Segment 2 Of 3 Previous Hearing Segment(1) Next Hearing Segment(3)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the Committee at [http://www.house.gov/transportation]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the Committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1996
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:14 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood Boehlert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. HORN [assuming Chair]. The subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will proceed.
This is the second day of hearings on the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, and we're delighted to have with us today the newly confirmed Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, a former distinguished member of this Congress and this House, and I am pleased to introduce the Honorable H. Martin Lancaster, and congratulations on your confirmation. Major General Genega accompanies him, and we're very proud of the work that the Corps of Engineers does. I am particularly grateful for the District Engineer in Los Angeles, Colonel Robinson. He does an outstanding job as liaison and works with individuals in a whole variety of communities, the environmental and conversation communities.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I would like to ask the ranking member if you have some remarks to make?
Oh, Mr. Chairman, you are here.
Mr. BOEHLERT [resuming Chair]. Excuse my delinquency.
Mr. Lancaster, it is a pleasure to welcome you back home, and, General, it's a pleasure to have both of you here. You're a couple of good guys, and we look forward to working constructively with you as we fashion a responsible bill. I think we're doing a pretty good job in educating the Administration, and you can't comment on this—on the need for some of the things that we think are very important on a strong bipartisan basis on Capitol Hill.
I just want to say from a personal standpoint, from a Republican talking to a formal Democrat colleague who now has a very important position, that I have the highest regard for you, and I know you are a person who will work across this podium here on a bipartisan basis.
General, you're my kind of guy—you get things done, and so it is a pleasure for me to welcome you both here, and it's also a pleasure for me to turn the microphone to my distinguished colleague from the great State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and for moving forward on the Water Resources Development Act. We clearly need to work together to get a bill through in this Congress. I also want to join you in welcoming our former colleague, Martin Lancaster, here in his new role as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I want to congratulate Mr. Lancaster in his recent appointment by the Senate, a vote that ended a 3-year search to fill the Assistant Secretary's position. It must be harder to find the right person to be Assistant Secretary than it is to find a Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[Laughter.]
Mr. BORSKI. Or at least as hard as vice-chairman.
After all that time, I believe that they have found the right person for the job in Martin Lancaster. I have great confidence that he will provide the strong leadership that is needed for the Corps of Engineers Program. I am looking forward to working with Secretary Lancaster to develop a more effective and efficient Corps of Engineers Program.
At the same time we must make sure that the vital water resources related infrastructure needs of our Nation are being met. The years ahead are likely to be difficult for the Corps of Engineers with hard budget choices to be made with downsizing, reinventing, reorganizing and redefining. The decisions that will be made will have widespread impact on the thousands of men and women who work for the Corps and for our national program of National Infrastructure Investment as well.
With about 40,000 people employed by the Corps in headquarters, 37 districts, and as of now, 13 divisions, the Corps is truly our Nation's engineering company. The vital navigation, flood control, emergency, power, environmental, recreation, research and development, and regulatory functions that the Corps performs are an absolutely essential part of our Nation's infrastructure investment program. In the 21st century the Corps of Engineers must continue to serve this function for all areas of our country—urban, suburban and rural.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and with Secretary Lancaster to ensure that this program continues to be a major contributor to our Nation's economic growth.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. We're privileged to have the ranking member of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too join in congratulating you on initiating so early in the session these hearings on the Corps program. Few come in this Committee and in the House as well prepared as you to undertake this very important responsibility and to move this agenda forward.
For myself, I just would like to observe that 32 years ago my very first assignment in this body was as what was then called ''clerk'' to the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee. They have fancier titles now—counsel, administrator, and all sorts of things, but we were just called clerks in those days. My very first legislative assignment was to sit in on a Corps of Engineers hearing. I have never seen so many generals, and colonels, and heard so many complicated words. I didn't understand what they meant. I spent a lot of long hours and evenings reading over those boring documents to understand what it was all about.
[Laughter.]
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thirty-two years later I still learn something new every time I go to a hearing or a meeting with the Corps of Engineers, but I can say in that time that I have come to have enormous respect for the Corps as one of the few agencies, along with the Coast Guard and the Marine Corps, in which we get every full measure of the dollar invested. You do a superb job for America's heartland and for protection and enhancement of our water resources.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I also want to join in welcoming and congratulating Martin Lancaster. It is a long way from Kenston, North Carolina.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I just have one final observation, and that is that I will expect to inquire with the Corps and with Secretary Lancaster about the restructuring, Mr. Chairman, that is taking place in the Corps of Engineers. Now, this is one of several that have been proposed over a period of the years we've served in the Congress. One we stopped cold because it didn't make sense, and it came back, was restructured and it made a lot of sense. There was another time when in the midwest the Corps restructured its operations according to lake operations, and river operations, and segregated certain activities under the Detroit office and others in the St. Louis office. Folks didn't know where to go for permits.
So I will have a number of questions at the appropriate time, and then I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will continue to explore this restructuring. I know that the Corps is going to have a 30 percent or so budget cut, and we all talk about doing more with less. I know very well you do less with less, and I want to know how you're going to do better with less.
So that is the focus of my inquiry, and I thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, our former colleague really has a challenge on his hands after that.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Bateman?
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an opening statement, but with unanimous consent I will submit it for the record in order that we may hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection.
What we are going to do today is after we hear the testimony of Secretary Lancaster and General Genega—and we will not restrict you in the timing. We're not going to operate under the 1-minute rule. You don't have to revise and extend. We will extend you the courtesy of the presentation of your statement in the matter you think most appropriate.
Then we will have a panel addressing port and navigation issues, a panel addressing inland navigation projects, and a panel addressing flood control proposals for the American River in Sacramento, California—the so-called Auburn Dam, and a panel addressing flood control projects and issues.
So we have a very ambitious agenda for today. I should imagine we will be going into maybe the early evening hours, and then we're going to have through the day members in and out—Marty, you know it works. We've got the farm bill on the floor today, a major bill, and I have a major amendment to it dealing with the conservation and the environment that we're going to win. Borski and Boehlert, a team, and we've got a lot of things going.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
We have Mr. Dickey here who has a comment.
Mr. DICKEY. You've got my vote on your amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. So it's a busy day.
[Prepared statements of Mr. Bateman, Mr. Costello, Mr. Poshard, and Mr. Wise follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you home. The floor is yours.
TESTIMONY OF H. MARTIN LANCASTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS, WASHINGTON, DC, ACCOMPANIED BY MAJOR GENERAL STANLEY G. GENEGA, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
It is a pleasure for me to be here with you this morning to offer the first testimony that I will offer before a committee or subcommittee of the Congress following my confirmation.
I am especially flattered and humbled by the very warm comments that were made by my former colleagues with regard to my assuming this position, but I am even more grateful for the kind words and high compliment that came the way of the Corps. I, of course, had knowledge, as each member of Congress does, of the fine work that the Corps of Engineers did in the Wilmington District with which I interfaced on a very regular basis. But in the 3 weeks that I have been in this position, that respect for this organization has been enhanced and confirmed again as I have gotten to know the very fine people who run the Corps of Engineers here in Washington, and the people in the field who provide this valuable resource to the American people.
So I do appreciate your kind words for the Corps and for General Genega and the leadership that he offers.
General Genega does accompany me here today, and will be a resource to me, as he is to you and the field every day.
I have a lengthier written statement, which I would request be accepted and submitted for the record at this point. I will summarize it as best I can but do appreciate the opportunity to perhaps go a bit over the 5 minutes, with your indulgence.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
My testimony will focus on the Civil Works Program and the changes that we are proposing. We will be talking today about the guiding principles for developing a Water Resources Development Act, which I believe this Committee and the fashion that characterized its work during my first year in Congress when I was a part of this Committee, will rule the day on WRDA 1996. I believe that if we do work together in an open and bipartisan fashion that a high priority for the Administration, and I know a high priority for this Committee, will be accomplished this year, and that is a Water Resources Act.
I also will talk about some of my recent experiences that I have learned about Corps activities that do demonstrate its vitality and its many contributions to this country. It is a very important source of leadership and strength in providing for our country's national security, and is a leader among the Federal agencies as we approach the 21st century.
First, however, I would like to share with you my view that the Corps can and will continue to meet civil works challenges in addressing the Nation's critical water and related land resource issues. I am pleased to be in a position where I can significantly contribute to the debate about the future of this agency. The Army Civil Works Program has evolved to reflect the circumstances and need of the times, and today is responding to the Nation's desire to reduce the size of government and eliminate the Federal deficit. In doing so, the Corps has become a leaner organization. However, it is still committed to meeting our major responsibilities of navigation, flood damage reduction and environmental restoration. Limited Corps resources are being strained by the challenges of addressing the rehabilitation and maintenance needs of many aging project facilities, meeting Federal commitments to project sponsors to proceed with new projects and responding to a string of natural disasters.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
To meet these challenges we must increase the role of project sponsors and the private sector while continuing the Corps' lead role to protect general taxpayer investments. We are approaching the current challenges head on, and I am confident that the agency will continue to be effective in the future.
My appointment as Assistant Secretary comes at a time when the Corps, like all Federal agencies, has been re-examining its roles and missions with an overall goal of reducing the scope of Federal Government and eliminating the Federal deficit. I hope to play a constructive role in that re-examination and to work with you in a bipartisan fashion in determining the future of the Corps.
One of the areas where we must determine the appropriate the Federal, state and local levels of support is in shore protection projects. It is unlikely that sufficient Federal funds will be available in the future to continue the prior level of Federal participation in this area and still achieve deficit reduction goals. Therefore, the Administration believes that shore protection projects that support mainly recreation activities and provide substantial regional income to the state and local economies can be undertaken by non-Federal interests. We recognize, however, that Federal involvement is appropriate in some instances. I will be happy to work with you on the conditions to which this policy should be applied.
Regarding maintenance of recreation harbors, the Administration believes these projects generate significant regional and local benefits, and that users again can reasonably be expected to finance the required maintenance.
We are proposing to discontinue maintenance of low commercial use harbors. However, having represented a coastal Congressional district in Congress, I recognize that many small communities whose incomes are derived principally from commercial fishing and related activities would be hurt by such a policy. In addition to these communities, I recognize that there are areas outside the continental United States where a community, because of its geographic location, receives most of its subsistence needs from its harbors. These communities need to be given appropriate consideration in applying any new policy.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Again, I will be happy to work with the Congress, and in particular with this subcommittee and committee, and other affected interests to develop a rational policy that would still meet our deficit reduction goals and at the same time protect the economic security of these communities.
We see no change in policy with regard to the Federal Inland Waterway System. The Flood Damage Reduction policy proposed by the Administration last year is being revisited to determine which flood damage reduction projects should qualify for Federal support. Although many more communities will be eligible for Federal assistance than under the policy proposed last year, we hope to develop a cost-sharing policy that will achieve budgetary savings. The policy will also promote good flood plain management at the state and community level.
We believe that states and communities should take a more active role in ensuring that proper flood plain management activities are carried out. For flood damage reduction projects, we are considering a cost-sharing policy and legislative changes that increases the non-Federal share of implementation costs and requires specific non-Federal flood plain management activities. In addition to encouraging wise use of flood plain by States and communities, the Administration believes that this approach will reduce dependence on structural flood damage reduction projects. Examples of specific flood plain management activities we would expect under this proposal include: public information and education on flood hazards within the community; stricter flood plain development restrictions to further reduce damages, storm water runoff controls; and preservation of open space. This new policy would apply only to those projects for which project cost-sharing agreements have not been executed.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Again, we are certainly prepared to discuss alternatives to the mission and policy changes that have been proposed to you today and will be further detailed in the Administration's budget, that will be released soon and in the Administration's WRDA 1996 proposal.
We are pleased that the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 1996 became law on November 13th, and thereby enabled the Corps to avoid the shutdowns that affected much of the Federal Government. Nonetheless, the Appropriations Act has left the Corps in the position of having more to accomplish than funds to support that work. Careful management of available funds is required to make meaningful progress on work added to the program by Congress and still meet our contractual commitments.
The President's budget outline for fiscal year 1997 and the out years was submitted on February 5th. It shows that the funds available for domestic discretionary spending must continue to decline in order to balance the budget, underscoring the need for us to agree on policy and legislative changes to reduce costs and shift more of the cost of providing services from the general taxpayer to the project beneficiaries, which brings me to the importance of a Water Resources Development Act this year and the Administration's strong commitment to pass a WRDA 1996.
First, regular authorization of the Army's Civil Works Program is important to preserving the partnership we have forged with non-Federal project sponsors. These sponsors have been doing their part by sharing feasibility study costs and committing to share construction costs. To maintain credibility, however, we must proceed in good faith to seek timely authorization for justified projects.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Second, reinstating the 2-year cycle of authorizing water resources projects and programs in a Water Resources Development Act is critical to an orderly and manageable water resources program.
Third, a Water Resources Development Act is unquestionably the best vehicle for authorizing civil works projects, which our studies have shown to be good investments of Federal and non-Federal money. Legislation is also necessary to fine tune our programs to make them more effective and efficient, and to provide an opportunity to keep up with changing program demands.
The Administration is anxious to work with Congress to recommit to the biennial cycle and to work with this subcommittee to develop responsible authorizing legislation which is acceptable to Congress and the Administration.
I have included in my complete statement a discussion of guiding principles, which we believe would lead to legislation that meets legitimate needs during this time of fiscal austerity. They are principles we are applying as we develop the 1996 civil works legislative program, which we hope to transmit to Congress in the near future.
In shorthand fashion, those guiding principles are: preservation of the concept of cost-sharing; expansion of the beneficiary pay concept; adherence to the budget; authorization of justified projects that have completed authorizing review; and authorization of projects that clearly have a Federal role.
As we contemplate the Army's civil works mission and needed legislation, let me highlight some recent experiences of which we are particularly proud.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
First, the Corps has made great strides in improving civil works program performance. During fiscal year 1995 the Corps expended 95 percent of scheduled funds, which was a vast improvement over previous years when program execution schedules tended to be overly optimistic and inflated. We are aware that the same level of intensity and discipline will be required for us to have the same success in executing the fiscal year 1996 program.
The use of business concepts and project management has become the cornerstone for Corps management philosophies and actions. Implementation of these business concepts has focused the Corps on non-Federal project sponsors' needs for timely and cost-effective project delivery to the benefit of both the Corps and project sponsors. I am personally committed to finding ways to shorten the Corps' study process as part of our efforts to improve agency efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness.
I hope you share our pride in the performance of Corps personnel and flood damage reduction projects in the northeastern and northwestern U.S. during this winter's flood events. In the northeast, considerable flooding and widespread destruction followed the Blizzard of 1996. Skillful operation of reservoirs by Corps project managers reduced flood crests by as much as 10 feet on many rivers, while Corps constructed levees protected thousands of homes and businesses from inundation. Preliminary estimates of the northeastern flood damage prevented by the operation of Corps projects total $4.4 billion, with about 70 percent of the damages prevented being in the State of Pennsylvania.
In the northwest a series of severe storms drenched Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Some tributaries collected 25 to 30 inches of combined snow melt and rain in just 4 days. By coordinating the operation of multiple reservoir projects, project operators were able to significantly reduce flood crests and reduce flood damages by about $3.2 billion.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In the area of navigation, a Federal dredging policy is now in place which commits Federal agencies to maintaining and dredging our ports and navigation channels to support international trade in a way that ensures the protection of the Nation's environment. Through national and regional coordination teams, other agencies are working with us to resolve dredging issues.
The Corps is also partnering with the American Association of Port Authorities to explore ways to improve the efficiency of navigation project development and implementation, as well as to increase participation of the port communities.
In the area of environment restoration I would like to provide a brief update on two ongoing Corps activities. The first is the restoration of the south Florida ecosystem. Last week I joined Vice President Gore in the Everglades National Park where he announced the Administration's comprehensive Everglades restoration program. The Corps, I am proud to say, will be a major player in this initiative. Hydrologic restoration projects, one of the first steps that must be taken, are currently being implemented. Also, we have initiated a study to determine the feasibility of structural and operational modifications to the central and southern Florida projects. A comprehensive watershed study here would involve complex tradeoffs among competing project purposes, but we believe will ultimately lead to a precedent setting environmental restoration project.
The second environmental activity is the program authorized by Section 1135 of WRDA 1986. Under this authority the Corps, in cooperation with non-Federal sponsors, may make structural or operational modifications to existing Corps projects for ecosystem restoration purposes. Section 1135 projects have ranged from small wetland restoration projects to modifications of fish ladders and the restoration of rivers or streams. Since the initial funding for this program in 1991, 12 projects have been completed and the number and sizes of Section 1135 projects have increased as the good word has spread.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Now let me bring the subcommittee up to date on Corps restructuring. As you may recall, an open restructuring process began in the spring of 1994 under the able leadership of General Williams, General Genega and Acting Assistant Secretary John Zirschky and focused on four areas: one, redefining the roles of the Corps' various organizational office areas; two, re-examining its missions; three, streamlining its business processes, particularly in civil works components; and, four, analyzing potential savings in its infrastructure.
Following Army approval of the organizational roles for the Assistant Secretary's Office and virtually all levels of the Corps, we proceeded with implementation. The roles of the division offices were significantly changed, and those offices were restructured. All technical review now is performed at the district office level, and all policy review is now performed at the Corps' headquarters. Division offices now concentrate on four functions: command and control, regional interface, program management and quality assurance.
Guidelines for District Office restructuring designed to maintain Corps technical competence and enhance efficiency have been submitted to Secretary West for his final approval but not yet implemented.
Separately, our fiscal year 1996 Appropriations Act stipulated that the Corps was to develop a plan to reduce the number of its division offices to a total of not less than six nor more than eight without changing any district offices or reducing the civil works functions of any district offices.
Last year 2 of the Corps' 13 division offices, located in Huntsville, Alabama and Winchester, Virginia, were redesignated as non-divisional offices. Both of these offices performed military work only. Early this month, the Chief of Engineers and I released a draft plan, which was provided to this committee. If Secretary West approves this plan, the number of Corps division offices would be reduced to a total of eight. The final plan will be released shortly.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be the Assistant Secretary and to contribute my leadership to the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I look forward to adding to its rich and honored history of service to the Nation. By working together the Water Resources Development Act, which is so critical to the orderly implementation and management of the Corps Civil Works Program, can be enacted this year.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to respond to questions that any members of the subcommittee may have.
Thank you again.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Do you yield back the balance of your time?
Secretary LANCASTER. I do indeed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. General Genega, do you have anything that you may care to add?
General GENEGA. No, sir. That's fine.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, thank you very much.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Let me start out by talking a little bit about the continuing authorities program. You are well aware of the difficulties that a number of communities are having as a result of the cutbacks in the program, which deals with small flood control projects and small navigation projects.
I appreciate that there are several factors affecting the phasing down of this program, including Congress' own failure to fund the program at the level requested in the President's budget, but then the President has made an attempt to phase out the program entirely. So one objective observer might conclude and say, ''A pox on both of your houses.''
What are you doing to make sure that the continuing authorities program, which is so very popular with those of us up here and was always very popular with you, continues to provide maximum benefits to communities within current funding restraints?
Secretary LANCASTER. First of all, Mr. Chairman, in the short-run a reprogramming request is now under consideration, which will provide additional resources to address some of the unmet needs that resulted from a lack of funding from last year's appropriation.
In the long run, the proposal that will be submitted with a detail of the President's budget will continue this valuable program with funding that we believe will be appropriate to meet the needs in the next fiscal year.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, is the Administration sort of adjusting its thinking then on this?
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Secretary LANCASTER. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Boy, in 3 weeks you've performed miracles. That's wonderful.
Let me ask you something that would be a little bit parochial regarding a problem with the disposal of dredged material in the ports of New York and New Jersey. You know, there is a serious long-term problem associated with the disposal of dredged materials from the navigation channels up there in the New York and New Jersey harbor. Some of the materials are clean and some of the materials are contaminated, but it seems that there are growing difficulties with the disposal of any of the material.
Short of closing down the ports of New York and New Jersey, what actions do you recommend to address the dredged material disposal problem?
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you have indicated, there certainly is a major long-term problem that we have to confront. There are also short-term problems, which we are working on.
At the present time we, of course, are continuing to pursue upland disposal opportunities, but to be honest, we have run into significant problems with cooperation between the States of New York and New Jersey. And so, that short-term problem will require continued cooperation between the two States in locating appropriate upland disposal facilities.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In the long-term, of course, we are going to have to find a solution other than upland disposal because this problem of dredged disposal in the New York harbor is far greater than can be handled economically with upland disposal. Research is now underway on both the treatment of contaminated dredge material and also its disposal. There are some in the research community that believe the safest manner in which to dispose of contaminated dredge material is to maintain it in its wet state rather than in an upland disposal site.
We then will be exploring the opportunities for wet confinement disposal islands that would enable us to proceed in a safe manner to dispose of this. We also, of course, will pursue other research opportunities on decontamination of this soil, but that is a long-term solution that the Corps is committed to work with the EPA and with the States of New York and New Jersey, and to be honest, Mr. Chairman, with other States that also face contaminated disposal problems as well.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure. Do you think we should address some solution to the problem in this bill?
Secretary LANCASTER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I think that it is important for us to look to this long-term need for addressing contaminated dredge materials and the WRDA 1996 would certainly be a good beginning point.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Will the Corps have specific recommendations?
Secretary LANCASTER. We will.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BOEHLERT. What about your relation with the EPA? Is that working as well as you would like? I understand you have only been on the job 3 weeks.
Secretary LANCASTER. Certainly, in my 3 weeks it has worked very well, and I understand that there is a good working relationship with the EPA, which I am committed to continuing.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Borski?
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just follow up with that and ask if you are also enjoying good relations with FEMA?
Secretary LANCASTER. We have a very good relationship with FEMA, and I think that certainly I hold the Director of FEMA in the highest regard as I believe members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and the general public do as well. Mr. Witt is an incredible leader, has provided I believe the kinds of leadership for that agency that it deserved for years, and I have nothing but the highest praise for him, nor do I have anything but the finest relationship with him.
The Corps of Engineers likewise has a very good relationship. In fact, I am told that General Genega and Mr. Witt have seen more of each other than they do of their respective wives in recent weeks, and despite that they're still good friends and have a close working relationship.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BORSKI. I guess it would be appropriate to note at this point, of course, that the President has suggested that Mr. Witt be part of his cabinet, which is well deserved.
Secretary LANCASTER. It is indeed, and I applaud that decision as well.
Mr. BORSKI. You know a little bit about disasters. Natural or unnatural, of course, you were caught up in one in November of 1994 in North Carolina.
Secretary LANCASTER. That's right.
Mr. BORSKI. Yesterday we heard some intriguing testimony about flood management and increasing local share to get an increased Federal share, if you will. And I thought that was an intriguing idea.
My concern, however, is with communities who are less fortunate, who have less disposal dollars, and I would be very interested in working with you on that to try and resolve the problem before it comes to bat, if we could.
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, of course, Congress approved in a previous WRDA a program that does allow for modification in the cost-share for communities with limited resources. As the local share becomes larger, this program will become much more important. Under current cost-sharing formula it has not been very often used because in most cases the local communities have been able to meet their share of obligations.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
If the wisdom of Congress is that the share should increase for local sponsors, then it will be necessary of us to work very closely at the Administration level to implement the legislation which is already in place that takes into account the ability to pay.
Mr. BORSKI. Again, Mr. Secretary, we certainly feel here that it is extremely important to get this bill passed and signed into law this year on a bipartisan basis. We did our work here in the House, and, unfortunately, it ran into some difficulties in the Senate. But I can perceive that the Corps reorganization can be a potential problem, at least areas where members have great concern, and, again, we would want to be able to work with you on that reorganization plan.
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, I would comment, Mr. Borski, that the restructuring, which is what we talk about making the Corps work better, is we believe being implemented very well and with very little controversy either in the field or among our customer groups or with Congress.
The division reorganization, which is now in draft form, was submitted to Congress in draft form because of my concern that we have that appropriate interface with Congress before announcing a final reorganization. But I would point out that that was a mandate of the Congress. It was a very difficult decision that we had to make, but was made, we believe, in a fashion that reflects what is on the ground in the country so that we can make sensible use of the resources in the field based on a river basin basis, and that will in fact take into account work loads of the districts that will be reporting to the divisions.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
We believe that it is a good plan. We have, of course, had comments from the delegations of the two affected divisions that are proposed to be closed, and we are working with those delegations to try to help them understand the basis of our reorganization and to help them be comfortable with our proposal.
Mr. BORSKI. Okay. Mr. Secretary, I understand that you are working on the Administration's proposal and we should be seeing it shortly.
Secretary LANCASTER. We are indeed.
Mr. BORSKI. Would you care to take a moment, though, to explain why there is a need to increase local cost sharing and to stop completely the Corps' work on certain types of project—beach erosion would come immediately to mind—and also the low maintenance, low value harbor maintenance that we're talking about stopping. Is there any flexibility in this?
Secretary LANCASTER. First of all, with regard to the cost sharing, we are facing the same reality in administering the programs that you are facing in legislating those programs, and that is that the budget deficit must be addressed and with fewer resources but with ever-increasing needs being demonstrated in authorizing legislation. We simply are faced with the necessity of finding additional resources outside the Federal Government to build these projects. If we do not, if we continue current cost sharing ratios, we simply will reduce the number of projects that can be built. That is a self-evident fact.
So we are trying to do so in a fashion that will respond to needs, and at the same time take into account benefits to the local sponsors and their ability to pay.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
With regard to the other items that you mentioned, in my shortened version and in my longer version we have indicated that in the detail of the President's submission, which will be coming to the Congress shortly, there will be changes in what was proposed last year, which was to eliminate all Federal support for shore protection. We will be submitting a proposal, which on an exception basis, will continue certain shore protection projects but at a much reduced number and a much shortened period of Federal support.
With regard to the low use harbors, again, we are faced with a situation where that maintenance has been done by the trust fund which was created to maintain commercial ports and which as you know, is under attack in the Courts, and these harbors do not contribute to that trust fund. So we have to be responsive to that concern, and at the same time we have to be concerned with the cost of dredging harbors in situations where the benefit to the user of those harbors might be more appropriately—that benefit which is shared might be reflected in a local or state financing scheme.
As I've indicated in both of my statements today, we are concerned about communities that do not have the economic benefit from dredging that would justify their paying the cost of dredging, and we do want to work with you on that.
On the small recreation harbors we also are willing to work in a cooperative fashion to see if a funding source can be found other than the trust fund and other than general revenues that would reflect the benefit to the users. We will be happy to discuss that further with you, but we do not at this time have a specific proposal on what that might be.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, let me say, as Mr. Lancaster has pointed out, and I would like to remind my constituents all the time that all the easy problems of government have already been solved and what we're left with today are tough problems. We are delighted that a person of your caliber is sitting in your seat to handle them, and we look forward to working with you.
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you. So do I.
Mr. HORN [assuming Chair]. Thank you very much, Mr. Borski.
Under Chairman Boehlert's rules, members ask questions in the order in which they arrive. My turn is next so I am yielding myself 5 minutes on this.
We had extensive testimony yesterday on the dredging problems of the New York harbor, among others, and we know the marvelous job the Corps has done, certainly in the ports of Long Beach in Los Angeles, which are in my district.
Your testimony explains the role that the Corps and other agencies are playing in working with the port community and the interest in improving the Nation's system of ports. We understand that you have considered proposals to revise the existing rules for paying the costs associated with disposal of dredged materials from navigation dredging.
You may recall that in the Water Resources bill the House passed in 1994, which died in the other body, known as the Senate, we included a provision designed to remove the biases between open water disposal and confined disposal.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The question is this: Do you plan to recommend a change in the cost-sharing for dredged material disposal areas for navigation projects and do you see any benefits to the environment by changing the rules to include Federal participation in the construction of contained disposal areas?
Secretary LANCASTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do in fact support harmonizing the cost-sharing between the two methods of disposal so that one is not incentivized and the other punished by Federal policies, and that will be a part of our proposal and we applaud the action of this committee in 1994 to do just that.
We do believe that there are ways that we can encourage by innovative ways the appropriate and safe disposal of dredged materials that with appropriate Federal participation can do the job, will provide the necessary dredging to keep our ports viable because of the importance of trade now to our economy, and at the same time protect the environment.
Mr. HORN. Some of the concern that was expressed yesterday is the dual role where the Corps carries out Federal law, EPA regulations in looking at these dredging situations and how you handle the contaminated sediments. The question was raised I think by a number of members on both sides of the aisle as to the degree to which the Corps could simply make that decision and not have to pass its results on to the EPA for approval. It seems to me here we are two worthy agencies carrying out the Federal role, and the old story, ''Money is time, time is money,'' that is taking time.
Do you feel confident that the Corps can do this job under the law and not need to have this project delayed by going to the EPA?
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, we certainly have what we believe is a very positive relationship with the EPA and work closely with them in these decisions. However, we also believe that the Corps of Engineers has demonstrated again and again its sensitivity to the environment and its ability to apply these policies in a manner that does in fact protect the environment.
We will be happy to work under whatever guidelines we are given, and if that continues to involve the EPA, then we will continue to work in a very positive and cooperative relationship with them. If we are given the responsibility to carry out the policies to protect the environment during our dredging process, we believe that we have the competence and the commitment to do that as well.
Mr. HORN. Earlier it was mentioned in a question the cost-sharing for flood control projects. Has the Corps analyzed what the effect might be on existing proposed projects of changing those cost-sharing? Do we know how many communities, how many projects would be affected and not be able to make it?
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, first of all, until a cost-share formula is agreed to, it's impossible to give you a dollar figure. We have analyzed several scenarios, and once a decision is made as to what the cost-share ratio will be, we will be able to give you more specific detail as to the number of communities affected and the dollars that will be saved.
Mr. HORN. When do you think that might be, that analysis?
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Secretary LANCASTER. That will be a part of our final budget submission.
Mr. HORN. Okay, and that will be coming up when, your legislative language and so forth?
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, actually, probably some time in mid-March.
Mr. HORN. Mid-March. So about the same time the final detail of the budget will be submitted to the Congress.
Let me ask you about the Auburn Dam situation. We also heard testimony on that yesterday. As we understand it, the Corps will complete its feasibility report on the American River Flood Control project by the end of June, and the Corps will recommend a retention dam or dry dam at the Auburn site.
We are wondering what is your view of the dry dam option, and what position is your office likely to take on it? Have you had discussions with the White House or OMB on this project, and what are their views?
Secretary LANCASTER. First of all, the Chief of Engineers' draft report is not yet finished and has not been released. It is not certain what that recommendation will be. That is his determination. The District report has recommended the NED, which they believe they are required to do by law. The Chief of Engineers, however, must take into account all factors before him, and he will be releasing his report, I believe, in the next several days. I'm not certain of the date. So I think it would be premature to judge what he might recommend or to take a position that might be at odds with his recommendation until I know what his recommendation is.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
However, we certainly have done what we believe is a good study, and have proposed in that study several alternatives, and we know that because of the great expense of the NED proposal that the final decision is going to rest here in the Congress. We will work cooperatively with this Committee and with the California delegation to find a solution to flooding in Sacramento that maximizes the benefit in a way that we believe Congress will ultimately support with funding.
Mr. HORN. Just to round that out, obviously, we will need to be assured that the latest earthquake design criteria are used in evaluating the proposed project, and I assume the Corps is going to work that in.
Secretary LANCASTER. The feasibility study, of course, used the information that was available to them at the time of the study. There is apparently new information that was not available at that time that will be taken into account if the project goes forward in the final design stage.
The Corps always designs to the most recent and the best information they have available, including in this case seismic information because in California that is so important.
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Dr. Horn. It's good to see you in the chair.
Mr. Secretary, I am sure by now you are appreciating how much easier it is to be on this side of the podium than on that side.
[Laughter.]
Mr. OBERSTAR. You have during your service appreciated the science of propounding fine questions and the art of dodging them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. OBERSTAR. I have a number of questions, and I'll save half of them for the second round, if we get to that point.
First, I want to deal with the restructuring of the Corps of Engineers. I have alluded to restructuring in my opening comments. Part of this restructuring is driven by budget, part of it is driven by, I'm quite sure, this so-called ''reinventing government'' I really don't like that phrase. No one invented government in the first place so I don't like reinventing it. Restructuring is the more appropriate word.
One of the things that is going to happen, whether you did it or it happened before you arrived and you're carrying it out, is division of labor—policy at the Division Office, technical decisions at the District Office. That is a neat theological exercise, but in practice those two overlap a great deal.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
If district offices are going to be doing all of the technical review, are they going to have the staff resources necessary to carry those functions out? Secondly, have you looked at the community impact of that restructuring?
For example, in previous restructuring the responsibilities of the St. Paul District Office when the Corps was reformed into lake districts and river districts, part of their responsibility was shifted over to Detroit, which meant that when permits that were required of people living in the northern part of my District, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, while it was easy for those people to travel to St. Paul, they had to go to Detroit. That happened right at the time when Republic Airlines was being swallowed up by Northwest Airlines and non-stops ceased to exist, and our folks would have had to go from northern Minnesota, down to St. Paul, catch another plane, fly way over to Detroit, then hang around for days and days. It was terribly, terribly burdensome on the people that the Corps is supposed to serve or over whom it has jurisdictional authority.
So I want you to comment on those two, and that may be all that you will have time for in the green light phase.
Secretary LANCASTER. First of all, we are cognizant of our customers' needs and are trying to be responsive to their convenience as well. So we hope that the restructuring that is being done has taken that into account. If there are instances where it hasn't we, of course, want to be responsive.
We believe that the district offices will continue to have the technical expertise to do that which we have asked them to do——
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. OBERSTAR. But will they have the manpower?
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, I guess that will depend somewhat on the actions taken in this body. We will provide the resources that are funded at the district level for them to do the job which they have to do but again——
Mr. Oberstar. Will that mean, Martin, that—in some of those division offices I know that when the Corps came back and looked at it, they found that they were top heavy in the division office and understaffed in district offices. Will that mean that some of those division folks will be given an opportunity to bid on positions in the district offices, some of whom kind of looked down their nose at those little jobs before and now they might think that they are pretty good deals?
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, certainly, as we redesign the mission of the division offices, there will be an opportunity, as there is in the Federal Government, for those people to go to other available jobs, and many cases we will be able to do so in their home communities because in many cases there are division and district offices in that location. We are very sensitive to that, and we'll do our very best to make those opportunities available.
Mr. OBERSTAR. One last point on this same subject, greater responsibility—how about a greater degree of autonomy and authority to carry out decisions and actions?
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Secretary LANCASTER. One of the things that was a hallmark of the restructuring, which actually has taken place at the division level and was actually designed but not yet implemented at the district level before I came was in fact to reduce multiple levels of review, and to recognize the competence and expertise at our different levels. But, at the same time, to maintain quality assurance so that that will be a major responsibility of the division offices to guarantee that these district offices, first of all, have the resources, and, secondly, are being held accountable for the job we are giving them to do.
So we do believe that we can all rest easy, that the competence and expertise and the resources will be at the district offices to do the job, and that they will in fact be held accountable by division structure that will guarantee quality assurance.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman.
I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, 5 minutes.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Horn.
It's a pleasure to see you, Mr. Secretary, and I would like to follow up a little bit on where Mr. Oberstar was heading as far as the restructuring is concerned. In particular, being from Ohio, obviously, the Great Lakes basin is a great deal of concern to me. If I take a misstep or say something that isn't in the contemplation of the restructuring or the reinventing government, maybe you can correct me. My concerns relate to the north central division, and in particular as I've attempted to get caught up on the history here, I think that there have been about five restructurings, if you will, as they relate to the Corps involvement with the Great Lakes region—the first one occurring in 1955, the year after the Chicago division was carved out. As we've moved through the years, I think the last attempt was in 1992 when there was an attempted restructure that didn't quite make it because there was some resistance in the Congress, as I understand it, at that time.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I guess my question is, is it our imagination in the Great Lakes or is there a movement to de-emphasize the Corps' presence in the Great Lakes region, and if so, why is that given a number of things? When you were talking about the things that you are looking for from your division offices, one of them had to do with interfacing with other agencies. The Great Lakes, obviously, border on many, many states, and many of them are represented on this committee, in addition to Canada. The Corps over the course of time has developed not only a good, but an excellent reputation for being able to bring people to the table that ordinarily wouldn't want to sit down across from each other, internationally as well as national.
So my question is are we seeing a de-emphasis in the Great Lakes basin of the Corps' involvement. If so, my personal opinion is that is a tragedy—I hope that's not true—but if it is true, why?
Secretary LANCASTER. I can assure you that there is not an intention on the part of the Corps' of Engineers to de-emphasize the importance of the Great Lakes. In fact, a part of the proposal that is in draft form at this time would in fact create a Great Lakes and Ohio River division.
Mr. LATOURETTE. In Cincinnati?
Secretary LANCASTER. In Cincinnati, yes. However, we recognize the expertise in Chicago and hope to be able to continue to use that expertise.
The interface with the agencies, the interface with the citizens, the interface with the local governments is at the district level, not at the division level, and that presence will continue in Chicago.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The shift is of the division headquarters to Cincinnati. That was a decision that was made based on work load and when you consider the projects that are in the Ohio River Division and the projects that are in what was the North Central Division that were going to remain in this new division, it was appropriate to maintain or keep that division office in Cincinnati.
We are, of course, working with members of the Illinois delegation in trying to give them a comfort level on this reorganization that will encourage them to support this effort, and we hope that we will be successful. You may rest assured that the Great Lakes is recognized in the Corps as an incredibly important resource to the economy, not only of the immediate Great Lakes states, but of the entire midwest, and we do not in any way want to de-emphasize that.
Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate very much that answer, and if I could just give a brief commercial for the Chicago office, it's my understanding that when asked over the last number of years, they reduced their personnel staff by 50 percent. They maintain the major programs in three watersheds of five district offices, and I believe that there was a recent Corps' wide civil works program review that showed that the office in Chicago was one of only two that received the highest ratings possible.
So, obviously, something is going on well.
Secretary LANCASTER. There is no question that the district office in Chicago provides incredible service to the district, and we in no way want to hamper a continuation of that contribution.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LATOURETTE. Since this is sort of parochial day, I just want to mention one more thing. Section 312, the Environmental Dredging Authority, it's my understanding that that sunset at the end of 1995. There are a number of, again, serious contaminated sediments problems in the harbors of the Great Lakes, and it's my belief at least that Section 312 was a critical component of the new ability of folks to get together in a public private partnership and to build a harbor, for instance, it's permitted that public private partnerships not only deal with the contaminated sediments problem, but also to avoid potential NPL listing for Superfund.
I'm just wondering if you have any observations about whether or not the Administration will support an extension of Section 312 dealing with the Environmental Dredging Authority?
Secretary LANCASTER. Mr. LaTourette, I am sorry that I do not have any familiarity with Section 312, but would be glad to get back to you on the record—or for the record on that issue.
[The information received follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
I now yield 5 minutes to the very able delegate from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me also welcome our former colleague and indicate how appreciative I am of the way the Corps has worked with the District and with my own office. In the process of restructuring, of course, in dealing with the District at least you have a rather unique animal because of the presence of Federal facilities and the obligation that comes with that.
In the fiscal year 1995—well, first let me ask you a question about the aqueduct, which supplies water to the immediate region, 15 percent of whose water goes to Federal facilities from the White House across the board. Can I ask you what is the condition of the aqueduct at this time?
Secretary LANCASTER. First of all, Ms. Norton, the aqueduct is actually in very good condition, and in fact though parts of it are very old, the aqueduct itself, the treatment facilities, are in excellent condition. We, of course, realized that because of its age major upgrades will be necessary in the immediate future, and that the current pay-as-you-go policy that applies to the aqueduct to undertake those major initiatives, will lead to incredibly high water rates in the short-term. And we believe that not only is there a responsibility to look at the aqueduct from a policy perspective, whether or not the Corps of Engineers should be providing water to any local government because this is the only place in the country where we do that, we also have a responsibility to that citizenry to provide water at affordable rates. With the existing policy, unless it is modified, that will not be the case once those projects are undertaken.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So we have a two-fold determination that has to be made in cooperation with the jurisdictions that are involved and the Congress, and that is, first of all, how we will proceed to hand off this responsibility to an authority or to some other entity other than the Corps of Engineers. And also how can we finance the infrastructure, improvements and upgrades that are necessary not because of any danger to the users now, but simply because we all know that the system is getting older and that these upgrades must be made without crippling the economy of this region because of outrages water rates?
So we have a really incredibly complex and difficult issue to deal with, but the Corps is certainly committed and my office is committed to working with the jurisdictions involved, and with the Congress, in fashioning a solution that does make appropriate governance and ownership changes and also results in safe, affordable water to the users.
Ms. NORTON. Yes, there is a big challenge here because we have the Federal interest, and we have the interest of the District, we have the interest of some counties in Virginia.
Are you aware of the Warner bill that has passed in the Senate?
Secretary LANCASTER. As it relates to the aqueduct?
Ms. NORTON. Yes, the Warner bill that would allow the repairs to go forward with a borrowing from the Treasury repaid by the users, and that has passed the Senate? And are you aware that I have introduced the same bill in the House?
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Secretary LANCASTER. I am aware of the legislation in the Senate and of your interest in considering similar legislation in the House. There, of course, is controversy between OMB and CBO as to how such a borrowing scheme would be scored, which creates policy problems to be taken into account. But, again, we have to address the issue, and we are committed to working with you, with the House, with the Senate and with the local jurisdictions to find an appropriate solution.
Ms. NORTON. And you are aware that when it comes to scoring as between OMB and CBO, the one thing that has been settled is that CBO is the ultimate scorer?
Secretary LANCASTER. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. NORTON. Would you regard the Warner bill among the possible approaches as one feasible approach?
Secretary LANCASTER. It is certainly a feasible approach, and if that is the will of the Congress, the Corps of Engineers is prepared to work along those lines. To be honest, we believe that the appropriate course here is to transfer this entire system to an entity other than the Federal Government for operation and for the future improvements that are needed.
Ms. NORTON. Are you aware that each of the aqueduct's customer jurisdictions have expressed a strong preference for maintaining Federal ownership with Federal financing of capitol improvements?
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, I am aware of that, and, of course, we believe that the reason for that is because the Corps has done such a good job in providing water for distribution in these jurisdictions. But I think a policy determination has to be made whether or not it is appropriate for the Corps of Engineers to continue to provide water to local communities in this region when they are not doing so anywhere else in the country.
Ms. NORTON. Just for the record, I want to note again that this region is the capital region of the United States. I put that on the record because the Congress freely acknowledges its power and authority when it wants to assert it against the District, but when the District is in the kind of financial shape it is and needs the help of the Congress, then, of course, somehow that central concept recedes.
Mr. HORN. We will have a second round of questions. I'm going to have to now, to make sure we get everybody else in, yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bateman.
Mr. BATEMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me welcome my former colleague on the Armed Services Committee in his new capacity. I would say to him that I always regarded you as one of the most constructive and capable members of that committee and enjoyed our very good working relationship when you were there. I anticipate that we will continue to have that relationship.
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BATEMAN. I also want to commend you for what you've already accomplished it would appear in getting the Administration to rethink its position on the continuing authorities program. You point out very, very correctly that these small projects affect small communities and regions which are absolutely incapable of providing things that are absolutely vital to sustaining the quality of life for any economic viability in so many communities. So I am especially gratified that it appears that that is being rethought.
Having said that, I don't have any large policy questions that were prompted by the testimony you've made this morning. So I will simply say that at some time in the future I hope that you will have a chance to get together and discuss specific and matters of large concern to the First Congressional District of Virginia, but not necessarily something that needs to occupy the time of the committee and Secretary this morning.
Secretary LANCASTER. I have always enjoyed working with you, Mr. Bateman, and look forward to doing so in the future.
Thank you.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you.
Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman and now yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Poshard.
Mr. POSHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Assistant Secretary, I too want to welcome you to the committee and congratulate you on your appointment and also as a personal friend wish you well in your endeavors. I've very much enjoyed the time of service in this body with you over the years.
I don't have any questions particularly, but I do want to say this and I also want to say it to General Genega. In my district we have the Olmstead Lock and Dam project going on on the Ohio River. It has taken a little bit—because of the flooding situation a couple of years ago to get going, but I just want to congratulate the Corps of Engineers on the tremendous job that they are doing with that project. It's a huge project replacing a couple of old locks and dams. It's been in place since the 1930s. The cost-to-benefit ratio on that project was I think nearly 2 to 1. It's going to be a wonderful thing for commerce all up and down the Ohio River, and Colonel Greco, the people out of Louisville, the Corps district, have done a marvelous job in working with us on that project, and I just want to thank the Corps for the progress they have made.
My district has experienced a lot of flooding problems on the Embarrass River, the Wabash River, particularly the last few years, and the Corps has been excellent in terms of the work with the local levy districts and others with respect to these projects. So I know sometimes we have adversarial relationships in this business because we have to work with each other on highly complicated projects, but there are times when people also deserve a pat on the shoulder, and I've been very proud of the Corps' work. I happen to have one of those districts where we have three Corps districts—Memphis, Louisville and St. Louis—and they have all done just superb work, and I'm saying that not in a patronizing way, but it's been an agency with whom we work closely because we have great needs in our area and the Corps has just been an outstanding bunch of people to work with.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So I particularly wanted to let you know that because I know you will be in your new job, and I know General Genega in his present work deals with all those districts very closely, but they are to be commended. They're very professional people. They've done a great service to our communities, and I appreciate it.
Secretary LANCASTER. I share your assessment and thank you for those kind words, as I am sure the Corps does.
Mr. POSHARD. Thank you, Mr. Assistant Secretary.
Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman and now yield to a guest from the Full Committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus.
Mr. BACHUS. I certainly appreciate this opportunity to participate, and welcome back, Martin. It's good to see you.
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you.
Mr. BACHUS. I also welcome Major General Genega to the Committee.
Martin, I have a question and then I want to share something with you, and earlier you testified about Congressman Hilliard. This is actually about a project in his district, but the city is right across the river from my district, and so I am aware of it. It is a Northport levee, and my question—I guess I can ask, and it's one of those questions where, you know, I will ask it and then you will respond, and then I will get into it.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Is the Corps doing any feasibility studies, any new feasibility studies this year?
Secretary LANCASTER. You know, first of all, I am not familiar with that particular project. If General Genega wishes to respond, I will be happy to yield to him. I am sure he is more familiar than I.
General GENEGA. I think you're referring to the Section 205 project for levees and flood control there, sir. And Northport has been frankly caught up in the issue referred to by the Chairman some time ago of the lack of adequate funds in the continuing authorities program.
What we did in that program was complete a phase, try to at least to put a bow around a package, so to speak, so that in the future if funds became available, we could continue from there, and that is where we find ourselves with Northport.
Mr. BACHUS. Let me share with you, Assistant Secretary, and Major General, and sort of give you an idea of what we see.
We understand that the Corps may be doing feasibility studies and new feasibility studies, but they're not doing any design studies, and what we have at Northport we have an area—it's one of the oldest cities in the State of Alabama. The oldest standing state capitol is within a mile of the site. The oldest public road in the State is within the site. One of the oldest railroad trussers in the south or really in the Nation is there. It's a historical monument, or memorial or whatever is there. The oldest train depot in the State is there. There have been over $900,000 worth of historical preservation spent in the last 3 or 4 years on the site. There are three public schools. There is a public housing project. The public housing project for that whole side of the county is located in the area, and what we have is a situation where the Corps—and this was with great rejoicing back in Northport—they authorized a feasibility study. I have a thing that was prepared by the city in Northport, and they came up and testified before Tom Bevill and John Myers and the subcommittee yesterday. They spent $600,000 of their own money on the feasibility study. They spent—there was $180,000 worth of ISTEA grants from the states to acquire—they actually went out and acquired land. You had a flood in 1979 that actually did millions and millions of dollars worth of damage, and they had pictures of that. Part of that is the historical flooding, but then the city of Birmingham is upstream. There has been a lot of urban and suburban development.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
But I say all this to say I even went out on the floor of the House when we were considering money for the Mississippi River and the flooding and said, ''I can tell you that the cost benefit is wonderful because it is going to revitalize a city that is in a county I represent.'' You know, I used it as the example, and I thought it was just a wonderful program.
Basically, what we have is we spent a million and a half dollars worth of state and local funds, and the Corps spent about $300,000. They did a cost benefit and said it was great, and we were going to start building the levee. The Small Business Administration has loaned people money to develop businesses in the area, and then we just sort of stopped and we're not going to do it.
And I guess what I'm saying is why would we continue to do feasibility studies for other projects when we've got one that we spent—I've got $1,800,000? Now that doesn't include SBA and just sort of break that one off.
Secretary LANCASTER. Mr. Bachus, the problem is it is not a question of breaking off this project or the many others that are in the same situation. What the Corps decided to do because of the shortage of funds was to simply complete discrete phases of the process, and to not begin new stages in other projects. What we've done here, I believe from what General Genega is saying, is we have finished a phase. We are now awaiting the additional funds because we're out of money to go to the next phase, which would be designed. It is not that a decision has been made not to build this project or to not build any of these projects, but we simply took a position on all of our studies and completed the phase we were in and will now await further funding before we go to the next stage. That applies at Northport, as it does in many Congressional districts all over the country because we just simply don't have the money.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BACHUS. One thing that—and then I'll conclude. One thing that strikes me is if we are doing new feasibility studies for brand new projects and we're not spending money on existing projects——
Secretary LANCASTER. But the fact of the matter is we're not beginning new studies.
Mr. BACHUS. No new feasibility studies?
Secretary LANCASTER. We are simply completing the phase that we were in when were faced with the shortfall.
Mr. BACHUS. Okay, that clarifies that.
The next question I would say is—and this is the same thing—the city of Northport, the city council has approved $400,000 worth of money to go on this project if the can get it paid back. That's what the Corps says the next phase will need, and the city—and this sort of shows you how important it is—they said we will do it. We will basically put the money in, but we would like to be assure that if we sort of put the Federal money in, that when the money becomes available, we will be paid back. I would like you to look at that type of an arrangement.
Secretary LANCASTER. We will look at that. I don't know if that would be possible, but we would certainly be glad to look at it.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BACHUS. I will tell you they are willing to do that. They are basically ready to fund the project.
Secretary LANCASTER. Okay.
Mr. HORN. The gentlewoman from Missouri, Ms. McCarthy. Welcome.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief out of consideration of the schedule that our subcommittee is trying to keep, but I wanted to join in the welcoming of Mr. Lancaster.
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I am a new member from the water rich State of Missouri in the Missouri River Basin, and I certainly appreciate the partnership which we as a state has forged with the Corps as a result of the recent disastrous floods to our greater Missouri and particularly to my community, Kansas City, and the suburbans thereon.
I appreciate also the thought that you're using in approaching the Missouri River Basin and the best use of those flows means a great deal, as we are the last use state of that great river before it joins the Mississippi on the east of our great state. So I look forward to working with you in that regard.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I regret that I never had the honor of serving with you in the Congress, but I think you are certainly an honor to us all in this new role, and I look forward to that cooperative effort.
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you very much. So do I.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HORN. You are quite welcome.
We are going to start the second round of questioning, and not everybody has a question. I have one or two to begin this round.
On the Washington Aqueduct the Corps, as I remember, checks, what, about 21 or so sites around town as to the quality of water coming out of the distribution.
Is there any thought to maybe doing a random sample of the quality of water coming out of various houses and apartments and would that make a difference? We think we're protecting knowledge about the distribution lines, at least fed by the aqueduct into the system of the city, but is there any concern that anybody has or is worried about on the quality of water we're ultimately getting? It might not be the Corps' problem. It might be in older house or it might be in older apartment complexes. What is the thinking?
Secretary LANCASTER. We do test at those sites that you've identified. We do not do testing, however, that is site specific at apartment complexes or businesses or individual developments. The distribution system is in fact not the role of the Corps. We are in fact a wholesale provider of water to these various jurisdictions, and they then buy that water and distribute it.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
However, it is my understanding that though there have been comments that are alarmist in nature, that in fact the water that is being provided is very pure water. And if there are problems, it is something that is beyond our control, but we are very concerned about it any time that occurs and we are also very concerned that there has been some alarmist debate on this issue that we believe is not deserved.
Mr. HORN. I take it you and General Genega are drinking out of the system and not just using bottled water?
[Laughter.]
Mr. HORN. I just—when I see you start using it, I'm going to get worried. Right now I'm drinking out of the system too.
Secretary LANCASTER. I am in fact—my home is in fact on the system.
Mr. HORN. Okay. Well, one last question for my part just to round out the record is the ability to pay considerations on the flood control projects. You will recall in the Water Resources bill in 1986 the Congress directed the Corps to develop procedures for sponsors of flood control projects, agricultural water supply projects, so that their ability to pay the designated non-Federal share would be considered and the share potentially reduced.
It seems, however, that the procedures that the Corps have developed simply have not had much impact or utility for communities that need the help the most. In other words, few sponsors have been able to have their shares reduced. It was Congress' intent to have reasonable yet attainable reductions in cost sharing in those cases where a potential sponsor lacked the means to pay.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So the question is with the Administration now proposing to increase non-Federal cost sharing even further, do you have any plans to revisit the ability to pay rules to make them more responsive to community needs and ability to pay?
Secretary LANCASTER. Well, we believe that the reason that this provision has not been greatly utilized in the past is because of the higher Federal cost share. We believe that appropriate cooperation agreements have been reached that took that into account where appropriate, but that in many cases it was not appropriate because of the percentage that was being used without regard to ability to pay.
However, we are certainly mindful of the fact that there will be more communities that are affected as the non-Federal share goes up and believe that we can appropriately and fairly apply the regulations that are in place based on WRDA 1986 in those situations.
If it is found that that is not the case, if we—or if this body determines that there are communities that are being denied projects because of ability to pay and because of the regulations that are in place, then we certainly would revisit that issue and would want to be responsive because we recognize that ability to pay is a legitimate consideration to be taken into account and that it should be fairly applied and in a manner that would guarantee that projects that should be built will be built.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, 5 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and continuing on this question of cost sharing and changes in policy—and that's the kind of thing that would give us the greatest heartburn as we proceed through to mark-up of the legislation in bringing it through the House floor.
Your statement on page two referencing the discontinuation of maintenance of local merchant use harbors and acknowledging that there are communities that are dependent upon those harbors for economic activity, and it continues saying, ''There are areas outside the continental United States where a community because of its geographic location receives most of its subsistence needs from its harbor.''
Without being specific about that, outside the continental United States could likely mean Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. What about Alaska? Is that what you had in mind?
Secretary LANCASTER. Alaska as well. Alaska is included because there are communities in Alaska that are accessable only by water and would be in the definition of subsistence communities.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Many of those communities that are just absolutely dependent upon their harbor?
Secretary LANCASTER. Right.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. OBERSTAR. Second, you talk about increasing non-Federal cost share for flood control projects. Is 50–50 under consideration? Is a higher number under consideration?
Secretary LANCASTER. 50–50 is under consideration, but it is still under consideration.
Mr. OBERSTAR. What's the rough time frame within which you expect to know?
Secretary LANCASTER. We hope by the middle of March at about the same time that the budget detail is released, and that will be a part of it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Next your testimony talks about a caveat that Federal or non-Federal cost share will, quote, ''Apply only to those projects for which project cost sharing agreements have not been executed.''
We all know that there are stages of execution, stages of implementation. What is the stage of implementation that you are talking about?
Secretary LANCASTER. This would be at the project cooperation agreement stage. You've got to draw the line somewhere, and we feel that if we are truly to have an impact on deficit reduction, that we have to draw the line there. Because Corps projects are over several years if we grandfather everything that is under consideration, it will be 20 or 30 years before any deficit reduction benefit is realized because of a change in the cost share.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I think it's very important to choose, to come down to a definitive point that is fair and that applies to everybody and doesn't have a fudge factor in there because I know what's going to happen. This committee will be inundated by members saying, ''Oh, get me in under the——
Secretary LANCASTER. Yes, and that was the reason we chose the project cooperation agreement because that is a definite time and is the time where the decision is made whether or not to proceed.
Mr. OBERSTAR. So does that mean after the signing of the agreement or prior to signing?
Secretary LANCASTER. That would be a part of the negotiation, but it would be expected that all agreements not yet signed would be at the new cost share.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Martin, and in all fairness, I think it best to hold off other questions I have that arose out of your testimony until such time as you actually do promulgate the new policy. Then I think we could have extensive review of it.
But thank you for your frankness, candor and straightforwardness and demonstrating already a quick and sure grasp of your new responsibilities.
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you.
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HORN. Does the gentleman from Virginia have any further questions or does the gentleman from Alabama have any further questions?
Mr. BACHUS. I would just like permission to place in the record a statement from Congressman Earl Hayard about the same project.
Mr. HORN. Without objection, so ordered.
Does the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Poshard, have any further questions?
Mr. POSHARD. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HORN. Does the gentlewoman from Missouri have any further questions?
Ms. MCCARTHY. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HORN. If not, we thank you. You've done a splendid job in your initiation——
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was not nearly as painful as I thought it might be.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[Laughter.]
Mr. HORN. We thank you for coming and we wish you well. You've got a good team.
Secretary LANCASTER. Thank you.
General GENEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HORN. The next panel, panel two, is the Port of Houston, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association and the Port of Portland, as well as the State of Oregon and the Intel Corporation.
We welcome all of you of panel two, and I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn, to introduce one of his guests.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, let me first congratulate you on your leadership in bringing this legislation before the subcommittee, and I appreciate the opportunity to introduce my constituent, Don Welch, who will testify on behalf of the South Carolina State Ports Authority.
I also want you to know how much I appreciate the professional and responsive manner in which both the majority and minority staffs have assisted in bringing this matter before the subcommittee.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Welch will articulate, the Port of Charleston is the second largest container port on the east and Gulf coast of the United States. Its impact upon the economy of South Carolina is tremendous providing thousands of direct and indirect jobs. The legislation before the subcommittee will have an immense effect upon the Port of Charleston and other such facilities across the country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another more immediate consideration, which I wish to call to the attention of the subcommittee. The Department of Energy recently announced plans to use Charleston Harbor as the port of entry for the receipt of spent research nuclear fuel being returned to the United States. This deadly cargo will pass through Charleston Harbor before being off loaded in the Charleston Naval Weapon station to be transported over land to the Savannah River site.
Now, Mr. Chairman, South Carolinians are patriots. We have loved and defended freedom from the time Carolina was given its laws by King Charles II. It is therefore not surprising that South Carolina has borne far more than its fair share of the nuclear arsenal, but, Mr. Chairman, I submit to you today that it would be unwise and unfair to expect South Carolina to receive this highly radioactive material from Eastern European countries without providing the resources necessary to ensure that these shipments are safe as humanly possible.
By including authorization addressing the needs of Charleston Harbor in the Water Resources Development Act and by working to see this legislation implemented, we could help make this process as safe as possible.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you and the distinguished members for your leadership. I look forward to working with you on this important matter, and I am pleased now to present to you Mr. Welch.
Mr. BOEHLERT [resuming Chair]. Thank you very much, and now for the purposes of our introduction, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have the honor of introducing three people on the panel representing Northwest interest, and I'll briefly make the case for the remarks they're going to make.
Dan James, the Federal Affairs Representative of Vancouver, Washington; and then the Director of the Port of Portland, Mike Thorne; and, finally, Keith Leavitt, representing the State of Oregon, Manager of Ports and Transportation Development.
Mr. Chairman, the key—oh, Mike Salsgiver. Well, I forgot about your new role, Mike. You've gone straight on us here, so to speak. I appreciate having you back in a different capacity.
Mike Salsgiver, formerly an esteemed aide to the esteemed retiring Senator from Oregon, Mark Hatfield.
Mr. Chairman, I will just briefly—I don't want to summarize our testimony, but there are a few points that are key, I believe, to the committee. Certainly, it's a time of tight budgets and certainly we've got to look everywhere we can to save money, but there are some shortsighted places to cut, and those particularly go to maintenance dredging, the Dredge Hopper fleet and other things that keep open our vital arteries of commerce which lead to the largest markets now, in terms of dollars, for American exports being in Asia, as opposed to and having eclipsed the European markets recently.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The fact is that the Asian markets are even outgrowing well back into the midwest and toward the South that are tributaries to the Columbia River system in Oregon and Washington, and we need to be assured that we are providing the access for the Hopper fleets of the future for the Columbia River system. That means maintaining the channel now, expediting, if possible, the channel deepening for the Columbia River, maintaining the minimum dredge fleets and other investments on the coast for smaller ports, channel deepening, in Newport and other areas that need water and other Corps maintenance.
I am a balanced budget Democrat, and I've been there for a long time, but I believe that we can find the money to continue these Federal, state, private, international trade partnerships, and in fact believe that it would be folly for us not to find those funds and continue those investments. So I look forward to working with the committee to be assured that these projects go forward.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. DeFazio.
I would ask the witnesses to indulge somewhat. We have some dynamics of Washington underway today, a major bill on the floor of the House, so members are in and out. We have a long list of witnesses on several panels so I would ask that you try to summarize your important message in 5 minutes or less, and we're going to be pretty arbitrary about that or else we will be here until the midnight hour.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Knowing full well that your full statement will be in the record, and the people who are most important to this process, the professional staff people, will read those statements in their entirety and consider them, and we will be back to you with follow-up questions in writing if we find that appropriate in terms of our search for the best evidence we can get to help us with this important assignment.
So please don't think we're giving you short shrift. We do care about what you have to say. Your points of view will be considered, and we will try to be responsible on a bipartisan basis in fashioning the best possible bill for 1996.
With that, Mr. Williamson, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE T. WILLIAMSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY, HOUSTON, TX; W. DON WELCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY, CHARLESTON, SC; DAN JAMES, FEDERAL AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION, VANCOUVER, WA; MIKE THORNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF PORTLAND, OR; KEITH A. LEAVITT, PORTS DIVISION MANAGER, OREGON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SALEM, OR; AND MICHAEL K. SALSGIVER, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER, INTEL CORPORATION, HILLSBORO, OR
Mr. WILLIAMSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee.
Mr. name is George Williamson, and I'm the Managing Director of the Port of Houston, and on behalf of the 196,000 Americans whose jobs depend on the activity of the Houston ship channel, I am pleased to be here and have an opportunity to testify on behalf of our project, which is the deepening and widening of the Houston ship channel.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
For those of you who may not be familiar with us, Houston is the largest port in the United States for foreign tonnage. It is the second largest port in the Nation for overall tonnage. Last year we had in excess of 5,000 vessels, 50,000 barges transit the waterway delivering 142 million tons of cargo.
It provides an economic impact of $5.5 billion a year and generates $300 million in customs fees per year.
While it is one of the busiest channels in the United States, it also has not been improved since 1966. Currently, it is 400 feet wide and 40 feet deep. Our proposal is to widen it to 530 feet and deepen it to 45 feet to accommodate changes in transportation and the bigger ships, and most importantly, safety issues that concern navigation.
As the ships get larger, there are a number of reasons why we must expand it from 400 to 530 feet, not the least of which is to allow a greater distance between the vessels as the pass each other, to accommodate the ability of these vessels to turn in and out of ancillary channels, to be able to navigate better during adverse weather conditions and to increase the margin of safety when coping with emergencies.
The Port Authority has been working with the Corps of Engineers, resource agencies and environmental groups to assure that this project will not only be environmental sound but will actually improve the environment. The Port Authority at this point would like to take the opportunity to thank the Corps of Engineers and the resource agencies who have been involved in this work for a terrific job and an awful lot of wonderful cooperation through this project.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
What is unique about ours is that in the late 1980s the Port Authority and the Corps of Engineers developed an interagency coordination team to address environmental concerns with the project, a process that was advocated by environmental groups and various resource agencies. This was unprecedented. They formed a subcommittee called the Beneficial Users Group, which were charged with the developing of a disposal plan to utilize dredged material in an environmentally sound and economically acceptable manner that also incorporated public benefits into the design. Most important was the port's committed objective, and that is the final plan would have to have a net positive environmental impact over the life of the project.
We are pleased to report that this interagency coordination team unanimously approved the beneficial use plan for disposal of dredged material from the Houston ship channel as one that will have a net positive impact on the environment.
The approach utilized by the Beneficial Users Group for Galveston Bay makes this effort unique and precedent setting. What was being attempted had never been done before. Most importantly, the group actively solicited beneficial use suggestions from environmental interests and bay user groups. This project is being applauded across the maritime and environmental communities. The project is ready for a Water Resources Development bill.
All of the required studies on this improvement project have been completed. The review periods for public comment produced several noteworthy, positive comments including praise for the beneficial use plan by the Galveston Bay Foundation and other environmental groups. Most significant is the fact that the supplemental environmental impact statement on this project netted no negative comments during public review.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The review from the agencies, the same agencies who unanimously approved the project and the plan, will be completed March 12. The Corps then begins its internal process to develop the final Chief Engineers report, and we anticipate that that report will be available and that it will also be positive. In case there is a paper delay in developing the Chief's report, we would ask this subcommittee to allow us to include it in the WRDA bill as it stands, and we would make it subject to the Corps' report when it comes in but we are confident that it will be there on time.
In conclusion, our project has not only addressed environmental concerns, but it has gone several steps further to ensure that this project will have a net positive environmental impact on the Galveston Bay. It has been determined by the Corps to have a benefit-to-cost ratio of greater than 2 to 1. It has the support of the local community, as witnessed by a vote for our share of the funding that also passed by a 2 to 1 margin. The disposal plan has been approved by all of the state and Federal agencies who have worked on the project. It has widespread bipartisan support, and the support of the Texas Governor, George Bush, and the project shows what can be accomplished when public agencies, community groups and individuals work together. The time now has come for action on this project. We appreciate the subcommittee's interest in allowing us to testify, and we look forward to realizing its completion with your help.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Williamson, for an outstanding summary, and you make a very good lead off hitter because the green light is still on. You did it within your time constraints, and I appreciate that. I also want to commend you and your associates for paying particular attention to environmental concerns as you go forward with this project.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. WILLIAMSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Welch?
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to make a presentation before this committee.
I am from South Carolina. I am the Executive Director of the Port Authority, and I sometimes think that the Port of Charleston is pretty much South Carolina, but I'm sure it isn't. It's one of the most major economic assets that we have.
South Carolina is not a wealthy State, and it's not a large State. We spend a lot of time and effort in planning and executing to utilize the resources we have, and the water resources are extraordinarily important to South Carolina. The Port of Charleston is historical. It goes way back to before this country was founded, and it brings up to the present time as being the second largest of the container ports on the Eastern Gulf coast of the United States.
The economic impact, yes, it is very significant for our State providing 78,000 jobs, $11 billion per year in economic impact. That is a significant part of the total wealth of our state.
Over a million TEUs moved through the port last year, and that is very significant. This is very significant. This is merchandize trade of high value and international commerce. It comes from 26 States of the United States through the Port of Charleston and throughout to more than 100 countries in the world.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The problem is very simple. The ships are getting larger, and longer, and deeper, and it is absolutely essential to deepen the channels to accommodate this new technology of ship building. We currently have ships 965 feet long drawing 41 to 42 feet of water coming into the port. Some of them have to take advantage of a tide with a delay, and the next generation of ships are going from 41 to 46 feet, and the next generation is almost immediately on us within the next 2 to 3 years.
Now there is something very fundamental about the physics of it. A ship cannot float if the water isn't deep enough. It goes to ground—that's very simple. What we're asking for is the authorization to take the Charleston channels down to 45 feet. All the work has been done by the Corps of Engineers, as well as the environmental agencies to prepare this project. The final step is the Chief's report, and we understand its under preparation and will be forthcoming in time for consideration and would ask the same thing—that the Charleston deepening project to 45 feet be entered into your record as conditional on the Chief's report, which we know will be very, very positive.
I can't really say more than that. It is certainly an investment for the country that will pay great dividends. The statistics on the last deepening of Charleston Harbor where we went from 35 to 40 feet, and the Federal Government's share of that was $33 million. The State put up its share.
Now, in exchange for that money spent on the deepening, the U.S. Federal Government received since 1987 $3 billion in U.S. customs receipts at the Port of Charleston. Now that is a pretty good return any time you can make an investment of $33 million and get $3 billion back, and that's the nature of this type of thing. It isn't just for fun; it's for business and it's for the business of this country. It's for the business of thousands of importers, and exporters and people who earn their livelihood in international business.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So that's the critical nature of it to our State, and it is also the critical nature of it to many states with ports that serve the economic interest of this country. We urge the consideration and would appreciate it very much.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. BATEMAN [assuming Chair]. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
Mr. James.
Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing my organization and our panel to appear before you today.
PNWA represents ports, tug and barge lines, river, shippers, electric utilities, manufacturers and agriculture and forest product producers along the Oregon-Washington coast, the Puget Sound and the Columbia Snake River System and throughout the Pacific Northwest. We do appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, and we also wish to express our support for the committee's efforts to pass a bill this year.
Before I begin my testimony this morning, I would like to acknowledge the recent flooding in the Pacific Northwest. It was apparent very early on that damage to communities, businesses and infrastructure would have been much greater were it not for the Federal dams and other Corps structures. We believe that they have proven to be a wise investment and for many a protection from total devastation.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Thank you for your continued support of dams, which return important flood control, hydropower navigation and irrigation benefits to the Pacific Northwest and the Nation. And thank you to the Corps of Engineers for what they have done so far and what they are continuing to do as our region recovers.
Now I would like to discuss several items that are included in my written testimony:
We wish to support the continuing authorities programs and ongoing construction and operations in maintenance for the Federally authorized navigation channels in the Columbia Snake River system, the Washington-Oregon coastal ports and Puget Sound. We urge the committee to resist any proposals which would reduce or eliminate Corps authority to deliver services, including the maintenance of both inland waterways and shallow and deep draft ports and harbors.
We encourage the committee to maintain the four Federal harbor dredges operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The coastal and river ports of the Pacific Northwest rely heavily on the regional placement, responsiveness and capacity of those dredges. We wish to express our support for the Columbia River channel deepening project and our hope to move it ahead quickly, but you will hear more about that project from my colleagues.
We support several items included in testimony presented yesterday, including the proposal to cap the local cost contribution during the feasibility stage. We support proposals to provide for the equitable local Federal cost sharing of all dredge material disposal options, and we also support cost sharing for the dredging, management and disposal of in place contaminated sediments or other environmental remediation in critical port and harbor areas.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to review a number of issues important to the economic and environmental prosperity in our region, and, again, several other items are included in our written statement, which has been submitted.
Thank you.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. James.
Mr. Thorne.
Mr. THORNE. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Mike Thorne, and I'm the Executive Director of the Port of Portland. My testimony today in addition reflects the views of the seven lower Columbia River ports in both Oregon and Washington.
First, let me extend my personal appreciation for this opportunity, as was just mentioned by my colleague, the Corps needs to be commended for the dam systems. The floods we experienced in the Pacific Northwest, it was estimated that without the dams there could have been as much as six to eight feet of water in downtown Portland. So every once in a while we need a reminder from Mother Nature of how important that system is.
In my brief comments I want to stress essentially four things, two I'll talk about and two are in the written comments, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time. Specifically, I want to call attention to the Columbia River deepening project, as was referred to, and to call specific need to keep the feasibility study and the project moving forward quickly. Brief comments about the need to reassert the importance of the Corps of Engineers' role in maintenance of our navigation channels. My written comments address the Hooper fleet and also a feasibility cost share improvement plan that we've recommended.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Foreign trade is an increasingly important part of the U.S. economy, and that is particularly the case in my region. The Columbia River system, which exports more than it imports, is a strong contributor to our national trade picture. Improving and maintaining our waterways is a linchpin to access an overseas market.
We expect our national trade significance to continue. Today the Columbia River system can count many strengths, including strong export volumes, good transportation and intermodal connections from our region to other parts of the Nation and relatively uncongested ports and harbors, which means that we can provide timely service for just in time manufacturing.
On the down side, specifically, one weakness is the fact that our rivers are currently at 40 feet, and there is a need to move forward to deepen it, as we are requesting.
Nearly a decade ago we began planning what is called the Columbia River Improvement Project knowing larger vessels were coming. Well, reality has caught up with us—the vessels are here today. At present the new larger container and grain ships calling in Portland and other Columbia River ports often must leave only partially loaded. This so-called ''light loading'' means export cargo is left on the docks, and vessels are not used to their maximum efficiency.
A major of what that equates to is each foot of draft amounts to 2,000 tons of cargo, which is unable to be carried. That translates into a dollar amount of approximately $325,000 per foot for grain not moved and about $2.5 million per foot of containerized cargo that is not moved.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The cargo left sitting in the docks when the ships leaves has essentially lost business for U.S. shipping lines, as well as lost business for U.S. manufacturers. To even more significantly graph what I mean, Portland is now the number one harbor for wheat export from the United States. Much of the midland heartland of this country moves their grain products to the Asian market through Portland, and we are the second largest distribution center on the West Coast, second only to the Los Angeles area.
My second point, Mr. Chairman, briefly is to encourage this subcommittee to give the Corps of Engineers the financial means to take a more proactive approach in its advanced maintenance program. Rather than allowing channels to show less than depth project depths before beginning maintenance, let's encourage the Corps to be more proactive. A clear statement from the Congress that the Corps' responsibility is to assure project depth and authorize channels at all times would be a great step forward and a step in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I will close and refer the committee to my written comments. Again, thank you for the opportunity, and we'll turn over to our next panel, which, by the way, are pleased to be here as a part of public and private interest representing the same theme.
Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Thorne.
Mr. Leavitt.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LEAVITT. Mr. Chairman, members, Keith Leavitt, Ports Division Manager for the State of Oregon, Economic Development Department. I am here to represent the interest of the State of Oregon in support of a Water Resources bill this year and in hopes that we begin an every other year schedule once again for this authorizing legislation. It is very important to our State.
I want to talk about three quick items: one is the importance of dredging to the smaller ports, as well as our trade position; number two is the ongoing navigation projects that the State has a program to do the cost-sharing on; number three will be the Hopper dredges.
Dredging in Oregon is very important. We have 23 ports in Oregon along the Oregon Coast and the Columbia River. The coastal ports are small. However, they depend heavily on the dredging for safe access by fishing vessels into and out of the ocean resources. We have a very viable fishing fleet in the State of Oregon. These ports are very concerned about Corps initiatives that have come forward in the past that would do away with smaller port dredging. It was nice to hear the Assistant Secretary say that we need to look at that issue, and we feel that most of our ports can come forward with the economic benefit standards that would meet that criteria, and we look forward to working with the Corps on that.
Dredging also affects our State in a more macro way. Our economy, as Mr. Thorne alluded to, is dependent on trade and we definitely need to have operation and maintenance dredging going on, particularly in the lower Columbia River deep draft channel in order to maintain that competitive position in trade.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The State of Oregon not only supports these projects, but we also in 1989 began the Marine Navigation Improvement Fund, which helps us back up our talk with dollars. We've committed millions and millions of dollars so far to be the cost sharer in a lot of these projects and in particular we have a channel deepening project at the Port of Coos Bay on the Oregon Coast, a break water project at the Port of Newport on the Oregon Coast, and then the most important being the channel improvement project on the lower Columbia River.
This cost sharing is something we are very concerned about. It was also interesting to hear the Assistant Secretary talk about that as well. We're very interested in any changes that might happen in cost sharing in hopes that we can help control costs, and in our case the State of Oregon has really stepped up to the plate with funds prior to these projects actually being funded by the Federal Government. So we would urge the Federal Government to join us in that commitment.
With the minimum Hopper dredge fleet there are four Hopper dredges operated and owned by the Corps around the country. We have two in Oregon—in the Northwest we've been very well served. We have dredging needs a lot of times that come up through emergency. Emergency responses are a very serious issue for us in the Northwest, and we saw that with the floods. The Corps anticipates extra maintenance dredging needed based on those floods. So we pay very close attention to this debate over and between the private dredging contractors and public fleet, and we look forward to working with our friends in the private industry to come up with a package that will work for both sides, and, hopefully, in the WRDA bill this year.
That concludes my comments, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you. You've all done an excellent job of condensing a great deal of information into a short period of time.
Mr. Salsgiver.
Mr. SALSGIVER. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I am Mike Salsgiver, Government Affairs Manager for Intel in Hillsboro, Oregon. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before your subcommittee today.
To be very brief, Intel is an industry targeted by the State of Oregon for expansion and location in Oregon, the hi-tech industry. Intel began its Oregon operations in Hillsboro, Oregon in 1976. Since that time we have grown to become a 6 campus site with over 8,500 employees. We are now Intel's largest site in the world.
Over the next 10 years, Intel will be investing over $2 billion in Oregon alone with our new research and development facilities. A key to the decision to expand our operations in Oregon was the presence of a truly global intermodal transportation system that the Port of Portland represents. And so to maintain our global leadership in the microprocessor industry, Intel has a very strong interest in seeing the port's facilities maintained and improved, in being made more efficient and cost-effective.That transportation system is crucial to allowing us to compete.
Our industry is one which operates literally at light speed. From a financial and economic standpoint, we have product cycles that are often half the time of most decision cycles in government. We need efficient and cost-effective support systems in place, and so for that reason first, we are strongly encouraging this committee, to move forward in authorizing the Columbia River deepening project. It is vital to the Port and the region that the project move forward.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Second, I want to echo Mr. Leavitt's comments: we strongly encourage the committee to move forward in resuming the regular cycle of Water Resource Development Acts that Congress has enacted in the past.
This is vital to us. In the Pacific Northwest, we've seen, as this panel has mentioned, the value of this system with the floods we've just experienced. We've seen what happens when the river is that full. That is not how we want to float our ships. We need a deeper channel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Salsgiver, and thanks to all the members of the panel.
Mr. Salsgiver, there is a certain district in Virginia, the Virginia First District, where I think you would find a wonderful home for the expansion of your activities for you to join some other corporations such as yours in doing outstanding things with outstanding resources to support you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BATEMAN. Let me ask a generic question of all of you that boggles me a bit. The capability of naval architects to build and design ships that are larger, wider and deeper draft apparently has little or no limitation except for the channels that such ships have to operate in.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Is there some point when the market place and the world of reality is going to have to limit how deep and how big ocean carrying vessels are going to go? How can we as public policy makers have an impact there? We, obviously, are reaching a point where we have undiminished needs for public works projects, water projects, but we're facing diminishing resources.
How long can we be expected to continue to provide more and more and more just because somebody can design it so that it needs more and more and more? There has got to be something where the world of reality and public policy and public finance sort of have an opportunity to see that we're really making sound decisions?
Does anyone have any comments to offer?
Mr. WELCH. I've lived through four generations of these containerships, and I think the fifth one is on the way now. We've asked ourselves the same questions many, many times—what do we have to do to gear up for the next wave of what's coming on, and it's not only the channels. It's the docks, the heavy equipment, the cranes, how high it is, how far it reaches out and so forth, which has a significant impact on the investment at the port itself having nothing to do with the channel.
So we have a similar concern, and I don't know that I can give you an answer. We live in a world of nations and most of the ship builders are in other nations, and a lot of the cargo moves to and from other nations. One of the busiest trade channels in the world now is between the Far East and Europe.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So we're either a part of the system or we're out of it. I hate to put it that bluntly, but that's the way it really is.
Mr. BATEMAN. And, yet, isn't there a point in time when the public investment that is called for in order to convenience the shippers in achieving the maximization of their objectives becomes an excessive unmanageable burden upon everyone else, and if we somehow make it clear to them that we are not going to finance the kind of improvements, extensions, enlargements and deepenings that are called for just because they want a bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger ship, they will stop building bigger, and bigger, and bigger ships?
Mr. WELCH. Well, they may stop bringing them here to the United States, but they will not stop building them, and we're not that dominant in world trade to control that, in my opinion, sir. You asked my opinion and that's it.
Now, we're sort of out of it, and I don't think if you reconstruct the total cost of channel improvements that the Federal Government has put in place, that it is—well, first of all, it is not as nearly significant as the investment that non-Federal people have put in force. It's about 10 to 1.
Mr. BATEMAN. Oh, I'm sure of that. I'm sure of that.
Mr. WELCH. So all of this is to facilitate international trade in an efficient way with economies of scale, and that is why we're building the big ships. They can just move cargo a heck of a lot cheaper, make our people more competitive on a worldwide basis that can lay it down at a lower cost. It is something that I just don't believe you can stop.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BATEMAN. I certainly don't know the way to stop it, but——
Mr. WELCH. I don't know either.
Mr. BATEMAN. It seems to me at some point you can get to where you are counter-productive because of the sheer size and magnitude of what you are doing.
Mr. WELCH. We worry about the same things. I have three generations of container cranes in my port, and what the hell do I do with the first generation, you know?
Mr. BATEMAN. Well, I share those concerns. I represent the Ports of Hampton Roads, and we all share those same problems.
Mr. WELCH. Right.
Mr. BATEMAN. Well, thank you very much. We do appreciate your testimony, and, as we move forward to writing up or marking up our bill, you may in all likelihood expect inquiries from the staff or from members as we proceed with our work.
We thank you for being here today.
Mr. WELCH. Thank you, sir.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BATEMAN. The next panel on navigation projects consists of Mr. Joseph E. Lema, Mr. Lauren E. McDonald, Mr. Donald G. Waldon, and Mr. Neil H. Diehl, and Mr. Norb Whitlock.
Would the panel please take their seats? At the witness table I notice my colleague, Mr. Jay Dickey, Congressman Jay Dickey.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to note that Congressman Dickey seems to be everywhere, doesn't he?
[Laughter.]
Mr. BATEMAN. He is ever present. I want to first call on him for purposes of an introduction.
Jay?
Mr. DICKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am here to support the White River Navigation Improvement Project, and to introduce you to our finest citizen who is a proponent of this, Lauren McDonald. But before I do, I want you all to know that this project has an unusual nature about it in that we will spend something like $36 million. We will leave a free flowing stream, no dams, no locks. We will bring a tonnage increase from 834,000 tons to almost 5.5 or 5.3 billion tons of goods, including steel on this river. It is in the center of Arkansas. There will be no cutoffs, no straightening of the rivers, no change in the water levels of the river in any way. They will be almost perfect environmentally.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I think—I am certainly for it. I have seen our small streams in Arkansas do so much for industry and do so much for recreational values too, but someone who is much better than I am to explain this to you would be Lauren McDonald, and I would like for you all to say hello to her.
Ms. MCDONALD. Thank you.
Mr. BATEMAN. We are pleased to have Ms. McDonald and the other witnesses. If it is agreeable, we have been moving from that end of the table to the other, but we can certainly depart from that if it is important to you, Jay, or to Ms. McDonald——
Mr. DICKEY. No.
Ms. MCDONALD. Not at all.
Mr. BATEMAN. Then suppose we hear from Mr. Lema and then we will proceed?
Mr. DICKEY. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH E. LEMA, VICE PRESIDENT, MANUFACTURERS AND SERVICES DIVISION, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC; LAUREN E. MCDONALD, DIRECTOR, WHITE RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION, NEWPORT, AR; DONALD G. WALDON, ADMINISTRATOR, TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COLUMBUS, MS; NEIL H. DIEHL, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, INGRAM BARGE COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INLAND NAVIGATION IN AMERICA'S OHIO VALLEY (DINAMO), PITTSBURGH, PA,; AND W.N. WHITLOCK, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL BARGE LINE COMPANY, JEFFERSONVILLE, IN, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, ACCOMPANIED BY TIM MURPHY, MERCER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LEMA. Mr. Chairman, Representative Wise, and members of the subcommittee, I am Joe Lema, Vice President of the National Mining Association, Manufacturers and Services Division.
NMA's membership is comprised of producers, shippers and consumers of mine products using barge transportation services on the Nation's waterway system heavily for intermodal rail-barge and truck-barge movements of coal, ores and other minerals. We urge that provisions be incorporated in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act to authorize lock and dam construction projects at two sites—the Marmet Locks and Dam project on the Kanawha River in West Virginia and the Kentucky Lock Addition Project on the Tennessee River in Kentucky.
The Kanawha River in West Virginia furnishes an important upper Ohio River Basin barge route for coal traffic connecting with the Ohio River for coal distribution in mid-America and through the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to the Gulf of Mexico for trans-shipment in coastal trade and international commerce.
The Winfield locks and dam and the Marmet locks and dam upstream on the Kanawha River from its junction with the Ohio River are serious traffic bottlenecks. Average barge delay at Winfield is 12 hours, and often delays of up to 24 hours are experienced. That is now being resolved by the construction of a 110 foot by 800 foot lock chamber at Winfield. However, most of the barge traffic passing the Winfield facility originates upstream above Marmet and must first clear the Marmet facility to reach Winfield and then the Ohio River.
Therefore, it not only is justified but also is most timely now to construct the 110 foot by 800 foot lock chamber at Marmet. Preconstruction engineering and design of the Marmet project is to be completed in 1996 making an early start of construction viable and possible.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
NMA urges the subcommittee to authorize a Marmet construction project in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Further, NMA urges the subcommittee to include in the 1996 Act authorization for construction of an additional 110 foot by 1,200 foot lock chamber at the Kentucky lock and dam on the Tennessee River near Paducah, Kentucky just upstream from the mouth of the river at its junction with the Ohio River.
Coal-fired utility plants and consumers of various minerals are well served by barges on the Tennessee River, given its proximity to the coal fields in the east and the midwest, the accessibility to coal fields in the west by intermodal rail-barge movements and its proximity to sources of other minerals and aggregates consumed particularly in agriculture and construction.
Currently, 20 million out of a total of 50 million tons of barge freight carried annually on the Tennessee River are coal shipments with another 14 million comprised of other non-metallic minerals produced by the mining industry. The Kentucky lock addition project has advanced through the preconstruction engineering and design phase and is ready for project construction, which we urge the subcommittee to approve.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, we also recommend early completion of the current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers feasibility study of project needs in the lower Ohio River downstream from Louisville, Kentucky to its juncture with the Mississippi River.
In 1994, the Ohio River carried 237 million tons of barge freight, 111 million tons upbound and 126 million downbound, with 134 million tons or 57 percent consisting of coal shipments. The lower Ohio River is truly a super service segment of our Nation's waterway system, a segment which represents a major traffic artery at the heart of mid-America's commercial barge traffic network formed by the interconnected lower Ohio River, lower Tennessee River and Mississippi River.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I would be glad to answer questions and to furnish added information in writing.
Thank you for hearing NMA.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lema.
And now, Mr. Diehl—oh, let me advise the panel that we now have a vote on and we should be able to complete Mr. Diehl's statement following which I seem to be the last man standing on the committee, we will take a brief recess so that I can go vote and then come back and proceed with Ms. McDonald—Mr. Waldon, excuse me.
Mr. Diehl.
Mr. DIEHL. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to underscore the importance of the continuing need to upgrade and improve our Nation's waterways, particularly the need for the two major projects that we have in the Ohio River system.
I am the Chairman Emeritus of the Ingram Barge Company in Nashville, Tennessee, and I am here representing DINAMO—DINAMO, the association for the Development of Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley, a multi-state membership leadership coalition which we organized in 1981.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Before I begin talking about those two projects, I would simply like to compliment this subcommittee, as well as so many other Congressional members, for their gracious past support that we have received.
Prior to 1987, construction of the Robert C. Byrd Lock and Dam the previous project authorized was the Hannibal Lock and Dam in 1964, 13 years prior. Thanks to the fine support of all of you and the coordinated efforts of the Corps and numerous others, including DINAMO, that map firmly illustrates the progress that has been made: 13 of 16 identifiable locks and dams have been authorized, funded for construction, or completed.
I am here to urge you to continue support of the Huntington District's recommended new lock at Marmet, which is 110 by 800 feet on the Kanawha River, and the Nashville District's recommendation for a new 110 by 1,200 foot lock at Kentucky Lock and Dam. Feasibility reports of both commanders have been approved by the Chief of Engineers in 1994 and 1992, respectively.
I think I can skip some of the text in view of the time that we have, and simply say that in the case of both projects the identifiable volumes of traffic will continue to improve, and the necessity of both of these projects will be dictated not only by the age of the projects themselves, but also by the inability to handle the capacity. They have benefit/cost ratios of 2.85 to 1, as far as Marmet is concerned, and 2.4 to 1, as far as Kentucky is concerned.
I would like to just focus on Marmet a second and tell you that what Joe Lema has said to you is that there are a series of locks there, and that is all true. They are roughly 30 miles apart when you leave the Ohio River system, and, therefore, you've got a body of water which is caused by the Robert C. Byrd blocks going up river, and you have an amazing continuity of product shipment through those lock and dams. Between Winfield and Marmet, approximately 99 percent of the traffic moves through both. So it is pretty obvious that the need is there to continue to upgrade the facility.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The old lock and dam, at Marmet has an ability right now to handle three standard barges and a tow boat. Looking at it from a layman's standpoint like I do, it's 3,600 tons per lock. A new lock, if it were to be granted to us, would improve that with jumbo barges to about 12,000 tons per locking operation. It would be one magnificent improvement, and the jumbos are definitely the barge not only of the present but of the future. There will not be addressing the smaller barge as a future proceeds. They are outdated and the universality of barge traffic will force us all into jumbo barges eventually. The completion of Marmet will certainly reduce delays.
Second, the age, as I said before, is 62 years and the deterioration is very obvious when you look at the facility.
Like Marmet, the Kentucky Lock and Dam faces the same problem of inadequate capacity, age of concrete, structural deterioration and operational safety, which are all considerations. It's one of the most heavily used locks on the waterway system. The problem will get worse, obviously, if we don't address it.
Now the fundamental problems goes beyond the fact that the existing chamber is too small to handle increasing tonnages. A fundamental problem is that the entire system, which has been spoken about many times—it's called the Kentucky Barkley system—lacks the capacity to meet future traffic demands.
If you look at it there, you can see that the system is a circular one in nature, coming off the Ohio River system and up the river until you get to Barkley and across the channel and down through the Kentucky lock. And it's been a source of a semi-controversy, but I think that it is completely taken care of at this point with the re-examination of capacity and re-evaluation done in 1995 by the Corps and approved by the Corps.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So I think no longer is there an impediment to the consideration for Kentucky.
I will skip some of the text on the amount of traffic. One of the compelling factors on Kentucky is that——
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Diehl, excuse me just a moment. Will it take more than 2 or 3 minutes because I'm running short on being able to get there for the vote?
Mr. DIEHL. No, I will not take more than 2 or 3 minutes. I will put up one chart on savings because we have been——
Mr. BATEMAN. Okay, fine. I don't mean to rush you. I would come back and you could give whatever you have to give, but I am running short to get there.
Mr. DIEHL. I would be happy to come back and give it. That would be fine.
Mr. BATEMAN. Why don't we break at that point and we'll start with where you left off?
Mr. DIEHL. Okay, that would be fine.
[Recess.]
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BATEMAN. The committee will come to order. We will proceed to further hearing from Mr. Diehl.
Mr. DIEHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Hearing that Mr. Waldon is going to speak a little bit on the same subject, I will jump right to the last and concluding remark that I have to say, that we formed a partnership with the Corps of Engineers, and I think the partnership has been extremely beneficial to everyone. It began initially in the planning process, in the use process, and then it extended through the engineering phase, and it was a little more than 2 years ago that some of us associated with DINAMO and with the Inland Waterway Users Board met with General Genega and the top management to initiate a process for reducing the cost of lock and dam replacements.
As a result of this partnership, I think that illustrates up there the savings that the Corps has been able to affect, and savings of roughly $275 million against the forecasted savings on the same project of $402 million.
If we look at it still another way, being successful—and this I probably say a little bit selfishly—would have the benefit of honestly saving the amount of money that could construct another medium size project for us, and I think it speaks so well of the Corps' willingness to take a look at different ways of doing things, which I think in year's past they have been reluctant to do.
In closing summary, I simply say we urge your favorable consideration of construction authorization for the two projects that I have spoken about because I believe they are very worthy of consideration at this point. We strongly will reinforce the support necessary, and we simply thank you for the opportunity to present those facts.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Diehl.
Mr. Waldon.
Mr. WALDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Don Waldon, Administrator of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, and we greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Tennessee-Tombigbee Authority is an interstate compact ratified by the Congress. It serves as a regional non-Federal sponsor for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. The governors of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee serve as members of the compact.
Mr. Chairman, we commend you for the apparent high priority this committee has given to enactment of a Water Resources Development Act this year by holding these early hearings. Passage of this bill in 1996 is critical to the continued orderly use and conservation of the Nation's water resources.
Mr. Chairman, I am principally here to endorse the authorization of the second lock at Kentucky Dam, and in the interest of time I am not going to repeat a lot of the justification that these two gentlemen already mentioned. But I think I do need to mention that this is one of the worst bottlenecks on the entire inland waterway system. Most all of the barges that are now transmitting that lock require something like 5 hours or more to negotiate that lock, and this new lock must be authorized this year if it is to be eligible for consideration as a new construction start before the year 2000.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
This timetable is crucial because the existing lock, which is now over 50 years old will require major rehabilitation beginning no later than the year 2009. These repairs will take the present lock out of service for nearly 9 months over a 2-year period. Such a protracted shutdown of commerce without the new lock in operation and available for use will cost shippers and the taxpayers an estimated $250,000,000 or more than one-half the total cost to build this new lock.
This project, obviously, is of national importance, as demonstrated by the various organization that are here today and others that represent waterway users throughout mid-America in support of this needed project, and we respectfully urge the committee to approve this project for authorization this year.
We also ask for the committee's approval to rename the locks and dams of the Tennessee-Tombigbee and in honor of some of the waterway region's most outstanding leaders. In the interest of time I will not describe in detail these recommended changes that are included in the resolution that is attached to my statement.
However, those individuals, we believe, should be recognized for their extraordinary contributions to Tennessee-Tombigbee include Congressman Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi and Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama who are retiring at the end of this term and also former members of the Congress, Senator John Stennis and Congressman Jamie Whitten of Mississippi.
I believe you will concur that these national leaders are most worthy of this token of recognition for their outstanding services.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
My final request to the committee concerns proposed legislation that would permit the Corps of Engineers to make lump sum payments to non-Federal interests for Federal operation and maintenance costs for authorized projects. I understand that the Corps has submitted draft legislation concerning this matter and it is incorporated into Section 305 of the Senate bill S.640. We strongly endorse its approval.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Waldon.
And next the committee will hear from Ms. Lauren McDonald, the Director of the White River Valley Association.
Welcome, Ms. McDonald.
Ms. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Congressman Dickey, and other guests.
I am Lauren McDonald from the White River Valley Association in Northeast, Arkansas. I have already submitted my written statement for the record, and I appreciate its acceptance.
I am very grateful to be here, particularly since I seem to have the easiest job of all today because I am effectively representing many small projects in this country, which need our attention.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Chairman, after spending 18 years away from Arkansas often working in Asia and Europe, I have seen the heavy investment the Europeans are making currently in waterway infrastructure with mostly large scale projects, but in China in the early 1980s I would see a small infrastructure project under construction 1 year and return the following year to find booming industrial development in the area. These were mostly small projects. They were little infrastructure catalysts which opened up the poorest pockets of a country. Our country has such projects, and we need to give them some attention.
In fact, when I learned that the White River—in my home region, which is the most underemployed region of Arkansas—has one of, if not the cheapest per mile and least environmentally invasive navigation projects awaiting authorization in this country, I came home to help. The project is the White River Navigation to Batesville, Arkansas Improvement Project, and the facts about the river and the project are these:
The White River falls out of the Ozarks and flows slowly through the Delta to the Mississippi, in what is essentially a 250 mile long, narrow lake. It has very stable banks and is effectively naturally navigable.
In 1892, though, Congress authorized a 5-foot channel for steamboats, and that channel has been utilized heavily and maintained since that time. Unfortunately, 9-foot draft barges can only move up and down the river about 65 or 75 percent of the time today.
The Navigation Improvement Project would essentially just modify this existing channel and give us the year-around reliable navigation at 9 feet that we need. Maintenance already touches less than 1 percent, of the entire area of the bottom of the river, and this project would touch a total of only 2 percent. So 98 percent of the river will never be touched, and there would still be no locks or dams, no changes in water levels, no flooding of any acreage and no draining of any acreage. There will be no cutoffs. The river retains its gently meandering nature. There are no mechanical or concrete structures, and stone dikes in only 9 locations along 255 river miles. The project does include recreation areas, and the long-term maintenance of this project will remain among the cheapest in this country, as it has been for 100 years, just dredging.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The project's economics, as Congressman Dickey mentioned earlier, are incredible. It has a total cost of $37 million for 255 river miles. That is about $145,000 per miles perhaps the cheapest navigation project in the country.
It has a benefit to cost ratio of over 2 to 1, and the tonnage would initially increase about 500 percent from 834,000 tons to over 5.3 million tons. Mostly grain moves on the river today, but if we get the project, then our steel mill, which we're likely to lose, can barge in scrap metal and barge out finished products which, for instance, Mexico wants to buy. We could hook into national and international markets, which we cannot access now.
The Ozark poultry industry would have cheaper corn feed. We can finally mine and ship out our silica and limestone and other aggregates, which are too expensive to move today. And, for instance, our tree farms would finally have wood chip mills, which would ship our lumber products to Japan. We can't do that today. And this is only a partial list of benefits.
This project was authorized by the full Congress in 1986, and it was prematurely de-authorized 2 years later by the request of our then Congressman in the First District of Arkansas. He never gave a specific reason and we were reassured that it was not based on merits, but he specifically de-authorized it without notifying local citizens. So the project has gone through the entire Corps of Engineers series of studies, and has held up under heavy scrutiny. We have some update studies that the state is currently conducting which will qualify as re-evaluation studies.
In 1994 your House of Representatives included full reauthorization of this projecte in H.R. 4460, which was the bill we know that the Senate never acted on, and we thank you for the support in 1994. We most respectfully request that you will again include full reauthorization of the project in your 1996 bill. We want you to know that we appreciate you greatly back there in the center of the country, and we want to do our share to contribute to the national economy. If you would give us a little bit of infrastructure, we absolutely will bring in the jobs and we will take those people off of entitlements and give them some pride back and some reason to contribute.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So on behalf of the little White River in Arkansas and all the small projects in our country that are very simple, highly cost-effective, extremely deserving, and very grateful, I thank you.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Ms. McDonald, for your very enthusiastic testimony.
Mr. Dickey, is there anything that you would choose to add?
Mr. DICKEY. How can I follow that?
[Laughter.]
Mr. BATEMAN. Well, thanks very much.
The last member of this panel that we're pleased to hear from today is Mr. Norb Whitlock who is the Senior Vice President for the American Waterways Operators.
Mr. Whitlock, welcome, and we look forward to your testimony.
Mr. WHITLOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
I'm Norb Whitlock, Senior Vice President of American Commercial Barge Line, and I am headquartered in Jeffersonville, Indiana.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I have accompanying me today Mr. Tim Murphy of Mercer Management Consultant who is sitting behind me, who is the principal author of the study that I will be discussing today. ACBL is one of the largest barge line companies in the United States and operates throughout the Mississippi River and Gulf Intracoastal waterways systems. I am appearing here today on behalf of the American Waterway Operators, the National Trade Association representing the inland and coastal barge and towing industry, and the shipyards which build and service our vessels.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for continuing the subcommittee's deliberations on the Water Resource Development Act of 1996. Others today have presented testimony regarding the specific projects and programs that they are supporting for inclusion in the current Congressional authorization process, and last year I too presented site specific recommendations on behalf of the Inland Waterways Users Board. Today, however, I will direct my comments more generally to the underlying economic importance of the waterways infrastructure and the obviously indispensable role continued Federal investment plays in maintaining the system's ability to beneficially contribute to local, state and national economies.
The key new resource which I will specifically discuss and which I have provided for the committee's use is a recently completed study by the Mercer Management Consulting Group on the ''Importance of the Inland and Intracoastal Waterways to State Economies,'' and that is the large white binder that I believe the committee members have copies of.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, faced with mounting deficit and calls to balance the Federal budget by many government programs have come under attack as being too costly, unnecessary or outdated. Quite, obviously, we do not believe the waterways infrastructure falls into any of these categories, and to the contrary assert that this Federal investment program has provided the public with significant and well-documented returns.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Because no comprehensive analysis of the system has been done for many years, AWO, working in conjunction with the National Waterways Conference, commissioned Mercer to undertake this unique study, which analyzes the economic impact that the waterways infrastructure has on the economies of 24 river states. In addition to how employment, commodity value, tax revenue impacts the system, the study also identifies the interdependence of state economies that are linked to waterway commerce. This work has been endorsed by over 100 local, state, regional and national groups.
Now, if I may, what I am going to be briefly summarizing is—I believe you have some colored slides. We were told by the staff that we couldn't use slides so this is our way to help maybe graphically depict some of the benefits:
Page one, as you see, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Waterways system consists of nearly 26,000 miles of waterways, as depicted in yellow.
As documented on page two of these slides, these waterways play a critical role in the U.S. economy. They transport over 600 million tons of traffic per year. They are a major shipping mode for agricultural, mining, and manufacturing industries. They serve industrial facilities that support an estimated 800,000 jobs, and they produce well over $100 billion in annual interstate trade. They relieve development pressure on the crowded coastal areas.
On page three, in addition, the waterways support a wide variety of public purposes, including flood control, recreation, commercial development, power generation and water supply.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
On page four, by linking multiple data sources and utilizing geographic mapping software, Mercer has performed a detail geographic analysis of the waterways in 24 river states, which includes specific data on plant locations, commodity production and demand, state to state waterways trade and county employment.
On page five, to quantify the economic value of the U.S. waterways, Mercer identified by the standard industrial codes industries in waterside counties which are likely to rely on barge transportation. Depicting here is the resulting U.S. waterways land defined as a geographic area adjacent to the river system or from which it is economically advantageous to ship goods via barge, given the cost between the river system and the inland point of origin or destination.
On slide six, the Mercer study also presents commodity impact analysis. Co-transportation via the water is a major source of energy for power plants across much of the U.S.
Page seven, U.S. agriculture depends on waterways to ship 60 million tons of grain and generate $25 billion in export annually.
On page eight, the chemicals represent a $278 billion industry with 36 percent of the plants located hear the waterways.
Slide nine, as referenced earlier, the study also details employment impacts. In 1992 nearly 800,000 people in waterside communities were employed by user industries that do or could use the waterways.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
On slide ten, the slide presents specific employment impacts of the Inland Waterway Transportation industry in river states. The inland Waterway Transportation industry generated 70,345 jobs and $428 million in payroll taxes.
On slide eleven, the most important information presented in this work concerns the state to state economic analysis performed by Mercer. For each of the river states, Mercer performed a detailed analysis of industrial facilities in waterside counties. As you can see, this is an analysis of Louisiana's industrial facilities in its waterside counties, one of the 24 states contained in this study.
Slide twelve, based on the detail commodity data as you see listed here, Mercer estimated the value of interstate trade. Again, with Louisiana as our example, an estimated value of cargo is handled to and from Louisiana by water exceeds $54 billion annually.
Slide thirteen, for each state Mercer also quantified jobs in specific industries affected by the waterways. In Louisiana industries of the type that use barge and are located in the waterside counties employ 94,500 plus people.
One page fourteen, the most unique feature of the study depicts the state to state economic trading patterns for each state's top 10 training partners. As you can see here, again, showing Louisiana, an estimated $22 billion worth of exported good were carried via barge. The top 10 states represent 57 percent of the total domestic export value.
And, on the last slide, finally, as this research illustrates, waterways provide a critical link in the Nation's transportation economy beneficially impacting inland and intercoastal waterways, supporting U.S. employment levels, interstate trade, international competitiveness, public interest such as flood control, recreation and Federal and state tax revenues.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In conclusion, I hope that the Mercer study provides this subcommittee with a better understanding of the economic importance of the waterways infrastructure, and, thereby, contributes to your deliberation regarding future needs of this system.
Thank you for an opportunity to appear today before you, and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. LATOURETTE [assuming Chair]. Mr. Whitlock, we thank you very much for your testimony.
At this time it's my pleasure to yield to the ranking member on our railroad subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Wise.
Mr. WISE. I greatly thank the Chair for the courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to speak for just a second about the Marmet locks. I was delighted to see that both DINAMO and the National Mining Association have strongly supported this. They have moved it a long way, and Mr. Chairman, the fact that this hearing is being held today I think means that the Marmet locks are much closer to becoming a reality. The reality for the Marmet locks and dams in West Virginia is that it continues the upgrading that this Congress has been consistently involved in. Right now, the Winfield Lock and Dam are under construction. The irony is that if we don't approve the Marmet Locks and Dam, much of the investment that's being put into Winfield down river right now will be for naught because the large barges that can be accommodated at Winfield will not be able to pass through the antiquated Marmet locks. So it is essential for that reason.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
There's another reason, Mr. Chairman, that it's essential to get the Marmet locks authorized this time, and that's basic fairness. The Marmet locks will displace almost 200 homeowners, a large number of residences. Obviously, people don't like being displaced from their homes, but, overall, people accept the fact that this is necessary and they are resigned to the fact and they are willing to work with the Corps of Engineers. The only problem is that the engineering has been long completed and now people are left sitting in Lower Bell wondering what in the world is going to happen—I can't sell my house, nobody will buy it; should I make improvements. How long is it going to be before we're able to finally have this property acquired. Basic fairness is that if this Congress is going to approve the Marmet locks, and I believe it is, then we need to do it sooner rather than later. And that's why it is essential that this hearing be held.
The fact of the matter is that the Marmet locks are greatly needed for upgrading. The fact of the matter is that we're going to be moving a lot more low sulphur coal through the Marmet locks, meeting the needs of the country. But the other fact of the matter is that hundreds of constituents in Marmet and Lower Bell need to know what to do with their lives, need to know what their future is as far as their homes go. The real estate acquisition has been put on hold pending the authorization by this Congress, and that's why it is essential that this Congress act.
I want to thank the Chair for scheduling this hearing, and those who have testified eloquently. I believe that this can be not only the year, but, ideally, the month that we get authorization for these water projects that are so important. I might add, Mr. Chairman, I speak for the Marmet locks, but the testimony has been well made for the other locks as well. The fact of the matter is that so much of our produce—coal, chemicals, agriculture—travels by inland waterway transportation. As I think Ms. McDonald said, if we don't keep up to date on that, we're going to be less and less competitive with other nations, and that's why it is important this bill be completed. I thank the Chair.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Wise.
I just have a couple of questions. Ms. McDonald, if I can start with you. You're given your enthusiastic support of the White River Project. I apologize for not having the chance to read your written testimony completely, but you describe in your testimony a 25 percent non-Federal share as a recommendation. My question is, who is going to be the sponsor of that non-Federal share; and secondly, just to roll it all into one, do they have the ability based upon your knowledge at this time to come up with that 25 percent non-Federal share?
Ms. MCDONALD. Yes, sir, thank you. We have the same local sponsors that we had back in 1986 plus a few—the Arkansas Waterways Commission; my association, the White River Valley Association; the White River Valley Commission; and the White River Corridor Coalition, which is an eight county area. They are guaranteeing that they can come up with the money, through local contributions, plus State funding of the existing ''White River Navigation Fund,'' specifically created by the State legislature to assist this very project. We are willing to do whatever it takes. Ours was an unusual cost-sharing requirement for a pure navigation project, because usually it comes out of the trust fund, and we were advised, in fact, that maybe we should go for 100 percent Federal funding or trust fund monies. But we are willing to meet the 25 percent local share required by our original authorization because we can raise it, since this project means so much to us.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Whitlock, I'd like to hear your view on the adequacy of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for meeting the current and future infrastructure needs of the Nation's inland waterways system.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. WHITLOCK. Right now, the trust fund receipts amount to about $100 million a year that go into the trust fund. The last time that we looked at that, we estimated that would be sufficient funds over the next decade to construct approximately $2 billion worth of navigation improvements.
I think one of the things that is very important is the slide that Mr. Diehl showed concerning the cost-savings applications. The Corps and the industry have worked very closely together to design new construction methods, new design processes to builds the structures, provide the same service life but at lower cost. So I think with that, all the projects that are currently in the system can be funded and can be constructed, but it's contingent upon achieving the cost goals that the Corps has targeted for cost reduction. Otherwise, projects will have to be retarded in terms of their start and/or their completion time.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Whitlock. And without objection, your slides, even though you didn't get to use them, will be included in the record as part of your testimony.
Mr. WHITLOCK. Thank you, sir.
Mr. LATOURETTE. The last question that I would have for this panel, and Mr. Waldon, I apologize for walking in on sort of the tail end of your testimony, but I'd be curious, having heard your observation, why it is you support the Corps making lump sum payments to non-Federal entities rather than periodic payments out of their O&M accounts?
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. WALDON. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of advantages. One of which is that it would significantly reduce the administrative costs for the Corps of Engineers. The other is that if it's a State or local agency, the fact that they acquire all the money in a lump sum, of course this money would be discounted. For example, if it's a 40 year remaining life of the project and it was, say, $2 million a year, that would be discounted to a present worth value. They would be able in essence to put that money in some kind of an interest-bearing account and they would then know each year what they were going to get to carry out their responsibilities for the project. Now, of course, it is subject to available appropriations.
Certainly, the disadvantage of it is that the lump sum payment would have to come out of the current year allocation. With the budget restrictions, obviously that gets to be a problem. This may not be workable within the current budgetary constraints, but I think it is some flexibility that the Corps of Engineers should have. Then at their discretion and then with the appropriations committee's approval, it would be able to take care of some of these projects.
We have a situation on the Tennessee-Tombigbee where the Corps of Engineers purchased 88,000 acres of wildlife mitigation lands. The Corps, under the contract, has turned those over to State fish and game commissions to administer on a reimbursable basis. Of course, that $2.5 million comes out of the O&M funds for the Tennessee Tom. If those were present worth over the remaining 40 year life of the project, you're looking at saving about $50 million of appropriations just for that over the life of the project if you're present worth value.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Waldon.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I would like to thank each of you for your fine testimony and also our colleague Mr. Dickey for introducing Ms. McDonald. Thank you very much.
We will hear now from Panel IV. Panel IV will have their testimony focus on a subject that we heard a little bit about yesterday and also heard a little bit of in testimony earlier when the Army Corps of Engineers was here with us, and that is the Auburn dam project on the American River. As with the last panel, we're fortunate to have one of our colleagues to make some introductions. First of all, Ms. Lancelot, Mr. Stork, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Cox, and Mr. Kennedy, welcome. I would like to introduce our colleague from California, Mr. Doolittle, to make whatever introductions he feels appropriate. Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm not here to testify today because I understand I will have that opportunity later on next month. But I did want to come today to introduce three distinguished individuals from my area who are here to speak on behalf of a very important project, the comprehensive flood control project for Sacramento.
First, we have Mr. David Kennedy, who is a long time director of the California Department of Water Resources. He will be followed by Mr. Dave Cox, the chairman of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and a member of our Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. He will be followed by Mr. Raymond Nelson, who is president of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. These individuals have worked long and hard to address the flood control needs of our community, and I would encourage the committee to listen closely to their testimony.
I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the committee.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Doolittle.
The batting order that has sort of been set up is that we will hear from Mr. Kennedy first. We look forward to your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID N. KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SACRAMENTO, CA; DAVID COX, CHAIRMAN, SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY, SACRAMENTO, CA; RAYMOND NELSON, PRESIDENT, SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SACRAMENTO, CA; RONALD M. STORK, ASSOCIATE CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, ON THE BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN RIVER COALITION, SACRAMENTO, CA; AND JILL LANCELOT, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON $ENSE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members. My name is David Kennedy. I am director of the California Department of Water Resources. I'm speaking today on behalf of the department and the State administration. You will be getting a letter in the next day or two from Governor Wilson supporting this project. I have submitted written testimony. I would like to just simply summarize some points right now.
Our basic problem on the American River is that it has turned out to be a bigger river than we thought when Folsom dam was built about 40 years ago. We've had several large floods since Folsom was built in the early 1950s. In 1986, just 10 years ago this month, we had a particularly close call with the American River almost going over its levees. I was very much involved in the decisions that were made day-by-day, and in some cases hour-by-hour, on how the American River and the other part of the system was being operated. I can tell you that after that, we all sat down and said we've got to redo the hydrology, we've got to figure out what's going on here because we've just got more water than we had ever anticipated.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Over the last 10 years, my department has been very much involved with the Corps of Engineers and the local flood control people in reevaluating the situation. Our basic problem is we've got more water than that system can handle. What do we do with the water, and how do we get rid of that water such that it doesn't overtop the levee system and cause a devastating flood?
We were back here in 1992 with a proposal. The Congress asked us to reevaluate the whole situation, and we have done that. We've basically come down to what we would characterize as three plans, although in my own personal opinion two of the plans really don't provide us very much. The first one would be to modify Folsom dam such that we can make flood control releases at a lower elevation with less storage than we can today. We would lower the spillway and increase the outlet works. That's the so-called Folsom modification plan.
The second plan has been called the Step Release Plan. It builds on the Folsom modification, and it would actually involve increasing the flows in the American River. We would not only be able to make earlier releases, we'd make much greater releases. That is one of my basic concerns about this plan. We would be putting a deeper water, faster water into a levee system that we have historically had problems with. Just a month ago, we had a serious erosion problem when the flow was much less than anything we're talking about right now. The so-called step release plan was developed as a so-called alternative if we couldn't build additional storage, what might we do. I can tell you that the engineers that conceived this plan today think of it somewhat as a phantom plan. If we had to go forward with the step release plan, we're not even sure we could do it because of all the problems that we can see with it. To think that it is environmentally benign I think is a real mistake. It would involve a lot of construction, a lot of levee work downstream, it would cost a lot of money. The Corps of Engineers has indicated that the so-called step release plan is not even a cost-effective plan for those additional increments.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The third plan is the one that we support, which is to build detention storage at Auburn dam, the Auburn dam site. We have come back to this as the so-called optimum plan. We've certainly looked at other options because we know that there is strong opposition to an Auburn dam. But in my own mind, we've concluded that the only way to deal with this additional water that we now realize we have to deal with is to store it upstream and not increase the flows in the American River. So the State of California, the Governor are in support of the Auburn Plan. I think we're very fortunate that we have a plan that can provide us a very high level of flood protection in a cost-effective manner. The State is prepared to do its share on the cost-effective part.
I'd like to just conclude, Mr. Chairman, with my attempt to put this problem in perspective. I think some people have said that 500 year protection is too much; why aren't we satisfied with 200? I think the Dutch experience is interesting, and I included this in my testimony. About the same time Folsom dam was being built, the Dutch had a devastating flood, lost a lot of life, great deal of property damage. Following that, they basically said this is never going to happen to us again. And as I think we're all aware, they have undertaken very extensive flood control works there. Their basic standard for their river system is 1200 year protection, going up to 3000 year protection.
see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude by simply restating that we certainly support the Auburn dam, and I'm looking forward to answering any questions. Thank you.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Kennedy, thank you very much for your testimony.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Next we'll hear from Mr. Cox, who is the chairman of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. Welcome, Mr. Cox.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and members of the committee. My name is Dave Cox. I am the chairman of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency as well as a member of the Board of Supervisors.
Today, I would like to summarize the three points contained in my formal statement. There is no river city in America facing a greater threat of flooding than Sacramento. Without substantial improvement of the existing flood control system, there is one chance in four that Sacramento will be flooded from the American River over the next 30 years. The flood will likely be the direct result of either a levee failure or overtopping along the lower American River.
I want to pass out a picture that shows flooding in Linda, California, which is just a few miles up the river, which occurred as a result of levee failure in 1986. It is exactly the type of flooding which will occur in Sacramento floodplain. And in addition to that, to show you a picture of the Sacramento floodplain, which is shown in yellow in the aerial photograph. The area subject to flooding is occupied by some 400,000 people, 150,000 structures, business and governmental structures, including the State Capitol, which has an estimated value of some $37 billion. Economic losses from an uncontrolled flood are estimated to range from $7 to $16 billion, depending upon the magnitude of the event. At the lower level, the damages would be comparable to those suffered in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake where the Federal Government spent over $2.5 billion.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Since the record flood of 1986, SAFCA has determinedly pursued a three-prong program to reduce the risk of flooding in Sacramento. First, we've begun the process to repair and improve the levees which provide residents of the floodplain with the first line of defense. Secondly, we have temporarily begun to re-operate Folsom Reservoir so to provide the residents of Sacramento with an interim 100 year level of flood protection. And third, to create new flood control capacity sufficient to provide a high level of flood protection through the construction of a dam on the American River near Auburn. In pursuit of these endeavors, SAFCA has raised approximately $92 million.
SAFCA supports the detention dam which was identified in the 1992 Chief's Report and just released Supplemental Information Report. The SAFCA board has spent considerable weighing and balancing the information contained in the Corps' Supplemental Report, and SAFCA's locally preferred plan as set forth in our resolution endorses a plan which will complete the three-prong approach to controlling flooding in Sacramento.
SAFCA's advocacy of the dam is based upon three principal considerations. First, the dam would reduce projected flood damages 60 percent more than the step release plan. The large reduction in damages would be a direct benefit to the city, the county, the State, and the Federal Government, as it would minimize the Government's exposure to disaster relief and flood insurance costs.
Second, the detention dam would provide the greatest protection from the uncertainties associated with precipitation patterns in the American River basin. The four largest floods recorded in the basin have occurred since 1950, and we'll put that chart up so you can take a look at it. When we take a look at the solutions, we find that the level of protection afforded by the detention dam and the step release plan is considerably less than anticipated if we continue to have the same kind of weather patterns. This is a critical issue because of the inflexibility of the step release plan. By design, the step release plan would redline the existing flood control system, eliminating various safety factors and flexibility. By comparison, the detention dam, by its design, maintains existing flexibility and can be expanded, thus providing the immense flexibility in adapting to changing weather patterns.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
And finally, the detention dam would provide the greatest economic return on the funds invested in flood control. The total cost of the detention dam is approximately $933 million, and the total Federal appropriation to construct this project would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 million. This is only 33 percent more than the $455 million in Federal appropriations needed to construct the step release program. And given the significant difference in the damage reductions and the operational flexibility associated with each plan, the incremental additional investment in flood control is well justified.
In addition, the step release plan has significant adverse environmental impacts. SAFCA believes the benefits of the detention dam can be achieved with minimum impact to the environment. The impact on the canyon would be mitigated by an innovative adaptive management element which would ensure that any impact on the canyons is minimal. The dam is designed to withstand a maximum credible earthquake. I urge this committee to take the first step in forming a Federal partnership with the State of California and SAFCA so we can prevent 400,000 citizens from experiencing a life-threatening and economically devastating flood. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. We're doing our best to see that the Federal treasury is not raided by a catastrophic event. Thank you.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Cox, thank you very much. I appreciate both Mr. Cox and Mr. Kennedy trying to keep to our time constraints as we have a couple more panels to go.
Next we have the pleasure of hearing from Mr. Raymond Nelson, who is the president of the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce. Welcome, Mr. Nelson, and we look forward to your testimony.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. NELSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Raymond Nelson. I am president of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on this most critical issue facing our region.
The Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year and is the leading business organization representing private sector interests in the Sacramento area. Our approximately 2,100 business members employ 150,000 people and contribute over $9 billion to the regional economy. We have a significant stake in finding solutions to the problems we're here to discuss today.
The Metro Chamber has taken a formal position in support of a multi-purpose Auburn dam, a dam that would provide both 500 year flood protection for Sacramento and also make available a dependable water supply for our region and much of northern California.
Among the missions of our Chamber, of primary importance is to promote the economic development of the region. Prosperity, business development, and job growth depend upon the region having adequate protection against preventable natural disasters and having the ability to tap natural resources required for a growing economy. I'm here to inform you that our region is in serious jeopardy in both instances as we sit here today.
As other speakers have testified, Sacramento is a community at tremendous risk because our city has only 78 year flood protection. Each winter Sacramento is faced with the highest flooding danger of any community our size in the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has projected that over the next 30 years there is a 1-in-3 chance that Sacramento will suffer a catastrophic flood, threatening the lives of 350,000-400,000 people, and destroying $35 billion in public and private property, including the Capitol of the State of California. When such an event occurs, and we know it will someday, a 175 square mile swath of California's fertile central valley will be under water in some areas by as much as 20 feet.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ironically, our region also suffers from a chronic water shortage as well. In fact, it's common for the Sacramento region to have high water and flood threats in the same year as a drought. In 1986, for example, the largest flood recorded in Sacramento occurred during a drought year. In assessing future water availability in the region, the Bureau of Reclamation recently released a study of available ground and surface water supplies in the Sacramento region first begun 5 years ago. The Bureau report indicates that we must add over 525,000 acre feet of new water supplies to the current water system to keep pace with population growth, environmental demand, and industry needs.
Given these two significant problems we face, a single project that meets Sacramento's flood control needs and the State's water supply requirements must be viewed as an innovative and prudent Federal expenditure which is necessary to protect lives and property as well as to help assure reliable water supplies. The only project that meets these needs is the Auburn dam alternative which is outlined in the Army Corps of Engineers plan. The Auburn dam is also the community's choice. As I said earlier, Sacramento has only 78 year flood protection. When the flood hits Sacramento, the Federal Government will be called upon to provide disaster relief to our community just as it has to countless others, most recently the Midwest and Northwest. It is expected that the Federal damage relief will be in the range of $4-$9 billion. After the damage is cleaned up, we'll be right back here asking you to provide us with help to finance a long-term solution. As a television commercial says, ''You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.'' In this case, if you do not act now, we will pay twice.
Earlier this month, the Chamber announced that we would take a leadership role in transforming the strong community support for the dam into an effective grassroots lobbying effort. You can expect to see us here often on behalf of this project in our community. I will be honest with you in telling you that we were surprised by the strong support the survey sponsored by the Sacramento County Taxpayers League and the Metropolitan Chamber showed for the dam. In Sacramento County, over 63 percent of respondents supported the multi-purpose dam. Support in Placer County was almost 59 percent, and 75 percent in El Dorado County. In fact, overwhelming support for the dam was found in every geographic area, legislative district, and political group we tested. This is a project supported by a bipartisan coalition of residents, businesses, political leaders from throughout our region.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
As you listen to the testimony from opponents of this project, they will no doubt tell you that they speak for a large segment of the community. They will tell you that large numbers of people are opposed to the Auburn dam. However, this claim is simply not born out by the research facts. Little more than 17 percent of the people in the region disagree with our position today.
In order to gauge even more effectively the support of this project, we also asked people whether they would make the financial commitment necessary. The overwhelming majority said they would be able to pay the $90 per parcel to support that.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. The Sacramento community awaits your support.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized. I failed to note the presence of one person who is not going to testify but he is our executive director of the Sacramento Flood Control Agency, Mr. Butch Hodgkins. Butch, I'm going to withdraw here from the table and maybe just suggest you may want to sit up here when it comes time for the questions.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you again, Mr. Doolittle.
Next we have the pleasure of hearing from Ronald Stork, who is the associate conservation director of the Friends of the River. Welcome, Mr. Stork. We look forward to your testimony.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. STORK. Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here. My name is Ron Stork. I am the associate conservation director of Friends of the River, and I am representing the American River Coalition today, a consortium of about 27 recreational and environmental groups concerned deeply about the American River.
As I was listening to the testimony today, I was reminded of what I was reading last night. I skimmed through the first chapter of Ecclesiastes about there's nothing new under the sun. What I'm hearing from the other panelists are essentially the same kind of arguments that were raised in 1992 which resulted in the decisive defeat of Auburn dam by the House of Representatives, indeed, the rejection of Auburn dam by this committee.
What we have done in the last 3 years I think is something that's unprecedented and I think it's very important for you to understand. After the defeat of Auburn dam in 1992, community groups, environmental groups, and the flood control agencies worked very hard together to put together new flood control approaches that were less expensive, less environmentally damaging, and that would work. And we've done that. The Lower American River Task Force, in particular, worked very hard to put together good levee based approaches to achieving flood control for Sacramento. We now have essentially a plan that would protect Sacramento from the worst estimated flood that we can expect in the American River. That is a very high standard of performance, and essentially we meet that standard of performance. Yes, Auburn dam may indeed provide a higher level of performance, but it is also much more expensive and it is environmentally quite controversial.
I also want you to remember that the agencies that are charged with protecting the natural resources of this country in 1992 under the Bush administration were opposed to Auburn dam. Auburn dam never received support from the Bush administration. This year, nothing new under the sun. We have continued controversy between the apparent Corps-preferred alternative and the natural resources agencies, and of course at this point, we don't know where the administration is on this project.
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In summary, we are very proud of the work that we have done as members of the community to fashion flood control approaches that the community can invest in, that the community recognizes are approaches of high competence, and that avoid the kind of environmental controversies that we have when we decide to build Auburn dam, which is, after all, a declaration of war against the American River and the many hundreds of thousands of people that love and use and cherish that River. We don't have to do that. We are in a situation here where the community, by very narrow margins of support, has positioned the flood control agency to ask for that. But I remind you that the vote was seven-to-six, and that the six votes who voted against that largely represent constituencies that are responsible for paying about 85 percent of the bill for the local share of the project. That's all I need to say. Thanks.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Whatever you said was pretty illuminating I guess, Mr. Stork.
Mr. STORK. It must have been that quote from Ecclesiastes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LATOURETTE. Must have been.
The final witness in this fourth panel today is Ms. Jill Lancelot, the legislative director for the Taxpayers for Common $ense. Ms. Lancelot, welcome. We look forward to hearing from you.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. LANCELOT. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am legislative director and co-founder of the Taxpayers for Common $ense. I want to let you know that we are a brand new organization. Taxpayers for Common $ense is dedicated to cutting wasteful Government spending, subsidies, and tax breaks. We support a balanced budget. We seek to reach out to taxpayers of all political beliefs in working towards a Government that costs less, makes sense, and inspires trust. We are nonpartisan, nonprofit, and independent. We want to thank the committee for inviting us to give our views today on Auburn dam.
Although there are a variety of reasons to oppose Auburn dam, the Taxpayers for Common $ense opposes this project for really two basic reasons—it is too expensive and it is unnecessary. In fact, it is exactly why the House of Representatives 4 years, 3 1/2 years ago voted to kill this project.
Taxpayers for Common $ense opposes all proposals to build Auburn dam for whatever purposes and of whatever size. We support Representative Petri's current bill, H.R. 2951, that would bar Federal funds for any construction of Auburn dam. As I've mentioned previously, the reason we oppose this is its tremendous cost, it's going to be at least a billion dollars, and Federal taxpayers are going to be picking up 75 percent of those costs. This is the number one reason why we oppose this dam. It is just too expensive and it has already been killed. We think that things that have been killed shouldn't come back to life. In fact, when the House of Representatives did vote on this in 1992, with again Representative Petri's amendment, the vote was resounding—273 to 140. That is hardly a close vote; it is a 2 to 1 margin.
Nothing has changed that would justify reviving this dam. In fact, I think the dam is even less justifiable today than it was then, for a couple of reasons. One, the dam that we see proposed today is even bigger and more expensive than it was back in 1992. Secondly, we now, thank goodness, have the agreement that we're going to have a balanced budget in 7 years. And finally, we all know that discretionary spending is going to be smaller than it was then in 1992 and it is being squeezed today. So at a time when Congress is trying to figure out how to balance the budget and how to tackle the $5 trillion debt, it seems particularly unjustified to ask Federal taxpayers to come up with millions of dollars for a project that has already been deemed unnecessary. Again, there should be one common sense principle on which we can all agree; that is, when a wasteful program is killed, it should stay that way.
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
We feel that Auburn dam is not the answer to flood control. If, indeed, the Sacramento area does feel that they are in need of greater protection from flooding, we understand that there are more sensible and less costly alternatives. Taxpayers for Common $ense is neutral on the question of whether the region needs greater flood control; we think that is a local responsibility and they can work that out themselves. But if they decide that they need flood control, observers, including the Army Corps of Engineers, point out that there are less costly alternatives.
We believe that if the region decides that they need flood protection, it is the local beneficiaries that can afford and should pay for their own flood protection. We question whether flood control in a local area constitutes a national problem that should be supported with Federal taxpayer dollars. In fact, a 1995 national Academy of Science report stated that local flood protection was not in the national interest, and that this particular local area has the ability to pay.
Another gamble for the taxpayer is that this dam is sited on an earthquake fault. It was halted in 1975 because of the seismic concerns. In 1990 a geologist from the University of California-Davis questioned the safety of the dam because of the seismic concerns. And just last week, the U.S. Geological Survey released a report that again raise questions about the siting of the dam on an earthquake fault.
We question, again, why the Federal taxpayer should pay for a project that has generated significant local opposition. Several California papers have editorialized against this project—The Auburn Sentinel, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Business Journal, San Jose Mercury News. And the Auburn Sentinel said, ''The Auburn dam is a costly public works boondoggle that contributes to drowning taxpayers in a river of red ink.'' We couldn't say it any better.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Again, nothing has happened that would make Auburn dam any more viable or reasonable than when construction was halted in 1975 or when it was defeated in the House of Representatives in 1992. The only thing that has changed, as I've already said, is discretionary spending is getting smaller and the Nation's commitment to common sense spending priorities has grown.
Finally, as the committee begins this very difficult task of crafting a water resources development bill that they would like to pass the House, we would offer this word of caution. This bill is likely to contain costly projects as well as support activities that some would consider local responsibilities, and we feel that the last thing that this bill needs would be an authorization for a very expensive, unnecessary Auburn dam that could seriously jeopardize the passage of the bill. Thank you.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Ms. Lancelot. And thank all of you for your fine testimony.
It is my pleasure at this time to yield to the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee for 5 minutes, Mr. Petri.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. I know you're under time pressure and I won't take the full time. I would just like to begin by saying I think at least one thing has changed between 1992 and now. I think everybody from your area knows you have a very able Representative in John Doolittle. He has had a long-term interest in this and, by his lights, trying to get it right. I think in 1992 he had some questions about the particular plan that was moving forward at that time and its effectiveness and, therefore, opposed that particular plan. He and I were arm-in-arm at that point; but for different reasons in part, now we've sort of parted ways.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I guess what I am really most interested in finding out is if there is some way of getting an acceptable outside knowledgeable group to review this for us. I represent taxpayers up in the upper Midwest and we're willing to pay our share, but we don't want to do something that's not going to do the job and that is basically not environmentally sound and is, as some argue, a boondoggle. So I would feel a lot better about this whole subject if we could get some national academy-type panel or some other group that is agreed to be responsible and prudent to review this whole thing and give us a little guidance so it just doesn't become a political and regional cat fight or a set piece fight of people who want to do nothing as opposed to those who like to build big construction projects. I have liked to build some construction projects myself, but I think they should be justified.
So that basically is my area of question. I would appreciate a response if there are any suggestions, either now or later in the next couple weeks as this moves forward.
Mr. STORK. I can take a small crack at that. The National Academy of Engineering published a review in 1995 essentially based on the work that had already been done by the Corps in 1992 with some of the work products that were happening in 1994. So there has been some observations and I think valuable insights. Both Dave Kennedy and I quote different sections of the same document. The Academy has not reviewed the final Corps Feasibility Report, which we understand has not yet actually been released for public review yet in Sacramento.
One of the conclusions they reached though, that from many perspectives, some of the issues are resolved sufficiently that some political action is possible. Of course, I would argue that those are the kind of approaches that are capable of generating some substantial consensus both within the natural resources agencies, the community groups, the conservation community, and the engineering people there who have essentially signed off on some of the more modest flood control approaches that we all can agree on.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. KENNEDY. I might comment if I could on that. As Mr. Stork says, we probably would quote different portions of the report, and I commend the report to you, it's a couple hundred page report that came out about a year ago. The particular part that I think is of interest is the hydrology, the portion that says this River is bigger than we thought when Folsom dam was built. It points out that if you rely not only on the 90 record, but if you look at the last 45 years, we've got an even worse problem than some of us have been characterizing here.
Mr. STORK. And I would commend my written testimony to you because I go into that subject in considerable detail. I have a different view.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Petri. I focused before the lights came on Mr. Stork on something that you said and I want to open it up to everybody. I think your goal of what this flood control project should look like, I think you describe it less expensive, less negative environmental impact, and something that works. I would really like to focus in on that because, like Mr. Petri, I'm from Ohio and this River is something that's new to me.
From what I've read so far during the course of yesterday's testimony and today's, of the three plans—the Folsom modification plan, the step release plan, and the Auburn dam plan—I think everybody agrees that the Auburn dam plan provides 500 year floodplain protection. I think, Mr. Kennedy, when you were testifying you asked is that too much and you talked about the Dutch. The other data that I've seen indicates that the modification of the Folsom project would give Sacramento 180 year potential flood protection and that the step release program would provide 235 year, if I read my numbers right, floodplain protection.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So I think I'd like to turn the question around to each of you. If the question is legitimately asked, is 500 year floodplain protection too much; is 235 year floodplain protection too little? If the answer to that question is yes, as I assume it might be on this side of the table, I would like to know what you base that on. If it's no, I'd like to hear why. Why don't we start over here with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Cox.
Mr. KENNEDY. I think I would start with the basic premise that we don't want this area to ever flood. Candidly, if we could get 10,000 year protection, we would do it. Because a flood through this levee system will be so devastating, there will be such a problem that if there was an economical environmentally acceptable way to never have it flood, we'd be in here arguing for it.
Mr. LATOURETTE. If I could just interrupt you. I think that's a goal that all of us would share. But for the many members on this committee, we're looking at about a $3 billion appropriation and you folks are coming in here and asking for about one-third of it. We don't want Sacramento to flood either, and I think we've been convinced of the billions of dollars in damages and then we have the second problem of insurance payments and FEMA and everything else that follows. But just based upon the hydrology that's available and the body of research that's out there, and I haven't read this engineering report I must admit, I will do that, but is the step release program too little based upon the science and the nature of the River as you know it?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I believe it is too little and I believe it is in itself inherently hazardous because it depends more on the levee system than we depend on it today. We would have deeper flows, faster flows in a River system where we have historically had a lot of levee problems. This is a Wild and Scenic area, this portion of the River. We cannot go in and armor this channel so as to completely avoid erosion. One of the points is that during a flood time when the water is high and it's flowing fast, we know that erosion is taking place somewhere below the water but we don't know where. It is a very troublesome thing to flood control people to think that we're going to become more dependent on the levee system than we are today. That's my basic problem with the step release plan. So in specific answer to your question, I think it does not provide the protection we need.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, let me just add to that by saying to you that it is our belief after looking at all the data that the primary difficulty with the step release plan is it does not provide the flexibility that we must have in order to manage the American River. Someone sometime ago used the illustration of a rubber band. There comes a point in time when you have a major storm, as we have seen in the last several years, that when that band is stretched and breaks, that's the breech of a levee, we literally have no opportunity to do anything about that.
The primary consideration and the reason that SAFCA supports the dam at Auburn is because it gives us the flexibility, it gives us the storage in order to control that American River. Once the levee is breached, there is no turning things back.
Mr. LATOURETTE. You used a word that I'm familiar with in the insurance business but not in the dam business, and that word is redlined. That's not a term of art that I'm familiar with when it comes to water flow. What did you mean by redline.
Mr. COX. I'm going to ask Mr. Hodgkins, our executive director, to detail that. He's an engineer and he will give you a detailed illustration.
Mr. HODGKINS. That was perhaps a bad choice, but in driving an automobile, particularly a sports car, there's a redline on the tachometer you don't go above. That's what we're talking about here.
Mr. LATOURETTE. That, I understand. Mr. Stork, is there a response that you would have to add, sir.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. STORK. Once again we're back in the 1992 rhetoric mode; they're in campaign mode. This is not the kind of rhetoric that we had during the last 3 years as we've been working together on the Lower American River Task Force fashioning consensus-based flood control approaches. But you just have to forgive them while they're in campaign mode.
Let's be frank about the situation that we face. The American River system is in need of significant reliability improvements. But we know that the existing system with those reliability improvements can control the worst—that the worst flood that this region has ever experienced in recorded history and, indeed, as far as we know that we have any physical evidence for whatsoever—that the existing system is already quite competent. The groups in the American River Coalition, however, have come together with the engineering agencies over the last 3 years and agreed to help work together to fashion flood control approaches that will control storms much larger than we've ever experienced and that we expect ever to happen if we use the standard Corps methodology to establish an outer bound flood. So we've done our job.
The hydrology issues that Mr. Kennedy and I may have a disagreement on are interesting, fascinating kind of questions about how you estimate outer bounds, whether you use it on mathematical systems or whether you use it on physical evidence and meteorological evidence, and we can go into that detail. I don't think the committee really needs to go into that detail today, but that issue is addressed in our testimony and it was addressed before the Corps of Engineers Assessments. And their final EIS has not been released yet for public review.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Stork.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
At this time it is my great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the ranking member of this committee, I am quite interested in all water projects. I have a specific question for Mr. Stork and Ms. Lancelot. What specific alternatives protect Sacramento against the standard projected flood, what other alternatives would there be if we don't build the Auburn dam?
Mr. STORK. The stepped release project is capable of controlling about 97 percent of the standard——
Mr. YOUNG. The what project?
Mr. STORK. The stepped release project, the second project that was identified by the Corps of Engineers. We also believe that project is capable of enhanced performance either by spending more money, it, after all, is considerably less expensive than Auburn dam, or simply by listening to the weather forecasts.
Mr. YOUNG. When you say the stepped release project, just enlighten me. It lets the water into the existing flow system at a lower rate or a different area below the city of Sacramento?
Mr. STORK. That's a project that involves two major features and one minor feature. Of the two major features, one is it lowers the spillways at Folsom dam and also modifies some outlet works at Folsom dam, so that Folsom dam, when it has to go into flood control release mode, is capable of conducting aggressive flood control operations, much more capable than it is today. We also have spent a lot of time over the last 3 years, as we said in earlier testimony, working together with community groups along the River and the parkway protection in fixing the levees essentially.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. YOUNG. I'm from California. When you say you work with groups, do either Mr. Cox or Mr. Kennedy agree with this analogy of the stepped project? Would it be able to handle, in case we had 84 feet of snow and warm rain over a period of 7 days—and I may be stretching the 84 feet, I'm thinking of Valdez, Alaska, which we had 2 years ago, this year we only had a foot and a half—but if we had an immense Sierra snowfall and a warm stretch of rain and a release of water and the American River, the Sacramento River, the Federal River, and all the other rivers which are involved above Sacramento, would his project solve that problem? I don't care who answers that. I know there is a difference of opinion.
Mr. KENNEDY. In my view, Mr. Young, it would exacerbate the problem. The essential part of the stepped release plan is to increase the objective release out of Folsom from the existing 115,000 cubic feet per second, which is what we've had there for many years as the target release, to go up to 145,000, and then possibly up as high 180,000 cubic feet per second. So we're talking about greatly increasing the flow in a stepped manner from Folsom dam. Now at a time like this, presumably we've also got the Sacramento River full of water coming out of Shasta——
Mr. YOUNG. Everybody is full.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. So part of the stepped release plan involves raising the levees and increasing the wear capacity downstream so as to get that water out of the system, and that's part of the problem with it. There is a lot of uncertainty whether that's really feasible.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. COX. Excuse me, if I could add.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Cox.
Mr. COX. Thank you. Mr. Young, I think probably the important consideration is that we don't know that the stepped release program will work. The Corps of Engineers basically says that if you have a ''standard flood,'' this is a plan that will not work, the situation where we have to increase the levees down river by some 43 miles.
The community of Sacramento is at the confluence of the Sacramento and the American Rivers, as you know, and when the Sacramento River begins to flow, and even as it flows over into the Weir, what we find is that it begins to build a hydrological dam, if that's the proper word, so that the American River begins to back up. And as the water flow goes down the river, that channel only has so much capacity. Interestingly enough, I was listening to Mr. Stork talk about Ecclesiastes and I'm just getting through Exodus now, I don't know about Ecclesiastes, but I can tell you that my neighbor who lives back against the levee is concerned when the water is higher on the side of the levee than his house is below the levee. And so it's a situation that the only program, the only project that will solve the needs is that which is in fact presented as the preferred alternative.
Mr. YOUNG. That brings to me a point. We just had a report on Portland. The dams in the Columbia River have been tremendously criticized over the years and no one has mentioned the fact that if we didn't have those dams in place there would be no more Portland. It is the 100-year rainstorm. It's not new. It's gone on over a period of time. We just keep forgetting to read history books. I've been through two floods in California, by the way. They built the Shasta dam and we have not been flooded since. Then they built the Orville dam and we were not flooded again. I'm not saying that is always the best thing, but I am saying they do work in a lot of cases.
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I would ask Ms. Lancelot, in your testimony you say you oppose it because of it being too expensive. A point of information for the record, do you oppose any Federal involvement in any Federal projects?
Ms. LANCELOT. Do we oppose any Federal involvement in any Federal projects?
Mr. YOUNG. Do you oppose any Federal involvement in any Federal flood control projects?
Ms. LANCELOT. We believe that flood control is, and particularly in this case—we're talking about Auburn dam here—we believe——
Mr. YOUNG. You're talking about Auburn dam, but I am going to ask you specifically do you oppose any Federal involvement in any flood control projects?
Ms. LANCELOT. We believe that flood control is a local responsibility. In fact, the National Academy of Science in their 1995 report said indeed those words, that this should not be a Federal taxpayer responsibility. Please understand, I am not arguing with these gentlemen whether or not there should be flood control, whether there should be greater flood protection. I am sure that they know their region, I appreciate that they do, and they certainly can make the decisions of what sort of flood control protection they should have. That is not the issue for the Taxpayers for Common $ense. What we are concerned with is 75 percent of the costs, and we're talking about $1 billion or more total cost and over $700 million for Federal taxpayers to pay, that is our concern. We are delighted that the Congress is finally agreed with the administration to have a balanced budget. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a balanced budget and have expensive new programs that the Federal taxpayer is going to pick up.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. YOUNG. Just one other question that goes beyond the dam, and I'm trying to truly get the philosophy which you espouse. Then you would not support the acquisition of new lands for parks be managed by the taxpayer?
Ms. LANCELOT. That is not an issue for this committee. We would be happy——
Mr. YOUNG. But your organization has supported the purchasing of land and managing of parks paid for by the taxpayers but you oppose this dam; is that correct?
Ms. LANCELOT. We believe in user fees. If you have read some of our other——
Mr. YOUNG. I've read most of your stuff, by the way, I'll be right up front with you on that. I'm just very curious, apparently you do not oppose building this dam if built by private money?
Ms. LANCELOT. We are talking about Auburn dam, Mr. Young. I would be happy to discuss——
Mr. YOUNG. I am asking the questions. I know what we're talking about. I am just suggesting that you do not oppose the dam then if it was built by State money or private money?
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. LANCELOT. Oh, certainly. If folks in the area feel that they want a dam and they want to pay for it, they can pay for that.
Mr. YOUNG. You would have no objections?
Ms. LANCELOT. We're talking about Federal taxpayer dollars.
Mr. YOUNG. You would have no objection to the Auburn dam?
Ms. LANCELOT. I have stated that what we're concerned with is that 75 percent of over $1 billion is going to be picked up by Federal taxpayers and that is what we object to.
Mr. YOUNG. But you would not object to the Auburn dam if it was paid for by private money?
Ms. LANCELOT. I believe that I have said that.
Mr. YOUNG. No, you haven't said. So yes or no, would you support the Auburn dam?
Ms. LANCELOT. We are testifying today about the Auburn dam in California as a flood control project.
Mr. YOUNG. That's right. And I have asked you the question, would you support the dam if it was built by private or State money? I want to find out who is actually holding whose hand here.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. LANCELOT. We are a separate organization, we're an independent organization——
Mr. YOUNG. You haven't answered my question. Mr. Chairman, I still say a yes or no answer is all I have asked for. She has refused to answer a yes or no question. The question is there, it has not been answered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you able to answer Mr. Young's question yes or no? If you're not, that's fine, but if you would, we could move on to something else.
Ms. LANCELOT. The Taxpayers for Common $ense is an organization that wants to cut wasteful Government spending, subsidies, and tax breaks. That is what we believe in. And we also believe that people in an area that can afford to pay for projects in their area ought to pay for them; the Federal taxpayer should not.
Mr. LATOURETTE. I understood that and I know Mr. Young understood. His question, as I recall it, is, if there were no Federal involvement and we weren't talking about using water funds, and the State of California and the people in Sacramento collected money to build the dam, would you object to the dam?
Ms. LANCELOT. If they want to collect the money for the dam in California in this particular case, that's fine.
Mr. LATOURETTE. That's fine with you as far as your organization?
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. YOUNG. If the Chairman would yield. The reason I asked that question, I have followed the record and it seems to me that every time something comes up concerning the so-called environmental issue, I find it is always the taxpayer is being told that they're being ripped off. In timber, wherever it may be, and I can show where it actually creates money, but they say it's not true and the taxpayer is being ripped off. And when I say the record is true and show the figures there, they never accept those. And that's one of the reasons I asked the question. I just want to know if they would support it, and I still have not got that answer.
Ms. LANCELOT. We would be delighted to testify before your committee, sir.
Mr. YOUNG. You'll have the chance before you're through.
Mr. LATOURETTE. I want to thank you, Mr. Young. To the witnesses on this panel, I want to thank you very much. I know that the committee is going to be looking at the Auburn dam project and the American River as it considers its markup of the Water Resources Development Act in this Congress. I appreciate very much your testimony here today, and I know the other members of this subcommittee will review your testimony in full as they approach this important decision. Thank you very much.
We will now call for our fifth panel in today's hearing. As with the third panel that we were lucky enough to hear from today, we are also honored and pleased to have one of our colleagues today who I believe not only wants to introduce our first witness, but I believe she also makes some observation in her statement relative to the issue that Mr. Horiuchi is here to discuss. It's a great pleasure to welcome Representative Enid Waldholtz of Utah to the committee. Welcome.
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. WALDHOLTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify today. And I am pleased that Mr. Randy Horiuchi, a member of the Salt County Commission, is here to testify with me this afternoon. We want to address two projects that are relatively small, particularly in light of the project that you've just been discussing, but are nevertheless very critical to our community. One is the Mill Creek Flood Control Project, and the other is the Upper Jordan River Channel Restoration Project.
First to address the Mill Creek Flood Control Project, in the 1990 Water Resources Development Act, Congress authorized $7.9 million for the Mill Creek project as part of our efforts to protect the more than 10,000 people living along Mill Creek from a 100 year flood event. The reauthorization that we're asking for today is needed because the costs have since exceeded 20 percent of the current authorization primarily due to increased real estate costs. The total project estimate is now $12.87 million. In addition, we're seeking authorization for new start construction for the Mill Creek Project. Without this authorization, progress on the project could be significantly delayed.
The Salt Lake Valley has a history of flooding. We have a number of mountain streams and creeks running into the valley. When the weather conditions are just right, we get a huge runoff in the spring. We had severe floods in 1982, 1983, and 1984, following which the local voters in Salt Lake County approved a $33.5 million bond to pay for major flood control improvements that include the Mill Creek Project. I am going to defer to Commissioner Horiuchi to explain the details.
I just wanted to also point out, Mr. Chairman, that reauthorization of the Mill Creek Project was included in the 1994 Water Resources Development Act approved by the Public Works and Transportation Committee. But since Congress unfortunately did not approve the final bill at that time, we're again seeking reauthorization. We're hopeful that you will be able to support our request.
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Secondly, I'm also requesting a $5.5 million authorization for the Upper Jordan River Channel Restoration Program which would help restore the Salt Lake Valley watershed through channel restoration. In addition to our traditional flood control efforts, Salt Lake County is trying to develop more environmentally sensitive measures to control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation. There have been a number of extensive studies done that show that flooding in the Salt Lake Valley could be better controlled through more natural means such as revegetation and stream stabilization, which includes regrading the river for a more natural meandering flow. Again, I would like to defer to Commissioner Horiuchi to explain the details of the project.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the 1990 Water Resources Development Act established environmental protection as one of the missions of the Corps of Engineers. I believe that this would be an excellent project for the Corps to undertake, and hope that you will be able to support our request.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my entire statement for the record.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. It would be welcomed for the entire record and will be studied very carefully.
Ms. WALDHOLTZ. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.
At this point, I would like to defer to Commissioner Horiuchi.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BOEHLERT. Commissioner Horiuchi, welcome, and we look forward to hearing your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF RANDY HORIUCHI, COMMISSIONER, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH; JAY L. KIMBLE, MAYOR, STILLWATER, MN; AND NATHALIE WALKER, MANAGING ATTORNEY, SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, NEW ORLEANS, LA, ON BEHALF OF THE GULF RESTORATION NETWORK
Mr. HORIUCHI. Thanks, Congressman Waldholtz. Greetings to the committee from the home of the 2002 Winter Olympics. My name is Randy Horiuchi and I am a member of the Salt Lake County Commission. On behalf of the commissioners, I appreciate this opportunity to visit with you.
First, I would like to discuss the Mill Creek Flood Control Project, which is located in Salt Lake County. Salt Lake County has been working with the Army Corps of Engineers over 15 years on this project which will provide a 100 year flood event control for 10,000 people along the Mill Creek Valley in central Salt Lake County.
The continual flooding of the Upper Jordan River basin first led the Corps and us to work as a team since 1977. Salt Lake County experienced severe cloudburst flooding in 1982, 1983, and 1984, and all three events were 100 year events. In 1983 and 1984, Salt Lake was included in the President's emergency declaration. And following this flooding, Salt Lake County voters received a $33.5 million bond issue approval. This, coupled with FEMA, provided over $70 million of local monies to provide for flood control facilities.
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
One of the major elements, however, that was really left out because of our Federal work was this diversion from the Mill Creek to the Hillview detention basin, the one that we've been working with the Corps on. Since this project met the Corps' requirements, we requested that they take the lead on this project and we have proceeded to this point.
The Mill Creek Flood Control Project has three major features: First, the diversion structure which is located on Mill Creek; secondly, the diversion conduit; and finally, the Hillview detention basin which exists on county-owned property. The detention basin stores the peak of the storm over this 100 year cycle and releases the storage at a low rate back into the stream. It's designed for this 100 year peak flow from Mill Creek and a 10 year peak flow volumes from nearby storm drains. The flood control project is a critical element of the overall flood system for Mill Creek. We have designed and built our channel capacity downstream for this diversion and we simply must have it for those 10,000 residents.
Salt Lake County is also requesting the committee's support for authorizing a new start for the project. Preliminary engineering and design will be done in 1996 and in fiscal year 1997 we can begin. As a local sponsor, we have provided $4.2 million of non-Federal match to do this. On behalf of our residents of Salt Lake County, we really do need this.
I would like to also take the opportunity to talk about the Jordan River Channel Project. This is an increasing project for both State and local governments regarding our floodplain and wetland deterioration along the Jordan River. An effective watershed management can really help alleviate this problem. Our County is requesting that authorization be provided in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act for the Corps to carry out this project. Channel protection and restoration using these measures will provide flood control protection, restoration of water quality, and restoration of the wetlands to their natural site.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Extensive studies of the dredging, diking, and channelization of our Jordan River have been conducted by the Corps which include recommendations on how to take care of this problem. We believe that stabilizing the riverbeds which involve vegetative controls as well as some structural components by the Corps will help upgrade the river. Extensive planning and environmental protection of the Jordan River has been done already by the Corps.
Let me just say that this project is very people-intensive and we intend on having literally thousands of volunteers, as we've really had over the past several years, work on this project in terms of revegetation, planting trees. Let me say that it is our centennial year and we have made the Jordan River our State centennial project. So we're after it. Thank you for this time.
Mr. BOEHLERT [assuming Chair]. I thank you for your enthusiasm. I happen to be a great fan of county commissioners. I am a former county executive so I know you get all the problems and all the mandates and sometimes not the resources you need to do the job. Thank you very much. We'll have a couple of questions for you later.
Now, for the purpose of introduction, we recognize our colleague Congressman Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here with the Mayor of Stillwater, Jay Kimble, to request an increased authorization for the repair and extension of the levee wall system at Stillwater, Minnesota on the St. Croix River.
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The levee on the St. Croix River and many of the landmarks it protects are of national significance. The levee wall system was constructed by the WPA to protect the city of Stillwater from high water levels caused by the construction of a U.S. Army Corps lock and dam on the Mississippi River at Red Wing, Minnesota. The St. Croix River was the first river designated as a Wild and Scenic River under Federal legislation, and the levee protects 117 sites of historical significance in our State, 23 of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Because of these factors, the Congress determined in 1992 that the levee deserved national attention and authorized funding and appropriated funds in fiscal year 1994.
Although the repair and construction of the levee is a matter of Federal interest, it is truly a Federal-State-city partnership. The Minnesota legislature has already set aside $400,000 for the first phase of the project and our State Department of Natural Resources is recommending $350,000 in additional funding this year. In addition, the city of Stillwater has allocated $750,000 for the project. On that point, Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce Stillwater Mayor Jay Kimble who will lay out for you in greater detail the urgency surrounding the deterioration of the current levee.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Mayor, we welcome you. I don't want you to think I'm prejudice and only have an affection for country government officials. Mayors are equally high in my hit parade because I know what a difficult job you have at the local level. The State government tells you what to do, the Federal Government tells you what to do, and we're not very open about giving you the resources. I want you to know you're talking to a guy who believes in the type of projects you're talking about. I'm not unwilling to spend the taxpayers' money if it is for a legitimate purpose that serves a worthy need. So, Mr. Mayor, I welcome your testimony.
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mayor KIMBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today on behalf of the citizens of Stillwater, Minnesota. We are requesting an amendment to the Stillwater Levee System Project authorized under section 363 of the Water Resources Act of 1992. This amendment will provide the necessary funds to complete the repair, extension, and expansion of the levee wall system in accordance with the design memorandum and the $11.6 million budget prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The retaining wall protects the fragile riverfront and the floodplain of downtown Stillwater from high water levels and the flooding that occurs each spring.
Fifty-five years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers was building a new lock and dam on the Mississippi River at Red Wing, Minnesota. Knowing that the completion of the dam would back up the waters on the St. Croix, the retaining wall system was built by the WPA in 1937 to protect the city of Stillwater and the commercial operations located there. The earthen and stone levee that existed before the 1930s gave the city very little protection and would quickly wash away with the high waters that were sure to follow when the Red Wing dam was completed and also each spring with the breakup of the ice. At that time the city owned only 1,000 feet of the waterfront, so that was determined to be the length of the levee wall system.
Today, the levee protects nearly $50 million in commercial property and infrastructure development, but, equally as important, 23 structures in the floodplain are listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. The levee system is in such condition that the project engineer stated that the levee could not withstand another flood like occurred in 1993. The Corps' own analysis of the condition of the levee in 1991 said the levee had deteriorated to the extent that there was a strong likelihood that the wall could experience a significant failure within the next 2 years. The report noted that ''Because this whole section of the riverfront property was created by filling during the logging era, soil conditions are suspect.''
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
This is one of the factors that has caused the increase in cost to the project. Without soil borings, the engineers had estimated that the poor soil conditions would extend 20 to 25 feet. When borings were taken in the preparation of the project design they found that poor soil conditions extended as deep as 75 to 80 feet in certain places. New engineering techniques were required to remedy this situation.
If you would like to turn to the last page of my written testimony, you will see an aerial view of the levee system and the floodplain of downtown Stillwater. The levee now extends from the street in the lower left of the photo to the gazebo, which is the white structure just past the historic lift bridge. The design memorandum calls for the extension of the levee beginning at the gazebo and extending around Mulberry Point to the marina seen at the right side of the photo. The extension is critical because the high waters during the runoffs each spring flood the northern end of the riverfront for 4 to 6 weeks or longer, making the emergency road adjacent to the levee impassible for fire protection or emergency medical services on the river.
Phase III of the project calls for a flood wall to be constructed approximately 125 feet inland from the existing levee wall. This flood wall will extend three feet above the ground on top of sheet pilings which will extend downward about twenty feet to prevent seepage through the porous soil. Sandbagging during the floods of 1965, 1969, and 1973 did little good because the water flooded the protected area seeping underneath the sandbags. This flood wall will give the city a 50 year flood protection program which can be doubled with sandbagging on top of the flood wall with the seepage blocked.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Looking again at the aerial view of the area, the current authorization will provide only enough funds to repair the levee from the street seen in the left-hand corner to the lift bridge. The repair of the north end of the levee will be terminated as will the extension of the levee around Mulberry Point and the flood wall. The pictures on the next to the last page show the current condition of the levee. You can see that the lower wall which begins at the water level has deteriorated completely leaving nothing left to protect the porous soil and wood debris that is protected by the levee. The walkway has been declared unsafe by the city, and the secondary wall with no support has begun to tip forward.
The Senate has increased the authorization for this project to $11.6 million, and the State legislature of Minnesota has considered this project a highest priority by providing half of the non-Federal matching funds. The city of Stillwater has set aside the remainder of the matching funds needed. There is no doubt that this project is the city's highest priority. It is critical to preservation of the State's history and the protection of property.
We respectfully request that this committee amend section 363 in the Water Resources Act of 1992 by increasing the authorization to $11.6 million in accordance with the design memorandum and budget prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for your consideration of this critical request and the privilege to appear before this committee today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Let me tell you both, Commissioner and Mayor, and my colleagues know this, the list is this long of requests we have before the committee, you two are advantaged because you have strong advocates at your side. Many, many people from local government come down here all alone. So you are very fortunate to have very strong advocates for whom this committee has great respect. That's number one.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Second, I'm going to ask you both a question for the record, I know the answer. In Washington that's the way you do things, ask questions that you know the answer to because you want to get it on the record. In both instances, the State is participating, and, in your instance, the County of Salt Lake, and, in your instance, the City of Stillwater as project local sponsors, is that correct?
Mayor KIMBLE. Correct.
Mr. HORIUCHI. That is correct.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, we very much appreciate your testimony. It is very helpful to us. Once again let me just tell you, just turn to your Representative on each side and say thanks very much; it's nice to have somebody in Washington who cares about these local matters. Thank you very much.
Our final witness for the day is the managing attorney for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, representing the Gulf Restoration Network, Ms. Nathalie Walker.
Ms. Walker.
Ms. WALKER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Nathalie Walker, managing attorney for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in New Orleans. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the Gulf Restoration Network. The Network is a coalition of 30 environmental and community groups dedicated to restoring the health of the Gulf of Mexico. I am happy to be here today to discuss the Network's concerns about the policies and practices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I will summarize my comments here and submit written testimony for the record.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BOEHLERT. Your statement will appear in the record in its entirety. We have asked the witnesses throughout the day if they would try to summarize in 5 minutes or so. And I'm not going to be arbitrary. If you go 6 minutes, I won't get upset, but please don't go twenty.
Ms. WALKER. Thank you. I won't. In the Gulf Coast region, the Corps of Engineers promotes unneeded and environmentally devastating projects. The polices and practices allowing this to occur have got to change. Protecting valuable natural resources is particularly important to residents in the Gulf Coast region. Commercial fishing, recreation, and tourism are key to the Gulf Coast economy and these industries depend upon healthy rivers, healthy wetlands, and healthy estuaries.
Three aspects of water resources policy and Corps practices encourage the senseless destruction of natural resources. The first is the construction and maintenance of unneeded projects. The second is the Corps' failure to be responsive to local citizens and State and Federal resource agencies. And the third is the Corps' failure to comply with the letter and spirit of environmental laws. I have outlined several Corps projects in my written testimony that illustrate these problems and I have suggested solutions. I would like to summarize only one for you now.
The project known as the Channel to Red Bluff involves the use of Federal funds to reopen a 30 year old abandoned navigational channel on the Levaca River in Texas. This channel leads to a site with no port and no industrial activity. Federal funds were appropriated to dredge the channel due to requests from the local navigation district. Now because 100 percent of dredging maintenance costs are paid for by the Federal Government, navigation interests had nothing to lose in this long-shot effort to attract industrial development to the area. But the taxpayers did have a lot to lose. The Corps spent over $2 million dredging the channel and the full environmental cost has yet to be determined.
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department both expressed concern about the lack of need for the project and its potential impacts on prime fish and wildlife habitat. Yet, the Corps conducted minimal evaluation of this project before proceeding. It did not complete an environmental impact statement, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act, claiming that an EIS completed a generation ago was sufficient. The Corps also failed to examine whether reopening the channel was in the public interest, leaving the taxpayers with a bill for an unused project authorized decades ago with no new analysis of economic need or environmental impacts.
Mr. Chairman, we hear that the Corps of Engineers has a new mission of environmental restoration and protection. But in the Gulf region, what we have seen is more of the status quo—special interests asking for Federal handouts for questionable navigation projects. Meanwhile, the few environmentally enhancing Corps projects, like the Achafalaya Basin Protection Program in Louisiana, flounder because they must compete for funds with these unneeded projects. The Achafalaya basin, while breathtakingly beautiful, also supports commercial fishing, recreation, and tourism industries. Yet, Corps personnel working to protect the Achafalaya will tell you themselves that every year they have to fight for funds.
If we are to weed out these unnecessary projects, we need to change the incentive structure in Federal law. The industries that benefit from these public expenditures simply must pay their fair share of the costs for operation and maintenance as well as construction. In 1995, about 90 percent of the costs of waterway navigation were paid for by the Federal Government. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that the inland waterway system is this country's most heavily subsidized transportation system. In addition, previously authorized but unused projects should be fully reevaluated in light of current economic needs and environmental impacts before new activity occurs.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
And finally, Congress should do whatever it takes to ensure that the Corps follows both the letter and the spirit of existing Federal law. It is bitterly ironic that the Corps has an environmental restoration mandate yet continues to flaunt environmental laws. We cannot allow the Corps to deliberately ignore the input of local constituents and sister resource agencies at the State and Federal level. Their input is invaluable and it should be embraced not ignored.
Mr. Chairman, this committee has the opportunity to get Federal water resources law and the Corps back on the right track. The Gulf Restoration Network urges you to do just that. Thank you for your time and attention. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Has the Network consciously tried to reach out and sit down with the Corps people in Galveston or New Orleans and talk this thing through? Have you had any success in scheduling such an appointment?
Ms. WALKER. We do sit down and talk. We are frequently met with little concern. It is not a two-way conversation. Some of the projects that I outlined in my written testimony, and these are just egregious, the Network is backed up, for example, by the Fish and Wildlife Service telling the Corps of Engineers do not dredge the West Pearl River. The Corps goes forward. It is not a two-way conversation. We talk, no one listens.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I just want to get a feel for this. Do you mean you actually have a meeting with the Corps, you come in, you sit down, I assume you sit down at a table in a room someplace, and you present your expressions of concern. Are you stonewalled? Do they just say thank you very much and don't respond; it's not a two-way dialogue?
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. WALKER. Frequently, that is the situation. A more recent example, members of the Network met with Corps of Engineers in the Vicksburg, Mississippi district to talk about the Mississippi mainline levee maintenance project. We told them, we actually told them in writing before the meeting, but we told them at the meeting once again this is a huge project that's going to involve the destruction of over 14,000 acres of wetlands. You all have got to sit down and do an EIS on this. And again we're met with, oh, well 20 or 30 years ago we did one. And we say, wait a minute, critters have been listed since then. We know more about wetlands since then. Things have changed. And then we remind them that under the law, under NEPA they can't slide by with 20 and 30 year old EIS. But the response thus far has been, well, we just don't want to do an EIS. Maybe we'll come up with this new thing called an Environmental Design Report for you. Well, you know, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Let's deal with NEPA.
Mr. BOEHLERT. It may be unfair to ask you this, but why do you think projects like the ones you pointed out that you feel are most egregious go forward? Is it the Corps determined to do it or is it the Corps being pushed by maybe political interests? Why do you think they are going forward? The Corps has got a long list of projects that they consider are very worthy that they don't have the funds to pay for. Why would they be involved in projects where there is so much legitimate opposition?
Ms. WALKER. Yes, political pressure is brought to bear in many instances. In other instances, quite frankly, we're dealing with people at the Corps who don't see their supposed green mission. In defense of the Corps, I will tell you there are good people who are interested in this new green mission, specifically the people in New Orleans working on the Achafalaya basin protection plan. They are outnumbered. They will tell you that. They told me that just this weekend at a conference at Tulane University. That's a big problem. The culture at the Corps has got to change.
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BOEHLERT. We just have on the job for 3 weeks now a new assistant secretary who is in charge of the Corps, a former colleague of ours, Martin Lancaster, a former Democrat Congressman from North Carolina, for whom I have the highest regard. I am very environmentally conscious. As a matter of fact, one of my proudest achievements was to win the ''Totally Awesome Voting Record Award'' from the Kids Against Pollution. The Sierra Club and a lot of other worthy environmental organizations on a national basis have done nice things in terms saying things about my voting record, but the kids, that meant a lot to me.
The point is I think we're probably on the same wave length in what we want to see done in terms of these projects and what we want to prevent from being done. I would suggest you might consider writing to the new Assistant Secretary Martin Lancaster.
Ms. WALKER. We've actually met with him.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Good. Did you find that a productive meeting?
Ms. WALKER. I wasn't at that meeting but another person with the Legal Defense Fund was there on behalf of the Network. It was a meeting with several environmental groups, but we did take that opportunity to let him know that there are a couple of renegade Corps districts in our region that he needs to be aware of.
Mr. BOEHLERT. He told me this morning in testimony that he is environmentally sensitive and the Corps is going to be environmentally sensitive. I'm going to hold him to a higher test than maybe they've been held before because I haven't been Chairman of this subcommittee before. It is a new day. But I appreciate your testimony. You're just being passed something, maybe you want to add something to it? Is there something you want to comment on further?
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. WALKER. I just wanted to reiterate in the vein of political pressure, it is because the operation and maintenance costs for these navigation projects are basically free to the guys who say let's get this going that these projects happen. In the case of the West Pearl River in Louisiana, for example, if that wasn't going to be 100 percent borne by the Federal Government, it wouldn't happen. That's a big problem.
Mr. BOEHLERT. A lot of these projects, I don't know that particular project, people at the local level say don't worry, there's no tax money involved; it's being paid for by the Federal Government. How do they think we get our money?
Ms. WALKER. Exactly. I would just close by saying that we've got to change this operations and maintenance lack of cost-share for navigation projects.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank you very much for your contribution. My colleagues on the committee who are not here, this is a day when we have major legislation on the floor and people are engaged otherwise, but we have a very able professional staff that will distribute your testimony and it will be considered by my colleagues. We're going to do our best to be environmentally responsible as we go forward with this very important Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Ms. WALKER. Thank you so very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Next month we will continue our hearings on the Water Resources Development Act. At that time, we will be receiving testimony from Members of Congress, which means it will be a long day because they all have their wish lists that they are going to present to the subcommittee, and we'll have testimony on other issues. The precise schedule for these hearings will be announced in the near future.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Insert here.]
Next Hearing Segment(3)