.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I am glad you had an addendum.
[Laughter.]
And I am glad, Dr. Westphal, that you said New York-New Jersey Port. We are talking about 175,000 jobs, and, if I may, if that dredging did not happen, if we did not move to the path of cutting deeper into the harbor, we would lose not only jobs, we would lose the economic vitality of the entire Earth.
It is somewhat like an airport in a metropolitan area; the ripple effect is outstanding, and I can assure you the deliberation that occurred in this final decision—by the way, the Vice President stood in New Jersey not in New York when he made the announcement. It is no longer you are entering the New York area, the New York airport, you are entering New Jersey going to the land of New York. But it was a very important decision, a very significant decision that both business and the unions fought very hard on over a 10-, 15-year period. So, I just want to add that, if I may.
Mr. GILCHREST. Would the gentleman yield just for a——
Mr. PASCRELL. Absolutely.
Mr. GILCHREST. The same interest in that economic boom and the number of jobs was being competed for at the same time frame in Baltimore City, the Port of Baltimore, for the same type of economic reinvestment. So, I just thought I would throw that in there.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. May I continue, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BOEHLERT. The time is yours, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. Dr. Westphal, in the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, responsibility for the clean up of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, or FUSRAP, was transferred from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps who was great in residing over this as you well remember. It happened pretty quickly. For the most part, I believe that the change has been accomplished without undue difficulty, in my perception. I would like to compliment the Army Corps for the work they have done on FUSRAP, the site in my district, the Arthurian site, which has been ongoing for 15 years.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Which I visited, by the way.
Mr. PASCRELL. Yes. There is one aspect of the Army Corps project accounting that seems to be less than satisfactory, and I would like to share my thoughts with you, and tell me whether I am off-base or on-base.
In the annual budget justification, the Army Corps specifies the amount of money it intends to seek for each project, and it is laid out very clearly. Absent is a fuller accounting of the annual project goals; I cannot find that. I was wondering whether or not the Army Corps had considered including more detailed analysis on the FUSRAP project goals in their budget request? I believe there is, what, 27 left in America. Have you considered that, is my first question?
Dr. WESTPHAL. I don't believe so, but we can do that and will do it if you believe it will be helpful to you.
Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I think it is important in terms of planning in the communities to see how quickly we can get these things done. I just suggest that; I would ask that you do that, if that is at all possible.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Absolutely.
Mr. PASCRELL. My second question is on the Harbor Services Fee proposal. I have some real questions about this. What we are suggesting here is that we are going to remove certain fees for imports coming into this country, are we not?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Eventually, yes, the Harbor Maintenance Tax will go away and so will the existing fund, and the funds will be transferred over to the new Harbor Services Fund.
Mr. PASCRELL. What is your assessment of how that would impact on imports coming into this country? When we are trying to preserve American jobs right now, I think it is a very critical issue. We know we live in a global economy; we hear that everyday. The drone from the Administration goes on and on, but when you are losing jobs and we do not seek compensation for those jobs, and when we do, the amount of dollars that the individual receives is much less. If you are concerned about this, do we know what the economic impact is going to be? Is this going to facilitate people, other countries, sending goods into our Nation?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. We are undergoing an analysis of that. Part of the problem is that this is an industry, as you know, that is changing so rapidly, and it is so fluid. In developing the fee that we were proposing, it was so difficult because of the huge complexity of this industry and the movement of traffic across the global environmental, and so we don't really know what that impact will be.
It is a good point you make. I will stress that we need to come up with an answer to that. We need to do more analysis of that, more assessment of the overall impacts to our economy.
Mr. PASCRELL. Your answer to the question about what other nations do about these fees in terms of imports to themselves is——
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, I have a technical correction on that.
Mr. PASCRELL. I hope you do. Go ahead.
Dr. WESTPHAL. I have a technical correction which was added in the end. Since the able counsel for Mr. Borski, Ken is there, I was handed a note that said that actually some countries do collect tonnage tax. Germany, for example, has a tonnage tax. They use a variety of different taxes. They don't have a Services Fee like we are proposing, but they do have in some form some type of tonnage tax.
So, I am going to get more research done on that as well and get that sent.
Mr. PASCRELL. Many of these international harbors do not have import fees, but they make up for that in terms of the tariffs that they charge those folks who can manufacture goods in this country. So, there is not parity here by any stretch of the imagination.
Mr. BOEHLERT. A point well taken. Thank you very much. Mr. Baker.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation to you for providing the committee with this opportunity and your leadership on important issues.
Dr. Westphal, if you will, I am going to give you a little historic background before I ask my questions, and I think it is important for me to do this to put it in a proper balance.
In 1995, the Clinton Administration directed the Corps to establish an administrative appeals process for its Wetlands Program during the following year. A year later, the Corps then proposed an appeals program that allowed property owners to challenge the Corp's jurisdiction over their property. It also allowed permitees the opportunity to appeal denied permits.
In March of 1997, the Director for Civil Works for the Corps testified before the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee that an appropriation of $5 million would allow full implementation of the administrative appellate process. Later that year, in testimony before the House Subcommittee, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army testified the Corps would implement the full appellate process as soon as we get those funds, referencing a $5 million appropriation which ultimately was made available in 1997.
In January of 1998, however, the Corps announced its final rule for the appellate process would only allow for challenges for denial of permits, not jurisdictional determinations. The Corps, for Fiscal Year 1999, asked for an additional $5 million for implementation of an administrative appeals program, and Congress did appropriate the funds but with instructions that the Corps implement an administrative appellate process including appeals related to jurisdictional determinations.
From the beginning of 1995 and to the current moment, the Congress has made available $10 million, and with regard to the appellate review process for denied applications, only 28 appellate cases have been reviewed by the Corps out of, I would point out, over 65,000 with no jurisdictional appellate process.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, one of two things: either the $10 million is a very expensive review process for denials or the funding made available has not been appropriately utilized by the Corps to establish the administrative review process. In the meantime, for those of us to put a little balance in the hearing record—with all respect to my good friend, Mr. Gilchrest—we have individuals who are engaging in lawful activity being made aware that the NWP–26 rules for real estate development are going to be reduced from 10 acres and scoped down to 3 acres and that further reductions or regulatory actions are likely to be taken. And my frustration, coming from a State which is a wetland, is that our people are being disenfranchised of property rights with no appellate process. The Congress is asking for five years to have it established, providing the funding and, to date, we have nothing. Can you respond?
Dr. WESTPHAL. OK. Well, when I asked—in preparing for the hearing here, I asked about the administrative appeals, and I was told that essentially the reason that we were so behind on this was because of our flat budget in this area. I am not aware of the $10 million that you are referencing and where that went and how much of that was applied to this. I know that our regulatory program stayed flat the last two years; the Administration did not seek additional funds.
And, so, if I may—and I am not trying to buck your question; I think you bring up a good issue. It is important to Louisiana, and I think we need to do something about speeding this process on. I know that there is an intention to publish the regulations this spring and to move forward with this. But let me find out where the money part of this is and why. We can get you a more specific answer to this important question.
[The information follows:]
[Insert here]
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BAKER. I will be happy to provide you with what I have is an appropriations record from my perspective, and it may be helpful in finding out what has happened. I certainly hope we don't come back and find out that we need another $5 million to implement the regulation. That would be very discouraging at this point, but I appreciate your willingness to respond. Thank you, sir.
Dr. WESTPHAL. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes, sir?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Can I add one little point about something that was brought up earlier? Am I permitted to do that at this time?
Mr. BOEHLERT. By all means.
Dr. WESTPHAL. And this had to do with the discussion concerning the ports and the dredging of the 50 feet of the Port of New York-New Jersey and so on. This is an issue which I think is growing and growing and that is that literally every port on the east coast, let us say, from Savannah on up to New York, New Jersey, are looking to bring more competition, to bring more of these big ships in thus causing the need to dredge their harbors deeper and deeper. And the same thing occurs in the Gulf and on the west coast. We treat each of those individually. We do the environmental impacts. We are trying desperately not to get into a situation where we are giving advantages to one port or another or we are leveraging one Federal resource for another.
But it is a difficult question, and we are not in a position, I am certainly not in a position—it is way above my pay grade—to decide which ports the United States wants to support, wants to make the megaports, and which they don't. So, that is a question that I think at some point your committee and others will have to address.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for that observation. We really appreciate it.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank all of you, and I would echo what Mr. Gilchrest says, thank you for your public service; you do a fine job. Chuck, glad to have you aboard.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Would the chairman yield for just 15 seconds for a question to leave with the Corps?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I would be glad to yield to my distinguished colleague from the State of Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Will there be some point at which the Corps can make—because you are the experts in this field of dredging and finding disposal sites for this dredge material—upland, overboard, inside unused caverns, mines, underneath bedrock, you name it. The Corps is the expert in this field of dredging the ports of the U.S. Do you foresee at any given point some time in the future when the Corps would make some type of recommendation as to, ''We are deep enough. This is the U.S. policy as far as dredging is concerned?''
Dr. WESTPHAL. I think it is unique to every different region. For example, we can certainly team up with Mr. Fields here, and one of the things we are doing in New Jersey, in the Port of New York-New Jersey, is to use a lot of this material to cap and to work formally Brownfield or existing Brownfield sites and remediate those with this material.
And, so there is a technology out there, and we have advanced it a great deal, and I think we have got solutions in many parts. A lot of times, the difficulty and the time-consuming part of this is simply the political debate as to what to do with it; the environmental impacts that are time-consuming, but I think we have got the technology, and we have got a lot of very, very neat options for what to do with this material.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Our second and final panel today consists of Mr. Albert Jacquez, Administrator for the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation; Danny Sells, who is the Assistant Chief for the Natural Resources Conservation Service; Dr. Nancy Foster, Assistant Administrator for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, and from the Tennessee Valley Authority, Dr. Kate Jackson, Executive Vice President of the Resource Group, accompanied by Mr. David Smith, Chief Financial Officer.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ladies and gentlemen, your entire statements will appear in the record at this juncture. I would ask, in the interest of time, that you try to confine your opening statement to five minutes, although we will not be hard and fast to the rule, because I know, oftentimes, you have difficulty keeping it to five minutes. And here is the order we will go in: Dr. Foster will lead and Mr. Jacquez, second; Mr. Sells, third, and Dr. Jackson and Mr. Smith, fourth. Dr. Jackson and Mr. Smith, you are being penalized. You are last, because your testimony was last coming in.
[Laughter.]
Let us start with Dr. Foster. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF DR. NANCY FOSTER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OCEAN SERVICES COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ALBERT S. JACQUEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; DANNY SELLS, ASSISTANT CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; DR. KATHRYN JACKSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, RIVER SYSTEM OPERATION AND ENVIRONMENT, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY; AND DAVID SMITH, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Dr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee for letting me represent NOAA here and talk to you about our fiscal year 2000 plans for the programs that we think would be of interest to this Committee.
What I would like to do is just briefly touch on three of our programs; two programs are the means by which we fulfill our role as trustee for coastal and marine resources and then another program that is focused on prevention and control of coastal non-point pollution.
NOAA is the lead trustee for coastal and marine resources. We protect and restore these resources when the are injured by either oil spoils, spills of other hazardous materials or from other activities such as boat groundings within national marine sanctuaries.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We, in fact, right now, are participating on the west coast in the incident involving the Panamanian freighter that has grounded just off the coast of Oregon. We are the technical and scientific advisors to the Coast Guard, so we are there, and we also have a damage assessment team there on-site.
The two programs that I would like to talk about, first, the CRC Program, Coastal Resources Coordination Program. It is a program that we implement in partnership with EPA at hazardous waste sites, and the desired end results of this program is restoration of the natural resources through a negotiated settlement, and if settlement isn't possible, the CRC has the option of handing it over to the second program for a damage assessment and possible litigation. This whole program is very effective and very efficient, because in about 95 percent of all the cases of interest to NOAA, manages a settlement which saves, of course, lengthy and expensive litigation.
The second program, also a very effective program, the Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. With other trustees, we have generated more than $230 million for restoration of natural resources, and the money comes from those folks who are responsible for the harm to the resources. It is a three-part program within NOAA—my organization—the National Ocean Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and then, of course, our General Counsel. We do have a budget request for the National Marine Fisheries Service for an increase of $1.7 million to help them expedite their part of the program and to undertake community-based restoration projects.
We also have a program, Coastal Non-point Source Pollution Control Program, and I know you are aware from reading newspapers about pfisteria, dead zones in the Gulf, other harmful algal blooms, that pressures on the coast are increasing, and one source of that increasing pressure is polluted run-off. Our program is authorized under the Coastal Zone Management Act. It is a partnership program with EPA. Twenty-nine of our coastal States have submitted plans for controlling non-point source pollution, and EPA and NOAA have approved these plans with conditions, meaning the States have a few things they have to do before final approval. Also, we have four new States that will have come into the Coastal Zone Program by the end of this year.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, through our Clean Water Initiative, we are requesting $12 million. Six million dollars of that will go toward assisting the States in removing the conditions from their plans and helping the four new States develop plans. The other $6 million will go toward actual on-the-ground implementation of plans to allow the States to leverage money from other sources.
I would also just mention that related to this we have a $9 million request for harmful algal bloom research, and that runs the gamut from understanding the ecology and oceanography of these organisms; figuring out what kind of conditions are conducive to these blooms; developing probes and assays for a rapid detection of the toxins both in the field and in blood serum, and then last, to assist the States in monitoring and in responding to these events. And all of these activities are aimed at our developing a predictive capability and a means to mitigate and manage these outbreaks, because, as you know, they can be very devastating to the local communities, both in terms of the environment, public health and economics as well.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me talk to you about NOAA programs. I will be glad to answer questions. I may have to leave because of this spill off the coast of Oregon, but, if I do, my apologies, and I will be glad to answer questions for the record.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Foster.
Mr. Jacquez.
Mr. JACQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify before you today. As the newly appointed Administrator of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, I look forward to working closely with you and all of the Members of the Subcommittee on issues affecting the Seaway and the Great Lakes region.
It is a particularly exciting time to be part of the changes in store for the corporation. One of the most exciting changes we are anticipating is the Administration's proposal to convert the Seaway Corporation to a performance-based organization.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The central elements of the PBO initiative is greater accountability through enhanced performance. In exchange for increased accountability for performance, the PBO would be provided greater management flexibility and financial incentives. The focus on the performance areas of safety, reliability, trade development, and management accountability will ensure a more efficient and effective operation.
The Development Corporation estimates cost savings in excess of $0.5 million over the initial five-year program period. A number of steps have already been taken by the Administration to advance the corporation's progress in converting to a PBO. The initial legislation to implement the PBO conversion was transmitted to Congress on July 15th of 1996. Congress subsequently directed the GAO to submit a report evaluating the PBO concept. The GAO submitted its report to the Congress on May 15th of 1997, and the report stated in part that ''If Congress is interested in testing the PBO concept, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation could be a low-risk pilot, because it has small budget, business-like operation, and it already has some flexibilities that would be available to a PBO.''
The President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget assumes PBO conversion and proposes the corporation as a mandatory program. Accordingly, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is not making an appropriation request. Financing is proposed to be derived from an automatic annual payment from the Harbor Services Fund. I have attached the Fiscal Year 2000 spending plan, and its plan based on the PBO proposal includes an automatic annual payment for Fiscal Year 2000 of $12,042,000 from the Harbor Services Fund of which $11,553,000 will be used to fund operations and maintenance.
The PBO financial plan also establishes a commitment to make annual contributions to the corporation's reserve account assuming funds are available. The balance of $489,000 from the Harbor Services Fund as well as an offset in collections estimated at $900,000, will be contributed to the reserve in accordance with this commitment. Capital improvements of $1,050,000 planned for Fiscal Year 2000 will be funded by the reserve.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
An overview of the corporation's recent performance in achieving its mission lends further credence to the Administration's PBO efforts. The 1998, navigation season was truly an exceptional one for Seaway commerce. On March 26th, the corporation was open for the 1998 navigation season and its 40th year of operation as a deep-draft waterway. The system closed on December 28, 1998. This 277-day season was the second longest in Seaway history.
Preliminary vessel traffic data indicates that the United States international trade for 1998 is estimated at 8.3 million metric tons or 7 percent more than 1997. The U.S. grain exports through the Seaway are estimated at 6.1 metric tons, a 30 percent increase over 1997 and the highest level since 1984. Total iron and steel cargo movement is estimated at 7.2 million metric tons, the highest level in the history of Seaway operations.
As I stated earlier, the Corporation has focused its performance in the areas of safety, reliability, trade development, and management accountability. The Corporation has had an impressive record of performance in each of these four areas. In the area of safety, the 1997 navigation system was the sixth consecutive shipping year with no vessel incident in excess of $50,000 in damages.
In 1998, the Corporation continued its Ocean Vessel Inspection Program by inspecting 100 percent of all ocean vessels in Montreal on their first transit inbound prior to entering U.S. waters. As a result, safety incidents involving mechanical problems have decreased approximately 55 percent from 1996 levels.
In 1998, the Corporation's Vessel Inspection Program was one of the first in the Department of Transportation to earn certification under the ISO 9002 quality assurance standard. The corporation is one of the first agencies to apply these business standards to the Federal Government.
Regarding long-and short-term reliability, the Corporation achieved a 98.5 percent availability factor for 1998 based on navigation days open versus down time for all causes including weather conditions. This is an improvement from the 97 percent availability achieved in 1997.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the area of trade development——
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Jacquez, we are kind of constrained for time, and your trade development is nicely summarized here, and we can read that. Anything that you feel——
Mr. JACQUEZ. Absolutely, I will skip through that and just say thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure, and you know better than most how we work up here on Capitol Hill from whence you came.
Mr. JACQUEZ. Yes, I do. Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I do appreciate that, and thank you very much for the comprehensive statement. It is in the record in its entirety, but in fairness to the others, we want to get on with this, and so I thank you, and we will go to Mr. Sells next.
Mr. SELLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I bring you greetings and apologies from Chief Reed. I think, Mr. Chairman, when you met with Chief Reed recently, you understood his interest and anxiousness in visiting with you today, and he apologizes for not being able to do so, but, clearly, looks forward to working with the Committee in the future.
This morning when I got into the South Ag building, I will have to admit, I did not think that I would be ending up today here in this Subcommittee. I will also say that not only that, this also is my first hearing, so I very much beg your indulgence.
I am especially proud that it happened to be my first hearing with this Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, given your interest in natural resource protection and in fact the committee's responsibility and support for these issues, it is duly an honor to be here today before this subcommittee.
I would also, even though he has left the room—I would be remiss not to acknowledge my good friend from Nashville, Mr. Clement, and I am proud to have an opportunity to be——
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. He is coming right back. And we are glad to have you here too, and I am sorry that Mr. Reed is not—we met yesterday, and I know he is a little bit under the weather today, and we hope everything works out well for him. We are very happy to have you. Please continue.
Mr. SELLS. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and discuss the Watershed Program of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. I am Danny Sells, Associate Chief of NRCS. Through my years of farming in east Tennessee and in my time in government service, I have seen what our watershed projects mean to local communities.
I would like to take the opportunity to introduce a couple of folks: Mr. Bruce Julian behind me who is our program manager for the Small Watershed Program here in Washington and especially Mr. Larry Caldwell. Larry is our State Engineer in our State office in Oklahoma. Larry is on the front lines each and every day working with our Small Watershed Program with real people out in the countryside.
The Small Watershed Program has served thousands of communities across the country in preventing floods, improving natural resources, and increasing economic development. Quite literally, the Small Watershed Program of NRCS has changed the landscape of this Nation and made many parts of the country what they are today.
We have distributed copies of an article on our Watershed Program around to the subcommittee. On the cover of this article, you will see a photograph of a dam constructed in Alma, Arkansas in 1970 under the Public Law 566 Program. This dam is over 100 feet tall and holds over 3,000 acre feet of water. But more important than the dam, it is the community that is far more impressive. The buildings, schools, homes, and recreation centers all depend upon the watershed project for flood prevention and protection. Also, the roads, bridges, and water supply of the town all depend upon this dam, and it is important to note that most of what you see in the foreground of the photo was not there before the dam was built.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We estimate that the Small Watershed Program yields annual benefits of about $500 million, but it would be impossible to fully capture what these watershed projects mean to communities like Alma. In many places in rural America, watershed structures really represent the security and viability of the local economy. Communities have responded to the benefits of this program, and we have a backlog of over $1.5 billion in requests for financial and technical assistance to the program.
The Fiscal Year 2000 budget request is for $83 million. With these funds, approximately 60 to 70 construction and installation projects under the Public Law 566 Program will be funded. While we look forward to the upcoming work, I want to mention the rehabilitation of the existing projects. It is noted in the article we provided.
Since 1948, NRCS and local sponsors have built over 10,000 small dams. Previous to 1962, these dams were designed for a 50-year life span. Many of these structures are now reaching the end of their designed life. In fact, we have 29 which have already done so. Unless they are rehabilitated, the dams may pose significant threats to human health, safety, and to the environment. The deterioration of these structures threatens to adversely affect the estimated $8.5 billion infrastructure of flood control, rural water supplies, and the economic support established through these projects. By the year 2000, over 1,000 structures will require restoration at a cost of up to $450 million. But more importantly, the communities that depend upon the infrastructure face a threat to their security and future viability. This is a serious issue, and I hope that we do not wait until there is a significant loss until we take action.
I will conclude with one parting thought: some 40 years ago, our predecessors planted the seeds of a very successful program that has turned flooded and unproductive land into thriving communities. As a result, we have reaped the fruits and benefits of all these watershed projects have provided. But as we look to the future, we see that the orchard that has fed us for so many years is in dire need of our attention and care. We must not ignore the dying trees. I hope that we will do the right thing and take the necessary steps to ensure that the benefits of the Watershed Program will remain viable for generations to come.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I thank the Subcommittee and look forward to questions you may have.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Fine performance; you better watch out or we are going to be calling on you more often.
[Laughter.]
Next, we will move to Dr. Jackson. Welcome—with Mr. Smith.
Dr. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Are you going to have two separate statements or is—?
Dr. JACKSON. Yes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. All right, fine; you first.
Dr. JACKSON. Thank you. On behalf of TVA's Board of Directors, we are submitting this testimony to the subcommittee in support of the President's budget of $7 million for the National Recreation Area, Land Between the Lakes, for Fiscal Year 2000.
In late 1997, Congress enacted legislation which, in the absence of appropriations or other available funds, requires TVA to use funds generated from the sale of electricity for navigation, flood control, and other essential stewardship activities for which Congress had provided appropriations in TVA's Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriation Act. In the event that Congress agrees with the President's budget and provides no appropriations other than those for Land Between the Lakes, our attorneys have advised us that power revenues are required to be used to fund the traditional programs in accordance with that 1997 law.
Mr. Smith and I are here today to assure you the provision of TVA's traditional public services will be continued without interruption at the same level that they are provided this year without raising rates.
The President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget includes a request for $7 million for the operation of Land Between the Lakes, a 170,000-acre peninsula created by the damming of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers at the their convergence in western Kentucky. LBL straddles the Kentucky and Tennessee borders serving as a regional anchor for tourism and recreation. LBL's strategic location and role as the largest uninterrupted stretch of public land in a region checkerboarded with agricultural and industrial development is unmatched. Unlike in the western United States, accessible public open space is uncommon east of the Mississippi, and because of that and because the public prizes LBL so highly, it has become a subject of debate among the local population who have competing public interests regarding LBL's future role.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In recent years, Federal appropriations have allowed LBL to generate revenues equal to approximately 40 percent of the total $11 million annual budget making it the most self-sufficient national recreation area in the country. This budget level allows LBL to continue those activities that the 2 million annual visitors have come to expect.
TVA's management of LBL ensures the statutory flexibility that enables customer-driven operations and diverse recreation opportunities that are expected by the customers of Land Between the Lakes. Because LBL puts the customer first, LBL recently received a level three quality achievement award from the Kentucky Quality Council. LBL is the only national recreation area in the country to be so recognized.
As you may know, the TVA Board recently initiated the formation of the Land Between the Lakes Advisory Committee. The committee is being developed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and will provide a new way for TVA to more effectively obtain public advice on the management of Land Between the Lakes. Regional and national interests will be represented on the committee, and we anticipate this board's first meeting will be in the next 60 days.
I would like to mention one further thing: last week, TVA's chief operating officer took steps to further increase the integration of operations by announcing the merger of our hydro power organization and our resource management organization. The single organization managed under my leadership creates one organization within TVA which has the responsibility for balancing the multiple demands on the water resources and river management system. The new organization will improve linkages among the managers and field operations responsible for water allocation and river flow decisions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to review TVA's operations, and I will turn the rest of my time to the Chief Financial Officer, David Smith.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Smith.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. As TVA's Chief Financial Officer, it is an honor for me to have the opportunity to come to you today and update you on the current financial condition of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It is an especially pleasant task considering the fact that TVA may be as financially sound today as it has ever been.
Many of you will remember that in July of 1997, TVA issued a 10-year business plan which outlined the financial and business strategies that we would pursue over the next 10 years to ensure that our cost of power is as competitive in 2007 as it is today. The plan set the goal of achieving a cost of power that is 12 percent lower than our cost today, and even with that modest decrease, we were challenged to identify and implement almost $800 million of cost reductions. The interest savings, of course, were a big part of those cost savings and reductions in interest from refinancing, including the FFB debt, took us a big part of the way.
But we have had many other savings that we have enjoyed over the years. The productivity of our employees has increased dramatically. During the past 10 years, we have increased the energy output by 50 percent, but we have reduced the employment levels by half, and that has meant a three-fold increase in employee productivity. Financial success in TVA may also be recognized anecdotally by the support by investors who buy and hold TVA debt securities, and these investors naturally draw comfort from the fact that TVA is owned by the Federal Government, but they also critically assess TVA's management, our competitive position today, and our preparedness for tomorrow. And the endorsements that we have received over the past 4 years have been from more than 100,000 small retail investors across the country as well as several hundred institutional investors around the world.
TVA is committed to remain true to its mission set forth in 1933 and continue to do so with no financial assistance for its power program, and we thank you, both of us, for the opportunity to address you today and share with you our optimistic outlook for TVA.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Thank all of you, and we may have some subsequent questions for you, but we will submit them in writing and would ask that we get a timely response.
A couple of quickies: first of all, for Dr. Foster, what part of your 2000 budget request is dedicated towards implementing the National Invasive Species Act? We have a great deal of interest in that Act, this Committee, Mr. Baird has mentioned it and Mr. LaTourette.
Dr. FOSTER. Well, I believe that right now we are spending about $4.3 million in this area and about half of that goes to sea grant research and the rest of it to just implementing the program, but there are a lot of activities scattered throughout the various pieces of NOAA that contribute to this issue. I could try to tease those out for you and get you that information.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes, if you could and have the staff sort of put it all together when you get it back to us, because I think it is very apparent that we have a great deal of interest in this, and it is a new program, and we just want to see how it is going.
Dr. FOSTER. Right.
[The information follows:]
[Insert here]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Sells, let me give you a chance to see how well you do in questions. You did very well with the testimony.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SELLS. I am looking for a softball, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. This is a softball. Looking over things, I understand that, in effect, what you are going to have is a reduction in staff, your people hours, for NRCS of about 1,055 for Fiscal Year 2000. Are you familiar with that figure?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SELLS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Why?
Mr. SELLS. Well, we were working with OMB right up to the date that the President's budget was actually published, and some of the decisions were unknown to us until it was actually revealed in the publication when released last Monday. The analysis we are doing State by State, also given the various responsibilities and the issues before us that I know you and Chief Reed have discussed in the last few days. We are looking at what impact that has relative to our ability to deliver the services as well as to meet some of the expectations of our customers and our agricultural producers out there that may need to have those services——
Mr. BOEHLERT. I'm very concerned about that. That's why I asked the question. So, when this analysis is complete, do you expect to have it fairly soon?
Mr. SELLS. We should have something by March 1 in great detail and in summation probably about the middle part of this month, at least by the end of next week, and I will ensure that you or your staff get copies——
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes, the staff——
Mr. SELLS. for the House.
[The information follows:]
[Insert here]
Mr. BOEHLERT. —because the whole committee is looking at this very carefully. I mean, you have got a hell of a workload, to be blunt about it, and to have this rather substantial cut in the resources you have to do the job we ask you to do, you can't do it with magic or good intentions. So, when that analysis is completed, I would expect that you would share it with the committee.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SELLS. We appreciate your recognition and your interest.
Mr. BOEHLERT. You are doing just as well with the questions as you did with the testimony.
Mr. Jacquez, I understand the Administration is planning to resubmit its performance-based organization legislation for the seaway. When might we get that and can you give me some basics of that plan, if you are prepared to do so now? If not——
Mr. JACQUEZ. I am somewhat prepared.
Mr. BOEHLERT. All right. Fine. Anything you want to supplement——
Mr. JACQUEZ. Sure.
Mr. BOEHLERT. —you can provide that in writing later.
Mr. JACQUEZ. My understanding is that the first version and what will be the ultimate bill is being considered as part of a reconciliation package——
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes.
Mr. JACQUEZ. —that the Administration is putting together. We have been asked to take a look at the legislation before they submit it and we are doing that now.
Fundamentally, what the PBO bill does is provide some flexibility in management and financial incentives to allow the management to focus on specific areas and, in return for those flexibilities, it provides greater flexibility in how that budget can be used.
The downside to that, I guess, if you have poor performance is that the CEO would be held responsible and it could include termination for the CEO.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Excuse me. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Sells, two proposed small watershed projects were recently sent to the committee for review and approval. Could you give me a brief description of them?
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SELLS. Yes, sir. The two projects that we have provided to you is the Middle Deep Red Run Creek Watershed Project in Oklahoma that was submitted to the committee on the 14th of October of last year. It features 10 structures, about 186,000 acres of drainage area, about 9 floodwater retarding structures and 1 multi-purpose structure. The total cost would be about $11.4 million. The Federal share would be about $9.5 million with the local cost-share being about $1.9 million.
The second project is the BMA Conservation Plan in Texas. It was submitted to the committee on the 16th of November of last year. It features 71 miles of underground pipeline, 5,810 acres of precision land leveling, 24 tail water recovery systems, NRCS technical assistance on 8,000 acres of irrigated land within that watershed, renovation of obsolete irrigation reservoirs and water control structures are also included. The cost on that one is about $48.3 million with a Federal share of $26 and the local share of $22.3.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, they do things in a big way in Texas, don't they?
[Laughter.]
Mr. SELLS. They certainly do.
Mr. BOEHLERT. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Clement, I know I have reserved TVA for you——
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The floor is yours.
Mr. CLEMENT. It's great to have all of the panel here today and thank you very much for your testimony and your statements.
Mr. Smith, concerning TVA and knowing that I am a former TVA Director and all that, as you know, some of us are not happy campers right now knowing that the Administration did not ask for any appropriated Federal dollars for flood control and navigation. It's something we can't understand, you know. Tennessee rivers, the fifth largest river system in the entire country—if you are on the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, many of the tributaries—you get Federal funds, taxpayer funds for flood control and navigation but if you are on the Tennessee river system, you don't get any support at all.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the absence of Federal appropriations, TVA ratepayers will be double charged, they will pay for flood control and navigation on every other major river in the country through their tax dollars. Additionally, when they pay their power bill at the end of each month they will pay specifically for the flood control and navigation on the Tennessee River.
Perhaps it would be more pointedly and unfair if we were enacting a uniform policy for the funding of public waterways. Think of it. What if Congress informed residents in every State or locality that bordered or encompassed a major river system that we were no longer going to send you Federal appropriations for flood control and navigation? Instead, there would be a line-item surcharge on your monthly power bill that would be diverted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers so they could carry out their duties. Consider the national outrage. Perhaps this sounds far-fetched but for 8 million residents this is a reality effective October 1, 1999, unless we act to stop this inept proposal.
And then you have to ask yourselves the question, yes, we have this plan now—this 10-year plan—to reduce our debt knowing that deregulation will happen in the near future. We don't know when or how but I expect that will happen. Does the new associated costs with paying for the non-power activities effect TVA's ability to reduce the debt? Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. You are, of course, correct that any time a cost is imposed on TVA is it borne by the ratepayers since we are supported entirely by ratepayers and you are also true in pointing out that any cost that is imposed will impact our ability to meet the 10-year plan if we don't find other ways to compensate for that.
I think as far as—we don't particularly have an opinion on why the Administration submitted the bill the way they did; I think they probably read the will of Congress expressed last year and probably also assumed that the relief that the Congress gave us last year on the refinancing of the Federal financing bank debt would provide us with financial flexibility and strength to deal with these issues.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But, as Dr. Jackson stated, we are committed to supporting these programs as fully as they've been supported in the past for the benefit of the people of Tennessee and the entire country and we are committed to doing so without a rate increase——
Mr. CLEMENT. This year.
Mr. SMITH. Well, no, I think we are willing to commit that we are not going to have a rate increase associated with these programs at any year in the future. Now, I want to clarify that there are many other things that can happen and I am not predicting one way or the other rate increases for the future. But, we are committing to you as an organization, we are going to find a way to do this.
Mr. CLEMENT. But, you would describe the debt of TVA as considerably higher than any other utility in the Nation. As a matter of fact, I have heard it described as twice as large as any other utility in the Nation. And how much is the debt?
Mr. SMITH. Well, you are correct; it is larger than any other utility. Now, of course, as you know, that's in part because we don't have any other way of financing the business. We can't issue stock like other utilities can. We don't borrow from banks.
The debt currently is at $26.5 billion and I might point out that the 10-year plan, when we issued it, was anticipating and predicting debt paydown for each year and the paydown for 1997 and 1998, combined, was supposed to be $726 million.
Now, the good news is at the end of that second year period, we had actually paid down the debt by a full $1 billion from where it had been before and thus far, this year, we have paid it down another couple of hundred million dollars. So, we are proud of the achievements on the debt reduction. We are ahead of what the 10-year plan had for debt reduction and—but it is a large debt and TVA, of course, is a very large company.
Mr. CLEMENT. But, don't you think we could accelerate the repayment of that debt now since we have refinanced—TVA has refinanced the $3.2 billion that they had with the U.S. Treasury—and you have been able to refinance it at lower rates?
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SMITH. Well, that will increase our earnings and it will increase our cashflow and, as you know, it was the expressed directive of Congress in the omnibus bill last year that the savings enjoyed from the interest reduction on this debt would be dedicated to debt reduction. So, we will, indeed, be doing that.
Mr. CLEMENT. Now, some of the distributors of TVA power are concerned that you are trying to slow down debt reduction to allow greater financial flexibility as the utility industry enters deregulation. I guess my feeling is that paying down the debt should be your top priority. Do you care to elaborate on this matter?
Mr. SMITH. I am not sure I could say it any better than you did. It is our top priority and that's why the board issued the 10-year plan and we have, as an organization, marched to that drum beat.
I don't know what circumstance may lead some distributors to believe that we're doing otherwise. I would point out for this committee the only—that from time to time our board will take an action to spend money on capital—increases in capital spending for increases in production capacity, as they did quite recently directing us to spend $216 million on the installation of new peaking capacity. But, that was done to meet a perceived need in the future for peaking capacity, a need that became very apparent during last year's very high summer demand.
Mr. CLEMENT. We've just had a terrible environmental spill I know. A Knoxville Colonial pipeline sprung a leak. I understand about 84,000 gallons of diesel oil spilled into the Tennessee River. TVA is in an emergency response. I think you have shut down Douglas dam. There is a 3-mile long oil slick. What about the environmental impact of what's happened in the Tennessee River?
Ms. JACKSON. All of your data are right, unfortunately, and at this point we are working with the EPA and the State environmental management folks to determine what the ecological impact is. We don't know the answer to that question yet.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CLEMENT. But, it is terrible from what we know?
Ms. JACKSON. I can't answer that, although a 3-mile oil slick is extremely serious.
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Clement.
Mr. Baird.
Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Foster, I am sorry to hear that there's an oil spill off our coasts. I trust you folks and our friends in the Coast Guard will respond ably and try to protect that great resource.
I have two quick questions for you. I have a memo from Senator Jacobsen of the Washington State Senate, in which he refers to $4 million annually authorized to fund State management plans to minimize aquatic nuisance species—invasive species—and asserts that in recent years only $200,000 has been appropriated to fund the implementation of these plans. Could you address that briefly?
Dr. FOSTER. Well, if I understand you—you mean why?
Mr. BAIRD. Yes.
Dr. FOSTER. Why?
Mr. BAIRD. If and why. I am——
Dr. FOSTER. If and why.
Mr. BAIRD. —not asserting it's a——
Dr. FOSTER. I can speak for NOAA. We have built our aquatic nuisance species program essentially out of in-house funds because so many of our programs are focused on that issue and in the beginning so much of it was unanswered research questions. I think since the executive order was signed, I think you will see a slightly different approach. I think you will see a much more proactive approach.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BAIRD. Terrific.
The second question: to the degree that NOAA is involved in—or your agency is involved in—coastal restoration, as I mentioned earlier—I don't know if you heard the question that I asked the Corps of Engineers—we have a dredging project on the Columbia River. We also have a significant degree of coastal erosion. Is it possible to parlay some funds from one agency to take the dredge materials from the river and put them on the coast and thereby combine the funds? Do you think that might work?
Dr. FOSTER. Sure.
Mr. BAIRD. All right——
Dr. FOSTER. We will take all the Corps of Engineers funding——
Mr. BAIRD. No, vice-versa——
[Laughter.]
Dr. FOSTER. —vice-versa——
Mr. BAIRD. —I was thinking we might see if you have got some monies that could help us put them——
Dr. FOSTER. Well, we——
Mr. BAIRD. I am serious about that, actually——
Dr. FOSTER. We do have a proposal in the 2000 budget, a $10-million proposal, to deal with dredging restoration.
Mr. BAIRD. The issue is here we have got dredge materials——
Dr. FOSTER. Right.
Mr. BAIRD. —from the river. Right up coast we have got coast that's being eroded. It seems pretty obvious to take the dredged materials and put them on the coast.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One question for Mr. Sells. Just so I understand the possibilities. It rains a fair bit where we come from and we have got the little town of Centralia Jihaless that, as one fellow said to me recently, he must be getting pretty old; he's lived through three 100-year floods. Apparently, I think we misestimated the flood levels but we've had—these two small towns, somewhat economically depressed—they have been flooded several times in recent years. The flood flows over interstate 5, the major north-south highway artery.
One possible element of a solution is upriver at a delightfully named dam, the Skookumchuk dam, to install an inflatable weir. Is that the kind of project that you folks might be involved in?
Mr. SELLS. There at least is the potential that it could be one of the considerations of a multitude of potential solutions and everything from upland water storage by restoration of wetlands and numerous different activities. What we could do is to have our staff get in touch with you to make certain that we put the appropriate folks together to see if local sponsors are interested in looking at a project for the area.
Mr. BAIRD. That would be terrific. I think we focused mostly on Department of Transportation and Corps of Engineers as resources but I have not heard the conservation group mentioned before and I think it would be a real possible creative partnership that would be——
Mr. SELLS. We will be in touch.
Mr. BAIRD. —very helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much and thank all of you. I appreciate your participating in this hearing and you have been very helpful with your input.
Before the hearing is adjourned, I would like to say a word about a thanks to Jess Sharpe over here who has served on the Subcommittee staff for the past year and he is going on to bigger and more important responsibilities on the Full Committee. Jess, we wish you well. You served the Subcommittee very effectively and good luck in your new assignment.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thanks once again to all of you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]