[Senate Hearing 106-976]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-976
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 23, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-423 cc WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
?
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress, second session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Wyoming MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 23, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 3
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 4
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 4
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 34
Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 36
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 1
WITNESSES
Borrone, Lillian, Director of Port Commerce, Port of New York and
New Jersey..................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 87
Malloy, Hon. Dannel P., Mayor, Stamford, Connecticut............. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Marlowe, Howard, president, American Coastal Coalition........... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 110
Palmer, Barry, executive director, DINAMO........................ 26
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 103
Sutherland, Doug, county executive, Pierce County, Washington.... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Responses to additional questions from Senator Smith......... 84
Westphal, Hon. Joseph, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Department of Defense.................................. 6
Affadavits, Investigation on Mississippi and Illinois Rivers
Navigation................................................. 45-82
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 44
Senator Smith............................................ 41
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Ron Sims, King County, WA................................ 116
Statements:
Great Lakes Task Force......................................126-148
King County, WA.............................................. 116
Kitsap County, WA............................................ 118
Lee County, WA............................................... 119
National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management
Agencies................................................... 120
National Mining Association.................................. 123
(iii)
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Lautenberg, Chafee, Thomas,
Lieberman, and Baucus [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. The hearing will please
come to order.
Today we are going to consider the Administration's version
of the Water Resource Development Act of 2000, WRDA 2000. While
this is, in one sense, our initial hearing on the Water
Resources Development Act, it is actually this committee's
fourth hearing concerning aspects of WRDA 2000. The full
committee has already held a field hearing in Florida and a
hearing in this very room on the comprehensive Everglades
restoration plan, which will be the cornerstone of this year's
WRDA bill. In addition, the subcommittee held a hearing last
week on the backlog of Corps of Engineers projects.
As many in this room are aware, Chairman Smith has set an
ambitious schedule for putting together the WRDA bill with a
goal of marking up legislation by June 27.
There are some who may question the need for a WRDA bill
this year, since Congress passed a WRDA bill last year. In
reality, last year's bill was actually unfinished business from
1998. If Congress is to get back on its 2-year cycle for
passage of WRDA legislation, we need to act on a bill this
year.
The 2-year cycle is important to avoid long delays between
planning and the execution of projects and to meet commitments
to State and local government partners who share the costs with
the Federal Government.
While a 2-year authorization cycle is extremely important
in maintaining efficient schedules for completions of important
water resource projects, as we explored at our hearing on May
16th, efficient schedules also depend on adequate
appropriations.
The appropriations for the Corps programs have not been
adequate, and, as a result, there is a backlog of over 500
projects that will cost the Federal Government $38 billion to
complete.
As we heard from General Van Winkle last week, they are
worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost ratios and
capable non-Federal sponsors, so these are not wish projects,
these are real projects. There are 500 of them, $39 billion
worth that are sitting on the shelf.
The failure to provide adequate funding for these projects
means that the project construction schedules are spread out
over a longer period of time, resulting in increased
construction costs and delays in achieving project benefits.
I recognize that budget allocations and Corps
appropriations are beyond the purview of this committee, but I
believe the backlog issue should impact the way we approach
WRDA 2000 in three very important ways:
First, we need to control the mission creep of the Corps of
Engineers. At the backlog hearing I held last week, I mentioned
that even though I obtained a limited authority for
environmental infrastructure in Ohio, I am not convinced that
there is a Corps role in water and sewage plant construction.
In fact, I would like to see it knocked out, period. That
should be a State and local government responsibility, with
some Federal assistance through the State revolving loan funds.
Another example is the brownfields remediation authority
proposed by the Administration for the Corps. Brownfield
remediation and redevelopment is a very important issue. It is
a big problem in my State, and I am working to remove Federal
impediments to State cleanups. If we get the EPA off our back
and get the authority to go forward with it, there would be
unbelievable brownfield cleanups by States with State money.
But, having said that, I don't think that this is the mission
of the Corps of Engineers.
What we need to do is recognize and address the large
amount of unmet national needs within the traditional Corps
mission areas--needs such as flood control, navigation, and
emerging mission area of restoration of nationally significant
environmental resources, like the Florida Everglades.
The second thing we need to do in WRDA 2000 is make sure
that the projects we are authorizing meet the highest standard
of engineering, economic, and environmental analysis. We must
be sure that the projects and project modifications Congress
authorizes make maximum net contributions to economic
development and environmental quality. We can only assure that
projects meet these high standards if projects have received
adequate study and evaluation to establish project costs,
benefits, and environmental impacts to an appropriate level of
confidence. This means that a feasibility report must be
completed before projects are authorized for construction.
Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost-
sharing principles of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986. WRDA 1986 established the principle that water resource
projects should be accomplished in partnership with State and
local governments and that this partnership should involve
significant financial participation by the non-Federal
sponsors.
My experience as mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio
convinced me that the requirement for local funding to match
Federal dollars results in much better projects than where
Federal funds are simply handed out. It doesn't matter if it is
parks, housing, highways, or water resource projects, the
requirement for local cost share provides a level of
accountability that is essential to a quality project, and
cost-sharing principles must not be weakened.
We are going to start today's hearing with the presentation
of the Administration's WRDA proposal. We will follow that
presentation for the panel of proponents for projects and
programs that are either already contained in the
Administration's bill or are scheduled to have feasibility
reports completed this year in time for WRDA consideration.
I believe today's presentation will give the committee a
good blueprint from which we will be able to formulate a
Congressional WRDA bill this year.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Senator Voinovich. Senator Baucus?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I compliment you on the way you are conducting this
hearing, particularly the way you and Chairman Smith are
handling the WRDA bill. It is a comprehensive schedule, but it
is one that is solid, and it is timely and very professional
and I just congratulate you for your work on it.
I just have a couple of points. I would like my statement
to be included in the record.
One, I compliment the Corps, and particularly Secretary
Westphal, for all of your work, generally.
Second, I want to thank Senator Crapo for coming out to
Montana, for holding a hearing on the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery
on April 29th of this year. I won't go into great detail as to
the importance of that project, but I can assure you that the
folks in that part of my State are very, very appreciative of
the efforts of this committee and the Corps with respect to
that hatchery.
More generally, I think it is important to remind ourselves
how important WRDA is, because it is essentially an
infrastructure bill, and the better the infrastructure in our
country, the more solid and sound the economy.
It is really the water equivalent of T-21. We passed a
highway bill out of this committee a few years ago which helped
highway infrastructure, and this is essentially the water T-21.
It is the water infrastructure bill. I just think it is
important that we all keep that in the back of our minds as we
move forward. These are not just local projects for local
areas; this is a national bill to improve the national
infrastructure.
Finally, I very much compliment you and others that have
worked so hard in the Everglades restoration bill. I support
it. I think it is an extremely worthwhile project. Several of
us--I know you have, too, Mr. Chairman, asked a couple of tough
questions in previous hearings. Frankly, in my judgment--and I
know that's the view of the Secretary--those tough questions
just help the program. It helps it by showing the tough
questions can not only be asked, but can be answered. I
compliment all of you for working so hard on that project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Senator Voinovich. Senator Lautenberg?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
My compliments, as well, to you for getting this hearing
underway. The subject is so important, and as time passes I
think it is fair to say we see the great need to take advantage
of the skills and the resources that we have in the Army Corps
and to try to use them as effectively as we can, and recognize
that in this full-blown economy that we are experiencing, that
we may need help in some areas just to maintain what we've got.
We've seen what can be, based on the buoyancy of the
economy, and now we have to step up to the conditions that
arise as a result of that.
Well, we're going to hear later on from Lillian Borrone of
the Port Authority. She's going to testify today, and she's
going to discuss the need to deepen the major channels in our
port area to 50 feet. I hope the subcommittee is going to
authorize this project, which just this month received a
favorable report from the Corps of Engineers.
Senator Moynihan, my colleague on this committee, and I
have a great interest in the future of our port, and I served
as a commissioner of the Port Authority before coming here, so
between us Senator Moynihan and I have lots of years of
experience related to the port and its effect on the economy of
our region.
The 50-foot project for the Port of New York and New Jersey
is the largest project anticipated for our region in the
history of the port, and it is well worth the investment.
The Port of New York and New Jersey is not just a local
port, but it is the Nation's port. It is located at the center
of the largest regional market in the country. It is the
largest container port on the east coast, and the third-largest
in the United States. It serves 34 percent of the population of
this country. And last year exports exceeded $22 billion.
That's second only to the Port of Long Beach, California. The
Port of New York and New Jersey also provides about 165,000
local jobs.
So, Mr. Chairman, over the next several years, the Port
Authority, that bi-State agency that I think was one of the
more brilliant creations that has happened in terms of
government, tries to--not always successfully, but tries to
ameliorate problems that occur between the States and get on
with the work that affects both our economies.
They project that there will be somewhere between 3.7 and
4.6 percent growth in the volume of cargo entering and leaving
our port. This cargo depends very much on larger vessels. These
vessels are capable of carrying over 6,000 containers and
require a channel depth in excess of 46 feet. So, just in
comparison, a ship carrying only 2,000 containers--we just said
they are carrying over 6,000 now--is the equivalent of 1,000
rail cars, or 2,000 trucks. One of these ships, the ``Regina
Emeris,'' recently entered our harbor only partially filled. I
wish that everyone could see this picture. The red line is
below the draft line. The red color is below the preferred
draft level, because it is traveling and coming in about half
full because the channel just was not deep enough to allow it
access to our terminals. That's a problem we have to attend to.
I also want to briefly mention another issue in WRDA the
chairman brought up that I hope the subcommittee is going to
consider, and that is the issue of port sharing or port
projects.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the current cost for navigation
projects greater than 45 feet is half, 50/50, half and half.
The formula was established 14 years ago, before we were aware
of the need to deepen our harbors to accommodate new
generations of container ships, and it is time that we bring
this cost-sharing into the 21st century and include a provision
that revises the cost sharing to reflect a fairer distribution
of costs.
Finally, I want to address the Administration's proposal to
authorize the Corps to participate in brownfields redevelopment
projects. I support efforts to increase the Federal
Government's assistance with State and local brownfield
projects, and that's the reference I was talking about, Mr.
Chairman. The Corps is already participating in brownfields-
like projects known as Minnich Park in Newark, New Jersey, and
they are really helping. They have removed deteriorated piers
and restored the waterfront, making it into an urban park as
part of a larger flood control project along the river.
The project enjoys strong support from the city of Newark,
and a lot of the communities just don't have the means to get
into this without some assistance from the Federal Government,
so I hope that we are going to be able to move on this, and I
await the witnesses' testimony.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Chafee?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am looking forward to the testimony, especially of Dr.
Westphal and General Van Winkle and Mayor Malloy, who will
testify this morning about the role of the Army Corps of
Engineers in brownfields redevelopment.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, your concern for mission creep
for the Corps; however, the undeniable economic, environmental,
and social benefits of brownfields redevelopment do demand that
we utilize all the tools at our disposal, and I do believe the
Corps is an effective tool, and I look forward to working with
members of this subcommittee and the Administration to ensure
that the Corps continues to play a valuable role in the
revitalization of our communities.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Our first two witnesses this morning are Dr. Joseph
Westphal, who is the Assistant Secretary of Army Civil Works,
and Major General Hans A. VanWinkle, Deputy Commanding General
for Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
We are very happy to have you with us this morning, Dr.
Westphal, if you will begin the testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJOR GENERAL HANS A. VAN WINKLE, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FOR
CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MICHAEL DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND
LEGISLATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have with me my Deputy Assistant Secretary for policy
and legislation, Michael Davis, and I am also accompanied by
General Hans VanWinkle, who is Deputy Commanding General for
Civil Works, Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just say, first of all, I think we
have given you a complete testimony for the record. I'm going
to shorten my oral testimony significantly to allow more time
for questions and answers and give you more time to get at some
of the issues you want to get at.
I do want to say that I have enjoyed very much and continue
to enjoy working with you on the many issues we are facing this
year. We are, obviously, in the throes of some very, very
important decisions that your committee has to make, that we,
as an Administration, are making on a daily basis in light of
this program's challenges.
I think the better that we work together with you in
addressing these issues and getting answers to your questions
and coming up with some sense of a strategy for the future, the
better off I think our country will be, because I think we have
a great asset in the Corps of Engineers and I think we need to
develop a plan for how we are going to address a lot of these
problems you've raised, like the backlog issue and mission
definitions and things like that.
So I look forward to working with you, both here and in the
committee formal structure, but also informally with you and
members of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, let me just make--as I said, I just want to
be very brief on our bill and give you some highlights of the
things I think are very important proposals that we are making
in this WRDA 2000.
As you know, the main centerpiece of this bill is the
Everglades, and you've already alluded to the hearings and the
testimony we've had on that. We also felt this year that we
needed to provide you with a piece of legislation that was less
project oriented and more oriented toward some very important
policy ideas that we wanted to bring forth to the committee and
to address on a more national basis.
For us, for the President, the important areas to address
here were simply to get to the issues of how do we provide
assistance to tribal and low-income communities. What can we do
to help?
You made one of your three points that you had alluded to
as a concern was the idea that we needed to preserve the
partnerships and the cost-sharing formulas that had been set up
in the 1986 water resources bill.
We agree with that, but I think it is time that we all
collectively--Congress and the Administration, this and future
Administrations--look at cost sharing and see what impact it is
having on certain sectors of our economy.
Again, I particularly would focus on tribal and low-income
disenfranchised communities, which may involve both minority
communities, as well as rural communities.
In this bill, we did look at a number of policy issues that
we wanted to bring forth, beginning with a watershed and river
basin assessment authority.
We believe that it is very important that, as we move into
sort of the new dimensions of our work, which encompass so much
environmental legislation and so many other pieces of
legislation that have to be addressed as we build projects or
as we design and plan and study projects, that we need to look
at what we are doing in a more comprehensive, broader basin
watershed approach.
I don't think there is any disagreement anywhere that this
is the approach that best suits the way we can make decisions,
and so we are asking for a clarification or readdressing of
this authority, which is established in section 29 of the water
resources bill of 1986, to give the Corps of Engineers the
authority to undertake broader comprehensive studies in
conjunction with other Federal agencies.
Bear in mind that the products of these comprehensive
studies would not necessarily mean more Corps projects. It
could very well be that these studies will assist EPA,
Interior, or a vast number of Federal and State agencies, and
especially the States, I think, in addressing the broader
programmatic aspects of what is going on on river systems
around the country. We believe that is an important part of
this bill.
Two areas that are related to this that we are proposing is
we are proposing to get more involved and more active
participation on the part of the Corps of Engineers in the
CALFED Bay Delta program. The Corps, because of its basically
project-driven type of program, has not been a real partner in
CALFED, and much of the work that is anticipated and much of
what I think we are doing in California relates to the work
that CALFED ultimately needs to be a part of.
We have got a major comprehensive study going on of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and I think those need to be
a part of how we look at CALFED solutions, so we are asking for
authority for the Corps to have the ability to participate
fully in CALFED as an equal member to the other Federal
agencies.
We also believe that, while there is a lot of work going on
in the Puget Sound area with a variety of projects under
different Corps authorities, environmental restoration
projects, that, again, this is an area where we need to get
ahead of the problem, particularly dealing with endangered
species issues, so we are proposing there an authority that
allows us to engage in some or initiate a series of what we
call ``critical projects,'' which essentially would be small
projects that would be seen as a comprehensive effort to
address the broader issues in the Puget Sound area. So these
projects would all be tied together. They would all be
evaluated on the basis of how they programmatically affect each
other.
Now, we think our proposal is also very complementary to
legislation that is being introduced in the Senate or has been
introduced in the Senate by Members from the Washington
delegation. We would go right to projects, and we think that
that's important.
The other area of policy you brought up, and that's
brownfields. We are doing a considerable amount of brownfields
work already through EPA. What we believe is being neglected
here is a very important part of this dimension of brownfields,
and that's the part that relates to the waters of the United
States. That's the part that relates.
Senator Lautenberg mentioned the New Jersey project. These
are projects where you've got sites that are adjacent to or on
wetlands or river systems or water bodies where there are
problems that are pretty significant to both communities and to
also the economic growth of these areas and the possibilities
for economic development.
We believe that it is our responsibility under our mission
in the water resources area to try to address these
programmatically, ourselves, indirectly, so we are asking for a
very small, a very conservative authority, both budgetarily and
project specific, to allow us to go into these specific areas
and do some brownfields remediation.
The Conference of Mayors--I saw a study where they had
identified somewhere in the vicinity of about 20,000 sites that
are in dire need of cleaning up, and for which there are really
no resources at the State or local levels.
Mr. Chairman, we also have a series of provisions, as I
mentioned, where we are really trying to identify those aspects
of tribal and low-income communities where we can be helpful.
We are proposing a tribal partnership program. What we want to
do here is basically partner up with the tribes with the
Department of Interior to look again comprehensively within the
boundaries of the reservation to see what we can do in areas
like environmental restoration, flood control, and our other
traditional mission areas to help and to coordinate the work
that the Department of Interior is doing in these areas.
We are also proposing some changes in our ability to pay
provisions. Currently, the ability to pay provisions that you
have authorized in the past are for flood control and for water
supply for agriculture. We are asking to amend that to allow us
to do equal ability to pay provisions for the environmental
restoration and environmental protection kinds of projects.
We also are asking the committee to consider some changes
in our project deauthorization provisions to tighten these up,
to make it--to have the time aspects of when we deauthorize
projects a little bit shorter, cutting it back from 7 years to
5 years, where we can look at projects, if they don't receive
funding for construction within a 5-year period, and
consistently throughout a 5-year period they would
automatically become deauthorized.
We think this is not the solution to the backlog problem,
but it is part of the solution. It is part of the way we get at
this issue.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are also providing you with a
recommendation on making some changes in our flood damage
reduction program, a change in the cost-share on this for
structural flood control projects, and also to strengthen our
floodplain management requirements in section 402 of the Water
Resources Act of 1986 to require the non-Federal interest to
take measures to preserve the levels of flood protection that
projects provide.
This is a recurring theme, where we build a project
designed for a certain level of flood protection, local
development ensues, changes happen over time, and we find out
that the project is no longer really providing the level of
protection that was intended.
We need to get some help from the local communities through
some type of management plans that they are going to try to
maintain and we're going to try to work with and to maintain
the levels of flood protection originally intended and
authorized by Congress.
That's a brief summary, Mr. Chairman. Again, there are
other aspects of this bill that you may want to touch, but I do
appreciate the opportunity to testify before your committee
again. I thank you for your efforts to address these issues and
look forward to working with you in any fine details of working
this bill through as you get to a markup.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Does Mr. Davis or General Van Winkle have any comment?
General Van Winkle. No, I do not.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Thomas has joined us.
Senator Thomas, do you have any statement the you'd like to
make?
Senator Thomas. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I'm
just interested in hearing the testimony.
Senator Voinovich. Great. We will move on to the questions,
then.
Dr. Westphal, Claudia Tornblom, Deputy Secretary of the
Army for Management and Budget, testified when we had our
hearing on the backlog of Army Corps projects, and what really
puzzles me is I've heard you today, and you're saying, ``Well,
you know, we've had our local share or more Federal share,
brownfields, and so forth.'' The fact of the matter is there
has been mission creep in the Corps of Engineers. You have been
taking on more and more projects. This environmental
restoration, a very worthy issue, has been added to the Corps'
work. We had charts that were presented last week when we had
the hearing to show that we were spending the equivalent of
about $5 billion a year on WRDA type projects back in the
1960's, and then it went down to about $4 billion in the
1980's, and now, during the 1990's, we're down to about $1.5
billion a year.
It seems to me that, here you are this morning, and you're
talking about a very ambitious program, and yet the
Administration has come through with a paltry $1.6 billion in
terms of their request for Congress to appropriate for these
projects.
It seems to me that this is a major issue, and I would like
to know why it is. I mean, you're asking for more and very
ambitious. Why hasn't the Administration asked for more money?
The fact that we need another $1.5 billion in order to just
stay even with these projects, why hasn't the Administration
come forward and asked for additional dollars?
Mr. Westphal. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, we didn't
ask for additional dollars for authorities we do not have, so
what we were constrained by in our budget recommendation were
really the projects and the authorities that we have presently.
What we believe is that, in fact one of the areas you
mentioned in your opening statement, you talked about what we
call--a rather ``catch-all'' term for what we call
``environmental infrastructure.'' You mentioned sewage
treatment plants and waste treatment plants and that type of
thing. There is a growing demand around the country for us to
participate in some of these activities. There are areas,
particularly rural areas, for example, in Appalachia where
there is a considerable amount of need locally to address water
quality needs by cleaning up water.
There is an increasing pressure, both from Congress and
from local constituents, to get us into that picture, because
the loan pay revolving fund you mentioned isn't adequate the
meet the national needs, so a $1 billion or $2 billion fund--
whatever it is, I don't know the exact amount--to meet about
probably a $200 billion need around the country.
So we are facing the increasing interest on the part of
Congress and on the part of mayors and local constituents and
States to get into this area, but we are not--the
Administration did not propose projects in this area, did not
request continued funding for projects that had been funded in
the past in this area.
So I think our budget request was very responsible, given
our constraints and our backlog.
Now, we are asking----
Senator Voinovich. I mean, if you look at the record, they
are inadequate. I mean, the point is that you have expanded
during this last Administration into a lot of areas--
environmental restoration, very expensive projects. We've got
some other projects here that are in this budget that are very
expensive.
It seems to me that, consistent with the request, should
have been the research for additional dollars and that there
should have been some reallocation of resources to say, ``We
have these unmet needs. We are asking for more money. We know
that this is not adequate,'' and an effort should have been
made in order to come up with some more money.
You've got all these people are sitting here and they
expect they're going to get these projects authorized and the
money is going to be forthcoming, and the fact of the matter is
there ain't no money.
We've got the appropriations. I'm just saying that this
is--you know, it doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. Westphal. I'm not arguing with you, and I think you are
right, to a great extent. We were limited, as your
appropriators are limited, by the constraints of the budget
agreements that were made earlier and by what were then, when
we were putting together our budget, some pretty limited caps
on our budget allocations. So the budget we submitted was based
on a very constrained view of what was going to happen with
what flexibility--what was going to happen with respect to----
Senator Voinovich. Let me just say this: we've got a bill
that just passed the House. It is called CORA. It is asking to
use the offshore revenues from oil to come in with a new
entitlement to pay for a lot of wonderful programs. Does the
Administration support that legislation?
Mr. Westphal. The Administration has supported aspects of
that legislation. I can't tell you specifically whether the
bill got full Administration support. I don't know.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I'd look into it, because that
money now is being used to reduce the national debt, but if I
were in the Administration, I'd be arguing that, before we go
off with the new program, a new entitlement program with the
unmet needs that we have here with WRDA, that it doesn't make
sense, and that if we've got this money and people want to
spend it in this area, then let's use it to pay for these unmet
needs in WRDA.
I've run out of time. Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, Secretary, as you know, in
the agricultural appropriations bill there is a rider which
essentially prohibits the Secretary from restructuring,
reorganizing, abolishing, transferring, etc., etc., and it is
probably in response to forums that--and I use that word
advisedly--that you proposed at the end of March. Could you
comment please on that rider, the degree to which it would help
you or hinder you in your efforts to perform perhaps more
increased oversight and, perhaps as a result of some articles
that have been in the ``Washington Post'' lately, but basically
will that rider on that appropriations bill help you or hurt
your efforts to make the Corps more efficient, organize it, and
why.
Mr. Westphal. Well, I believe the rider is a pretty severe
constraint on the President's ability to manage government. I
believe that if you--the last one that I read, the last version
of it that I read--and I assume it's the final version that was
in the legislation--did not specifically mention who was
prohibited, other than that no moneys could be spent.
The way I read that, it meant that no one--no chief of
engineers, no Assistant Secretary of the Army, no Secretary of
the Army, no Secretary of Defense, no President--no one could
in any way, shape, or form do any reorganization or
streamlining or correct any aspects of the way the Corps has
managed or organized our structure.
Now, typically, I mean, generally speaking, any major
reorganization of the Corps of Engineers would require
Congressional approval. The last time that happened was a few
years ago, before I came on board, and it was quite a long and
arduous process that eventually ended with Congressional
approval of it. And Congress has been quite active in making
sure that that reorganization continues to go on the path that
Congress approved.
What the Secretary tried to do here, in light of all that
was going on, was simply to make a clarification--and I think
the term ``reform'' was probably an exaggeration of what it
is--is to make a clarification as to what the law passed by
Congress, by the Senate and by the House, title ten, really
specifies.
For the most part, it states very clearly what the chain of
command is, where the authorities lie, and they are all in law,
and it was merely clarifying the law. It was merely stating
what title 10 says. He was merely expounding on already
existing, pre-existing general orders of the Secretary of the
Army that have been around for years, and I think it just got
exaggerated in terms of what that implied.
I think that there were concerns that that meant that
somehow the Secretary of the Army would be preventing the Corps
from having a direct relationship with Congress or be able to--
would limit the ability of the Corps to provide information to
Members of Congress, none of which was ever anticipated or
planned or intended by the Office of the Secretary of the Army.
Senator Baucus. So it is your belief that perhaps the
sponsors of that rider are mistaken as to the intent of the
Corps' court reforms?
Mr. Westphal. Well, I understand their concerns and I
understand there has been so much in the press and there are so
many rumors and allegations and things flying around in the
back circles of the House and the Senate and in Washington, in
general, that I understand their concern. But I do think if we
are given the opportunity to explain what the Secretary really
was proposing to do here, then I think their concerns would
be----
Senator Baucus. So you think their concerns are being
significant alleviated, but you are also saying, if I hear you,
that the rider virtually prevents the Corps from making any
kinds of----
Mr. Westphal. Well, the Chief of Engineers, for example, is
in the process of--the current chief is in the process of doing
some reorganization of the Corps, pretty significant
reorganization, particularly here at headquarters, and I
believe that, under that authority, that language, he would
have been prohibited from doing that, and we----
Senator Baucus. Yes. I'll read the language.
``Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 U.S.C. . . . . none of
the funds made available in this or any other act may be used
to restructure, organize, abolish, transfer, consolidate, or
otherwise alter or modify the organizational or management
oversight structure, existing delegations, or functions, or
activities applicable to the Army Corps of Engineers.''
That, to me, sounds like none of the funds could be spent
to do much of anything within the internal administration of
the Corps.
Mr. Westphal. The Chief of Engineers, himself, has
management responsibilities, and, to some extent, oversight
responsibilities over his districts and divisions, and this is
a very big organization, and we'll have a new Chief of
Engineers coming on board very soon, I hope, pending
confirmation by the Senate, and----
Senator Baucus. I know my time has expired.
One other question. As you know, Senator Daschle has
introduced a bill to establish a commission to study the
Agency's operations and recommend any potential reforms to the
Congress within 2 years. What is the Administration's position
on that bill?
Mr. Westphal. Well, the Administration has been working on
the bill. I believe the Administration supports the concepts of
Senator Daschle's bill. I think that they are looking forward
to working with Senator Daschle on the more-specific details of
his proposal, but the concept is something the Administration
supports.
I spoke with Senator Daschle yesterday on this bill, and I
think he is very willing to work with the Administration to
fine tune it to the extent that we can----
Senator Baucus. What are the options? At least one draft of
the bill is for the commission to study whether it is a good
idea to separate the civil works function from the Army. What
is your view on that?
Mr. Westphal. Well, I believe that--my personal feeling is,
of course, that I believe the Army Corps of Engineers belongs
in the Army, and I think that the traditions and the culture
and the way in which the program is managed and the
responsiveness of the Corps of Engineers is a great asset to
the Nation, at least partly because it is an Army organization.
I believe, personally, that it is in the right place.
Senator Baucus. Thank you. My time has expired.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Westphal, one of the questions that has already been
touched on here that I would like to pursue for just a moment
is the brownfields program and the assistance by the Corps of
Engineers. The question raised is, well, why the Corps should
be involved in yet another project. The fact of the matter is
that we do ask so much of you, and I think the chairman kind of
hit it on the head--more work, less money. It doesn't work
well.
What is the importance of the Corps' involvement with the
brownfields project? You have very specific criteria, and I
would like you to restate those.
Mr. Westphal. Well, Senator, most important, I think, is
the fact that the Corps of Engineers has the capacity, the
capability, the talent, the skill, the people to do this kind
of work, and there are very few others able to do it.
We are, for the most part, the agency that carries out the
technical work of the Superfund program, and we do it very well
for brownfields. I don't know if General Van Winkle health as
statistics on that.
Senator Lautenberg. Wasn't the focus of your attention, the
Corps' attention to this, the fact that it might be in an area
that could contaminate tributaries, streams, etc., and that
that then expands the risk that this site can produce
additional pollution because it is not a wholly contained
entity.
Mr. Westphal. Right. I mean, many of the brownfield sites
around the country are, of course, around and on the shores of
our major rivers and streams, and that is an area where it is
of real concern because of the movement of sediment, because of
the dangers it poses to surrounding development. So, as you
develop these inner harbor areas, as in the area that you
represent, where there is increasing requirement and demand for
development closer and closer to the water, this becomes even
more and more critical.
Senator Lautenberg. The focus of your interest and your
recommending Corps involvement here is in those sites--are we
specific--those sites that have some additional risk posed as a
result of their nearness to a stream or a river?
Mr. Westphal. Or where there are wetlands affected or
waters of the United States. We are not asking for authority to
go in and work in areas that are totally--say an area that is
totally on upland. We would work through EPA on that.
Senator Lautenberg. I just wanted to be sure on that. You
know, we are kind of fixated on this dredging project. We have
been kind of stalled in a bi-State dispute, and it is
worrisome. But another question that has been raised that
creates a lot of attention is, what do you do with the
disposable material? We know that there is material that
qualifies, under EPA standards, for ocean dumping because the
contamination levels are not critical. What are the plans for
disposal of other material that doesn't meet that yardstick?
Mr. Westphal. Well, currently there are a number of areas
for disposal of contaminated material that don't meet the
standards for ocean disposal. Frankly, as you well know, in
that particular part of the country where the need is great and
increasing, we are probably going to have to work closer with
the States of New Jersey and New York to find additional sites
in the future. But we do have capacity, and certainly in your
State there is a good deal of capacity to address the future
needs and near-term needs of contaminated dredge material.
The Corps, again, is doing, I think, a terrific job. I have
been on those sites a number of times. They are doing a
terrific job in New York and New Jersey Harbor, both in terms
of the science and working with the local communities to find
these sites and develop these sites, and I think it is a very
difficult job but they're doing a great job.
Senator Lautenberg. We're talking about land disposal.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Lautenberg. And it is your contention, as I just
heard it, that in New Jersey there is adequate place for it.
That would surprise a lot of people in New Jersey. We think
that there is a lot of room in New York State for disposal.
Mr. Westphal. Well, you know, I am cognizant of that issue,
and I believe that the State of New York is making an effort to
find its future sites, as well.
Senator Lautenberg. I thank you.
Mr. Westphal. We'll work with them to do that.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Thanks, The Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Chafee?
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, in your prepared testimony you say that,
``Pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the
Army civil works program began to change in response to the
many new water resources challenges facing this Nation.'' So it
has been 14 years of a changing mission.
My question would be: in the course of this change, your
relationship with EPA, how has that been a cooperative
partnership, and how do you see it continuing into the future?
Mr. Westphal. Well, I think the relationship has improved
dramatically over the years as the two agencies have had to
work closer and closer together. I think there are areas in the
country where it works very, very smoothly, and then there are
other areas where, because the issues are so controversial and
so difficult, sometimes the relationships are a little bit
strained. I mean, that's the reality, to be perfectly honest.
But overall I think the leadership of both agencies, both at my
level, at the regional levels, are very, very good.
To cite again New York and New Jersey, as an example, where
there is so much controversy going on over so many issues, the
regional administrator of EPA and our division commander and
district engineer have a very, very good working relationship
and very, very consistent and good dialog on all these issues.
I believe that the future requires that. I think the States
must be treated fairly, and for the States to be treated fairly
these Federal agencies have to work together and have to have
better relationships and better communications, and they have
to have that communication, I believe, from the beginning for
it to be really successful.
Part of the problem we face at times is that sometimes the
communication isn't as good at the very early stages of a
project, and then suddenly toward the end we find that we've
got problems. We've got to remedy that, and I think we are
working to do that.
The Council of Environmental Quality is very concerned
about that, and I think working to try to bring regional folks
together to work better at the early stages of a project.
I don't know if that answers your question, but----
Senator Chafee. Yes. Thank you very much. I'm sure that
whenever the standards are high there is going to be tension.
Mr. Westphal. That's right. Well, there is tension because,
obviously, our agencies are driven by different missions. EPA
is a regulatory agency, the Corps is a construction--it's a
builder. The Corps' mission--you know, the Corps sees its
mission, it has an authorization, it has an appropriation, it
has a bill signed by the President. It wants to move forward.
And then it must and has to comply with all Federal laws, and
in doing that it has to interact with these other agencies
that, to some extent, have either a check on the process or
have a great deal to say that will impact future decisions or
possibly send these cases to the courts.
We spend a great deal of time, Senator, in trying to keep
these projects outside of the courts. A lot of our motivation
is to say, ``Let's work together to avoid future litigation,
because that inevitably costs the taxpayer a significant amount
of money, and we are trying to avoid that as much as we can.''
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Thomas?
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I would be derelict if I didn't remind you again
that I asked some questions and submitted them three hearings
ago and have not yet gotten a response.
Mr. Westphal. Yes, Senator. I was told that. I wasn't at
the hearing last week. I think you brought that up, and I was
told that those questions have now been answered and I believe
were delivered or should be delivered to your office today or
yesterday. I apologize for that.
Senator Thomas. I don't think they were yesterday. They may
be today. Anyway, I appreciate that.
I won't take long. I guess I have to pursue a little bit
the same thing. You mentioned here you are involved with Indian
lands on the transfer of lands from Indians or from a project.
Why would Corps of Engineers do that? Why would you be involved
in a study of economics, of culture, and so on? Just, you know,
when we are seeking to identify the role and justify the
financing for an agency, why would you be in that field?
Mr. Westphal. Well, there are two different proposals in
this WRDA bill. One is we continue to be asked quite a bit by
tribes around the country to help in a variety of different
ways, and we don't have a mechanism for directly working with
the tribes on many of these issues that are water-related--that
are environmental restoration types of projects. We don't have
a way of doing that very easily.
What we are asking is the authority to be able to work with
a tribe in essentially doing the same kinds of projects that we
would do in other parts of the country, but doing them through
the Department of Interior and through the tribe, directly.
That's one authority.
The other area is that, as a result of the Pick Sloan
project, we've got lands that obviously belonged to the tribes
at one time that we believe can be transferred in the future to
these tribes. They are surplus lands. They are lands that would
certainly add some benefit to the tribes. We don't see a
problem in terms of the operation of our projects, and we
simply are looking for the authority to be able to do some
assessment or study of how we would transfer those lands and
the economics and the environmental requirements of doing so.
Senator Thomas. There are other people who do that
professionally, you know.
In land management, you point out here the number of
recreation areas and all those things. There are a number of
land management agencies in the Federal Government. If we were
to sit down and take a look at reorganizing for the purpose of
being most efficient, would you be managing recreation areas,
do you think?
Mr. Westphal. Well, you know, all our recreational areas
are attached to our projects----
Senator Thomas. Yes, I know, attached to water. That's what
you'll say about everything we ask.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Thomas. But there are a lot of things that are
managed that are attached to water that aren't managed by the
Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Thomas. They are recreation areas. They don't have
anything to do really with the water except the water is there.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Thomas. I don't mean to be argumentative, but it
seems like you are very defensive about not only doing
everything that you've done since 1776, or whatever you put out
here, but, indeed, wanting to expand it, when we ought to be
looking at ways to make this government more efficient, combine
agencies that do things, submit more things to the private
sector than we do now, and you appear, Mr. Secretary, to be
wanting to embrace everything you can get your hands on. Is
that a fair analysis?
Mr. Westphal. I don't think so, Senator. Let me tell you,
on the recreation we would like to privatize a good deal of our
recreation, but, frankly, won't get any takers because it is in
such bad condition, and because of----
Senator Thomas. You've been a great manager then, haven't
you?
Mr. Westphal. Well, funding is a problem.
Senator Thomas. Of course it is a problem.
Mr. Westphal. And our recreation--in order to make a
transfer of a recreation to a private sector, they are required
by Federal law to do feasibility studies, which are fairly
costly, so if they are going to engage in taking over
recreation facilities, they've got to put out a considerable
amount of money.
So what we're trying to do here on our recreation
modernization, which is in our appropriations request we made
this year, was to, candidly, bring some of these recreational
areas to--we'd say ``modernize'' them, but we are talking about
fixing them up so that they are reasonable and decent for
people to use.
We are not looking for more recreation. We're not looking
to expand our recreation program. If anything, we would be
delighted to be able to have more opportunities to lease some
of these recreation areas or to privatize them.
Senator Thomas. I bet you could, and I'll be happy to help
you.
Mr. Westphal. Good.
Senator Thomas. You know, finally, more of a comment, you
are talking about doing these things. We're finding this
Administration expanding more and more without coming to the
Congress. If you want some authorities or don't have
authorities and so on, why don't you put together a package and
bring it to the Congress? I mean, I think that is the system.
The idea that you just reorganize and say, ``Well, we need
the authority to do that,'' I don't agree with that. We're
seeing that in the Forest Service. We're seeing it in BLM.
We're seeing it in the land management agencies just kind of
going around the Congress. I think you're going to find a lot
of opposition to that idea. If you think you ought to change
some things, you ought to put together your package and say,
``Here's what we ought to be doing,'' and bring it in, rather
than just going on. I just feel strongly about that.
Mr. Westphal. I agree with you, Senator, but I think our
agency is very responsible in that capacity. I mean, I think
some of the things that are in this WRDA proposal that we are
asking you to consider are things that we can, to some extent,
if we stretch it the way you are saying, we could probably do
some of these things.
Senator Thomas. I'm not talking about what you do. I'm
talking about how you organize and what your mission is. Now,
if you are going to expand your mission by taking on different
projects all the time, it just seems to me that, in a
management standpoint, we ought to establish uniformly so that
we all agree, ``here is the mission,'' so that then we can look
at the things you recommend and say to ourselves, ``Is this
working to accomplish the mission?'' But we don't do it that
way. We kind of keep the mission a little bit secret and just
keep adding projects to where, finally, when you get to a
point, no one knows what the hell the mission is.
I just sense a little of that. I understand the difficulty,
but I wish you would think about it a little bit--defining
where we want to go and where we want to be in 20 years so that
we can measure and you can measure the steps we are taking to
see if, indeed, we are going to accomplish that goal.
Mr. Westphal. Senator, that is a good idea. And we are
working on the development of our strategic plan, and I'll try
to make a point of bringing that to you as we develop it and--
----
Senator Thomas. I would appreciate it.
Mr. Westphal [continuing]. Work with you on that, because I
think that is a vehicle for doing what you are suggesting.
Senator Thomas. Sure. And I appreciate that. Thank you,
sir.
Mr. Westphal. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Westphal, I've got a couple more
questions. One is a comment, and that is that the brownfields
projects--and I can see the logic that it is close to the water
and so forth--are being done, but I understand that it is being
done on a reimbursable basis.
Mr. Westphal. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. And now you want the Federal Government
to come up with some money to take care of it, and I think one
of the members of this committee wants even more money for
brownfields. Again, with the backlog of projects and the other
projects, to come in and say--it's, like, 25 now, and then it
is 50, and before you know it, it gets back to what I think
Senator Thomas was making, is that you've expanded the mission
and the issue is you don't have the resources to do it, so you
really ought to concentrate on the things that are fundamental
to the core Corps responsibilities.
In regard to cost sharing, the Administration's bill
modifies authority in WRDA 1986 to authorize river basin and
watershed planning studies to be cost shared on a 75 percent
Federal/25 percent non-Federal. WRDA 1986 established study
costs of 50/50. As already mentioned in my statement, where you
have many jurisdictions involved, I think it is important that
you have good cost sharing, because in the beginning on
planning--it is much easier to get them together after the
study is completed. Why the change? Why the recommendation for
more money?
Mr. Westphal. Primarily because I think these low-income
tribal communities simply can't meet the requirements, and
therefore they get left out of the picture.
You know, part of what cost sharing--and I'm going to give
you sort of my personal view here--what I've seen in my short
tenure here is that, you know, we have got a law that we passed
in 1986. Now it is the year 2000 and we need to look at what
the impact is.
We are having a lot of communities out there that have the
resources, have the money, can raise funds, can raise taxes----
Senator Voinovich. This is for river basin. I'm not talking
about the tribes. I'm talking about river basin.
Mr. Westphal. OK. On the river basin, the study proposed--
the study authority, that traditionally is 100 percent Federal,
and on this one we are moving to bring more local share so they
can have a buy-in to the whole idea of assessing the broad
watershed, if that's what you're talking about, that's the
provision you're talking about.
Senator Voinovich. No. What I'm talking about is the
rivershed basin and watershed planning studies to be cost
shared on a 75 Federal/25, and in the past it is 50/50. You're
just asking for more Federal money.
Mr. Westphal. No. On the existing authority, section 29, I
believe that's 100 percent Federal, and so we are moving that
to a 75/25.
General VanWinkle. Senator, if I could help out, I believe
that certain of our studies--729 was on the books previously,
and that was at 100 percent Federal--had not been used to a
great deal. Our other larger studies had been cost shared at a
50/50, so there really were two different types of projects
involved in this, one under the previous authority, which had
been 100 percent, but not much used. The normal sorts of
studies that we do, which were typically cost shared at 50/50--
and so this would sort of meet at the middle. Larger watershed
basins in the proposal is to cost share at 75/25 percent--to
make sure we understand.
Senator Voinovich. The only point I'm making, it's more
Federal money.
The Administration bill includes an authorization, short
appropriation, of $5 million to participate in the CALFED Delta
program, and we understand the program has been receiving a
large Federal appropriation through the Bureau of Reclamation.
Again, what is the justification for the Corps' participation,
you know, $5 million in regard to a program that has been
receiving quite a bit of money from the Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. Westphal. This is essentially for our ability to
participate in this program as an equal partner with the other
agencies. Again, because of our funding nature being project
driven, as we are, we have no flexibility in our budget to
fully participate in the CALFED initiatives.
Now, we do have some fairly big projects that are ongoing
that have been funded under separate authorizations by Congress
that will inevitably be part of the overall CALFED solution,
but what we want is the ability for our district and divisions
there in California to be fully involved and engaged in the
CALFED decision process, and that's why we are asking for this
authority.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Baucus, did you have any more
questions?
Senator Baucus. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of brief
ones.
The first one, Secretary, is with respect to deauthorizing
Corps' projects. It is my understanding that there are about
123 projects in backlog with an estimated cost of $4.5 billion
that are eligible for deauthorization under current law, and I
further understand and heard you say in your testimony that
you'd like to tighten that up a little bit, including automatic
deauthorization of projects not receiving construction funds
during any consecutive 5-year period, and then you tighten it
up a little more.
Assuming we were to pass that recommendation of yours, how
many more additional projects would be deauthorized? Do you
have that data, that figure?
Mr. Westphal. I don't. I think we'd have to get you that
for the record. We'd have to look at it.
We had some conversations, after the hearing last week,
that we needed to actually look at those kinds of numbers, so
why don't we put those together and try to get you those
separately.
Senator Baucus. So, just to clarify for everybody--I think
the chairman is asking the same question--an authorized project
must receive funds during seven full years immediately
preceding the transmittal of the list to Congress to remain
authorized?
Mr. Westphal. That's generally--you know, that could be
study money.
Senator Baucus. Exactly right.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Baucus. That could be study money, that could be
anything, and that's why you are suggesting automatic
deauthorization for any project which construction is not
initiated within 7 years of authorization.
Mr. Westphal. Within 5 years.
Senator Baucus. Pardon?
Mr. Westphal. I'm sorry. Right.
Senator Baucus. Seven years----
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Baucus. And otherwise no funding construction funds
during any consecutive 5-year period.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Baucus. Those are both additional limits that you
are suggesting.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Baucus. I'd appreciate if you could get that
information to us. That is how many more would be
deauthorized----
Mr. Westphal. We'll do that.
Senator Baucus [continuing]. As a consequence.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Baucus. One other point on environmental
restoration--and it is clear that some of the restoration
projects are a consequence of adverse impacts from Corps
projects, and for that reason many feel that there should be
some environmental restoration.
I'm just curious what the Corps is doing now to prevent
degradation of the environment in Corps projects now.
Mr. Westphal. Well, there has been clear guidance from
Congress. I can actually quote it for you. In the 1990 water
resources bill, section 306, it stated that the Secretary of
the Army shall include environmental protection as one of the
primary missions of the Corps of Engineers in planning,
designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining water
resource projects.
Would that guidance to the field make that a requirement?
The Corps must comply with all current existing Federal
regulations dealing with the environment.
Senator Baucus. What about projects, though, that were
authorized before NEPA, before the Endangered Species Act? I
mean, is there need for environmental restoration there?
Mr. Westphal. Well, sometimes there is, and we are
engaged--we have the 1135 authority that allows us and permits
us to go back and review those projects and modify them as
needed. Generally, we've got a lot of those projects going on
around the country. It's pretty significant. I don't know what
the number is off the top of my head, but----
Senator Baucus. And I understand there is some concern
about so-called ``mission creep,'' but, you know, my view is
I'm less concerned about who gets the job done so long as the
job gets done. I just urge us to kind of keep an open mind when
we look at this question.
Thank you.
I thank the chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Nothing more, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Chafee?
Senator Chafee. I want to thank you very much. We look
forward to continuing to work with you as we put the bill
together.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Our next panel is going to consist of:
Doug Sutherland, county executive for Pierce County,
Washington, on the Puget Sound restoration project; Lillian
Borrone, director of port commerce, Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey on the Port of New York and New Jersey project;
Barry Palmer, executive director of Dinamo on the Ohio River
project; Mayor Dannel P. Malloy, City of Stamford, on
brownfields; and Howard Marlowe, president of the American
Coastal Coalition, on beach projects.
I'd like to welcome all of you here this morning, and we'll
begin with Mr. Sutherland.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to welcome Mr.
Sutherland, who is from Montana.
Mr. Sutherland. Hi. Thank you very much, Senator. I,
indeed, was born in Helena, Montana, a number of years ago, and
my family was long time and still many of them in that branch
of the family are still there. I'm part of the black sheep of
the family, and we migrated west.
Senator Baucus. In any event, welcome.
Mr. Sutherland. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF DOUG SUTHERLAND, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, PIERCE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DENNIS KENTY, KING COUNTY ENDANGERED SPECIES POLICY OFFICE
Mr. Sutherland. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. Let me say first of all that I am truly
appreciative of your invitation allowing me to come testify
before your committee on this issue, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
My name is Doug Sutherland. I am the county executive of
Pierce County, which is the second-largest county in the State
of Washington. Joining me today is Dennis Kenty of King
County's Endangered Species Policy Office, who will be here to
help answer questions, if there are any.
I would like to speak about habitat restoration in the
Puget Sound basis, the subject of section 19 of the
Administration's proposal for the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000.
The motivation for this initiative is a crisis that we are
facing with salmon populations in the Puget Sound. The decline
of Salmon populations has resulted in several Puget Sound
salmon stocks, such as chinook, chum, as well as gold trout
being listed under the Endangered Species Act in the last year,
and more salmon stocks are likely to be listed in the next 2
years.
The loss of Puget Sound salmon is a major economic and
cultural, as well as environmental issue. The region once
boasted one of the strongest commercial and tribal fishing
industries in the west coast. Today, the Puget Sound fishing
industry is on its last legs, and tribal and commercial
fishermen face rampant unemployment and a very uncertain
future.
Recreational fishing for salmon used to be big business in
the Puget Sound area, as well, with hundreds of boat liveries,
bait shops, and boat and motor dealers dependent upon the
annual salmon runs. Many of these businesses today are gone.
The endangered species listings are likely to spread the
economic pain to all sectors of the Puget Sound economy. We are
already seeing major delays in crucial public works projects,
including roads, bridges, and flood protection projects.
Private industry is also feeling the pinch as new
construction is delayed and modified to address these
endangered species issues.
So far, our economy in the Pacific northwest has allowed us
to absorb the impact of these listings, but the fist big wave
of new regulations are likely to go into effect within the next
6 months. The potential consequences of the Endangered Species
Act on our economy are huge, with every sector facing major new
costs.
I have been working with local officials and leaders of the
business, terminal, and environmental communities for the past
2 years to define a strategy to address the environmental and
economic consequences of declining salmon runs. Our alliance,
called the ``Tri-County Group,'' is in the final stages of
developing a proposal to rebuild salmon populations in the
Puget Sound area. One of our cornerstones of our proposal is to
restore salmon habitat on our rivers and streams. After a
century of farming and timber harvest and urban development,
the dams and navigation projects, some of our rivers are,
indeed, in poor shape for salmon production.
Now, mind you, this listing of the Endangered Species Act
is the first time that you've seen an act applied to a species
that is over a significantly large area in probably one of the
most densely populated areas affected by this listing.
Scientists tell us that we will need an aggressive program to
repair habitat if we are to have any hope of bringing salmon
back to our rivers.
Local governments in the tri-county area have pursued an
aggressive strategy to rebuild salmon habitat in our region.
Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties and our major cities have
spent more than $15 million a year in local funds to purchase
and restore habitat since 1998, and we have committed more than
$100 million in our own local funding to habitat projects over
the last decade. This is not a new program for us. We have had
great successes working with the Corps of Engineers on habitat
work.
On the Puyallup River in Pierce County, for example, the
Corps shared the assistance with levee setbacks and property
purchases that allows us to restore hundreds of acres of
floodplain habitat. Our neighbors to the north, King and
Snohomish Counties have cosponsored several successful habitat
projects and two major studies with the Corps. We have found
the Corps to be a capable and an enthusiastic partner.
We would like to expand this successful model to the 12
counties in the Puget Sound as a whole. The authorization we
are seeking would allow the Corps technical and financial help
to be available to local governments and the Indian tribes
throughout our basin.
Focusing on Puget Sound as a whole will allow us to target
funding for the most effective habitat projects. Using the base
to my prospective and the restoration plans that are in the
development of the 17 watersheds around the Sound, we intend to
focus Federal and local funding on a highly effective and
efficient strategy to rebuild salmon habitat.
Thanks to the Washington Congressional delegation, and
particularly Senators Gorton, Murray, and Representatives
Inslee, Dicks, and Metcalf, legislation has been introduced in
both houses of Congress to authorize new Corps habitat
restoration program for Puget Sound. There are several key
points in the Congressional bill that I would like to recommend
be included in the Water Resources Development Act, and with
your concurrence, Mr. Chair, let me quickly run through those.
First, I respectfully request that the committee authorize
the program at the $125 million level proposed by the
Congressional bills. The Puget Sound basin is larger than the
State of Maryland, and would require habitat restoration work
in every one of its 17 major watersheds. Authorization at $125
million will provide the funds needed to realize the full
potential of the Federal and local partnership.
Second, I strongly endorse involving State, local, and
tribal interests in addition to the Federal fisheries agencies
in selecting projects to be implemented under this authority.
This will ensure that projects fulfill the local needs and
complement other salmon recovery initiatives.
Third, I request that the program have cost-sharing terms
and encourage full participation by local government and tribal
sponsors. Specifically, I strongly support a partial waiver of
cost-sharing requirements for terminal sponsors and a 75/25
formula--75 Federal and 25 local--for projects in the areas
with prior Corps flood protection or navigation projects.
Senators thank you so much for your consideration of this
valuable program. We are committed to moving ahead to bring
salmon back into the Puget Sound, and we look forward to a
strong partnership, a continued partnership with the Federal
Government through this initiative.
Thank you so very much.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sutherland follows:]
Senator Voinovich. We are now going to hear from Lillian
Borrone, who is the director of Port Commerce.
Ms. Borrone?
STATEMENT OF LILLIAN BORRONE, DIRECTOR OF PORT COMMERCE, PORT
OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY
Ms. Borrone. Thank you, Senator and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of
the Federal navigation project and related matters of
importance to the New York/New Jersey region and to the Nation.
As I begin, I'd like to take a moment to recognize the
invaluable work and untiring efforts of retiring Senators Frank
Lautenberg and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. On behalf of the Port
of New York and New Jersey and the citizens of our States, we
will miss them. Their leadership has been tremendous and they
will be sorely missed for reasons that go well beyond our port.
Historically, the Port of New York and New Jersey has been
the gateway for much of the Nation's imports and exports.
Today, the Port of New York and New Jersey is the third-largest
U.S. port and the busiest Atlantic gateway. We have the largest
petroleum products and automobile trades in the country, and
last year our container volume was 2.5 million 20-foot
equivalent units, a growth of just over 67 percent in 4 years,
and the cargo volumes at our port, like the rest of the Nation,
are predicted to continue to grow. Trade growth nationwide is
projected at 4 percent a year in the years ahead, and we have
taken a conservative estimate of 3.7 percent for growth in our
harbor. That means a doubling of cargo volume in our harbor
during this decade.
That realization in 1998 prompted us to undertake a major
review of the impacts of that kind of growth to determine what
new investments would be required in our marine terminal, our
roadway, our railway, and our waterway infrastructure to meet
that kind of future demand. The results of that review are
contained in an investment options plan that identifies up to
$7 billion in local investments to modernize and expand the
major components of our port's infrastructure, including
channels.
Coupled with projections for strong growth in international
trade area changing trends in the maritime industry. As Senator
Lautenberg depicted in his earlier slide, in the summer of 1998
the ``Regina Emeris'' called New York Harbor, making her first
U.S. stop on her inaugural east coast tour. While the ``Regina
Emeris'' has been the first of the large vessels to call at our
harbor, she is not the only one we will see. In fact, as of the
first quarter of this year, there are 101 deep draft or post-
Panamax vessels container ships sailing in the world's trade,
carrying 14 percent of cargo traded throughout the world. In
addition, another 130 vessels are on order. That will more than
double the number of these giant vessels serving trade around
the world.
It is now clear that this is no longer a prediction; it is
a trend. These larger vessels and their trade lanes are not the
extraordinary occurrence for specialized cargo that was the
view of the WRDA 1986 debate, but rather it is a fact. It is an
industry standard, much as the corresponding channel depth will
be the standard.
The trend in the maritime industry is no different from
technological developments in other transportation modes. In
fact, we view this as the ocean equivalent of the wide-body jet
or tandem trucks and double-stacked train units, all of which
are now very familiar sites around the world.
Given the long time that it takes to carry out--actually,
to plan and then carry out major infrastructure investments,
and the certain knowledge of the pressures that trade and
technology will bring to our gateways, we don't believe the
country can afford to put off project authorization and funding
decisions until commerce is choking the channels of U.S. ports
with modern ships that require modern depths.
In recognition of this direction in ocean shipping and our
inability to fully accommodate these new vessels in New York
Harbor, our Congressional delegation, including Senators
Lautenberg and Moynihan, helped authorize a Corps feasibility
study, the New York/New Jersey Harbor Navigation Study, which
was completed at the end of last year, and the chief's report
on that project was signed earlier this month.
In short, that report recommends the deepening to 50 feet
of the major channels that lead to the major container
terminals in the port.
I have included in my formal testimony a map that shows the
various channels included in the project recommendation.
What's the value of this project to the Nation and why
should the Nation invest in New York Harbor? Well, the Corps
study found that the project would realize an annual benefit
totaling $238.5 million in national transportation cost
resulting from the larger vessels being able to call on the
Port of New York and New Jersey directly rather than diverting
to another port, only to have goods bound for the New York/New
Jersey region trucked or railed back into the bi-State area.
That scenario has national consequences in terms of wear
and tear on the Nation's road and rail network, air quality,
highway congestion, freight delivery time, and overall quality
of life.
As you know, a ship the size of the ``Regina'' carrying
6,000 containers, a volume of that size would require 6,000
trucks or 1,500 to 3,000 rail cars, depending on how many we
accommodate on each of those cars.
So, in our view, providing direct all-water service to the
region is both a more economical as well as an environmentally
preferred method of serving our market, but the national
interest goes beyond those numbers, significant as they are.
The Port of New York and New Jersey is in the heart of the
Nation's largest and most affluent consumer market. There are
18 million consumers that live and work in our immediate
metropolitan region, and we reach over 80 million consumers
within 1 day's truck drive from our docks, a ten-state region
that stretches from Maine to Maryland, from Cape Cod to the
Ohio River. Add to this broad market base the fact that the
rail freight system allows our port to directly serve the
southeast and midwest and beyond, including into eastern
Canada.
Most consumers of the inland coastal states probably don't
think about seaports contributing greatly to their quality of
life, but we at the Port of New York and New Jersey are not
just a regional port.
So, given the Nation's growing involvement in world trade
activities, we believe that the Nation has a significant
interest in maximizing the port's potential to serve the
national consumer demand.
Now, Mr. Chairman, ports among the east coast compete. We
think that is healthy competition. But we compete because we
are all willing to make investigations, both in our
infrastructure as well as in our partnership with the private
sector and with labor, who service us. We believe that that
competition is healthy, but we also are prepared in the Port of
New York and New Jersey to commit the approximately $1 billion
for the non-Federal share of the channel project that we are
seeking in the water resource legislation of 2000, in addition
to the $5 to $6 billion that we, in conjunction with our
private sector partners will invest in upland infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit more formal remarks
for the record, and I would be happy to answer any questions
the committee may have today.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Your remarks will
be inserted in the record.
Ms. Borrone. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Borrone follows:]
Senator Voinovich. Now I'd like to welcome Barry Palmer,
who is the director of the Association for the Development of
Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley.
Mr. Palmer, I would like to congratulate you and your
membership for your willingness to take on your responsibility
in paying $0.20 per gallon of diesel fuel so that you can see
that the locks and dams on the Ohio River are in appropriate
condition. Certainly, that is a core role of the Corps of
Engineers and has been, and I apologize to you for the fact
that the Federal Government hasn't kept up their part of the
bargain with you and that we are 6 or 7 years behind what needs
to be done in this area.
I appreciate your being here and look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF BARRY PALMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DINAMO
Mr. Palmer. Thank you very much, sir. We've never had that
kind of response from someone in your position before. We did
agree to accept the additional $0.10 per gallon diesel fuel
tax, making $0.20 per gallon. The moneys go into the trust fund
to finance, pay for half the cost of these lock and dam
modernization projects.
Dinamo was organized 19 years ago with private sector
leadership, State government leadership. Former Governor Rhodes
was one of the charter members of getting Dinamo started and
labor interest for the purpose of working with the Corps of
Engineers to expedite the modernization of the lock and dam
infrastructure on the Ohio River and its tributaries. You see a
map of the region. In the last 19 years, 15 locks and dams,
which represented an investment of nearly $5 billion, have been
authorized by the Congress, the leadership support of this
committee, and all 15 locks and dams are under construction or
complete.
You talked about the delays in scheduling. Yes, some of the
projects have been delayed in their completion date by as much
as 6 years. Particularly, there is a picture of the Olmsted
locks and dams down at the end of the Ohio River before it goes
into the Mississippi. This is a $1 billion project. That's a
December photo. The locks are complete at this site. That
project, from the beginning, when I got started on it, until
when it is expected to be completed may be 27, 30 years. It
needs massive amounts of money to get this project completed in
an orderly way. And there are five other lock and dam projects
that are not receiving as much funds as we think are necessary
to get the job done.
There are 275 million tons of commodities moving on the
Ohio River navigation system that represents a value of $32.8
billion. There are 1,000 manufacturing firms, power plants,
terminals, and docks on the Ohio River navigation system, and
it represents probably 650,000 jobs that are directly and
indirectly affected by that waterborne commerce.
We are here today--I wanted to say of the Olmsted project,
for example, you talked about delays in this. The Corps did a
study recently, and it was submitted to the Inland Waterway
User Board. More than $1.34 billion in transportation savings
have already been washed down the Ohio River because of
construction schedule slippage. An additional $534 million is
on the table. Those are potential future benefits. Those
savings could be realized if we could get these projects funded
on an orderly, efficient schedule.
Now, we have been studying a lot of these projects under
what is called an ``Ohio River Mainstem Study'' initiated 5 or
6 years ago, which was intended to be an authorization document
for short-term needs, as well as a long-range view of projects,
and the preliminary findings are that there are eight more lock
and dam projects that will need to be authorized in the next
decade.
The ones we are here to talk about today are Greenup and
Myers. What you see in the yellow and what you see in the red
are, in fact, costs that are born by the private sector as they
operate on the system and go through those specific locks and
dams, and the red particularly are closure costs that are
reflected in future years over the 50-year economic design life
of these projects. These are the two most important and two of
the busiest locks on the Ohio River main stem.
John T. Myers Lock and Dam is one of these projects that is
located on the Indiana/Kentucky border near Uniontown--Mount
Vernon, Indiana and Uniontown, Kentucky. The other is Greenup,
which is on the Ohio/Kentucky border.
Now, Myers was shut, for example, closed down for major
maintenance back in 1989 for 45 days, and the additional cost
to tow boat operators and shippers because of the closure of
that lock was $15 million. So when you look at these closure
costs out into the future, they are significant.
Now, what we are asking this committee and urging them to
consider and to act on, in fact, is to provide construction
authorization for what are six-foot extensions to the auxiliary
chambers at both the Greenup and Myer facilities. They probably
require a contingent authorization. The division engineer is
going to release his report tomorrow. They don't want me to
tell you that. They want to tell you that first, but you will
get it some time this week. And the final report of the chief
should be available certainly before the end of the calendar
year.
We are looking at--the reasons for asking for tangentient
authorization are two reasons. One, it takes a long time to get
these projects under construction and built, but we would like
to see this project, these two locks and dams and these
extensions, completed by 2008. We have a window of opportunity.
If we can build extensions on the auxiliary chambers so that we
have twin 1,200-foot locks, we can avoid having to build a
third lock at some point in the future, so this is a more cost-
effective way of doing business.
You can see the engineer's notice. Come this month, the
first cost at J.T. Myers is $182 million. At Greenup, it is
$176 million. They both have very favorable benefit/cost
relationships. What we want to do is we've got about 75 million
tons of commodities going through Myers, for example, so we
want to get these projects on track before the traffic
overwhelms us, and then use the auxiliary lock as well as the
main lock, and then forcing the Corps to build a third lock.
That would be cost prohibitive.
There is money for these projects, as you can see, in this
year's budget, so there is support for this stuff, and what we
are trying to do is to get down the river to, like we had with
the Robert C. Bird Locks and Dams, one of our early champions
along with Senator Heinz and Senator Ford, helped get this
thing started.
This is the old Gallipolis Lock and Dam down near
Gallipolis, Ohio, and now Robert C. Bird Locks and Dams, and
that's the way we like to see them all--completed and
operational, fully operational.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning and
to present our ideas about support for this project.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palmer follows:]
Senator Voinovich. Mayor Dannel Malloy, the city of
Stamford.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANNEL P. MALLOY, MAYOR, CITY OF STAMFORD,
CONNECTICUT
Mayor Malloy. Good morning, Chairman Voinovich and members
of the subcommittee. I am Dannel Malloy, the mayor of Stamford,
Connecticut, and I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the
National Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals about the critical role the Army Corps of
Engineers has in revitalizing America's brownfields.
Today, I will describe why the Corps of Engineers mission
in brownfields is so important to local communities. Second, I
will describe the need for the Corps' brownfield assistance in
the efforts of places like Stamford and several other
communities across America. Third, I wish to commend both the
Administration and Senator Chafee for proposing to enhance the
Corps' in brownfields revitalization.
By way of background, NALGEP represents local government
officials responsible for making local environmental policy and
ensuring environmental compliance. NALGEP's membership consists
of more than 130 local governments throughout the United
States, including many communities in the States represented by
the membership of this committee.
The city of Stamford has a diverse population of 110,000
people and is located on Long Island Sound just 35 miles from
New York City. While Stamford is an old industrial city,
settled in 1641, most of the historic manufacturing companies
have left Stamford, leaving behind their contaminated
industrial sites, or brownfields.
Stamford has launched two major revitalization initiatives
along our waterways, both with the assistance of the Corps of
Engineers. Along Stamford's harborfront in the south end of the
city, we are cleaning up long-abandoned brownfields and
creating new manufacturing, housing, and recreational areas.
The Corps' help is necessary to deal with further environmental
assessments, ecosystem restoration, harbor dredging, and other
activities which the Corps is well situated for.
Stamford has also launched a major initiative to revitalize
the Mill River corridor in a vital mixed-use district
surrounding a new linear park along the river which runs
through the center of the city. The Mill River initiative is a
centerpiece of Stamford's plans to create a vibrant urban
center with a high quality of life where citizens will want to
live, work, and play. At Mill River, Stamford needs assistance
in hydraulics study in order to remedy recurring siltation
problems, improve water flow, and reconfigure the flood storage
area. The Corps could also play a valuable role in dredging,
identifying, and cleaning any environmental contamination and
helping to restore the aquatic ecosystem.
My written testimony provides other examples of how the
Corps of Engineers is successfully partnering with local
communities to clean up and revitalize waterfront brownfields.
Specifically mentioned are projects in Ohio, New York, Rhode
Island, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and California. In fact, we
understand that the Corps of Engineers is assisting more than
50 local governments to deal with environmental contamination
in the projects along their waterways, and there are a great
number of other communities that still need this help. These
local examples show how valuable the Corps of Engineers can be
in community brownfields revitalization.
I want to stress three reasons that the Corps' brownfields
mission is so important. First, there is a great local need for
brownfields assistance along our waterways. There are as many
as 500,000 brownfields that are draining older localities of
vitality, threatening the public health and environment, and
thwarting the expansion of local economies, jobs, and tax base.
The need for brownfields resource is real and it is large.
Waterway brownfield redevelopment also poses a unique set
of challenges for communities. The difficult issues of water
quality improvement, ecosystem protection, and restoration,
flooding and runoff, toxic contamination, and hydraulic
engineering make the Corps' expertise in cleanup along the
Nation's waterways particularly important.
Second, brownfields revitalization along waterways is
consistent with the Corps' existing environmental mission,
activities, and competencies. As I have testified, the Corps
has creatively used its existing authorities to support as many
as 50 local brownfields projects. This successful track record
makes further Corps efforts and a clear legal authority for
them appropriate and valuable.
Third, the investment of the Corps' resources in
brownfields will yield a high return for American local
communities, its citizens, and the environment. Removing the
barrier of contamination from our waterfront brownfields can
help create jobs, leverage private sector resources, expand the
tax base, reverse urban deterioration, protect health and
public safety, slow the sprawling of metropolitan regions, and
keep our communities livable.
In conclusion, local communities urge this Congress to
support a brownfields mission for the Corps of Engineers.
NALGEP commends the Administration and Senator Lincoln Chafee
for their leadership in proposing legislation that would
establish this important environmental mission for the Corps.
Riverfronts, harborfronts, and lakefronts, and many local
communities hold the legacy of our industrial heritage, and the
contamination left behind by these activities is there and need
to be dealt with.
The revitalization of our waterways with commercial,
residential, and greenspace development represents the key to
the future revitalization of these American communities.
Congress should make the Corps part of the team of local,
State, and private sector leaders who are revitalizing our
Nation's waterfront brownfields.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Malloy follows:]
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Marlowe is president of the American
Coastal Coalition, on beach projects.
Mr. Marlowe?
STATEMENT OF HOWARD MARLOWE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COASTAL
COALITION
Mr. Marlowe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the invitation to testify extended by you and
Senator Baucus.
The American Coastal Coalition is a nationwide advocacy
organization for coastal communities whose sole mission is to
achieve policies that will promote the economic and
environmental interest of those communities. Since our
establishment in 1996, our major focus has been on Federal
policies that affect beach restoration.
As you know, the Administration in 1995 announced that it
would support no new shore protection starts. This committee,
in WRDA 1996, adopted section 227, which we refer to as the
``National Shore Protection Act,'' and Senator Lautenberg was
the chief sponsor of the National Shore Protection Act as a
stand-alone piece of legislation, and, when incorporated into
WRDA, it simply required the Administration to recommend shore
protection projects for authorization and for funding.
To this day, the Corps has not implemented section 227
because of strong opposition from the White House Office of
Management and Budget.
In the last couple of years, Members of Congress and
private interest groups spent a good deal of time negotiating
with OMB, trying to reverse the Administration's position. The
result of those talks was the adoption in WRDA 1999 of a major
change in cost-sharing, which increased the share of cost born
by non-Federal sponsors in short protection projects.
At the time the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee was considering that change, Dr. Westphal testified
before you and responded to your questions that the cost-
sharing formula considered by the committee would result in a
change in the Administration's no new shore protection
projects. Apparently, he was not speaking for the
Administration.
The Administration's shore protection policy, if it can be
called that, is bad policy. It is bad for the national economy.
It is bad for the national environment. Furthermore, we think
OMB's dealing with Congress on this subject have been
characterized by bad faith.
I want to emphasize a couple of points in our prepared
testimony. Beaches are a major component of our national
economic and environmental infrastructure. Their impact will be
quantified and highlighted when the national shoreline study
authorized by WRDA 1999 is completed. The study will provide
not only the first physical catalog in 30 years of the beaches
of the United States that are eroding, but it will also show
the economic and environmental costs of erosion to the Nation.
Obviously, American Coastal Coalition fully supports the
funding of the shoreline study; however, we regret that the
Administration apparently is using the fact that the study has
yet to be undertaken and completed as an excuse not to
recommend reauthorization or funding of any new beach
restoration projects. It is especially hard to take this excuse
with any degree of seriousness, given the fact that the
Administration has recommended a paltry $300,000 appropriation
for this study. We are delighted by the fact that Senator
Lautenberg and other Members of Congress have requested very
adequate funding for this project.
Since it is likely that Congress will provide some level of
funding, we do hope that this committee will urge the Army
Corps of Engineers to begin working with other agencies now to
develop a study scope and methodology that will produce useful
and credible information for Congress and the public.
I want to focus on something very briefly that has been
raised by other witnesses and by members of the committee,
section 16, the automatic deauthorization provision.
In theory, it ought to be able to be possible to get from
authorization to construction within 7 years. The fact of the
matter is that most of the beach nourishment projects that are
up for actual construction funds in fiscal year 2001 or likely
to be up for fiscal year 2002 were actually authorized in the
1980's. Many beach nourishment projects authorized in the WRDA
bills of 1992 and 1996 are not likely to get construction funds
until fiscal year 2003 or later.
Corps procedures and the Administration's refusal to budget
for nourishment projects have been significant factors in
slowing them down in terms of getting under construction.
Every authorized Federal beach nourishment project has an
economic life up to 50 years. Over that life, the authorization
provides for periodic renourishment. Well, those that perform
well, the period between initial construction and their first,
second, or subsequent periodic renourishment is going to be
longer. It may, indeed, be longer than 5 years.
Now, that good performance will be rewarded with an
automatic deauthorization under section 16 of the
Administration's proposal. That's one single approval that we
don't need from the Feds. Obviously, we hope that you will
strike section 16, or not include that provision in your
committee bill.
In our prepared testimony, we have discussed several WRDA
2000 policy changes that we recommend. There is one, again, I
would like to highlight, and it is appropriate, given the fact
we've had other discussion on the word ``recreation.''
Recreation is not a four-letter word and, in the case of
shore protection, it is not an extension of the Corps' mandate.
The fact of the matter is, it is an integral part of the Corps
protection mandate.
Basically, in a very summary fashion, we would like to have
the legislation enacted. We proposed in our testimony
legislative language which would require that the Corps
consider recreational benefits equally with storm damage
reduction and environmental restoration benefits to determine
the benefit/cost ratio of shore protection projects.
Finally, our testimony has listed several shore protection
projects, studies, or construction authorizations. We hope that
you will include these within WRDA 2000.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. We look
forward to any questions that you may have.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marlowe follows:]
Senator Voinovich. I've asked Senator Chafee to take over
presiding this hearing for a few minutes. I will be back.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll
try to be brief, which is unusual. I hope that the witnesses'
response, which is unusual, will also be brief.
I'll start with Ms. Borrone.
I thank all of you for your testimony. It is a very
appealing litany, if I may call it that way, to actually get
involved to do the things that we have to to help our
communities move along, to get the ground cleaned up, get the
water cleaned up in places where it can make a huge difference.
The crowding of our country is forcing us to seek ever-more
land use opportunities in a sensible, environmentally sound
way.
Ms. Borrone, we're looking at trying to deepen our
channels, and, very frankly, it was something that Mr. Marlowe
said about beach replenishment--you know, all of these projects
are fundamentally designed to try and help the economies of
those communities, and we don't stand by when there is a flood
or a natural disaster, earthquake, volcano, what have you. We
don't stand by and say, ``OK, that's a local thing.'' And
therefore we can't stand by, in my view, and say to those ports
that are naturally deeper, ``OK, you come take the business
because the standards for building ships have changed
substantially and they're deeper and harder to get ships in.''
So, as a consequence, I think, just as we talked to Mr. Palmer
about what you're trying to do in the Ohio Valley there, the
same thing, beach replenishment to me is akin to helping
farmers in the moment of disaster.
If our economy is built around the use of beaches and clean
water, clean ocean water, then we have to appeal to our Federal
Government to give us a hand there to try to adjust things so
that we can all share in the business.
So when we look at, Ms. Borrone, at the New York Harbor--
and I'm glad to see that Mayor Malloy's colleague in activities
has joined us.
Senator Lieberman. I was close. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I know how devoted you are,
Senator Lieberman, to making sure that every resource in this
committee goes to Connecticut.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. Whatever is left over after New Jersey.
Senator Lautenberg. The fact is that we have had--we're
looking now at depths of 55 feet because newer ships have been
build more efficient. Is this a cycle that is going to
continue? Are we going to be looking at 60-, 65-foot vessels? I
see some of the passenger vessels that they are building are so
enormous, they're five, six stories high. Is that what we are
in for in the future, because it makes a difference in how we
do our planning.
Ms. Borrone. It certainly does, Senator. Well, as we
undertook this analysis, with the help and commitment of the
Army Corps of Engineers, we asked that question. I think our
answer is, barring some dramatic change in technology, that it
is not going to continue to look to deeper and deeper channels.
What we are saying is that we are going to perhaps have the
opportunity to max out with existing depths and existing beams
on vessels well before we have to start looking at new
capability and ship design.
We believe, based on what the industry designers are
telling us--naval architects and marine engineers--that we
could see ships with current depth requirements and beams that
would handle 14,000 or 15,000 containers on a vessel. The
technology problem is going to be the engine capability and the
cost of operating those vessels.
If we start seeing broadening beams, we are going to have
problems not just in New York Harbor but in many other harbors,
because we haven't designed our channels to handle two vessels
of very large beams passing each other. And it's not just this
country, it's other countries, as well.
So what we think and the way we looked at this analysis,
the channel depths that we are talking about, that 50 foot,
which, as you say, is really more than 50 feet to assure safe
overdraft and to assure that we--because we will be blasting
into rock, have the appropriate rock capability in place--we're
talking about approximately 54 feet. We should be able to
handle the ships that want to call our harbor.
Also, remember that the largest, the behemoth vessels, are
only going to be on certain trade lines because of the volume
of cargo flowing between Asia and the U.S. or between Asia and
other countries.
So we don't think it is an ever-increasing cycle of deeper
and deeper drafts.
Senator Lautenberg. Because at some point I think we have
to say, ``Well, how much can we afford to do, and what is the
reasonable navigation opportunity there?'' You know, some of
these are fairly narrow channels, and if you keep extending the
draft then there is a tendency to increase the length, there is
a tendency to increase the beam. Before you know it, you'd have
to put wheels on this thing and drive it over land.
Then the next question that arises is the share of sharing,
the relationship between Federal funding and non-Federal
funding, and the current cost-sharing relationship for channel-
deepening projects, the nexus at 45 feet is 50/50.
Now, in your testimony you say that the Port Authority or
local support, regional support, is willing to go to $1
billion, if I read correctly. The forecast is for
$1,800,000,000. What is the position of the Port Authority on
accommodating these newer ship standards and modifying the cost
share to allow for 65/35 for projects up to 55 feet?
On one hand, I hear what I think is a serious offer to take
even more than half locally. On the other hand, it is being
suggested that maybe the Federal Government ought to step up to
65 percent.
Ms. Borrone. Well, Senator, the current Federal share is
really 60/40, meaning 60 percent on the local and 40 percent on
the Federal level, because the 50/50 we start with, but we also
have another 10 percent responsibility at the end of the
project where we reimburse the Federal Government that
additional amount. So the Government's position in current law
is that we step up and spend 60 percent of our funds.
That's what I said we are prepared to do because it is so
urgent that we get this program moving. But we do, as the Port
Authority, strongly support the cost-sharing policy change
which is under consideration, we hope, by this committee,
because we do believe, as I said in my testimony, that the
depth we are talking about will be standard depth, which was
the circumstance when we were dealing with 45 feet as an
industry standard a decade-and-a-half ago.
So we would hope that the committee would seriously
consider the opportunity to adjust the cost-sharing formula in
this legislative round.
Senator Lautenberg. To 60----
Ms. Borrone. To 65/35.
Senator Lautenberg. To 65/35?
Ms. Borrone. Right.
Senator Lautenberg. So 65 percent----
Ms. Borrone. Federal.
Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. Being from----
Ms. Borrone. The Federal Government.
Senator Lautenberg. Federal Government. I just wanted to be
sure, because let there not be any confusion that we want to
make it easier for the Federal Government.
I thank you.
Ms. Borrone. Thank you, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island
for his interest, I must say, to carry on in the Chafee
tradition, legacy of interest in such matters as the very good,
positive contribution to the things that we are doing. We're
glad to see you.
Senator Chafee [assuming Chair]. Thank you very much.
Senator Lieberman?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Chafee, and thanks to
everyone on the panel.
I'd offer a special welcome to my home town mayor. I left,
but I didn't go far, and my mother is still there, and she is a
fervent supporter of Mayor Malloy.
I regret that I was at an Armed Services Committee meeting
that kept me from being here.
I don't want to delay the hearing. I have a statement that
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, be entered into the record.
Senator Chafee. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]
Senator Lieberman. I took a look at Mayor Malloy's
testimony and I have been informed by my staff that he
testified well to it.
We have had experience in Stamford now with the very
constructive and unique role, a great advantage, sort of value-
added over what might have come from a private engineering
firm. First, the city 2 or 3 years ago was designated as one of
the lead cities in brownfields initiative. I think 16 were
chosen around the country. But then there are two major
projects that I know, because of all the time I go to Stamford
to visit my mother. You understand this.
Mayor Malloy. I do.
Senator Lieberman. Yes. And I know, from talking and
working on it with Mayor Malloy, the critical role the Corps is
playing in both of those projects.
I'm sure he said it better than I could. I want to just
welcome him, thank him for taking the time to come down and
testify and thank him for his leadership of a city that is
really doing very well now.
Mayor Malloy. Thank you, Senator. I just want to thank you
for being here. If I had known you were going to be here, I
would have spoken slower.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. Thank you.
Thanks, The Chairman.
Senator Chafee. I don't have any questions. The only
comment I would make is that these are worthy projects, from
the days when you could walk across the backs of salmon to
seeing very few in a whole day along the river--80 million
people, according to your testimony, are served within 100
miles of the port.
One interesting fact--New Jersey is more densely populated
than India.
Senator Lieberman. Really?
Senator Chafee. Look it up.
Senator Lieberman. I'm going to do that.
I'll give you the other side of this. I was at a meeting
with Senator Burns of Montana, and he was talking about how
little populated Montana is, and he said, in true Brensian
fashion, ``In Montana, there's a lot of dirt between light
bulbs.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. It only makes sense that we provide all
those people with adequate transportation for their goods. Of
course, the Ohio River and all the produce that travels on that
waterway, and the good work that is being done at Stamford,
what an opportunity to realize a city's potential, a city that
has seen the faces of history come and go and now great
potential.
And the beaches--my only comment on that would be the power
of the ocean just can't be under-estimated. I know in Rhode
Island we restore some beaches, and just the power of the ocean
can undo so quickly what the Corps or anybody else can do, so I
do have some reservations on putting money into beach
restoration.
Mr. Marlowe. I'd be happy to talk with you about that one,
Senator.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
In the absence of Senator Voinovich, I conclude the
hearing. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
Statement of Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator from the State
of New York
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing to discuss the
Administration's proposal for the Water Resources Development Act of
2000. I am particularly interested in discussing the New York/New
Jersey Harbor Navigation Study, which was completed and signed by
Lieutenant General Joseph N. Ballard on May 2, 2000. I am pleased that
the project has been included in today's hearing and particularly look
forward to receiving the testimony of Lillian Barrone, Director of Port
Commerce for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
The Chief's Report for the New York/New Jersey Harbor Navigation
Study recommends deepening the entrance channel to 53 feet, and all
other major channels in the Port to a depth of 50 feet. This report
represents 3 years of comprehensive study, authorized in WRDA 96, on
the navigation needs of the Port of New York and New Jersey. I support
the report in its entirety.
In 1791, Alexander Hamilton wrote of the efficiencies to be gained
by the involvement of the Federal Government in the development of
waterways for commerce in his ``Report on Manufactures.'' Throughout
the 1800's, support for Federal involvement in navigation and commerce
solidified. In 1899, Congress passed the River and Harbor Act, giving
regulatory authority to the Army Corps of Engineers for any
construction within navigable waters of the United States. Mr.
Chairman, the New York/ New Jersey Harbor project represents the
essence of this mission.
The Port of New York and New Jersey is the third largest port in
North America and the top export port in the country. It is a vital
economic engine. As trade continues to expand, we must be prepared to
make serious investments in our nation's infrastructure to ensure our
ability to be competitive internationally. Authorization of the New
York/ New Jersey Harbor project in its entirety is paramount to the
continued economic vitality of the Port, the states of New York and New
Jersey, the entire northeast region, and indeed, the nation. I look
forward to working with my colleagues in developing the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
__________
Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Department of the Army
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Joseph Westphal,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Accompanying me today
is Mr. Michael Davis, the Army's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
and Legislation, and MG Hans A. Van Winkle, the Army Corps of
Engineers' Deputy Commander for Civil Works. It is an honor to be here
today, and to provide you with information on the Army's proposal for a
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000. We appreciate the
opportunity to work with your Subcommittee and the Congress on this
important legislative initiative.
For over two centuries, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been a
great asset to our Nation. Since its founding in 1775, the Corps of
Engineers has provided engineering support to the military, developed
our nation's water resources, and restored and protected our
environment. The Corps has improved the quality of our life by
contributing to making America more prosperous, safe, and secure. As we
begin the new century, the Corps must be flexible and evolve if it is
to continue to make important contributions to the Nation and respond
to today's problems. We envision that the Corps will continue in its
longstanding and exemplary role as a great problem solver for the
Nation.
Historically, the Nation's rich and abundant water and related land
resources provided the foundation for our successful development and
rapid achievement of preeminence within the international community.
Our Nation's waters and waterways have been focal points for economic
and social development, and the Army's Civil Works program has made
significant contributions to this development.
Under this Administration, there has been intense interest in
finding sustainable ways to strengthen our Nation's economy while
protecting and restoring our unique water and related land resources
for the benefit of future generations. I believe the Army's Civil Works
program has a significant role to play in meeting these objectives.
There is no question that our natural resources have been affected,
often in unintended ways, by our country's tremendous growth,
unparalleled prosperity, and urban and rural development. Pursuant to
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the Army Civil Works
program began to change in response to the many new water resources
challenges facing this Nation. The programs and policies that I will
talk about today are designed to enable the Army Corps Civil Works
program to continue the tradition of contributing to our economic
growth, our National security, and the restoration and protection of
our Nation's environment.
Importance of Water Resources Development
The Administration's Army Civil Works program reflects its
commitment to justified and environmentally acceptable water resources
development. Our program provides a sound investment in our Nation's
security, economic future, and environmental stability. Communities
across the country rely on water resources projects to reduce flood
damages, compete more efficiently in world trade, provide needed water
and power, and protect and restore our rich environmental resources.
As you are well aware, there are many pressing needs for water
resources development in this country. We must work together to define
an appropriate Federal role in addressing these problems in the full
light of our fiscal capabilities and constraints, and economic and
environmental requirements. I suggest that we utilize the following
principles as we formulate a Water Resources Development Act for 2000:
Technically Sound Projects. Water resources investment
decisions must be made based on the best technical and policy
evaluations that consider all economic and environmental consequences.
In light of constrained Federal dollars we must ensure, before a
project is authorized for construction, that it has completed a sound
planning process, has passed a full Agency and Administration review,
and is fully in accord with the Federal laws and policies established
to protect the environment.
Central Importance of Cost Sharing. At the heart of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 were landmark beneficiary pay
reforms, which included cost sharing. As a result of this change in the
way the Corps does business, local sponsors, through funding and use of
their expertise, have become active participants in the formulation,
evaluation, and financing of projects. The willingness of non-Federal
interests to participate in cost-share studies and projects often also
serves as a critical market test of a project's merits. Overall, we
have found it an eminently successful policy.
Fiscal Responsibility. The Nation's water resources
infrastructure must be planned, constructed, operated, maintained, and
improved to meet future needs. However, this must be done in consonance
with other national priorities and a balanced budget. We should never
create false hope by authorizing projects that we cannot reasonably
expect to fund or complete within a reasonable period of time. In light
of the large backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, and other
authorized projects awaiting construction, we must limit the
authorization of new studies, projects and programs and give priority
to completion of ongoing construction projects. This will allow us to
move toward a more sustainable long-term construction program and more
timely project delivery to non-Federal sponsors.
Army Civil Works Legislative Program for 2000
The centerpiece for the Administration's legislative program for
2000 is the authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan to restore America's Everglades. We have previously provided
detailed testimony and briefings on this high priority project and will
not elaborate further in this statement. Instead, I will focus on the
non-Everglades provisions in our WRDA 2000 proposal.
Our WRDA 2000 proposal includes several provisions which, if
enacted, will aid in the restoration of our natural environment. There
are provisions aimed at more effectively meeting the needs of tribal
and low-income communities. Finally, there are a number of provisions
that will assist us in the management of existing Corps programs. I
will discuss each of these areas in more detail below.
Provisions to Assist in Environmental Restoration and Planning
Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters. Puget Sound and adjacent
waters encompass more than 15,000 square miles in northwest Washington,
including all waters in the Puget Sound drainage basin. Significant
amounts of wetland, estuary, and river and stream habitats have been
degraded or destroyed as a result of Federal, State, and local actions,
including Federal navigation projects, agricultural and forest
activities, and urbanization. Improving the health of this resource
area is critical to Tribes, the State, and the Nation at large because
of its abundant fisheries, and habitats used by migrating waterfowl.
Because of this great need, we have proposed legislation that will
authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to undertake critical
environmental restoration projects in the Puget Sound watershed.
Projects would be implemented by the Corps with 65 percent Federal and
35 percent non-Federal cost sharing. The maximum Corps funding of any
one project would be limited to $2.5 million, with a total Corps
program limit of $10 million. Projects would be selected with the
concurrence of the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce and in
consultation with appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, and local
agencies, and would provide immediate and substantial restoration,
preservation, and ecosystem protection benefits.
CALFED Bay Delta Program Assistance. One lesson we have
learned from our work in the Everglades is how important it is to be
able to look at an entire ecosystem or watershed and evaluate
comprehensively a broader array of water and related land resources
problems and opportunities. The CALFED Bay Delta Program, initiated in
1995, represents an important collaboration among Federal and
California State agencies and leading urban, agricultural, and
environmental interests to address and resolve environmental and water
management problems associated with the Bay-Delta system in central
California. The Bay-Delta system is formed where the two foremost
rivers of California's Central Valley meet. These rivers--the
Sacramento and the San Joaquin--provide drinking water for 22 million
people, and supply irrigation water for more than 4 million acres of
some of the world's most productive farmland. It is the largest wetland
habitat and estuary in the American West, and is a critical part of the
Pacific flyway for migrating birds. The CALFED mission is to develop a
long-term comprehensive plan that will improve the ecological health of
the Bay-Delta system and improve water management for beneficial uses.
We have proposed that the Secretary be authorized to participate in
all CALFED planning and management activities, consistent with Public
Law 102-575, and to integrate its activities in the San Joaquin and
Sacramento River basins with the long-term goals of the CALFED Bay
Delta Program. Currently, Army Corps of Engineers participation can be
limited because the Corps in many instances must rely on project-
specific authorizations that do not include participation in inter-
agency, bay-wide planning and management activities. Our proposal will
provide the authority for the Secretary to request funds for the Corps
to participate in the CALFED Bay Delta Program, and to use funds
provided by others to carry out ecosystem restoration projects and
activities associated with the CALFED Bay Delta Program. The
authorization would be to authorize the appropriation of $5 million in
funds over a 4-year period starting in fiscal year 2002.
Brownfields Revitalization Program. For several years,
the Corps has been assisting, predominantly on a reimbursable basis,
the Nation's efforts to restore abandoned, idled, or under-used
industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment
is complicated by environmental contamination (i.e., Brownfields). We
propose that the Army Corps of Engineers be authorized to establish and
carry out a program to provide assistance to non-Federal interests in
the clean-up and restoration of Brownfields where such clean-up and
restoration will directly contribute to improving the quality,
conservation, and sustainable use of waterways and watersheds. The
Corps would use this authority to perform site characterizations,
planning, design, and construction of projects to improve the quality,
conservation, and sustainable use of streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands,
and floodplains. Such activities in combination with the Corps'
existing environmental restoration and protection authorities will
enable the corps to participate more extensively in the overall Federal
effort to revitalize Brownfield areas. The provision requires
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and other
appropriate agencies to ensure that Army Civil Works activities are
integrated fully with the activities of others. Our proposal also
includes language in Section 5(d) to clarify that this new authority
would not modify existing law or agency authorities over Brownfields.
Studies conducted under this authority would be in accord with normal
study cost sharing, and the non-Federal share of projects would be 50
percent. Non-Federal interest would provide the lands, easements,
rights-of-way, and relocations; hold and save the Federal Government
from claims and damages; and operate and maintain any project
implemented under this authority. The legislation would authorize the
Army Corps of Engineers to engage in these activities over a 4-year
period beginning in fiscal year 2002, with a programmatic appropriation
limit of $25,000,000 annually, for such studies and projects
nationwide. There would be a $5,000,000 one-time Army Civil Works
funding limit at any single site. In addition, the legislation calls
for a report to be prepared evaluating the Corps' performance under
this Brownfields Restoration Program, and for that report to be
submitted to the Congress on findings and recommendations on the
program by December 31, 2005.
Watershed and River Basin Assessments. At a conceptual
level, addressing water resources issues on a watershed scale is
generally embraced as the most appropriate approach. In practice,
however, agencies too often continue to focus on their parochial
interests and address problems on a project-by-project basis. In many
cases, this has resulted in ineffective solutions and inefficiencies.
In this regard, we have included a provision in our WRDA 2000 to amend
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. This
provision will enhance the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to
help address complex water resource problems that include large
geographic areas across multiple governmental jurisdictions. It would
also enhance the ability of the Corps to work efficiently and
effectively in a watershed environment. Such assessments would be
conducted in cooperation with other Federal, Tribal, State, interstate,
and local governmental entities.
The legislation would increase the total authorized appropriations
limit for such assessments from the current $5,000,000 to $15,000,000,
and add a non-Federal cost sharing requirement. The non-Federal share
of the cost of such assessments would be 25 percent. The assessments
would consider a broad variety of water resources needs tailored to the
specific situation in a river basin or watershed. To the extent
practicable, the assessments will consider and enhance those
assessments already conducted by other Federal, State, and interstate
agencies.
Provisions for Tribal and Low-Income Communities
Tribal Partnership Program. The proposed Tribal
Partnership Program would enhance our ability to work with federally
recognized Tribal governments, including Alaskan Natives, to determine
the feasibility of potential projects for flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration and protection, and cultural and natural
resource management. The legislation acknowledges the unique
relationship with Tribal governments, and authorizes the Secretary to
consider traditional cultural knowledge and values when formulating and
recommending projects to Congress for authorization, and unique Tribal
capabilities during project development. We would coordinate with
tribes and with the Department of the Interior and other Federal
agencies to identify potential projects and to design and conduct
feasibility studies, and would seek to avoid duplications of effort and
to explore ways to integrate our resources with the activities of the
affected agencies. The legislation would authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers to engage in these activities over a 5-year period beginning
in fiscal year 2002, with a programmatic appropriation limit of
$5,000,000 annually for such studies and projects.
In addition, there will be a $1,000,000 one-time Army Civil Works
funding limit for any one tribe. In addition, we have included a
provision for the Secretary to develop ability-to-pay procedures to
assist low income and economically disadvantaged communities in funding
studies and projects conducted under this authority.
Ability to Pay. We are proposing that the ability to pay
provisions of Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 be further amended so that it would apply to the construction of
environmental protection and restoration projects, and to feasibility
studies for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration
projects. We also believe that additional criteria beyond those
provided under current law must be considered. For example, we have
included language in our proposal to account for the non-Federal
sponsor's financial ability to carry out its cost-sharing
responsibilities, and to account for the additional financial
assistance that may be available from other Federal agencies or from
the State or States in which the project is located.
Transfer of Project Lands. Our WRDA 2000 includes a
proposal to authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a
feasibility study for the transfer to Indian Tribes, from whom they
were taken, lands that the Army Corps of Engineers acquired under the
Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program. The study to transfer such
lands would be conducted in cooperation with the Secretary of the
Interior and with the States of South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska
and other affected interests, and affected Indian Tribes. The Corps of
Engineers would conduct economic, environmental, cultural resource,
hazardous waste, and other surveys and evaluations, and comply with
applicable environmental and historic preservation laws.
Provisions To Assist in the Management of Existing Programs
Recreation Programs. In my Fiscal Year 2001 budget
request for the Army Civil Works program, I announced a new initiative
to modernize facilities at key recreation areas currently operated and
maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps manages 537
Federal lakes (4,340 recreation areas) and administers approximately
11.7 million acres of land and water in 43 States. These projects host
377 million visitors annually. In support of the recreation
modernization initiative, I have developed two legislative provisions.
First, I am asking for the authority to implement a program to reduce
vandalism and destruction of property at water resources projects under
the jurisdiction of the Army. Second, I am asking that the Army be
given explicit statutory authority to participate in, and help fund,
the state-of-the-art National Recreation Reservation Service (NRRS)
developed by the U.S. Forest Service. The NRRS has been very successful
in providing the public with a one-stop-shop reservation service for
recreation opportunities. More than 600,000 Internet reservations were
made during the 1999 recreation season.
Project Deauthorizations. The Army Corps of Engineers has
many authorized projects that have not been completed, and many that
will never be constructed, all of which are contributing to the growing
backlog of Civil Works projects. Currently, there is a construction
backlog of about $46 billion. This includes all authorized projects,
whether or not they have received funding. The size of the construction
backlog does not include the many known projects still in the study or
review stage that are awaiting authorization. Sufficient funding is
simply not available to implement all of these projects in a timely
way. To take a small, but important step, to remedy this situation, we
propose to modify the current criteria for deauthorizing projects. The
proposal identifies a reasonable time period after which a project
should be under construction. Where this does not occur, and Congress
has been given ample notice but not reauthorized the project, we
believe that the project should be ``taken off the books''
automatically by deauthorization.
Flood Damage Reduction Program. There are two provisions
aimed at improving the flood damage reduction program. First, there is
a measure to change the cost sharing for structural flood damage
reduction projects to 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal.
The cost sharing for non-structural project would remain at 65 percent
Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. We believe that this increase in
the local cost-share is needed to provide a truer ``market test'' for
our structural flood damage reduction projects. Within the Corps'
budget, this change would free up Federal funds for other projects and
programs and would provide a stronger incentive to communities and to
the Corps to consider non-structural flood damage reduction
alternatives. Our recommended revisions to Section 103(m) of the Water
Resources Development Act 1986 (Ability-to-Pay), discussed above, would
complement this proposal. Together, these two proposals would ensure
that needed flood damage reduction projects can go forward in all
communities, regardless of their current level of prosperity.
Second, we propose to strengthen the flood plain management
requirements of Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, to require non-Federal interests to take measures to preserve the
level of flood protection that the projects are intended to provide
when they are constructed.
Provisions for Project Authorizations
Since the last Water Resources Development Act, the Army Corps of
Engineers has submitted only one project to me for authorization. On
May 15, 2000, I received the Chief of Engineers recommendation on the
New York and New Jersey Harbor Navigation Project. My office will now
review this proposal, and the Administration will now be able to
consider the project for authorization. I expect to be able to submit
my recommendation on this important project in time for Congress to
consider it for authorization in WRDA 2000. In addition, the Army Corps
of Engineers has certain other projects that are in the final stages of
its planning process. As these projects are submitted to me, we will
review them and forward them to the Congress with the Administration's
recommendation.
In regard to potential project authorizations in WRDA 2000, I
strongly urge the Committee to authorize only those projects that have
completed executive branch review. We believe this will improve our
ability to construct projects that will benefit the Nation.
Roughly three-quarters of the significant new project in last
year's WRDA 1999, and many of its project modifications, were still in
the planning stage or undergoing review when Congress authorized them.
Many of these projects have not yet completed the review required for
proposed Federal water resources projects under Executive Order 12322.
Until they have done so, neither the Executive branch nor the Congress
is likely to know which of these project will raise significant
concerns regarding their scope, economic and technical feasibility,
environmental acceptability, or the ability of local sponsors to
provide the required cost-share.
Harbor Services Fund and User Fee
Last year, the Administration transmitted to Congress its Harbor
Services Fund and User Fee proposal to establish a new mechanism for
financing development, operation and maintenance of the Nation's ports
and harbors. The new Fund and user fee would replace the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Tax, a portion of
which was found unconstitutional and has been the subject to questions
raised by U.S. trading partners regarding claims that it violates the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This fee would collect about
the same total amount of revenue as would have been collected under the
Harbor Maintenance Tax prior to the Supreme Count's decision. Enactment
of the proposed new fund and user fee would provide a much needed,
stable, long-term source of financing to enable commercial harbor and
channel work to proceed on optimal schedules. I urge prompt
congressional action on this important proposal.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I stand ready to work
with you and your Subcommittee in developing this important
legislation. We would be pleased to answer any questions you or the
Subcommittee may have..
______
Responses by Dr. Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. Why do you believe that the new deauthorization process
will be an improvement upon the way projects currently are authorized?
Response. The proposed changes should expedite the deauthorization
of authorized projects and separable elements of projects that have not
been and are not likely to be funded for construction. The proposal
introduces new criteria and schedules that should reduce the backlog of
inactive and deferred construction projects over a shorter period of
time.
Question 2. Your deauthorization provision, as written, would not
apply until 3 years after the date of enactment. Why do you propose
deferring the implementation of this new process?
Response. The proposal establishes two separate timetables for
deauthorization. Section 16(a) applies to ``projects never under
construction'' and section 16(b) to ``projects where construction has
been suspended.'' Under section 16(a) projects meeting the
deauthorization criteria would be identified after 4 years and
deauthorized after seven. Under section 16(b), the timing is 2 years
and 5 years. Projects identified for deauthorization under both
timetables are reported to Congress annually. Note the 3-year wedge
between identification and deauthorization. To initiate this wedge upon
enactment would require a 3-year deferral on Reauthorizations.
Question 3. As Senator Baucus mentioned at the hearing, the Corps
provided the Committee with a list of how many active, inactive, and
deferred projects are in the $46 billion backlog. $8 billion of these
projects are listed as inactive or deferred. Are there additional
projects in the active category that would be eligible for
Reauthorization in this cycle if the Administration's proposal were
enacted?
Response. Under the Administration's proposal, there could be
projects in the active category that are Reauthorized. The proposal
establishes new criteria and timetables for the Reauthorization of all
authorized projects, notwithstanding their classification as active,
inactive or deferred. If an ``active'' project were to meet the
criteria, then it would be identified and Reauthorized. For example, an
``active'' project in the design or land-acquisition phase could still
be Reauthorized because, in most cases, construction funds for
``physical work'' must be obligated to prevent Reauthorization.
Question 4. Would projects in the Puget Sound area still be
eligible for Section 206 authority if Section 19 were enacted?
Response. Yes.
Question 5. What would Section 19 accomplish that is beyond the
scope of Section 206 authority?
Response. Section 19 would allow for a regional prioritization of
environmental restoration projects, using criteria that are unique to
the Puget Sound area. The needs for environmental restoration in the
Puget Sound Watershed far exceeds the parameters of the 206 program,
which also must serve the needs of the rest of the nation. Section 19
will permit a comprehensive approach in addressing ecosystem and
habitat problems throughout the Puget Sound basin. It allows for a
program to address critical ecosystem restoration needs for
environmental resources that have national importance, such as Pacific
Northwest salmon. Project prioritization will occur at a local level,
to ensure ecosystem restoration needs of the region are best being met.
The new authority will provide additional Federal funding to match
state, local, tribal, and private sources, allowing more high priority
projects to be completed.
Question 6. How do you expect to fund these regional programmatic
authorities? these authorities compete with the already existing
national authorities for funding?
Response. This authority will be funded using the annual budget
request process and will be consistent with the project authorization.
It is envisioned that the budget requests will be made based on the
merits of the restoration projects being considered for construction.
Question 7. Describe the historic involvement of the Army Corps in
the Puget Sound region.
Response. The Corps of Engineers has been constructing civil works
projects in the Puget Sound region since the early 1900's. Authorized
projects in the Puget Sound region include multiple flood control,
shoreline and riverbank erosion control, debris clearing and snagging
operation, irrigation, and navigation projects. In recent years, the
focus of Corps activities has been upon environmental restoration.
Since the late 1980's, Seattle District has undertaken several
Continuing Authority Projects, constructing seven Section 1135
projects, with another five to be completed within the next few years.
There are five Section 206 projects underway, with a backlog of six
additional projects awaiting funding to be initiated. In addition,
Seattle District has five General Investigation Ecosystem Restoration
projects underway, with two ready for WRDA 2000 authorization.
Question 8. Over the last five fiscal years, how much of the
Section 206 funding has been directed to the Puget Sound region?
Response. Since the 206 program was authorized in 1996, the Seattle
District has expended $900,000 in studies, which will lead to
approximately $4,800,000 in restoration construction.
Question 9. How would the S.729 watershed assessments differ from
the traditional reconnaissance and feasibility studies?
Response. Traditional reconnaissance and feasibility studies have
typically focused on narrower problems and solutions. The 729
assessments would better enable the Corps to address complex water
resource problems that include large geographic areas, with multiple
governmental jurisdictions, having multiple potential sponsors and
involving significant interest by other Federal agencies.
Question 10. In the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget
proposal, four such watershed assessments are requested. Have other
assessments been conducted under Section 729 authority and if so, what
were the results and what was done with this information?
Response. The fiscal year 2001 Budget identifies four comprehensive
river basin planning studies. Two of these studies, the Rio Grande
River Basin and the White River Basin, Arkansas would utilize the
authority of Section 729. The total Federal share of each of these
studies is $2 million. Previously, Section 729 authority was used to
accomplish the National Study of Water Management During Drought,
completed in 1995. This study concluded that more skillful and
integrated water management is needed and developed a new concept for
Drought Preparedness Studies.
Question 11. What was the impetus behind requesting a costshare
change for Section 729 assessments?
Response. The request for a change in the costshare recognizes the
importance of leveraging Corps dollars and achieves a level of
comparability with other Corps programs that address similar types of
problems.
Question 12. In what ways is the New York-New Jersey Harbor
Deepening project of national significance?
Response. The New York & New Jersey Harbor Deepening project serves
the Port of New York and New Jersey, which is the third largest
container port in the nation and the largest on the East Coast. In
1997, the Port handled over 2.3 million TEU's (20-foot equivalents) of
containerized cargo. This increased to approximately 2.4 million in
1999. The Corps's economic project in the feasibility report expects a
further increase to 19 million in the year 2060. Approximately 70
percent of this cargo was either destined for or originated in the 31
county metropolitan tri-state area that contains 40 percent of the
nation's population. The remaining cargo is either destined for or
originated in a 17 state area that extends from New York to Missouri
and from Maryland to Maine.
In addition, the New York & New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project is
of national significance because of its contribution of more than $238
million in annual national economic development benefits. These
benefits are in the form of reduced costs for the waterborne
transportation of containerized cargo. Reducing waterborne
transportation cost results in the consumer paying less for the
products that they demand, and producers paying less for imported
inputs, which increases the demand for U.S. labor. Both of these
effects contribute to the overall economic welfare of the Nation.
Question 13. If the New York-New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project
were authorized, what would be the breakdown, annually, of the Federal
appropriations over the life of the project (e.g. how much in fiscal
years 2002, 2003, 2004, etc.)?
Response. Based on the construction schedule presented in the
feasibility report, construction of the project would begin in fiscal
year 2003 and continue until fiscal year 2016. The schedule of Federal
appropriations for the construction of the project is below. The funds
identified in fiscal year 2017 through 2021 are for the completion of
environmental monitoring of the project effects. The difference between
the recommended authorized amount and the amount shown is the cost of
completing the Preconstruction Engineering and Design Phase (Gl
funded). It is further noted that the local non-Federal sponsor, the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, has expressed a desire to
have the channels leading to its Newark Bay Facilities be completed by
2009 in order to meet its commitment to Maersk-SeaLand. The District
continues to examine the schedule and will determine during the
Preconstruction Engineering and Design Phase whether this requirement
is viable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Federal Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003................................................ $66,000,000
2004................................................ $70,000,000
2005................................................ $73,000,000
2006................................................ $69,000,000
2007................................................ $70,000,000
2008................................................ $68,000,000
2009................................................ $59,000,000
2010................................................ $61,000,000
2011................................................ $57,000,000
2012................................................ $58,000,000
2013................................................ $31,000,000
2014................................................ $11,000,000
2015................................................ $18,000,000
2016................................................ $12,000,000
2017................................................ $177,000
2018................................................ $101,000
2019................................................ $101,000
2020................................................ $101,000
2021................................................ $101,000
Total............................................... $723,581,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 14. Are there currently harbor-deepening authorizations
that have not been executed for channels that comprise the New York-New
Jersey Harbor Deepening project. If so, and if this project were
authorized, would these authorizations be obsolete, so to speak, could
they be Reauthorized? What would be the impact on the backlog?
Response. Congress authorized the Arthur Kill Channel-Howland Hook
Marine Terminal (to 41 feet below mean low water) and the New York and
New Jersey Channels-Port Jersey Channel (to 41 feet below mean low
water). Both of these projects are for high priority deep draft
navigation purposes with strong benefit-to-cost ratios. As demonstrated
in the their Limited Reevaluation and Chiefs of Engineers Reports,
there continues to be a need for theses two channels to be constructed
now, which has resulted in them being included in the President's
Budget for fiscal year 2001. In recognition of the future overlapping
of these three projects, the District Engineer recommended that
construction of these two projects be initiated and that, upon
authorization of the New York & New Jersey Harbor project, the
authorities and appropriations be combined and construction all the
recommended channel projects to 50 feet directly can proceed. The Chief
of Engineers concurred with these findings. Initiating these two
projects now will ensure that the overall deepening to 50-feet is
completed as soon as possible. As such, the Corps does not recommend
Reauthorization for these channels at this time.
Response by Dr. Joseph Westphal to Additional Question from Senator
Voinovich
Question. The Administration is proposing a programmatic authority
for critical restoration projects in the Puget Sound region with a
Federal share of up to $2.5 million. There are Corps national
programmatic authorities for environmental restoration under Section
1135 of WRDA 86 and Section 206 of WRDA 96. The Puget Sound restoration
projects would be potentially eligible for implementation under these
national environmental restoration authorities. What is the
justification for creating a special authority for the Puget Sound
Region? Won't every region of the country want their own special pot of
money? Wouldn't it be better to increase the appropriation limits on
the national authorities which are available to all regions of the
country?
Response. The National Marine Fisheries Service recently added
several State of Washington populations of salmon and steelhead in
Washington to the endangered species list, marking the first time
Federal protection has been extended to salmon found in streams in
heavily populated areas of the Pacific Northwest, including the Seattle
metropolitan area. The salmon is a species of national significance,
and its demise would have untold social, economic, and environmental
impacts. Whereas the existing authorities have been quite effective for
implementing restoration projects on a case by case basis, the needs
for restoration work in the Puget Sound Basin far exceeds the
parameters of the Section 206 program, both in terms of
comprehensiveness and in funding availability. This new authority will
address the specific need to restore resources of national importance
by ensuring an ecosystem approach to the evaluation of habitat problems
in the entire basin, bringing wide-scale comprehensive restoration
throughout the Puget Sound. The new authority will provide additional
Federal funding to match state, local, tribal, and private sources,
allowing more high priority projects to be completed.
______
Responses by Dr. Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. Please provide specific information on the amount
(e.g., number of acres) of mitigation the Corps has been legally
required (e.g., under Record of Decisions, Final Environmental Impact
Statements, Memoranda of Understandings, or Project Cooperation
Agreements) to perform over the last 10 years.
Response. To respond to this question, a survey was made of all our
field offices. The results of this survey revealed that 440,217 acres
of mitigation have been required.
Question 2. What amount (e.g., number of acres) of this mitigation
has been implemented over this Period. What amount has been completed?
Response. The survey indicates that of the 440,217 acres required,
263,478 acres have been acquired to the present time. The problem with
compiling this information was that there are numerous ongoing projects
where required mitigation acres are still being acquired, projects
where mitigation was accomplished on a combination of Federal and non-
Federal previously owned lands, lands purchased for other purposes were
used to satisfy mitigation requirements, etc. In short, there is no
direct correlation between the summary of acres required and acres
acquired that can be used for determining amount of mitigation that has
been completed. In many cases one would have to look at the individual
project mitigation plan and execution of that plan to determine amount
completed. Similarly the cost to acquire the mitigation acres
corresponds only to the acres acquired and does not reflect the total
cost of mitigation accomplished.
Question 3. What amount of mitigation completed over the past 10
years has been demonstrated through monitoring to provide the benefits
(including habitat value and structure) predicted in Record of
Decisions, Final Environmental Impact Statements, Memoranda of
Understandings, or Project Cooperation Agreements?
Response. The amount of mitigation completed over the past 10 years
that has been demonstrated through monitoring to provide predicted
benefits also varied from project to project based upon whether or not
monitoring was included in the mitigation plan. The decision to include
or not include monitoring is dependent upon the magnitude of the
project and the degree of risk and uncertainty with the probable
success of the mitigation. Therefore, no attempt has been made to
summarize the relative degree of success each project mitigation plan
achieved.
______
Affadavits of Staff of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Provided to
Senator Voinovich, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastruture
document request
1. Letters of April 17, 1998, from MG Anderson to BG Van Winkle.
2. All internal Corps communications in whatever form dealing with
the substantive and procedural status of the UMRS between January 1,
1998, and April 1, 2000.
3. Principles and Guidelines for federal water resources agencies.
4. National Academy of Sciences study of Corps' planning process.
5. Instructions given to Dudley Hanson for the persons conducting
the in process reviews, if extant in writing.
6. Statement made on September 23, 1998, to review group, if extant
in writing.
7. All communications received from interest groups between January
1, 1998, and December 31, 1998, concerning the merits of economic
models and assumptions in the UMRS.
8. All responses sent by the Corps to such groups during the same
period.
9. All written comments received by the Corps from the Department
of Agriculture during the same period.
10. All responses sent to the Department of Agriculture by the
Corps during the same period.
11. The results of the in progress reviews with respect to the
relative merits of the economic models employed for the UMRS.
12. Guidance from MG Fuhrman relative to the in progress reviews,
in whatever form extant.
13. Any notes taken by Dudley Hanson with respect to such guidance,
either concurrently or later.
14. Preliminary economic analyses for reliability studies.
15. Draft reports of June 1998 and April 1999.
16. Engineering work group comments on April 1999 report.
17. Interim Revised Lock Extension Design Concept Report of March
1998.
18. Additional preliminary economic analysis of that Report, and
reevaluation done in response thereto.
19. Document containing August 1997 comment regarding
contingencies.
20. Any internal communications regarding suitability of particular
economic and engineering models and assumptions with respect to
results.
21. Any preliminary and final papers prepared in response to
requests from Congress or in connection with preparing a report to
Congress.
22. E-mail message of February 4, 2000, or thereabouts from Harry
Kitch to Dr. Jim Johnson regarding meeting with MG Van Winkle.
23. Affidavit of Don Sweeney.
24. Jeffrey Marmorstein's notes of conversation with Mike Grunwald,
February 3, 2000.
25. All economic elasticity studies for grain in the UMRS.
26. Actual figures for grain shipments since 1989 on the waterways
in question, with elasticity figures for the same.
27. Projections for grain shipments on these waterways through
2015, with elasticity figures based on the same.
28. Memorandum summarizing December 1999 meeting in Vicksburg,
Mississippi, quoted in Lenard Ross affidavit.
29. Memorandum of February 4, 2000, quoted in David Sanford
affidavit.
30. Transcripts, minutes, or notes from video teleconference of
January 28, 2000, and meeting of February 4, 2000.
31. Communications from interest groups supporting statement in
paragraph 9 of Hans Van Winkle affidavit.
list of affidavits
TAB A. MG Phillip R. Anderson
TAB B. Mr. Thomas F. Caver
TAB C. MG Russell L. Fuhrman
TAB D. Mr. Dudley Hanson
TAB E. Mr. Bobby R. Hughey
TAB F. Mr. Harry E. Kitch
TAB G. Mr. Jeffrey Marmorstein
TAB H. Colonel James V. Mudd
TAB I. Mr. Lenard H. Ross
TAB J. Mr. David B. Sanford, Jr.
TAB K. Mr. Paul D. Soyke
TAB L. MG Hans Van Winkle
Department of the Army,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC 20314-1000, 03 MAR 2000.
Honorable George V. Voinovich, Chairman,
United States Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC 20510-4175
Dear Senator Voinovich: This letter and the attached statements and
affidavits respond to the Committee on Environment and Public Works'
February 28, 2000 inquiry regarding the Upper Mississippi and Ilinois
Rivers Navigation Project. Many of the questions were directed to
individuals who will later, in all likelihood, provide information to
other federal investigators, examining the same allegations. Therefore,
their responses to the Committee's questions are being provided to you
and your Committee by means of sworn affidavits.
We welcome this opportunity to provide the Committee with
information it feels is essential to oversight of Corps Programs. This
is the Corps' first opportunity to respond to the allegations. We trust
the information provided presents a more balanced view of the issues
surrounding the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation
Project Study than has emerged to date in press reports. As I testified
before the Committee on February 24, 2000, I welcome, and will fully
support, all independent outside investigations of the allegations and
Congressional oversight of our process. I believe in the
professionalism and dedication of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and its leadership. I am confident, as I stated before, that
your trust in the integrity of the Corps will be intact after a review
of our responses.
We stand ready to answer any further questions you or your
Committee members have about the study.
Sincerely,
Joe N. Ballard, Lieutenant General, USA Commanding.
______
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question 1. The Washington Post in a story dated February 24, 2000
states that a February 4, 2000 memo by Corps planner Harry Kitch stated
that General Van Winkle said ``we are the navigation proponent and we
can't have a limp-wristed recommendation saying to build something out
in 2025.'' What did General Van Winkle and Mr. Kitch mean by this
statement?
Answer: See the attached affidavits of MG Hans Van Winkle (TAB L)
and Mr. Harry E. Kitch (TAB F).
Question 2. The Washington Post, in a story dated February 24, 2000
states that a February 4, 2000 memo by Corps planner Harry Kitch stated
that at one point during the meeting ``concern was expressed that if we
don't provide for the industry, navigation program might get moved to''
the Department of Transportation. What did the participants in the
meeting interpret this to mean?
Answer: See the attached affidavits of MG Hans Van Winkle (TAB L),
Mr. Thomas F. Caver (TAB B), Mr. Harry E. Kitch (TAB F), and Mr. David
B. Sanford, Jr. (TAB J).
Question 3. The Washington Post, in a story dated February 24, 2000
states that a slide show presentation cites certain ``impediments to
growth'' including the laws governing the agency's conduct and the
departure of some powerful friends on Capitol Hill-and calls for a
``specifically targeted communications plan'' to bring Congress and the
Clinton administration on board. What did the people who put together
this slide show mean by this statement?
Answer: See the attached affidavit of Mr. Thomas F. Caver (TAB B),
and the slide show presentations (Exhibits 1 and 2).
Question 4. The Washington Post, in a story dated February 15, 2000
states that assistant Army Secretary in charge of the Corps' $4 billion
civil works program, met with (Secretary) Caldera yesterday to discuss
the situation. Six environmental groups wrote to him in 1998 to ask him
to review the Upper Mississippi study; he never responded to their
letter. Yesterday, though he said he took Sweeney's allegations ``very
seriously''. Why did Assistant Secretary Westphal fail to respond to
the 1998 request from the six environmental groups to review the Upper
Mississippi study?
Answer: Assistant Secretary Joseph Westphal will provide his
response under separate cover.
Question 5. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that top officials ordered the study team ``to support a
defensible set of . . . projects,'' and eventually rearranged the
numbers so that they supported a case for construction. One memo
candidly declared that if the economics did not ``capture the need for
navigation improvements, then we have to find some other way to do
it.'' Who are the top officials that ordered the study team to support
a defensible set of projects? What did these top officials mean by
``other ways'' to capture the need for navigation improvements.
Answer: The statements were contained in an email from Dudley M.
Hanson dated September 25, 1998. (Exhibit 3). In responding to this
email a short time later, Mr. Harry E. Kitch disagreed with some of the
statements Mr. Hanson had made. (Exhibit 3). Included among those
disagreements were Mr. Hanson's impressions regarding ``supporting a
defensible set of projects'', and ``other ways to capture the need for
navigation improvements.'' In his affidavit, Mr. Hanson has explained
what he meant by those two subjects in a manner that is consistent with
Mr. Kitch's understanding as well as what MG Russell Fuhrman has stated
in his affidavit (TAB C).
Question 6. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that Corps research analyst Jeffrey Marmorstein said ``It's very
sad that this study is becoming another embarrassment''. The story also
states the Mr. Marmorstein said that ``Unfortunately, the management of
the Corps has lost all respect for unbiased analysis.'' What did Mr.
Marmorstein mean when he said that study was becoming an embarrassment
and the management of the Corps has lost all respect for unbiased
analysis?
Answer: See the affidavit of Jeffrey Marmorstein (TAB G).
Question 7. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that a memo summarizing a December meeting in Vicksburg states
that ``To grow the civil works program [headquarters] aud the Division
have agreed to get creative,'' and ``They will be looking for ways to
get [studies] to `yes' as fast as possible. We have been encouraged to
have our study managers not take `no' for an answer. The push to grow
the program is coming from the top down. ``What did the writer of the
memo mean by ``getting to yes as soon as possible'' and that study
managers not take `no' for an answer?
Answer: See the affidavit of Lenard H. Ross (TAB I).
Question 8. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that in June (1998), just three months before the study's due
date, General Anderson transferred all economics questions to a new
panel, demoting Sweeney to a mere ``advisor'' to the panel. Why did
General Anderson transfer all duties to a new panel and why did he
demote Mr. Sweeney to an advisor?
Answer: See the affidavit of MG Phillip R. Anderson (TAB A).
Question 9. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that on September 3 (1998) an official laid out the panel's new
mission in an e-mail: ``The team should determine an alternative . . .
that appears to be the most likely to justify large-scale alternatives
in the near-term.'' Who was the official and what did he or she mean by
an alternative that was likely to justify near term large scale
alternatives in the near future?
Answer: See the affidavit of Paul D. Soyke (TAB K).
Question 10. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that project manager Dudley Hanson wrote a memo relaying (Major
General) Fuhrman's instructions to the panel ``If the demand curves,
traffic growth projects (sic) and associated variables . . . do not
capture the need for navigation improvements, then we have to figure
out some other way to do it . . . We need to develop a rationale for
making this relatively more subjective approach to our analytical
process.'' The story also indicates that the memo's ``Guidance''
section was even more explicit about Fuhrman's call for preordained
results: He directs that we develop evidence or data to support a
defensible set of capacity enhancement projects. . . The rationale
should ere on the high side.'' Is the memo an accurate account of Major
General Fuhrman's instructions to the panel? If so, what did Major
General Fuhrman mean by figuring, out a way to capture the needs for
navigation improvements and a ``more subjective approach to our
analytical process'' and what did he mean by ``evidence or data to
support a defensible set of capacity enhancement projects'' and that
the ``rational should err on the high side''.
Answer: See the affidavit of MG Russell L. Fuhrman (TAB C).
Question 11. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that project manager Dudley Hanson wrote in another e-mail
``This overt advocacy role, to me, is a new departure. We'll have to
work in a story line. . . We will need corporate solidarity when we go
back to our publics with this more aggressive advocacy position.'' What
did Mr. Hanson mean by an overt advocacy role?
Answer: See affidavit of Mr. Dudley Hanson (TAB D).
Question 12. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
in discussing an economic equation states that Sweeney computed the
main n value a 2. Burton later concurred. Under pressure from above,
Richard Manguno, the new economics team leader, reluctantly reduced n
to 1.5. But that was still too high to justify lock expansion, and he
refused to go lower without a command. Later in the story it is stated
that three weeks later (Colonel) Mudd called (Mr.) Manguno. N he
declared was now 1.2. Did officials of the Corps pressure Mr. Manguno
to lower the N value? If so, who were these officials and on what basis
was the value lowered? Did Colonel Mudd lower the N value to 1.2? If
so, on what basis was the value lowered?
Answer: See the affidavit of Colonel James V. Mudd (TAB H).
Question 13. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that a Corps ``study update'' announced a sudden new benefit:
Lock expansion would preempt the need for renovations in 2015--even
though an earlier Corps analysis had found there would be no need for
renovations until at least 2033. The same update also included a sudden
new cutback in costs: The estimate for overruns was chopped from 35
percent to 25 percent. Earlier, Corps officials had inflated the
benefits of lock expansion by assuming the tows would no longer use
much self-help, Sweeney argued. Did the study update change the date of
renovations from 2033 to 2015 and, if so, on what basis? Did the study
update cut the contingency factor from 35 percent to 25 percent, and if
so, on what basis? Was the assumption on the use of self-help reduced
and, if so, on what basis?
Answer: See the affidavit of Mr. Bobby R. Hughey (TAB E).
Question 14. The Washington Post in a story dated February 13, 2000
states that on July 4, (1999) (Colonel) Mudd disbanded the (economics)
panel. Why did Colonel Mudd disband the panel when the study was not
yet complete?
Answer: See the affidavits of MG Phillip R. Anderson (TAB A) and
Colonel James V. Mudd (TAB H).
______
TAB A
before the united states senate committee on environment and public
works, affidavit of major general phillip r. anderson
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746, the undersigned hereby executes
the following sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
1. I, Phillip R. Anderson do hereby declare that I am a Major
General in the United States Army currently serving, since July, 1997
as the Division Commander and Division Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division (CEMVD). I also am the
President of the Mississippi River Commission.
2. This affidavit is being prepared in response to written
questions in a letter from Senator George V. Voinovich dated February
28, 2000, on behalf of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works. Senator Voinovich's letter and the attached questions relate to
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USAGE) Upper Mississippi River and
the Illinois Waterway System Study (UMRS). With regard to the assertion
contained in Question 8 of the Senator Voinovich letter to the effect
that I allegedly ``demoted'' Dr. Sweeney, I am able to state without
qualification that Dr. Sweeney is and remains a GS-13 senior regional
economist with the St. Louis District. He has neither been demoted or
reduced in grade by an adverse personnel action.
3. The UMRS is a comprehensive and complex effort. Over seventy
(70) employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) have been
involved in a variety of capacities in the study. These personnel come
from a number of USACE organizational elements. Throughout the study,
work and leadership responsibilities have changed. Due to the magnitude
of the study and the complexities involved, there should be no
expectation by any staff member that they will have the same exact
responsibilities during the entire duration of the study.
4. Changes in work responsibilities have been made for a variety of
reasons. On April 16, 1998, I cancelled a meeting scheduled for April
23, 1998 in St. Louis with the Governors' Liaison Committee (GLC),
since schedule deadlines had not been met; economic and environmental
data were missing; there was 3 need to examine differences between
economic models being used on the Ohio River and those on the
Mississippi River; cost quantification of measures that could be used
to avoid and minimize environmental impacts had to be done; and there
was a need to perform hazard analyses of industry self help measures.
(See Attachment 1). In a letter dated April 16, 1998 to the GLC, I
described in more detail what USACE had to do before we could have a
GLC meeting. (Attachment 2). I specifically advised the GLC that a
number of study components were behind schedule. In spite of the
schedule slippages however, I advised the GLC that we were reevaluating
the schedule and making sure that there were no short-cuts of any of
the planned coordination. A number of products had to be completed
before we had a meeting with the GLC. These included the following:
``Technical review of economic products including modal-shift analysis,
the equilibrium model and the optimization model;'' and ``Outputs of
economic models (traffic projections) for various alternatives needed
for input to environmental models.'' (Attachment 2).
5. As the above listing shows, schedule slippages in this very
important study were becoming serious. Generally, the responsibility
for maintaining study schedules rests with the District Commander. The
UMRS was an unusual comprehensive effort in that four of the CEMVD
Districts were directly involved in the study analysis or in the
independent technical reviews. Since the UMRS involved resources in
more than one district, I had a greater role and responsibility for
ensuring that the UMRS was a quality product.
6. In order to get the UMRS back on track and to assure better
adherence to the schedule I had to make some changes to the management
structure of the UMRS. I identified actions that I determined, based on
staff recommendations, were necessary to correct study management
schedule and product deficiencies, in letters dated June 17, 1998 to
Major General Hans Van Winkle, who during the June 1998 timeframe
General Van Winkle was of the rank of Brigadier General and was the
Division Commander and Division Engineer of the Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division (CELRD), and the three District engineers in the New
Orleans District, the St. Louis District and the Rock Island District.
(Attachments 3 and 4). I had a concern that higher level management was
needed to restore the schedule and obtain quality products. I
designated Dudley Hanson, who was the top ranking civilian of the Rock
Island District at the time, as the full-time project manager of the
UMRS to achieve those objectives. In order to have better leadership of
the economic work products, I created an economics panel that consisted
of the functional economic branch chiefs of the St. Louis, Rock Island
and New Orleans Districts. Consistent with selecting a higher graded
project manager, I also selected a higher graded economist, the GS-14
Chief of Economics Branch in New Orleans, Rich Manguno, to chair the
panel. Ms. Diane Karnish, GS-13 Chief of Economics Branch in St. Louis
(Dr. Sweeney's supervisor) was also a panel member. Additionally, Mr.
Paul Soyke, GS-13 Chief of Economics Branch in Rock Island was a panel
member. Mr. Wes Walker of USAGE's Lakes and River Division's (CELRD)
Huntington District was also a panel member. CELRD has been considered
a center of expertise for economic evaluations of inland navigation
projects. I coordinated with General Van Winkle to obtain help from Mr.
Wes Walker. As such, the designation of a full-time senior project
manager and an economic panel compromised of District Chiefs of
Economics brought more leadership resources and economics expertise to
the study and thus a broader perspective of the study was anticipated.
My goal in effecting these measures was to achieve the production of a
quality study within a schedule designed to achieve the deadline of
issuing a final feasibility report and environmental impact statement
to USACE headquarters by December 2000.
7. I maintained the importance of Dr. Sweeney's contributions to
the study by retaining him as an advisor to the economics panel. At no
time did I direct a demotion or reduction of grade of Dr. Sweeney, and
he has not been demoted. He is and remains a GS-13 senior regional
economist with the St. Louis District.
8. With regard to question 14 of Senator Voinovich's letter,
Colonel Mudd did not disband the June 1998 ad hoc economics panel. I
determined that since the ad hoc economics panel had completed its
function in July of 1999, it was time to release the members so that
they could return full time to their normal duties as District-level
economic staff chiefs. I still retained a high graded economist, the
GS-14 New Orleans District Chief of Economics Branch, Rich Manguno, to
lead the remaining efforts of the economic work group.
9. All of my actions described above were for the purposes of
meeting schedule deadlines and ensuring that sound analyses, data and
modeling were being produced so that we would have the best draft
feasibility UMRS report and environmental impact statement for release
for public review and comment in June 2000.
Phillip R. Anderson, Major General, U.S. Army Division
Engineer.
Subscribed and sworn to before me in the District of
Columbia on this 2nd day of March, 2000.
Barbara J. Davis,
Notary Public District of Columbia,
My Commission Expires June 14, 2001.
______
attachment 1
Arnold, William MVD
From: Phillip Anderson
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 8:41 AM
To: X400, Russell--Fuhrman, CECW-ZA
Cc: HERNDOND; RHODESG; CALDWELL; X400.Hans--Vanwinkle--CELRD-DE
Subject: Upper Ms Nav Study
Russ, Met with subject study team yesterday as we discussed.
Directed that scheduled 23 Apr meeting with the Governor's Liaison
Committee in St. Louis be postponed and rescheduled at a time to be
determined. This is a public meeting so we're working hard to get the
word out to other likely participants.
Canceled this GLC meeting for the following reasons:
--HQS USACE has not yet been briefed on the prelim results. Thatch
now scheduled for Thursday afternoon next week at FLW. Will fly in the
SMEs using the MVD G1 and fly them out afterwards. Brian Sullivan, I'm
told is working on a meeting location for us.
--Major differences between the special equilibrium-model we're
using and the one being used by LRD for their lock and dam
improvements. Our model generates significantly less benefits. This
could have significant Corps wide implications and we need to speak
with one voice.
--Significant economic and environmental data missing which are
necessary for decision making.
--Have not quantified the costs associated with avoiding and
minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
--Need to do a hazard analysis of some of the suggested industry
self-help small scale improvements. This analysis might warrant
construction of guide wall extensions and other safety measures.
During my brief yesterday, there were probably 25 Corps employees
present and no one advocated that we continue with the GLC as scheduled
so confident that we're doing the right thing. Will be signing a letter
today which factually explains this situation and we will get you a
copy. See you next week. Essayons, Phil.
______
attachment 2
Executive Office
April 16, 1998
DEAR GOVERNORS' LIAISON COMMITTEE MEMBER:
For reasons outlined below, I think that it is best to postpone the
meeting of the Governors' Liaison Committee (GLC) scheduled for April
23, 1998, in St. Louis. The next meeting will be the regularly
scheduled meeting on May 12, 1998, in St. Paul. I apologize for the
short notice, but I believe, after a thorough briefing by my District
Engineers and their staffs, that this is the best decision considering
study progress to date. We are giving this cancellation the widest
possible dissemination including sending a notice to our newsletter
mailing list, posting it on our web site, and adding it to our toll
free number. I also ask that you help us in informing others in your
state who may have planned to come to the meeting.
A significant number of study components are behind schedule. This
will likely affect our schedule for public meetings this summer, the
schedule for future GLC meetings, as well as possibly the overall study
completion date. However, I want to assure you that you and your staffs
will be given ample opportunity to fully review study products and
provide input to the plan formulation process as we have previously
planned. In fact, one reason we are reevaluating the schedule is to not
short-cut any of the planned coordination.
For clarification, most of the following key study elements are
nearing completion but are behind schedule and are critical to the
development of the preliminary National Economic Development(NED) plan
and future plan formulation activities:
--Technical review of engineering studies that quantify cost and
performance data for large and small-scale measures.
--Technical review of economic products including modal-shift
analysis, the equilibrium model, and the optimization model.
--Outputs of economic models (traffic projections) for various
alternatives needed for input to environmental models.
--Completion and technical review of several of the environmental
models needed for quantification of system environmental effects, data
from which will be used to develop mitigation or avoid and minimize
measures.
As we have stated on numerous occasions, the original schedule was
optimistic and envisioned a concurrent quality control process that
allowed for a smooth transition between model development and model
application However, development of these system tools, many which are
state-of-the-art, and the applicable quality control have been more
difficult and time consuming than originally anticipated.
It is my responsibility to assure that the Corps produces
creditable, professional analyses to support our planning effort. Some
schedule change is necessary to complete our technical review which
will assure adequacy of all data prior to alternative evaluation.
Therefore, after carefully reviewing all these considerations, I think
that it is better to allow additional time in the schedule to more
fully develop data, assure its accuracy, and allow adequate time for
public and agency input than to adhere to the original plan of action.
As discussed, we will hold the GLC meeting scheduled on May 12,
1998, at the St. Paul Radisson Hotel as planned. The meeting is
scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. and will be used to provide you a
status report and discuss the overall study schedule. Although we will
not be prepared at that meeting to present the NED plan, we have made
progress in several areas of the study on which we will provide you a
report. This will be very useful information as we move into the plan
formulation process later this year.
My point of contact for this action is Mr. George H. Rhodes, Jr.,
(601) 634-5762.
Sincerely,
Phillip R. Anderson Major General, U.S. Army Division
Engineer.
______
attachment 3
CEMVD-ET-P
17 June 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR
Commander, Rock Island District
Commander, St. Louis District
Commander, New Orlean District
SUBJECT: Upper Mississippi Navigation Study
1. I have become concerned with the rate of progress in key areas
of the subject study during the past several months. This study is a
high priority for the Mississippi Valley Division, the Corps of
Engineers, and I believe, for the nation. One of the very key elements
of the study I have continued to focus on is the economic analyisis--
both the conceptual framework and the analytical tools that execute the
concept into Quantified outputs. Because of my concerns regarding the
progress of the study and the need for revolutionary changes in our
management of this study and after consultations with the Director of
Civil Works, I have made the following decisions:
a. Mr. Dudley Hanson, Rock Island District, will be appointed the
project manager For the subject study as his sole responsibility to the
exclusion of his normal activities. This level of management attention
is warranted until at least the development of the draft plan and
possibly through the subsequent public review.
b. I am creating a panel comprised of the Chiefs of Economics in
the Rock Island, St. Louis, and New Orleane Districts and an
appropriate representative from the Navigation Studies Center in LRD.
The purpose of this panel is to provide economic analysis products
required for further progress on the subject study. Dr. Don Sweeney,
St. Louis District, will serve in an advisory capacity to the group.
The panel will report directly to Mr. Hanson who may appoint other
personnel to provide administrative and support assistance as prudent
and necessary.
c. The panel will be responsible for identification of the NED plan
and For producing economic analysis tools sufficient to analyze
additional alternatives, all to be completed within 90 days of
beginning of work. A detailed plan for the 90-day effort, which will
include an in-progress review on or about day 70 to be attended by the
EQ, will be provided to this office not later than clove of business 22
June 1999.
2. Each respective District Commander is to ensure that the panel
leader and members are assigned to this purpose as their highest
priority activity and are available throughout the duration of the 90-
day effort. I will separately transmit a request to the LRD Division
Commander seeking the assignment of an appropriate member to the panel
from LAX-NC. Funds will be reprogrammed from existing project funds by
the Rock Island District and provided to the panel members for their
costs associated with this purpose.
3. My point of contact for this action is Mr. Dusty Rhodes, (601)
634-5762.
Phillip R. Anderson Major General, USA Commanding.
CF: MG Russell Furman, HQUSACE (CECW-ZA)
______
attachment 4
CEMVD-ET-P
17 June 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR
BG Hans A. van Winkle, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division,
Great Lakes and Ohio River, P.O. Box 1159, Cincinnati, OH 45201-1159
SUBJECT: Upper Mississippi Navigation Study
1. I have become concerned with the rate of progress in key areas
of the subject study during the past several months. This study is a
high priority for the Mississippi Valley Division, the Corps of
Engineers, and I believe, for the nation. One of the very key elements
of the study I have continued to focus on is the economic analysis--
both the conceptual framework and the analytical tool'' that execute
the concept into quantified outputs. Because of my concerns regarding
the progress of the tudy and the need for revolutionary changes in our
management of this study and after consultations with the Director of
Civil Works, I have made the following decisions:
a. Mr Dudley Hanson, Rock Island District, will be appointed the
project manager for the subject study as his sole responsibility to the
exclusion of his normal activities. This level of management attention
is warranted until at least the development of the draft plan and
possibly through the subsequent public review.
b. I am creating a panel comprised of the Chiefs of Economics in
the Rock Island, St. Louis, and Hew Orleans Districts and would like to
include an appropriate representative from the Navigation Studies
Center in LED. The purpose of this panel is to provide economic
analysis products required for further progress on the subject study
Dr. Don Sweeney, St Louis District, will serve in an advisory capacity
to the group. The panel will report directly to Mr. Hanson who may
appoint other personnel to provide administrative and support
assistance as prudent and necessary.
c. The panel will be responsible for identification of the NED plan
and for producing economic analysis tools sufficient to analyze
additional alternatives, all to be completed within so days of
beginning of work. A detailed plan for the 90-day effort, which will
include an in-progress review on or about day 70 to he attended by the
EQ, will be provided to this office not later than close of business 22
June 1998.
2. I am directing my appropriate District Commanders to ensure that
the panel leader and members are assigned to this purpose as their
highest priority activity and are available throughout the duration of
the So-day effort. I am hereby requesting the assignment of an
appropriate member to the panel from LRH-NC, with the Same terms of
highest priority availability. I believe that if we work together on
this project we may avoid the perception of incompatibility with our
respective navigation system studies. Specifically, I request that Mr.
Wes Walker be assigned to this role. We will, of course, reimburse the
Huntington District for any expenses incurred by your designee.
3. I appreciate your personal involvement with this matter, and I
am certainly available to discuss this with you if you need more
information.
4. My point of contact for this action is Mr. Dusty Rhodes, (501)
634-5762.
Philip R. Anderson Major General, USA Commanding.
__________
TAB B
before the united states senate committee on environment and public
works affidavit of thomas f. caver, jr.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, the undersigned hereby executes the
following sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
1. I, Thomas F. Caver, Jr. do hereby declare that I am an employee
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and currently serve as the Chief,
Programs Management Division in the Directorate of Civil Works,
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Committee's question 2 which relates to a February 4, 2000 memo
which contains the statement ``concern was expressed that if we don't
provide for the industry, navigation program might get moved to''
Department of Transportation. During the meeting in which this
statement was made, there was a discussion of the Corps' mission
responsibility to broadly assess the long-term navigation needs of the
Nation, applying a visionary approach to the assessments and subsequent
recommendations, to include the concerns of all interested
stakeholders. I interpreted this statement as one of self-criticism
that the Corps has a tendency to formulate projects in a narrow sense,
and if we were unable to fulfill the broad mission responsibility, the
Nation would find others, with DoT used as an example, to fill that
need.
3. With respect to question 3 concerning a ``slide show
presentation,'' the slide show referred to by the Washington Post
consists of thirteen briefing charts used to engage the Chief of
Engineers, the eight Division Commanders and other members of the Corps
Board of Directors in a discussion of water resource problems across
the Nation and how the Corps could better fulfill its mission of
assessing and meeting the demands. At the Corps of Engineers Senior
Leadership Conference in San Francisco in August 1999, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works made remarks that focused on the
unmet needs in water resources in this nation and challenged the Corps
to take a longer term view. The Secretary's remarks stimulated
reflection by the Corps on the magnitude of water resources needs
facing the Nation. Work was initiated to quantify the needs and assess
the ability of the Corps to satisfy the needs. This discussion
represented an inprogress review on the effort for the purpose of
determining whether it was proceeding in an effective manner and to
receive guidance from the Chief and the BOD in proceeding from that
point. The presentation outlined the initial findings on ``needs''.
Some of the needs identified were:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backlog of Maintenance....... $1.6 Billion
Average Annual Flood Damages. $4.0 Billion
Navigation Tonnages.......... Double by 2020
Lock Chambers................ 9% over 50 years old
Wetlands Loss................ 53% of acreage in Lower 48 States--an
area larger than the State of
California--117 Million acres
Water Supply................. Many Areas of droughts and competing uses
Existing Infrastructure...... Value of Corps maintained Infrastructure
declined $25 Billion since 1981 to
present value of $125 Billion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The presentation also included a graph that depicted the Civil
Works Capital Investment over the period 1929 to 2000 in constant 1999
dollars. The graph showed that capital investment had increased (with
dips during WWII and Korea) to a high of $5 Billion per year in 1966
and started to drop precipitously about 1980 to the present level of
less than $2 billion per year. The presentation went on to discuss the
ability of today's Corps of Engineers to respond to the challenge of
satisfying the identified needs.
5. The ``impediments to growth'' summarized on the briefing slide
referred specifically to the Corps' inability in its current condition
to be responsive to these national water resources challenges and to
challenge the organization to think broadly outside of its day-to-day
business. Seven specific areas of concern were identified as follows:
Principles and Guidelines (P&G)--this refers to the
guidance that all Federal water resources agencies follow in
formulating solutions to water resources problems. In a review of the
Corps' planning process recently completed by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), the NAS commented that these guidelines are outdated
and do not reflect today's principles and practices and values. For
example, the P&G don't give sufficient weight to environmental and
social benefits and don't allow proper consideration of non-structural
flood control solutions. The NAS report suggested that P&G should be
updated.
Cost Sharing--while general cost sharing as legislated in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and elsewhere has brought
tremendous discipline arid structure to individual project development,
it has also had the unintended consequence of severely narrowing the
scope of water resource problem solving, especially during the planning
process. Water resources issues involve many different stakeholders and
cross political boundaries. If the Corps is to be effective in dealing
with these issues, it needs a way to address the matters in a
comprehensive, basin-wide approach. This suggests that, to a limited
degree, study cost sharing should be reconsidered.
Loss of Congressional relationships--a fact of life is
that the Congress faces a broader array of issues and challenges these
days than in the past and has more competing constituencies; therefore,
it's more difficult to raise issues associated with water resources to
the fore. In general, the Corps has not awakened to this fact. The
discussion point was intended to make the organization aware of this.
Changes in Committee Control--as has been widely discussed
of late, the manner in which the Congress conducts its business is also
changing. Again, the intent was to make leaders in the Corps aware of
this.
Civil Works Business Process--the Corps' process has grown
to become bureaucratic and cumbersome. The assertion here is that the
organization must become more flexible and responsive to be of service
in the future. The House of Representatives recognized this in its
report on fiscal year 2000 appropriations and required the Corps to
report to the Congress on ways of streamlining its business process.
Loss of capability to build within the Corps--because of
internal organizational culture and outside direction, the Corps has
chosen over the past twenty or so years not to stimulate any
significant National discussion of broad water resources problems. As a
result, the organization doesn't even know how to do this at a time
when national needs are great and long-term impacts are potentially
significant. The intent here was to highlight this fact as a first step
in dealing with it. Relationship within the Executive Branch--
similarly, the Corps hasn't been effective Ln championing national
water resources needs within the Administration. Among other reasons,
this has led to less emphasis on water resources in Administration
initiatives and priorities.
6. The ``specifically targeted communications plan'' actually
appeared on a slide following the ``impediments'' slide in the
presentation and referred to the need to inform the complete array of
interested stakeholders of the national problems and challenges.
Further, the message was that the Corps isn't very good at
communications and that effective communications must be tailored to
the audience so the message is understandable. The Corps has a tendency
to incorrectly assume its mostly ``technical'' messages ( and the
implications from them) are readily understood by all.
7. The slide show, and the discussion it was designed to generate,
was an early part of the process of developing an annual and outyear
program and budget for the Civil Works program. This is done initially
as an exercise internal to the Corps of Engineers and is a preliminary
deliberative process of proposing and examining options ultimately
leading to specific recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works. Corps recommendations are then subjected to a
series of reviews at the Army and Of lice of Management and Budget
levels before decisions are finally reached on specific program and
budget provisions to be included in the President's budget for
submission to the Congress. I declare under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statement
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Thomas F. Caver, Jr.
Subscribed and Sworn to Before me in the District of
Columbia, on this 3rd Day of March, 2000.
Barbara J. Davis,
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires: June 14, 2001.
______
TAB C
before the united states senate committee on environment and public
works affidavit of russell l. fuhrman
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, the undersigned hereby executes the
following sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
1. I, Russell L. Fuhrman do hereby declare that I am a Major
General in the U.S. Army and am currently serving as the Deputy
Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. I want to state from the outset that I did not, at any time,
direct anyone to skew or falsify data or the economic analysis in the
Upper Mississippi River Study. In fact, as stated, below, the purpose
of my involvement was, and is, to insure that appropriate and adequate
models, data, and assumptions are used in the economic analysis which
supports the Study. I never called for preordained results; just the
opposite, I insisted that we bring in the best experts from around the
Corps to address all issues associated with the Upper Mississippi River
Study so that the Study could withstand the scrutiny of all interest
groups, the Administration and Congress. The product we had 18 months
ago would not have withstood that scrutiny.
3. Before I elaborate upon my involvement in the Upper Mississippi
River Study, I want to respond directly to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works' question Number 10 concerning the Washington Post's
story quoting a 25 September email from Mr. Dudley M. Hanson relaying
his (Mr. Hanson's) perception of my instructions to a ``panel.'' To
clarify the record there was no panel. Two meetings, approximately one
month apart, were conducted as ``in progress reviews'' (IPRs) of the
Study. They involved a significant amount of interchange between
technical experts from my Headquarters, the Division and District
Staffs which is not reflected in Mr. Hanson's email, but which I will
address in more detail below. Moreover, until recently I was unaware of
the Hanson email. I would point out, however, that a contemporaneously
executed email of 25 September 1998 from Harry Kitch of my staff to Mr.
Hanson informed him that the quotations, referred to in question 10,
and perceptions described in his (Mr. Hanson's) email were inaccurate.
The Kitch email is enclosed for your review. It presents a position
consistent with my recollection of what took place during the IPR.
4. With regard to question 11 on advocacy, I do not know what Mr.
Hanson means by advocacy, but my view of advocacy is as follows. The
Corps of Engineers is the advocate for water resource development and
conservation activities to include flood control, hydropower,
navigation, environment, recreation and the like. In my view, the
Corps' role is similar to the advocacy role the Department of
Transportation plays for air and surface transportation and the
advocacy role Department of Agriculture plays for agricultural
interests. As water resource advocates it is our mission to assess the
nations needs/requirements and present those to the Administration and
Congress for their decision on setting national priorities and resource
allocations.
5. Getting back to the Study, in late August or early September of
1998 my staff received several calls from agricultural interests and
navigation interests on the Upper Mississippi challenging the
preliminary data the District was about to release to the Governors
oversight group on the Upper Mississippi River Study. In the same time
frame, Brian Burke (Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works Office) and I were at a meeting with Mike Dunn (Department of
Agriculture) when he raised Department of Agriculture's concern with
the preliminary data coming out of the Upper Mississippi River Study.
He wanted to ensure our data adequately reflected the potential for
grain export in the region and the importance of ensuring we have the
required capacity on our inland waterways system so the farmers could
be competitive in the world market in the 21st century. I was informed
by Major General Phillip R. Anderson (Commander, Mississippi Valley
Division) that he had also been receiving a number of calls from
interests groups on the same subject. Concerns raised by the interests
groups were: (1) Why was the Corps using a different (new) model which
was supposedly untested? Why were we not using the Huntington model
which had been used on our previous lock and dam studies? What was the
difference between the two models? (2) Demand curves for commodities--
The interest groups contended we were using the wrong demand curves and
we were using different demand curves on the Ohio than on the Upper
Mississippi. (3) Projections--The interest groups contended the
Districts traffic projections and Agriculture production projections
did not agree with theirs. They contended they had an independent group
study the issues and were coming up with much larger projections. (4)
Assumptions--The interest groups contended the District was using
inaccurate assumptions and different assumptions than we were using on
the Ohio River in our Studies.
6. This was the first time that I became aware that we had
developed a new model for this Study and were not using the standard
model we had used on the Ohio River for years. asked my staff why there
were two models and no one had an answer, nor could any one on my or
the Division staff explain, at the time, the differences between the
two models or how they would react to the same or different inputs. In
addition the concerns raised by the Department of Agriculture and the
interests groups needed to be addressed. The recommendation of my staff
and MG Anderson' staff was we conduct an ``in progress review'' (IPR)
to determine exactly where we were and how confident we were in our
preliminary data before we allowed the District to release any
information to the Governors. At that time, we were still in the early
study phase leading to a draft report with multiple agency and public
reviews to follow, but to me it was absolutely key that we resolve any
differences in the models, demand curves, projections, and assumptions
raised by the interests groups. I wanted the technical experts on the
Division staff and my staff to be comfortable that the District's work
was ready for public review from all interest groups. MG Anderson
agreed with me and he brought his staff to Washington on 23 September
1998 for the first of two IPR meetings.
7. Since the meetings occurred 17 months ago, I can't recall all of
the details, but I do remember the important facts. I started our
meeting telling the group this was an important study. The Nation had
invested $50 million dollars in the study and the purpose of the study
was to determine what navigation capacity was needed in the Upper
Mississippi in the next 20- 50 years. The Corps needs to use its best
experts and the best models and information available throughout the
Corps and the Nation. Our work had to withstand the scrutiny of all
interest groups. In the end, the economic well being of the region 20-
30 years from now could well be dependent on the results of our study.
I use the term ``advocacy'' to describe this role. We are the agency
responsible for insuring water resource issues are appropriately
represented to the Administration and Congress just as the Department
of Transportation insures surface and air transportation issues are
appropriately represented to the Administration and Congress. After my
introduction, the District briefed where they were in the study and
tried to address the issues outlined above. We had lots of discussion
between technical experts on my staff, the Division and District
staffs. The bottomline to come out of this first meeting was the
District did not know the differences between the models nor did it
know the sensitivity of either model to assumptions, projections,
demand curves, etc. The District was unable to answer the challenges
put forth by the interested groups cited above. In addition the
District had not done a good job of taking into account environmental
mitigation costs. I directed that they include these in the overall
costs. Part of the problem was that the experts capable of addressing
the issues needed time to sort through the issues. It was determined it
would take the Division about a month to sort through the issues and
determine which ones needed further study and which ones the District
already had enough information. We also decided that we needed to bring
in our best experts from around the Corps to assist the District and
Division so we had the best study the Corps could produce, not the best
study the District could produce. The first order of business was to
set up a taskforce to look at the two models and determine the
differences between the two, if any. At the same time the Division
needed to address the other issues raised by the interest groups to
insure we could adequately answer them. About a month later the
Division came back and laid out a plan to address the issues described
above and requested a dollar and time extension which I approved. This
was essentially my last contact with the Study. A few months later I
left as the Director of Civil Works to become Deputy Commanding General
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge.
Russell L. Fuhrman, Major General, U.S. Army Deputy
Commander,.
Subscribed and Sworn To Before me in the District of
Columbia, on this 3rd Day of March, 2000.
Barbara J. Davis,
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires: June 14, 2001.
______
TAB D
affidavit, state of illinois, county of rock island
I, Dudley M. Hanson, was Deputy for Programs and Project Management
of the Rock Island District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers until
October of 1999. I also was Project Manager for the Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation Study from April 1998 to
December 1998. Relative to Questions No. 5 and 11 in the February 28,
2000 letter from Senator Voinovich to LTG Ballard, I hereby depose and
say:
In reference to Question No. 5, I was the Project Manager for the
study in September 1998 and used the term ``other ways'' in relating
guidance from MG Fuhrman. The reference to ``other ways'' relates to
identifying other considerations, some of which may not be
quantifiable, which are relevant to the navigation study in addition to
the traditional National Economic Development (NED) account benefits
that a Corps analysis must include. These considerations were
documented and discussed at the November 18, 1998 Governor's Liaison
Committee meeting. The other items include the Congressionally
recognized National significance of the Upper Mississippi River
ecosystem and commercial navigation system, critical economic role of
the river in the national economy, national interest in maintaining a
competitive posture in agricultural exports and balance of trade, and
the importance of providing adequate transportation infrastructure for
the 21st Century. In addition, uncertainties related to some items were
identified for presentation and potential discussion in the project
report, including factors such as future demand, potential for changes
in policy (e.g. ethanol subsidies), future rail rates, crop yields, and
environmental considerations. In accordance with the Corps Principles
and Guidelines, factors such as those listed above are to be considered
in developing a recommended plan. It is noted that several of these
concerns were included in Sec 139 of WRDA 99, which directed the Corps
to proceed with preliminary engineering and design of 1,200 foot locks.
With regard to Question No. 11, the term ``overt advocacy role''
was in reference to MG Fuhrman's public statements that the Corps is
viewed by many as the advocate for inland navigation, similar to how
the US Dept of Transportation is the advocate for highways. As such,
the Corps has the responsibility to look to the future and determine
the needs for the inland waterway system. The Corps owes to the
decision-makers in Congress the full range of alternatives and
sensitivity analyses so that the best decisions can be made.
Considerations regarding the national economy, competitive posture in
agricultural exports and balance of trade and the impact on the
environment must be taken into account as the Corps recommends measures
that will provide adequate transportation infrastructure for the 21st
Century.
As used in the referenced memo, the term ``story line'' is
synonymous with ``scenario''. It was used specifically to ensure that
the planning team, particularly the economics team, had not failed to
consider any possible futures that would result in greater demand for
waterborne commerce. Some of the building blocks of such possible
futures could be such things as these:
1. Elimination of the ethanol subsidy to corn, which could free up
hundreds of millions of bushels of corn for export;
2. Decommissioning of nuclear power plants, which could greatly
increase the demand for waterborne coal for fossil-fueled power plants;
3. Transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles
for surface transportation, which could increase electrical generation
demand, and increased waterborne shipment of coal;
In witness whereof, I have set my hand this 2nd day of March 2000.
Dudley M. Hanson,
Subscribed and sworn to the undersigned, a notary public,
in and for the State of Illinois, County of Rock Island,
this 2nd day of March 2000.
Robert F. Lazenby,
Notary Public, State of Illinois,
My Commission Expires 4-17-2002.
______
TAB E
I, Bobby R. Hughey, being duly sworn under oath and of legal age,
and under no legal disability, do hereby state that the following is a
true statement of facts according to my best recollection and
knowledge.
In response to the question ``Did the study update change the date
of renovations from 2033 to 2015, and if so, on what basis?''
Yes. The preliminary results of the economic analysis for the
reliability studies were discussed at an Economic Coordinating
Committee on 11-12 May 1998. This discussion included a summary of the
methodology being used and the preliminary results of the analysis,
which showed no major rehabilitation needed until 35-40 years out in
the future. This preliminary work was documented in a draft report
dated June 1998. This preliminary analysis was a work in progress and
had not been reviewed by the study team or ready for an Independent
Technical Review. Subsequent reviews by the study team indicated some
problems with the analysis. A second draft report was completed and
distributed to the study team for review in April 1999. The results of
this second report indicated that no rehabilitation would be justified
in the next 50 years. The analysis indicated that failures will occur
and repairs needed, however they would not be justified under current
definitions and methodologies. The engineering work group seriously
questioned the results of this report. This report is under going
internal review by the study team and is not yet ready for an
Independent Technical Review.
In the fall of 1997, an additional effort was undertaken to reduce
the cost of construction for the lock extension alternative. This work
was documented in the, the Interim Revised Lock Extension Design
Concept Report published in March 1998. In the spring of 1999, in
response to an additional preliminary economic analysis, the costs
presented in this report were reevaluated. It was identified at this
time that some components listed were items that would be replaced or
repaired as part of any future without rehabilitation. An analysis was
undertaken at that time to determine whether double counting was
occurring for these components. The estimate contained in the
referenced report included costs for miter gates, guidewall, some lock
chamber concrete and metals, and operating machinery, culvert valves
and operating machinery, power and lighting systems, mob/demote and
preparatory work, care and diversion of chamber water. Significant
portions of these cost factors were also contained in the cost
estimates for the scheduled rehabilitation in the without project
condition.
Schedules for major rehabilitation in the future were developed
utilizing a 25-year expected extended life parameter. The site-specific
future schedule for rehabilitations was established by adding 25 years
from the last completed rehabilitation. For example lock 22 was last
rehabilitated in 1990. The next rehabilitation is projected to occur in
2015. It was determined that if a lock extension project occurred close
in time to the completion of a rehabilitation project, that the
scheduled rehabilitation would not take place and these scheduled
investments could be avoided. This results in the delaying or avoidance
of a cycle of major rehabilitation in the 2015-2020 period and
associated costs. This information was used in subsequent evaluations
of the economic analysis.
It should be understood that development of the Future Without
Project Investment is still a work in progress and many significant
portions of the analysis need to be completed and reviewed.
In response to the question ``Did the study update cut the
contingency factor from 35 percent to 25 percent, and if so, on what
basis?
Yes. The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Study has explored cost reductions for lock construction
since completion of the Reconnaissance Report in 1991. The initial
estimates in this report were produced with minimal site-specific
engineering. Cost estimates were prepared utilizing traditional
construction practices and totaled approximately $380 million per site.
In 1996, the Lock Concept Design Report was produced as a sub-
product of the Engineering Appendix to the systems feasibility study.
This report utilized preliminary site specific engineering for 2
representative sites (Locks 22 and 25) on the UMR. Innovative lock
design and construction techniques were used to reduce cost estimates
reported in the reconnaissance report. For the representative site at
Lock 25, the least cost alternative for new lock construction involved
extending the existing lock by 600 ft. at a cost of $160 million. The
estimates contained in this report included 25% contingency. ER 1110-2-
1302 provides guidance that suggests contingency values of 20% for
feasibility level projects in excess of $10 million. An additional 5%
was added because only preliminary site-specific engineering has been
completed. During the ITR conducted in Aug 97 a comment was received
that stated:
``Contingencies at this level of detail, especially considering
innovative techniques, should possibly have a higher contingency than
25% to reflect the uncertainties involved. At this conceptual stage,
25% would appear more normal for conventional type construction and a
minimum of 35% for innovative. ``
This comment was accepted and 35% adopted as a contingency factor
due to the risks and uncertainties associated with innovative lock
design and construction.
In Jan. 1998, an additional effort was undertaken to reduce the
cost of construction for a lock extension. The Interim Revised Lock
Extension Design Concept Report was published in March 1998, and
focused on reducing delays to navigation during construction and
reusing more of the existing structure. The cost estimate for extending
Lock 25 was reduced to $135 million with 35% contingencies. This
document is scheduled to be included in the final Engineering Appendix.
In the spring of 1999, in response to an additional preliminary
economic analysis, the contingencies were reevaluated for the lock
extension costs. This along with other factors helped reduced the lock
extension construction cost for Lock 25 to $120 million. The
contingency factor was reduced to 25% for the following reasons:
a. A review of the Interim Revised Lock Extension Design Concept
Report indicated that the majority of construction for the lock
extension concept included traditional construction techniques. The
innovative construction techniques were essentially limited to the
float-in gate bay monolith and filling and emptying system. Reducing
contingencies to match the factor of 20% recommended in ER 1 1 10-2-
1302 was discussed, but rejected since only preliminary site-specific
engineering had been completed for these sites.
b. The Corps has continued to push the state-of-the-art in
innovative lock design and construction techniques. Since this was
first evaluated in the 1996 Lock Concept Design Report, the Corps has
completed additional research as part of the Innovative Navigation
Program. In addition, some of these techniques are currently being
utilized in the design and construction of projects on the Ohio River
system. Actual contractor unit bid costs have been used to validate the
unit costs applied to the UMR study for similar type designs and
construction.
c. All construction costs have been reviewed on a continuous basis
to ensure that they reflect the latest in contractor unit costs
obtained from other corps navigation projects. The latest review was
accomplished in the Nov/Dec 1999 period.
In response to the question ``Was the assumption on the use of
self-help reduced, and if so, on what basis?
Yes. History of Investigations: The universe of potential small-
scale measures was identified in the General Assessment of Small-Scale
Measures report (June 1995). Sixteen of the measures, including
industry self help (ISH), were carried forward for more detailed
examination and quantification of benefits as part of the Detailed
Assessment of Small Scale Measures Report (December 1998). Industry
self help is the practice where industry tows assist each other by
extracting unpowered cuts from the lock without the assistance of lock
personnel or equipment. The primary time savings results from allowing
tow remake outside the lock, which makes it available for a quicker
turnaround. This measure is currently utilized for approximately 1-1.5%
of all lockages at the busiest locks on the system.
Additional coordination with the navigation industry, U.S. Maritime
Administration, and U.S. Coast Guard in 1998 indicated that regular use
of ISH is not practical due to the variability in conditions where it
can be implemented safely. The general industry comment was that ISH is
a stop gap measure that is used to minimize the impacts of a breakdown
on the system, not a routine, long term measure to address increasing
system traffic and delay. In addition environmental and social impacts
were identified related to bankline damage and sensitive shoreline
areas. It was determined that additional facilities would be required
to minimize environmental impacts of increased use of ISH. In July
1998, a lockmaster expert panel was convened, to gather data on current
use and their expectations for future usage. Through lock data
collection and the meeting, it was verified that currently industry
self help is only used on a very limited basis. In addition, due to a
number of site-specific factors, this usage is not likely to increase
significantly unless additional facilities are provided (guidewall
extensions or remote remake). It was also determined that current use
is limited to periods where queues grow to approximately 10-12 boats
waiting at the lock, creating sufficient delays to warrant the risk of
these operations.
The ISH measure can be placed in the without or with project
condition depending on whether or not a Federal action is taken
(additional facilities provided). The with-project condition for this
system study was defined to include all small-scale measures
potentially implemented on a system basis by a Federal action for
system efficiency reasons. This resulted in the only measures falling
in the without project being measures which do not provide significant
system efficiencies or require Federal actions.
In January 1999, the study team decided that without project
economic model runs should limit the use of ISH to no more than 5
percent of the total commercial lockages. This was in addition to the
previous limitation to only apply self help in situations were large
queues of 10-12 boats were present. The rationale for this decision is
as follows.
Lock statistics from 1992-1998 showed actual usage of
selihelp was limited to 1-1.5 percent, and only Locks 24 and 25 had
achieved significant time savings historically. At these sites the
highest usage was in 1992 at Lock 25 at 3.6 percent. The 5 percent rule
allows some increase over current usage, while remaining close to
observed rates.
Despite the presence of considerable delay at times, ISH
has not been used as a regular operation to lock tows at multiple sites
for system efficiency reasons. Current usage is typically limited to
clearing a bottleneck following a lock closure or delay at a single
site. Even in these events its use is driven by economics of the
situation and willingness of the tow boat operators to assume risk
(e.g. large queues of 10-20 boats, grouping of tows N-up/N-down, safe
operating conditions, etc.).
ISH requires competing tow companies to pull each other's
barges with uncertainty regarding assumption of risk and liability.
Increased use of ISH in the without project raises
concerns over impacts to environmental and social resources around
remake areas.
High use of ISH in the without project condition, without
the addition of Federal facilities to reduce environmental and social
impacts is not likely and foreseeable.
As a result of environmental and social concerns, unlimited use of
ISH without Federal protective actions being taken is not likely and
foreseeable. Instead if use were to grow significantly, facilities
(guidewall extensions or remote remake areas) would have to be provided
to mitigate impacts at remake or waiting areas. This would then trigger
a Federal Action to address the resource concerns (construction of
remote remake facilities or guidewall extensions), and under the
study's definition would be considered a with project action. Corps
operations and engineering staff had previously determined that ISH
with remote remake facilities would not be provided as a federal action
for regular use due to risk, safety, high variability in achieving time
savings, implementability, dependability/reliability, increased
maintenance needs, and river congestion issues. In addition, ISH with
guidewall extensions was screened out based the fact that it is out
preformed at a similar cost by powered Levels with guidewall
extensions. On the surface, ISH appears to provide significant benefits
to reduce congestion. However, considering the variables involved, the
successful implementation of ISH as a standard operating procedure is
not viable as a long term solution.
Bobby R. Hughey, P.E. Chief Design Branch, St. Louis
District.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29 day of February,
2000.
William P. Levins,
Notary Public, State of Missouri, City of St. Louis.
My Commission Expires May 2, 2003
______
TAB F
before the united states senate committee on environment and public
works affidavit of harry e. kitch
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, the undersigned hereby executes the
following sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
1. I, Harry E. Kitch do hereby declare that I have been employed by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for over 28 years, and currently serve
as the Chief, Formulation and Evaluation Branch, Planning Division in
the Directorate of Civil Works, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
2. Although I have not been actively involved in the Upper
Mississippi River Navigation System study for over a year, on February
4, 2000 I attended a meeting with MG Van Winkle, Dave Sanford, and Fred
Caver because my supervisor, Dr. Jim Johnson was TDY in Oxnard,
California and I was taking notes on his behalf. I prepared an
electronic mail message to Dr. Johnson summarizing that meeting so that
he would be prepared for any meetings which might occur the following
week. The statement in my message that ``We are the navigation
proponent and we can't have a limpwristed recommendation saying to
build something out in 2025'' is my best recollection of what was said
by MG Van Winkle during that meeting. MG Van Winkle would have to say
what he meant by that statement, I was merely taking notes of what was
said so that I could accurately reflect, for the benefit of my
supervisor, the results of that meeting. The statement in my message
that ``Concern was expressed that if we don't provide for the industry,
navigation program might get moved to DOT'' is my best recollection of
what was said by either Mr. Sanford or Mr. Caver during the meeting. I
interpreted this statement as merely restating something that I had
heard several times over the past couple of years that the navigation
program could be moved to the Department of Transportation.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge.
Harry E. Kitch
Subscribed and Sworn To Before me in the District of
ColumbiA, on this 3rd Day of March, 2000.
Barbara J. Davis
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires: June 14, 2001.
______
TAB G
I Jeffrey Marmorstein, being of legal age and under no legal
disability, hereby state that the following is a true statement of
facts to the best of my recollection and knowledge.
On the evening of February 3, 2000 I was called at home by Mike
Grunwald a reporter from the Washington Post. I gave him some
information regarding my position with the Corps of Engineers and work
history. I informed him that I was speaking entirely as a private
citizen and in no way represented the Corps of Engineers. Further I
informed him that I would not discuss the technical aspects nor offer
an opinion on the results of the Navigation Study.
He asked me if I had seen an affidavit prepared by Don Sweeney. I
told him that I had. He further asked me if it ``really happened''. I
answered that, as far as I knew, it was an accurate statement. When he
asked me about Don Sweeney I made several complimentary remarks
including that ``Don was the most talented public employee I had ever
met'' and that while he was Technical Manager for the Economics on the
Navigation Study his only motivation was to provide the most objective
and accurate analysis possible.
Mr. Grunwald asked my opinion about management changes that have
taken place in the Corps. I gave him my honest opinion that, I believe,
included the quoted statement ``unfortunately Corps' management has
lost all respect for unbiased analysis''.
Further I told him, according to my own notes, that ``It is very
sad that this, largely successful study effort, is in danger of
becoming just another Corps of Engineers embarrassment'' and ``It is
regrettable that Corps' management has so effectively shut down all
avenues of dissent that these issues, which should and could be
resolved within the agency, must be made public''.
The quoted statement ``It's very sad that this study is becoming
another embarrassment'' was in reference to the apparent publicity that
the story was going to receive and the public questioning of the Corps'
integrity.
Jeffrey Marmorstein, Operations Research Analyst
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 29 day of
February, 2000.
William P. Levins,
Notary Public, State of Missouri, City of St. Louis,
My Commission Expires May 2, 2003
______
TAB H
before the united states senate committee on environment and public
works affidavit of colonel james v. mudd
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, the undersigned hereby executes the
following sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
1. I, James V. Mudd, am an officer on active duty with the U. S.
Army and currently hold the rank of Colonel. I presently serve as the
District Commander and District Engineer of the Rock Island District
Corps of Engineers. I have served in this post since July 1997.
Relative to the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway navigation
system study, I hereby depose and say:
2. As District Commander, I have general oversight and leadership
responsibilities with regard to every study being conducted within the
Rock Island District, including the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway navigation system study (UMRS). In this position, I receive
information and assistance from individuals in the Corps' various
disciplines, including engineering, planning, economics, and the
environmental sciences. In the case of the UMRS, individuals in these
fields from both inside and outside the Corps have been extensively
involved in all aspects of the study process.
3. With respect to the elasticity of demand for waterborne
commercial transportation, over the course of the UMRS, the study team
has expended considerable effort to determine the most appropriate
value (the ``N'' value) to use in regard to grain.
The UMRS team has evaluated information representing a wide range
of values generated by numerous sources, including Corps economists,
contractors, navigation users and shippers, and academic researchers.
The N value of 1.2 for grain incorporated into the preliminary economic
evaluations presented to the public at various workshops during the
summer of 1999 was a weighted average using information from the August
1998 expert elicitation panel and the 1994 Iowa Grain Flow Survey. The
expert elicitation panel was composed of experts and economists from
the Iowa Department of Agriculture, the University of Minnesota, Texas
A&M University, North Dakota State University, and industry. The panel
concluded that the N value for grain ranged between 1.0 and 2.0 in the
Upper Mississippi region. Accordingly, the UMRS study team used this as
a basis to define limit values.
4. Using a methodology developed in discussions among myself and
other members of the staff, the information from the expert elicitation
panel was used to identify each end of the range of possible N values,
while information from the Iowa Grain Flow Survey data was used to
develop the distribution curve of grain moving to and on the
Mississippi River. Subsequently, New Orleans District economist Richard
Manguno, at my direction, calculated the N value for grain for the
above methodology. I did not set a predetermined N value of 1.2; nor
did I ask anyone to skew or falsify any economic data or assumptions.
He assigned the limit N value of 1.0 (the relatively more inelastic N
value) to the eastern region, which is the region closest to the river,
and the limit N value of 2.0 (the relatively more elastic N value) to
the western region, which is the region farthest from the river. He
assigned the mid-point of the N value range, i.e., 1.5, to the central
region.
5. Data from the 1994 Iowa Grain Flow Survey, which described the
proportion of each region's corn production that moved to the river,
was then used by Mr. Manguno to assign weights to the crop reporting
regions. He converted these proportions to weights (proportions of
total river originating from each region--0.69, 0.21, and 0.10,
respectively, for the eastern, central, and western regions) and
assigned them to the appropriate region. With assigned N values and
weights for each region, Mr. Manguno then calculated the overall
weighted average. The weighted average that resulted from the
calculation was applied to all grain movements shipped from all
origins.
6. As noted above, the N value of 1.2 was used by the Corps' study
team in preliminary economic evaluations presented to the public during
the summer of 1999. It was the result of information provided by Corps
economists, Corps contractors, navigation users and shippers, and
academic researchers and is based on a reasoned methodology. Prior uses
of elasticity values for grain used in the study model, on the other
hand, were strictly theoretically based (not based on empirical data).
Finally, in regard to any contention that the value is too low (i.e.,
inelastic), it should be noted that at least one authority, Dr. Robert
J. Hauser, Professor and Head of the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, has
provided an expert opinion supporting lower elasticity factors than
currently reflected in the analysis. His opinion and the study
underlying it (see attached) are still being analyzed.
7. In regard to the allegation of disbanding of the economic panel,
the panel was originally established for a 90-day period with
responsibility for the identification of the NED Plan and the producing
of the economic tools sufficient to analyze additional alternatives
(July 1998-September 1998). The results of the panel's work would be
used to brief the Director of Civil Works in Washington, D. C. At the
conclusion of that period, MVD Commander MG Philip Anderson asked that
the panel continue under the direction of New Orleans District
economist Richard Manguno. During the subsequent months there was
significant input from HQ USACE, CELRD, the five states in the study
area, industry, and the expert elicitation panel. In June 1999 the
panel was asked to provide input and commentary on the economic
conclusions that had been completed to date. The decision to release
the economic panel members to return to their regular duties was made
by MG Anderson in July 1999. My understanding is that this decision was
based on MG Anderson's determination that it was no longer necessary to
continue the panel since it had completed its function. I understand
that he determined that the production of future economic products
would be the responsibility of the study team with Mr. Manguno leading
the economic work group.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge.
James V. Mudd, COL, EN, Commander, Rock Island District.
Subscribed and Sworn To Before me in the District of
Columbia, on this 2nd Day of March, 2000.
Barbara J. Davis,
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires: June 14, 2001.
______
attachment 1
Statement on Barge Demand Elasticities for Grain, Robert J. Hauser
Professor and Head Department of Agricultural and Consigner Economics
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
July 22, 1999
This statement concerns the estimate for the barge-rate elasticity
of demand for grain shipments on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers used by the Corps of Engineers in its evaluation of various
navigation-related projects. My understanding is that the most recent
estimate of elasticity used by the Corps is approximately three.
(Demand elasticities referred to in this statement will be in absolute
(positive) terms.)
Since farm products account for the majority of the traffic on the
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, assessments of navigation
benefits and costs rely heavily on the underlying barge demand
elasticities for corn and soybean shipments. In analyses conducted by
the Corps, if the estimated demand elasticity is too high, waterway
navigation benefits will be understated; if too low, the resulting
benefits will be overstated. Thus it is important that ( 1) the general
level of the elasticity be considered carefully, (2) differences in
elasticities between river segments be considered, (3) a reasonable
range of potential elasticities be considered, and (4) the sensitivity
of the project-evaluation results to changes in the elasticity be
measured. I will address points 1 through 3, based on a study conducted
during the 1980's by Hauser, Beaulieu, and Baumel (HBB) \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hauser, Robert J., Jeffrey Beaulieu, and C. Phillip Baumel.
``Impacts of Waterway User Fees on Grain Transportation and Implied
Barge Rare Elasticines,'' Logistics and Transportation Review,
21(1985), pp 37-55. Funded by U.S. Dept of Transportation, Contract
DTRS-57-8C-00133.
NOTE: The article from Logistics and Transportation Review
referenced in Footnote 1 was attached to the affadavit at this point.
It is retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HBB measured impacts of alternative waterway user fees. The 1980
transportation rate structure for rail, barge and truck was used to
estimate user-fee impacts given forecasts of 1985 supply/demand
conditions for grain. The EBB grain-flow projections were found with an
optimization model containing over 11,000 alternatives for shipments of
corn, soybeans, and wheat in the U.S., expressed In over 3,000
equations. A base line solution (in terms of grain flows and attendant
transportation costs) was found under the 1980 rate structure. The
impacts of user fees were then assessed by measuring changes in grain
flows and costs caused by imposing user fees (i.e., changing barge
rates.) An important output of the analysis are estimates of own-price
elasticities for grain barge shipments since the change in barge rate
causes a measurable change in barge shipments, enabling the calculation
of elasticity estimates. Resulting estimates are presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Estimated Barge Demand Elasticities for Grains (HBB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge Demand Elasticity
-------------------------
Fuel Tax Segment Tax
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Mississippi River....................... 2.09 2.10
Illinois River................................ 1.07 0.92
All River Segments............................ 1.62 1.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated in Table 1, the barge demand elasticities for grain
(corn, soybeans and wheat) found by HBB for the Illinois River, the
Upper Mississippi River, and the entire system are well below the
demand elasticity of 3.0 currently implied by the Corps' shipment
demand function for grains. Moreover, the degree of difference depends
on the river segment. Because of its location relative to other rivers
and to production, the Illinois River's elasticity is approximately
half that for the Upper Mississippi River. Consequently, the HBB
analysis suggests that using a single transportation demand elasticity
for all waterways is not appropriate.
HBB note that their analysis is a ``snapshot'' of demand
characteristics chat change from year to year, if not from day to day.
In general, the barge rates used in the HBB analysis are higher than
those which have existed since the study was conducted, implying that,
under a stationary and linear demand, elasticities have fallen since
the early 1980's and that the HBB estimates are probably biased
upwards, indicating further that the Corps estimate is relatively high.
Given the HBB analysis, the Corps' elasticity estimate should be
considered, at best, an upper bound for analysis. Lower bounds could
reasonably be defined well below one. Given this type of range, an
important question becomes: how sensitive are the Corps' findings to
changes in elasticity estimates from, say, 0.5 to 3.0? Consideration of
this question by river segment is critical to providing a sound
assessment of the benefits and costs associated with new projects on
the inland waterway system.
Your consideration of this statement is appreciated.
______
TAB I
I Lenard H. Ross, being duly sworn under oath, being of legal age
and under no legal disability, do hereby state that the following is a
true statement of facts according to my recollection and knowledge:
In response to question No. 7
In writing ``getting to yes as soon as possible'' I was referring
to actions to reduce the normal ten plus years it takes to get a
project from the study phase to the construction phase. Such actions
include working issues in parallel rather than in series, anticipating
funding needs and working harder, faster and smarter.
In writing ``study managers not take no for an answer'' I was
referring to the roadblocks and delays encountered by study managers.
Many of which are internal Corps policies and procedures. Study
managers are encouraged to look for ways to work around a problem not
give up.
Lenard H. Ross Chief, Construction Branch Construction-
Operations, Readiness Division.
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 29th day of
February, 2000.
William P. Levins,
Notary Public, State of Missouri, City of St. Louis.
My Commission Expires May 2, 2003.
______
TAB J
before the united states senate committee on environment and public
works affidavit of david b. sanford, jr
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, the undersigned hereby executes the
following sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
1. I, David B. Sanford, Jr. do hereby declare that I am an employee
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and currently serve as the Chief,
Policy Division in the Directorate of Civil Works, Headquarters, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
2. Question 2 relates to a February 4, 2000 memo which contains the
statement ``concern was expressed that if we don't provide for the
industry, navigation program might get moved to'' Department of
Transportation. I interpreted this statement as meaning that if the
Corps could not produce a study, with recommendations (whether or not
the recommendations supported lock expansion), then the navigation
industry group (MARC2000) might seek assistance from the Department of
Transportation. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
David B. Sanford, Jr.
Subscribed and Sworn To Before me in the District of
Columbia, on this 3rd Day of March, 2000.
Barbara J. Davis,
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires June 14, 2001.
______
TAB K
affidavit, state of illinois, county of rock island
I, Paul D . Soyke, am employed by the Rock Island District of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers as the Chief, Economic Analysis
Branch in the Program & Project Management Division. I also was a
member of the Economics Panel for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway System Navigation Study. Relative to Question No. 9 in the
February 28, 2000 letter fro m Senator Voinovich to LTG Ballard, I
hereby depose and say:
The quote, ``The team should determine an alternative . . . that
appears to be the most likely to justify large-scale alternatives in
the near-term'' was made by me, a member of the Economic Panel on
September 3, 1998. The statement was made in reference to the testing
of the economic model and its sensitivity to various parameters. The
reference was to only one of a number of alternatives that should
eventually be tested. I sent an e-mail (attached) later the same day to
all the recipients clarifying the intent after receiving comments. This
later e-mail states, ``If my message was interpreted to indicate that
`our recommended alternative will be determined based on assumptions
that appears most likely to justify large scale alternatives in the
near term', I apologize. I think we owe it to the decision-makers, our
partners, and ourselves to know `what it takes to justify a project'.
That is a part of sensitivity analysis.'' This was not a decision or
command to manipulate the model or study results, but instead was part
of an effort to better assess the model and its sensitivity to many
parameters that were not known with certainty.
In witness whereof, I have set my hand this 1st day of March 2000.
Paul D. Soyke,
Subscribed and sworn to the undersigned, a notary public,
in and for the State of Illinois, County of Rock Island,
this 1st day of March 2000.
Aimee D. Vermeulen,
Notary Public, State of Illinois,
My Commission Expires 01/15/03.
______
attachment 1
Soyke, Paul D MVR
From: Hanson, Dudley M MVR
Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 7:41 AM
To: Soyke, Paul D MVR
Subject: RE: Alternative scenarios
Paul, Please don't feel any need or pressure to respond to HO. MVD
will do that as needed, or task us to do it.
----Original Message----
From: Soyke, Paul D MVR
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 2:21 PM
To: Conner, Ronald R HQ02, Karnish, Diane MVS; Hanson, Dudley M MVR;
Hammond, Mark R LRH01; Manguno, Richard J MVN01; Walker, Wesley W
LRH01; Arnold, William E MVD01; Sweeney, Donald C II MVS; Carr,
John P MVR; Mcdonald, Jesse K MVD01
Cc: Daniel, Robert M HQ02; Kitch, Harry E HQ02
Subject: RE: Alternative scenarios
I'm sorry that I was not clear. Don is working on the ``without''
condition and a preliminary NED with as given set of assumptions. As I
understand, there are alternate assumptions that can be made. In order
to provide as much information as possible, MVD has asked that we look
at what the output of these alternative assumptions might be. The
primary goal is the preliminary NED. If my message was interpreted to
indicate that ``our recommended alternative will be determined based on
assumptions that appears most likely to justify large scale
alternatives in the near term'', I apologize. I think we owe it to the
decision-makers, our partners, and ourselves to know ``what it takes to
justify a project''. That is a part of sensitivity analysis.
-----Original Message----
From: Conner, Ronald R HQ02
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 1:59 PM
To: Soyke, Paul D MVR; Karnish, Diane MVS; Hanson, Dudley M MVR;
Hammond, Mark R LRH01; Manguno, Richard J MVN01; Walker, Wesley W
LRH01; Arnold, William E MVD01; Sweeney, Donald C II MVS; Carr,
John P MVR; Mcdonald, Jesse K MVD01
Cc: Daniel, Robert M HQ02; Kitch, Harry E HQ02
Subject: RE: Alternative scenarios
Folks
Would someone like to explain to me what exactly I've missed. In
the Tuesday meeting with Dusty, I heard explicit direction that a
preliminary NED will be presented by 17 Sept. Which, as I understand
it, is the way the 90-day process was sold to HO. Is that still the
case or are we presenting a range of scenarios which will take to the
GLC and the public to help us decide the NED? Given that changes must
be made to the SEM to account for the new small-scale/without project,
do you have time to run these alternate scenarios before Sept 17. Why
not identify a prelim NED based on the current assumptions, then run
alternate scenarios as sensitivity analysis prior to meeting with the
GLC and public? Also as a further suggestion, avoid sending E-Mails
around which suggest our recommended alternative will be determined
based on assumptions that appears most likely to justify large scale
alternatives in the near term. Regardless of what you decide to do, I
need to see a summary or minutes from the teleconference or meeting I
missed to report up the chain. Thanks.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Soyke, Paul D MVR
Sent: Thursday, September O3, 1998 11:39AM
To: Diane Karnish; Dudley Hanson; Hammond, Mark R LRH01; Manguno,
Richard J MVN01; Walker, Wesley W LRH01; Arnold, William E MVD01;
Donald Sweeney; John Carr; Mcdonald, Jesse K MVD01; Ronald Connor
Subject: Alternative scenarios
Dudley suggested that I send my thoughts to all of you and get your
comments and ideas. It is important to reduce the amount of work
required while still trying to get the options desired by MVO. Until
the without project condition is complete, it is difficult to predict
which set of assumptions will most productive. Rich and Jack will be in
St. Louis on Tuesday to provide assistance in running the options. They
need the flexibility to make the week productive.
Please give me your comments by noon Friday on the following
suggestions.
Based on the teleconference yesterday and Jesse's proposal, I am
offering the following suggestions:
There should be a scenario based on a high (tripling of grain
exports by 2050) commodity forecast with demand functions for grain of
1.0 and 0.5 for all other. This is similar to Alt. 3 from Jesse. There
should also be one using 1.0 for all commodities and the midline
forecast. The team should then determine an alternative, based on these
results, that appears to be the most likely to justify large scale
improvements in the near term. This alternative should use conditions
and assumptions that are within the range of the information available
that could be within some reasonably likely future.
These alternatives would seem to bound the options and allow us to
work with the GLC and the public to determine acceptable limits and
levels of confidence of the assumptions. Based on the results and those
discussions, I would suspect that we could then do further runs and
determine a recommended plan.
I believe that the team in St. Louis next week should be given the
flexibility to include or delete the IWW locks if the initial runs
indicate that this would impact the results.
______
TAB L
before the united states senate committee on the environment and public
works affidavit of major general hans. van winkle
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, the undersigned hereby executes the
following sworn Statement under penalty of perjury.
1. I, Hans A. Van Winkle, do hereby declare that I am a Major
General in the United States Army currently serving, since June, 1999,
as Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and stationed at its Headquarters in Washington, D. C.
2. This affidavit is being prepared in response to written
questions presented by Senator George V. Voinovich, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Senator's letter and
questions relate to the Corps' Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway Navigation Study. Question 1 in Senator Voinovich's letter
referred to a meeting I attended on February 4, 2000. The question
asked that I explain what I meant by a statement attributed to me in an
e-mail message, dated February 4, 2000, and written by another attendee
at that meeting, Harry E. Kitch (hereinafter the HKitch e-mail''). The
statement which I have been asked to explain was presented as follows:
`` we are the navigation proponent and we can't have a limp-wristed
recommendation saying to build something out in 2025''. In addition,
question 2 in Senator Voinovich's letter asked that the participants in
the February 4, 2000 meeting interpret another statement in the ``Kitch
e-mail''. As presented by Senator Voinovich the statement read that
``'concern was expressed that if we don't provide for the industry,
navigation program might get moved to' the Department of
Transportation''. This statement was not attributed. I will respond to
both questions.
3. At the outset, I state that at the times and events addressed in
this affidavit I was unaware that Dr. Donald Sweeney was in the process
of or had prepared an affidavit concerning the Upper Mississippi River
Study.
4. With respect to Senator Voinovich's Question 1, I made the
statement, or a substantially similar statement, attributed to me, in
the following context and with the intent set forth below.
5. I made the statement at a meeting held on February 4, 2000.
While I cannot attest to the word for word accuracy of the quoted
statement, since I did not take any notes, nor had an official note
taker been designated, the statement is generally accurate. The
statement was made in the informal give and take of this meeting among
my senior advisors and myself The statement simply expressed my
frustration at the status of the Study at that time. After expending 7
years and $50 million dollars, we were not able to yet finalize all
elements of the array of alternatives identified in the Study. Among my
frustrations was the fact, as I understood it, that some of the
proposed alternatives, if adopted, would require even more study and
the expenditure of additional funds before being able to fully
implement them. In my opinion, the Corps of Engineers, as an expert on
the Nation's inland waterway system, ought to be able to make firm
proposals or recommendations, based upon sound, comprehensive data and
analysis. Those proposals or recommendations should be implementable
without endless study. In this case, in part,
I was questioning whether proposals or recommendations requiring or
anticipating yet more study were warranted or justified. Also expressed
in that statement is my view that the Corps is the Federal agency
responsible for examining options for the development, management, and
conservation of our Nation's water resources with the objective of
providing the Administration and the Congress with balanced choices for
the future. Just as the Department of Transportation is the
``proponent'' in these respects for surface transportation systems, the
Corps, in my opinion, is such for our Nation's waterways.
6. The February 4, 2000 meeting was a follow-up meeting to a prior
briefing I had received about the Study. The prior briefing, held on
January 28, 2000, led by the Corps' Mississippi Valley Division (MVD),
was by Video Teleconference (VTC). This was my first briefing on this
Study since I assumed my duties as the Deputy Commanding General for
Civil Works of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in June, 1999.
7. Based upon the VTC briefing, I had some questions and concerns,
principal among which were two. First, I wanted to assure myself that
extending 600 foot locks, to 1200 feet, as MVD proposed, was a sound
recommendation. The current locks average 50 years old, and building
extensions to these aging structures added an element of engineering
risk. Second, I had questions about the ``optimally timed'' project
alternatives identified in the Study. Members of my staff also had
questions about the MVD presentation.
8. Because of these questions and concerns, I convened the February
4, 2000 meeting previously discussed. Attendees at this meeting
included Mr. Thomas F. Caver, the Corps' Chief, Civil Works Programs
Management Division, Mr. David Sanford, the Corps' Chief, Civil Works
Policy Division, Mr. Harry E. Kitch, representing the Corps' Chief,
Civil Works Planning Division who was not available for the meeting,
and myself. Though the others had been participants in the January
28,2000 VTC, Mr. Kitch had not. At this meeting, my staff recommenced
that we undertake an Alternative Formulation Brief (AFB). I concurred.
The AFB is standard procedure that would allow us to address my
questions, and others. Completion of the AFB and presentation of its
conclusions is expected in early March 2000.
9. With respect to Senator Voinovich's Question 2, the comment, as
I interpreted it, reflected how the navigation and agricultural
industries felt about working with the Corps of Engineers. On this
project, these interest groups had complained that the Corps had
rejected their data and input, that the Corps process was not
inclusive, and that reasonable assumptions and data were not being
treated in a fair and reasonable way. In short, I understood the
comment to highlight a concern that this Study process be inclusive and
fair. I do not recall how this issue was raised at the meeting.
Major General Hans A. Van Winkle
Subscribed and Sworn To Before me in the District of
Columbia, on this 3rd Day of March, 2000.
Barbara J. Davis,
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires: June 14, 2001.
__________
Statement of Doug Sutherland, County Executive, Pierce County,
Washington
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: my name is Doug
Sutherland. I am the County Executive for Pierce County, Washington.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
Pierce County lies along the eastern shore of Puget Sound and
includes the city of Tacoma. The County includes the Puyallup and
Nisqually Rivers, two of the 17 major river watersheds that comprise
the Puget Sound basin.
I respectfully request that the Subcommittee authorize the Corps of
Engineers to participate with local agencies in planning and
implementing ecosystem restoration projects in the Puget Sound region,
as proposed in S. 2228 and the Administration's WRDA proposal. I
recognize the many competing priorities that the Committee is facing in
developing WRDA 2000, and know you will have difficult decisions to
make about what to include in the bill. I'd like to relay why ecosystem
restoration work in Puget Sound is a top priority to Pierce County and
the Pacific Northwest, and why a major national commitment to the
effort is warranted.
It wasn't long ago that you could walk or boat along any river in
the Puget Sound basin in the fall or winter and be sure of seeing
thousands of salmon, often so abundant that they filled every pool and
riffle. As recently as the 1970's, it was possible to share the
experience of the earliest settlers to our region, who wrote of salmon
so thick that you could walk across their backs from bank to bank.
I'm sorry to say that these days, you could spend all day on one of
the big salmon rivers of the region, including the Puyallup and the
Nisqually in my county, and be lucky to see a hundred fish. The
listings of chinook salmon and bull trout under the Endangered Species
Act last year confirmed what every keen observer has witnessed for a
decade: salmon are in steep decline in Puget Sound. A big run every few
years and hopeful projections can no longer disguise the marked decline
in salmon populations.
If this trend continues, it is not too difficult to imagine that 1
day in the not too distant future someone will witness the last salmon
to swim in the Puyallup, the Skagit, or the Snoqualmie. If this occurs,
we will have lost a resource of incalculable value: a cultural and
social icon, an angler's once-in-a-lifetime prize, the catch of the day
for a major tribal and commercial fishing industry. Imagine New England
without fall colors, the Chesapeake without blue crabs, and California
without the redwoods. Roll them into one, and you have some idea of
Puget Sound without salmon.
We are committed to bringing Puget Sound salmon back from the
brink. One of the prime reasons for the decline of salmon has been
destruction of habitat from a century of agriculture and timber
harvest, urbanization, flood control, and navigation projects. The
result is a checkerboard landscape, where pockets of high-quality
habitat are interspersed with areas in which stream channels and
streamside areas are in poor shape. Bringing salmon back from the brink
will require the rebuilding of salmon habitat on an unprecedented
scale, with substantial work needed in every one of the 17 watersheds
of the Puget Sound basin.
We need your help. Pierce County has joined with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on several major projects on the Puyallup River, and
we have found the agency to be a capable and enthusiastic partner.
Corps assistance has allowed us to undertake habitat restoration and
flood protection projects that would have been impossible without the
agency's technical and financial assistance. We would like to see the
Corps' support available to communities throughout the Puget Sound
basin.
I am delighted that President Clinton and the Washington
Congressional delegation have shown support for this effort through the
Administration's WRDA bill and S. 2228. There are several elements of
S. 2228 that I hope you will integrate into WRDA 2000. Most
importantly, I urge you to authorize the program at the $125 million
level proposed in S. 2228. The Puget Sound basin is large, with 17
watersheds comprising more than 13,000 square miles, an area larger
than the state of Maryland. As I've stated before, habitat restoration
work is needed throughout the basin if we're to have any hope of saving
salmon in Puget Sound. Spread out over 8 years and among projects with
an average Federal cost of $1 million, the authorization of $125
million would allow 15 of the highest priority projects a year to be
completed. Over the course of the program, this level of commitment
would make a big dent in the hundreds of restoration projects that are
urgently needed to rebuild salmon populations.
I also recommend the provisions of S.2228 regarding selection of
projects under the program that direct the Corps to consult with
Federal, state, and local agencies and use prior plans and studies to
prioritize and select projects. These provisions will ensure that the
program is efficient, targeted to on-the-ground results, and fully
compatible with other restoration efforts in the region.
The third aspect of S. 2228 that I'd like to highlight to you is
how project costs are divided between the Federal Government and non-
Federal sponsors. Consistent with other Corps habitat restoration
programs, S. 2228 provides a greater Federal contribution in areas that
are affected by a prior Corps project. In addition, S. 2228 waives part
of the cost-sharing requirement for projects cosponsored by an Indian
tribe. I strongly support these provisions.
My discussions with local government, tribal, environmental, and
business leaders around Puget Sound indicate that there is strong
support for S. 2228 and the partnership it will create. Pierce County
and our neighbors around Puget Sound stand ready with funding,
projects, and staff expertise to match the Federal commitment in this
bill. Our jurisdictions have spent more than $15 million per year for
the last 3 years on salmon projects and programs, and I can assure you
that we are ready to rise to the funding challenges of this new
program.
I deeply appreciate the bipartisan support for salmon recovery
demonstrated by the Washington Congressional delegation, and would
particularly like to thank Senators Murray and Gorton and
Representatives Inslee and Dicks for their leadership on this
legislation. I'd also like to recognize and thank the other cosponsors
of House version of this bill, Representatives Metcalf, Baird, Smith,
and McDermott.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to a
long and fruitful partnership for the recovery of Puget Sound salmon.
______
Responses of Doug Sutherland to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. As you know, the Administration's proposal requests $10
million for environmental restoration projects in the Puget Sound
region. How would $10 million compare to the amounts received in your
region, under the Corps' Section 2G6 authority?
Response. I understand from the Corps that the Seattle District has
expended $900,000 in studies and has programmed $4?8 million to
construct restoration projects in the Puget Sound region under the 206
authority. In the Corps other restoration program under Section 1135,
more than $6.5 million has been expended and an additional $3.1 million
programmed for habitat work in the Puget Sound basin in the last 5
years. This is a high level of demand for programs that are new and not
well publicized, and the demand for Corps assistance is expected to
grow substantially in the region in coming years.
Question 2. Can you describe some of the specific types of projects
that would be conducted under the Administration's proposed provision,
if it were enacted?
Response. We anticipate that projects would include: . Restoring
connections between rivers and side channel and floodplain habitats;
Reconfiguring levees and dikes to improve habitat
characteristics, including levee setbacks;
Replacing undersized culverts and other barriers to
salmon migration; Restoring estuary and marine beach habitat; Placing
logs and stumps in streams and rivers to improve channel diversity; and
. Planting trees and shrubs on riverfront lands; Puget Sound
jurisdictions working with the Corps have implemented several projects
of this sort in the last few years and can provide specific examples if
needed.
Question 3. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 provided
authority for the Corps to carry our aquatic ecosystem restoration and
protection projects with state, local government and private nonprofit
partners on a 65 percent Federal and 35 percent nonFederal basis. The
authority provides for projects up to a Federal cost of $5 million and
authorizes annual appropriations up to $25 million. In view of this
national program, why does the Puget Sound Region need its own
exclusive program?
Response. Federal fisheries agencies have designated the Puget
Sound basin as a whole as the appropriate region for recovery of
chinook salmon and bull trout stocks that have recently been listed
under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat restoration will be required
to meet Federal ESA mandates throughout the basin, creating a high
demand for assistance from Section 206 and other habitat programs.
There are several reasons why assistance can be more effectively and
efficiently provided through a Puget Soundwide program: 1. The regional
scale and rigorous scientific standards for evaluating projects through
the program will ensure that projects are selected on their merits and
will individually and collectively make a valuable contribution to
regional salmon recovery needs. 2. The evaluation of cost-effectiveness
of projects on a regional scale will ensure that the program as a whole
will be highly efficient, reducing long-term costs of salmon recovery.
3. More assistance and funding will be available to the many
communities around Puget Sound that have valuable salmon habitat but
lack the staff and funding needed to compete effectively under existing
Corps authorities.
Question 4. The Administration's proposal for the Puget Sound
Restoration Program authorizes a program for the Puget Sound Region for
environmental restoration projects with a Federal cost up to $2.5
million to be cost shared on a 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-
Federal basins with non-Federal governments. The provision authorizes
up to $10 million in Federal appropriations which would require non-
Federal matching funds of about $5.4 million. S. 2228 proposes a
similar program for the Puget Sound region but proposes a Federal share
of up to $5 million per project and a total appropriation authorization
of $125 million requiring non-Federal matching funds of over $67
million. Your testimony supports the $125 million appropriation. Does
the Puget Sound region have the capabi!lty to provide the 35 percent
non-Federal share to match this level of Federal appropriation?
Response. Pierce County and our neighboring jurisdictions in the
Puget Sound region are ready and able to provide the necessary funding
to match Federal funds. We intend to match Federal funds with local,
state, private, and tribal sources. Our strong commitment to providing
needed funding is demonstrated by: More than $45 million in local
funding of salmon projects and programs provided by Tri-County cities
and counties in the last 3 years; Leadership to secure more than $38
million in state funding for salmon projects in the 1999-2001 biennial
budget; and Assistance in establishing a new regional organization, the
Puget Sound Salmon Foundation, to solicit private funding for salmon
work. Jurisdictions in our region see salmon recovery as a long-term
commitment, and are ready to provide the funding needed to accomplish
the job.
__________
Statement of Lillian Borrone, Director, Port Commerce Department The
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is
Lillian Borrone and I am Director of Port Commerce for The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey. We appreciate this opportunity to
testify on behalf of a Federal navigation project and related matters
that are of critical importance not only to the New York-New Jersey
region, but also to the entire nation. As I begin, I would like to take
a moment to recognize the invaluable work and untiring efforts of
retiring Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Daniel Patrick
Moynihan of New York on behalf of the Port of New York and New Jersey
and the citizens of our states. Their leadership has been tremendous
and will be sorely missed for reasons that extend far beyond the bounds
of water resources legislation.
The Port Authority is a bistate public authority created in 1921
and charged by the two States to promote and protect commerce in the
New York-New Jersey metropolitan region, including responsibility to
provide the infrastructure necessary to accomplish that goal.
The Hudson-Raritan estuary was one of America's principal ports
well before the First Continental Congress met. Before the Dutch
settlers of New Amsterdam built roads or schools, they built docks.
Historically the Port of New York and New Jersey has been the
gateway for much of the nation's imports and exports. In fact, as late
as the 1950's half of all U.S. trade flowed through the Port. As the
nation's land and waterside infrastructure improved, especially in the
latter half of the 20th century, other ports grew. As production and
population growth shifted southward and westward, so did a growing
share of the country's maritime trade. By the 1970's the Pacific Rim
had begun to supplant the North Atlantic nations as the driving force
of global economic growth, resulting in a boom in business at our
western ports. That growth was not only good for the country but
necessary as the U.S. economy became more integrated with the new world
economy.
While the Port of New York and New Jersey's U.S. market share
experienced a decline as other port regions and intermodal capabilities
grew, the actual volume of trade remains enormous and it continues to
increase. Today, New York-New Jersey is handling 2.5 million containers
(as measured in twenty-foot equivalent units), a growth of 67 percent
in just 4 years. And the cargo volumes at our Port, like the rest of
the nation, are projected to continue to grow. Trade growth nationwide
is projected at 4 percent in the years ahead; we conservatively project
a 3.7 percent growth that would mean a doubling of cargo in our port
over this decade. Other major ports anticipate similar growth.
This realization prompted us in 1998 to undertake a major review of
the impacts of such growth on our marine infrastructure and determine
what new investments would be required in our marine terminal, roadway,
railroad and waterway infrastructure to meet this future demand.
The results of that review are contained in an investment options
plan with a scope of 40 years that identifies up to $7 billion in local
investments to modernize and expand the major components of the Port's
infrastructure.
The Port of New York and New Jersey is not alone, obviously, in
considering or undertaking major new investments in its maritime
infrastructure. Charleston is planning to develop a new terminal on
Daniels Island, Los Angeles and Long Beach are investing billions of
dollars in marine terminal and intermodal infrastructure, while the
Virginia Ports Authority has expansion plans of its own. A 1995 VPA
study identified almost $335 million in improvements to accommodate the
significant cargo growth projected for that port. Continuing with the
Virginia example, the study forecast a possible 250 percent increase in
containerized cargo by 2010 of which intermodal volume was expected to
increase 300 percent. I would not be surprised if today those 5 year
old projections are revised upward to account for the incredible
changes of our economy. All told, the Maritime Administration reports
that between 1999 and 2003, ports predicts spending over $9 billion of
non-Federal funding on marine terminals, dredging and other
infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, the significance of the Federal and port industry
estimates is very clear. In this age of the international economy,
multilateral trade relationships and intermodal technologies, import
and export cargo flows will grow increasingly and we all will have to
invest in channels and facilities in order to stay competitive.
Coupled with projections for strong growth in international trade
throughout the U.S. is changing trends in the maritime industry. An
impressive example of one of the trends sailed into New York Harbor in
the summer of 1998 with the arrival of the Regina Maersk, her first
U.S. stop on her inaugural East Coast Tour. She is a 6000 TEU vessel
whose operating efficiencies can be realized with channel depths of 47
feet. (The Army Corps of Engineers uses a +2 feet standard to ensure
safe bottom clearance in the channels.) An indicator of the challenges
the Port of New York and New Jersey faced was the fact that the Regina
had to stop first in Canada to discharge cargo before sailing into New
York to make certain the vessel could navigate the 40-foot channels
available to her. (I should note that underway now is Phase 2 of the
45-foot deepening of channels leading to the Howland Hook, Newark and
Elizabeth container terminals.)
While the Regina Maersk may have been the first of these large
vessels to call on New York Harbor, she not the only one we will see.
As of the first quarter of 2000, there are 101 deep draft or ``Post-
Panamax'' container ships sailing the world's trade lanes. While these
vessels represent a little more than 6 percent of the world's
commercial fleet, they carry 14 percent of all of the cargo traded in
the world. In addition, another 130 orders have been placed by shipping
lines that will more than double the number of these giants in service
around the world. It is clear that the established trend toward larger
vessels in most trade lanes is not an extraordinary occurrence for
specialized cargo as was the view during the WRDA debate of 1986; it
has, in fact, become the industry standard, much as corresponding
channel depths will be the standard. This trend in the maritime
industry is no different from technological developments in other
transportation modes. It is the ocean equivalent of wide body jets,
tandem trucks and double-stack unit trains, all of which are familiar
sights throughout the country.
Given the long time that it takes to plan and carry out major
infrastructure investments and the certain knowledge of the pressures
that trade and technology will bring to our gateways, this country
cannot afford to put off project authorization and funding decisions
until the private sector is choking the channels of U.S. ports with
ships with modern ships that require modern channels.
In recognition of this direction in ocean shipping and the
presently inadequate depths of New York Harbor to accommodate these new
vessels, our congressional delegation, including Senators Lautenberg
and Moynihan, helped authorize a Corps feasibility study. That work,
the New York and New Jersey Harbor Navigation Study, was completed this
year. It is the subject of a Chief's Report signed earlier this month.
In short, the report recommends the deepening to 50 feet of major
channels that lead to major container terminal areas in the Port. I
have included in my testimony a map that shows the various channels
included in the recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, two questions that your Committee may have are what
is the value of this project to the Nation and why should the Nation
invest here. The answers lie in two places. First, as this Committee
well knows, the purpose of an Army Corps feasibility study is to
determine whether or not particular channel improvements derive
national economic benefits. The Corps study found that the project
would, in fact, realize an annual benefit totaling $238.5 million in
national transportation cost savings. These benefits are the
transportation cost savings that result from larger vessels being able
to call on the Port of New York and New Jersey directly, rather than
divert to another port only to have goods bound for the New York-New
Jersey region trucked or railed back into the bistate area. Such a
scenario has national consequences in terms of wear and tear on the
nation's road and rail network, air quality, highway congestion,
freight delivery time and overall quality of life. As you may know, a
ship the size of the Regina Maersk carries 6000 containers, a volume
that would require 6,000 trucks or 3,000 rail cars. Providing direct,
all-water service into the region is both a more economical, as well as
environmentally preferred, method of serving this market.
But the national interest in this project goes beyond those
numbers, significant as they are. The Port of New York and New Jersey
is in the heart of the nation's largest and most affluent consumer
market. Eighteen million consumers live and work in the immediate
metropolitan region and that number swells to 80 million within 1 day's
truck drive from our docks (or a 260-mile radius around the port). This
area covers a ten-state region that stretches from Maine to Maryland,
from Cape Cod Bay to the Ohio River. Add to this broad market base the
national rail system that emanates from the region and the Port of New
York and New Jersey directly serves the southeast, the Midwest and
beyond. (No doubt few consumers inland of the coastal states understand
how much seaports contribute to their quality of life.) As you can
understand, given this broad customer base, the Port of New York and
New Jersey is not only a regional port serving its own local market.
Indeed, the Port continues to be a major gateway, the largest on the
East Coast of North America, for international trade. Given the
nation's growing involvement on world trade activities and the
significant role that the Port of New York and New Jersey plays in that
trade, the Nation has a significant interest in maximizing the port's
potential to serve this national consumer demand. The same would be
true in other major gateways on the four coasts.
We recognize, of course, that ports throughout the Nation and
certainly along the East Coast compete for cargo. Baltimore competes
with Norfolk which competes with New York-New Jersey which competes
with Los Angeles and so on. That competition is an inherent
characteristic of our nation's ports as we reflect, among other things,
America's economic system and principles of federalism. It is to
Congress' credit that, after exhaustive analysis by the Corps of
Engineers, projects are authorized on the basis of their benefits to
regional and national economies and not to make one port or region more
competitive than another. The emphasis is on what is good for the
country. That is nowhere more evident than in considering that New
York-New Jersey, Norfolk, Seattle and Boston, for example, compete with
Canadian ports for cargo. Halifax and Vancouver are formidable
competitors that, it is useful to note, have naturally deep water among
other advantages.
This competition among U.S. ports is healthy and economically
beneficial. It ensures that port authorities, marine terminal
operators, waterfront labor and others work to improve service, invest
in facilities and adopt efficiencies. Those are things our customers
expect and the consumers deserve. Channel depth is just one element of
the investments that are made. In the case of the Port of New York and
New Jersey, we will commit approximately $1 billion for the non-Federal
share of the channel project that we are seeking in WRDA 2000.
Furthermore, as described earlier, we anticipate on the order of $5
billion to $6 billion in major investments in upland infrastructure.
This combination of investments by Federal and local governments,
coupled with significant private sector investment will result in a
modernization of the Port of New York and New Jersey that will be
better able to serve the nation, its businesses and consumers well into
the 215 Century.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to submit additional
information for the record. Meanwhile, I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Responses of Lillian C. Borrone to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Some interests, particularly in the environmental
community, have questioned the need to deepen our ports to accommodate
the latest generations of container ships indicating that the benefits
of this deepening accrues to non-U.S. based carriers and represents
destructive competition between U.S. ports without benefit to the U.S.
economy.
Response. The entire nation benefits from having access to cost
efficient transportation services. It is true that most container
steamship lines are foreign-flag operations. This, in our opinion, has
no more relevance to the issue of the condition of our contemporary
maritime channel infrastructure than to question whether it is in the
national interest to improve our highway or airport infrastructure
since many motor vehicles are made by foreign-based corporations and
foreign air carriers and passengers frequent our international
gateways. Vessel ownership is really beside the point because steamship
lines, tankers and other vessels are not the sole beneficiaries of port
deepening projects. Consumers who use the products they carry or
businesses who export their goods to other companies are major
beneficiaries. Channels are only one aspect of a system of
transportation facilities that sustain the competitiveness of our
economy. The nation's importers and exporters shipping their products
and commodities through New York Harbor rely on economic transportation
services to move their freight into and out of the global marketplace.
That intermodal infrastructure--be it rail, highways, marine terminals,
navigation channels or intelligent transportation technologies--
requires productivity enhancements and capital investments to expand
capacity and improve efficiency. The benefits of a transportation
system serving oceanborne cargo such as we have in our region, enhanced
by improvements in its efficiency made through investments in
infrastructure, labor and other measures, reach beyond the ocean
carrier to the trucker. the shipper, other affected employers and
workers, and ultimately to consumers. And 1l there IS any question
about who benefits by more efficient transportation modes, a simple
test would be to reverse the investments and watch what happens both at
the port and farther down the system where the consumer awaits the
goods.
As the volume of oceanborne commerce has grown, it has become
possible to realize the significant economies of scale offered by large
oceangoing ships. These larger capacity ships are already in service
worldwide and more are on order as my statement notes. Deeper channels
will translate into lower transportation costs, as these larger ships
are able to reach container-handling facilities in the port without
waiting for favorable tide conditions or lightering. Many of these cost
savings, in turn, will be passed on to consumers in the form of lower
priced goods at regional markets. In addition, American goods exported
on larger ships can take advantage of lower transportation costs
thereby being better able to compete in international markets.
And what is the dimension of the benefits? The Port of New York and
New Jersey, the largest port on the east coast, is the gateway for $72
billion in cargo weighing 58 million long tons including more than 1.5
million containers with goods destined for or departing from most
states in the continental US. The Port has a primary market of 17
million consumers in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut metropolitan
region and a secondary market of 81 million consumers in a 31-state
region. The breath of transportation services provided to the nation by
the port would indicate that the more efficient and effective our
maritime transport is, the more beneficial it is to American consumers
and businesses.
Lastly, while there is competition between ports, it is generally
for cargo that is not consumed locally. As my testimony discusses, this
competition is healthy since as a direct result, freight rates remain
low, services improve, labor becomes more efficient and our national
economy benefits.
Question 2. The deepening project recommended in the Chief of
Engineers Report of May 2, 2000 includes deepening the Bay Ridge
Channel into the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal. The report indicates
that major transportation infrastructure improvements, possibly
including a railroad freight tunnel, would be needed to realize the
benefits of deepening the channel into South Brooklyn. In view of this
fact, why is it necessary to authorize the deepening of the Bay Ridge
Channel now?
Response. The nearly 3 nautical mile long Bay Ridge Channel will be
improved and maintained to a depth of 50 feet and a proposed turning
basin is to be located opposite the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal.
Authorization is sought for all channels examined and recommended in
the Harbor Navigation Study as the Port and its intermodal
transportation connections are recognized to function as an integrated
system. Projections performed by the Port Authority and the City of New
York indicate that oceanborne cargo will double within 10 years. This
volume will far exceed the existing terminal capacity in the port,
requiring the future expansion and development of all of the region's
marine facilities, South Brooklyn included. Our studies documented
that, even with terminal productivity enhancements, the Port could face
a deficit in terminal capacity within 6 years. Leaving Brooklyn
facilities out of current planning and development activities would
result in a less efficient port and transportation system overall.
The Port of New York and New Jersey functions as a single complex
even though marine terminals are located in separate locations
throughout the harbor. Transportation improvements necessary to
maintain the efficient handling of maritime goods--including deepened
ship channels, rail and road improvements--must take place in a
comprehensive and coordinated fashion. While project authorization at
this time enables design work to proceed for all these channels so that
precise cost estimates can be obtained, these estimates are necessary
to seek subsequent authorization for funding specific improvements as
they are needed and without delay. By the same token, appropriations
will be sought when the necessary preconditions for the Brooklyn
project elements have been put in place.
Specifically, construction of the channel improvement to South
Brooklyn will be subject to a commitment to rehabilitate the South
Brooklyn Marine Terminal and to provide the transportation
infrastructure needed to realize project benefits.
Question 3. I understand that there would be a significant impact
on the movement of goods along the East Coast if the project deepening
were not to occur. Could you summarize what the implications would be
of not undertaking the harbor deepening project? In what ways is this
project in the national interest?
Response. By 2060, the number of vessel passages required to
transport cargo through the Port would be six times the number required
in 1996 if channels are not deepened and there was no accompanying
change in the current vessel fleet. (If 2060 seems to be far too
distant a projection to be relevant, one should recall that major
infrastructure projects take decades to accomplish, from conception to
completion, and should be designed to be of practical use for decades
as well.) Some of the container ships that currently utilize the Port
Jersey, the Kill Van Kull and the Arthur Kill Channels can now do so
only under favorable tide conditions. To increase the number of vessel
passages during the period of favorable tide by a factor of six or more
may not be physically possible and certainly would pose a grave
increase in the probability of accidents. Within this and the next
decade if the deepening projects were not to occur, ocean carriers who
are turning to a different vessel mix are likely to direct their ships
to other US or Canadian ports that already have 50 feet and greater
channel depths and have excellent, intermodal rail service into the
United States.
It is important to consider the environmental benefit of providing
adequate channel dimensions. The movement of freight over the water is
known to be the most efficient and environmentally benign of all modes
of transport. One large marine vessel can carry thousands of containers
while a 100-car train can carry 200 containers, double stacked, and a
truck only one. Is it better to ship cargo--the volume of which is
projected to double over the next 10 years--over interstate highways or
even rail, or on large capacity vessels on the seas and along the
nation's inland waterways? It also raises legitimate concerns as to the
capacity, for example, of our interstates to handle even more tractor
trailer rigs than already would be on the roads. That alone causes real
concern in New York and New Jersey where the ability to add lanes and
build new highways, especially for freight movements, is terribly
constrained. Unnecessarily diverting containers and other freight to
land modes would increase the cost of transporting goods to the region
and increase congestion and pollution.
Finally, beyond the environmental and congestion issues, the
project is in the national interest since it lowers the transportation
cost (by $230 million per year) of internationally shipping goods to
and from many Northeast and Midwest states that are served by the Port
of New York and New Jersey.
__________
Statement of R. Barry Palmer, Executive Director, DINAMO
Good morning. I am R. Barry Palmer, Executive Director of DINAMO,
the Association for the Development of Inland Navigation in America's
Ohio Valley. DINAMO is a membership based regional association of
leaders from business and industry, labor and state government whose
singular purpose is to expedite the modernization of the lock and dam
infrastructure on the Ohio River Navigation System. DINAMO was launched
in 1981 because of a perceived regional need for the Federal Government
to construct new lock and dam facilities at specific locations on the
Ohio River Navigation System. Current modernization of the Ohio River
Navigation System was initiated in the mid 1950's, continued for about
20 years and was never completed. Prior to construction of new lock
facilities at the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Ohio River, OH/WV,
authorized in 1986, the last project authorized for construction on the
Ohio River was the Hannibal Lock and Dam in 1964.
We have made much progress over the last 18 years, Mr. Chairman,
largely with the help and leadership of this committee. 15 lock and dam
structures on the Ohio River Navigation System are under construction
or complete. Those projects include major rehabilitation of Emsworth,
Dashields, and Montgomery Locks and Dams, Ohio River, PA; and
construction of the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, formerly the
Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/W; Grays Landing Lock
and Dam and Point Marion Lock, Monongahela River, PA; Winfield Lock
Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV; Olmsted Locks and Dam, replacing
Locks and Dams 52 and 53 on the Lower Ohio River, IL/KY; Monongahela
River Locks and Dams 2,3 & 4, PA; McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio
River, IN/KY; Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV; and
Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY.
But the task is not finished. We are here before this distinguished
subcommittee to urge your support in two specific areas:
First, for all lock and dam modernization projects already
authorized and under construction, we would urge that the currently
scheduled diesel fuel/user tax revenues, as well as surplus of moneys
gathering in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, be drawn down to complete
all lock and dam construction projects in a timely manner. In the Ohio
Valley about $250 million is needed annually--50 percent from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund and 50 percent from the General Treasury to
complete Olmsted, Lower Monongahela River 2, 3 & 4, McAlpine, Marmet,
and Kentucky by 2008 or earlier. What is needed is funding
predictability on efficient funding schedules of the Corps of
Engineers.
The private sector entered into a partnership with the Federal
Government to fund 50 percent of the costs of a lock and dam
modernization project by paying 20 cents per gallon for each gallon of
diesel fuel consumed by towboats operating on America's inland
navigation system. The private sector has met its obligations in this
regard each and every year since the user taxes were established. What
has been missing is a Federal Government reciprocation of its
partnership responsibilities to pay its share of the costs for the
nation's lock and dam modernization program.
The construction schedule for lock and dam construction projects on
the Ohio River Navigation System has in some instances slipped by as
many as 6 years, primarily due to insufficient funding. Funding for
lock and dam construction in the Ohio Valley plummeted from about $220
million in fiscal year 1996 to $115 million in fiscal year 2000. (The
President's Civil Works Budget for fiscal year 2000 requested lock and
dam construction in the region at $70 million.) According to a March
2000 report of the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of
Engineers, for the Inland Waterway Users Board more than $1.34 billion
in transportation savings has already been washed down the Ohio River
because of construction schedule slippage for Ohio valley projects. An
additional $534 million of potential future benefits can be saved if
these projects on the Ohio River System are completed by 2008 or
earlier.
Currently there is more than $370 million in the Trust Fund, and
annual revenues and interest on the Trust Fund Balance is about $120
million annually. DINAMO believes that the 20 cents per gallon diesel
fuel tax will provide adequate revenue under the cost-sharing
arrangements established by the Congress is the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to rebuild our nation's waterways
infrastructure.
Secondly, we urge the leadership of this Committee to provide
construction authorization of improvements at the John T. Myers and
Greenup Locks and Dams, in accordance with the recommendations of the
Interim Feasibility Reports of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The
Division Engineers Notice will be released by the Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division Commander this month, and a Final Report of the Chief of
Engineers should be complete by the Fall of 2000. Mr. Chairman, we urge
these projects receive a contingent authorization, subject to a Final
Report of the Chief of Engineers by the end of this calendar year.
Contingent construction authorizations for the Myers and Greenup
projects are needed now, Mr. Chairman, because it takes a long time to
get these lock and dam modernization projects constructed. The Olmsted
Locks and Dam project, for example, was authorized in 1988 after 5 or 6
years of study. It probably will not be fully operational until at
least 2008 about 25 years of heavy lifting--if efficient funding levels
are met. Monies for Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for both
projects have been included in the President's fiscal year 2001 Civil
Works Budget. So the opportunity is ripe for these projects to move
forward in an orderly manner.
You might also note, Mr. Chairman, that DINAMO navigation and other
waterways interests have been sitting at the table in discussions with
environmental representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service. We
have been working together with the US Army Corps of Engineers on a
program of Ecosystem Restoration projects at more than 200 sites in
conjunction with the Ohio River Main Stem Study. These projects include
riverine and tailwater enhancements, embayment restoration, island
protection/restoration, near-shore habitat restoration, and riparian
and wetlands restoration.
Finally we applaud the bi-partisan leadership of this committee to
address the deplorable underinvestment in our nation's infrastructure.
TEA-21 and AIR-21 will provide the investment America expects in our
highways and airways. We urge the committee to focus now on the real
problems and needs of our inland waterways and provide leadership to
resolve our problems.
Profile of Ohio River Navigation System, Traffic and Selected Economic
Activity
There are 60 active navigation locks and dams in the Ohio River
Basin operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. There are 20 active
projects on the Ohio River, 9 on the Monongahela River, 8 on the
Allegheny River, 3 on the Kanawha River, 4 on the Kentucky River, 2 on
the Green River, 4 on the Cumberland River, 9 on the Tennessee River
and 1 on the Clinch River. Twenty of the navigation structures are over
60 years in age, twenty-six are between 30 and 60 years old, ten are
between 10 and 30 years old, and four are less than 10 years old.
The older locks date to the 1930's, and there is an increasing
likelihood of structural failure of some of these facilities. This
situation portends decreasing reliability. Hence there will be a need
for increasing repair and maintenance costs, as well as closure times.
These closure times will increase delay costs and diversion of
commodities to other modes from closures. In 1989 the main lock at John
T. Myers Locks and Dam was closed for major maintenance for 45 days.
This closure cost industry an additional $15 million while transiting
the smaller 600' x 110' auxiliary chamber. The McAlpine closure of the
main chamber in 1997 created an average delay per tow of 4 days at an
additional cost to industry of $12 million. Last summer closures at
Greenup cost industry an additional $3.4 million.
The river has always been an economic generator, and it will
continue to be a dominant catalyst for private investment as long as we
maintain and upgrade its infrastructure. There are over 1000
manufacturing facilities, terminals, and docks in the Ohio River Basin
that shipped and received about 275 million tons of waterborne commerce
in 1998. The Port of Pittsburgh Commission recently commissioned a
study conducted by Martin and Associates, Lancaster, PA, that estimated
the amount of jobs that were directly, indirectly, and induced from
49.1 tons of waterborne commerce transiting Western Pennsylvania's
navigable rivers in 1994. The study reflected the following results:
the positive benefits of the rivers include 120,000 jobs, or 12 percent
of private sector employment and average employee earnings of $37,808.
Using traffic data from 1994 and extrapolating the job information from
the Port of Pittsburgh study to the entire Basin, a case could be made
that jobs associated with waterborne commerce on the Ohio River
Navigation System are more than 650,000 today.
In 1998, almost 275 million tons of commodities moved on the
waterways of the Ohio River Basin. These commodities had a combined
value of just more than $32.8 billion. Coal made up more than 57
percent of this tonnage, followed by aggregates with almost 18 percent.
An analysis of the Ohio River Basin waterborne commerce data shows that
almost 52 million tons of commodities were shipped on the river system
out of the basin. A sizable portion of this tonnage (almost 23.5
million tons) consisted of coal. Docks in the basin received just less
than 42 million tons from outside the Ohio River System, with petroleum
products being the largest commodity brought in. Just less than 180
million tons moved within the basin.
Traffic doubled on the main stem Ohio River between 1950 and 1965
(15 years). Traffic doubled again between 1965 and 1990 (25 years).
Traffic on the Ohio River grew 60 percent between 1983 and 1997, while
traffic on the Mississippi River System grew 39 percent to 489 million
tons over the same period. While the tonnage today is pegged at about
275 million tons on the Ohio River Navigation System, the most probable
forecast of traffic on the system will be 385 million tons by 2020 and
500 million tons by 2050.
Coal for Electric Power Generation: The Ohio River Basin is a major
coal producing and power generating area. Utility companies have
historically been attracted to a plentiful supply of water for plant
use. The utilities also take advantage of the transportation savings
provided by barges and the lock and dam system on the basin's
waterways.
The Ohio River and its navigable tributaries are the kilowatt
highways for one of the nation's most industrialized areas, the
corridor from Pittsburgh to St. Louis. 1998 coal shipments on the Ohio
River basin's waterways totaled just less than 157 million tons, or 57
percent of all barge cargo. Of this amount, more than 117 million tons
were destined for coal-fired power plants. In 1998 this coal moved to
47 power plants along the Ohio River and its tributaries and also to 21
power plants in 8 states outside of the basin. Coal moving in the Ohio
River basin destined for power plants had a value of over $4.5 billion.
Most of the utility coal moving by barge in the Ohio River basin
originated on the Ohio River. Some of this coal actually was mined in
the western United States and moved by rail to docks on the Ohio River,
where it was loaded into barges to complete the trip to power plants.
Other significant origins for utility coal were the Monongahela River
and the low-sulfur coal producing areas along the Kanawha and Big Sandy
Rivers. Rivers outside the Ohio River System that received coal from
the basin included the Mississippi, Black Warrior/Tombigbee, Panama
City harbor, Escambia, Biloxi Harbor, Arkansas, Illinois and Neches.
West Virginia shipped the most utility coal by water, moving over
40 million tons of primarily low sulfur coal to 40 plants in 9 states.
Kentucky, also a source of low sulfur coal, was next with almost 35
million tons. Ohio's 11 power plants, which received coal by barge,
took in almost 30.5 million tons of coal worth almost $1.2 billion.
More of this coal (41 percent) came from West Virginia than any other
state. Indiana was next with over 16.5 million tons of coal received by
5 power plants, with Illinois supplying two-thirds of the tonnage.
The most recent lock modernization project on the Ohio River was
the building of two new lock chambers at Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam
(formerly Gallipolis Locks and Dam). The new 1,200' x 110' and 600' x
110' locks located in a canal removed a major bottleneck to navigation.
This improvement was a major benefit to the shipment of coal to power
plants, as over 22 million tons of coal bound for power plants
transited R.C. Byrd Locks in 1998. This was 38 percent of the total
tonnage at these locks.
Other recent improvements in the Ohio River Basin were at Winfield
Locks on the Kanawha River. Winfield Locks processed over 12.5 million
tons of utility coal (59 percent of total tons) in 1998. Navigation
infrastructure on the Monongahela River has also been improved lately
with new locks at Grays Landing and Point Marion Lock and Dams. In
1997, Grays Landing moved 4.2 million tons of utility coal (87 percent
of total) and Point Marion moved 4.1 million tons (89 percent of
total).
Future improvements to navigation on the Kanawha River will benefit
utility coal shipping. A new lock 800' x 110' is planned at Marmet
Locks, where 11.9 million tons of utility coal made up 72 percent of
the total traffic in 1998. A major rehabilitation of London Locks will
include an extension of the lock. London transited 6.5 million tons of
utility coal, which was 85 percent of the total traffic.
The Chemical Industry and the Ohio River Navigation System: The
Ohio River basin's sixth largest commodity group is chemicals. There
were 236 waterside chemical plants, docks and terminals in the basin
which shipped or received chemical commodities by barge in 1998.
As with the utility companies, chemical companies have historically
been attracted to a plentiful supply of water and raw materials. These
companies also take advantage of the transportation savings provided by
barges and the lock and dam system on the basin's waterways. In the
Ohio River Basin, important clusters of waterside chemical plants have
developed along the lower Monongahela and upper Ohio Rivers; along the
Ohio River from Parkersburg, West Virginia through Huntington, West
Virginia to Portsmouth, Ohio; in the Louisville, Kentucky area and
along in the Tennessee and Kanawha River valleys.
Chemical plants are located along the lower Monongahela River and
Upper Ohio for access to coal and salt deposits and chemical raw
materials from coking plants. Plastics plants are located in the
Parkersburg area due to the proximity to auto parts and plastics
manufacturers. In the Huntington-Portsmouth area, much of the plant
development was tied to the Ashland Oil refinery at Catlettsburg,
Kentucky or the Armco Steel mill in Ashland, Kentucky. The chemical
complex at Louisville developed during World War II, when the Defense
Department looked for a waterside location to manufacture synthetic
rubber. Chemical plants were also attracted to the cheap electricity of
the Tennessee Valley and the salt, coal and mineral deposits of the
Kanawha Valley.
1998 chemical shipments on the Ohio River basin's waterways totaled
just less than 10.2 million tons, or 3.7 percent of all barge cargo. Of
this amount, more than 8 million tons were shipped into the basin from
outside. Just over 1 million tons were shipped out of the basin, and
almost 1.1 million tons moved within the Ohio River System. Chemicals
are a high-value commodity. The almost 10.2 million tons moving by
barge in 1998 had a combined value of almost $6.5 billion, which is
over 20 per cent of the value of the basin's commodities moving by
water.
The largest chemical commodity that moves by barge in the basin is
styrene, which is used in the manufacture of polystyrene for insulation
and packaging uses and in the manufacture of synthetic rubber. Most of
the almost 1.4 million tons of styrene which moved in 1998 originated
in the Houston and Baton Rouge areas and moved to docks on the upper
Ohio River. Cumene, which is used in the manufacture of acetone and
phenols for the manufacture of products such as building materials,
carpets, auto parts, cosmetics, and medicines is the second ranking
waterborne chemicals. Sodium hydroxide, which is used in the
manufacture of rayon and cellophane is another ranking waterborne
chemical. Over 1.6 million tons of various types of fertilizers also
move in barges.
Most of the chemicals that moved by barge in the Ohio River basin
originated in Texas and Louisiana. The leading basin state in chemical
shipments was Kentucky. The main destination for chemical barges in the
basin were plants and docks in Ohio, which received over 2.5 million
tons. Kentucky and Alabama also received more than 1 million tons of
chemicals each. Since 90 percent of the chemicals shipped by water in
the Ohio River basin enter or leave the basin, the lower Ohio River
Locks passed the most chemical tonnage in 1997. Lock and Dam 52 moved
9.7 million tons of chemicals. Wilson Lock and Dam on the Tennessee
River had the highest percentage of chemical tonnage, with almost 1.9
million tons of chemicals of its 13.6 million total tons, for 13.7
percent.
Petroleum, Petroleum Products and the Ohio River Navigation System:
The Ohio River basin's third largest commodity group is crude petroleum
and products made from petroleum. There were over 250 waterside
refineries, tank farms, pipelines, factories and terminals in the
basin, which shipped or received petroleum or petroleum products by
barge in 1998.
Petroleum and petroleum product shipments on the Ohio River basin's
waterways totaled just over 20.25 million tons in 1998, or 7.4 percent
of all basin barge cargo. Of this amount, just less than 9.7 million
tons were shipped into the basin from outside. Over 1.1 million tons
were shipped out of the basin, and over 9.4 million tons moved within
the Ohio River System. The petroleum and petroleum products that moved
by barge in 1998 had a combined value of over $3.3 billion, which was
over 10 per cent of the value of the basin's commodities moving by
water. 1998 was the first year since 1979 with more than 20 million
tons of petroleum moved on Ohio River Basin waterways.
The largest petroleum product that moves by barge in the basin is
gasoline. Most of the 7.5 million tons of gasoline which moved in 1998
moved from the Huntington area to the Louisville, Cincinnati and
Pittsburgh areas or from the lower Mississippi River into the basin.
Distillate fuel oil is the second ranking waterborne petroleum product.
Almost 300 thousands tons of crude petroleum moved by barge in the
basin.
Over 35 per cent of the grain that moved by barge in the Ohio River
basin originated in West Virginia. Gasoline and distillate and residual
fuel oils made up most of this tonnage. Louisiana docks shipped
gasoline oils and petroleum coke into the basin.
The main destinations for petroleum barges originating in the basin
were facilities in Kentucky on the Ohio, Tennessee, Green and Licking
Rivers. A majority of the movements to Ohio were destined for
facilities in the Cincinnati and Marietta areas and consisted of
gasoline, petroleum coke and distillate fuel oil as well as asphalt,
tar and pitch.
Since more than half of the petroleum shipped by water in the Ohio
River basin enters or leaves the basin, the lower Ohio River Locks
passed the most petroleum tonnage in 1998. Locks and Dam 53 moved 10.7
million tons of petroleum and petroleum products. Almost half of this
tonnage was gasoline and petroleum coke. Meldahl Locks and Dam, just
upstream of the Cincinnati area, had the highest percentage of
petroleum tonnage, with over 7.3 million tons of petroleum of its 63.7
million total tons, for 11.6 percent.
Grain and the Ohio River Navigation System: The Ohio River basin's
fourth largest commodity group is grain. There were 144 waterside grain
elevators, plants and terminals in the basin, which shipped or received
grain by barge in 1998.
Ohio River System waterways serve grain shippers primarily by
affording access to the export and industrial markets for grain. These
markets have been the most dynamic sector of the grain market and the
strong growth in grain traffic in the basin reflects the prominence of
these sectors in waterborne movements. Large movements of grains are
made by water out of the basin to the export market through lower
Mississippi River ports. The only other significant movements of barged
grains are those to the South, most importantly to processors in the
Tennessee River Valley.
Grain shipments on the Ohio River basin's waterways totaled just
less than 14 million tons in 1998, or 5.1 percent of all barge cargo.
Of this amount, just less than 3.9 million tons were shipped into the
basin from outside. Over 10.3 million tons were shipped out of the
basin, and over 900 thousand tons moved within the Ohio River System.
The 14 million tons moving by barge in 1998 had a combined value of
over $2.7 billion, which is over 8.25 per cent of the value of the
basin's commodities moving by water. 1998 was the fourth largest year
on history with more than 14 million tons of grain moved on Ohio river
Basin waterways.
The largest grain commodity that moves by barge in the basin is
corn. Almost all of the over 5.1 million tons of corn which moved in
1998 fell into one of two categories: moving from the upper Mississippi
or Illinois River to the Tennessee River for processing; or moving from
the lower Ohio River to the lower Mississippi River for export.
Soybeans is the second ranking waterborne grain. The leading processed
grain product is animal feed preparations.
Most of the grain that moved by barge in the Ohio River basin
originated in Illinois. Corn, soybeans and animal feed preparations
were shipped out of Illinois on the Ohio, Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers.
The main destinations for grain barges originating in the basin
were export facilities in Louisiana. Within the basin, processing
plants in Decatur and Guntersville, Alabama and Loudoun and
Chattanooga, Tennessee were major destinations for corn and other
grains.
Since 94 percent of the grain shipped by water in the Ohio River
basin enter or leave the basin, the lower Ohio River Locks passed the
most grain tonnage in 1998. Lock and Dam 52 moved 9.76 million tons of
grain. Watts Bar Lock and Dam on the Tennessee River had the highest
percentage of grain tonnage, with over 800 thousand tons of grain of
its 1.7 million total tons, for 47 percent.
Ohio River Main Stem Study and Near-Term Investment Needs
The Ohio River Main Stem Study, initiated within the past 5-6
years, is intended to be an authorization document for near-term needs
(over the near 15-20 years) and a Master Plan for long-term needs.
During the last several years it has become clear that an additional
eight locks and dams will become candidates for substantial capital
improvements over the next 10 years on the Ohio River Main Stem.
Because of a combination of factors--including forecasted traffic
growth, the age and condition of a number of older navigation
facilities, [and hence] normal operating transit costs, projected
closure delay costs, and additional operation and maintenance and major
maintenance costs we will be back to this committee several times in
the next decade seeking construction authorization for additional
capacity at several locations along the Ohio River. These lock and dam
projects include, in addition to John T. Myers and Greenup Locks and
Dams, Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery Locks and Dams near
Pittsburgh; Newburgh and Cannelton Locks and Dams on the Lower Ohio;
and Meldahl Locks and Dam on the Middle Ohio. Attached is a graph
depicting which projects appear to be the next likely candidates for
major capital improvements.
More importantly, during the course of the study a clear
justification was found for present authorization of large scale
improvements at two Ohio River facilities namely John T. Myers and
Greenup. The Great Lakes and Ohio River Division Commander will forward
his notice of improvements at these locks and dams to Washington, D.C.
We are told that a Final Report of the Chief of Engineers will be
completed before the end of this calendar year. We are therefore asking
the Committee to include contingent authorizations for these projects
in this year's version of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
In terms of both traffic levels and delays, John T. Myers and
Greenup are the two busiest lock projects on the Ohio River for which
major improvements are not already under construction (or authorized).
In 1998 the US Army Corps of Engineers reports traffic volume through
John T. Myers at nearly 73.6 million tons and traffic volume through
Greenup at more than 71.8 million tons. Each facility consists of one
1200' x 110' main lock (capable of locking 16 jumbo barges and a
towboat in a single operation) and one 600' x 110' auxiliary lock
(capable of locking 6 jumbo barges and a towboat in a single
operation). The current problem is that traffic volume in the Myers and
Greenup portions of the river are growing at such a rapid pace that the
practical capacity of each main lock chamber will soon be overwhelmed.
Construction of increased capacity at the auxiliary chambers of the
John T. Myers and Greenup locks is needed soon, in order the forestall
the need for construction of a new third 1200' x 110' lock at some time
in the future. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division, is recommending 600' x 110' extensions to the existing
600' x 110' auxiliary locks. DINAMO concurs with these recommendations
and has been participating fully in the Corps' process to reach this
recommendation.
Fewer delays also mean reduced air emissions. The Corps of
Engineers estimates that with the John T. Myers lock extension 6.8
million fewer gallons of fuel will be burned, 342 fewer tons of carbon
monoxide/dioxide will be put into the air, as will 854 fewer tons on
nitrous oxide, 171 fewer tons of hydrocarbons and 85 fewer tons of
particulates. Lock and Dam modernization is good for the environment.
The project cost for the John T. Myers Auxiliary Lock extension is
about $182 million, for Greenup about $176 million. Each extension
could be completed by 2008 if the projects were included in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. The benefit/cost ratio for John T.
Myers is 1.8, and the benefit/ cost ratio for Greenup is 2.5. It is
important to note that the Final Interim Report of the Chief of
Engineers for both lock and dam modernization projects will be
completed this year. These projects should achieve final reviews and be
included in this years' WRDA legislation.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we urge your leadership in providing
construction authorization for capital improvements at the John T.
Myers and Greenup Locks and Dams on the Ohio River, in accordance with
the recommendations of the US Army Corps of Engineers, its Great Lakes
and Ohio River Division, and its Louisville and Huntington Districts,
as contained in their Interim Feasibility Reports for the projects. We
recommend that you continue with the cost-sharing arrangements for
these projects as established by the Water Resources Development Act of
1986. The tax levels on diesel fuel consumed by towboats operating on
America's inland navigation system are sufficient to fund our
appropriate share of the costs of lock and dam modernization. The work
of rebuilding our lock and dam system is serious business, and the
Federal Government needs to expedite projects already under
construction in a timely and orderly manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on these
matters.
______
______
Responses by Barry Palmer to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. As you noted in your testimony feasibility reports will
be completed this year on lock improvements at J.T. Myers and Greenup
Locks and these projects will be eligible for authorization in this
year's WRDA. There are recent allegations that portions of the inland
transportation system are under utilized and don't realize the benefits
that were projected. Can you comment on the utilization of these two
locks?
Response. In 1999 John T. Myers and Greenup locks and dams handled
71 and 70 million tons of waterborne freight, respectively. In tonnage
terms this amount ranks the John T. Myers and Greenup facilities as the
seventh and eighth most utilized of the Federal Government's 172
navigation locks.
Delays typically average less than 1 hour per tow at each lock,
except for those times when the main chamber is closed due to accidents
or major maintenance work. Five such events have occurred at Greenup
and two at John T. Myers in recent years. A 1999 planned main chamber
maintenance closure at Greenup forced traffic to use the small
auxiliary chamber for 30 days, causing delays per tow to average 21
hours, with maximum delays reaching 46 hours per tow. A 19-day,
unexpected closure the previous year caused tow delays to reach 70
hours at Greenup. Main chamber closures have also occurred at John T.
Myers. A 1989 main chamber closure of 44 days caused average delays to
reach 48 hours per tow and an 11-day closure in 1995 caused average
delays to reach 11 hours per tow (another closure of John T. Myers is
scheduled for July 25 through August 4, 2000).
We recognize the vital importance of this maintenance work and
appreciate the efforts of the Corps to work with us in scheduling these
events whenever possible, however, they cannot avoid these closures.
And they cannot schedule nor prevent accidents. As long as there is a
small auxiliary lock at these two facilities, any main chamber closure
will result in costly delays. The extension of the auxiliary lock at
John T. Myers and Greenup will alleviate for the towing industry and
our customers the adverse effects that stem from these disruptive
closures. The benefit of the proposed navigation improvements is easy
to see in this instance.
Question 2. The Corps economic analysis of inland transportation
project improvements has recently been criticized for not adequately
considering alternative modes of transportation by rail and truck. Can
you comment on the feasibility of movement of coal and other products
that are currently moving through the Myers and Greenup locks by
alternative modes of transportation if these locks are not improved?
Response. Two points are important to remember. First, the waterway
system in the Ohio River Basin is an integral part of an intermodal
transportation system that includes truck, rail, pipeline and
waterborne carriers operating 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Second,
the Corps' regulations require them to consider alternative modes and
costs when evaluating waterway improvements. Each study includes a
complete transportation rate analysis that estimates the waterway cost,
identifies the least cost alternate mode/route, and estimates the cost
of using that alternate mode for each waterway movement in the Ohio
River System. This analysis is a key piece of the overall,
forwardlooking waterway system analysis that they perform.
Again, the problem being addressed in the Myers/Greenup feasibility
report is the insufficiency of auxiliary lock capacity during main
chamber closures. The Corps' analysis verifies what we in the industry
know to be true: the relatively short-duration closures of the main
chamber at either the John T. Myers or Greenup projects are very costly
to towboat operators, shippers, and the nation. These closures initiate
a series of destabilizing, shipper-specific responses. A transportation
system that was in balance makes adjustments that include rescheduling
shipments, moving to alternate routes, swapping shipments above and
below the affected lock, and continuing to use the lock. These reactive
measures take time and money to put in-place, and the feasibility of
implementing any one of them is specific to the circumstances of the
individual shipper.
One thing is very clear, whenever the main chamber closes,
transportation costs will be higher. Trucking and rail companies will
try to find more equipment by redispatching equipment away from other
users, waterborne and overland carriers will experience additional
logistics costs, shippers may well switch production to less efficient
plants, and towing companies will experience higher operating costs as
they wait to use the lock. So while feasible alternatives may exist,
they all come at a higher cost to the nation than the best
alternative--our inland waterways.
Question 3. Your testimony indicates that there is more than $370
million in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund which is the source of 50
percent of the funding for inland waterway projects. In spite of this
surplus you indicate that ongoing inland navigation projects are not
being funded at a rate to achieve efficient construction schedules
resulting in cost increases and lost benefits. What level of annual
construction investment is needed for inland waterways? Do we need
``firewalls'' or similar mechanism that exist in the highway and
airport trust funds to assure a certain level of annual funding for the
inland system?
We believe there are adequate funds in the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund and projected tax revenue from the 20 cents per gallon levy on
diesel fuel from towboats operating on America's inland navigation
system to pay for 50 percent, or one-half, of the cost of currently
authorized projects (and perhaps Myers and Greenup improvements) during
this decade. About $250 million--$300 million annually could and should
be allocated toward lock and dam modernization on America's inland
navigation system.
You have rightly identified that monies not appropriated for
infrastructure investments which return a benefit to the nation's
economy go for consumption spending. The current amount that is not
appropriated for inland waterway investment is a raid on the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. Our experience has demonstrated that when these
infrastructure investments are foregone, the tax revenue never returns
to these programs for investment. While we have no position on the
mechanism, we do believe that the Congress should guarantee that all
inland waterway taxes and the general treasury matching funds for
inland navigation infrastructure investments should be spent.
__________
Statement of Mayor Dannel Malloy, City of Stamford, Connecticut, on
Behalf of the National Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals (NALGEP)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Dannel Malloy, Mayor of the City of Stamford, Connecticut, and I am
pleased to testify today on behalf of the National Association of Local
Government Environmental Professionals about the critical role of the
Army Corps of Engineers in the revitalization of America's brownfields.
My testimony will first explain why the Corps of Engineers' mission
in brownfields is so important to local communities, why it is
consistent with the Corps' existing activities and competencies, and
why an investment by this Congress in the Corps' brownfields mission
will bring a high return for our citizens and our environment. Second,
I will describe the need for Corps' brownfields assistance in
Stamford's own efforts to revitalize its abandoned brownfields in our
downtown and along our waterfront. I will also describe examples of
other localities where the Corps of Engineers can play a major,
positive role in brownfields revitalization that improves the quality
of our nation's waters. Third, I commend both the Administration and
Senator Chafee for proposing to enhance the Corps' mission in
brownfields revitalization, and I suggest elements for successful Corps
involvement in local brownfields projects.
background on nalgep and the stamford revitalization
I am testifying on behalf of both the City of Stamford, and the
National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals,
or ``NALGEP.''
NALGEP represents local government officials responsible for
ensuring environmental compliance, and developing and implementing
environmental policies and programs. NALGEP's membership consists of
more than 130 local government entities throughout the United States
and includes many innovative communities, such as Columbus and Cuyahoga
County, Ohio; Rochester and Glen Cove, New York; Richmond, Virginia;
Kansas City, Missouri; Las Vegas, Nevada; Enid, Oklahoma; Casper,
Wyoming; Miami and 18 other cities and counties in Florida; and
Stamford, to name a few.
In 1995, NALGEP initiated a brownfields project to determine local
government views on national brownfields initiatives such as the EPA
Brownfields Action Agenda. The NALGEP Brownfields Project culminated in
a report, entitled Building a Brownfields Partnership from the Ground
Up: Local Government Views on the Value and Promise of National
Brownfields Initiatives, which was issued in February, 1997.
During the past few years, NALGEP has continued its work on
brownfields through coordinating work groups of local officials to
address the following issues: (1) Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan
Funds; (2) use of HUD Community Development Block Grants for
brownfields; (3) partnerships between business and local government
officials to reduce sprawl and promote smart growth; (4) brownfield
training and education needs for localities; and (5) the
Administration's Brownfields Showcase Community initiative. Local
officials have testified on brownfields on behalf of NALGEP several
times before this Committee and other Senate and House committees.
As a result of these efforts, NALGEP is well qualified to provide
the Committee with a representative view of how local governments, and
their environmental and development professionals, believe the Nation
must move ahead to create long-term success in the revitalization of
brownfields properties.
The City of Stamford is located on Long Island Sound, just 35 miles
from New York City. Its diverse population consists of 111,000 people.
Stamford has a strong corporate base with four corporations from the
Fortune 500 and 13 Fortune 1000 corporations headquartered in Stamford.
While Stamford is an old industrial city, settled in 1641, most of the
historic manufacturing companies have left Stamford, leaving behind
their contaminated industrial sites. In 1998, the City of Stamford
became one of 16 communities nationwide to be designated a Brownfields
Showcase Community. Showcase Communities are models of brownfields
innovation, demonstrating how Federal agency resources can be leveraged
together with state, local, and private sector investments to assess,
clean up, and redevelop brownfields into high-quality communities.
Stamford has launched two major revitalization initiatives with the
assistance of the Corps of Engineers. Along Stamford's harbor front in
the south part of the City, we are cleaning up long-abandoned
brownfields and creating new manufacturing, housing, and recreational
areas for a part of the community that has a 71 percent minority
population with 25 percent living below the poverty line.
One project now underway on the waterfront is the new Southfield
Harbor Residential Community, located at a contaminated former
shipbuilding plant and fuel deport adjacent to a City park. This
waterfront development project will consist of approximately 320 rental
apartment units, a 68-slip marina, and a publicly accessible
harborwalk. The development will bring over $50 million of private
investment and is expected to generate 100-200 construction jobs and 12
full-time permanent jobs. This development is cleaning up a former
industrial site, creating housing, and opening up this waterfront to
City residents for the first time in more than 60 years.
In addition, Stamford has launched a major initiative to revitalize
the Mill River Corridor into a vital mixed-use district surrounding a
new linear park along the river, which runs through the central city.
The Mill River Corridor initiative is the centerpiece of Stamford's
plans to create a vibrant urban center with a high quality of life
where citizens will want to live, work, and play. Stamford views the
revitalization of the Corridor as critical to the City's economic
health in the 215 century. The Corridor will help attract new business,
thereby creating thousands of new jobs. Moreover, the City's plans to
build new affordable housing along the River is essential to ensuring
that the City has a diverse base of workers with different skill levels
who can fill the jobs of the new economy. The City's plan calls for:
the creation of a new center city park in the core of downtown
Stamford; a linear park along the river with trails for walking,
running, and biking; 900 new units of mixed-income housing in
residential neighborhoods surrounding the park; and new commercial
mixed-used development to anchor both ends of the corridor. The City
has already established a master plan for redevelopment, and made a
substantial local investment in the Mill River Corridor project,
including nearly $2 million of local funds for land acquisition and
planning, with an additional $1.2 million requested in this year's
budget.
The Army Corps of Engineers is a critical partner in Stamford's
harbor front and Mill River revitalization initiatives. At the
waterfront, cleanup and redevelopment of these brownfields are hindered
by the need for further environmental assessment, ecosystem
restoration, harbor dredging, and other activities for which the Corps
is well suited. At Mill River, Stamford needs assistance in a
hydrologic study of the river in order to remedy recurring siltation,
improve water flow, and reconfigure the flood storage area. The Corps
could also play a valuable role in dredging, identifying and
remediating any environmental contamination in and around the Mill
River, and helping to restore the aquatic ecosystem. Stamford has
engaged with the Corps on these issues already, and the agency is
conducting a reconnaissance study to help Stamford to overcome these
hurdles to our community revitalization. With the Corps' broad
expertise across hydrologic, environmental, and community development
issues, it can be an ideal partner to the City of Stamford.
the value of the corps in community brownfields revitalization
The Corps of Engineers can be a valuable partner in community
brownfields revitalization because it provides services that are needed
by local governments; a brownfields mission is consistent with the
Corps' existing activities and competencies; and the return on a Corps
brownfields investment will be high.
First, the Corps involvement in brownfields will meet an urgent
community need. As this Committee well knows, the cleanup and
revitalization of brownfields has become a top priority for American
communities. There may be as many as 500,000 brownfields that are
draining our established localities of vitality, threatening the public
health and environment, and thwarting the expansion of local economies,
jobs, and tax base. The costs of site assessment and remediation can
create a significant barrier to the redevelopment of brownfields sites.
In particular, the costs of site assessment can pose an initial
obstacle that drives development away from brownfields sites. With this
initial obstacle removed, localities are much better able to put sites
into a development track. In addition, the allocation of public
resources for site assessment can provide a signal to the development
community that the public sector is serious about resolving liability
issues at a site and putting it back into productive reuse. Likewise,
resources for cleanup are the missing link for many brownfield sites--a
link that keeps brownfields from being redeveloped into productive
areas in many communities.
NALGEP and other organizations, like the United States Conference
of Mayors, have identified brownfields revitalization as an important
national need, and an area proper for Federal involvement. This
Committee also has recognized the need for the Federal Government to
promote brownfields cleanup through new law, new resources, and new
liability clarification tools for the states. I can assure you that
brownfields revitalization in Stamford represents one of my top
priorities, and the key to many of our housing, economic development,
and quality of life needs.
The local need for brownfields assistance is particularly important
along the waterways of our cities. River fronts, harbor fronts, and
lake fronts in many local communities hold the legacy of our industrial
heritage and the contamination left behind by these activities. So too,
the revitalization of our waterways with commercial, residential, and
greenspace development represents the key to the future revitalization
of many American communities. Waterway brownfields redevelopment also
poses a unique set of challenges for communities. The difficult issues
of water quality improvement, ecosystem protection, flooding and
runoff, toxic contamination, and hydrologic engineering make the Corps'
expertise in cleanup along the nation's waterways particularly
important.
The second reason that Corps' involvement is brownfields
revitalization is appropriate is that it is consistent with the
existing mission, activities, and competencies of the Army Corps.
Addressing contamination that could negatively impact the nation's
waters is a natural and appropriate part of the Corps' established
environmental mission. The Corps of Engineers is successfully cleaning
up brownfields in dozens of American communities already, under
authorities including the Section 206 ecosystem restoration program,
the Section 205 environmental dredging authority, the range of flood
control and streambank erosion programs, and targeted planning and site
assessment activities. The Corps is also working closely with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to target Federal assistance for
brownfields restoration. The Corps has signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with EPA to foster interagency brownfields cooperation,
supported a number of Brownfields Showcase Communities, and placed
personnel at the local level to coordinate local brownfields efforts.
Indeed, according to the Corps of Engineers, the agency is facilitating
brownfields revitalization in more than 50 local projects nationwide.
Although there is a critical need for clearer brownfields authority for
Corps' involvement in this area, and a dire need for additional
brownfields resources, the Corps' existing work demonstrates a track
record of real success and value for American communities.
A third reason that the Corps' role in local brownfields
revitalization is valuable and appropriate is that this investment of
Federal resources will yield a high return for America's local
communities, its citizens, and our environment. Local communities have
an opportunity to work in partnership with the Corps and other public
and private partners to acquire valuable lands, remove the barrier of
environmental contamination, and rebuild vibrant neighborhoods, centers
of commerce, urban parks and recreational areas, and high-quality
communities. Removing the barrier of contamination from our waterfront
brownfields can help create jobs, leverage private sector resources,
expand the tax base, reverse urban deterioration, protect health and
public safety, slow the sprawling of our metropolitan regions, and keep
our communities livable.
On behalf of the many local communities that believe that the Corps
has a constructive role to play in local brownfields revitalization, I
encourage you to support and expand the Corps' activities in
brownfields by creating a clear authority, and new resources, for a
Corps brownfields mission.
local examples of the value of, and need for, the corps brownfields
mission
There are a growing number of local examples where the Corps' role
in brownfields is making a valuable difference. There are also a
growing number of localities that need the Corps' assistance to deal
with tough environmental challenges along our community waterways. In
addition to the harbor front and Mill River projects in Stamford I have
already described, I wish to highlight a few other examples:
Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri--In Kansas City, Missouri and
Kansas, the Corps has partnered on multiple local flood reduction
studies and construction projects that have helped to revitalize
contaminated brownfields. The Corps has provided general technical
assistance in geographic information system (GIS) development for a
brownfields site inventory that will allow the community to integrate
local, state, and Federal graphical representations of properties, land
use, and economic incentives. The Corps has also designed a riverfront
heritage trail, which will use bike and pedestrian facilities to link
redeveloped brownfield sites.
In addition, the Corps has worked on specific projects, such as the
Blue River Rechannelization Project, which is a major flood reduction
project well along in the construction phase; and the Turkey Creek
Project, which is now in design. The Corps of Engineers is also
exploring the use of WRDA Section 1135 to support the restoration of a
5 acre parcel of a degraded ecosystem at the Riverfront West site into
a less degraded, more natural condition. These brownfields areas lie in
flood plains and/or have been severely impacted during past flood
events in Kansas City. By mitigating the potential of future
catastrophic flood events, the Corps' ongoing flood reduction studies
and projects will have a major positive impact on the economic
viability and redevelopment potential of these brownfields areas.
Glen Cove, New York--The Corps of Engineers has played a key role
in the revitalization of a Superfund site and brownfields on the
waterfront of Glen Cove, New York. Located on the north shore of Long
Island, Glen Cove has ten miles of beautiful waterfront, three public
beaches, 300 square acres of nature preserves, and historical mansions
built by some of America's wealthiest business leaders. One mile of
that waterfront is a toxic Superfund dump and brownfield site. A World
War II era munitions plant, the Li Tungsten plant, contaminated the
site with low-level radioactive waste. This contamination included the
dumping of radioactive and hazardous waste at an adjacent site that
once was a municipal dump, which is now part of the Superfund site. For
many years, the Li Tungsten plant was a productive part of the
community and economy. Today, Li Tungsten has no jobs, provides no
taxes, and it no longer contributes anything to the community. The site
stands dangerous, polluted, and abandoned.
However, with the assistance of the Corps of Engineers, Glen Cove
is successfully cleaning up this waterfront site, and is preparing to
establish a premier tourist destination with a waterfront hotel and
conference center, high speed ferry to Manhattan and other
destinations, and a vibrant mixed-use retail center.
The Corps has supported this project with environmental assessment,
dredging and channel reconstruction of the Glen Cove Creek and Mill
Pond. The Corps has also played a key role in a study of infrastructure
and greenspace improvements that will make this a high quality
development that protects the water quality of the community. Moreover,
the Corps' assistance helped Glen Cove to leverage an additional $1 1
million in Department of Transportation funding to implement these
infrastructure and greenspace improvements.
Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, Ohio--In the Chairman's community of
Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, one of the nation's leading brownfields
communities, there are a number of brownfields sites along the Cuyahoga
River and other water sources where the Corps of Engineers, Buffalo
District could play a valuable role. For instance, the Abrams Creek
area near the Cleveland airport will need to be assessed for
environmental contamination and potentially cleaned up to support
airport expansion and economic development in the area.
Providence, Rhode Island--In Providence, another Brownfields
Showcase Community, the Corps has helped advance the Woonasquatucket
River Greenway Project, which is a planned 4.4 mile greenway park and
bicycle and pedestrian path that will include commercial and
recreational developments. The Corps has assisted this project, which
must overcome the problem of contamination along the riverside
properties, by helping Providence to use computer visualization and
landscape simulation technologies to plan and design the initiative.
Des Moines, Iowa--The City of Des Moines is engaged in a cost-
sharing agreement with the Corps of Engineers to conduct a flood damage
prevention survey of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers. Riverpoint West
is a 300-acre site on the north side of the Raccoon River, immediately
adjacent to the Des Moines Central Business District. Des Moines has
launched an initiative to clean up and revitalize the Riverpoint West
area, which is slated for a mixed-use urban village with approximately
1,000 residential units, 850,000 square feet of office and retail
space, and substantial environmental and recreational improvements.
Riverpoint West was badly flooded in 1993, and also suffers from
significant environmental contamination challenges. Although a new
levee constructed by the Corps of Engineers after the 1993 floods will
help prevent future flooding, more needs to be done to protect this
area. Des Moines is seeking to work with the Corps to conduct
additional activities at this brownfield redevelopment site, including
environmental site assessment and the restoration of green space,
flora, wildlife management, aquatic and other site infrastructure.
East Palo Alto, California--East Palo Alto is a small community of
25,000 people that has never enjoyed the economic prosperity of its
neighboring communities in Silicon Valley. The City has the highest
levels of unemployment and poverty and lowest median income in San
MateoCounty. In addition, the City has struggled hard to significantly
reduce its crime rate, which was one of the highest in the Nation in
the early 1990's.
However, the City is moving forward to revitalize the community by
cleaning up and redeveloping abandoned brownfield areas. The focus of
East Palo Alto's effort is the Ravenswood Industrial Area and the
adjacent Four Corners redevelopment area, totaling approximately 135
acres. The City has developed a strategic plan and design for this
area, which will be a mixed-use development and employment center with
up to 2 million square feet of commercial and high-technology offices
and light manufacturing. New, medium-density housing is also planned
nearby. The City will seek to promote the location of environmentally
sensitive businesses, the use of green building practices, and
development that enhances and protects the beauty of adjacent resources
such as San Francisco Bay, wetlands, and open space areas. The Four
Corners portion is slated for the establishment of a new Town Square
area including government buildings, civic space, and commercial
establishments. The City expects that redevelopment of the entire
Ravenswood Industrial Area will create 4,000 new jobs and generate more
than $1 million per year in new tax revenues.
East Palo Alto needs the Corps of Engineers' help to succeed in its
Ravenswood revitalization initiative. East Palo Alto seeks to continue
its cooperation with the Corps to assess and clean up environmental
contamination. In addition, the Ravenswood area has experienced severe
flooding from the adjacent San Francisco Bay, making flood damage
prevention a top priority. In addition, East Palo Alto needs assistance
in the construction of drainage, sewage, and other environmental
infrastructure. Moreover, the Corps could assist East Palo Alto to
protect and restore the ecosystem of the area, which includes wetlands
and other significant natural areas, as well as the challenges of
brownfields contamination.
suggested elements of effective corps involvement in brownfields
We understand that Congress is considering how a Corps of Engineers
brownfields authority could be established, both under the
Administration's WRDA 2000 proposal, and under Senator Chafee's S. 2335
bill, the State and Local Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2000.
NALGEP commends you for showing leadership on these important
brownfields issues, and encourages you to ensure that the Corps'
brownfields authority understands and meets the needs of local
governments, including:
1. NALGEP supports an approach that requires the Corps of Engineers
to closely consult with appropriate local, state, regional, and Federal
officials in the design and implementation of these local brownfields
projects.
2. NALGEP supports an approach that requires the Corps to take into
consideration how the project will improve public health and the
environment, encourage redevelopment of areas with existing
infrastructure, and promote the creation or enhancement of parks,
greenways, and recreational areas.
3. NALGEP supports the approach of allowing local partners to meet
their required non-Federal share of Corps brownfields projects by
taking into account the value of land, easements, right-of-ways, and
relocations associated with the project, as well as the value of
assessment and remediation previously carried out by the local partner
at the site. Land acquisition and site activity are typical,
appropriate functions carried out by local governments, and should be
credited toward the cost-share requirements of Corps involvement at
these projects.
4. NALGEP encourages an approach that reduces the required local
cost share for those communities who have a limited ability to pay, or
are suffering from economic distress.
5. NALGEP also encourages Congress to clearly specify what type of
environmental cleanup standards will apply to Corps cleanups of local
brownfields sites, by stating that a new brownfields authority does not
waive or limit otherwise applicable laws governing cleanups.
6. Finally, NALGEP encourages Congress to authorize a sufficient
level of annual resources to allow the Corps of Engineers to meet the
large local needs for brownfields resources and assistance.
conclusion
In conclusion, NALGEP and the City of Stamford encourage Congress
to move ahead to make the Corps' brownfields mission a part of your
overall strategy to strengthen and empower local communities to create
environmental quality, economic vitality, and Federal-local
cooperation. The involvement of the Corps in brownfields revitalization
is needed at the local level, is consistent with the Corps' existing
mission and competencies, and will bring a high return on American
investment. Thank you for your consideration. This concludes my
testimony.
__________
Statement of Howard D. Marlowe, President of the American Coastal
Coalition
Chairman Voinovich and members of the Subcommittee, I am Howard
Marlowe, President of the American Coastal Coalition. The ACC is a
nationwide advocacy organization for coastal communities whose sole
mission is to achieve policies that will promote the economic and
environmental interests of coastal communities. On behalf of the ACC,
thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Since our establishment in 1996, our major focus has been on
Federal policies that affect beach restoration. As you know, the
Administration announced in 1995 that it would not support the
authorization or funding of any beach nourishment projects which it
deemed to be new starts. The Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee and its House counterpart acted with force and clarity to
reject the Administration's position when they adopted Section 227 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. That section, which we
refer to as the National Shore Protection Act of 1996, declared it to
be national policy that the Secretary of the Army should:
Recommend potential shore protection projects for study
by the Army Corps of Engineers;
Recommend projects for congressional authorization to
receive construction funds; and
Recommend funding for shore protection project studies
and construction.
To this day, the Army Corps of Engineers has published no guidance
on implementing Section 227 because of strong opposition from the White
House Office of Management and Budget. Members of Congress and interest
groups such as the American Coastal Coalition spent months negotiating
a solution to OMB's concerns about what it claims is the excessive
long-term cost of beach nourishment projects. The result of those talks
was the adoption in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 of a
major change in the cost-sharing formula for newly authorized shore
protection projects. That change will have non-Federal sponsors paying
an increased share of those long-term renourishment costs. At the time
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was considering that
change, Dr. Joseph Westphal responded to your questions that the cost-
sharing formula being considered by the Committee would result in a
change in the Administration's no-new-shore-protection projects policy.
Apparently, he was not speaking for the Administration because (a) the
President in effect proposed no funding for new beach restoration
projects in his Fiscal 2001 budget recommendations, and (b) there is
not a single new beach nourishment study or authorization contained in
the Administration's WRDA 2000 proposal.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration's shore protection policy is bad
for the national economy and the national environment. Furthermore,
OMB's dealings with Congress on this subject have been characterized by
an array of tactics ranging from falsehoods to bad faith. In WRDA 2000,
OMB has taken their commitment to ignoring the will of Congress to new
lows by failing to recognize the need for authorizing new shore
protection projects and studies and by recommending an automatic de-
authorization process that would have an especially harmful impact on
existing and future shore protection projects.
Background
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 54 percent of America's
population lives within 50 miles of the coast. That number is growing
by 3600 people a day! Millions more Americans and foreign tourists
visit coastal communities in the warmer months. The primary attraction
for both residents and visitors is the beach. In fact, America's
beaches are its single biggest tourist attraction. They are also the
source of billions of dollars of local, state and national tax
revenues. From t-shirt vendors to banks, airlines, Realtors, and
hotels, the beach is a major source of revenues and jobs. Beaches are
also a unique part of America's environmental infrastructure. The sand
that is so beautiful is also the home of many coastal animals, birds,
and plant species. Beaches are also the best protection against wave
damage caused by coastal storms.
From 1955 to 1995, the Federal Government spent an average of less
than $30 million a year to help states and local communities restore
their public beaches. That is less than the cost of a modest-sized
Federal highway interchange! Since 1995, this figure has increased to
just over $85 million or three highway interchanges. That $85 million
is out of a $4 billion budget for the entire civil works program of the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Beaches play an extremely important role in the economic and
environmental infrastructure of the United States. First, beaches are
an integral part of America's coastal infrastructure. The immense
natural resources of the nation's coastal regions are responsible for a
significant amount of commercial activity. In 1993, the U.S. commercial
fishing industry produced and marketing products valued at $10.8
billion. Saltwater recreational anglers generated $15 billion from 64
million fishing trips. In 1990, 2.15 billion tons of cargo valued at
more than $500 billion moved through the nation's 190 seaports.
In 1997, total tourism expenditures in U.S. coastal congressional
districts were more than $185 billion, while tourism payroll was almost
$50 million and tourism jobs in these districts were more than 2.7
million. Beaches and coastal regions are not only the Number One
destinations for domestic tourists. They also are the top destinations
for foreign tourists. Each year, the Federal Government receives about
$4 billion in taxes from foreign tourists, while state and local
governments receive another $3.5 billion. Foreign tourists spent more
than $11 billion in Florida in 1992, $2 billion of that amount in the
Miami Beach area alone. This Florida spending generates more than $750
million in Federal tax revenues, more than the total received by the
State and its local governments combined. Focusing on Miami Beach
alone, annual Federal tax revenues from foreign tourists ($2 billion)
are about 17 times more than the Federal Government spent on the entire
Federal Shore Protection program from 1950 to 1993 ($34 million in 1993
dollars). If the Federal share of beach nourishment averages about $10
million a year, the Federal Government collects about 75 times more in
taxes from foreign tourists in Florida than it spends restoring that
State's beaches.
In 1998, California's beaches generated $73 billion of direct and
indirect benefits to the national economy. The Federal tax revenue
portion of those benefits alone was $14 billion compared to far less
than half a million dollars that the Federal Government spent on beach
nourishment in that state during 1998!
Delaware receives 5.1 million ``person trips'' each year in a state
where just more than 21,000 people actually live in beach communities
and another 373,000 people live within day-use travel distance. Beach
tourism generates $173.2 million in expenditures each year. Just as
significant, beach erosion results in an estimated loss of more than
471,000 visitor days a year, a figure which is estimated to increase to
more than 516,000 after 5 years. During that 5-year period, beach
erosion will cost an estimated $30.2 million in consumer expenditures,
the loss of 625 beach area jobs, and the reduction of wages and
salaries by $11.5 million. Business profits will drop by $1.6 million
and State and local tax revenues will decrease by $2.3 million.
Finally, beach erosion will reduce beach area property values by nearly
$43 million over the 5-year period.
Our nation's estuaries are also major tourist and recreational
attractions. For example, nature tourism in Corpus Christi, Texas is
the fastest growing component of a tourism sector that generates $23
billion annually. Recreational fishing provides aggregate net benefits
to the area of $83 million, including $37 million per year in state and
local taxes. The economic impact of water quality-dependent uses in
Long Island Sound is estimated at more than $5 billion annually.
Commercial andpara.recreational fishing contributed more than $1.2
billion of the total, while beach going has a direct benefit of more
than $800 million annually.
National Shoreline Study
At a recent hearing of this Subcommittee, the Coastal States
Organization highlighted the importance of the National Shoreline Study
authorized by WRDA 1999. That study will not only provide the first
physical catalog in 30 years of the beaches in the United States that
eroding, it will also show the economic and environmental costs of
erosion to the nation. The ACC fully supports funding the National
Shoreline Study. However, we regret that the Administration apparently
is using the fact that this study has yet to be completed as an excuse
not to recommend the authorization or funding of any new beach
restoration projects. It is especially hard to take this excuse with
any seriousness when we look at the paltry $300,000 appropriation for
this study recommended by the Administration. That figure less than
one-third of the amount of money needed in Fiscal 2001 to mount an
effective study.
Facts vs. Falsehoods
Given their popularity, economic and environmental importance, and
their storm damage reduction benefits, it is surprising that beaches
and the communities along the coast are a perpetual target for media
attacks. ``Playgrounds for the Rich.'' ``Disasters Waiting to Happen.''
It's time to see how these falsehoods fair against the facts.
Falsehood: The Federal Flood Insurance Program pays out
more in benefits to coastal homeowners than it receives in insurance
premiums. Fact: Homeowners in coastal states annually pay in at least
20 percent more in premiums than they receive in flood insurance
payments.
Falsehood: Tens of billions of dollars are being spent in
the ``endless'' and ``useless'' struggle to restore eroded beaches.
Fact: Over the past 45 years, the Federal Government has spent a total
of less than $2 billion on beach restoration. That's about $30 million
a year. Maintaining our country's beaches is an ongoing effort, but it
is far from useless. Studies have shown that every dollar spent to
repair and maintain a beach produces at a very minimum $3 to $5 in
taxpayer benefits.
Falsehood: Spending taxpayer money on beach restoration
is a subsidy for rich people. Fact: This class-baiting rhetoric is
especially pernicious. Social scientists have studied America's
beaches. They have found what any of us can conclude with our own eyes:
With the exception of shopping malls, sandy beaches attract the most
diverse economic, ethnic and racial populations. There is no denying
that many of the homes located nearest to any of America's coastlines
are owned by families with above-average incomes. But the only beaches
that can receive Federal or state money are public beaches with public
access.
Falsehood: Beach restoration efforts are useless. The
better approach is to ``let nature take its course.'' Fact: Since the
arrival of the first non-Native Americans, humans have built
communities and ports along the coast. Ports, navigation channels, and
similar development have been an essential ingredient of the economic
vitality of America. That development has interfered with the natural
flow of sand, causing most of the beach erosion in the U.S. There is no
way to ``let nature take its course'' without reversing the events of
the past three centuries.
Mr. Chairman, there are vocal groups who choose to ignore these
facts in order to press their case that Federal tax dollars should not
be spent on beach restoration. They have found an ally in the White
House Office of Management and Budget. They would implement a
purposeful policy of neglect of America's eroding coastline. None of
these people would consider for a moment a policy of even benign
neglect of an endangered species or a wildlife refuge. But their ``back
to nature'' appeal is little more than proposing a policy of malignant
neglect. By taking this position, they are threatening irreparable harm
to an extremely important economic and environmental national asset.
The American Coastal Coalition as well as most local coastal
governments and private citizens want to restore America's eroded
beaches and preserve the peoples' opportunity to use this outstanding
environmental resource. Our preferred approach to accomplish this goal
is to replenish the sand that has been lost because of 300 years of
human intervention along the coast. This approach costs money, but it
is far preferable to the cheaper alternative of building seawalls to
protect coastal property. OMB and its fringe group allies can continue
to attack coastal communities or they can join with us in supporting
attainable policies that will repair the damage and encourage
responsible growth. Calling for the clock to be turned back three
centuries is neither responsible nor attainable.
Section 16 of the Administration's WRDA 2000 Proposal
The Administration's proposal for the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 contains a provision (Section 16) that would have the
following impact:
First, if construction of a water resources development project or
separable element is not initiated within 7 years from the date the
project or separable element was last authorized it would automatically
become deauthorized.
Second, those water resources development projects and any
separable element of such a project, for which funds have once been
obligated for construction, shall be de-authorized if congressionally
identified appropriations have not been obligated for construction of
the project or separable element during any five consecutive fiscal
years.
Currently, it takes 1 to 2 years to get a beach nourishment
project's reconnaissance study authorized and funded; another year to
have the study completed; another year to get the feasibility study
funded; 2 to 3 years to get that study completed; another year to get
the project authorized. At this point, the clock would start running
under the Administration's proposal.
In theory, a project ought to be able to get under construction
within 7 years of authorization. For example, if a project is
authorized in 2000, it should be able to get funding for actual
construction by 2002, with environmental windows possibly holding up
actual construction until 2003. But, most of those beach nourishment
projects that are up for actual construction funds in fiscal year 2001
to 2002 were authorized in the 1980's! We believe that Corps procedures
have undergone some improvement in recent years, but many beach
nourishment projects authorized in 1992 and 1996 [projects can only be
authorized in years in which Congress enacts a Water Resources
Development Act] are not likely to get construction funds until fiscal
year 2003 or later. While the Corps needs to do better, Corps
procedures and the Administration's refusal to budget for new beach
nourishment projects have been significant factors in slowing down the
time it takes to get from authorization to construction. Until the
Administration is willing to budget for the construction of shore
protection projects and Corps procedures improve, the 7-year automatic
de-authorization provision may harm shore protection that are needed
and that, by all measures, are viable.
Every authorized Federal beach nourishment project has an economic
life of up to 50 years. Over that life, the authorization provides for
periodic renourishment. If the project ``performs'' well, the period
between initial construction and the first periodic renourishment may
be longer than the 5 years allowed by the Administration's proposal.
The same may be true for the time period between subsequent periodic
renourishments. That ``good performance'' would be rewarded with an
automatic deauthorization! This is one Seal of Approval from the Feds
that local communities don't need. Once again, the Administration's
refusal to budget for the funding of any activity related to a beach
nourishment project that it did not recommend in the first place also
can hold up congressional funding for periodic renourishment.
The American Coastal Coalition opposes Section 16 and strongly
urges that it not be included in this Committee's WRDA 2000 bill. We
see this proposal as another in the Administration's efforts to kill
the Federal beach restoration program.
WRDA 2000 Policy Changes
There are a number of changes that can be made which will improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal beach restoration
program. I will summarize three of these and then emphasize a fourth
which is actually tops on the legislative agenda of the America Coastal
Coalition.
Congress in WRDA 1999 has already called on non-Federal sponsors to
shoulder a greater share of the costs of beach nourishment projects.
Two states, New Jersey and Florida, have increased the dedicated funds
they already had in place for these projects. Texas, California, and
Hawaii each appropriated significant sums last year for their state's
beach nourishment efforts. The ACC believes that more coastal states
must make long-term commitments to fund their share of these projects.
In many areas of the country, beach erosion has either been caused
or exacerbated by other Federal activities, such as navigation and port
maintenance projects. The solution is not to assign blame, but for the
Federal Government to assume its statutory responsibility to mitigate
the damages to beaches which these projects have caused. Unfortunately,
there are far too many instances where the Corps of Engineers has tried
in recent years to deny that responsibility.
On the other hand, we applaud the Corps for efforts it is making to
approach its coastal missions in a regionalized, integrated manner. For
Fiscal 2000, Congress funded a regional sediment management program
within the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Division and the Mobile
District Offices of the Corps which is an important effort to integrate
the planning and execution of navigation and beach restoration
projects. We hope that Congress will appropriate funds to begin similar
efforts in other parts of the country in Fiscal 2001. The ACC also
welcomes the efforts of the San Francisco Division of the Corps to
establish a task force that puts the Corps, state agencies, local
governments, and other interests together in a concerted effort to plan
for the combined coastal water resources needs within its jurisdiction.
Recreation is Not a Four-Letter Word
There is at least one statutory initiative that can be undertaken
in WRDA 2000 that will have a major benefit for the Federal beach
restoration program. The American Coastal Coalition proposes that
recreational benefits be given equal consideration with storm damage
reduction and environmental restoration nefits in the all-important
calculation of a project's estimated benefit-cost ratio.
During the ``study'' phase of a beach erosion control project, the
Army Corps of Engineers develops a plan which maximizes net national
economic development (NED) benefits. An essential element of this plan
is the formulation of a benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Under current budget
policies, the Corps will not recommend the construction of any project
whose benefits do not exceed its costs. Costs are determined by the
outlays required to provide initial project construction and periodic
renourishment over the life of the project. Benefits are those which
increase the economic value of the national output of goods and
services.
Corps policy requires that at least 50 percent of the cost of the
project be covered by storm damage reduction benefits. An equal amount
of recreation benefits can be used for project justification as long as
the recreation benefits are incidental, i.e., no additional material is
added to accommodate recreation. ``Shore protection projects
(particularly those featuring beachfill) are innately conducive to
beach and shoreline recreational activities. Provided that hurricane
and storm damage reduction benefits combined with incidentally
generated recreation benefits limited to an amount equal to hurricane
and storm damage reduction benefits are sufficient in themselves for
economic justification, the Corps will propose undertaking the project
as a HSDR project....If, in this limiting initial evaluation, a greater
amount of recreation benefits is required to be combined with hurricane
and storm damage reduction benefits in order to demonstrate the
economic justification, the project is characterized as being primarily
for recreation. As such, it will not be proposed by the Corps as a
Federal undertaking, since recreational developments are not accorded
priority in Civil Works decisions.'' (Emphasis added)
There is no statutory authority for this decision by the Corps of
Engineers to accord recreation a lower priority in its decisions
regarding which beach restoration projects should be recommended for
Federal authorization. This was a policy decision made by various
executive branch entities in the mid-1980's. Whatever the basis for
their decision, we urge this Committee to require that projects whose
primary benefit is recreational be accorded the same budgetary priority
as those whose primary benefit is storm damage reduction or
environmental restoration. The 1946 law which gave the Corps authority
to do beach restoration work states:
``With the purpose of preventing damage to the shores and beaches
of the United States, its Territories and possessions and promoting and
encouraging the healthful recreation of the people, it is declared to
be the policy of the United States....to promote shore protection
projects and related research that encourage the protection,
restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches, including beach
restoration and periodic beach nourishment, on a comprehensive and
coordinated basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and
private enterprises.'' (emphasis added)
Federal policy should base beach nourishment assistance on the
totality of the economic benefits it provides. To limit those benefits
to storm damage reduction ignores the equally important economic impact
of beach tourism, eco-tourism, recreational fishing, and other similar
benefits.
Prior to the 1986 law, beach restoration projects were often
justified as recreational projects. These included major projects such
as Miami Beach which, prior to its restoration in the late 1970's, had
a seriously eroded beach which had resulted in a significant loss of
revenue from tourism. The restoration of this ``recreational'' beach
has produced billions of dollars of local, state, and national economic
benefits which far exceed the cost of this project.
Beaches are public parks that are part of the coastal
infrastructure and environment. They provide recreational, storm damage
reduction, and environmental benefits. The focus of Federal policy
should be to restore and maintain these parks so that the public can
use them.
There are regions of the country (for example, the Gulf Coast
states and Hawaii, among others) where coastlines are less developed.
The distribution of Federal beach restoration funds is less likely to
go to these areas because their proposed projects do not achieve a
benefit/cost ratio that is equal to or greater than 1:1. Proposed
projects in more-developed areas typically have no difficulty achieving
a BCR of greater than 1:1. Neither the Army Corps of Engineers nor
Congress favors Federal financial assistance for projects whose BCR is
1:1 or less.
Similarly, since ``budget policy'' as implemented by Corps of
Engineers regulations has determined that the beach restoration program
is one whose primary purpose is hurricane and storm damage reduction,
it provides no assistance to public beaches (even those that are well-
developed, such as Waikiki), where there is not a significant history
of severe coastal storms. Much of the beach erosion throughout the
United States is caused by the interruption of normal sand flow by
various human-induced factors such as ports and navigation channels as
well as dams. These facilities interrupt the natural flow of sand,
making it difficult if not impossible for nature to repair eroded
beaches. As noted above, the underlying Federal law states that the
basis of Federal financial assistance should be ``preventing damage to
the shores and beaches of the United States, its Territories and
possessions and promoting and encouraging the healthful recreation of
the people.'' These are the only statutory purposes determined by
Congress which support the Federal role in beach nourishment, and they
should not be modified by either Corps of Engineers or Administration
policies.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the American Coastal Coalition proposes
the following change in law which we urge this Subcommittee to include
in its WRDA 2000 bill:
Proposed Amendment:
Section 1. 33 U.S.C. 426 e(2) is amended as follows:
``(B) Recommendations for new shore protection projects
(i) In general--
The Secretary shall recommend to Congress the authorization or
reauthorization of shore protection projects based on the
studies conducted under subparagraph (A). In making such
recommendations, the Secretary shall develop and implement
procedures which treat recreational, hurricane and storm
damage reduction, and environmental restoration benefits
equally.''
Section 2. Strike Section 103 (c)(4) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 and redesignate the following paragraphs
accordingly.
Explanation: Section 1 directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) to develop and implement regulations which treat
recreational, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and environmental
benefits equally in determining the benefit-cost ratio for a proposed
beach nourishment project. This would only apply to new projects.
Section 2 strikes the provision in WRDA 1986 which establishes a
separate, lower Federal cost-share for projects whose primary purpose
is recreational.
WRDA 2000 Beach Restoration Project Authorizations
The following is a list of only those project or study
authorizations of which we are currently aware. We believe each of
these merits inclusion in WRDA 2000.
Lee County, Florida: The County is seeking a modification of its
original congressional authorization to give it status as a
reimbursable project under Section 206 of WRDA 1992. The Corps of
Engineers has never implemented guidance for reimbursable beach
restoration projects, alkthough it has issued guidance for statutory
provisions which have authorized reimbursable navigation projects. This
lack of guidance makes it quite difficult for a non-Federal sponsor to
proceed using the provisions of Section 206. The experience of Panama
City Beaches, Florida, which was accorded Section 206 status in WRDA
1996 provides a strong indication that. For those communities that can
afford to ``front'' the Federal share of construction costs,
significant savings can be achieved in the time it takes to complete
construction and project cost. These are taxpayer savings at the
Federal, state, and local levels. With respect to all types of
reimbursable water projects, the American Coastal Coalition states its
opposition to the funding limits placed on these projects by Section
102 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal
2000.
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey: This project is
unfortunately a poster child for the harm that can be done by the
Administration's ``no-new-shore-protection-projects'' policy. The
failure to get an authorization of this project in WRDA 2000 could
delay construction from 2002 until 2004. Delays have a price which can
be expressed in the economic and environmental cost of increased
erosion as well as higher construction costs caused by inflation.
Maui, Hawaii: A significant portion of the beaches of this island
county are suffering from erosion. There are no federally authorized
beach restoration projects in any part of Hawaii except Waikiki. The
beaches of Maui, just as others in Hawaii, are suffering from erosion.
We support funding a reconnaissance study followed by a feasibility
study which will determine how the Federal Government can partner with
the State and the county to restore one portion of Maui's shoreline (in
the Kihei region) fully factoring the environmental restoration and
recreational benefits of this project.
Cameron Parish, Louisiana: There are two projects in this parish
where Gulf sediments that flow from east to west are being blocked by
jetties associated with federally maintained navigation channels. One
is on the west side of Calcasieu Ship Channel West Jetty and the other
is on the west side of Grand Chenier West Jetty. This is an example of
the mitigation responsibility discussed earlier in my testimony. The
State has undertaken several surveys of the fast-eroding beach in this
area. We recommend that a study be authorized in WRDA 2000 that will
examine the feasibility of undertaking a beach or other type of
shoreline restoration study.
Section 103 Program: The Corps of Engineers needs increased
authority to undertake Small Beach Erosion Projects under its Section
103 Continuing Authorities program. The current authorization limit of
$30 million a year and $3 million a project should be raised to $50
million a year and $5 million per project. There are many projects on
the Gulf and West Coasts, as well as Hawaii, which are likely
candidates for this category or beach restoration program.
San Francisco, California: Ocean Beach in San Francisco is another
example of the need to give the Corps of Engineers authority to ``think
outside the box'' so that it can prepare a plan to restore a beach
which is heavily used by the public. The authorization for study this
project (adopted by the then-House Committee on Public Works and
Transportation on August 3, 1989) should be expanded to include
assessing its potential to provide environmental restoration benefits
as well as to protect public recreation and public facilities
endangered by the erosion of the beach, regardless of whether that
erosion is caused by storm events. This beach is an excellent example
of a coastal public park. Its restoration should be eligible for
Federal assistance.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey: There are several New
Jersey Bayshore communities that are unprotected from storm damage and
coastal erosion. Increased urbanization and loss of protective beaches
in this particular area of the State have made low-lying residential
and commercial structures dangerously susceptible to flooding. Port
Monmouth and Cliffwood Beach are two segments of this project that
should be authorized in WRDA 2000 subject to completion of a Chief's
report.
Dare County, North Carolina: This is also a much-needed beach
restoration project that we recommend for authorization subject to a
Chief's report. A feasibility study is currently being completed for
this economically and environmentally important area of the East Coast
shoreline.
We ask for the Subcommittee's approval to provide information on
additional beach restoration project provisions for WRDA 2000 as more
information becomes available to us, and we thank the Subcommittee for
this opportunity to present our views.
__________
King County, Washington,
King County Executive,
May 16, 2000.
Hon. George Voinovich, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Voinovich: I respectfully request that the enclosed
testimony on the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, written by me
on behalf of King County, be included in the formal hearing record.
King County has a strong interest in provisions of the bill related
to the restoration of salmon habitat in Puget Sound and the adjacent
surrounding waters. The County is strongly committed to the restoration
of salmon populations in Puget Sound, listed recently under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Puget Sound Restoration Program that
is included in the bill would provide much needed Federal assistance,
through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to our efforts for salmon
habitat restoration in the Puget Sound area.
Please feel free to direct questions or comments to Dennis Canty,
Funding Coordinator, King County ESA Policy Office, at (206) 296-8394.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ron Sims, King County Executive.
______
Statement of Ron Sims, County Executive King County, Washington
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Ron Sims.
I am the County Executive for King County, Washington. Thank you to,
opportunity to testify on the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
King County lies along the eastern shore of Puget Sound and
includes the cities of Seattle and Bellevue. The County has the largest
share of the Puget Sound basin among the 14 counties that comprise the
basin, with more than 2,000 square miles of land and 100 miles of
saltwater shoreline within the basin.
I respectfully request that the Subcommittee authorize the Corps of
Engineers to participate with local agencies in planning and
implementing ecosystem restoration projects in the Puget Sound region,
as proposed in S. 2228 and the Administration's WRDA proposal. I
recognize the many competing priorities that the Committee is facing in
developing WRDA 2000, and know you will have difficult decisions to
make about what to include in the bill. I'd like to relay why ecosystem
restoration work in Puget Sound is a top priority to King County and
the Pacific Northwest, and why a major national commitment to the
effort is warranted.
A little more than 1 year ago we had the first of what are likely
to be many salmon stocks in Puget Sound listed under the Endangered
Species Act. King County and our neighboring counties are the first
major urban area in the United States to face an ESA listing of a
species as widespread as chinook salmon. Threatened salmon swim through
our industrial areas, our cities and suburbs, and our farms and
forests. Can we restore the chinook salmon, a signature of the
environment, cultural, and economy of the Pacific Northwest? Can we do
so in a way that also protects our economy, a regional and national
powerhouse? For the sake of the salmon, our communities, and the future
of the ESA itself, we cannot fail.
Salmon recovery in Puget Sound will require the rebuilding of
salmon habitat on an unprecedented scale. One of the biggest factors in
decline of salmon nuns in our region has been damage to habitat from
the incremental affects of urban development, timber harvest, farm
clearing, flood control, channel and harbor maintenance, and many other
day-to-day activities over a century of settlement. The legacy is
Landscape pockets of high-quality habitat but major areas spread trout
the 17 watersheds of the Puget Sound basin where habitat has been lost
or degraded. Restoration of this habitat is a fundamental part of our
salmon recovery strategy.
We need your help. King County has joined with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to cosponsor eight habitat restoration projects since
1997, and we have found the agency to be a capable and enthusiastic
partner. Corps assistance has allowed us to undertake habitat
restoration projects that would have been impossible without the
agency's technical and financial assistance. We would like to see the
Corps' support available to communities throughout the Puget Sound
basin.
I am delighted that President Clinton and the Washington
Congressional delegation have shown support for this effort through the
Administration's WRDA bill and S. 2228. There are several elements of
S. 2228 that I hope you will integrate into WRDA 2000. Most
importantly, I urge you to authorize the program at the $125 million
level proposed in S. 2228. The Puget Sound basin is large, with 17
watersheds comprising 13,000 square miles, an area larger than the
state of Maryland. As I've stated before, habitat restoration work is
needed throughout the basin if we're to have any hope of saving salmon
in Puget Sound. Spread out over 8 years and among projects with an
average Federal cost of $1 million, the authorization of $125 million
would allow 15 of the highest priority projects a year to be completed.
Over the course of the program, this level of commitment would make a
big dent in the hundreds of restoration projects that are urgently
needed to rebuild salmon populations.
I also recommend the provisions of S. 2228 regarding selection of
projects under the program that direct the Corps to consult with
Federal, state, and local agencies and use prior plans and studies to
prioritize and select projects. These provisions will ensure that the
program is efficient, targeted to on-the-ground results, and fully
compatible with other restoration efforts in the region.
The third aspect of S. 2228 that I'd like to highlight to you is
how project costs are divided between the Federal Government and non-
Federal sponsors. Consistent with other Corps habitat restoration
programs, S. 2228 provides a greater Federal contribution in areas that
are affected by a prior Corps project. In addition, S. 2228 waives part
of the cost-sharing requirement for projects cosponsored by an Indian
tribe. I strongly support these provisions.
My discussions with local government, tribal, environmental, and
business leaders around Puget Sound indicate that there is strong
support for S. 2228 and the partnership it will create. King County and
our neighbors around Puget Sound stand ready with funding, projects,
and staff expertise to match the Federal commitment in this bill. King
County alone has invested more than $60 million in salmon projects and
programs in the last decade, and I can assure you that we are ready to
rise to the funding challenges of this new program.
I deeply appreciate the bipartisan support for salmon recovery
demonstrated by the Washington Congressional delegation, and would
particularly like to thank Senators Murray and Gorton and
Representatives Inslee and Dicks for their leadership on this
legislation. I'd also like to recognize and thank the other cosponsors
of House version of this bill, Representatives Metcalf, Baird, Smith,
and McDermott.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to a
long and fruitful partnership for the recovery of Puget Sound salmon.
______
Statement of Chris Endresen, Commissioner Kitsap County, Washington
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Chris
Endresen. I am a Commissioner for Kitsap County, Washington. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify on the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000.
Kitsap County lies within Hood Canal, and the Puget Sound basin as
a whole. We have a vested interest in the recovery of Puget Sound
Chinook, and Hood Canal Summer Chum. These species have all been listed
as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Not only are
these resources important to our economy, they are also an integral
part of our lives in the Pacific Northwest.
I respectfully request that the Subcommittee authorize the Corps of
Engineers to participate with local agencies in planning and
implementing ecosystem restoration projects in the Puget Sound region,
as proposed in S. 2228 and the Administration's WRDA proposal. I
recognize the many competing priorities that the Committee is facing in
developing WRDA 2000, and know you will have difficult decisions to
make about what to include in the bill. I'd like to relay why ecosystem
restoration work in Puget Sound is a top priority for the Pacific
Northwest, and why a major national commitment to the effort is
warranted.
Salmon recovery in Puget Sound will require the rebuilding of
salmon habitat on an unprecedented scale. One of the biggest factors in
decline of salmon runs in our region has been damage to habitat from
the incremental affects of urban development, timber harvest, farm
clearing, flood control, channel and harbor maintenance, and many other
day-to-day activities over a century of settlement. The legacy is a
landscape with pockets of high-quality habitat but major areas spread
throughout the 17 watersheds of the Puget Sound basin where habitat has
been lost or degraded. Restoration of this habitat is a fundamental
part of our salmon recovery strategy.
We need your help. Through the Hood Canal Coordinating Council we
have begun working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on project
discussions and planning and have found the agency to be enthusiastic
about our cause. Corps assistance would allow us to undertake habitat
restoration projects that would be impossible without the agency's
technical and financial assistance. We are anxious to see the Corps'
support extended into areas throughout Puget Sound where they have not
been able to work before.
I am delighted that President Clinton and the Washington
Congressional delegation have shown support for this effort through the
Administration's WRDA bill and S. 2228. There are several elements of
S. 2228 that I hope you will integrate into WRDA 2000. Most
importantly, I urge you to authorize the program at the $125 million
level proposed in S. 2228. The Puget Sound basin is large, with 17
watersheds comprising 13,000 square miles, an area larger than the
state of Maryland. As I've stated before, habitat restoration work is
needed throughout the basin if we're to have any hope of saving salmon
in Puget Sound. Spread out over 8 years and among projects with an
average Federal cost of $1 million, the authorization of $125 million
would allow 15 of the highest priority projects a year to be completed.
Over the course of the program, this level of commitment would make a
big dent in the hundreds of restoration projects that are urgently
needed to rebuild salmon populations.
I also recommend the provisions of S. 2228 regarding selection of
projects under the program that direct the Corps to consult with
Federal, state, and local agencies and use prior plans and studies to
prioritize and select projects. These provisions will ensure that the
program is efficient, targeted to on-the-ground results, and fully
compatible with other restoration efforts in the region.
The third aspect of S. 2228 that I'd like to highlight to you is
how project costs are divided between the Federal Government and non-
Federal sponsors. Consistent with other Corps habitat restoration
programs, S. 2228 provides a greater Federal contribution in areas that
are affected by a prior Corps project. In addition, S. 2228 waives part
of the costsharing requirement for projects cosponsored by an Indian
tribe. I strongly support these provisions.
Our discussions here in Hood Canal among local governments, tribes,
volunteer groups, fish enhancement groups, environmental groups, and
others indicate strong support for S. 2228 and the partnerships it will
create. We, both individually, and through the Hood Canal Coordinating
Council, stand ready with funding, projects, and staff expertise to
match the Federal commitment in this bill. We have invested countless
hours of local government staff and volunteer time on salmon recovery
efforts and projects. We know more needs to be done and are ready to do
it with the right expertise and help. We believe that the Corps is that
help and expertise that we desperately need in our rural area.
I deeply appreciate the bipartisan support for salmon recovery
demonstrated by the Washington Congressional delegation, and would
particularly like to thank Senators Murray and Gorton and
Representatives Inslee and Dicks for their leadership on this
legislation. I'd also like to recognize and thank the other cosponsors
of House version of this bill, Representatives Metcalf, Baird, Smith,
and McDermott.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to a
long and beneficial partnership for the recovery of salmon in Hood
Canal and the whole of Puget Sound.
__________
Lee County's Concerns with Administration's WRDA 2000 Proposal
This paper summarizes fundamental concerns with the
Administration's proposal based on the concepts, authorities and
processes that would shape future water management in South Florida
under this draft legislation. We are not, at this time, listing all of
the specific problems we have with many of the provisions.
1. Concern: The Administration's proposal alters the balanced
purposes for the existing Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project
and, by amending the balanced purposes that were reaffirmed in WRDA 96,
eliminates this balance for the future of this entire project.
Remedy: The balanced purposes for both the existing and modified
C&SF Project should be reaffirmed while providing that the primary
purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is ecosystem restoration,
preservation and protection.
2. Concern: The assurance provisions preempt Florida law governing
water allocations and reservations and preclude comprehensive water
management by the local sponsor. They fundamentally alter current
Federal policy. These provisions establish unprecedented Federal water
rights, and Federal authority and control of water quality and
quantity.
Remedy: Assurances can be provided by utilizing the Project
Implementation Reports for each project component under the Plan which
can, by agreement of the Secretary and local sponsor, and consistent
with State Law: (1) allocate and reserve the new water supply made
available, (2) otherwise provide for the allocation of any other
benefits and (3) establish the component's operating criteria necessary
to provide the allocations and other benefits.
3. Concern: The Administration's proposal regarding Project
Implementation Reports is vague and is inconsistent with
representations from the Restudy team that these Reports will contain
all the information needed for a full feasibility report and more.
These Reports provide an opportunity to address assurance issues with a
more complete decisionmaking document.
Remedy: These Reports should meet the requirements of the U.S.
Water Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines and provide all
information needed to support Congressional authorization, approval
under state law, and answer all questions regarding the allocation of
benefits and achievement of Project and Comprehensive Plan purposes.
4. Concern: The Administration's proposal authorizes specific
project components and other undefined components ``consistent with the
plan.'' These are all project components whose value, cost-
effectiveness and benefits have not been demonstrated by feasibility
level engineering, economic and environmental studies. There are no
reliable cost estimates on which to base authorization for
appropriations.
Remedy: Authorize project modifications after Congress has been
able to review a completed and fully coordinated feasibility or Project
Implementation Report.
5. Concern: The Administration's proposal references the Chiefs
Report of June 22, 1999, that includes additional commitments that were
not part of the Plan reviewed in consultation with the State and were
included without notice or opportunity for public comment. If
implemented, these conditions would destroy the balanced purposes of
the Plan, have substantial adverse impacts on State interests, and
substantially increase project costs.
Remedy: All references to the Chiefs Report should be deleted from
the Bill, confirming that the Plan is based on the Recommended Plan in
the document of April 1999.
6. Concern: The way the Administration's proposal approves the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Remedy: Approve the Comprehensive Plan as a guide and framework for
a continuing planning process to answer remaining environmental and
technical questions, requiring periodic updates at the time further
Congressional authorizations are requested.
7. Concern: The Administration's proposal acknowledges the need for
but does not provide a full and equal partnership between the State and
Federal Governments.
Remedy: In addition to deleting provisions by which Federal
allocation of water preempts state law, the bill should provide for (1)
equal cost sharing of the Central and Southern Florida project
including construction of project components and operations and
maintenance, (2) equal decisionmaking for operating protocols in PIR
agreements and, (3) under programmatic regulation require consultation
with, not concurrence by, the Secretary of the Interior.
8. Concern: Compliance with water quality requirements is not
ensured. Remedy: Require that, prior to authorization, project
components include features necessary to ensure that all discharges
meet applicable water quality standards and water quality permitting
requirements.
__________
Statement of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies
The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management
Agencies (NAFSMA) is pleased to submit the following comments for
consideration as the Subcommittee considers the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
NAFSMA represents more than 100 local and state flood control and
stormwater management agencies serving a total of more than 76 million
citizens and has a strong interest in this important legislation.
NAFSMA supports this biennial process as a means to seek new projects,
modify previously authorized projects, and to seek policy changes that
support programs that mitigate flood losses and enhance watersheds.
NAFSMA's members are public agencies whose function is the
protection of lives, property and economic activity from the adverse
impacts of storm and flood waters. The mission of the association is to
advocate public policy, encourage technologies and conduct education
programs to facilitate and enhance the achievement of the public
service functions of its members. Many of NAFSMA's members are
currently involved in ongoing water resources projects with the Corps
of Engineers and work closely with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency as participants in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Since the organization was formed in 1979, NAFSMA has worked
closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in numerous efforts. Our
members have supported the concept of cost sharing as first authorized
in WRDA 86 and a group of our members worked closely with the Corps to
redesign what is now the Partnership Cooperation Agreement in the early
1990's. We have supported new initiatives such as the Corps Challenge
21 program as a necessary complement and vital tool to add to the Corps
ability to meet environmental challenges in their traditional water
resource projects.
We urge you to consider these comments and to utilize them in your
deliberations on WRDA 2000. We appreciate your consideration. Please
feel free to call NAFSMA Executive Director, Susan Gilson, at 202-218-
4133 if you have any questions or would like further information.
nafsma comments on the administration's proposed wrda 2000
Section 4--Watershed and River Basin Assessments
NAFSMA supports the Corps new perspective in accomplishing its
watershed studies that allows for multi-objective multi-purpose
planning and investigation in the development of its watershed
management plans.
NAFSMA members utilize all available means (private, local, state
and Federal programs and funding sources) in order to provide and
maintain the flood protection projects and programs necessary to
protect life and property. Many of the projects needed are of the scope
and magnitude that local and state programs do not have the resources
to implement and the Federal Government is a much-needed and valued
partner. NAFSMA members realize that by mitigating flood losses, either
structurally or non-structurally is a better posture for government
than having to respond to flood disasters with Federal, state or local
programs.
NAFSMA supports the proposed 75 Federal/25 non-Federal sponsor cost
sharing formula for the proposed watershed and river basin assessments.
NAFSMA also supports the proposed authorization level of $15,000,000.
Section 14--Structural Flood Control Cost-Sharing
NAFSMA is strongly to the administration's proposed reduction in
the Federal contribution to Corps-partnered structural flood control
projects to a 50 Federal/50 local cost sharing formula.
The NAFSMA membership strongly opposes a reduction of the Federal
commitment to flood management projects as a tool for reducing the
number of structural flood management projects. In many cases a
structural project is the only viable alternative to provide needed
flood protection for existing development. NAFSMA strongly encourages
the committee to reject the administration's proposal and instead look
at providing incentives for rewarding environmentally sensitive project
components. In most cases, the local governments would opt for the
nonstructural alternative, if the solution would provide the needed
flood protection.
NAFSMA supports the current Federal project cost sharing of 65
percent Federal/35 percent local and further encourages the development
of incentives for environmentally sensitive project components. NAFSMA
encourages the subcommittee to allow the project cost sharing formula
to be modified upward to 75 percent Federal/25 percent local for
federally partnered flood control projects with environmentally
protective features.
NAFSMA has supported cost sharing since its inception in WRDA 86.
The original partnership has already been altered when Congress reduced
the structural flood control formula to 65 Federal/35 local share.
NAFSMA urges that Congress move to reject the administration's current
proposal, which would even further erode the partnership launched
between the Federal and non-Federal partners in WRDA 86.
Section 16--Project De-Authorizations
NAFSMA also encourages the Corps of Engineers to develop guidance
and policies for de-authorizing all or portions of federally authorized
projects that have exceeded their useful life or in situations where
other alternatives exist or can be implemented that provide the same
level of benefits as the original project. Over a period of as little
as 50 years, inevitable aging, erosion or deterioration results in
operation and maintenance costs that equal or exceed the costs that
would be incurred through the implementation of longer lasting, less
costly and more environmentally sensitive alternatives.
De-authorizing Corps projects in this manner also significantly
decreases administrative costs for the Corps and the local sponsors
with regard to the reporting of the condition of such projects, thus
allowing all parties to use their chronically limited funds for actual
public protection rather than for administrative activity.
Section 17--Floodplain Management Requirements
NAFSMA opposes including the language ``adopt and enforce'' after
the word policies in Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 [100 Stat. 4133] as proposed in Sec. 17 of the Administration-
drafted WRDA 2000 bill. Requiring the nonFederal sponsor to carry out
enforcement activities in this area goes beyond the spirit of the
partnership as outlined in WRDA 86 and amendments.
______
additional nafsma issues which need to be addressed in the water
resources development act
NAFSMA encourages the Federal Government to make sufficient annual
appropriations to support those projects and programs previously
authorized and those to be authorized.
Feasibility Study Cost Sharing
NAFSMA supports raising the cost sharing on feasibility studies
from a 50 percent Federal/50 percent local share to the same 65 percent
Federal/35 percent non-Federal share that applies to new construction
on flood control projects. NAFSMA also supports that the local
feasibility cost sharing requirements be met by local in-kind services.
Project Cost Issues:
Recognition of In-Kind Contributions
NAFSMA would also support a change in the current provisions
governing the percentage of cash and in-kind service that the local
partner could use to meet the project's cost sharing requirements.
NAFSMA urges that a provision be included to allow the entire local
share to be met through ``in-kind'' service contributions.
national economic development (ned)
NAFSMA supports a review of the current NED policy to determine if
existing policy drives projects away from more environmentally friendly
non-structural flood management solutions. NAFSMA members would be
interested in participating in a national discussion on the Corps
National Economic Development policy. NAFSMA members are concerned that
there are projects that are multi-objective, promote river restoration
and include environmental enhancements that don't meet the current NED
policy. We are encouraged by the Corps' internal review of planning
guidelines which seem to move us toward this direction.
NAFSMA advocates the Federal Government to assure the true costs
and benefits incurred by the local sponsor for LERRDs, construction,
environmental mitigation, operation and maintenance are considered
during the feasibility phase of the project. The true costs are those
costs mandated by laws, rules and regulations of local, state and
Federal Governments. Local governments often find themselves in
situations where they have many additional costs to meet the local
share, such as compliance with state and local regulations which are
not accurately reflected in cost sharing formulas.
NAFSMA supports non-Federal sponsors receiving full credit for all
legitimate project related expenses, similar to credit received by the
Corps for project related expenses.
NAFSMA supports non-Federal sponsors receiving credit for CERCLA
activities necessary for project execution.
Section 211 of WRDA 96
NAFSMA supports policies and programs that allow local
implementation of Federal projects where advantages and effectiveness
can be demonstrated and agreements that allow for reimbursement of the
project's Federal share, such as Section 211 of WRDA 96.
Corps Personnel and Permitting Issues
NAFSMA supports and encourages the Corps of Engineers to make
personnel available to participate with members early and throughout
the planning, design and permitting phases of new civil works projects
to address all environmental issues and regulations in order to obtain
the necessary permitting in a timely and uncontested manner.
NAFSMA urges the Committee to include language in WRDA 2000 which
allows local agencies to augment the Corps regulatory staff. NAFSMA
member agencies are reporting that it currently takes them 3-4 months
to obtain a nationwide permit and 6-9 months to obtain an individual
permit. We anticipate additional delays with the replacement permits
put forward by the Corps to replace Nationwide Permit 26.
Operation and Maintenance Issues
NAFSMA members have spent considerable resources in developing and
maintaining flood management projects. Flood management projects by
their nature are designed to allow for a certain amount of debris and/
or sediment before the effectiveness of the project becomes impaired.
It is essential that maintenance activities be performed on flood
management projects before the project nears an impairment situation.
The original design and constructed conditions should become the
benchmark conditions to which maintenance shall be performed. NAFSMA
advocates normal operations and maintenance activities be allowed to be
performed so that the flood mitigating aspects and multi-objective
aspects of the project can be met and the community can realize the
project benefits.
In recent years, NAFSMA members have been experiencing more and
more difficulty in conducting routine maintenance activities,
especially those related to maintaining the carrying capacity of flood
management projects. Our member agencies have experienced great
difficulty in obtaining the necessary 404 permits needed to clear out
vegetation and remove sediment in flood control channels. This burden
has added great delays and increased costs to the maintenance loads of
local flood management agencies. It also increases the risk of flood
damage for our constituents, posing a public safety issue.
This lack of ability to perform routine maintenance activities
places our member agencies at odds with other Federal programs. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency requires local governments to
assure the maintenance of flood carrying capacity of flood control
projects, such as enlarged channels, as a condition of revising Flood
Insurance Rate Maps to reflect the effects of the projects. At the same
time, the Corps of Engineers, under its 404 permit process, makes it
more difficult and expensive for local governments to perform the
required, and necessary, maintenance.
NAFSMA advocates that Congress require the Corps to have all
environmental permitting and mitigation requirements be completed and
issued for long-term operations and maintenance activities, when a new
civil works project is being designed and implemented to avoid future
issues that would restrict or prohibit the operations and maintenance
activities due to new permitting requirements.
Section 404 Exemption Clarification
NAFSMA also urges Congress to clarify the existing exemption
provided under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act for flood
management facilities and activities. NAFSMA has testified before the
Committee in the past during hearings focused on wetlands permitting on
the difficulties faced by local flood control agencies in carrying our
their responsibilities to protect lives and property from the adverse
impacts of flooding. It is difficult to explain to local citizens that
their local public works or flood management agency cannot keep a flood
control channel in working order because it is unable to obtain the
necessary Federal permits to carry out the work in a timely manner.
Meanwhile, an adjacent flood management channel maintained by the Corps
of Engineers can be cleared. Congress must clarify this situation so
that state and local flood management agencies are able to protect
local citizens and property.
This situation is especially difficult to understand since the
Federal Government was a partner, and in most cases prepared the
operation and maintenance manuals outlining the necessary work that
flood management agencies are now unable to perform. NAFSMA urges the
Subcommittee to investigate this issue further and although you do not
normally review Clean Water Act related issues under WRDA, this
particular permitting situation has created a significant public safety
problem. Our members strongly support wetlands protection and have been
responsible for some of the most environmentally sensitive and unique
flood management projects, but the situation that has been created for
state and local agencies by Federal wetlands permitting requirements is
untenable. The Committee must help our state and local agencies meet
their flood management responsibilities.
additional operations and maintenance issues
NAFSMA urges that Congress authorize Federal funding for
rehabilitation and repair of infrastructure constructed with Federal
funds that has outlived its design life.
Cooperative Agreements with Non-Federal Sponsors
NAFSMA urges that language be included in WRDA 2000 that directs
the Corps to enter into cooperative agreements with local or regional
agencies having the capability to implement projects. The Federal
Highway Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have
similar cooperating agreements with local agencies that work very well.
__________
Statement of Joseph E. Lema, Vice President, Manufacturers and Services
Division, National Mining Association
summary of request for authorization of lower ohio river projects
The National Mining Association (NMA), on behalf of NMA's member
companies that produce coal, metallic ores, and nonmetallic minerals,
and manufacture mining and minerals processing machinery and equipment
urges early Congressional authorization for construction of navigation
improvements at three lock and dam projects on the Lower Ohio River in
the states of Indiana and Kentucky: John T. Myers, Newburgh, and
Cannelton. Each of those projects require twin 1,200-foot by 110-foot
lock chambers to accommodate, safely and efficiently, barge tows
transporting coal, other minerals, and other bulk commodity traffic at
current and projected traffic levels. When those three projects are
completed, together with the Olmsted and McAlpine projects under
construction, and the existing, modern Smithland project, the Lower
Ohio River from Louisville, Kentucky to the mouth of the Ohio River at
its junction with the Mississippi River at Cairo, Illinois, will have
uniform twin 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chambers at all of the Lower
Ohio River lock and dam projects, enabling smooth flow of barge tows
through that high traffic segment at the heart of the inland waterways
system.
From 1986 to 1996, according to data furnished by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Ohio River experienced a 2 percent growth rate
annually in total traffic, incorporating annual growth rates of 2
percent for coal traffic, 4 percent for aggregates, and 10 percent for
other ores and minerals, among other commodity traffic. Coal traffic,
in particular, is very high, and is expected to increase at an annual
rate of two or more percent into the next two decades. In 1996, coal
traffic was more than 56 percent of total freight tonnage on the Ohio
River.
Uniform, twin 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chambers are required at
the John T. Myers, Newburgh, and Cannelton projects, like the chambers
existing today at the Smithland project, and under construction at the
Olmsted and McAlpine projects for three overriding reasons:
1. Serious delays encountered by barge tows in passage through the
locks and dams result in losses of $250 to $350 per hour.
2. When a single existing 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chamber is
closed for maintenance and repairs, often several days or weeks, barge
tows must use a smaller 600-foot by 110-foot lock chamber,
necessitating a breakup of the barge set with incremental movements of
portions of the barge set through the smaller chamber resulting in
delays and safety risks.
3. The Lower Ohio River, including its junctions with the Tennessee
and the Mississippi Rivers, is characterized by requiring an
exceptionally high number of lockages for barge tows regularly.
Construction of Navigation Improvements Is Warranted and Timely at
Selected Lock and Dam Projects on the Lower Ohio River
The Ohio River's barge shipping channels and lock and dam projects
that control commercial navigation by barge tows from the mouth of the
Ohio River at its junction with the Mississippi River at Cairo,
Illinois to its origination at its junction with the Allegheny and
Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh, are strategically important assets in
the freight transportation network of the United States. The River is
utilized extensively for the distribution of bulk commodities,
including coal and other minerals, in a corridor from Pennsylvania to
Missouri. Through interconnection with the Mississippi River and the
Tennessee River, it further enables barge tows on the Ohio River to
handle bulk shipments originating or terminating in a corridor from
Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico and points in the Southeast accessible
using the Tennessee River. The influence of the Ohio River for
commercial navigation also extends to states located west of the
Mississippi River, in particular coal-producing states from which
railroads connect mines with river terminals for intermodal rail-barge
transportation.
Following enactment of key legislation on policies with regard to
cost-sharing of inland waterway construction and rehabilitation in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, much has been accomplished
toward upgrading inland waterways navigation, including several lock
and dam improvement projects at sites on the Ohio River and segments of
connecting rivers, i.e. the Monongahela, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers,
to aid intermodal truck-barge and rail-barge traffic serving commerce
in the Ohio River Basin. Particular attention should be given to
improvement of navigation at selected lock and dam projects on the
Lower Ohio River from Louisville to Cairo, Illinois where the Lower
Ohio River junctions with the Mississippi River, a stretch of the Ohio
River that includes its junction with the mouth of the Tennessee River
at Paducah, Kentucky. This especially significant hub for
interconnected river barge traffic includes portions of three
commercially navigable waterways, namely:
the Lower Ohio River from Louisville to Cairo, Illinois;
the Upper Mississippi River from Cairo, Illinois to its
junction with the Illinois River north of St. Louis; and
the Tennessee River from its junction with the Ohio River
at Paducah, Kentucky southerly into the Tennessee Valley.
That hub for river barge traffic is especially significant for
several reasons:
1. River barge traffic is substantial, with much of the barge tows
carrying coal consumed for power generation at utility plants located
on the rivers and other minerals and aggregates required by the
construction industry.
2. The Lower Ohio River, the Tennessee River, the Upper Mississippi
River, and the Illinois River are interconnected for barge traffic.
3. Modern rail-to-barge unloading, storage, and barge loading
terminals are in place for use in coal transfer operations for coal
mined in the Illinois Basin and in the Powder River Basin and other
coal-producing areas of the western states.
4. Eastern coal has ready access to power plants located on the
Lower Ohio River, the Tennessee River, the Mississippi River, and the
Illinois River, as well as to port terminals located on the Gulf Coast,
in barge tows originating on the Kanawha, Monongahela, Big Sandy, and
Upper Ohio Rivers serving coal-producing areas of the eastern states.
5. Barge lines operating on the Ohio, Mississippi, Illinois, and
Tennessee Rivers through this hub for river barge traffic are well
equipped with modern towboats and barges and available today for
competitive, fuel-efficient transportation services.
A Systematic Approach Should be Followed in Upgrading Obsolete
Navigation Structures and Lockage Systems on the Lower Ohio
River
It must be recognized that lock and dam projects on the rivers
serve many purposes: flood control, water supply, commercial navigation
and recreational boating, along with maintaining adequate depths of
shipping channels, i.e. 9 to 14 feet for shallow-draft river barge tows
depending on location. Of course, a critical factor for commercial
navigation by barge tows is the adequacy of lockage chambers to
accommodate passage of barge tows in a time-sensitive manner, much like
the efficiency of at-grade surface highways depends highly on the time
allocated at signalized intersections for ``platoons'' or queues of
vehicles. For river navigation, the dimensions of a lock chamber and
the number of lock chambers at a lock and dam project are controlling
factors with regard to the efficiency of barge traffic. On the Ohio
River, the standard for lock chambers is 1,200 feet long by 110 feet
wide dimensions required to accommodate a barge tow in a single pass
through the site for a towboat pushing 15 jumbo barges lashed three
across and five in line with the lock chamber and shipping channel.
Lock and dam projects with smaller lock chambers and projects having
only one chamber of the standard size that must be taken out of service
at times for maintenance and repair operations, requiring use of a much
smaller auxiliary lock chamber only 600 feet in length, cause tows with
15 barges to be broken into sections of barges so that the total set
can be moved through the lock chamber in segments resulting in
significant delays and safety risks that would not be encountered if
the lock chamber had standard 1,200-foot x 110-foot dimensions. An
examination of lock chambers on the Lower Ohio River and the Ohio River
gateway to the Tennessee Valley where the demand for standard 15-barge
tows is high indicates a systematic approach should be followed in
upgrading obsolete navigation structures and lockage systems on the
Lower Ohio River.
Eight lock and dam projects--seven on the Lower Ohio River from
Louisville to Cairo, Illinois and one on the Tennessee River just
upstream from its junction with the Ohio River at Paducah, Kentucky--
are involved in this analysis. It is noteworthy that there are no lock
and dam projects on the Upper Mississippi River above Cairo, Illinois
where the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers join, northerly above St. Louis
at a point where the Mississippi River junctions with the Illinois
River.
The current construction authorized at the Olmsted and McAlpine
projects on the Lower Ohio River and at the adjoining Kentucky project
on the Tennessee River, like the completed Smithland project on the
Ohio River, is indicative of the need for twin 1,200-foot by 110-foot
lock chambers similarly at the John T. Myers, Newburgh and Cannelton
projects just upstream on the Lower Ohio River, points where
complementary navigation requirements are warranted to add a second
1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chamber compatible with modern barge tows
operating through the zone. The Olmsted project itself replaces two
obsolete projects at Lock and Dam 52 and Lock and Dam 53 on the Lower
Ohio River.
Annual Traffic Characteristics--1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Average Time/Tow (minutes)
Lock & Dam Projects Ohio & Tennessee Rivers No. of Tons --------------------------------
Tows (millions) Delay Process Total\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio River L/D 53 and L/D 52, both to be replaced by 9,901\2\ 94.1 n.a n.a 93.5\2\
Olmsted L/D............................................
Smithland............................................... 7,866 85.1 8.2 44.1 52.3
John T. Myers\3\........................................ 6,592 77.6 43.7 47.8 91.5
Newburgh................................................ 6,686 68.3 44.8 47.1 91.9
Cannelton............................................... 5,025 56.8 39.7 56.0 95.7
McAlpine................................................ 4,900 54.0 52.8 55.9 108.7
Tennessee River
Kentucky L/D............................................ 3,401 33.5 347.4 118.8 466.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\total time per tow = delay and time for processing through lock.
\2\In 1996 8,158 tows passed over wicket dam under flood conditions.
\3\Uniontown L/D was renamed John T. Myers L/D during 1997.
Source: Ohio River Navigation System: 1997 Statistical Supplement, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington,
District
Barge traffic demand on the Lower Ohio River from the vicinity of
Louisville, Kentucky to Cairo, Illinois at the junction of the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers justifies having in place a uniform system of lock
and dam projects each having twin 1,200-foot x 110-foot lock chambers,
the standard size for modern Ohio River barge tows. Seven lock and dam
projects are involved. The first project moving upstream from the mouth
of the Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois is the Olmsted Project which
replaces the obsolete L/D 52 and 53 at a new site between the junctions
of the Lower Ohio River with the Mississippi and the Tennessee Rivers.
The Olmsted Project is now under construction and will have twin 1,200-
foot x 110-foot lock chambers when completed.
Moving upstream, the next facility is the Smithland Project where
twin 1,200-foot x 110-foot lock chambers are now in place. It is
significant that lock and dam projects upstream from the Smithland
Project, in 1996, required that barge tows, on the average, consume
more than 90 minutes to transit the site, including 40 minutes or more
in waiting for entry into a lock chamber and 45 to 55 minutes for
clearing passage through the project. On the other hand, at the modern
Smithland Project barge tows completed lockages in approximately 52
minutes, including only 8 minutes of delay.
-