Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSALS FOR A WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
Wednesday, March 22, 2000
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 11:10 a.m. in Room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The Subcommittee meets today to receive testimony from the Army Corps of Engineers on proposals for a Water Resources Development Act for the Year 2000.
We also expect discussion on current policies and programs, as well as the serious allegations surrounding the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation Study.
First let me welcome Dr. Westphal, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and General Ballard, the Chief of Engineers. This Committee appreciates your leadership. Oscar Wilde said a cynic is one who ''knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.'' On this Committee, which sometimes feels surrounded by cynics, we know the value of the Civil Works Program and its importance in meeting the Nation's growing needs.
We are concerned, however, about the allegations surrounding the economic analysis of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation Study.
As Chairman Shuster noted last month, these are serious accusations and our Committee will, on a bipartisan basis and a thorough basis, seek out the facts.
We look forward to your input and that of all other interested parties.
We also place a high priority on enacting a Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This critically important legislation will not only authorize new projects and programs to meet growing needs—such as environmental restoration, navigation and flood control—it will be a vehicle to review and improve existing projects, programs, and policies.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Again, Dr. Westphal and General Ballard, we will welcome your input.
I would note, however, the Subcommittee's disappointment—and let me stress that—the Subcommittee is disappointed over the Administration's failure to submit a legislative proposal in a timeframe that respect our schedule.
We will continue to reach out, but we will not let the Administration's schedule dictate ours. Too much is at stake in the Everglades and elsewhere for us to wait indefinitely on an OMB-blessed package.
We will move forward and, as always, work in a bipartisan manner, looking for constructive input from the Administration as soon as possible.
With that, let me turn to my good friend and colleague, the Ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee, the Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me first thank you for convening this hearing today.
This morning, as you suggested in your remarks, we continue our hearing towards developing a Water Resources Development Act for 2000.
Each of us on the Subcommittee has a strong interest in a Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers. That is why I know that each of us was hoping that the Subcommittee would be receiving the legislative proposal of the Administration for 2000.
Unfortunately, for reasons beyond the control of the two gentlemen appearing before us, there is no legislative proposal to be discussed today. This is regrettable.
I believe that the Administration is fully aware of this Committee's schedule and should have made a greater effort to accommodate it.
I do not know whether there will be an additional opportunity for the Administration to present its legislation to this Subcommittee or for the Members of the Subcommittee to have a dialogue with Secretary Westphal and General Ballard concerning a proposal, but I hope, Mr. Chairman, that there might be.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With projects such as the Everglades Restudy and the Harbor Deepening Act of New York-New Jersey potentially making this year's legislation the most expensive since the 1986 Act, I expect that we will have a number of issues to address that we will be working closely with the Administration and you, Mr. Chairman, as this bill moves forward.
Though I am disappointed that we will not be receiving a legislative proposal, I look forward to hearing from Secretary Westphal and General Ballard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Borski.
I hope, Mr. Secretary and General, you get the clear impression from both of us that we are deeply disappointed about the Administration's failure to come forward and respect our schedule.
Having said that, I will also recognize the bind you guys are put in. You are not the problem. It is OMB. But we want to work with the Administration.
This Committee and Subcommittee have proven time after time that we will work with the Administration, consult with the Administration—we don't always agree because, guess what, you are not always right—but the fact of the matter is, we have had a good, healthy dialogue over the years and we want to continue that.
But let me re-emphasize our disappointment that you are here today in effect unprepared to deliver an Administration proposal.
With that, let's go forward.
Dr. Westphal, you are up first.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Excuse me one second. I neglected to ask, is there anyone else wishing to make an opening statement? All right. I'm sorry.
I just didn't want to neglect hardworking Members that are here.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Dr. Westphal?
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, Ph.D. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOE N. BALLARD, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
You are absolutely right. I normally would be thanking you for the opportunity to speak to you on a WRDA 2000 proposal, and today I can only thank you for the opportunity to be here and talk about our Civil Works Program.
I am sorry to report that the Bill has not yet cleared OMB. It is undergoing interagency review and so I largely will be unable to respond to specifics of a proposal that we have at OMB.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Is there any hope we might get it before the end of the fiscal year?
[Laughter.]
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes. I can guarantee you that. We are on a course to get this Bill to you by the end of this month. We have obviously been pressing OMB, but some of the questions that OMB has to deal with have to do with are we proposing things that duplicate what other agencies are doing?
We want to get you a bill that minimizes the amount of confusion and the complexity for your staffs and get you a bill that we are reasonably sure meets all the tests of law, and that is what that interagency review is doing.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I think we will come forward with a good proposal. And I stand ready to accommodate whatever schedule you have, and whatever type of meeting, whatever format you want to have it on, whether it's a hearing, or meetings with Members, or your staff, and do whatever we can to assist you in deliberating on the bill itself and make myself available to you at any time for that reason.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Just let me interrupt one further time and point out that when we had a conversation you indicated you would have it April 1st. I would prefer you defer to April 3rd. April Fool's Day is not the time to present the Administration's program.
[Laughter.]
Dr. WESTPHAL. Okay. Well since it's a weekend, I think we will either get it to you on the 31st or the 3rd. And there won't be an April Fools I think in this bill.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman and Members, I testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on our FY 2001 budget. I made mention of the fact that the Corps of Engineers received its first appropriations from Congress back in 1824 to do essentially some clearing of snags and debris on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. That appropriation was $75,000.
Today, that initial appropriation has resulted in an investment for the Nation in our infrastructure of over $124 billion. So we have gone a long way.
And the Army Corps of Engineers has been and continues to be a great asset to the Nation in this respect. Since its founding in 1775 the Corps has provided engineering support to the military, helped developed our Nation's water resources, and restored and protected the environment.
Our Nation's rich and abundant water and related land resources provide the foundation for our successful development and rapid achievement of preeminence within the international community.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Army's Civil Works Program has made significant contributions to these achievements. Army Corps of Engineers Projects have improved the quality of life by making America more prosperous, healthy, safe, and secure.
Today there is an intense interest in finding sustainable ways to preserve and grow our Nation's economy while protecting and restoring our unique water and related land resources for the benefit of future generations.
The Army's Civil Works Program has a significant role to play in meeting these very objectives. A strong water resources development program is a sound investment in our Nation's security, our economic future, and our environmental stability.
We share with Congress a commitment to justified and environmentally acceptable water resources development. It is critical that our water resources investment decisions be made based on the best technical and policy evaluations that consider fully all economic and environmental consequences.
It is important because communities across the country rely on the Corps to reduce flood damages, help them compete more efficiently in world trade, provide them with much needed water and power, and help protect and restore the environmental resources.
Today, the technical evaluations of proposed projects are by nature a very complex set of steps that require public review, interagency review, and a series of intra-agency reviews culminating in the final policy reviews done at my office.
While we get complaints that it takes too long, we are bound to provide this level of verification in order to safeguard the public interest.
As you are well aware, there are many pressing needs for water resources development in this country. We must work together to define an appropriate federal role in addressing these needs in the full light of our fiscal capabilities and constraints and economic and environmental requirements.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At the heart of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 were cost-sharing reforms. These allowed local sponsors through funding and their expertise the opportunity to be active participants in the water resources development process. The willingness of non-federal interests to participate in cost-sharing studies and projects often serves as a market test of the project's merits.
Overall, we have found it to be an eminently successful policy, and it should be continued. But I believe it is also time to assess the relative impacts of cost-sharing on particular sectors of our economy and population, and I am committed to begin such an effort.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I realize that you are anxious to begin work on this proposal, and I am willing again to come back and to meet with you at any time in any format to bring you our proposal when it is completed. I thank you for your patience and support, and I look forward to working with the Subcommittee on a WRDA 2000 bill.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Westphal.
General Ballard.
LTG BALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Borski, Members of the Subcommittee:
Dr. Westphal has comprehensively addressed the Administration's proposals for a Water Resources Development Act so my remarks will address the recent controversy surrounding the ongoing Upper Mississippi and Illinois river Navigation Study.
It is very important to me that the Congress and the American public receive the full story before any conclusions are reached. I say that up front. The allegations that are levied are very serious. They are most troubling to me as they challenge the very value of the Corps of Engineers to the Nation.
That value is trust, a trust in this agency's absolutely integrity to provide the Administration and this Congress with water resource investment recommendations that are unbiased and technically sound.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now the widely publicized allegations and the media reports attempt to erode the foundation of that trust, and I realize that, but I am certain beyond doubt that your trust in this agency has not been misplaced.
I therefore welcome and fully support all, all of the independent outside investigations of the allegations, and any review of our processes.
I will take prompt corrective actions if wrongdoing is discovered, and I stand ready to make improvements to our processes if it is warranted.
But I will assure you that when all of the facts are in, the integrity of the Corps will be intact and you will know that the trust you have traditionally placed in the Corps is well founded.
Now let me explain the reasons for my confidence.
First of all, I believe in the professionalism and the dedication of the Corps Team. While my trust in my team is high, I am realistic enough to know that individuals can and do make mistakes. But my confidence is high even in this regard, in that our processes has a series of built-in checks and safety nets, as Dr. Westphal mentioned just a few minutes ago.
These include:
Independent technical reviews;
A minimum of two formal public reviews;
Washington-level policy reviews;
State and agency coordination requirements; and
Ultimately a final review by the Executive Branch under Executive Order 12-322.
Now for the study in question, we are in the midst of preparing the feasibility report assimilating data, examining alternatives, and developing costs and benefits.
A draft feasibility report has not been completed. And that is the point that has not been reported on. We have not completed this draft feasibility report, much less undergone all of the reviews that I just mentioned.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The allegations appear to be based around what the Corps intends to recommend. The Corps' recommendation is still almost a year away, and there is much outside input to be gathered, analyzed, and incorporated into the decision-making process.
It is important to remember that there are no easy, clear-cut answers to the complex issues we face in water resource management. You know that. We know that.
Technical experts may and often do honestly disagree on specifics. The value that the Corps brings to the process is the assurance that both sides of any technical disagreements are completely analyzed and receive proper peer review, public review, and ultimately policy review.
And after full and open debate, balanced professional judgments must enter the process. And when dealing with technical disagreement, which is really the primary role of our field commanders, they make tough decisions and often in the face of strongly held opposing views.
The Corps process ensures that all interests are heard, and that the final recommendations are unbiased based on the best science available and in the public interest.
In our business, there is almost always at least one interest group that is opposed to some specific findings. But when all of the facts are in, I am confident that the integrity of our process and the leaders who got it will be intact.
Now let me take just a final few minutes to report to you on the status of activities related to the Upper Mississippi River Navigational Study.
There have been two significant internal events.
First, the Headquarters has completed its policy review of some of the study team's draft products. This has been an ongoing process for about 17 months.
Our review found that the Districts conducted the study in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines. Nevertheless, additional information and explanations are required.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The complete findings were provided to the Division for further action. This, by the way, is a normal step in our process for a study of this size and complexity.
Secondly, due to the serious nature of an allegation of wrongdoings in reference to one of our employees and the need for immediate follow-up, I directed an internal investigation in accordance with Army Regulation 15-6.
This investigation is complete and found that the allegation was not substantiated.
Now this has nothing to do with the whistleblower's allegation. And I am willing to provide the results of the investigation to appropriate authorities.
There are a number of external investigations of reviews in process. The Office of Special Counsel has requested that the Secretary of Defense investigate the allegations and report his findings back to the Office of the Special Counsel.
This investigation has been done by the Army Inspector General.
We have provided information requested to the IG in support of their investigation, and we are scheduled to meet with them to answer any additional questions.
Secondly, the Survey and Investigations Staff of the House Committee on Appropriations has begun its investigation. We have met with them, provided them information and documents they requested, and remain committed to fully supporting them as they continue their investigation.
And finally, the Secretary of the Army recognizes the importance of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois river Navigation Study and that it must be one in which the American people have full confidence.
And in that regard, he has engaged the National Academy of Science to undertake an independent, objective review of the study.
So as you can see, we have a number of studies that are ongoing.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But let me re- emphasize that we welcome and will fully support all external investigations. I am confident in our process, our execution of it, and am convinced that it is fundamentally sound.
I am confident that the findings of the current investigation will confirm this fact. I am equally confident that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is pursuing its mission with the utmost professionalism and integrity and will continue to serve this Nation well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. This concludes my statement.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, General.
Dr. Westphal, a couple of quickies. When did you send your legislative proposal over to OMB?
Dr. WESTPHAL. We sent them an early draft before we sent them the final, final draft—let me get a date here--about the end of February we sent them a rough draft of what we were proposing, and then they got I think the fuller piece right about March the 1st.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Secondly, let me ask you this:
Do you anticipate that the Administration's Harbor Services Fee and Trust Fund Proposal that you sent over last week will be part of your WRDA Legislative Proposal when and if we ever get it?
Dr. WESTPHAL. No, we are not anticipating putting that in there. We just assumed that since it was introduced in the last Session that it was still an ongoing bill here in the House.
The Senate never introduced it, so we are—at this point in time—not including it in our WRDA Proposal.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well do you want it to be part of WRDA?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. No. We're not including it there, no.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay.
General Ballard, let me ask a couple of key questions here.
LTG BALLARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. First of all, I'm just like Paul Harvey. I always want to know ''the rest of the story.'' But in your testimony you state that ultimately balanced professional judgments must enter into the process.
What does that mean to you?
LTG BALLARD. Well, as you know, sir, this is a ten-year study. We are looking at, trying to figure out the demands for navigation 50 years from now.
We coordinate and receive input from a variety of stakeholders, but when we finally bring the technical report together it is ultimately the responsibility of the District Engineer to synthesize all of this information and come up with a recommendation that will be put in the final report, the same report that will go before the stakeholders for their reviews.
Ultimately it will come down to the professional in charge of that report. And that is the responsibility of the District Engineer.
Mr. BOEHLERT. You were right in your testimony to talk about the traditional trust that we have on this Subcommittee and Full Committee, but I hope you are aware of the fact that there is a reason for that trust to be in a somewhat shaky position now because of the parts of the story that have emerged.
We have not seen the big picture yet, and we have got to put all the pieces together in the puzzle, but did the non- technical managers intervene in the economists' debate?
If so, at what point?
LTG BALLARD. I have no indications or reason to believe that the non-technical folks intervene in the sense of directing, as the allegation says, the development of a number.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The non-technical folks, if you're talking about outside of the economists, that is an ongoing process. This study, which a number of folks tend to forget, is just one of hundreds of studies that we do like this all the time.
The District Engineer and his staff, his technical staff, has a role to play to make sure that all of the data that is presented and the views and the assumptions that are made are gathered and treated equally because we have shareholder partners in this.
And what we found in this process, this review I talked to you about, was that we had some questions about assumptions that were being made, and the rationale for these assumptions.
Now let me take you back to about September of 1998, about 17 months ago, 1999—1998. We received a number of letters at my headquarters, and I think even in Dr. Westphal's headquarters, from various groups that said the input that we were providing to the study team was not being considered.
We received input from the agriculture folks that said the input they provided to the study team was not being considered.
The same types of allegations were raised by the navigation folks.
When this came to my attention, we had the District and the Division to come forward to the headquarters to give us an in-progress review. That started September of 1998, if I'm correct.
And at that time we did have some concerns about some of the assumptions and the rationale for those assumptions.
This review is a normal part of our process and well within the authority of the District Engineer, the Division Commander, and my staff to review any ongoing studies. And that is what took place.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. My time is up, and I will come back for a second round.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But when you talk about ''balanced professional judgments,'' in general most people applaud when you talk about balanced professional judgments, but in this town that can be viewed as a code phrase for something other than the technical merits getting weight that is not deserving. So we will revisit this subject in the second round.
LTG BALLARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General Ballard, let me just start by saying that I very much agree with Chairman Boehlert and his opening remarks about the seriousness of the allegations in the Upper Mississippi, and that I fully intend to work as closely with him as possible to make sure that, as you suggested, that the integrity of the process and of the Corps is what comes out of this process.
So I am very interested in this story as it progresses.
My main concern now is that, while these allegations have been raised, if there are any irregularities in the Upper Mississippi, and I certainly tend to follow this process so I am not agreeing with any of the allegations, but I am worried about the entire process.
Is there any reason to suspect that there are systematic problems in the Corps' planning process? Or are we limited to this particular study?
LTG BALLARD. I have no reason at all to be concerned about the Corps' planning process. A year-and-a-half ago we had the National Academy of Science to come in and evaluate our planning process.
It is an independent body. They gave us very high marks. In fact, the comment was that it was as good as they have seen. That report is available to anyone that wishes to see it.
So I am confident that our planning process is absolutely in line with our Principles and Guidelines.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BORSKI. Were there any particular suggestions that the Academy had made that we should be looking at, or that you should be looking at? Any particular revisions?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well the Academy did a report essentially looking back at the Principles and Guidelines. If I could just give you some background.
Back before, I guess during the Carter Administration years and before, the study process was guided by something called the Principles and Standards. And the Principles and Standards allowed the Corps to look at a number—not just the Corps but the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and a number of other agencies who do construction work—to look broadly at a number of factors when doing studies, including economic cost/benefit; environmental considerations; and a number of other things. I think there were three or four principles there.
When President Reagan took office, if you recall, those were the days of large budget deficits and pressure to reduce the government spending.
Under Secretary Watt at Interior, the Water Resources Council worked and put forth Principles and Guidelines. The Principles and Guidelines then limited what you could focus on to simply one basic equation, and that was ''national economic development.'' It needed to meet that test.
The National Academy of Sciences, at the behest of the Army and the Corps of Engineers, has looked at that and said, no, we need to broaden this. We need to look at these other factors because they need to be part of the decision process, and has made several suggestions as to how the existing Principles and Guidelines could be reworked and amended, as they call it, modernized.
I believe the Chief and I are in agreement that that needs to be looked at. We have agreed to go forward and explore those avenues.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Secretary of the Army is also I think, in agreement that that is something that is important to look at. And so I don't think there is any question that that needs to be looked at.
That does not affect the Principles and Guidelines, not to say that the way the Corps is functioning today is in any way adhering to a process that we have in place; that we need to modernize that process in terms of how broadly you look at the benefits and the costs of doing something from an economic and an environmental standpoint, is what the Guidelines will lead us to.
LTG BALLARD. But I think, sir, in clarification of your question, was whether or not the process was flawed. The answer to that is. No.
What the primary recommendation of the study was to address were some additions to it, but in terms of the process they confirmed our process was correct, and that we were running this process correctly and not deviating from the standard process that we had in place.
Mr. BORSKI. So that the general response of the study was that you are doing things generally correct. They may have some suggestions of how to modify or to modernize—
LTG BALLARD. Oh, some additions—
Mr. BORSKI. But nothing major that we—
LTG BALLARD. No major deviations.
Mr. BORSKI. I am looking forward to seeing that report myself.
LTG BALLARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Sherwood.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we know, an environmental restoration is one of the responsibilities and missions of the Corps. In view of this fact, I believe that there is a role for the Corps to play in correcting a problem which is the greatest single source of pollution for the Chesapeake Bay outside of nonpoint-source pollution.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That source is in my District, and it is a mine bore hole which dumps over 3 million gallons of water, acid mine water, a day into the Lackawanna River. That's a tributary of the Bay.
Contained in this acid mine water is iron oxide, and there is a ton-and-a-half of iron oxide that goes in the river daily from this bore hole.
If you fly over it in a helicopter, as Chairman Young and a bunch of us did the other day, the whole River is yellow for hundreds of yards there. And it really about destroys the ecosystem there.
It would be an economically substantial, I am told, and technically difficult undertaking to correct this. But in view of the Corps's environmental restoration responsibilities, do you believe that the Corps has the authority or mission statement to correct such a source of pollution?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Oh, we certainly have the authorities, and we have the capability to do it. Now whether we will get the resources to do it is another matter. But we would be delighted to work with you on that issue.
As you know, Congressman Kanjorski and others are also working very hard with the Corps, and we are working with them on mining issues and trying to do something to help clean the rivers and streams in the central part of Pennsylvania.
And we believe that what we do in that part of the Basin is critical to what happens in Congressman Gilchrest's area, and I've talked with him about it, and I think obviously what the Lackawanna and the impact on the Bay is significant.
We would be delighted to work with you on that.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Well this is upstream of the problems that—
Dr. WESTPHAL. Right.
Mr. SHERWOOD. —Congressman Kanjorski is talking about, but it all feeds—everything goes downhill.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Right. Exactly.
Mr. SHERWOOD. And this is a very important issue and maybe we could do something about the funding if we could get you to take on the mission.
Dr. WESTPHAL. In the President's budget the President has been, for as long as I think he has been in office, has been advocating that we need to look at these kinds of issues on a watershed basis, on a broader-basin scope.
This is a large, and very old, and complex basin for us, you know, with a long history of industrial production, and mining, and—
Mr. SHERWOOD. Absolutely.
Dr. WESTPHAL. —and has had a serious impact on the environment. And now we want to try to restore that. It is going to take a lot of money to do it, and a lot of effort on the part of not just the Corps but EPA and other federal agencies and state agencies.
I think if we work cooperatively together—and the Corps, both in the study process that the Chief just described as well as in the ability to work with other agencies, can be a very good agency for coordinating on a basin-wide effort how this work can be done.
And I guess reflected in my budget proposals are four large basin studies which can be a model for how we do this in your area.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Lampson.
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me thank you, Mr. Secretary, for the opportunity to have worked with the Corps of Engineers on many projects in Southeast Texas which have been very important to us. We have had a good working relationship and look forward to that continuing as we work on the issues and projects that are so critical to the Gulf Coast Region of Southeast Texas.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. You have a great District there in Galveston.
Mr. LAMPSON. Indeed. Thank you.
A couple of questions. In 1996 Congress passed Section 227 of the Water Resources Development Act known to many of us as the National Shore Protection Act.
This section of the law stated, and I'll quote:
''The Secretary shall recommend to Congress studies concerning shore protection projects that meet the criteria established under this Act, conduct such studies as Congress requires under applicable laws, and report the results of the studies to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.''
It also stated that, quote:
''The Secretary shall recommend to Congress the authorization and re-authorization of shore protection projects based on the studies conducted under this Act.''
I would like to know why the Corps has failed to issue implementation guidance for its division and district offices for this section? And why have you and the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works not recommended to Congress which new shore protection projects need to be studied and authorized?
LTG BALLARD. It's your question.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Okay, you're asking two things here. You are asking about why we haven't issued guidance? Why the Corps Headquarters hasn't issued guidance to the field. But you're also asking a question about a broader Administration policy on this?
Mr. LAMPSON. Yes, sir.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Okay. I think probably the best way to address that is to talk first about the broader Administration policy.
As you know, the Administration has had a policy of basically saying that when it comes to shore protection we believe that there is a federal role there, if it is, to protect lives and property as long as we are not basically helping to support tourism and business development.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And we then—this policy was not well received by coastal communities. And so with the pressure to do more shore protection, the Administration came back last year and we proposed a change in the cost-share, basically assuming that if we could switch the cost-share from a 35% nonfederal to a 65% nonfederal, that with the additional resources we could budget for more shore protection projects down the road.
And where we ended up, or you ended up on this was a change in the cost share to a 50-50. The Administration believed that that was not sufficient at this time, given fairly limited budget constraints in putting together a 2001 budget, to go forward with new construction, shore protection construction projects.
We do have one new start. Assateague Island, which is a shore protection project.
Mr. LAMPSON. Where?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Assateague in Maryland, on the coast of Maryland.
And we have about 18 ongoing shore protection projects, somewhere in the vicinity of about $50 million, if I recall, that are ongoing that we continue to fund in the budget. But we did not propose new additional shore protections in addition to the Assateague.
So with that policy it was difficult for the Corps, I think, to issue guidance on basically a policy that we had not yet clearly agreed with with Congress.
Now I asked this year, and succeeded in getting in our budget, a request to you for some money to do a study on this matter. Last year you passed in the Water Resources Bill a provision asking us to do a study on shore protection.
In other words, what should be the appropriate federal role?
Where should we do it?
How should we do it?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
How much should we do it?
I have agreed to put money in the budget. We've got money in the budget to do that study. We could do that study fairly quickly and be able to come up with a, hopefully, revised federal policy that we can provide to you in the next round next year.
Mr. LAMPSON. You will be making a recommendation to change the Administration's policy?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well the study will hopefully give us some ideas on, you know, what should the federal policy be? What should the federal role be in shore protection?
Mr. LAMPSON. Okay, let me before—
Dr. WESTPHAL. And help us to define that with you.
Mr. LAMPSON. Let me before—my time is out, but let me just ask, if you will, could you and would you please provide this Subcommittee with a listing of those shore protection studies and construction projects for which requests or recommendations have been made for funding by any of the Corps Districts or Divisions from fiscal 1996 forward up to now?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Sure.
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, very much.
[The information follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, very much.
Here is the Chair's intention. We will go with Mr. Gilchrest. We have 12 minutes left in this vote, and we have two votes coming up. So Mr. Gilchrest will conclude the questioning, and then we will go over and cast our two votes and be back in about 15 minutes as soon as we can.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Does that mean I will take my five minutes now? Are we going to have a second round of questions for this panel?
Mr. BOEHLERT. If you desire, yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Because I have got some questions.
Mr. GILCHREST. Okay, good.
I do have some questions that I will pose now, General Ballard and Secretary Westphal, and also when I come back.
Just up front, though, I am going to give Mr. Westphal, Dr. Westphal, this book that a couple of us up here have read. It's called WATER by Alice Outwater, a MIT graduate, Ph.D., worked to try to fix some of the problems up in the Boston Harbor.
It is basically the history of water in the United States from about 1500 to the present. And it explains in fascinating but readable detail the hydrologic cycle and how human activity has impacted that, and in many instances in a rather negative way, not just in the everglades but throughout much of the terrain of this country.
And what I would like to just comment on, and then pose a question is:
I really would like the Corps to begin to move—first of all, I want to thank both of you for coming to testify today. My dealings with the Corps of Engineers in my stint in Congress has been nothing but impeccable. People are professional, and I enjoy working with this Agency.
I have two districts in my District, the Philadelphia District and the Baltimore District, and the people that work and have communication with us are very fine, outstanding people.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When the Corps makes a decision, though, it is my observation that it is not always that balanced. In other words, the economic justification based on the engineering study seems to hold more weight than the environmental perspective on the engineering understanding of the mechanics of the natural processes, and in many cases the mechanics of the hydrologic cycle which keeps the ecosystem thriving.
Now I am going to pose some things which I guess we will have time to look into a little bit further when we come back, but the whole series of The Washington Post articles, which I have read through twice, are very reflective of experiences I have had with both Districts, Philadelphia and Baltimore, keeping in mind that the people in those areas have been working with us on this issue and there is not a lot of disgruntled disagreement about how we reach those disagreements, but we do have significant disagreements.
For example, the Corps of Engineers I think routinely uses the same consultant as the project's sponsor. We find some conflict of interest there. Not only do we find philosophical conflicts of interest, but when the project's sponsor uses a consultant to look at the cost/benefit ratio, and the Corps of Engineers uses the same consultant to do that, and then we find mathematical errors in their model that is confirms not once but twice by the Headquarters in Washington that would not have confirmed that unless it was brought to their attention, we find that that is a conflict of interest.
And one of the things that I would encourage the Corps to do, and maybe this Congress to do, is to look at, as best we can, changing that particular policy.
Now I have a series of other things, and I see my time is up and we might want to run over to vote before I come back, but that's just one of them.
But again I appreciate—
Mr. BOEHLERT. You have a couple more minutes, Mr. Gilchrest. We gave you eight minutes on the clock.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Okay. The other thing, let me give you an example of a project in my District along the Chesapeake Bay, the Port of Baltimore.
The deepening of the C&D Canal. The Corps did the feasibility study, the PED study, and so on and so forth, and the Corps' basic perspective, based on the information that they had, was that there was going to be an increase of traffic through the C&D Canal to the Port, which increased their cost-benefit.
There was going to be a diversion rate of ships that didn't use the Canal but could use the Canal now but would use it if it was deepened by 75%.
Both of those figures were found to be incorrect. The diversion rate was not realistic.
The assumption that if you deepen the C&D Canal more ships would use it, more traffic would go there because they would save time instead of going around to Cape Henry, was also found inadequate because they would still wait even if they used the C&D Canal a minimum of, in most cases, of 8 hours, and sometimes as much as 30 hours.
The other thing was that it would be cheaper to use the C&D Canal as opposed to going around the Cape Henry route because of the cost in time and fuel was also incorrect. The actual cost of using the C&D Canal, the supposed shorter route, time-saving route, was more expensive.
So we looked at those issues and, when I read The Post's articles and saw some of the problems in the analysis that the Corps was using to determine whether or not to go forward with the project, and that it would be of benefit to the taxpayers of the United States, simply reflected what we have experienced since about 1996 when we looked into this.
And I will stop now, Mr. Chairman, or I will go for another 30 seconds.
Mr. BOEHLERT. You have already exceeded your time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Fine. I'll stop and come back.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. You've given the Secretary and the General a lot of food for thought.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. And when we come back on round two, maybe you can get some response from both of them.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. I have a question I think the Corps is prepared to answer.
Mr. BOEHLERT. We've got 5 minutes and 43 seconds. Go to it.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Westphal, I had added language to the WRDA 1999 version related to a Missouri River Mitigation Study, and I believe you have a six-month deadline. I am wondering if you have any report, or if you can tell us when that report will be ready.
Dr. WESTPHAL. I don't have the information exactly when we will get it to you. May I just answer that for the record.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that Dr. Westphal's answer be made a part of the record.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. BOEHLERT. And I assume the answer will be in a timely fashion?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Dr. WESTPHAL. It always is.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Not always.
Dr. WESTPHAL. That's always the right answer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Not always timely.
Anything else, Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. No. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. All right, I've got a quickie since we have got four minutes left.
You know, one of the projects that is vitally of interest to me and New York and New Jersey, but I think to the Nation—this is not parochial—is the Harbor Deepening up in Port of New York-New Jersey.
When do you expect to send the project to this Committee, since I anticipate we are going to have a lot of support for it, including it in this year's bill.
Dr. WESTPHAL. We expect, the Chief's report is, I'm told, due to be finished sometime end of March—
LTG BALLARD. End of March.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Is that right, Joe?
LTG BALLARD. That's correct.
Mr. BOEHLERT. It's a busy month. Thank you.
Dr. WESTPHAL. So if it's going to be done end of March, we intend to include it in the WRDA proposal.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, very much. You can have a pause now to reflect upon Mr. Gilchrest's observations. We will be back as promptly as we can.
[Recess.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Back in business.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from the Great State of Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that accent on ''distinguished,'' not ''extinguished.''
Well I have two or three things on my mind, more comment than question perhaps, Mr. Secretary and General Ballard, but I just have to tell you this up front. that based on my own background, and knowing something about the ethics and standards that goes with the Corps and so on, having worked before, my other life, a long gap, and now with you again, General Anderson, Colonel Mudd, and others, Van Winkle, yourself, I am very proud of you.
LTG BALLARD. Thank you, sir.
Mr. BOSWELL. And I agree that there is a cloud hanging over, and I understand that you know, as I know, it's got to be taken care of. It has got to be put under glass, transparent, and worked out. And I have no question you will do that. I have no question at all. I have no question that if there is wrongdoing that you will drop the hammer. I have no doubt about that. That is just the way it is, and all of us who ever wore the Uniform understand that.
But, you know, I co-chair the Mississippi Caucus with Congressman Hulshof, an outstanding young American. I really like that young man. And, you know, that old Mississippi River is truly a national treasure and we still go on the premise—and I say we—that intelligent people can sit down and work things out.
Environmental, conservation, pleasure, and the commercial side of it, you know that old River is big enough to do it.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
LTG BALLARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOSWELL. And we have got to care for it. We have got to love it. We have got to caress it. We have got to do the right things. But I believe that we will do what is right.
And I am very concerned, you know, about it. And I think each has to have their day and have their consideration, and I think they will, but in our last caucus meeting just here a few days ago one of the presentation persons just returned from South America not too long ago and I am looking forward to going down there, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that maybe some of the rest of us can go, but with the threat to our economy, a world-changing situation.
The WTO, permanent trade relations with China, all these kinds of things out there are before us. The fact that our trade balance on agriculture has been a big plus; it is declining, and so on.
You think of those things, of what I am going to say in just a moment, which you already know—I am just kind of reviewing it from the aspect of some of us—but the things before us in a sense of what will happen if we do not have access to those markets is far reaching.
If we do not use the old Mississippi and we have to lay down rail, or concrete, or whatever it takes to transport the goods to take that place, if we think this is expensive put some figures like that together and it would be startling. And what that would do to the environment, and so on, and conservation, et cetera.
So these good people I keep referring to—and I certainly consider the Corps is part of those good people. And I will believe it until I know otherwise. I will believe it until I know otherwise. But good people from the environmental aspect, the conservation aspect, pleasure, you know, that's a big element, but the commercial side of it for those of us in ag states is something to think about.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I appreciate in this Congress that all of the House Members along the River have joined the Caucus, 32 I believe it is.
And you know, Mr. Chairman, that committee, or that caucus is pretty much divided R&D. We like each other. We talk to each other. And most of those Members are either on Transportation or Appropriations. Not too bad.
I hope that that will do something for our, I refer to it as our National Treasure. Now more people visit the Mississippi than visit Yellowstone Park, I am told. The eagles are back. It is a wonderful thing. And on and on we could go.
But we still have to put the best minds we've got together and I think they are assembled and work this out for the good of all, as well as for our country.
The competition in South America, when this report came that they can go upriver 800 miles with ocean-going vessels, no locks and dams. And then from that point on go another 800 miles with 30-foot draft barges. That is no small thing. And don't we ever think they won't compete with us.
Some of this going on—and I say this to you, Mr. Chairman, as well, and I know you and I have great confidence in you but, you know, look at this chart. This chart tells us that we are in the feasibility study. It tells us the big red line. Tells us where we're at.
You know, I think it is tracking right along. And when they finish the process that they have started out to do, they will have their report, which is coming up sometime between now and it looks like December of 2000. And then you make your recommendation.
Press on. Press on, old soldier. We have confidence in you.
Thank you.
LTG BALLARD. Thank you, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Boswell.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Mr. Chairman, could I just make one little comment?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Certainly.
Dr. WESTPHAL. One of the things that has not been discussed in the papers and we have not gotten any questions about is the fact that the Corps is part of a—is a lead agency, and it has had a program called the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program, which has been hugely successful.
I have personally gone up there. I know the Chief has, too. We have commemorated, dedicated wildlife refuges that we have built for Fish & Wildlife Service.
It is a great program. So along with the navigation interests and the decisions about whether to modernize that system or not for navigation, we have an ongoing, well-funded environmental management program that is very successful. And the states are partners in this, and our other federal agencies are working with us together very well.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks for that observation.
Mr. BOSWELL. Is my time up, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Pardon me?
Mr. BOSWELL. Is my time up?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Your time has long since expired, Mr. Boswell.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. The Chair does recognize that the Corps has done some outstanding work, but we are not ready yet to chime in with How Great Thou Art until we have an opportunity to further review this entire matter.
It is serious business, and I hope everyone recognizes that.
With that, talking about serious business, let me turn to my distinguished colleague from the Empire State who represents the Port of Buffalo, which has got my attention.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Quinn.
Mr. QUINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to join in in How Great Thou Could Be, if we are looking at tunes to go through.
And, General and Mr. Westphal, I want to thank you first of all for your work on the WRDA bill. We enjoy a great reputation with your folks up in Buffalo, New York, and that whole Basin as it makes its way along Lake Erie.
Regular meetings have gone a long, long way to help communication.
I do not want to take up the Subcommittee's time this morning but, Mr. Westphal, I have recently written to you about a situation where we have got a Port of Buffalo Project in the works for quite some time now, and the Corps has questioned a portion of that eligibility.
My letter—it is only out about a week or so, less than a week—asked for your expedited review of that situation. It is really important to what is happening up there.
There is a long history of the Corps' involvement there. Without getting into all the details this morning, I wanted to take the opportunity to let you know that our office, and myself personally, are prepared to do whatever needs to be done to help you with that review.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes. Congressman, I do know of your letter and have seen it, read it, and we are preparing a response. We are trying to work with the Corps on the details of that, and we may have to be a little bit creative and look at what other options we have on that.
But what I would propose is for you to allow me to get with my folks on that and get back to you as soon as possible.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. QUINN. Absolutely. I greatly appreciate that.
As I said to the Chairman, I did not want to take up specific projects here this morning. Thank you, so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Glad to hear you are being a little bit creative in working the problem and the issue. Mr. Quinn is one of the most creative members of this Subcommittee and the Congress. But there are different ways to get things done. The important thing is that we get them done.
Thank you.
Mr. Mascara.
Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have always been impressed with the professionalism and nonbiased abilities of the Corps. The Corps has brought many projects to my District in Southwestern Pennsylvania. In fact, you have a $750 million lock and dam project on the Monongahela River, including the Braddock Locks, and removal of the Elizabeth Locks, and the upgrading of the Lock IV facility in my hometown of Charleroi, Pennsylvania.
I am just a little concerned about the residual effects of the whistleblower, the Sweeney incident, whether or not that would have any effect on you moving forward on such projects as mine because of that.
Well I am very supportive of the whistleblower concept, that these people should be protected.
Does that have any effect on your ability to move forward on projects such as mine?
Dr. WESTPHAL. No. We are—and General Ballard can respond to this—but while these investigations and reviews and studies are underway, the Chief has had his, the Secretary of the Army has called for some, we are continuing to conduct business, and of course to try to do it in an efficient and effective manner across the country.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So the answer is, no.
Mr. MASCARA. Good. I commend you for the work on the Monongahela. It is going to make a big difference in our economy when that project is completed.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Round two.
Let me ask both of you to comment on this. I also serve on the Science Committee, and I know the value of peer review, for example, as we are dealing with the National Science Foundation.
And I am somewhat enamored of the idea that we ought to consider peer review for large Corps projects, or controversial projects.
Would you address the question? What do you think of peer review?
Dr. Westphal, and then General Ballard.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well I think it can be very useful in different situations, and we do use it. The Corps does seek peer review on a number of things.
Mr. BOEHLERT. In a structured way? I mean, with the National Science Foundation, for example, you do not get anything from the National Science Foundation unless it is peer reviewed.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Right.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Do you do it on a case-by-case basis?
I want to talk about maybe formalizing some sort of structure to take away the cloud that is hanging over some of these activities. And I think it might be helpful to you, but I will shut up and listen to what you have to say, and then General Ballard—
Dr. WESTPHAL. Let me just say something really in general, and then let General Ballard also comment on this.
In terms of the overall process that we use, the typical process that we would use on most projects—recon studies, feasibility studies, and so on—we believe that part of that peer review of course is that public comment opportunities that are there—public involvement—where we get essentially a lot of that analysis into our office. The Corps works that analysis, incorporates into whatever final recommendations are made.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If you are looking at something a little more formal and structured from an outside independent, we would have to look at that and see how that could be done, what the cost of that would be—
Mr. BOEHLERT. Give that some thought. I mean this is not a casual remark. This is a thought-through approach. I have had a number of conversations with Staff.
So I would appreciate your giving that some more thought.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Let me just speak from my particular office where I have a very small staff, a limited staff, and certainly in terms of technical expertise also some limitations there.
Our job is to do policy evaluation, policy review. But even when we do policy review, there has to be some knowledge of the technical side, or the science side of what is coming up the line.
On many occasions I would like to be able to also send something for peer review, to get an outside independent analysis of this, simply because we in the Department of the Army may not have the expertise right there.
And sometimes we do that. And we are doing that, for example, I have oversight over Arlington National Cemetery and we have got a master plan for the cemetery. We are looking at that, and we felt within our office we needed some outside independent analysis, and we contracted that out.
So there are opportunities to do it. But let me let the Chief respond.
Mr. BOEHLERT. General?
LTG BALLARD. Sir, I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying. We currently use peer review, both internally and externally. We have used it on many projects.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When you talk about a project of the nature of the Upper Mississippi where you have economists, engineers, you name it, a whole series of disciplines that are involved—and this sort of goes back to what we were talking about earlier before the break about the disagreements among professionals.
I have found in many cases that some of my economists disagree with each other. And so many times we have found it necessary on some of our more involved projects to go outside and subject some of this to outside peer review in a more formal manner rather than just an internal manner.
We just finished taking a look at this study with an internal peer review where we had economists, and engineers from throughout the Corps to come in and evaluate some of the assumptions that were being made. And we do this on a fairly routine basis when we do the technical review at the headquarters.
But we have found it necessary to take this external on some projects. In fact, I think if my notes from my staff is correct, we most recently have done this on some portion of the Everglades Project.
Dr. WESTPHAL. That's right. We did. The National Academy of Sciences. And we also had an interagency peer review on that where other federal agencies acted as a peer review.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like both of you to give some more thought to that, not in a hit or miss basis but a very organized, structured peer review.
The best example I can cite is the National Science Foundation. It is sacrilegious to say this in this room particularly, and for me to say it works contrary to my best interests, but when you talk about balanced judgments, I know some of the underlying ingredients into those balanced judgments and who flexes the biggest political muscle, too.
That is part of the factor. I do not expect you to respond to that. And quite frankly, why the hell should I get special consideration, although I want it all the time, simply because I am Chairman of the Subcommittee of jurisdiction?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think I would like decisions to be based on merit. There are always going to be differences of opinion on merit. Just think some more about it because we have another call of the House, and it is inconsiderate to demand that you stay here until after that.
Quickly we will get to Mr. Borski, and Mr. Gilchrest, and if anybody has a quickie they want, and when we go to vote we will adjourn the hearing.
Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Westphal, you have testified at least before about the Administration's intent to recommend a comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan at a cost of about $7.8 billion.
I understand that the New York-New Jersey deepening project is also a candidate for WRDA at about $1.8 billion.
In your written testimony you advocate fiscal responsibility. Our Budget Committee is now working and they are advocating reductions in non-Defense discretionary for programs such as Civil Works.
So my question is.
How do we do this?
How does Congress and the Administration address the increasing demand for work by the Corps while limited resources are available for that work?
Dr. WESTPHAL. That is going to be the dilemma we face when we put together a budget. That is certainly the dilemma you face when you appropriate.
The Everglades of course is $7.8 billion estimated over a 20-year period. So the costs in the first year are not $7.8 billion certainly.
We believe that there is ample room for these projects in the budget. They are a high priority from a national standpoint. The Corps has done an outstanding job in the past year of meeting their workload with limited funds.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Chief has implemented a number of reforms to help reduce the costs and create greater efficiencies, and that helps.
So we think that in our budget proposal to you, and we think in whatever you decide to authorize this year in WRDA, we are going to be able to do it.
Now you do have the added burden of a WRDA bill that passed last year, which I think, my estimates that I read about is a little over $6 billion, and whatever may get added on in this year beyond those two projects you mention could also put pretty significant and overwhelming problems for the appropriators.
Mr. BORSKI. Just to make one further point quickly, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
While I certainly see the value in these projects that we are talking about, my concern is delaying or stretching out ongoing projects that will wind up costing us more in the long term.
So that is my major concern with this program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Are you satisfied, Mr. Borski?
Mr. BORSKI. Yes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay, fine.
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not think we want to delay projects that we are going to do that would cost us more in the long run, but I do not think we want to complete and do projects that are not worthy of the taxpayers investment.
Mr. Chairman, you are talking about a review process. Right now, using my best judgment, a public review process for the feasibility study, for the preliminary engineering design study, or for whatever, is virtually impossible to understand by any group of citizens that might be interested in it because they do not have the expertise, they do not have the time to put into evaluating that report that the Corps gives—because it is about four inches thick and it is filled with technical jargon.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
No public review process is going to work unless you can find a group of citizens that have the expertise in a various array of fields to go through that and have more than 30 days, or more than 60 days to make a comment.
What I did back in 1996, Mr. Chairman, I took a group of people that volunteered. They were all retired. They were physicists, they were statisticians, they were biologists, and they all worked for Hercules, DuPont, you name it. There were about five people.
They came in and they started this process. We call them the Working Group. And because of Secretary Lancaster we attached them, this group of citizens, to the Corps' evaluation process, looking at what the consultants said and so on.
So I have a lot of things to comment on here, and I commented earlier on whether the diversion rates were correct, whether more commerce was going to come. I have other issues that this group discovered as far as the Environmental Impact Statement was concerned for another project in the Chesapeake Bay which was riddled with problems and the Corps ended up delaying their DEIS on that one.
So I guess the bottom line here, at least part of the problem, is that this review process, the perspective that citizens can come in and evaluate this with some type of expertise, we do not want to delay projects that are worthy, but we want to get the process moving along that is justified not only economically—because the BCRs have been sort of manipulated—and the environmental consequences.
So with that, I do not know if the gentlemen have time to respond to it, but I will yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Any comments you care to make?
Let me just make it clear that the peer review I am talking about is not just public review. It would be outside. External to the agency. Much like the National Science Foundation does it.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
For example, you are not going to have a guy who runs an ice cream stand making technical judgments any more than someone reviewing a National Science Foundation detailed proposal dealing with astrophysics would, you are going to have an expert in the field as part of the peer review process. That is the type of thing I am talking about.
The public input would always be part of the process, obviously, but the professional peer review from someone other than internally within the Corps.
Any comments you would care to make?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Just very briefly.
Two things to address your concerns. One, the Principles and Guidelines do limit. They are a limiting force.
I think in the particular project that you are mentioning they are a factor.
I think a review of the Principles and Guidelines will greatly enhance our ability to address some of those concerns.
The Chairman has tasked us with looking at peer review. That is another factor that we can look at. And I hate to admit this, but I have it in my desk from the Corps of Engineers, I have a one-inch, two-inch thick response to some of the questions that your constituents and you, you specifically, addressed to me on the C&D Canal. I am just going to find some time to get on your calendar to come and talk with you about that.
So we will get you some answers on that.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks very much.
The Subcommittee will be following up obviously with some additional questions. I know Chairman Shuster has some specific questions that he would like to advance in writing.
Mr. BOEHLERT. We would appreciate a timely response.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We appreciate your serving as resources for the Committee. We look forward to the Administration's plan and look forward to continued cooperation. The Corps has built up a historical trust with this Subcommittee and no one is suggesting that because of some very serious allegations and a series of stories that that trust is suddenly disappearing.
But we do need, as Paul Harvey directs us to do, to ''get the rest of the story'' and I would appreciate your considering the peer review. And we will talk some more.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[insert here]