[Senate Hearing 107-901]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-901
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5431/S. 2784
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-471 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
______
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
HARRY REID, Nevada, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
TOM HARKIN, Iowa LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Drew Willison
Clay Sell (Minority)
Tammy Perrin (Minority)
Administrative Support
Nancy Olkewicz
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Friday, March 8, 2002
Page
Department of the Interior....................................... 1
Friday, March 15, 2002
Department of Energy............................................. 49
Monday, March 18, 2002
Department of Energy............................................. 103
Thursday, April 18, 2002
Department of Energy............................................. 153
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Energy programs.................................................. 211
Water programs................................................... 237
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:12 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Harry Reid (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reid, Domenici, Bennett, and Burns.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
STATEMENT OF BENNETT W. RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
J. RONALD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
COMPLETION ACT
ROBERT WOLF, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND BUDGET, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
PAM HAZE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
opening statement of senator pete v. domenici
Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order.
Senator Reid is tied up for a while. He will probably be by
shortly, but he indicated to me just now that he would like to
get started, so I think I am going to do that.
First, let me thank the witnesses for appearing today and,
in advance, thank you for your testimony.
prepared statement
I want to also commend Chairman Reid for the outstanding
job he has done in chairing the subcommittee since June of last
year. I have a statement that goes into more detail, talks a
little bit about the Bureau of Reclamation and their budget.
Obviously, things are going fairly well for the Bureau of
Reclamation and we want to hear their testimony here today.
With that, I will put my statement in the record and we will go
to work.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
introduction
First, let me join Senator Reid in welcoming this distinguished
panel of witnesses.
I would also like to commend Chairman Reid on the outstanding job
he has done in chairing this subcommittee since June of last year. He
has continued the fair and non-partisan tradition in which this
committee has always conducted its affairs, resulting in an outstanding
appropriations bill in the last cycle.
I believe this is your first hearing as Chairman, and I once again
look forward to working with you during the course of the year.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review the fiscal year 2003
budget request of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Civil Works program
of the Army Corps of Engineers. I would like to make a few comments
about their budget requests.
bureau of reclamation
The fiscal year 2003 budget for the Bureau is $886 million, a
reduction of $57 million from the current year level.
--The largest reduction in the Bureau's budget is in the Water and
Related resources account, where the bulk of the Bureau's
activities are funded. This account funds the Bureau's efforts
to sustain ecosystems while assisting States, tribes, and local
entities in solving their water resource issues. The
President's budget provides $726 million for this account, a
$36 million reduction over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
--The funding level recommended is of concern to me because we in the
West always have a great need for water and greater
efficiencies of its use.
In addition, we are increasingly seeing endangered species
competing with people for water.
--I have this problem in my home State of New Mexico, with the
silvery minnow, a recognized endangered species along the Rio
Grande.
--I have worked hard to get the parties to come to agreement on the
minnow and I've fought to provide funding for silvery minnow
conservation efforts.
--My hope is that if we can come to an agreement and we can find some
kind of equitable solution, then perhaps what we're doing in
New Mexico could be used as a model by other States.
The Bureau is also balancing the needs of many while exercising the
rights of the few, particularly in its role in fulfilling the Federal
obligation in water rights settlements to Native American tribes,
something I also have experienced within my State.
Increasingly, tribes are seeking Federal water rights settlements
which ultimately result in the construction of water systems by the
Bureau.
I am anxious to hear from the witnesses as to how they intend to
manage the many challenges before the Bureau with a budget that is
substantially below current year.
army corps of engineers--civil works program
In light of the recent changes in leadership at the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Corps will only be submitting written testimony today.
However, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the Corps'
budget.
--The fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Corps of Engineers' is
$4.026 billion, a $599 million reduction over last year's
level. In total a 13 percent reduction.
--The construction program is down $276 million from last year, as
well as the general investigations program, down $108 million
from last year.
Adequate funding for the Corps of Engineers is critical to our
economy in many regions of the country. Let me repeat some well known
facts--
--The ports and waterways the Corps maintains, is where over 90
percent of our foreign trade occurs.
--Each $1 invested in flood protection project reduces flood damages
and relief costs by $1.50.
--Every $1 invested in navigation improvements raises America's
productivity by $3.
--Flood control infrastructure, as of 1997, has prevented $706
billion of damage.
closing
Overall, I support the President's budget plan for fiscal year
2003, and I support the President's budget priorities to shore up
homeland defense, national security and the health of our economy.
I do believe, however, that this budget is setting some challenges,
particularly in the area of water infrastructure. Some of the
administration's proposed budget cuts are difficult to accept. Budgets
mean setting priorities, and that will be a big challenge this year.
In years past, as Chairman of the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee on Appropriations, I took on the task of ensuring
sufficient funding for both the Corps of Engineers' and the Bureau of
Reclamations' programs. As the Ranking Member of the Appropriations'
subcommittee, I plan to continue this role.
Senator Domenici. Let us start with the first set of
witnesses. I understand that we lead off with Bureau of
Reclamation Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Bennett,
Raley. Are you prepared to lead off today?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY RALEY'S OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Raley. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
On behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, it is a
pleasure to be here today with you to talk about the
Department's 2003 budget proposal. I am accompanied today by
John Keys, the Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation; by
Robert Wolf, the Budget Director for the Bureau of Reclamation;
by Pam Haze with the Interior's budget office; and by Robert
Johnston, who is the Program Director for the Central Utah
Project, and who also reports directly to me.
In light of the schedule that the Senate has today, I would
first ask that my written remarks be included within the
record.
Senator Domenici. So ordered. Written statements that any
of you have will be made a part of the record as if you gave
them, and proceed to do it as you would like, as briefly as you
can.
Mr. Raley. I will further truncate my opening remarks so
that the scarce time that the senator and his colleagues may
have is preserved for your questions rather than for our
opening statements.
I just want to thank again the committee for its support,
for the close working relationship that we have with all of the
Members of the Committee, and with the staff. We at Interior
feel well served by this subcommittee and welcome the
opportunity to work together as we deal with the important
issues that we jointly share.
As you know, the Department of the Interior has a major
role in the Nation's energy and water. The lands that are
administered by the Department make up one out of every five
acres of land in the Nation. Those lands include some of the
most beautiful and pristine places on earth, and they include
some of the most valuable resources for use for a variety of
purposes ranging from energy production to recreation.
In the most recently completed fiscal year, the Department
collected $11 billion in revenue from the lands and waters that
we manage and shared $1 billion of this with the States, our
partners in the onshore leasing program. In 2001, we collected
$1 billion more than was appropriated to us.
As the budget process for 2003 began last June, the
Department was guided by the President's commitment to improve
the management of public lands and waters, advance the
development of domestic energy, and improve both the classroom
and the classroom performance of Indian students. We want to
manage for excellence through citizen-centered Government, and
we have worked very hard jointly with Congress to step up to
meet the President's challenge to address the needs of the
Nation after the tragic events of September 11. We, as a
Department, are committing substantial time and resources to
ensure that the resources that we are charged with are
protected against all threats. We can only do that by
cooperating and working with you.
The Commissioner, if you would like, can go into some of
the details of those security matters, or we can come back at a
later time if any Members of the Committee would like to have a
further briefing on that or other aspects of the Department's
business.
COBELL V. NORTON LITIGATION
One other aspect of the Department's mission that I wish to
mention briefly this morning is the Cobell v. Norton
litigation. As most of you know, the court ordered the
Department to disconnect most of the computer systems from the
Internet on December 5, 2001. We are working with the court's
special master to obtain approval to reconnect them. The Bureau
of Reclamation came back online last week.
In the longer term, we have concluded that there is a need
for a dedicated network to secure trust data. The Department
will be providing to the Appropriations Committee a re-
programming proposal to address this important need in the
future. We will be working with you to come back with a revised
budget and a crosswalk between the current and revised
proposals as we further understand what is going to be required
to fulfill the Department's trust responsibility.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
From an overall budget perspective, the Department's 2003
budget request is $881 million in current appropriations, plus
an additional $25 million for Government-wide accounting
adjustments for retirement and employee health benefits. For
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau's request for 2003 is
$845 million. An additional $25 million is requested for the
Government-wide legislative proposal to shift pension system
and health benefit costs to the bureaus. The Bureau's budget
request also includes $81 million for the Safety of Dams
program, $26.6 million for enhanced security, and $33 million
for the Animas-LaPlata Project, which the Chairman and Members
of this Committee have worked on tirelessly for decades.
With respect to the Central Utah Project, which is under
the direct responsibility of the Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science, the budget is $36.2 million, and an additional
$24,000 is requested to address the pension system and health
benefit costs associated with that project. This request
includes $12 million for use by the district that we are
cooperating with on that project to continue the modified
construction of the Diamond Fork system.
I wish to bring to the subcommittee's attention the fact
that we will be closing off a section of the original tunnel
because we experienced an unforeseen cave-in, causing the
tunnel to fill with water, debris, and dangerous gas. Mr.
Johnston can discuss, either today or at the leisure of the
subcommittee, the details of this.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude, not to avoid any
issues but so that I can turn this over to Mr. Keys and Mr.
Johnston and maximize the time for the senators to address
issues of direct concern.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bennett W. Raley
On behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, I am pleased to be here
today before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to
present the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Department of the Interior.
I appreciate the opportunity to highlight a number of important
initiatives and discuss the requests before this Subcommittee.
Before I move to the details of the budget request, I'd like to
make some observations about the role of the Department of the Interior
in serving our Nation.
--We provide approximately one-third of the Nation's domestic energy
supply. We supply the water that is so vital to the arid West,
serving over 31 million people. We manage more than one of
every five acres of land in this Nation, including some of the
most beautiful and pristine places on earth.
--We serve people from across the Nation and around the world who
come to see us and enjoy nearly half-a-billion visits to our
lands each year.
--Over 200,000 volunteers assist us, a volunteer workforce that
outnumbers our own employees by nearly three to one.
--In the most recently completed fiscal year, we collected $11
billion in revenue from the lands and waters we manage. We
shared $1 billion of that with the States, our partners in the
onshore petroleum-leasing program. In 2001, we collected $1
billion more in receipts than was appropriated to us.
The Department's approach to citizen-centered government is
organized around the Four C's: conservation through consultation,
cooperation, and communication. This approach empowers citizens to play
a larger role in the decision-making process and this is reflected in
the budget we present to you today.
As we began the process last June to build this budget, we were
guided by President Bush's vision of a shared approach to conservation,
and his commitments to restore our national parks, improve both the
classrooms and the classroom performance of Indian students; and meet
our environmental responsibilities in a manner that best reflects the
innovative nature of our Nation.
Our budget priorities were reshaped by the events of September 11.
Interior's employees have responded to the call to increase our
vigilance and our preparedness for the changed world we face.
Our 2003 budget request balances these responsibilities and commits
to:
--Improve our management of public lands and waters;
--Advance the President's National energy policy;
--Improve the lives of Native Americans; and
--Manage for excellence through citizen-centered governance.
Our commitment to management excellence means managing well the
resources entrusted to us. We are working diligently to improve the
quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the services we deliver and
to enhance the accountability and transparency of the work we do with
the resources of the American people.
budget overview
The Department of the Interior's 2003 budget request is $10.6
billion in current appropriations, including $270.5 million for a
government-wide legislative proposal to shift to agencies the full cost
of the CSRS pension system and the Federal employee health benefits
program for current employees. Permanent funding that becomes available
as a result of existing legislation without further action by the
Congress will provide an additional $2.6 billion, for a total 2003
Department budget of $13.2 billion.
Excluding the pension and health benefits legislative proposal, the
2003 current appropriations request is $10.3 billion, a net decrease of
$12.7 million from the amounts provided in the 2002 Interior and
Related Agencies and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts.
The 2003 budget proposal maintains a robust funding level compared to
historic levels for the Department. The proposal is over 21 percent
higher than the 2000 appropriation level of $8.6 billion.
The budget request proposes funding increases for priority programs
and initiatives, while discontinuing or reducing funding for lower
priority projects funded in 2002. In addition, the 2003 budget reflects
the Department's commitment to operate programs more effectively and
efficiently, by proposing to absorb $57.4 million in uncontrollable
fixed cost increases and a $20.6 million reduction in travel and
transportation costs.
For 2003, the budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and
Central Utah Project Completion Act programs funded in the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act is $881.1 million, a decrease of
$33.1 million below the 2002 Act. This comparison excludes $30.3
million appropriated in 2002 for emergency response/counter-terrorism.
Before we discuss the details of the Bureau of Reclamation budget
and the Central Utah Project, I would like to highlight a few areas of
concern to all of us.
homeland security
In the wake of the events of September 11, we responded with
assistance to the rescue and recovery efforts. We also put in place
security measures to protect our most important national assets, our
visitors and our employees. We increased park police patrols in
Washington, D.C., and New York; upgraded park policy security
equipment; increased guard service and protection for important
national icons such as the Liberty Bell and St. Louis Arch; and
instituted around-the-clock security at key Reclamation facilities such
as Hoover, Glen Canyon, Shasta, and Grand Coulee Dams. The 2003 budget
request includes $88.8 million to continue enhanced security measures
at approximately the same level funded in 2002, including $26.7 million
for the Bureau of Reclamation.
trust programs
Managing Indian trust funds and trust resources is a solemn
obligation of the Federal Government, and one of the Department's
greatest challenges. Since taking office in January 2001, the Secretary
has moved on several fronts to help improve Indian trust management. In
July 2001, she established the Office of Historical Trust Accounting to
provide focused efforts to produce a historical accounting for
individual Indian allottees. The Office has developed a blueprint for
development of its comprehensive plan for a historical accounting and
will convey its comprehensive plan to Congress in June 2002.
During the formulation of the 2003 budget, various issues were
identified concerning the trust asset management roles of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, and
other Departmental entities carrying out trust functions. At this same
time Electronic Data Systems, Inc., was undertaking an independent,
expert evaluation, indicating that one of the fundamental barriers to
trust reform is the disorganized scattering of trust functions
throughout the Department. In November 2001, the Secretary announced
the outline of a proposal to reorganize and consolidate Indian trust
management functions into a separate organization. The goal of the
proposal is to improve management of trust assets by creating clear
lines of authority for trust reform and trust operations. The
Department is currently consulting with Tribes to involve them in the
process of reorganizing the Department's trust asset management
responsibilities. Discussions will continue with Congress concerning
the results of the ongoing consultation and the proposed
reorganization.
As part of the ongoing Cobell v. Norton proceedings, on December 5,
2001 the Court ordered the Department to disconnect all of the computer
systems that house or provide access to Indian trust data from the
Internet. We are working diligently with the Court's Special Master to
obtain concurrence to complete reconnection. As of February 11, we are
providing estimated payments to individual Indian money account holders
until such time as automated payment systems are resumed. For the
longer-term, we have concluded that there is a need for a dedicated
network to secure trust data. The Department will be submitting a
proposal to reprogram 2002 funding for this network in the near future.
The 2003 budget request for trust reform and operations is based
upon the current organizational structure and does not reflect our
conclusions about the need for a dedicated trust network. As we
complete the consultation process and move forward with our plans for
the network we will submit a revised budget that includes a crosswalk
between the current and revised budget proposals.
Our budget request contains a major boost in spending for Indian
trust reform and trust related programs, a nearly $84 million increase,
the largest increase in the history of trust reform. These additional
funds are necessary to address the long overdue changes that the
Secretary is committed to making in the Indian trust program.
harnessing our natural resources
The Department's programs are key to addressing important energy
supply issues and fostering a dynamic economy, while preserving and
enhancing environmental quality. Energy projects on federally managed
lands and offshore areas supply approximately one-third of the Nation's
energy production. In support of the President's National Energy
Policy, the budget includes increases of $28.6 million for energy
related activities, which will allow us to increase our responsiveness
to increasing demands for energy while increasing environmental
oversight.
Secretary Norton is committed to increasing domestic energy
supplies, including oil and gas on Federal lands from a variety of
sources in an environmentally acceptable manner. The energy resources
of the northeast corner and the rest of Alaska's North Slope are
national assets that can contribute to the Nation's energy security.
The 2003 budget includes an increase of $3.0 million for activities on
the North Slope. The increase will support planning for 2004 sales in
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. Congressional authorization will be required for a lease sale
to be conducted in the Arctic Refuge. The budget assumes a lease sale
in 2004 that will generate $2.4 billion in anticipated bonus bids. Of
this amount, the Federal Government's $1.2 billion share will be
dedicated to research and development projects on solar power, wind
energy, biomass power and fuels, geothermal energy, and other
alternative energy technologies.
bureau of reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation's request for current appropriations is
$869.8 million, which includes $24.9 million for the government-wide
legislative proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of the CSRS
pension system and the health benefits program for current employees.
Without the legislative proposal, the 2003 request for the Bureau of
Reclamation totals $844.9 million, a decrease of $33.1 million from the
level funded in the 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. An
additional $30.3 million was appropriated in 2002 for emergency
response/counter-terrorism.
The 2003 request for current appropriations is offset by
discretionary receipts in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund,
resulting in a net request for discretionary budget authority of $830.3
million. The request for permanent appropriations totals $82.3 million.
The request for the Water and Related Resources account is $739.7
million, including $13.6 million for the government-wide legislative
proposal to shift to agencies the pension system and health benefits.
Without the legislative proposal, the 2003 request is $726.1 million.
The account total includes an undistributed reduction of $37.9 million
in anticipation of delays in construction schedules and other
activities.
The budget provides a total of $345.0 million for facility
operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation, an increase of $8.9
million over 2002 enacted levels. Providing adequate funding for these
activities continues to be one of Reclamation's highest priorities.
For 100 years Reclamation has contributed to sustained economic
growth and an enhanced quality of life in the western States.
Reclamation water projects have been developed to meet agricultural,
tribal, urban, and industrial needs. In recent years, the public has
requested environmental enhancements and more recreational
opportunities while municipal and industrial users have demanded more
high quality water. Population growth in the west is leading to greater
competition for very limited water resources.
Reclamation's challenge today is to work with its customers,
States, Tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and
provide for this new mix of water resource needs. As a result,
Reclamation is continuing to develop authorized facilities to store and
convey new water supplies while placing greater emphasis on: managing
its existing facilities efficiently and effectively; promoting the
conservation, reclamation, and reuse of existing water supplies;
protecting and restoring fish and wildlife resources; and implementing
business practices that will provide effective and efficient service to
customers, partners, and employees.
The 2003 dam safety request of $81.0 million includes an additional
$8.3 million for the dam safety program to protect the downstream
public by ensuring the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams. The
request also includes an increase of $26.6 million for site security in
response to the events of September 11, 2001.
For the purposes of environmental compliance and protection, $15.0
million is requested for the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery
program. Other funds requested will assist the Bureau in meeting
objectives for improved water management and environmental compliance.
Examples include $12.4 million for the Lower Colorado River Operations
program and $14.3 million for the Klamath project in Oregon and
California. This project is operated to meet multiple obligations of
the Department, including providing water for irrigation and wildlife,
meeting tribal trust obligations, and protecting endangered and
threatened species.
The budget includes $15.0 million in the Reclamation account
established exclusively for implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. Funds provided will be used for ongoing activities within
existing authorities, including continued work on studies addressing
water storage needs.
central utah project completion act
The Central Utah Project Completion Act provided for completion of
the Central Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District; authorized funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation; established the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission; and provided for the Ute Indian
Rights Settlement. As the responsibilities of the Secretary under that
Act may not be delegated to Reclamation, a Program Office was
established in Provo, Utah, which provides oversight, review, and
liaison with the District, the Mitigation Commission, and the Ute
Indian Tribe.
The 2003 request provides $36.3 million, including $24,000 for a
government-wide legislative proposal to shift to agencies the full cost
of the CSRS pension system and the Federal employee health benefits
program for current employees. Without the legislative proposal, total
budget authority for the project in 2003 is $36.2 million, the same as
the 2002 level. The 2003 request includes: $23.0 million for planning
and construction activities administered by the district; $11.3 million
for mitigation and conservation activities funded through the
Mitigation Commission; and $1.9 million for activities administered by
the program office, which includes $579,000 for mitigation and
conservation activities funded through the program office.
The request includes $12.0 million for use by the District to
continue the modified construction of the Diamond Fork System. This
funding will be used to close off a section of the original tunnel that
experienced an unforeseen cave-in resulting in dangerous levels of
hydrogen sulfide gas. A plan is being developed for the construction of
alternative facilities. We are preparing cost estimates for this work
and will communicate this information to you as soon as a firm estimate
is available.
conclusion
In conclusion, the 2003 budget provides strong support for
Interior's programs and for the approximately 70,000 employees that
carry out our mission. I will be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Mr. Keys?
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before
you today and present the President's fiscal year 2003 budget
request for the Bureau of Reclamation.
We appreciate the continued support that your committee
provides to reclamation and the excellent working relationship
that we have developed between our offices and our staffs.
I would first ask that my full written statement be
included in the record.
Mr. Chairman, we are proud of the Bureau of Reclamation and
what we do for the Western United States. This year we
celebrate the centennial for the Bureau of Reclamation and that
water service to the Western United States.
RECLAMATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 REQUEST
As Assistant Secretary Raley has explained, Reclamation's
request totals almost $870 million in current authority. The
request includes $726 million for Reclamation's traditional
Water and Related Resources Programs, $54 million for policy
and administration, and $25 million for the Government-wide
legislative proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of
retirement benefits and health benefits.
From my perspective, this budget is good news for the West.
Reclamation is focused on customer value and on the
Administration's principle of results rather than procedures.
The fiscal year 2003 request is fiscally responsible and will
provide funding to keep our dams and facilities safe, deliver
water, provide a stable source of power for our growing
population, and support environmental efforts. It demonstrates
Reclamation's commitment to meeting the West's needs for water
and power in an efficient and responsive manner.
The request for the Water and Related Resources account is
$726 million. This request continues to emphasize the operation
and maintenance of reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient,
economic and reliable manner, sustaining the health and
integrity of ecosystems while addressing the water and power
needs of a growing population. It also includes assistance for
States, tribes, and local entities in solving contemporary
water resources problems.
Highlights of this budget include $81 million for the
Safety of Dams Program which funds dam safety corrective
activities, including modifications that are underway at
Horsetooth Dam in Colorado and Wickiup Dam in Oregon. It
includes $28.4 million for site security and counterterrorism
activities, which funds guards, surveillance, and equipment to
provide increased security for the public, reclamation
employees and facilities, our project customers, and our
information technology systems.
It includes $33 million for construction of the Animas-
LaPlata Project in Colorado and New Mexico. The fiscal year
2003 activities include the award of construction contracts for
Ridges Basin Dam and the Durango Pumping Plant, completion of
natural gas pipeline relocations, design of the Navajo Nation
Municipal Pipeline, and continued activities in the cultural
resource, wetlands, and fish and wildlife mitigation
activities.
Our budget also includes $14.3 million for work in the
Klamath Project in Oregon and California. This will continue
the operation of the project and provide for studies relating
to improving water supply and water quality to meet the
agricultural, tribal, wildlife and environmental needs in the
basin. Just last week we released the biological assessment for
the next 10 years of operation for the Klamath Project.
The budget also includes $128.8 million for the Central
Valley Project in California. That provides funding to 15 areas
including operation and maintenance of systems in the Central
Valley and the Trinity River Valley.
Our budget also includes $9.5 million for the Colorado
River Storage Project. Section 5 of the Colorado River Storage
Project Act works in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming. It includes $35 million for the Central Arizona
Project, $25 million for the Garrison Project in North Dakota,
$15 million for Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in the
Northwest, $43.5 million for rural water projects in South
Dakota, and about $18 million for the Title XVI projects in
Arizona and California.
Certainly, I would be happy to provide any details on any
of these projects that you would like for the record.
Our budget also requests $49 million for the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund. This is offset by discretionary
receipts totaling almost $40 million collected from project
beneficiaries.
The request also includes about $15 million for the
California Bay-Delta activities that can be undertaken within
existing statutory authorities.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, this year marks the
centennial celebration for the Bureau of Reclamation. We plan
to celebrate that all over the West. There are several large
celebrations. I think we have one scheduled in Montana at
Canyon Ferry.
Senator Burns. We just want water.
Mr. Keys. We look forward to letting you folks know about
those and hopefully you and your staffs and the Members of your
Committee can participate in some of those.
PREPARED STATEMENT
That completes my remarks and I would certainly be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I welcome
the opportunity to appear before you today to support the President's
fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation, which
totals $869.8 million in current authority, or $830.3 million after
accounting for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund offset. The
request includes $24.9 million for the government-wide legislative
proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of the Civil Service
Retirement System pension and the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program for current employees, and $726.1 million for Reclamation's
traditional programs.
This budget is good news for the West. Reclamation is focused on
customer value as well as increased accountability and modernization.
This request is citizen-centered and founded on the Administration's
principle of results rather than procedures. It is also a fiscally
responsible request, which will provide funding to keep our dams and
facilities safe, deliver water, provide a stable source of power for
our growing population, and support environmental efforts.
mission
As it celebrates its 100th anniversary, Reclamation delivers 10
trillion gallons of water to over 31 million people in the 17 western
States for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Reclamation
facilities store over 245 million acre-feet of water, serving one of
every five western farmers to irrigate about 10 million acres of land.
These irrigated lands produce 60 percent of the nation's vegetables and
25 percent of its fruits and nuts.
As the largest water resources management agency in the West,
Reclamation administers or operates 348 reservoirs, 58 hydroelectric
facilities with an installed capacity of 14,741 megawatts, and 56,000
miles of water conveyance systems. Reclamation manages approximately
8.6 million acres of Federal land, plus another 600,000 acres of land
under easements. In addition, our facilities provide substantial flood
control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits.
The economic viability--and in some cases the very survivability--
of the citizens, ranchers, and farmers in the 17 western States depends
on the effectiveness of Reclamation's stewardship of these valuable
public resources. Reclamation and its employees take very seriously the
responsibility and the mission of managing, developing and protecting
water and related resources in an environmentally and economically
sound manner in the interest of the American public.
The impact of Reclamation on the lives and livelihoods of our
western citizens is highlighted by the following facts: Reclamation is
the second largest producer of hydroelectric power and the 10th largest
power producer in the United States, with an average generation of more
than 42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year. Reclamation
produces enough electricity to serve 19 million people, generating over
$600 million in annual power revenues. In California, Reclamation's
Central Valley Project generated more than 4.1 billion kilowatt hours
of energy in 2001, enough power to serve approximately 1 million
Californians.
fiscal year 2003 budget request
The fiscal year 2003 budget request demonstrates Reclamation's
commitment to meeting the West's needs for water and power in a
fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues Reclamation's
emphasis on delivering and managing these valuable public resources. In
cooperation and consultation with State, tribal, and local governments,
along with other stakeholders and the public at large, Reclamation
offers workable solutions regarding water and power resource issues
that are consistent with the demands for power and water, and with the
need to pursue cost effective, environmentally sound approaches to
meeting those demands.
Reclamation's budget request reflects the need to address an aging
infrastructure, operation and maintenance of Indian rural water
projects, and rising costs and management challenges associated with
scarce water resources. As its infrastructure ages, Reclamation must
direct increasing resources toward technological upgrades, new science
and technologies, and preventative maintenance to ensure reliability,
increase output, and improve safety. Reclamation's legal responsibility
for managing the ongoing operations and maintenance of certain Indian
rural water projects, as portions of them are completed, also places
substantial pressure on our overall budget.
One of Reclamation's strategies for meeting these new challenges is
using the Secretary's four ``C's:'' ``. . . Consultation, Cooperation
and Communication all in the service of conservation . . . .'' These
principles provide Reclamation an opportunity, in consultation with
stakeholders, to use decision support tools, including risk analyses,
and to develop the most efficient and cost-effective solutions to the
complex challenges that we face.
The demand for skills in such areas as negotiating agreements with
Tribal Governments, negotiating title transfer agreements, mediating
disputes among stakeholders, and renewing existing contracts represent
a formidable challenge in the human resource arena. Balancing the
demand for service delivery is always a challenge. Complementing
supply-oriented solutions, with innovative approaches to water and
power conservation and programs for wastewater recycling, are being
explored.
Every day we see water resource needs important to our State, local
and tribal partners. Many States are developing state-wide water plans
or drought contingency plans, for instance, to address resource
utilization and stewardship against the backdrop of large population
increases and the growing notion of sustainable development.
Reclamation, in partnership with other Federal, State, local, tribal,
and private entities, has consistently proven its ability to help
assess the potential for optimum water use. This technical capability
is one of our most valuable resources.
Some of Reclamation's budget priorities as we celebrate our 100th
anniversary of service are to:
--Operate and maintain projects in a safe and reliable manner,
protecting the health and safety of the public and Reclamation
employees
--Ensure continued water deliveries and power benefits consistent
with environmental and other requirements
--Honor States rights and interstate compacts to Reclamation users
--Continue our important role in meeting increasing demands for
finite water resources
--Enhance effectiveness in addressing complex water management issues
in the West.
water and related resources
The fiscal year 2003 request for the Water and Related Resources
account is $739.7 million, including $13.6 million for the Civil
Service Retirement System and Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
Administrations Proposal. The request provides funding for five major
program activities: Water and Energy Management and Development ($289.5
million), Land Management and Development ($40.2 million), Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development ($89.4 million), Facility
Operations ($182.7 million), and Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation ($162.3 million). The request is partially offset by an
undistributed reduction of $37.9 million, in anticipation of delays in
construction schedules and other planned activities.
The request continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of
Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic, and reliable
manner; sustaining the health and integrity of ecosystems while
addressing the water needs of a growing population; and assisting
States, tribes, and local entities in solving contemporary water
resources issues.
Highlights of the fiscal year 2003 request include:
Safety of Dams ($81.0 million).--The safety and reliability of
Reclamation dams is one of Reclamation's highest priorities.
Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between 1900
and 1950, and 90 percent of the dams were built before current State-
of-the-art foundation treatment and filter techniques were incorporated
in embankment dams to control seepage. Continued safe performance
becomes a greater concern with aging dams and requires a greater
emphasis on the risk management activities provided by the program.
Dam safety corrective actions are among the activities funded by
facility operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. The fiscal year
2003 request of $81.0 million for the Safety of Dams Evaluation and
Modification Program, including Horsetooth Dam in Colorado and Wickiup
Dam in Oregon, provides for risk management activities throughout
Reclamation's inventory of 432 dams and dikes, plus preconstruction and
construction activities for up to 17 dams identified for funding
through the Safety of Dams Program. The fiscal year 2003 request
includes $1.3 million for the Department of the Interior Dam Safety
Program.
Site Security/Counter Terrorism ($28.4 million).--Funds are being
requested for continued heightened public safety and security efforts
at Reclamation facilities. This includes $26.6 million specifically for
counter terrorism measures including guards and surveillance, and
equipment to provide increased security for the general public,
Reclamation employees and facilities, and Information Technology
security. During fiscal year 2002, $30.2 million was provided to
Reclamation through the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($33.0 million).--In
December 2000, Congress enacted legislation to resolve the Colorado Ute
Indian Tribes' water rights claims and allow construction of a smaller
Animas``)La Plata Project to proceed. Work planned for fiscal year 2003
includes the continuation of cultural resource mitigation activities;
completion of natural gas pipeline relocations; wetlands and fish and
wildlife mitigation land acquisition and development; design on the
Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline; and the award of construction
contracts for Ridges Basin Dam and the Durango Pumping Plant.
Central Arizona Project ($34.7 million).--The request continues
construction of the Gila River Indian Community Distribution System and
other Indian distribution systems; work on recreation development; and
fulfillment of endangered species mitigation commitments for Roosevelt
Dam and for the CAP Aqueduct on the Gila, Santa Cruz, and San Pedro
Rivers. Funding is also requested to continue working with Tucson area
municipal entities on CAP reliability features.
Central Valley Project (CVP) ($128.8 million).--This provides
funding for 15 units, for operation and maintenance of the Central
Valley project. Among the activities proposed for funding is $5.4
million for the Placer County Water Agency Permanent Pumping facility
and closure of the diversion tunnel and river restoration, management
of contracts for land, grounds and buildings for Auburn-Folsom South
Unit. The President's budget provides for the Replacements, Additions,
and Extraordinary Maintenance Program ($16.0 million), funds work on 31
replacement, addition, and extraordinary maintenance (RAX) items
including overhaul of unit 3 at the Shasta Powerplant.
Colorado River Storage Project, Section 5 in Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming ($9.5 million).--Funds will begin water right
activities as well as fund protection from activities of others that
may adversely impact project operations. The request also funds
construction activities associated with the Upper Stillwater Dam
construction deficiency. Coordination with local, State, and Federal
agencies on water quality management activities will continue as will
land resource management activities associated with administering
project lands. The funding will also continue recreation management
oversight for project facilities, administration and compliance of
repayment contracts, and management of the integrated pest management
program for the project facilities and monitoring of Jordanelle
wetlands.
Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana,
Washington and Wyoming ($15.0 million).--This program addresses
Reclamation's legal requirements contained in the biological opinions
issued in December 2000 by the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota ($25.2 million).--Funds are
requested for cooperative agreements with the State of North Dakota and
Tribes for municipal, rural, and industrial water projects, for
development of Indian irrigation facilities, for work at several
wildlife refuges, and for operation and maintenance of completed
project facilities.
Klamath Project in California and Oregon ($14.3 million).--The
request continues funding for studies and initiatives related to
improving water supply and quality to meet agriculture, tribal,
wildlife refuge, and environmental needs in the Klamath River Basin and
for improvements in fish passage and habitat.
Lower Colorado River Operations Program in California, Arizona, and
Nevada ($12.4 million).--This program funds work necessary to carry out
the Secretary's responsibilities as water master of the lower Colorado
River. It also funds measures required by the interim biological
opinion on Reclamation's lower Colorado River operations, and
development of a multi-species conservation program to provide a basis
for Endangered Species Act compliance on the lower Colorado River over
the long term.
South Dakota Rural Water Projects ($43.5 million).--The fiscal year
2003 request includes funding for three South Dakota Rural Water
Projects: the Mid-Dakota Project ($10.0 million), Mni Wiconi Project
($31.5 million), and Lewis And Clark Rural Water System, which also
includes facilities in Iowa and Minnesota ($2.0 million). These
programs provide assistance for construction of water supply
transmission lines and storage reservoirs. The Mni Wiconi Project
provides water supplies to the Oglala Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, and Lower
Brule Sioux tribes, in addition to the West River/Lyman-Jones Rural
Water Systems.
Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects Title XVI ($17.8 million).--
This request continues funding nine studies and projects to recycle and
reuse water in the arid West. These projects will provide over 500,000
acre-feet of water annually to help the western States cope with
drought and to meet the water needs of their rapidly growing
population.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project ($11.9 million).--This
request continues the implementation of water conservation, fish and
wildlife improvements, and other measures authorized by the Yakima
River Basin Water Enhancement Act.
central valley project restoration fund
The fiscal year 2003 Reclamation budget includes a request for
$48.9 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
established by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. The
proposal is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts totaling
$39.6 million, which is the amount that can be collected from project
beneficiaries under Sec. 3407(d) of the Act. These funds will be used
to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated
habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River basins of California.
In addition, the funds will be used to achieve a reasonable balance
among competing demands for the use of Central Valley Project water,
including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural,
municipal and industrial and power contractors. Reclamation is seeking
appropriations for the full amount of funds of the estimated
collections for fiscal year 2003.
california bay-delta restoration
Consistent with the commitment to find long-term solutions to
improving water quality, habitat and ecological functions, and water
supply reliability, while reducing the risk of catastrophic breaching
of Delta levees, the fiscal year 2003 budget contains funds for Bay-
Delta activities that can be undertaken within existing statutory
authorities. The $15.0 million requested in this account will be used
for the Environmental Water Account and for costs associated with
administrative support of the CALFED Program, which includes planning
and management activities provided by Reclamation and through CALFED
Program staff. Funds provided will also be used to continue work on
ongoing studies addressing water storage needs.
other accounts
The request for Policy and Administration (P&A) is $66.2 million,
including $11.3 million for the Civil Service Retirement System and
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Administration's Proposal.
P&A funds will be used to develop and implement Reclamation-wide
policy, rules, and regulations (including actions under the Government
Performance and Results Act), and to perform functions which cannot be
charged to specific project or program activities covered by separate
funding authority. These funds support general administrative and
management functions.
No funding has been requested for fiscal year 2003 for the Loan
Program. The three projects currently underway will be completed in
2002. In addition, no funding is requested for loan program
administration.
fiscal year 2001-2002 accomplishments highlights
While we have set our priorities for the future, we are very proud
of the part Reclamation has played in the past, and I would like to
mention some recent accomplishments.
In fiscal year 2001, Reclamation implemented interim surplus
guidelines to help California with its water use reduction efforts. The
guidelines provide specific criteria for determining the availability
of surplus Colorado River water for Nevada, Arizona, and California as
part of the Annual Operating Plan for the river. From water year 2002
through 2016, the guidelines ensure California receives much-needed
Colorado River supplies for urban populations in its southern coastal
areas, while California concurrently implements programs to reduce its
overuse of the river. The guidelines also provide additional water for
other urban areas in Nevada and Arizona. Implementing these guidelines
will improve overall management of the Colorado River for the benefit
of all river users.
Working with the Arizona Water Banking Authority, Central Arizona
Water Conservation District, Southern Nevada Water Authority, and
Colorado River Commission of Nevada, Reclamation developed a ``Storage
and Interstate Release Agreement'' that will improve water management
in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The agreement was made possible by a
1999 rule that established procedures for interstate transfer and use
of Colorado River water. The agreement will allow Nevada to store
portions of its unused Colorado River water in Arizona groundwater
aquifers and specifies the exchange process for storing this water in
Arizona for later retrieval by Nevada.
Reclamation continued to participate in efforts to settle complex
water issues in Arizona. Working with Congressional representative; and
State, local, and Federal entities; Reclamation helped negotiate issues
related to water contracts with non-Indians and water rights claims of
area Indian tribes. The issues included settling the Central Arizona
Project repayment contract and related operation and maintenance issues
through an agreed-upon ``Stipulation Regarding a Stay of Litigation''
between the United States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation
District, a water rights settlement for the Gila River Indian
Community, a final amendment to the Southern Arizona Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1982, and a final allocation of Central Arizona
Project water to Arizona cities and Indian tribes. Agreements developed
from these negotiations would require legislation to be fully
implemented.
After a long and complex planning and development process,
Reclamation completed an environmental report on the Northwest Area
Water Supply Project and released it to interested parties, including
the Canadian Government, during fiscal year 2001. The Northwest Area
Water Supply Project is a municipal, rural, and industrial water supply
system designed to serve a 10-county area in northwestern North Dakota.
It was authorized by the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-294). Under the project, raw water would be drawn
from either Lake Sakakawea or Lake Audubon, disinfected, and pumped to
the Minot water treatment plant through buried pipeline. The Minot
water treatment plant would then treat the water to meet drinking water
standards before distributing it in the project service area. Before
the project could move forward, this compliance report was necessary to
ensure water treatment meets the requirements of the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909.
Safety of Dams.--In fiscal year 2001, Reclamation completed Safety
of Dams modifications at two dams, Salmon Lake (Washington) and Casitas
(California). Studies on Horsetooth were completed in fiscal year 2000.
The first major contract at the Horsetooth Reservoir Dams, which
provide municipal and industrial water to some of the fastest growing
communities in the West, was awarded in fiscal year 2001. The
Modification (MOD) Report for Horsetooth was approved in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2001.
Drought.--Reclamation's Drought Emergency Assistance Program
assists States and local entities throughout the West in coping with
emergency water shortages. Reclamation provided emergency assistance
through the acquisition of water to mitigate impacts to fish and
wildlife resulting from prolonged drought conditions in New Mexico on
the Rio Grande. Reclamation provided emergency assistance to the tribes
by procuring portable pumps and generators to pump water from existing
wells when the water table dropped due to drought. Reclamation also
provided emergency drought assistance to several states and tribes
through actions such as well repair and drilling.
Water Conservation and Recycling.--Reclamation's Water Conservation
Field Services Program has provided assistance to hundreds of local
water districts in four key areas: planning, education, demonstration,
and implementation. In specific instances, Reclamation assisted 209
water districts with water conservation planning. Reclamation formed a
cooperative cost-sharing partnership with 11 southern California water
and wastewater agencies under the Southern California Water Recycling
Projects Initiative.
In response to Biological Opinions, Reclamation worked to improve
habitat and flows for endangered fish at its facilities throughout the
West. It also continued its program to control the salinity of the
Colorado River. The salinity program, including those projects
constructed before 1995, is estimated to prevent about 550,000 tons of
salt per year from entering the Colorado River. Reclamation helped the
Navajo Department of Water Resources develop and complete a resource
management plan addressing the Navajo Nation's projected water
requirements and water resource infrastructure deficiencies. It
provided several Native American Pueblos with technical or financial
water management-related assistance through various programs including
water needs assessments, new pumps and other infrastructure, water
measurement structures, and automation of flow structures.
conclusion
This completes my statement. Please allow me to express my sincere
appreciation for the continued support that this Committee has provided
Reclamation. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at
this time.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Keys. Are you
enjoying the job?
Mr. Keys. Sir, so far so good.
Senator Domenici. I am not sure you would tell me here
publicly if you did not.
Mr. Keys. That is right.
Senator Domenici. After I asked the question, I wondered if
I should. But you do look kind of happy, so things are going
all right?
Mr. Keys. Yes, sir. I will tell you, we face a hard year in
the West because a lot of our areas, including yours and Mr.
Burns, are starting out the year short of water. So it could be
a hard one coming, but the budget that we have presented is a
good one. We think it gives us what we need to get the job done
this year.
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Johnston to
address the Central Utah Project, and before I do that I want
to make sure that when I was listing some of the numbers,
including monies for dam safety, I was focusing on increases. I
did not want there to be an appearance of inconsistency between
the numbers that Mr. Keys and I gave.
Senator Domenici. Fine.
STATEMENT OF RONALD JOHNSTON
Mr. Johnston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here today to testify in support of the President's 2003 budget
for the implementation of the Central Utah Project. This budget
provides $36.2 million for the implementation and continued
construction of this project.
I would like to ask that my statement be entered for the
record.
Senator Domenici. It will be admitted in the record.
Mr. Johnston. Thank you. I have just one item that I would
like to point out. This request includes $12 million for use by
the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to continue the
modified construction of the Diamond Fork system. The funding
will be used to close off a portion of the tunnel where we have
had an unforeseen cave-in and have experienced some hydrogen
sulfide gas.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We are developing a plan for the construction of
alternative facilities and are preparing cost estimates for
this work. We will communicate this information to you when we
have a firm estimate.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared statement of Ronald Johnston
My name is Ronald Johnston. I serve as the Program Director for
implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion Act under the
direction of the Assistant Secretary--Water and Science in the
Department of the Interior. I am pleased to provide the following
information about the President's fiscal year 2003 budget for
implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act, Titles II-VI of Public Law
102-575, provides for completion of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by
the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes
funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an account in the Treasury for deposit of these funds and
other contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation
activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement.
The Act provides that the Secretary may not delegate his
responsibilities under the Act to the Bureau of Reclamation. As a
result, the Department has established an office in Provo, Utah, with a
Program Director to provide oversight, review, and liaison with the
District, the Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and to assist in
administering the responsibilities of the Secretary under the Act.
The fiscal year 2003 request for the Central Utah Project
Completion Account provides $36.2 million for use by the District, the
Commission, and the Department to implement Titles II-IV of the Act,
which is the same as the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The request
includes $11.0 million for the District to implement approved water
conservation and water management improvement projects, and develop
planning and NEPA documents on facilities to deliver water in the Utah
Lake drainage basin.
The request includes $12.0 million for use by the District to
continue the modified construction of the Diamond Fork System. This
funding will be used to close off a section of the original tunnel that
experienced an unforeseen cave-in resulting in dangerous levels of
hydrogen sulfide gas. A plan is being developed for the construction
alternative facilities. We are preparing cost estimates for this work
and will communicate this information to you as soon as a firm estimate
is available.
The funds requested for the Mitigation Commission ($11.3 million)
will be used in implementing the fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title III ($9.7
million); and in completing mitigation measures committed to in pre-
1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents ($1.6 million). Title III
activities funded in fiscal year 2003 include the Provo River
Restoration Project; acquisition of habitat, access, and water rights;
and fish hatchery improvements. Finally, the request includes $1.9
million for the Program Office for mitigation and conservation projects
outside the State of Utah ($0.3 million); operation and maintenance
costs associated with instream flows and fish hatchery facilities ($0.3
million); and for program administration ($1.3 million).
In addition to the request described above, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' budget includes $24.7 million for the Ute Indian Water Rights
Settlement.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, your statement is in
the record.
Mr. Raley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are available to
answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee may
have.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Senator Burns, would
you like to lead off and ask your questions? I have to stay
here for a little while and see if Senator Reid comes, so why
don't you go ahead and proceed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
When I said a while ago, we can handle our whiskey, it is
the water. We are not getting water.
I want to put in the record, Mr. Chairman, a U.S. Drought
Monitor as of March the 5th of this year.
[The information follows:]
national drought summary
The East.--A storm brought 1 to 2 inches of rain to drought areas
along the Eastern Seaboard on March 2-3, offering some respite from the
persistent dry weather that has dominated the region since autumn.
Although the rain was beneficial, it was not sufficient to
significantly alter the overall drought picture, allowing extreme (D3)
drought to continue over Maine, the mid-Atlantic from New Jersey to
northern Virginia, and the Southeast from South Carolina to eastern
Georgia. The biggest improvement took place in southern Georgia and
northern Florida, where amounts of 4 inches or more eliminated dryness
in most of northern Florida and caused D1 and D2 drought to recede in
southern Georgia. The heavy rains in southern Georgia and southern
Alabama resulted in these areas being placed in the W category,
indicating that the dominant impact at this time is to water supplies,
the recent moisture having eased agriculture and fire concerns for the
time being. The drought in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast remains
mostly a hydrological drought, with impacts on ponds, lakes, rivers,
wells, and reservoirs. However, there are a variety of other effects
from the drought, including long-term impacts on vegetation and trees.
According to preliminary data, the Northeast experienced the second
driest September-February in 107 years of record. The 12 months ending
in February were the driest on record in Maine. New Jersey, Delaware,
and Maryland reported the driest February on record.
The Plains and Midwest.--The early-March storm had little impact on
dryness in this region, as the heaviest snow and rain mostly fell in
areas not experiencing abnormal dryness. D0 dryness continued in the
northern Plains, with severe to extreme drought persisting in southwest
Texas. D1 drought intensified to D2 drought in extreme southern Texas.
Drought also intensified to D2 levels in western Oklahoma and southwest
Kansas.
The West.--Little rain or snow fell this week across most of the
region, resulting in little change to the drought depiction. Heavy snow
in parts of Colorado failed to alter the D0 to D1 conditions there.
Updated snowpack measurements prompted an improvement to D1 drought in
southwestern Idaho. Severe to extreme drought continued from Montana
into Wyoming.
Hawaii and Puerto Rico.--D1 drought continued in western Molokai
and D0 dryness remained in southern Puerto Rico.
Looking Ahead.--Weather features to watch in the next 2 weeks that
may affect areas experiencing dryness include: (1) another powerful
storm crossing the nation on Friday-Sunday March 8-10 bringing 0.5 to
over 1 inch of additional rain to the Eastern Seaboard and up to around
0.5 inches of equivalent liquid precipitation to the northern Plains,
with variable snowfall amounts in Colorado; (2) above-normal rain and
snow over the Northwest; and (3) generally below-normal precipitation
over the southern Plains and Southwest.
OFFSTREAM STORAGE
Senator Burns. This is really giving us a lot of pause,
especially where now it looks like we may have a somewhat
larger runoff in the western mountains now, John. I think what
we have been through in the last 3 years, we had better refocus
now on offstream storage and start building some ways to hold
some of that spring runoff for use later on.
I would tell you that the offstream storage off the
Muskshell River is dry. The Muskshell River is dry. You can
walk across it. You can walk across the Yellowstone River
anywhere above the mouth of the Big Horn River and never get
your knees wet. So we are going into our fourth year of severe
drought in that part of the country.
Last year this committee directed $350,000 for a study to
help the North Central Water Project in Montana to complete its
work needed to prepare for the authorization and construction
of that project. Right now BOR has said they will not release
that money until they have authorization.
I would hold up as an example of Dry Prairie where we had
to re-engineer, reengineer, reengineer to get the specs within
the BOR and the authority goal that is going to be overseeing
that project. And we spent a lot of dollars needlessly.
I just want some kind of a commitment from the BOR that we
can release that $350,000 for a study up there on the North
Central Project so that we do not make the same mistakes and
waste a lot of dollars and time before that project is ready to
go. I would like some assurance from your office that you would
work with us on that.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burns, certainly we will do
that. We are working closely with those folks. It appears that
we can have that work done and release that money this year.
Senator Burns. That is good news because we need to get
that done so that we do not make mistakes later on. Now, when I
first come to this body and we were also in a drought year up
there, on the books was several studies that had not been done
and I do not think they would apply today. But nonetheless, I
think we ought to start looking at offstream storage along the
Yellowstone River.
There were a couple of sites that was studied. It was very
positive at that time. We are going to come to you and ask for
some technical help and also to refocus on what we can do with
offstream storage. Because not only are we in a position out
there of protecting instream flows and for irrigation and a
host of other things and municipal use along the Yellowstone
River.
We know how to conserve now a little bit better, as far as
agriculture is concerned. We have been working on that a lot.
But I still think that we are going to have to figure out some
way to hold some of that water in my State in order to ensure
that we have instream flows, because I know the stress last
year on the Yellowstone was terrific. I mean, it was just
beyond acceptable to either the sports fishermen or to the
riparian and the damage that was done by low stream flow on the
Yellowstone.
So I am sure that we have areas up there where we can store
water, and even maybe under gravity conditions. I hear all of
that money going to California and I remember that California
water fight from the early 1990s. We did it wrong then, so let
us not do it wrong again if we can possibly help it.
So I would just like some assurances from your office that
we would take a look at the Yellowstone. Let us take a look and
revive some of these plans that we know that would be
beneficial, not only to the water users, but also to what we
can do to improve the environment along the Yellowstone River.
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burns, we will come to your
office and sit down and see where we get started. And then I
can direct my folks in the field to work with those local folks
there, looking at getting the authority we need on the North
Central Montana Water Supply. We will do that this year.
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Burns. We also have a situation up on Fort Pack,
with cabin owners up there. I would like to bring that to a
close, if I could. And even on Canyon Ferry, because we know
that we have to find out how to manage the Canyon Ferry thing,
being as the Bureau of Land Management has now walked away from
that contract. I think it is in your lap now. We need to talk
about those things, too.
But these are projects and ideas of BOR that I think is
going to take us a little sit down, I will either come to your
office or you can come to mine, it does not make any
difference. That is a two-way street. And we can take care of
some of these key situations that have been pushed back and
pushed back for too long. We need to move forward on some of
these projects.
And we want to do it in a way that is in concert with what
your planning is and your plans, but also we just have--I love
your statements that you are going to get results rather than
process. But I will tell you, there have been times the BOR has
not been as responsive as they could have been to some of the
things that is going on in the State of Montana.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. Other than that, I am
going to support them.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Are you going to be
here this weekend? Are you going home?
Senator Burns. I was supposed to take one of my great trips
this weekend, and guess what?
Senator Domenici. Cancelled.
Senator Burns. Yes, my wife. We know what endangered
species is, we know what a threatened species is. In the Ag
bill now we have got a sensitive species. I found out what that
was.
Senator Domenici. Sensitive species?
Senator Burns. Yes, my wife.
Senator Domenici. Well, we hope you do not have a negative
on her in the Ag bill. She is a mighty fine lady.
We are going to proceed now, assuming that Senator Reid
will be along shortly. Some of these are very parochial, some
are not.
WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
Mr. Keys, there seems to be an increasing trend for the
Bureau of Reclamation being the Federal agency charged with
carrying out the Federal obligation to water rights settlements
of Native Americans. Can you tell me how this changes the
mission of the Bureau, or does it?
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, we work very closely with the
Secretary in those water right settlements and, in a number of
cases, they have called upon us to work with them on water
projects to help with those settlements. And we stand ready to
do that.
Senator Domenici. So what has been the impact of the
Bureau's recent water rights settlements?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, at times they have called upon us
for large projects. Of course, they take money. So far we have
been able to work them into our budget and meet the
requirements and it has not had a damaging effect on our
budget.
Senator Domenici. Obviously, the question is raised for a
number of reasons, but clearly these come about in a manner
that frequently do not permit you to put them into a budget. I
think it is very important that you start looking ahead with
people who are planning these events. They do not come out of a
rock either. They have been around a long time. It is just that
you cannot say in your budget it will settle September 15 and
we need the money 4 months later. It does not happen that way.
But my recommendation is that you do everything you can to
be informed so that you are asking us for something for
settlements if, in fact, it seems imperative that you are going
to need it, so you do not have to bleed other programs when
that occurs. There will be a lot more coming along. You
probably are aware of that. There are some in the pipeline.
They are going to happen soon.
Mr. Raley. Senator, from the Secretary's perspective, we
very much want to work with you and the rest of the Executive
Branch to do that sort of planning. From the very beginning,
Secretary Norton has asked us all to be sensitive to that issue
and to look down the road so that we can address the fiscal
impacts which are typically associated with Indian water rights
settlements at the earliest time that a settlement appears to
be ripe.
As we all know, many of them take decades to get to a place
where they are ready to be done. We have identified several
that are potential and are watching them closely and are going
to provide whatever support is appropriate, including the
financial planning so that we can fulfill this important aspect
of the Department's responsibility.
TITLE XVI
Senator Domenici. Let me move along. Title XVI programs,
your budget request for Title XVI projects is $17.75 million.
That is down from last year where it was about $36 million,
almost half. Commissioner Keys, will you tell the committee
briefly what impact this level of funding is going to have on
the Title XVI programs? And let me just close by asking you if
you will provide us with the current status of the program? We
would like that to supplement your answer.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we will certainly provide that. The
request that we have put in this year is actually very close to
the request that we put in last year. Certainly, the amount
funded was more, but it accomplishes what we are trying to do.
There are a number of those programs that were funded in
year's past that are not part of our fiscal year 2003, and
there are good reasons for a lot of those. A lot of them are
finishing up, and some of them have carryover monies to cover.
In the summary that we will provide to you, we will cover why
some of those were not funded.
[The information follows:]
Amount Needed to Complete Funding for Title XVI Program
According to the latest information and estimates, and taking into
account the funds available this year, approximately $329.9 million
would be required to complete the Federal funding for the following
projects that will be still ongoing after fiscal year 2002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds
Total project Total Federal available thru Balance needed
Project cost cost fiscal year to complete
2002 project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Area, CA............................ $316,412 $69,970 $69,970 $0
San Gabriel Basin, CA........................... 152,360 38,090 28,122 9,968
San Diego Area, CA.............................. 690,360 172,590 64,246 108,344
Port Hueneme Demo, CA........................... 15,310 4,000 4,000 0
North San Diego Area, CA........................ 84,857 20,000 8,482 11,518
Calleguas MWD, CA............................... 100,205 20,000 3,578 16,422
Orange County, CA............................... 355,910 20,000 6,038 13,962
Mission Basin, CA............................... 9,070 2,268 2,268 0
Long Beach Area, CA............................. 61,656 15,414 5,083 10,331
Long Beach Demo, CA \1\......................... 40,000 20,000 937 19,063
Albuquerque Metro, NM........................... 44,700 11,175 11,175 0
El Paso, TX..................................... 33,311 8,328 7,133 1,195
Watsonville, CA................................. 80,000 20,000 200 19,800
San Jose, CA.................................... 480,000 109,900 20,000 89,900
Southern Nevada................................. 130,800 20,000 6,737 13,263
Las Vegas Desal, NV............................. 1,200 300 300 0
Phoenix Metro, AZ............................... 80,000 20,000 525 19,475
Tooele, UT...................................... 15,486 3,828 3,828 0
Salem, OR....................................... 30,000 7,500 200 7,300
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................... 2,721,637 583,363 242,822 340,541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes 50 percent Federal share.
Note: Federal participation in LA, Port Hueneme, Tooele, and Mission Basin is essentially complete. Although
there is no balance to complete for the Las Vegas Desalination and the Albuquerque Metro, they can still be
counted as on-going.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT
Senator Domenici. Let me jump over to the Middle Rio Grande
Project. $15.4 million is requested for this project this
fiscal year. I commend the Bureau for its efforts to help with
reference to the recovery of the silvery minnow and the willow
flag patch in cooperation with the environmental study group
that is working out there.
Can you provide us, for the record, an update of the
Bureau's effort with regard to the minnows?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we can certainly do that.
[The information follows:]
Silvery Minnow
Ongoing population monitoring showed an increase in relative
abundance and distribution of minnows in 2001 compared to similar data
from 2000. Fall 2001 sampling indicates stable minnow populations
despite occasional river drying.
The State of New Mexico and the United States signed a Conservation
Water Agreement on June 29, 2001, to provide up to 30,000 acre-feet of
water for each of the 2001-2003 water years for the benefit of the
silvery minnow. Conservation water has been released to augment river
flow since March. The supplemental flows consider drying as early as
June, but will try to maintain continuous flow through May.
A hearing on the merits of the Minnow v. Keys case was held in
November 2001. Parties are currently awaiting the final ruling of the
Federal Court.
The ESA Work Group is developing a Cooperative Agreement, a long-
term strategy document, and draft authorizing legislation that will
fully describe the Collaborative Program and address the authorities
and appropriations necessary to accomplish the Program. The Work Group
is currently preparing an Interim MOU as part of the implementation of
an Interim Strategy to meet Work Group and congressional needs to
formalize the Collaborative Program, secure Program funding, comply
with environmental regulations, and fulfill Federal trust
responsibilities.
Mr. Keys. I would add that the collaborative program is
being developed. It worked very well in 2001. The early
forecasts for that basin are still very poor on runoff, and we
are working early to try to be sure that that collaborative
process gives us the result in 2002 that we had in 2001.
The report on the collaborative program that the committee
requested last year is in the process and should be available
within this month.
Mr. Raley. Senator, I can also assure you that the Middle
Rio Grande has been identified at the departmental level as an
area that requires and deserves special attention. We have many
priorities, but that is among the top.
Senator Domenici. There is no question that this drought
monitor does not permit you all to leave here with any less
concern about the Middle Rio Grande Basin and the Pecos, with
New Mexico having the most drought area, severe drought, that
is on this map. It shows us having it worse than anyone. So we
are back in. This last year was not so bad, but before that,
you were not in your positions, but it was pretty bad.
RIO GRANDE
Is the Bureau of Reclamation's ability to comply with the
requirements of a biological opinion regarding the Rio Grande
and the commitments that were made in the litigation? Can that
be done with the money that you put in the Rio Grande?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we feel it can be done. We feel the
fiscal year 2002 and 2003 budgets give us that money.
Senator Domenici. In a State like ours, when we look out
there, our two major river basins, the Rio Grande and the
Pecos, there are very big problems on each one. Obviously,
there is going to be far more claimants to the water than there
is water for the claimants. That is what makes the endangered
species such a difficult issue. In a sense, the species comes
along and with a river that is almost all allocated, you put it
down in the river and say here is something as big as maybe a
city like Albuquerque needs. It is brand new but it is going to
take first priority.
That is where we run into some very difficult situations. I
appreciate working together on the issues and you staying on
top of it and know a lot about the court suits that are
involved.
DESALINIZATION
But we also think that maybe we should proceed with
desalinization since there is such an abundance of saline water
in New Mexico, a huge basin. So I have introduced a bill,
Senate Bill 1309, which authorizes water desalinization and the
construction of a research facility in the Tularosa Basin of
New Mexico. In the 2002 energy and water appropriations bill,
$1 million was given to the Bureau to complete a study to
determine the most effective and efficient manner to develop a
technology progress plan to be used in the development of a
desalinization research facility. What is the status of the
project which I have just indicated was funded? And will you
continue to do what you can to support this effort?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, the project that was funded last
year is well underway, and we are on schedule with all of the
activities on the Desalinization Act. The Administration is
currently working with you and your folks for that
reauthorization that is due this year.
The report is due to Congress in October, but we actually
have a draft scheduled to be here in June. So we are even a
little ahead of schedule on that report on desalinization.
Senator Domenici. Are you looking everywhere in the
technology, applied technology, on desalinization wherever it
is occurring in the world? Are we taking advantage of that so
that in that report we are using the best and highest
technology that might be available if we were to proceed?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. We are working closely
with the Sandia Lab on new technology. Just this past late
fall, early winter, we had people in Israel working with them
on their stuff. We are currently working with a new technology
in California where they may actually use it in Long Beach.
So yes, we are doing that. And we hope that the report,
when it comes to you in October, will give us a wide range of
desal technologies that we can use.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. We look forward to
that with great optimism.
ANIMAS-LAPLATA
The Animas-LaPlata, we have already heard testimony from
the Administration on that. Can you provide us with an update
on the Animas-LaPlata Project? And I want to ask again now, is
the $33 million enough to keep the project on schedule and in
compliance with the Ute Water Rights Settlement Act?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, yes, we will provide you an update.
Our current analysis shows that the $33 million is what is
necessary to keep us going and meet those obligations to the
tribe there.
Senator Domenici. The cultural resource activities, can you
tell me what cultural resource activities the Bureau will be
carrying out and how much you are providing for this effort?
And are these funds requested for tribal development? Are there
funds for tribal development? If you could tell me how much is
being requested by the Bureau with reference to that purpose,
also.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, in the year 2002 we have $16
million total and in 2003, we have $33 million. We are working
closely with the tribe there, for them to actually do the
cultural resource work. There is about $8 million in the BIA's
2003 budget for a trust fund that is requested by that
authority, or by the Act.
Senator Domenici. Is this your budget man?
Mr. Keys. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Domenici. On Animas-LaPlata, could you tell us--and
let the record show that Robert Wolf is answering this
question. Could you tell us, on Animas-LaPlata, how do you have
this scheduled in terms of the out years? Or maybe you want to
do that yourself, Mr. Keys?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I think we can both do it. The
original act asks that all of the appropriations be made in 5
years, with a 7 year construction period. 2002 was the first of
the funding years with $16 million, and with $33 million in
2003. That leaves about $200 million to be funded in the out
years.
If you would like more detail, I could certainly have Mr.
Wolf address that.
Senator Domenici. Maybe you can supply us with a supplement
to that answer which shows the actual flow over 5 years, and
the construction as it will proceed.
Mr. Keys. We will be glad to do that.
[The information follows:]
ANIMAS LA-PLATA UPPER COLORADO REGION--7 YEAR SPENDING AND 5 YEAR APPROPRIATIONS SCHEDULE
[In Millions of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSEIS Estimate 5 Year
Inflation Appropriation
Fiscal year Year Indexed 7 Year Inflation
Spending Indexed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunk............................................................... 79.4 79.4
2002............................................................... 1 16 16
2003............................................................... 2 33 33
2004............................................................... 3 63.3 82.1
2005............................................................... 4 65.9 68.4
2006............................................................... 5 67.2 63.4
2007............................................................... 6 16.4 0
2008............................................................... 7 1.1 0
--------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 7 342.3 342.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table shows the inflation-indexed estimated spending for the 7
year schedule presented in the Final Supplement to the Environmental
Impact Statement (FSEIS). It also shows the funds required according to
the 5 year appropriations schedule set in the authorizing legislation.
The construction contracts for the major features of the project
are scheduled as follows:
Ridges Basin Dam and Reservoir would begin in fiscal year 2003 and
end in fiscal year 2007
Durango Pumping Plant would begin in fiscal year 2004 and end in
fiscal year 2007
Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit would begin in fiscal year 2005 and end
in fiscal year 2006
Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline would begin in fiscal year 2005
and end in fiscal year 2007.
PECOS RIVER BASIN
Senator Domenici. Pecos River Basin, this is another one in
the State of New Mexico. We have a water salvage project. This
is the other river in New Mexico that is in a very, very
precarious position. The thing that makes it most difficult is
that you follow literally the Supreme Court's decision with
reference to that river and what we owe to Texas, the problem
that is going to come along is Texas is beefing up its legal
counsel and lawyer activities with reference to this. They may
be in a position to force us to release some more water and do
some real damage in the basin.
So last year's budget request had money in for this. The
fiscal year 2002 appropriation provided additional funding to
maintain what I think is a good project, the eradication of
water-using salt cedar. In 2003 the budget request again
reduces the amount. Can you give us the rationale which led to
reducing the project level on this collaborative project?
Whoever wants to do that.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, the work there, of course, is to
try to get a handle on salt cedar and some ways to control it,
because it is using a lot of water there.
In the fiscal year 2002 budget we had $175,000, and that
was matched by the State. This year our funding is down some,
because of the emphasis that we have with our folks there. That
is as much as we could do, but we are certainly working very
closely with them.
Senator Domenici. So this is not one where you would be
saying in the record that you have the money that you can use.
You can use more than that, you just did not have it. Is that a
fair assessment?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we would be willing to work with
the folks there in the Pecos River to work on the salt cedar
program.
Senator Domenici. Do you agree that, considering the
precarious nature, that that is a pretty good program?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we absolutely agree with that.
CARLSBAD PROJECT
Senator Domenici. Is the Bureau working with us in New
Mexico and the beneficiaries of the Carlsbad Project to prevent
under-delivery of water to the State of Texas? Are you all
involved in that professionally and as experts?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we are working very closely with
the State engineers of both of those States. To be very candid,
we are trying to stay away from being in between them right
now.
Senator Domenici. I am going to ask one more and then yield
to the Chairman. I have about seven or eight more, Mr.
Chairman, but I will surely go after you.
Senator Reid. Please, go ahead.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Senator Domenici. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District,
again in the basin in Albuquerque, the Rio Grande. Last year we
put language in the emergency supplemental allowing the Bureau
to accept payment from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District on their repayment contract. With what is the status
of this transaction? And has the Bureau taken advantage of
this?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where it stands right
now, and we would certainly provide that for the record.
Senator Domenici. Will you? We really believe that the
Federal Government, operating through you, it looks kind of
silly when they will not accept money to prepay a loan. To me
that is rather suspicious. It is sort of like the Bureau does
not want to put itself in a position where they have to comply
with whatever the rights or obligations are if the loan is
fully paid. I do not want to be part of that, and I hope you do
not. But in any event, Congress has told you not to by saying
to accept the money.
So would you tell us how that is being carried out in an
answer to the record?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we will do that. We have every
intention of completing it. I just do not know where it stands
right now.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you should proceed.
I may have some additional questions, I may not.
[The information follows:]
Middle Rio Grande Payment
Public Law 107-20, dated July 24, 2001, authorized acceptance of
final payment by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for the San
Juan Chama Project. On August 9, 2001 final payment of $2,417,500 was
received by Reclamation.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Senator Domenici, let me first of all say how
much I appreciate your handing this situation today, taking
over the committee. We always hear so much from Washington
about all the partisanship, and there is a lot of it and too
much of it, I am sure. But the things we do not hear much about
are the friendships that develop.
It is not often that you would think that someone who is a
member of Republican party would notify his counterpart on the
committee the night before and say, ``I am going to be tied up
on the Senate floor, will you go ahead and start the hearing?''
And of course, this is the relationship that Senator Domenici
and I have developed over all these many years.
In addition to our trying to do the very best we can with
$22 billion a year for some of the most important programs this
country has, we do our best there. But we also try to be civil
in the process to each other. The staffs get along well. And so
I say to you, I appreciate very much you stepping in here this
morning, Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Reid. I think it indicates the absolute trust that
we have for one another.
I also appreciate your being here. One of the things that
we try to avoid as much as we can is having you folks, who have
so many important things to do working for our Government,
waste your time sitting around here for us to come. So that is
why Senator Domenici filling in here took away a little of the
guilt that I had having had this meeting set at 10 o'clock,
right in the midst of things we were trying to do on the Senate
floor. So thank you for your patience.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
The OMB approved testimony for the Office of Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, in testimony for the
Chief of Engineers, will be placed in the record as if given.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of the Department of the Army
army civil works program for fiscal year 2003
The President's fiscal year 2003 budget confronts a two-front war
against terrorism while taking steps to restore economic growth. In
order to finance the war against terrorism it moderates spending in the
rest of government. This year's budget also takes the significant step
of assessing performance in government, and begins to tie what works
and doesn't work to spending decisions. This will help ensure that
government programs that fail to achieve their purpose can be held
accountable and, perhaps, be reformed or ended as a consequence.
The fiscal year 2003 budget for Army Civil Works provides funding
to continue the development and restoration of the Nation's water and
related resources, the operation and maintenance of existing
navigation, flood damage reduction, and multiple-purpose projects, the
protection of the Nation's regulated waters and wetlands, and the
cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early efforts
to develop atomic weapons. The budget includes new appropriations of
$4.29 billion. The new appropriations are expected to result in fiscal
year 2003 outlays of approximately $4.47 billion.
Three legislative initiatives support the fiscal year 2003 Army
Civil Works budget. First, the Administration is proposing government-
wide legislation under which the full costs for Federal retirees will
be allocated to agency programs instead of the Office of Personnel
Management. Under this proposal, $115 million of the $4.29 billion
represents retiree costs not previously borne by the Army Civil Works
program.
Second, the Administration is proposing legislation under which
three Federal power marketing administrations will finance hydropower
operation and maintenance costs directly, in a manner similar to the
mechanism currently used by the Bonneville Power Administration in the
Pacific Northwest. This proposal is described below in greater detail.
Third, the Administration is proposing legislation to increase fees
at Corps of Engineers lakes and recreation areas and to extend the
existing recreation fee demonstration program. This proposal also is
described below in greater detail.
The new appropriations, including new funding for retiree costs,
will derive an estimated $3.258 billion from the general fund, $764
million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, $85 million from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund, $34 million from Special Recreation User
Fees, and $149 million from three Federal power marketing
administrations for hydropower operation and maintenance costs.
Other program funding is estimated at $464 million. This total
includes $118 million transferred from the Bonneville Power
Administration for operation and maintenance of hydropower facilities
in the Pacific Northwest and $272 million contributed by non-Federal
interests.
The budget represents an increase from the fiscal year 2002 budget
of 7 percent and a decrease from fiscal year 2002 appropriations of 7
percent, including adjustments for the new retiree costs and excluding
emergency supplemental appropriations and inflation adjustments.
program highlights
Priority Missions
The budget gives priority to ongoing studies, projects and programs
that provide substantial benefits under the principal missions of the
Civil Works program, which are commercial navigation, flood damage
reduction (including coastal storm and hurricane damage reduction), and
environmental restoration. No funds are provided for studies and
projects that carry out non-traditional missions that in the view of
the Administration should remain the responsibility of non-Federal
interests or other Federal agencies, such as wastewater treatment, and
municipal and industrial water supply treatment and distribution. In
addition, the budget does not fund individual studies and projects that
are inconsistent with established policies governing the applicable
missions.
Emphasis on Ongoing, Budgeted Construction Projects
The Corps estimates that the balance of funding needed to complete
all active construction projects and authorized and unauthorized
projects in preconstruction engineering and design is about $44
billion. Of this, about $21 billion is necessary to complete the flood
control, navigation and environmental restoration projects funded in
the budget in the Corps' Construction, General program. This represents
12 years of funding at the level enacted in fiscal year 2002 just to
finish funding ongoing Construction, General projects supported in the
budget.
More projects have been started than can be prosecuted efficiently,
given the limitations on available funding. The budget directs funding
to ongoing projects that have been determined to be consistent with
policy, in order to quickly realize the benefits that those projects
are designed to provide.
Shore Protection
The budget treats projects to protect coastal structures from
hurricane and storm damage on a par with other types of flood damage
reduction projects. The Administration continues to be concerned about
the appropriate level of non-Federal cost sharing for shore protection
projects, and is considering proposing legislation to adjust Federal
and non-Federal cost shares.
Direct Financing of Hydropower Operation and Maintenance Costs
Historically, each year the Army Civil Works program has financed
the operation and maintenance costs of Corps of Engineers hydroelectric
facilities, and in the next year Federal power marketing agencies have
repaid the Treasury for these costs from the revenues provided by
ratepayers. The exception has been in the Pacific Northwest, where
under section 2406 of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public
Law 102-486, the Bonneville Power Administration has directly financed
the costs of operating and maintaining the Corps hydroelectric
facilities from which it receives power.
In 1999, the General Accounting Office found that the Corps'
hydropower facilities are twice as likely to experience ``unplanned
outages'' as private sector facilities, because the Corps does not
always have funds for maintenance and repairs when needed. Corps
facilities experience unplanned outages approximately 3.7 percent of
the time, compared to the industry average of 2.3 percent.
To address this problem, the budget proposes that the Southeastern
Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the
Western Area Power Administration finance hydropower directly, in a
manner similar to the mechanism used by Bonneville. The budget
contemplates that these power marketing administrations will make those
hydropower operation and maintenance investments that they believe are
justified in order to provide economical, reliable hydropower to their
customers and that, as a consequence, unplanned outages will decline
over time to levels comparable to the industry average.
Protection of Critical Facilities
The Administration sought $139 million in emergency supplemental
appropriations to the Operation and Maintenance, General account for
the protection of critical Civil Works facilities from terrorist
attack. Congress provided these funds in Division B of the fiscal year
2002 Department of Defense appropriations act. The funds will be used
to pay recurring facility protection costs and one-time costs to assess
the vulnerability of each facility and to initiate ``hard'' protection
of critical facilities. The Corps expects to complete its facility
assessments by the end of April 2002.
The Administration is continuing its commitment to facility
protection in fiscal year 2003. The budget includes $65 million for
recurring security costs ($64 million in Operation and Maintenance,
General and $1 million in Flood Control, Mississippi River and
Tributaries), not including new retiree costs). The Administration will
evaluate the need for additional security measures based on the
conclusions of the facility assessments.
Fee Increases at Recreation Areas and Lakes
The Army is undertaking efforts to increase day use fees, camping
fees, annual pass fees, and special use permit fees under existing
authority. These efforts are expected to help increase annual
recreation user fee receipts to $38 million in fiscal year 2002 from
less than $34 million in fiscal year 2001. In addition, under proposed
legislation, recreation user fees and shoreline permit fees increases
would be phased in through fiscal year 2006. The legislation also will
extend the existing demonstration program under which recreation user
fee receipts over $34 million per year are automatically available to
the Corps to spend on operation, maintenance, and improvement of its
recreation facilities. We project that annual recreation and shoreline
permit fee receipts will grow by $6 million in fiscal year 2003 to $44
million, and an additional $5 million per year in fiscal year 2004
through fiscal year 2006, to a total of $59 million in 2006.
discussion of appropriation accounts
General Investigations
The budget for the Civil Works study program is $108 million,
including $5 million for new retiree costs. This is a significant
reduction from funding levels in the budgets and appropriations for
previous years. The reduced funding level for General Investigations is
intended to slow the rate at which studies and preconstruction
engineering and design efforts are carried out and completed and the
rate at which projects with completed studies are added to the existing
construction backlog. Cost-sharing sponsors, who are being asked to
invest in studies and design, expect timely construction once studies
and design are completed and the projects are authorized. This reduced
funding level reflects the Administration's priority of completing
policy-consistent projects that are under construction before
initiating new work.
No new study starts are included in the budget. However, to the
extent allowed within available funding, policy-consistent studies that
are under way will continue to move seamlessly from the reconnaissance
phase to the feasibility phase and from the feasibility phase to
preconstruction engineering and design as they receive the necessary
levels of review and approval within the Corps and the Army.
Coordination, technical assistance, and research activities also will
be continued, including continued Army participation in the National
Estuaries Council.
construction, general
The fiscal year 2003 budget for the Civil Works Construction,
General program is $1.44 billion, including $22 million for new retiree
costs. Of that total, $85 million will be derived from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund to fund the construction and major rehabilitation
of inland waterway projects and $15 million will be derived from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to fund the Federal share of construction
costs for dredged material disposal facilities at operating harbor
projects.
Funding is included in this account for continuing projects for
which the Administration has completed its review and made a
determination that the project supports priority missions and is
consistent with established policies. No funds are included to initiate
construction of discretionary new projects. Furthermore, no funds are
included to continue planning, engineering, design, or construction of
projects added by Congress in fiscal year 2002 for which the
Administration has not completed its review and established a favorable
position.
The budget for the Construction, General account gives priority to
projects that can be completed in fiscal year 2003. Thirty projects, or
15 percent of the 194 budgeted projects, will be completed. The budget
also includes substantial CG funding, net of new retiree costs, for
three priority projects: $120 million for the New York and New Jersey
Harbor deepening project; $77 million for the Olmsted Locks and Dam
project in Illinois and Kentucky; and $148.5 million for restoration of
the Florida Everglades, including $37 million for the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan.
The budget also ensures that environmental requirements for the
Columbia River Basin and for the acquisition and development of shallow
water habitat on the Missouri River will be met. For the Missouri
River, $17.5 million is allocated to the Missouri River Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation Project to expedite restoration of aquatic habitat.
For the Columbia River Basin, the budget includes $98 million for the
Columbia River Fish Mitigation project and $2 million for a new
construction start, the estuary habitat restoration program for the
lower Columbia River, which must be started to meet legal requirements.
(These figures do not include new retiree costs.) Both the ongoing
project and the new project on the Columbia River are required in
fiscal year 2003 to comply with Biological Opinions issued under the
Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the recovery of threatened and
endangered fish species.
The budget provides, net of new retiree costs, $78 million for
continuing planning, design, and construction of projects under the
Continuing Authorities Program. These are small projects for flood
damage reduction, navigation, shoreline protection, streambank
protection, navigation project impact mitigation, clearing and
snagging, aquatic ecosystem restoration, beneficial uses of dredged
material, and project modifications for improvement of the environment.
The budget includes no funding to initiate new construction under the
Continuing Authorities Program.
The Administration is proposing legislation to require agencies to
pay the full cost of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA).
The Department of Labor will add a small surcharge to the amount
charged to each agency for FECA benefits to ensure full coverage. The
CG account includes an additional $1 million in the Workmen's
Compensation line item to cover the surcharge.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
The budget includes $288 million for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program, including $7 million for new retiree costs. The
budget directs funding to the priority flood damage reduction projects
on the mainstem of the Mississippi River and in the Atchafalaya River
Basin, Louisiana, including the completion of the Louisiana State
Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana, project. No funding is provided for
studies or projects that represent non-traditional missions or are
inconsistent with established policies. No funding is provided for new
studies or projects. $1 million is included for the recurring costs of
protecting critical Mississippi River and Tributaries facilities from
attack.
Operation and Maintenance, General
The budget provides funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to
carry out its operation and maintenance responsibilities at Corps-
operated projects for the purposes of commercial navigation, flood
damage reduction, recreation, natural resources management, and
multiple purposes including hydroelectric power generation.
The overall budget for the Operation and Maintenance, General,
account is $1.979 billion, including $65 million for new retiree costs.
Of this amount, $749 million will be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, $34 million will be derived from Special
Recreation User Fees, and, under proposed legislation described above,
$149 million will be derived from the direct funding of hydropower
operation and maintenance costs by three Federal power marketing
administrations.
In addition to these funds, operation and maintenance of hydropower
facilities in the Pacific Northwest will be directly financed by a
transfer of approximately $118 million from Bonneville Power
Administration revenues.
The budget directs funding for navigation projects to those that
support commercial or subsistence usage. The budget provides: $536
million for deep draft harbors (harbors with authorized depths of
greater than 14 feet); $47 million for shallow draft harbors, with
priority given to those harbors that serve commercial activities or
provide a means of subsistence; $384 million for inland waterways with
commercial traffic of more than one billion ton-miles per year; and $57
million for waterways with less commercial traffic, with priority given
to those operation and maintenance activities that provide the highest
return, generally on the waterways and waterway segments with the
lowest average cost per ton-mile (these figures do not include new
retiree costs).
The budget includes $64 million, not including new retiree costs,
for the recurring costs of protecting critical Civil Works facilities
from attack.
regulatory program
The budget for the Regulatory Program is $151 million, including $7
million for new retiree costs. These funds will be used for permit
evaluation, enforcement, oversight of mitigation efforts,
administrative appeals, watershed studies, special area management
plans, and environmental impact statements, in order to provide
effective regulation of the Nation's waters and wetlands and expedite
permit decisions.
The $151 million represents a much-needed increase for the
Regulatory Program and supports responsive service to the public. This
funding will enable a reduction in average permit processing times from
an estimated 160 days in fiscal year 2002 to an estimated 120 days by
the end of fiscal year 2004. The budget also provides additional
resources for monitoring of compliance with issued permits and for
partnerships with states and local communities through watershed
planning efforts.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is an
environmental cleanup program for sites contaminated as a result of the
Nation's early efforts to develop atomic weapons. Congress transferred
the program from the Department of Energy in fiscal year 1998. We are
continuing to implement needed cleanups at contaminated sites. This
year's budget is for $141 million, including $1 million for new retiree
costs.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
This program finances preparedness, response, and recovery
activities for flood, storm, and hurricane events, and preparedness
activities in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
through the Federal Response Plan. The budget proposes $22 million for
this program, including $2 million for new retiree costs. This amount
will be used, together with any funding that may remain available from
prior year appropriations, to finance programmed and emergency
activities during fiscal year 2003.
General Expenses
Funding budgeted for the General Expenses program is $161 million,
including $6 million for new retiree costs. These funds will be used
for executive direction and management activities of the Corps of
Engineers headquarters, the Corps division offices, and related support
organizations.
government performance and results act
A performance plan is in preparation for the Army Civil Works
program, based on the fiscal year 2003 budget. After completion of
Administration review, the plan will be submitted to the Congress.
army civil works planning and review process
Both the Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works are taking steps to
strengthen the project planning and review process. We have undertaken
these efforts to ensure that the Corps provides this Nation with
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and justified projects.
Improved Planning Capabilities.--The Corps is improving the
competency of its planning cadre through the development of a long-term
training and development plan. The Corps is developing a web-based
information system to enable planners to find the information they need
to do their jobs more efficiently and effectively.
Process Improvements.--To ensure more accountability, the planning
organization within each district will manage the planning process from
problem identification to the development of a proposed project. The
Corps has clarified technical and policy review responsibilities. The
Corps Headquarters has consolidated the policy and planning functions
and initiated a new business process under which one individual at
Corps Headquarters is responsible for solving study and project issues.
Environmental Advisory Board.--The Chief of Engineers has
reactivated the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) and redefined its
role to include advising him on policy and specific projects. This
participation by the EAB can contribute to improved project formulation
and thereby reduce the need for mitigation and the potential for
conflict or litigation.
Independent Peer Review.--The Chief of Engineers has endorsed, in
concept, the establishment of an independent panel of experts to review
Corps projects. The proposal is to establish a panel of six members, to
include three members from outside the Corps, who would review large,
complex, or controversial projects. Additionally, in response to
Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, the Corps
contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study and
make recommendations on the independent peer review of Corps projects.
The Administration will formulate its position on this issue in the
coming months.
Plan Formulation and Evaluation.--The NAS also will evaluate the
various techniques, models, and processes used to formulate Corps
projects and will consider modernizing the Federal Principles and
Guidelines. Consideration will also be given to how the Corps conducts
multi-purpose formulation and evaluation and trade-off analysis, and
how it integrates environmental, economic and social considerations.
Finally, the NAS will review various approaches to ecosystem
restoration and application of adaptive management to the planning and
operation of projects. These reports will be completed in the summer of
2003.
Army Civil Works Planning and Project Review.--Recently, I formed a
new, four-person group within my office to perform oversight of the
Corps planning program and to advise the Corps and me on the
application of laws, regulations, and Army policies to project
proposals. In particular, this new group will conduct reviews of Corps
projects and will help me develop my recommendations to the
Administration and Congress on the authorization or modification of
projects. To facilitate coordination with the Corps, this group will be
co-located with the Corps of Engineers Headquarters. My planning group
will engage with the Corps on planning issues as they arise, rather
than after reports are completed. My new Deputy for Project Planning
and Review and administrative staff already are on board, two positions
have been advertised, and the last position will be advertised shortly.
conclusion
We believe that the President's fiscal year 2003 budget for the
Army Civil Works program is a solid one. The budget continues support
to ongoing work, emphasizes primary missions, and applies resources to
areas likely to have the greatest national economic benefit. Providing
the requested funds for the Army Civil Works program is a wise
investment in the Nation's future.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers
I am honored to be testifying to your subcommittee today, along
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable
Mike Parker, on the President's fiscal year 2003 (fiscal year 2003)
Budget for the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works
Program.
I am especially honored to have the opportunity to lead the Corps
through its current challenges to serve this great nation in meeting
its many water and related land resources management needs.
Thanks to this subcommittee's support, the Civil Works Program
remains strong, balanced, responsive, and highly productive. I look
forward to working with you in furtherance of our partnership in
prosecuting this fine program, so broadly beneficial to our nation.
In this statement, I will focus on significant challenges for the
nation in light of the September 11th terrorist attacks, and will say
just a few words about the Corps role in assessment of national water
and related land resources management needs. Accordingly, my statement
covers just these three topics:
--Summary of Corps of Engineers actions after the terrorist attacks,
especially support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
--Highlights of the Civil Works program budget;
--Summary of how the Civil Works Program provides support to the
Nation's economic security.
summary of corps post-attack actions
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, last September 11,
the nation and the world watched in horror and disbelief as the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorists and the
passengers and crews of four air liners lost their lives.
I am proud to say that the Corps of Engineers provided critical
support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the aftermath of
those terrorist attacks. Corps members provided technical assistance
for debris removal, electrical power assessment and structural
assessments during operations in New York City. Corps members also
provided technical assistance for debris removal at the Pentagon.
Today, the Corps continues to support FEMA, the Department of Defense,
and the nation in the disaster recovery mission in New York City and at
the Pentagon through its execution of the Public Works and Engineering
mission. These emergency response and recovery actions take place under
Emergency Support Function Number 3 in the National Emergency Response
Plan, for which FEMA has assigned the lead to the Corps of Engineers.
I would like to highlight some of the accomplishments the Corps
achieved in our support:
In the aftermath of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers,
it was virtually impossible to exit Manhattan by car or other ground
transportation. A virtual armada of boats came together, in an
impromptu fashion, crossing the water to reach Manhattan to ferry
trapped people out of the area of devastation.
Among those boats were seven vessels owned by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers. These craft carried approximately 2,000
stranded citizens from south Manhattan to Brooklyn, Jersey City, and
Staten Island. On the return trip, the crews ferried firefighters and
relief workers into Manhattan, provided fuel, antifreeze, and oil for
the New York City fire trucks, and transported 1,000 gallons of potable
water to the firefighters. Personnel on board the vessels also included
structural analysts deployed to New York City to assist in the urban
search and rescue mission. The collapse of the World Trade Center's
twin towers caused so much destruction and devastation to the buildings
surrounding them that those buildings were unsafe to enter to conduct a
safe search and rescue effort. The Corps deployed surveyors to assist
the city's engineers in evaluating some of the more complicated
building situations.
An assessment team from the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power)
was deployed to the financial district of New York City shortly after
the attack. The soldiers provided technical assistance to Con Edison,
the power company that provides electric service to New York City and
most of Westchester County, in the installation of 56 city-supplied
1,500-kilowatt generators to support emergency electrical power
requirements. As a result of their efforts, the New York Stock Exchange
was up, running, and fully operational on Monday September 17th, only
four business days after the attack.
On September 13, New York City requested a permit to dredge 120,000
cubic yards of material from around Pier 25 to allow large boats to
support rescue and recovery operations. Brigadier General Stephen
Rhoades, North Atlantic Division commander, gave permission in record
time to dredge and place material in the Newark Bay Confined Disposal
Facility. The Corps also dredged Pier 6 in Manhattan, which permitted
greater access for barge transportation of debris from the pier to the
facility. Prior to this dredging, it was necessary to truck the debris
uptown through Manhattan, to a pier that could accommodate the large
barges, and then transport the debris to the facility.
At one point, more than 160 Corps of Engineers personnel had
deployed from across the nation to New York City to join the 750 North
Atlantic Division employees who work in the city. Those deployed
included structural engineers skilled in urban search and rescue,
debris management specialists, logistics and contracting personnel, and
the soldiers of the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power).
Since the attack, the Corps of Engineers has continued to support
and work closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the
recovery operations, and we will continue to do so until the operation
is complete.
We also are working closely with the Office of Homeland Security in
protecting the Civil Works infrastructure from terrorist attacks. We
have developed a Civil Works Infrastructure Assessment Program, which
to date has consisted of training 250 Corps Engineers and Security
personnel; conducting infrastructure assessments of critical projects
in each Division; and offering a specialized security training course
to Corps personnel through our training facility in Huntsville,
Alabama. The Civil Works program received $139 million in emergency
supplemental appropriations to fund recurring protection costs at
critical facilities and some physical security measures identified in
the critical facility assessments.
The immediate response of the United States Army Corps of Engineers
is yet another reason I am so proud to be the 50th Chief of Engineers.
Corps employees from every division and district called to volunteer to
do whatever is needed to support the Emergency response and recovery.
I would like to conclude my comments on the Corps' support after
these tragic events by quoting the Honorable Thomas White, Secretary of
the Army, in a speech he gave shortly after visiting ground zero in New
York City. He said, ``To the Corps of Engineers I would say . . . while
your history is impressive, given the current situation, your finest
hour is a chapter yet to be written. The nation will look to your
extraordinary capability to protect and sustain our infrastructure
against a wide variety of threats.'' Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is ready, able, and proud
to serve the nation in its time of need.
highlights of the civil works program budget
The fiscal year 2003 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget provides
the following:
General Investigations.................................. $108,000,000
Construction, General................................... 1,440,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, General...................... 1,979,000,000
Regulatory Program...................................... 151,000,000
Flood Control, Mississippi River & Tributaries.......... 288,000,000
General Expenses........................................ 161,000,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................... 22,000,000
FUSRAP.................................................. 141,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,290,000,000
construction, general backlog
The Corps estimates that there is a construction backlog of about
$44 billion, including about $21 billion to complete ongoing flood
damage reduction, navigation, and environmental restoration projects
consistent with Administration policy, about $8 billion to complete
other ongoing construction projects, about $6 billion to complete
already started Mississippi River and Tributaries construction
projects, and about $8 billion for authorized and unauthorized projects
in Preconstruction Engineering and Design. Available funding is
directed toward construction of the ongoing projects that are
consistent with Administration policy. One new project construction
start is proposed for funding to meet the legal requirements of a
Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act. No discretionary
new project construction starts are budgeted and no new study starts
are budgeted.
operation and maintenance, general backlog
The fiscal year 2003 budget of $1.979 billion is $40 million more
than the amount enacted in fiscal year 2002, excluding emergency
supplemental appropriations and including imputed employee pension and
annuitant health benefit costs. We can sustain customer services in
fiscal year 2003 with this level of funding. While we join the other
Federal agencies in coping with severe demands on the nation's fiscal
resources, sustaining all of our current customer services becomes
increasingly difficult in the long term, given the vast and aging
infrastructure needing care and attention. As stewards of a diverse and
widespread complex of water resources projects, the Corps of Engineers
is challenged to ensure the continued flow of benefits that are so
critical to our nation's security and economic well being.
As I reported to this Committee in the fiscal year 2002
appropriation hearings, we still face a growing maintenance backlog.
Routine maintenance, major repairs, replacement of outdated or worn
facilities, management improvement studies, and correction of
environmental deficiencies could use much more than the budget amount.
However, to be realistic in our assessment, we normally focus on
critical maintenance. Critical maintenance is maintenance that should
be performed in the budget year in order to continue operation at a
justified level of service and to attain project performance goals.
The funds provided for fiscal year 2002 left us with a critical
maintenance backlog estimated at $702 million, and we estimate that our
critical maintenance backlog in fiscal year 2003 will be about $884
million. The critical maintenance backlog for navigation is $587
million and consists largely of dredging and repairs to structures such
as locks, dams, breakwaters, and jetties. The critical maintenance
backlogs for other business functions are $127 million for flood damage
reduction, $110 million for recreation, and $60 million for
environmental management, and consist of work such as spillway repairs,
seepage control, embankment toe protection, access road and recreation
facility repairs, and environmental compliance actions. The critical
maintenance backlog for hydropower will be eliminated in fiscal year
2003 in conjunction with the Administration's proposal that Federal
power marketing administrations directly finance hydropower operation
and maintenance.
The critical maintenance backlog includes $93 million for
maintenance of shallow draft harbor projects and $108 million for
maintenance of low commercial-tonnage inland waterway projects. Most of
this work is for purely recreational harbors and higher-cost inland
waterway segments and therefore is low priority work.
To improve our program execution, my Division Commanders are
continuing a concerted effort to identify and concentrate available
resources on the most critical of this work and to do this work at
least cost. We are analyzing the work in this backlog to ensure that it
qualifies as critical maintenance. In addition, we will continue to
assess the justification for the level of service that we are
providing. These analyses may result in a slight reduction in our
estimate of the critical maintenance backlog for fiscal year 2003.
how the civil works program provides support to the nation's economic
security
The Civil Works program employs nearly 25,000 full time equivalent
Federal employees and many thousands more private sector contract
employees. These individuals are employed in a wide array of fields
including all aspects of engineering; architecture; project management;
construction management; planning; program management; operation and
maintenance; economics; and environmental sciences.
The Civil Works program provides the infrastructure to support
important economic activity. The components of the program include
navigation features, which facilitate domestic and foreign commerce,
flood control features, which reduce flood hazards and damages, water
supply to millions of citizens as well as industrial firms, businesses,
and farms, hydroelectric power generation features at 75 Corps operated
facilities, and recreational features at Corps-constructed lakes and
shore protection projects.
I would like to discuss in greater detail the economic impacts
associated with two of these areas of activity: navigation features;
and recreational opportunities at Corps-constructed lakes.
the significance of navigation to the nation's economic activity
Commercial navigation is one of the Civil Works program's high
priority missions and a focal point for a substantial amount of the
Civil Works budget. In the year 2000, over 2.4 billion tons of foreign
and domestic cargo were transported via our Nation's ports and
waterways. This figure is composed of 1.4 billion tons of foreign trade
cargo and 1 billion tons of domestic cargo.
Of the 1.4 billion tons of foreign cargo, almost 1 billion tons
were foreign imports to the United States, including over 500 million
tons of crude petroleum and 130 million tons of chemicals and related
products. Over 400 million tons of cargo were U.S. exports to other
nations, including over 150 million tons of food and farm products, 60
million tons of coal, 58 million tons of chemicals, and 56 million tons
of petroleum products.
Of the 1 billion tons of domestic cargo, almost 630 million tons,
or 15 percent of the Nation's freight tonnage, moved on the Nation's
inland and intracoastal waterway system. Of the nearly 630 million
tons, coal comprised about one quarter of the total with 160 million
tons moved, petroleum products totaled 121 million tons, food and farm
products totaled 90 million tons, and sand, gravel and stone made up
about 80 million tons.
Over 225 million tons of domestic cargo moves via coastwise
shipments, including 115 million tons of petroleum products and 48
million tons of crude petroleum such as Alaskan crude petroleum moving
to refineries on the West coast of the United States.
Over 114 million tons of domestic cargo moved via shipments on the
Great Lakes, including 57 million tons of iron ore and scrap metal, key
components in the manufacturing of steel, 30 millions tons of sand,
gravel and stone, and 20 million tons of coal.
In its 1999 report to Congress, ``An Assessment of The U.S.
Maritime Transportation System'', the U.S. Department of Transportation
reported that waterborne cargo movements created employment
opportunities for more than 13 million individuals. While many jobs
created are directly in water transportation and ports, most of the 13
million jobs created as a result of waterborne transportation are in
other sectors of the economy.
Although there are a number of actors, public and private, that
contribute to waterborne transportation, the Corps of Engineers plays a
key role. We create and maintain economically justified navigable
capacity. We enable the ports and waterways to handle the vessels.
Without this capacity, the Nation cannot compete for trade, cannot move
goods efficiently, and cannot sustain those 13 million jobs.
recreational opportunities at corps constructed lakes
I will now turn my remarks to the subject of the economic impacts
associated with the provision of recreational opportunities at Corps
constructed lakes. The Operation and Maintenance, General budget
includes $277 million for recreational activities, slightly above the
fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
I quote from our recently completed report, ``A National Dialogue
About America's Water Resources Challenges For the 21st Century:
National Report on Identified Water Resources Challenges and Water
Challenge Areas.''
When it is time for outdoor recreation Americans head for the
water. The Nation's many lakes, rivers, and beaches offer everyone fun,
fitness, rest and relaxation. Water is the number one recreation
attraction in America today, making Federal lakes an irreplaceable
public resource.
America's first choice for water-based recreation is the Corps of
Engineers. One out of every ten Americans will visit a Corps lake this
year.
I would now like to provide you with some figures describing the
Corps' recreational features at our lakes. The Corps operates 456 lakes
in 43 states with a total land area of 12 million acres. At these
facilities there are 56,000 miles of shoreline, 4,000 recreational
areas with 101,000 campsites, 3,800 boat launch ramps, and 5,000 miles
of trails.
Not only is recreation important to the individuals who visit our
lakes and other recreational facilities, but also it is important for
the economic impacts and employment opportunities created within those
communities located near to these recreational facilities.
For example, a 1996 study prepared by the Corps' Engineering and
Research Development Center, entitled ``Estimating the Local Economic
Impacts of Recreation at Corps of Engineers Projects--1996'' concluded
that visitors to Corps facilities spent approximately $6 billion on
trip related expenses, which in turn generated over 160,000 jobs in the
surrounding communities. Significant economic and employment impacts
associated with our recreational facilities were identified in a number
of geographic locations, including our Little Rock, Nashville, Mobile,
Tulsa, Huntington, Louisville, and Fort Worth District offices.
conclusion
We must continue to find ways to reduce our costs and shift some
costs to direct beneficiaries of our services. Meanwhile, we will do
our very best to execute the Civil Works Program for maximum benefit to
the nation. I have testified today on the positive effects of the
Corps' mission on the nation's economy. In closing, I would like to
restate that the Corps of Engineers' Civil Works program supports
economic activity, prosperity, and well being in its high priority
mission areas by facilitating waterborne transportation and reducing
the threat of flooding and the extent of flood damages incurred, as
well as other Civil Works activities.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes
my statement.
Senator Reid. Also, staffs to notify all other subcommittee
members that anyone who would like to ask questions of the Army
Corps for the record, I would encourage them to submit these
questions to us by the 15th of this month. We will ask the
Corps to get answers back to us in 2 weeks.
WATER IN THE WEST
Secretary Raley, I think I know the answer to this
question, but maybe I do not. With what kind of a year are we
having in the West, with water?
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I believe the
drought index was entered in the record shortly before you
arrived. There are portions to the West, notably the southern
portions, that are likely to be in a dry to very dry or severe
drought condition, which obviously requires that we work as
closely as possible with our State and local partners and with
those of you on the committee to manage through the difficult
issues that arise when we are in a drought.
So we are watching individual basins and trying to make
sure that we have the resources within the Department, both the
people as well as the use of whatever budgetary flexibility we
have to address the specific basins where droughts were a
problem.
Senator Reid. As we know, there are increasing demands on
the limited sources of water that we have in the West. I am
always amazed at places that I see where there is lots of
water. I will never forget, we went on a Senate retreat. The
Democratic senators went to a retreat in Southern Virginia
here, down past Williamsburg a little bit. One of the beer
people have an amusement park there.
Anyway, I walked out my door and I saw this huge body of
water. I thought it had to be the ocean. It was a river. It was
a river. Coming from the west, we do not have rivers like that.
The river was at least a mile-and-a-half across.
Even the mighty Colorado is not much of a river in the true
sense of the word. My father, as a boy, used to swim across the
Colorado River. The Truckee River in Northern Nevada, you can
walk across it in most places. Yet it is the lifeline for that
part of the country.
That river, my staff just reminded me, is the James River,
which I guess by most standards is not much of a river, but
what I saw is very--so we in the West are very jealous of all
the water other places. We are depending on the bureau to help
us with the many problems that we have dealing with water. We
want to make sure that you have enough resources. You have to
be candid with us and tell us where you are lacking in that
regard.
It is my understanding that Senator Domenici asked some of
those questions. I will review some of your answers.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
Secretary Raley, the Administration has again proposed $15
million in funding for the California Bay-Delta restoration.
Again this year, there is no specific authorization for this
project. How does Reclamation intend to expend these funds
absent a specific authorization?
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Reid. Carefully, I guess would be the answer?
Mr. Raley. Yes, in accordance with existing authorities. We
are also very focused on the CALFED authorization issue and
working with both houses of Congress to find a way to proceed
with the CALFED effort. I wish to assure the Chairman that we
believe that the principles of CALFED are good ones. We wish to
stay the course and have a CALFED that is authorized so that
Congress, exercises its constitutional prerogatives in terms of
the interface with that program. We need to find a way that we
can have a CALFED that we can afford, that can be implemented,
and that has balance. In fact, on Monday I will be co-chairing
the CALFED Policy Committee with the Secretary of Resources for
California as we look to find a way to get us through what is a
relatively difficult period so that we can stay true to the
concepts under existing authorities as we wait for the
authorization issue to be addressed here and in the House.
Senator Reid. How do you think CALFED is moving forward?
Mr. Raley. If I may be candid, sir, having been involved in
other large, basin-wide water and environmental issues, they
have a rhythm. There are times when it is lurching and times
when it is moving forward smoothly, and times when people are
sitting there watching. I would say that right now there is a
lot of sitting and watching.
There remains a broad commitment to the concepts of CALFED
and I think there is a great desire out in California for
Congress to work its will in terms of the long-term
authorization. And we support that.
Senator Reid. With what you are saying is there is a lot of
people waiting around to see what someone else is going to be
doing?
Mr. Raley. There are a lot of people wanting to make sure
that what is done is consistent with the will of Congress.
DESALINIZATION
Senator Reid. We had a wonderful senator here who I
served--we were lieutenant governors of our respective states.
He served in the House when I was there. We served in the
Senate together. His name was Paul Simon from Illinois.
He had a number of passions but one of them is water. Even
though he came from a state with relatively lots of water in
it, Illinois, he has written a book called Tapped Out, that
talks about lack of water around the world and has certainly
illustrated why wars will be fought over water and not oil in
years to come.
His passion is and was doing something about getting the
water from our oceans and our seas. He believes, and there are
others who agree with him, that that is our only hope. We are
not doing anything to speak of as a country to develop our
resources for desalinization. Don't you think the Bureau has
the prime responsibility to do that?
Mr. Raley. Senator, there is work within the Government in
a number of agencies. As you well know, the Bureau of
Reclamation has ongoing work on desalinization projects. As the
Commissioner testified a moment ago, and I can turn it back
over to him for more detailed questions, the Bureau of
Reclamation continues to work on literally cutting-edge
technology being developed throughout the world so that we can
implement this alternative as we search for a means to address
the growing needs of the west.
Senator Reid. I guess that is my whole point, and I would
be happy to hear from Mr. Keys. That is, I do not think we are
doing any high level research, or research period--I should not
say high level--dealing with desalinization. From what I know,
and maybe I can be told differently here today, the process by
which we take the salt out of water is the same as it was 20
years ago, 30 years ago.
Mr. Keys, do you have anything to respond to that?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we are still working under
directions of the 1996 Act, and there is a report that is
scheduled to come to you in October that lays out that
technical work that you are talking about.
We are working closely with Sandia Lab and looking at new
technologies. We are participating with other agencies. We are
working right now with Long Beach, California which has a new
technology that we are going to get into our process and fund
with them. There are a number of activities going on in
Reclamation.
I would say that we are not the leader of the
desalinization research and so forth in the United States, but
we are a strong participant.
Senator Reid. Do you think Sandia is the leading research
organization for desalinization in America today?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the answer to that.
We are working very closely with them. We know that they are
very good. We have just worked very closely with them.
Senator Reid. Do you know of anyone else? And when I say
else, I mean any other institutions or organizations doing
research on desalinization?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we are working with several
different labs around the United States that are doing that.
Senator Reid. With what I am saying here is I think the
reason we are not doing more is we are not spending money. I
really, honestly believe that there has to be a way that we can
do better than the old bladders and stuff that we have used to
take the salt out of water. That was something that was used
many, many, many decades ago.
I am concerned because Sandia has been the only entity
mentioned here. I think maybe we should give them some money
this year that will allow them to do that. I usually let
Senator Domenici do his work in New Mexico, but I think I will
weigh in on this and make sure they get adequate resources this
year to do something significant dealing with desalinization.
Senator Bennett, I know you have some questions about, at
least I am told and I hope you do, about what we do to have the
Federal Government help the cost reimbursement for security
problems we have at dams. For example, Hoover Dam is a real
burden for us. I hope you will pursue that a little bit.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the hearing and appreciate the opportunity to
participate.
I want to welcome Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley and
especially Commissioner John Keys, who began his career with
the Bureau in Utah, and recently a resident of Moab. And I want
to welcome Ron Johnston from the CUP Project Completion Act
office in Provo. We appreciate the work that you do, Mr.
Johnston.
Water is obviously vital to the West. It is vital to Utah.
And without the Central Utah Project, we probably would not be
able to survive in the middle of the desert.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
As the Chairman indicated, I have a very strong interest in
critical infrastructure protection. I want to ask you some
questions which I assure you are not gotcha questions, but they
may have a little of that appearance. But I am probing to try
to find out exactly where we are.
Senator Kyl and I have introduced a bill dealing with
critical infrastructure and we are very interested in the
subject growing out of our experience with Y2K, when we saw
what would happen to the economy and the country if the
computers failed by accident. We then kind of asked ourselves
what would happen if they failed on purpose?
Senator Kyl had a witness at a hearing who talked about an
incident where a hacker broke into a dam and got to the point
where he could have opened the floodgates. Before that sounds
too sinister, I should point out he was hired to do that, to
see how far he could get in and demonstrated how vulnerable
dams are to this kind of activity.
Has the Bureau given any thought to cyber security, as well
as physical security?
Mr. Raley. Senator, let me address that from a departmental
standpoint. Post the events of September 11, a very significant
part of the Commissioner is and my personal time has been spent
on security issues, both physical and cyber. In fact, I believe
it was two days ago that the Commissioner and I had a briefing
on the current status of the Bureau of Reclamation's efforts
with regard to security.
We have worked together cooperatively. My deputy, who is
known to the committee, former Chief of Staff for the
department, Mr. Thomas Weimer, meets weekly with the
Commissioner's team. I think that gives you a sense of how high
a priority we have placed on the security issues.
In terms of what we are actually doing, given the sensitive
nature of that, Senator, we would be happy to come and brief
you to the extent that we can, given that some of the
information is classified. But we would prefer, if you need
specific details, to do it with you and the Chairman or any
other members after the hearing, because of obvious concerns.
Senator Bennett. I would look forward to that briefing. I
have gone through similar briefings in a wide range of
governmental activities, and I would appreciate the opportunity
to have that experience with you now.
Mr. Raley. May I add, Senator, that on the issue of cyber
security, I can tell you that the detailed briefing that we
received this week broke down the various computer cyber
systems of the Department and the Bureau. We had specific
discussions about the protections that are currently in place
with regard to what is known as SCADA, the operational control,
to refer back to the incident that you mentioned, where someone
was trying to get at the control of the facilities.
We paid particular attention to that and asked specifically
if there were substantial modifications that should be made
immediately and are not in place now. We are satisfied with the
response that we received from our experts.
Senator Bennett. I appreciate that and I will look forward
to the briefing, as I say.
Now PDD-63, the Presidential Decision Directive on this
issue that was put forward by President Clinton in 1998 was for
the express purpose of focusing the Government's efforts to
protect critical infrastructure. And in PDD-63, each agency was
instructed to identify their minimum essential infrastructure
needed to keep critical systems running. And agencies were also
to do vulnerability assessments and remediation plans.
Do you know if the Department of Interior participated in
that exercise? And if there are vulnerability assessments and
remediation plans that the Chairman and I could look at in
executive session?
Mr. Raley. Setting aside the details of the availability of
particular documents, which I think I would have to look at the
actual documents, and we would have to discuss that with you.
Yes, there are obviously a robust series of updates that have
been commenced since the events of September 11.
I can tell you that, in looking back, there were,
particularly for the Bureau of Reclamation, in existence very
detailed plans to address a wide range of threats. But like the
rest of the Government, the rest of the Nation, we have gone
back to relook at those and see if the assumptions they were
based on remain valid and to take that effort to the next
level.
So I am comfortable that the Department is doing what it
can, what it should, and what is prudent to protect its
resources.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Keys, you wanted to respond?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bennett, let me just add a
little bit to that. When the orders came out before that you
mentioned, we went through every structure, the dams and the
power plants, in Reclamation, and even some of the other
structures like the main Interior building and so forth. Those
all were evaluated for security. In other words, what we needed
to do to make them safe.
We implemented, if not all, most all of the recommendations
that came out of those security reviews.
The actions that are underway now that Mr. Raley was
talking about, after September 11 we have gone back and are re-
evaluating every one of those structures. We have a time frame
set out to do that. The briefing that he is talking about that
we would come and do for you would lay out some of the details
of which structures are being done when and the levels of those
reviews.
OPERATION ELIGIBLE RECEIVER
Senator Bennett. In the Defense Department, they conducted
an exercise called Operation Eligible Receiver. It was
classified for a good period of time but now has appeared in
the press, and so I can talk about it. As indicated in this
example that Senator Kyl used, they hired--they did not hire,
they embarked on a conscious effort to break into the Defense
Department computers. Again, without divulging any classified
information, they basically succeeded.
There were very few parts of the Defense Department that
were sufficiently robust in their firewalls to keep hackers
out. I have stood in the control room in the Pentagon where the
continuing computer attacks are monitored, and I have seen them
come in in real time. This country is under attack virtually
every hour of every day, in terms of people trying to break
into the computers, trying to get information, trying to
disrupt the normal flow of activity in the Defense Department.
I will not go any further.
My question: in your review of all of this, have you done
something similar to Eligible Receiver? Have you had a series
of attacks, computer attacks, into the structure of dams, other
facilities, to see just how difficult it would be for somebody
to get in?
As I say, Senator Kyl has the example of someone who got in
to the point where he could have opened the floodgates. Senator
Reid has mentioned Hoover Dam. Can you imagine the devastation
that would occur if somebody could get into the computers that
control Hoover Dam and virtually empty it downstream? With what
that would do economically, ecologically, a whole series of
disasters that could occur?
I do not think, frankly, these attacks on our dams would
come from the likes of al Qaeda. I think they would come from
activist groups who do not like dam and who want to see them
breached. And if they cannot breach them with dynamite, they
will breach them with digital code.
I do not want any details, because that is not something we
want to get out publicly, but just in generally terms, do you
know of an effort similar to Eligible Receiver that may have
been run on these facilities?
Mr. Raley. Senator, what I can say is that we are very
aware of not only that exercise, but of ongoing attempts in
today's cyber world to penetrate Federal facilities, computer
networks in general, Interior and Reclamation's in specific. We
have taken steps to address that.
The details I would prefer to leave to a follow-up meeting
with the senators. But I want to reassure you, the issue of
cyber vulnerability has been repeatedly addressed. And also I
would point out that, for better or for worse, the Department's
experience in another aspect of departmental operations
regarding security in the Indian Trust litigation has provided
an opportunity to relook at the security for the entire
Department and the Bureau of Reclamation in particular.
So we will be happy to get back to you on that.
CYBER AND PHYSICAL SECURITY CHALLENGE
Senator Bennett. Thank you, I will look forward to that.
And then the issue that the Chairman raises, of course, is how
much does this cost? The question would be, have you included
in your budget request sufficient sums to deal not only with
the cyber security challenge, but the heightened physical
security challenge that we have following 9/11?
Mr. Raley. Mr. Chairman, Senator, we have. We believe that
the amounts that are in the budget request are appropriate to
address both the actual protection as well as the analysis of
additional needs for both physical and cyber. We are going to
be working through that, and we will obviously have to take the
results of our ongoing analysis efforts and determine whether
or not additional resources will need to be built into future
budgets.
Senator Reid. Senator Bennett, if I could comment, we have
here, and I think you have in your file, and if not I will give
you this one, on what different agencies are spending on
homeland defense. And Interior is flat. They are spending no
more money this year than they did last year.
But I do understand that you need to go along with what
Mitch Daniels says you should go along with, because if you do
not, you get in big trouble around here.
Senator Bennett. I have been where they are, defending
budgets. Actually, it was before Senator Bible. He sat on the
Appropriations Committee. So I know the truth of what you are
saying, that you have to do what OMB tells you.
CUP AND DIAMOND FORK
Mr. Chairman, I have expended all of my time and a little
more, and I am grateful to you for your indulgence. I do have
some questions relating to the CUP and Mr. Johnston, if I
might, I would like to give them to you and receive your
responses. I am particularly interested in Diamond Fork with
the additional problems that occurred there, unexpected and
unforeseen, but nonetheless, expensive and disruptive.
So if you would have a quick comment about Diamond Fork and
what additional funding that you think might be necessary for
that, then I will submit the other questions to you.
Mr. Johnston. I would be happy to respond to your questions
in writing. The situation at Diamond Fork is progressing, and
we have determined alternate ways to complete that system. The
district is planning to put out for bid that work in about a
month from now. When they do that, we will have better cost
estimate figures that we will provide to the Committee.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reid. Senator Bennett, I was looking through the
biographies here. Keys, BYU; and Johnston, BYU. You could have
thrown them some real softballs, you know.
Senator Bennett. I went to the University of Utah.
Senator Reid. I know, but Utah, you had some connection
there.
Senator Bennett. My children all went to BYU.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Reid. I would ask unanimous consent that my
statement be made part of the record. Hearing no objection,
that is the order.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Good Morning. This is the first of our budget oversight hearings
this year and, as always, I look forward to working with my good
friend, Senator Domenici and his staff in preparing our spending
package.
This hearing was originally intended to discuss the
Administration's proposals for the fiscal year 2003 budgets for the
Army Corps of Engineers as well as the Bureau of Reclamation.
However, due to the Administration's actions pertaining to Mike
Parker, former Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, we have
deleted the Army Corps' witnesses from this hearing.
These hearings are intended to help us prepare our annual spending
package. We depend on the open exchange of information that we receive
in these hearings.
If nothing else, I suspect that the circumstances surrounding
Congressman Parker's dismissal will have a chilling effect on our
ability to get frank and honest answers and opinions from Corps
witnesses.
Therefore, we will prepare our spending package based on the budget
request and the OMB-approved written testimony, a document that is very
nearly worthless. Most importantly, we will develop our appropriations
bill by taking into account the needs of our Members and the American
people. Further input from OMB will not be required.
The ``budget'' that OMB submitted for the Army Corps is so totally
inadequate that it defies logic. If enacted, the proposal does not
provide sufficient resources to continue all of the on-going work that
the Administration itself proposed. Accordingly, some $200 million
would be required to terminate on-going contracts, further reducing the
amount available for construction projects. This fact alone makes it
appear that there was little thought given to the consequences of such
draconian budget cuts for the Army Corps.
Defending the Administration budget is one thing--standing idly by
while the Administration proposes a budget that, in effect, costs more
to do less for next year and for the foreseeable future is another
matter entirely. For telling the truth about this farce, Mike Parker
was fired.
A big theme of the Administration in preparation of their budget
has been economic security for our nation. Based on the proposal
submitted for the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation, it appears
that they have overlooked valuable components of our economic security.
Let me elaborate:
Forty-one states are served by Army Corps ports and waterways.
These ports and waterways provide an integrated, efficient and safe
system for moving bulk cargos. 2.3 billion tons of cargo are moved
though these ports and waterways. The value of this cargo to the
national economy exceeds $670 billion. Navigable waterways generate
over 13 million jobs to the national economy and nearly $150 billion in
Federal taxes.
Average annual damages prevented by Army Corps flood control
projects exceed $20 billion. In calendar year 2000, $2.8 billion in
flood damages were prevented. From 1928-2000, cumulative flood damages
prevented when adjusted for inflation were $709 billion for an
investment of $122 billion, adjusted for inflation. That is nearly a 6
to 1 return on this infrastructure investment.
The Bureau and the Army Corps water storage projects have a total
capacity of nearly 575 million acre feet of storage and provide
municipal and industrial water supply to millions of our citizens. The
water supply infrastructure provided by the Bureau and the Army Corps
in the west are the life blood of the communities they serve. Without
these infrastructure investments the tremendous growth.
The Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers provide
about 35 percent of the Nation's hydroelectric power which amounts to
nearly 5 percent of the U.S. total electric capacity. In the west the
percent of hydropower to total power supplied is much greater.
Additionally, both the Army Corps and the Bureau contribute to our
nation's environmental protection. Over $1 billion or about 25 percent
of the Army Corps' fiscal year 2001 appropriations was targeted for
environmental activities. Reclamation expended similar efforts on these
important activities.
The Army Corps also plays other National roles in disaster
assistance and emergency preparedness. As an example, I would like to
take a moment to note some of the Army Corps' actions after the
devastating terrorist attacks of September 11. Army Corps motor vessels
were on the scene almost immediately and were used to evacuate people
from Lower Manhattan where other exits were blocked. These vessels also
ferried fuel for the emergency vehicles. The Army Corps provided a
command headquarters for the search and rescue operations and
logistical assistance with debris removal. Due to the devastation of
the power grid, the Army Corps' Prime Power Battalion responded and was
able to get the electrical service restored that allowed the financial
markets and Wall Street to reopen on the following Monday. The
capabilities that the Army Corps provides to our nation in these areas
are often overlooked and I wanted to make sure that they were noted.
These are only some of the ways that these two agencies contribute
to our economy and yet the Administration's budget proposal has given
them short shrift. Their proposals are woefully inadequate to fund
ongoing projects.
The Administration has proposed a fiscal year 2003 request for the
Army Corps of $4.026 billion when you exclude proposed funding from two
legislative proposals included in the budget. This is about a $600
million less or 13 percent cut from the amount enacted in fiscal year
2002. For the Bureau of Reclamation, the proposal is about $58 million
less or a 7 percent cut over the Fiscal year 2002 enacted amount.
This reduced level of funding in Reclamation's Water and Related
Resources Account is going to hamper progress on several large projects
and programs providing water and power for the West.
The Army Corps' General Investigations account is taking a huge
hit. The fiscal year 2003 request is $108 million versus $154 million
enacted in fiscal year 2002, a 30 percent cut. There are no new study
starts proposed.
The Army Corps' Construction, General account is proposed at $1,440
billion, $276 million below fiscal year 2002 enacted, a 16 percent cut.
There are no funds provided for discretionary new construction starts.
The Army Corps' Operation and Maintenance, General account is
proposed at $1,830 billion, $184 million below the fiscal year 2002
enacted, a 9 percent cut.
The Army Corps' Mississippi River and Tributaries account is
proposed at $288 million, $58 million below fiscal year 2002 enacted or
about a 17 percent cut.
The only major account to see a budget increase for the Army Corps
is for General Regulatory, a boost of $24 million over fiscal year 2002
enacted, or an increase of 19 percent. While I am glad to see this
increase for the Army Corps' permitting activities, I am appalled at
the cuts to the other major accounts.
In spite of all of the Administration rhetoric about economic
security and maintaining our abilities to compete in world trade, the
Administration has again produced a remarkably short sighted budget.
If the Administration will not lead in the area of critical
infrastructure, Congress will. I plan to work aggressively with
Chairman Byrd, Senator Stevens and Senator Domenici to ensure that this
Subcommittee gets the resources needed to fund these two vital
organizations properly.
On a personal note, I would like to take this opportunity to thank
you and your employees for the outstanding service that your
organizations provide not only to Nevada, but to our nation as a whole.
More often than not, your employees don't get the credit they deserve.
There is not a single Member in either Chamber whose state is not
impacted positively by the work your agencies do.
We will place the OMB approved testimony for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the testimony for
the Chief of Engineers in the record as if given. Also, if any of the
Subcommittee Members would like to ask questions of the Army Corps for
the record, I would encourage them to submit them to us by March 15,
2002. We will ask the Army Corps to get answers back to us in 2 weeks.
I would like to thank Bennett W. Raley, Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science, Department of the Interior (testifying); John W.
Keys, III Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation (testifying); J. Ronald
Johnston, Program Director, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office;
Robert Wolf, Director, Program and Budget, Bureau of Reclamation; John
D. Trezise, Office of Budget, Department of Interior for appearing
before our Subcommittee today.
At this time I will turn it over to Mr. Domenici for his opening
statement.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Reid. And there are a number of questions that will
be submitted to you by the members that appeared here today and
others, and we would ask you to get them back to us as quickly
as possible.
Mr. Raley. Yes, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
Question. What would be the impact to the cost and schedule of on-
going Bureau projects, if the President's budget were enacted as
proposed?
Answer. The costs and schedules of on-going Bureau of Reclamation
projects would proceed as currently envisioned if the fiscal year 2003
President's Request is enacted.
Question. For those projects budgeted in the President's proposal,
are they funded at their optimal level?
Answer. Reclamation believes that the projects budgeted in the
President's Request are funded at the optimal level, given the
resources available and the varied needs of Reclamation's programs and
projects.
Question. It is clear that for the last several years, funds
budgeted to address the growing water resources needs of this country
fall substantially short of the known critical needs. What suggestions
would the Bureau offer that can be done in the future to close this
gap?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President's Request is $66.7 million
above the fiscal year 2002 President's proposal and $58.0 million below
the enacted level. Given the availability of resources, the funding
contained in the fiscal year 2003 President's Request adequately
addresses the Bureau's water resources management needs.
Question. What level of funding would be necessary to continue the
Bureau's progress on programs and projects initiated in the fiscal year
2002 for meeting the Nation's water infrastructure needs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President's Request provides adequate
funding for those projects initiated in the fiscal year 2002
President's Request.
Question. Please provide us with an update on how funds provided in
fiscal year 2002 for a regional weather modification program are being
expended.
Answer. A proposed strategic plan was outlined for a one-year
weather modification research program. Representatives of Reclamation
met with the North American Interstate Weather Modification Council to
review that plan and determine whether the Council could receive and
manage funds for dispersal to specific research projects. The Council
informed Reclamation that they did not have the capability to manage
these funds. The Bureau then developed a draft solicitation for
cooperative agreements with the States to allow transfer of funds to
conduct weather modification research.
Question. Your Budget mentions that the Bureau's infrastructure, in
general, is aging and many demands are placed on the budget to maintain
and protect the Federal investment. Does this budget address the
deteriorating infrastructure?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President's Request has been
formulated and developed to address Reclamation's aging infrastructure
by providing emphasis on the need for adequate maintenance to ensure
the structural integrity of its facilities and the reliability of its
water and power operations.
Question. Are the critical needs fully covered by this budget
proposal?
Answer. As part of this emphasis, any critical maintenance needs
have been identified and are fully addressed in the fiscal year 2003
President's Request.
Question. In each of the last two fiscal years the Congress has
provided funding for the Las Vegas Wastewater Reclamation Project. I
was hoping that the Administration would help out by requesting funding
under Title XVI for this project as they have for other projects around
the west. Unfortunately, again this year your budget request contains
nothing for the Las Vegas Project while asking for $6 million for
example for the San Diego Project. The Southern Nevada Water Authority
has already expended over $80 million for its 75 percent share. When is
the Administration going to step up to the plate and ask for some
funding for the Las Vegas project?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, Title XVI funding was limited to those
ongoing projects and studies that were supported in the President's
budget requests in prior years. Southern Nevada Water Recycling Project
is not one of those projects or studies. The project will receive
appropriate consideration in future budget requests.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
garrison diversion unit
Question. The Red River Valley studies are critical to the future
of the State and its economic vision. I understand the studies are on
hold and have been virtually dead since April of 2001. Can you explain
why they are on hold?
Answer. Regarding the Red River Valley Study, as required by Public
Law 106-554, Appendix D, Title VI--Dakotas Water Resources Act of 2000
(DWRA), which amends Public Law 89-108 by creating a new Section 8 for
the Red River Water Supply, per Sec 8(b), we have made progress on the
identification of study tasks and processes. Reclamation has prepared
draft plans of study for the Report on Red River Water Needs and
Options. Specific plans of study for needs assessment, hydrology,
engineering, environment, and biota transfer have been drafted. We have
been developing a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State,
which is specific to requirements in the DWRA of 2000 and makes the
State a joint lead in preparing the EIS. We hope to revise and finalize
that agreement by the end of May 2002.
Preliminary work on the Red River Valley studies began in June
2000, per an MOU signed by Reclamation, the North Dakota State Water
Commission, and the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District pursuant to
authority under the 1986 Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act
(Public Law 89-108). While study tasks were not undertaken, two teams
of stakeholders (Technical Team and Study Review Team) were organized
and study planning was initiated. Following passage of DWRA,
significant concerns about the process and MOU were brought to our
attention. As a result of internal reviews related to these concerns,
the MOU was terminated. As mentioned, we now propose to execute a new
MOU with the State. The MOU will establish North Dakota as a co-lead on
the EIS pursuant to Section 8(c). Per Section 8 (b)(1), which directs
the Secretary of the Interior to ``conduct a comprehensive study,''
Reclamation has the sole lead on the studies. We anticipate the
Technical and Study Review teams would resume activity; thus, providing
the open and public process directed in the DWRA. Review of our
processes and organization, including discussions with the State and
other interested parties, has taken some time. However, we view this as
a critical step in the study process to ensure both objective
scientific methods and an open and public process. We expect these
processes and organizational changes will facilitate future activities.
Question. What is your projected date for completion of the
studies?
Answer. We are projecting that the studies and draft EIS will be
completed in 2005.
Question. What is the cost?
Answer. Study costs are currently estimated to be $5 million.
Question. Have you worked out a cost share on the studies?
Answer. The State has proposed to cost share up to $300,000 of the
study costs.
Question. I understand the District and the State Water Commission
have proposed a cost share agreement. Why is it not moving forward?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation, the District and the State Water
Commission are currently reviewing the agreement proposal.
Question. Is additional funding needed in order to move this
project off center and toward completion in a reasonable time frame?
Answer. Funding has not been an issue in implementing the study.
Question. I am told that if a decision is not made almost
immediately by the Bureau, then work on this project that needs to
start by April 1 won't be able to get underway and a whole year will be
lost on the Red River Valley study. Is this information accurate? If
so, moving these studies forward right now is critical.
Answer. We have identified specific study tasks, primarily data
collection, that needed to be initiated in order to prevent delays. The
work on these tasks is underway.
Question. What capability do the Tribes have for construction of
the MR&I systems on the reservations?
Answer. In 1994, as the Tribes were nearing completion of
construction activities funded under the 1986 Act appropriation
ceiling, Reclamation advised them to proceed with Final Engineering
Reports (FER) to address each of their respective reservation-wide
systems. These FERs are to serve as the master plan for constructing
these systems within the amended appropriation ceiling established by
DWRA. These FERs establish the sequencing and timeline for construction
and serve as the basis for estimating the construction capability of
each Tribe. Reclamation's advice to proceed with the FERs at that time
was intended to prepare them to immediately continue construction once
additional appropriations were made possible through an increased
ceiling.
Between 1994 and 2000, the Tribes chose not to proceed with FERs.
After passage of the DWRA, the Tribes began preparing their FERs. They
are expected to be completed in 2002. The FERs are critical to ensure
that the overall systems will operate reliably and efficiently, and to
lay out a reasonable construction schedule and associated funding
needs. Until the FERs are complete, it is difficult to estimate the
construction capability of the Tribes. The Tribes will have some
initial construction capability in fiscal year 2003 as plans and
specifications are completed, and most Tribes will have full
construction capability beginning in fiscal year 2004.
Question. Have you talked to the Tribes and do they agree with your
assessment?
Answer. Reclamation has been talking and working closely with the
Tribes and they have not been in full agreement with how Reclamation
has characterized their capability. Generally, the Tribes believe they
have greater immediate capability than what Reclamation has been
estimating. This will not be resolved until additional information
becomes available with the completion of the FERs.
Question. What additional capability do you have for moving the
DWRA programs forward?
Answer. Reclamation is moving forward to implement the provisions
of the DWRA. We have initiated activities to address project cost and
repayment provisions. We are working with the State to update a master
plan for the recreation program. Investigations are underway to
determine the economic and financial feasibility of the Elk Charbon and
Nesson Valley irrigation areas that would be incorporated into the
Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) as part of the 28,000 undesignated acres
of irrigation. Construction activities on the Standing Rock Irrigation
Project are expected to begin this summer. Diplomatic consultation with
Canada on the NAWS project has been completed, and the first
construction contract has been awarded. Groundbreaking for the NAWS
project occurred on April 5, 2002, in Minot, North Dakota. Work is
continuing on other MR&I projects throughout the State. The Tribes will
complete the FERs for their respective reservation-wide systems this
year. Reclamation and the State will soon execute an MOU and a
Cooperative Agreement that will guide the work on the Red River Valley
Studies and EIS. Annual Federal contributions to the Natural Resources
Trust have been resumed.
Question. I understand that the NAWS project is ready to go and I
think we need to proceed as soon as possible. What can we do to speed
that project up?
Answer. On March 28, 2002, Reclamation sent a letter to the North
Dakota State Water Commission concurring the award of Contract 2-1A for
the NAWS Project. As is the case with all Reclamation projects under
construction, the capability of project sponsors to construct the
project far exceeds Reclamation's ability to provide funds. We will
continue to work within budget processes and coordinate with the State
to prioritize expenditure of annual GDU appropriations, so that
construction of the NAWS Project continues as expeditiously as
possible.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
Question. As indicated in the Department's prepared statement for
the Central Utah Project, construction of the Diamond Fork System has
experienced some unforeseen problems associated with groundwater and
dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide gas. Is the $12 million requested
in fiscal year 2003 adequate to keep the work on schedule and is it
adequate to complete the Diamond Fork System?
Answer. The $12 million included in the President's fiscal year
2003 request is adequate to keep the work on schedule, but additional
funding will be needed to complete the Diamond Fork System on the
original schedule.
Question. What level of additional funding does the Department
estimate would be necessary in fiscal year 2004 to complete the Diamond
Fork System?
Answer. The Department and the Central Utah Water Conservancy/
District have developed a plan to complete the Diamond Fork System by
constructing alternative facilities. The most cost-effective solution
is being planned and would move the tunnel shaft to approximately where
the existing tunnel crosses Diamond Fork Creek. The remainder of the
project would then be completed as described in the 1999 Final
Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of
Decision. A detailed cost estimate for this work is not yet available.
This information will be communicated to the Subcommittee when it is
available.
Question. Will the additional funding be in addition to the roughly
$36 million that has been historically appropriated on an annual basis?
Answer. For the past several years, approximately $36 million has
been appropriated annually for the completion of the Central Utah
Project. If all the projects that are presently underway were to
continue on schedule, additional funding above the $36 million level in
fiscal year 2004 would be needed to complete the Diamond Fork System.
Question. If your request for $36.2 million for fiscal year 2003
were increased, could the Department, the District, and the Mitigation
Commission accelerate some of its other work in fiscal year 2003 such
that the additional funding required for the Diamond Fork System in
fiscal year 2004 could be reduced? And if so, how much additional
funding could be utilized in fiscal year 2003?
Answer. As noted above, a detail cost estimate for this work is not
yet available. Any additional funding necessary for the completion of
the Diamond Fork system will be evaluated in the context of the overall
fiscal year 2004 budget request.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reid. The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Friday, March 9, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 1:38 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Harry Reid (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reid and Domenici.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH, Ph.D., ACTING
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
WILLIAM D. MAYWOOD, IV, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY,
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
LAKE BARRETT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today is the second in a series of four budget oversight
hearings for the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
Last Friday the subcommittee heard testimony from the Bureau of
Reclamation and accepted written testimony from the Corps of
Engineers. The subcommittee will hold two more hearings this
year that will be scheduled. One will examine the budget of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, which will be this
coming Monday at 9:30. We will wrap up our budget hearings on
Tuesday, April 18, at 10 a.m. On that day we will hear from the
Office of Environmental Management and the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Today we are going to hear from three witnesses: Raymond
Orbach, the Director of the DOE's Office of Science; Mr. Bill
Magwood, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy; and Lake
Barrett, the Acting Director of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Nuclear Waste.
We were hoping to be able to hear, Mr. Barrett, from your
replacement, but she is not able to be here today. I would just
in passing say that I know that you are going to be leaving
this position and, even though we have had some differences of
opinion, I think you have been a good public employee. You have
done your best to do what you think has been right and no one
can ever criticize you for that. You have always as far as I
have been concerned been willing to talk with us and allow us
to berate you on occasion, for which I am grateful that you did
not do any berating back.
But I just want to wish you well in whatever you might do
and hope that you are as successful in doing whatever you
decide to do in the future as you have been at this.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much.
Senator Reid. We are going to talk about Yucca Mountain
today and we are going to talk about the proposed increase that
is supposedly for the license application, and we will look
forward to that testimony.
Mr. Orbach, congratulations on your being sworn in this
week. You are taking over one of the finest scientific
organizations I believe exists in the world and I am confident
that you will do well. I think you have a great job. I bet
there are a lot of people envious of the job that you have.
I have reviewed the budget for the Office of Science and by
and large I am pleased with it and hopeful that you are also.
Based upon the former Corps of Engineers leader, you better be
happy with it.
While the administration's budget only provides you with a
$47 million increase over last year, the actual increase seems
to be somewhat larger than that when you take into account the
increased construction costs of some of your engineering
facilities, such as the Spallation Neutron Source in Tennessee.
Overall, you look to be ahead of last year by as much as $150
million.
I hope that we will be able to improve on that before
Congress completes its work this year. I think the funding for
research and the hard sciences is one of the best and most
appropriate investments of taxpayers' dollars. Very few things
that we do can make a more secure Nation than maintaining a
scientific and technological edge.
I have some questions that I want to ask you about your
vision for the Office of Science. But before I turn to the
Office of Nuclear Energy, I want to give you one small piece of
unsolicited advice. I would hope that you would understand that
we here in Congress also have an opinion, advice, and some
information that you need to share with us. One of the things
we need to make sure people understand is how important it is
that we maintain our constitutional prerogatives. We have three
separate but equal branches of government and as long as we
understand that, it is important that you do the best you can
for the executive branch of government, but recognize that
there are two other branches of government in our
constitutional system that their demands must be met.
Mr. Magwood, we have been very supportive of your programs
during the years that I have been on this subcommittee. I am
supportive even though it has sometimes put me in an awkward
spot due to that visible work that ``Nuclear'' has in your
title. I support strong budgets for you because long-term
stable investment in scientific research and development is
what makes our Nation strong. I have already indicated that.
With nuclear power, my biggest problem with nuclear power
comes at the end of the fuel cycle. I think that is basically
everyone's biggest problem. We need to make sure we understand
that.
I think I can speak for Senator Domenici when I say that
the budget is concerning us in that it eliminates all funding
for transmutation. I am a little perplexed about why the
Department only seems to be careful--I am sorry--to care about
funding the path forward. We have to do something to look back
at what happens after the generation takes place.
I am confident Senator Domenici and I are going to help you
on this. We are going to fund transmutation again this year.
Not only do I know that Senator Domenici supports a research
program in this regard, but my colleague from Nevada Senator
Ensign is also enthused about this.
Senator Domenici, knowing of your interest and support for
nuclear power, I hope that you have more to say about Mr.
Magwood's program, and I turn it over for a statement that you
might have at this time.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to all three of you and particularly you, Dr.
Orbach. You just came on board and it is good that you, even
though it is very, very quick, that you did see fit to come on
up and talk with us today. We understand that you just arrived
and will treat you accordingly.
I note that you gave up a rather important job to take this
one, so I hope personally that you have a successful time and
that it is as good for you as you might have thought in terms
of accomplishments and achievements.
Mr. Magwood and Mr. Lake Barrett, I understand, first about
you, Mr. Barrett, that your 20 years in service are about to
end and you are about to leave us. I do say to you that all my
congratulations go with you. You have done a good job in a very
controversial area. You have not conducted yourself
controversially, but rather the subject matter has been very
tough.
This is the first hearing that the subcommittee has held to
review the Department of Energy's budget request. The portion
of the budget within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is
about $20.1 billion, an increase of $700 million or 3.6 percent
over the current year. Overall, the administration has put
forth a pretty good budget for the Department of Energy. Those
areas that are not as good as we would like we hope we are able
to do better in and find resources through the allocation
process up here to take care of them.
The most glaring exception is the request, overall request
for nuclear energy within the Department. The budget for
nuclear energy research and development programs was reduced
from $134 million to $90 million this year, a 33 percent cut.
In last year's National Energy Policy Report, the President
provided bold leadership. That is when he sent us his energy
policy. In fact, it contained specifically significant bold
initiative in the area of nuclear and nuclear power and related
research and development. It would have been good had the OMB
and those who put this budget together read his energy policy.
If they would have, they would have probably added to a number
of the nuclear activities within the Department: $54 million
for general nuclear power research and development and $80
million for research on spent fuel. Those are items that we are
going to have to look for and see if we cannot put them in so
that we can continue the good work that is started within the
nuclear department there that you head.
I have some additional remarks in that regard, but I
believe what I am going to do, since we have Friday, this is
Friday and we would like to let everybody get out of here
rather early, I think I am going to put the rest of them in the
record.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let us proceed.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
I am pleased to join Chairman Reid in welcoming our distinguished
panel of witnesses.
I especially want to welcome Dr. Raymond Orbach, who was very
recently confirmed by the Senate as the Director of the Office of
Science. I am pleased the President was able to coax you away from your
distinguished post as Chancellor of the University of California--
Riverside. Welcome to the Senate Appropriations Committee. I look
forward to working with you in the years to come.
Welcome also to Mr. Bill Magwood and Mr. Lake Barrett. Mr. Barrett,
I understand you will be retiring in May. I want to thank you for over
20 years of Federal service and wish you well in your future endeavors.
This is the first hearing the subcommittee has held to review the
Department of Energy budget request. The portion of its budget within
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is $20.1 billion, an increase of
$700 million, or 3.6 percent over the current year level. Overall, the
Administration has put forth a pretty good budget for the Department of
Energy.
The most glaring exception, however, is in the request for nuclear
energy, where the budget for nuclear energy R&D programs was reduced
from $134 million this year to $90 million for next year--a 33 percent
cut.
In last year's National Energy Policy Report, the President
provided bold leadership with a broad endorsement of the importance of
nuclear power. The report included a number of policy recommendations
to expand the use of nuclear power, including the development of
advanced nuclear fuel cycles and next-generation nuclear power plants.
Unfortunately, this year's budget request does not match-up with the
policy.
For the current year, this subcommittee was responsible for
ultimately increasing the nuclear power R&D appropriation from $57
million to $134 million in the final appropriation. That included:
--$54 million for general nuclear power R&D
--$80 million for research on spent fuel and transmutation (the
``AAA'' program)
However, the Department has inexplicably proposed to eliminate
almost all of the transmutation research for next year. I have long
believed that the country must rapidly move ahead with a next-
generation fuel cycle that generates far less waste and extracts the
full energy benefit from each gram of fuel. This is a long-term effort
that requires a much larger investment by the Department.
The transmutation of waste program, as well as several other
nuclear R&D programs, will require substantial increases over the
request in fiscal year 2003.
On the positive side, I commend the Department for the $30 million
increase to the ``Nuclear Power 2010'' initiative to have advanced
nuclear power systems on-line by 2010.
Regarding the budget request for the Office of Science, the budget
is only a little better than flat for the coming year.
The Department of Energy is the Federal Government's largest
supporter of physical sciences. As such, I remain concerned about the
tremendous imbalance in the government's investments in the physical
sciences verses the life sciences. For example, NIH's budget has
doubled in 5 years while DOE Science cannot even keep up with
inflation.
Past successes in biomedicine have been built upon the strong
foundation of the physical and computational sciences. However, we will
not be equipped to take advantage of remarkable new opportunities in
genomics, nanotechnology, advanced materials, and other areas unless we
increase funding in DOE Science.
Finally, the budget request for the Nuclear Waste Disposal program
is $525 million, an increase of $148 million (or 39 percent).
Some time later this summer, the Senate will be called upon to vote
on the President's recommendation on Yucca Mountain. The decision is
very important to the country, and obviously of tremendous importance
to my good friend the Chairman of this subcommittee.
If the country decides to proceed with the construction of the
nuclear waste repository, it will cost us at least $10 billion in the
next 7 years.
No matter what happens later this summer, we must all work together
to ensure a strong future for nuclear power in the United States and
the world. Economics and environmental protection will demand a major
role for nuclear power and an acceptable spent fuel management policy.
Each of the program areas before us today will present unique
challenges for this subcommittee. I will look forward to engaging each
of our witnesses today and working with the Chairman to put together
the best possible bill.
Senator Reid. Gentlemen, we each have questions for you. We
would ask that you keep your statements as limited as you can
and the full statement will be made part of the record. That
will be the order at this time. We would ask you to proceed in
this order: Dr. Orbach, Mr. Magwood, and Mr. Barrett. We will--
I think what we will do, Pete, is let them all finish.
Senator Domenici. Good.
Senator Reid. And then we will ask questions when all the
statements are completed.
Dr. Orbach.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND ORBACH
Dr. Orbach. Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici: First I would
like to thank you for your very kind remarks. I have been
honored to have been nominated and confirmed by the Senate and
yesterday sworn in to this office. Senator Domenici correctly
said that I hope I do well because this is a very important
office and I understand the responsibilities that I bear.
I look forward to working with the committee, with
yourselves, in order to do the best job I can for the country.
The Office of Science is a special organization. It is part of
the complex supporting research in the United States, but it
has its very special characteristics. It has scope, complexity,
and breadth of discipline which distinguishes it from other
organizations supporting scientific research. These are spelled
out in the President's budget which we are here to defend and
to say in my case and across the board that I think we can get
the job done with the funds that have been recommended.
Our own Office of Science has, as the chairman noted, in
effect about a 5 percent increase in terms of operational
funding because of the shifts from construction. For that, we
believe we can carry out the mission of the Office of Science
both across the board and in specific areas.
With that, let me conclude and again thank you both for
your kind remarks and again to tell you how eager I am to work
with you in this job.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Raymond L. Orbach
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the Office of Science's fiscal year
2003 budget request. I am deeply appreciative of your support for basic
research, Mr. Chairman, and the support we have received from the other
Members of this Subcommittee. I am confident that our fiscal year 2003
request represents a sound investment in our Nation's future. Through
this budget we will strengthen our core research programs, increase the
operating time at our major scientific user facilities, and expand our
capabilities at those facilities.
This budget, Mr. Chairman, will enable thousands of researchers
located across our Nation to work on some of the most pressing
scientific challenges of our age. These researchers will work on the
frontiers of nanoscience; pursue an understanding of how the universe
began; develop the knowledge that may enable us to harness microbes and
microbial communities to improve energy production and environmental
remediation; restore U.S. leadership in neutron science; contribute to
the Administration's National Energy Policy through advances in fusion
science; and, develop advanced computation and modeling tools to
resolve complex scientific problems.
The Administration's keen interest in science and technology is
emphasized in our fiscal year 2003 budget request, which increases
funding (by five percent over the fiscal year 2002 estimate when
Spallation Neutron Source funding and one-time fiscal year 2002
projects are set aside) for basic research, and construction and
operation of our unique scientific user facilities. The fiscal year
2003 budget request for the Science appropriation is $3,285,088,000.
The Technical Information Management program request in the Energy
Supply appropriation is $8,353,000 (see table 1).
This budget request supports the following programs: High Energy
Physics, Nuclear Physics, Biological and Environmental Research, Basic
Energy Sciences, Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Fusion Energy
Sciences, Energy Research Analyses, Science Program Direction,
Safeguards and Security, and Science Laboratories Infrastructure
(formerly Multiprogram Energy Laboratories--Facilities Support). The
Technical Information Management budget request is located in the
Energy Supply appropriation.
TABLE 1.--OFFICE OF SCIENCE FISCAL YEAR 2003 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
[B/A in tenths of millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------
2001 Comparable 2002 Comparable 2003 Comparable
Approp. Approp. Approp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Energy Sciences........................................ $973.8 $999.6 $1,019.6
Advanced Scientific Computing Research....................... 161.3 157.4 169.6
Biological and Environmental Research........................ 514.1 570.3 504.2
High Energy Physics.......................................... 695.9 713.2 725.0
Nuclear Physics.............................................. 351.8 359.0 382.4
Fusion Energy Sciences....................................... 241.9 247.5 257.3
Energy Research Analysis..................................... 0.9 1.0 1.0
Science Laboratories Infrastructure.......................... 26.9 37.1 42.7
Science Program Direction.................................... 139.9 152.5 139.5
SBIR/STTR.................................................... 93.1
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 3,199.6 3,237.6 3,241.3
==================================================
Safeguards and Security...................................... 39.1 47.6 48.1
S&S Reimbursable Work........................................ (4.7) (4.5) (4.4)
--------------------------------------------------
Total Safeguards and Security.......................... 34.4 43.1 43.7
==================================================
Total Science.......................................... 3,234.0 3,280.7 3,285.0
Technical Information Management............................. 9.2 8.1 8.4
--------------------------------------------------
Total Office of Science................................ 3,243.2 3,288.8 3,293.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Science's basic research portfolio emphasizes
sustained investment in new knowledge and support for long-term
national priorities. It is a cornerstone of the Administration's
efforts to maintain our Nation's overall security. We provide over 40
percent of Federal support to the physical sciences, including more
than 90 percent of high energy and nuclear physics support. We also are
the sole support of key subfields, such as nuclear medicine, heavy
element chemistry, magnetic fusion and the development of unique
algorithms that are the foundation of advanced software systems for
scientific applications.
The Office of Science supports scientists and graduate students at
over 240 major universities and at DOE's national laboratories. About
18,000 researchers will be able to conduct leading edge research in
materials science, biology and other areas at our major scientific user
facilities in fiscal year 2003.
fiscal year 2003 science priorities
The fiscal year 2003 request supports major research programs that
respond to DOE priorities and will contribute to the strength and
vitality of the national research enterprise. Many of these research
programs are conducted jointly with other Federal research agencies and
are illustrative of the deep reservoir of scientific talent and
resources that DOE brings to bear on critical national challenges:
Nanoscale science.--The Office of Science is part of a Federal
Government effort to establish U.S. preeminence in nanoscale science,
the next major frontier in materials sciences, chemistry, biology,
engineering, and a host of other scientific disciplines. The goal:
enabling the atom-by-atom design of materials and integrated systems
that will lead to important contributions to U.S. national security,
energy production and environmental quality. Advancing basic knowledge
in nanoscale science, and drawing on the Office of Science's unique
core competencies and recognized interdisciplinary capabilities will
enable the Office of Science and its Federal partners (NSF, DOD, etc.)
to secure international leadership in this emerging area of science.
In fiscal year 2003, fundamental research to understand the
properties of materials at the nanoscale will focus in three areas:
synthesis and processing of materials at the nanoscale, condensed
matter physics, and catalysis. The challenge with respect to synthesis
and processing is to develop a fundamental understanding of the
nanoscale processes involved in deformation and fracture, the synthesis
of ordered arrays of nanoparticles using patterning techniques, and the
synthesis of nanoparticles of uniform size and shape. Work in condensed
matter physics will focus on understanding how properties change or can
be improved at the nanoscale and how macromolecules reach their
equilibrium configuration and self assemble into larger structures. In
catalysis, new work will focus on fundamental research to understand
the role that nanoscale properties of materials play in altering and
controlling catalytic transformations.
The goal of the nanoscale science initiative is to establish a
fundamental understanding of structures and interactions at the
nanoscale. Through this understanding DOE anticipates significant
improvements in many areas: solar energy conversion; more energy-
efficient lighting; stronger, lighter materials for more efficient
transportation; better improved chemical and biological sensors; new
methods to break down toxic substances for environmental remediation
and restoration; and better sensors and controls to increase efficiency
in manufacturing.
The fiscal year 2003, budget also increases support for Project
Engineering and Design of Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs),
and initiates construction of the NSRC at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. NSRCs are user facilities for the synthesis, processing,
fabrication, and analysis of materials at the nanoscale. NSRCs were
conceived in fiscal year 1999 within the context of an interagency
working group on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology as part
of the DOE contribution to the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
NSRCs will serve the Nation's researchers broadly and, as with the
existing Office of Science facilities, access to NSRCs will be through
submission of proposals that will be reviewed by mechanisms established
by the facilities themselves. Planning for the NSRCs includes
substantial participation by the research community through a series of
open, widely advertised workshops.
The NSRCs will be sited adjacent to or near an existing synchrotron
or neutron scattering facility and contain chemistry, physics, and
biology laboratories for nanofabrication, clean rooms, one-of-a-kind
signature instruments and other instruments (e.g., nanowriters and
various research-grade probe microscopies, not generally available
outside of major user facilities).
This research effort will also benefit from a new partnership,
proposed in fiscal year 2003, between the Advanced Scientific Computing
Research (ASCR) program and the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program.
The partnership will focus on computational nanoscale science,
engineering and technology as part of the Nanoscale Science,
Engineering and Technology Initiative. ASCR's contributions to this
partnership will consist of developing the specialized computational
tools for nanoscale science focusing on using high performance
computers to answer fundamental questions.
Genomes to Life.--Microbes and plants are responsible for the
initial production of essentially all carbon-based energy that we use,
whether from oil, coal or biomass, and for the subsequent removal of
the energy-related carbon from the atmosphere. Microbes and microbial
communities also make up about 60 percent of the biomass on Earth. A
deeper, genetically based understanding of these organisms, culminating
in computational models of their function that can be used to predict
and even modify functions or efficiencies, promises a revolution in
energy and its environmental impact. For example, harnessing metabolic
pathways in hydrogen-producing microbes or understanding how oxygen
poisons a key group of enzymes, hydrogenases (capable of producing
hydrogen only in the absence of air), could help to develop a more
efficient, hydrogen-based energy economy.
Deeper understanding of gene function and protein structure offer
the potential for novel new biology-based solutions to address DOE's
needs including biotechnology solutions for clean energy, carbon
sequestration, environmental cleanup, and bioterrorism detection and
defeat. Key to these is an understanding of the genetic and
environmental basis of cell function, and the development of tools to
understand gene function and protein structure.
Initiated in fiscal year 2002, Genomes to Life research continues
to more fully characterize the inventory of multiprotein molecular
machines found in selected DOE-relevant microbes and higher organisms
and to determine the functional diversity found in populations of
microbes isolated from DOE-relevant sites. In fiscal year 2003, new
research will be initiated that focuses on further developing the
research tools needed to study microbial communities that may have
applications to clean energy, environmental cleanup, and carbon
sequestration.
The overriding goal of the long-term Genomes to Life research
program is to understand biology well enough to be able to predict the
behavior and responses of biological systems--from cells to organisms--
so that they can best be used to address DOE mission needs in energy,
the national security, and environment. This effort is part of an
interagency program to understand life's basic processes to meet
National goals in many areas including health, agriculture, and energy.
More specifically, Genomes to Life research will:
Identify life's molecular machines, the multiprotein complexes that
carry out the functions of living systems. Emphasis will focus on
molecular machines from organisms of potential importance to DOE
missions (e.g., energy production, environmental remediation, and
carbon sequestration, and biothreat reduction).
Characterize the gene regulatory networks and processes that
control the molecular machines of interest.
Characterize the functional repertoire of complex microbial
communities in their natural environments and use the integrated
genomics, biochemical, structural, and physiological information to
address DOE missions in energy, waste cleanup, and biothreat reduction.
Develop computational capabilities needed to model the complexity
of biological systems.
Computation and modeling of biological processes and systems is key
to the success of this effort given the complexity of biological
systems. Greatly improved computational strategies, tools and resources
are needed and will be developed through partnership between the
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program and the ASCR
program. In fiscal year 2003, this partnership will be expanded to
further develop the computational research infrastructure and
especially underlying mathematical understanding and computational
tools that are needed for the analysis and simulation of key biological
processes.
The Administration's Climate Change Research Initiative.--In fiscal
year 2003, the Administration will begin a new Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI). The CCRI is intended to focus research on areas
where substantial progress in understanding and prediction are likely
over the next five years.
DOE, working with other U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) agencies, will tackle a specific piece of this problem:
understanding the North American Carbon Cycle, which was identified as
a priority need in the interagency Carbon Cycle Science Plan.
Office of Science research on the carbon cycle will explore the
movement of carbon on a global scale, starting from natural and manmade
emissions to carbon sinks in the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans.
Carbon sequestration research seeks to exploit the biosphere's natural
processes to enhance the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide in
terrestrial and marine ecosystems. It also seeks the understanding
needed to assess the potential environmental implications of purposeful
enhancement and/or disposal of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere and
at the surface or deep in the ocean. Experimental and modeling efforts
primarily address the net exchange of carbon between major types of
terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere.
Fundamental research into the nature of matter and energy.--The
Office of Science is exploring two significant elements of the Standard
Model, the current accepted theory of the fundamental forces in the
universe, including the complex interactions of energy, matter, time
and space. The Office of Science's High Energy Physics (HEP) program
has a unique opportunity during the next few years to make key
discoveries that will help scientists worldwide understand the origin
of mass and the preponderance of matter over antimatter in the
universe, two of the great unsolved questions in physics.
Until the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the European
particle physics laboratory, becomes fully operational sometime after
2006, the HEP program is the only one in the world with facilities
capable of detecting the elusive Higgs boson (thought key to
understanding mass). Additionally, one of the persistent mysteries of
modern physics is the general absence of observed anti-matter in the
universe--a puzzle that HEP could resolve within the next five years by
explaining the role of Charge-Parity (CP) violation.
The Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP) at CERN left a
tantalizing hint of a Higgs boson before it ceased operations in late
2000. The data suggest a Higgs mass of about 115 GeV, well within reach
of the Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
(Fermilab).
However, if research at the Tevatron is to find the Higgs boson
before the LHC gets underway, the Tevatron will need to run
extensively, increase its luminosity (data rate) substantially, and
replace some components of its particle detectors. A program of
luminosity and detector improvements is now underway, interleaved with
data runs. If the Higgs mass is less than 165 GeV (billion electron
volts), and all of the improvements are successful, the data to find
the Higgs boson is expected to be in hand before the LHC is
operational.
Tevatron data will also give more information about the
surprisingly heavy top quark discovered there in 1995, and could reveal
an entire new class of particles (supersymmetric particles) that have
been predicted by new theories that seek to complete the unification of
our explanations of fundamental interactions.
At the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), the highly
successful B-factory and its BaBar detector will have the opportunity
to shed light on the mystery of why there is so much more matter than
antimatter in the observed universe, rather than equal amounts of each
as current theories predict. Electrons colliding at several billion
electron volts (GeV) will allow the study of a phenomenon known as CP
violation in B mesons. CP violation causes a subtle asymmetry in the
amounts of matter and antimatter produced in nuclear processes, such as
those that occurred in the very early universe, and could therefore
help to explain the predominance of matter today.
CP violation was originally discovered in 1964 in an experiment at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, and its accommodation within the
current theory of the Standard Model has only recently been established
through extremely difficult and exquisitely precise measurements at
Fermilab and CERN. The big question for SLAC is whether CP violation in
the B mesons will follow theoretical predictions or will instead
indicate some additional, hitherto unknown source of the phenomenon.
Such a discovery would have profound implications for our understanding
of the matter-dominated universe in which we live.
The fiscal year 2002 budget focused on utilization and upgrades of
the Tevatron at Fermilab and the B-factory at the SLAC to fully exploit
the discovery potential of these facilities. In fiscal year 2003, this
focus will continue as will support for the groups of scientists
(primarily university-based) performing the research.
Attempts to synthesize an extreme form of matter that only existed
for a fraction of a second at the Big Bang--the quark-gluon plasma.--
The Nuclear Physics program is working to synthesize, for the first
time in a laboratory, an extreme state of matter that existed
microseconds after the Big Bang: a hot dense plasma of unconfined
quarks and gluons. This scientific achievement will reveal the nature
and behavior of the most fundamental building blocks of matter.
The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) is a unique facility
where colliding relativistic heavy ion beams will permit exploration of
the quark-gluon plasma, and recreate the transition, from unbound
quarks and gluons to their tightly bound combinations as nucleons, that
characterized the early evolution of the universe. Studies with
colliding heavy ion beams provide researchers with an opportunity to
explore new forms of nuclear matter and nuclear interactions that up to
now have only been characterized theoretically.
Now that the Office of Science's RHIC facility is fully
operational, intensive study is underway. First RHIC measurements
indicate that they have been able to achieve an energy density--a
measure of the energy deposited in the collision region by the
colliding nuclei--higher than ever before achieved in a laboratory, and
at least 70 percent higher than in similar experiments at CERN. This
should be sufficient to create the quark-gluon plasma. Several papers
reporting results have already been published and many others are
expected to follow shortly. Discussion of these results--dominated the
premier international conference for this field--Quark Matter 2001--and
have generated much attention in the general press. Following
preparations at RHIC during the fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2002
running periods for its spin-physics program, it is anticipated that
this program will begin in fiscal year 2003 to study the quark
structure of nucleons.
A new era of scientific discovery through advances in
computation.--The Office Science initiated the Scientific Discovery
through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program in fiscal year 2001 to
exploit advances in computing and information technologies as tools for
scientific discovery across basic research programs. SciDAC encourages
and enables a new model of multi-disciplinary collaboration among
researchers in the physical sciences, computer scientists and
mathematicians to develop a new generation of scientific simulation
codes that can fully exploit terascale computing and networking
resources. SciDAC's goal is to bring simulation to a level of parity
with experiment and theory in the scientific research enterprise, and
lead to breakthroughs in a wide range of areas including climate
prediction, plasma physics, particle physics, astrophysics and
computational chemistry.
SciDAC activities build on the historic strength of the Office of
Science in computational science, computer science, applied
mathematics, and high-performance computing and in the design,
development, and management of large scientific and engineering
projects and scientific user facilities.
For example, a partnership between the ASCR program, the HEP
program, and the NP program, identified the most compelling
opportunities for advancements in physics through the application of
terascale computing resources. As a result, the Office of Science
identified challenge areas within theoretical nuclear physics, and
several major multi-institutional grants in high-priority topical areas
were awarded for the first time in fiscal year 2001. A similar
partnership has been formed between ASCR and the BES program to advance
computational nanoscience.
Advanced Computing Research Testbeds provide advanced computational
hardware for testing and evaluating new computing hardware and
software. These testbeds are providing specialized computational
resources to support SciDAC applications teams in fiscal year 2002. In
fiscal year 2003, this effort will be increased to provide specialized
computing resources to SciDAC application teams that demonstrate
significant opportunities for new scientific discovery.
Innovation in fusion, plasma science and related technologies as
part of the Administration's National Energy Policy.--The Office of
Science program leads the national research effort to advance plasma
science, fusion science, and fusion technology--the knowledge base
needed to create an economically and environmentally attractive fusion
energy source. The National Energy Policy, published in July of 2001,
recommended that the President direct the Secretary of Energy to
develop next-generation technology--including hydrogen and fusion. This
builds on a recommendation of the National Research Council, which
states:
``The committee believes that a dynamic, outward-looking, science-
driven program in which discoveries are regularly communicated beyond
the walls of fusion science is essential to alter the outside
community's perception of the field. A strong case can also be made
that a program organized around critical science goals will also
maximize progress toward a practical fusion power source. Scientific
discoveries that a decade ago would have been unthinkable are the
fundamental drivers of program direction at all levels . . .''--An
Assessment of the Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences Program--National Research Council--2001
The fiscal year 2003 budget supports the program balance and
priorities recommended by the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
and supported by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board and the
National Research Council.
The science and the technology of fusion have progressed to the
point that the next major research step is the exploration of the
physics of a self-sustained plasma reaction in a burning plasma physics
experiment. In fiscal year 2003, the Office of Science will fund
research that supports such an experiment. In addition, the Office of
Science will fund the exploration of innovative approaches to
confining, heating, and fueling plasmas.
The characteristics of the materials used in the construction of
fusion power plants will determine the impact that those power plants
will have on the environment. In fiscal year 2003, the Office of
Science will support scientific research aimed at developing materials
for fusion applications in coordination with its basic materials
science program that will ensure that fusion-generated power will have
a minimal environmental impact.
Advanced scientific user facilities to accomplish vital DOE and
national missions.--The Office of Science designs, builds, and operates
scientific user facilities for university, laboratory, and industry
researchers, providing U.S. scientists with the tools needed to pursue
research for national defense, promote energy security, make advances
in health, and increase U.S. technological competitiveness. During the
next five years, the Office of Science will design and/or complete new
research tools such as the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) at
Fermilab. The Office of Science's operation of major scientific
facilities has ensured that a growing number of U.S. scientists have
reliable access to those important facilities. The number of users at
major Office of Science user facilities is projected to grow to over
17,000 in fiscal year 2002 and over 18,000 in fiscal year 2003. Of
particular note has been the growth in users at the Office of Science's
light sources. Biologists and other life scientists have been working
cooperatively with physicists and other physical scientists in multi-
disciplinary teams to achieve breakthroughs in medicine, biotechnology
and other fields.
science accomplishments
The Nation's investment in Office of Science basic research
programs continues to pay dividends to the American taxpayer. These
scientific accomplishments respond to DOE's missions in national
security, energy and environment, and contribute to U.S. technological
competitiveness. In addition, the Office of Science continues to pursue
answers to many of the most challenging scientific questions of the
21st century and sponsors researchers who receive many of the most
prestigious scientific awards given annually. Some of the past year's
highlights include:
environment
First Draft of Human DNA Sequence Published.--Capping what may be
one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time, the draft
human DNA sequence was published in the February 15/16, 2001 issues of
the journals Nature and Science. The Office of Science initiated this
monumental research project, sequenced human chromosomes 5, 16, and 19,
and contributed many of the fundamental technologies and resources.
Both the human DNA sequence and high throughput DNA sequencing
capabilities, especially as applied to microbes, contribute to the
identification of genetic factors that increase individual human
susceptibility to radiation and other energy-related materials, and to
the use of microbes and microbial communities to solve challenges in
carbon sequestration, clean energy, environmental cleanup, and national
security.
Radiation Resistant Microbe Could Reduce Common Contaminants at DOE
Sites.--The radiation resistant ``superbug'' Deinococcus radiodurans,
was shown by researchers at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
to change chemical species of contaminants common to DOE sites (e.g.,
Uranium, Technetium, and Chromium). Deinococcus radiodurans may provide
a means for limiting the migration of radionuclides and heavy metals
from soil to water supplies. Moreover, Deinococcus has now been
reported to be common in the populations of soil microorganisms beneath
radioactive waste storage tanks at the Hanford reservation, making this
microbe especially promising for in situ bioremediation approaches.
Weather Forecast Accuracy Improved through Measurements and
Modeling of Atmospheric Radiation.--The Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement (ARM) program has improved the agreement between measured
and modeled instantaneous clear sky infrared fluxes from 20 Watts per
square meter to 5 Watts per square meter. The inclusion of the advanced
radiation code into climate models has resulted in a 7 percent
improvement in the usefulness of weather forecasts by extending the
forecast period and reducing the computation time required to produce
the forecasts.
Carbon Sequestration Possible Through ``Artificial Leaves'' Made of
Semiconductor Nanocrystals.--Recent experiments demonstrated that
carbon dioxide could be removed from the atmosphere using semiconductor
nanocrystals. These ``artificial leaves'' could potentially convert
carbon dioxide into useful organic molecules with major environmental
benefits. However, to be practical, efficiency must be substantially
improved. New theoretical studies have unraveled the detailed
mechanisms involved and identified the key factors limiting efficiency.
Based on this new understanding, alternative means for improving
efficiency were suggested that could lead to effective implementation
of artificial leaves.
energy security
Energy Savings Possible from Micro-size Light Emitters.--Energy
savings of tens of billions of dollars per year could be achieved by
replacement of household 100-watt light bulbs by white light emitting
diodes (LED) made by mixing LEDs emitting primary colors. However,
improved LED efficiency is necessary before such replacement becomes
feasible. New research has shown that interconnecting hundreds of
micro-size LEDs to replace larger conventional LEDs can boost the
overall emission efficiency by as much as 60 percent.
Novel Materials for Advanced Fuel Cells.--A major impediment to the
commercialization of fuel cells is the inability to use hydrogen fuel
containing traces of carbon monoxide and the need to utilize large
amounts of expensive platinum catalysts. A novel ruthenium/platinum
catalyst has been produced through the spontaneous deposition of
platinum on metallic ruthenium nanoparticles. The resulting catalyst
has a higher carbon monoxide tolerance than commercial catalysts and
uses smaller amounts of platinum. In addition, research on new
catalytic electrodes for fuel cells has shown that synthetic diamond
thin films are excellent supports for catalysts because of their
corrosion resistance.
Advancing Fusion Energy Science.--Research funded by the Fusion
Energy Sciences (FES) program in fiscal year 2001 produced results over
a wide range of activities. Examples include: dramatic improvements in
the feedback modification of plasma instabilities on the DIII-D
experiment that doubled previous limits on plasma pressure; and the
development, by researchers at the Alcator C-Mod, of a technique known
as ``off-axis ion cyclotron radio frequency heating'' that can reduce
energy transport. Greatly reduced energy transport has also been
achieved in the Reversed Field Pinch (RFP), an innovative confinement
concept experiment at the University of Wisconsin. New models for
microstructural evolution enable nanosystem methods for designing
fusion materials with significantly improved performance and lifetimes
and with elemental tailoring that minimizes radioactivity generation by
neutron-induced transmutation.
u.s technological competitiveness
Twelve Companies Adopt Argonne Lab/University of Southern
California (USC) Globus ToolkitTM as Standard Grid
Technology Platform.--The open source Globus ToolkitTM
developed by USC's Information Sciences Institute and Argonne National
Laboratory has become the international standard in the burgeoning
field of grid computing. Twelve leading computer vendors and software
providers in the U.S. and Japan announced in November 2001, that they
will support the product. Grid computing is a technology that uses the
Internet as basic wiring to let people share computing, storage, data,
programs, and other resources, just like the electric power grid allows
people and energy companies to share generators of all kinds. The goal
is to allow anyone with a computer to effectively integrate
instruments, displays, and computational and information resources over
a variety of computer platforms.
Nuclear Physics Research Results in New Biomedical Technology for
Imaging Lung Functions.--A new technique has been developed by
university researchers that enhances MRI imaging of lungs through the
use of ``hyperpolarized gas.'' The technique, initially developed to
provide polarized targets for nuclear physics experiments, uses lasers
to polarize large volumes of noble gases that can then be inhaled. The
MRI equipment detects the resonance of the polarized gas to provide an
image of the air volume of the lungs. The process is presently
undergoing clinical trials.
advances in fundamental knowledge
Basic Constituencies of Matter Identified.--The tau neutrino was
discovered by the DONUT collaboration, a team of university and
laboratory scientists working at Fermilab. This completed the last
generation of leptons, and capped a major American achievement: the
discovery of 11 of the 12 basic constituents of matter, the quarks and
leptons of the Standard Model of elementary particles. (The first of
the 12, the electron, was discovered in England in 1897.) The discovery
of the tau neutrino is considered by the American Institute of Physics
to be one of the top three physics news stories of the year 2000, and
has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
New Nuclear Physics Research Tool has Potential for Important
Applications.--A new precision technique for Atom Trap Trace Analysis
(ATTA) to identify and count extremely rare isotopes has been developed
at Argonne National Laboratory. The technique allows one to make
precision measurements of the charge radius of several helium isotopes
for fundamental tests of nuclear models and to measure the solar
neutrino flux integrated over several million years as a test of the
solar model prediction for neutrino production in the sun. The latter
is an important test for understanding the low solar neutrino flux
problem. This technique also potentially has broad new practical
applications, such as dating ground water and polar ice for
environmental and geologic studies, dating bones for archeological
purposes, and, in medicine, monitoring bone loss in humans.
Mystery of Missing Solar Neutrinos is Solved.--A highlight of
fiscal year 2001 for the NP program was the reported measurements from
the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), providing an answer to a 30-
year-old mystery--the puzzle of why there are fewer solar neutrinos
detected than are expected. NP researchers, working with scientists
from Canada and other nations, found that the answer lies not with the
Sun, but with the neutrinos that change their type (oscillate) as they
travel from the core of the Sun to the Earth. In fiscal year 2002-2005,
SNO will make unique and more sensitive measurements of the flux and
spectra of solar neutrinos. Neutrino oscillations are evidence that
neutrinos have mass, an observation that forces a re-evaluation of the
existing Standard Model of particle physics.
major scientific awards
Office of Science Researchers Win Awards and Recognition.--Hundreds
of principal investigators, funded by the Office of Science, annually
win dozens of major prizes and awards sponsored by the President, the
Department, the National Academy of Sciences, private organizations,
and the major scientific professional societies. In 2001, SC-supported
researchers won: one of the 2001 Discover Magazine Innovation Awards;
the 2001 Christopher Columbus Foundation Award, the 2001 Thomas Young
Medal; the Humboldt Research Award; three 2001 R&D 100 awards; an 2001
Energy 100 award; and a 2001 Federal Laboratory Consortium Award for
excellence in Technology Transfer. Of special note was the fact that
the supercomputing conference series initiated a Network Bandwidth
Challenge in 2000, in which researchers were invited to demonstrate
their ability to maximize network performance for their application. In
both 2000 and 2001, the first prize for optimal use of the network went
to a DOE laboratory-led application. In 2001, the prize-winning
application was based on an interactive, scientific simulation running
at two separate supercomputers. The results of the simulation were sent
to the conference floor over the network and visualized at a sustained
network performance level of 3.3 gigabits per second, or approximately
1,000 times faster than commercially available Digital Subscriber
Lines.
science programs
high energy physics
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$713.2M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$725.0M
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program provides over 90 percent of
the Federal support for the Nation's high energy physics research. This
research seeks to understand the nature of matter and energy at the
most fundamental level, as well as the basic forces that govern all
processes in nature. High energy physics research requires accelerators
and detectors utilizing state-of-the-art technologies in many areas,
including: fast electronics, high speed computing, superconducting
magnets, and high power radio-frequency devices. In these areas, HEP
research has led to many developments with practical applications in
the civilian marketplace as well as to widespread applications in other
scientific disciplines. In addition, this program provides the basis
for an excellent education for some of the brightest young minds in the
Nation--a number of whom contribute to other scientific fields and to
private industry.
Until 2006, when Europe's Large Hadron Collider is scheduled to
begin operations, the U.S. is the primary center for HEP research.
Increased operating time and enhanced capabilities at HEP facilities
are essential to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in this
fundamental area of physics research. Beginning in fiscal year 2002,
the Department's HEP program focused its resources to take full
advantage of this window of opportunity, particularly at Fermilab and
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). This focus continues in
fiscal year 2003. At Fermilab, following completion and successful
commissioning of the Main Injector and major upgrades to the CDF and D-
Zero detectors, the Tevatron Collider Run II began in March 2001. The
Tevatron will be running fully in fiscal year 2003 toward a goal of
discovering the long-sought Higgs particle (thought key to
understanding mass) and other important new physics. Upgrades are
planned for fiscal year 2003 to increase collider luminosity, maintain
detector performance, and provide the computing capability to analyze
the data collected.
Similarly at SLAC, there is a window of opportunity to take
advantage of the outstanding performance of the B-factory to break new
ground in exploring the source and nature of Charge-Parity (CP)
violation in the B meson system. For this reason, maximum running is
planned for the B-factory in fiscal year 2003. Upgrades are planned in
fiscal year 2003 for the accelerator to achieve optimal physics output
and for the detector and computing capabilities to cope with high data
volumes. In 2001, the BaBar detector collaboration achieved one of its
physics milestones, announcing the first definitive measurement of CP
violation in the B meson system.
The High Energy Physics request includes $480,453,000 to maintain
support of the Department's scientific user facilities. This investment
will provide significant research time for several thousand scientists
based at universities and other Federal laboratories. The proposed
funding will support operations at the Department's two high priority
HEP facilities: the Tevatron at Fermilab, and the B-factory at SLAC.
Although the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven is a
Nuclear Physics facility, high priority HEP experimentation continued
there through fiscal year 2002. Due to a restructuring of priorities
within the program, use of the AGS for HEP is terminated in fiscal year
2003.
Support for university and laboratory based theoretical and
experimental research related to the high priority experiments at
Fermilab and SLAC will continue to be emphasized in fiscal year 2003.
The experimental programs are performed by university (primarily) and
laboratory based scientists. These scientists construct, operate, and
maintain the detectors, analyze the resulting data, and train the next
generation of scientists. High Energy Physics Research and Technology
funding will increase in fiscal year 2003 by $14,320,000 to a total of
$258,545,000 with emphasis on the high priority experiments at Fermilab
and SLAC.
Successful completion of construction and major capital equipment
projects continues to be an important part of the program. Continued
participation in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project at CERN is a
high priority. The U.S. contributions to the LHC accelerator and the
ATLAS and CMS detectors are making good progress and are on schedule
and within budget for the current LHC scheduled start-up date of 2006.
The U.S. LHC work is being performed at various locations including
four DOE laboratories and 60 U.S. universities. In fiscal year 2003,
$60,000,000 of LHC funding will be used for the fabrication of
accelerator magnets and equipment and the R&D, prototype development,
and fabrication of detector subsystems such as tracking chambers,
calorimeters, and data acquisition electronics.
The Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) project has encountered
serious problems in several areas. These include difficulties with the
construction of the beam tunnel at Fermilab and design changes in the
beam line components and shielding needed to accommodate the high
radiation levels resulting from the very high intensity of the proton
beam used to produce the neutrinos. Principal corrective actions for
the NuMI project were strengthening Fermilab's project management
organization and improving DOE oversight through additional staff in
the site office and closer interaction with the NuMI program office.
The MINOS detector for NuMI is proceeding well, and its completion is
expected within the projected cost and schedule. Because of these
developments, the project costs for NuMI have risen. The total project
cost is increased to $171,442,000 from the previously approved
$139,390,000, and the total estimated cost is increased to $109,242,000
from the previously approved $76,149,000. The completion will be
delayed by about two years to the end of fiscal year 2005. In fiscal
year 2003, the HEP program requests $20,093,000 for continued
construction of the NuMI project.
Progress continues on two particle astrophysics experiments in
partnership with NASA. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) is
expected to fly on Space Station Alpha in 2004, and the Large Area
Telescope (LAT) mission, that is part of the Gamma-Ray Large Area Space
Telescope (GLAST), is planned for 2006. Both of these experiments are
expected to lead to a better understanding of dark matter, high energy
gamma ray sources, and the origin of the universe.
nuclear physics
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$359.0M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$382.4M
The Nuclear Physics (NP) program is the major sponsor of
fundamental nuclear physics research in the Nation, providing about 90
percent of Federal support. The mission of this program is to advance
our knowledge of the properties and interactions of atomic nuclei and
nuclear matter in terms of the fundamental forces and particles of
nature; and, to develop the scientific knowledge, technologies and
trained manpower that is needed to underpin DOE's missions for nuclear-
related national security, energy, and environmental quality.
In fiscal year 2003, highest priority is given to enhancing the
operations of the program's user facilities, especially major new
facilities that have started operations: the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider (RHIC) and the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
(CEBAF). These facilities are poised to make major advances in our
understanding of matter and energy. The Nuclear Physics request
includes $260,140,000 to maintain support of the Department's
scientific user facilities. Funding will double operations for research
at RHIC and increase overall research hours at the six NP user
facilities by 21 percent in fiscal year 2003. This investment will
provide research time for several thousand scientists in universities
and other Federal laboratories. It will also leverage both Federally
and privately sponsored research, consistent with the Administration's
strategy for enhancing the U.S. national science investment. High
priority is also given to university researchers who use these
facilities and to nuclear theory activities that continue to
characterize atomic nuclei, nuclear matter, and related forces.
The new RHIC facility at BNL will attempt to create and
characterize the quark-gluon plasma, a phase of matter thought to have
existed in the very early stage of the universe. Experimental data
taken between fiscal year 2000-2002 have already revealed unexpected
behaviors and show aspects of possible plasma formation. RHIC achieved
its planned full collision rate in fiscal year 2002 and in fiscal year
2003 the running schedule will be doubled, providing the opportunity to
explore this exciting new physics in depth.
At the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) the
intense, polarized electron beams from CEBAF are being used to gain
knowledge and insights on how quarks and gluons bind together to make
protons and neutrons. In fiscal year 2003, funding will support an
aggressive experimental program with the newly completed G0 detector,
to map out the strange quark contribution to the structure of the
nucleon.
The unique research program studying the structure of the nucleon
at the MIT/Bates facility with the BLAST detector, now being
commissioned, will be initiated in fiscal year 2003. Nuclear structure
and astrophysics studies will be pursued at the three low-energy user
facilities (ATLAS/Argonne, 88-Inch Cyclotron/Lawrence Berkeley and
HRIBF/Oak Ridge) with increased running schedules compared to fiscal
year 2002.
biological and environmental research
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$570.3M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$504.2M
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program, in
coordination with other Federal agencies and with guidance from the BER
Advisory Committee, supports basic, peer-reviewed research at national
laboratories and universities across a remarkable breadth of scientific
fields ranging from global climate change to genomics. The 21st Century
has been called the ``biological century'' because advances in biology
are expected to have an enormous impact on health, environment, and our
ability to predict changes in climate. In fiscal year 2003, the BER
program will contribute to these advances through basic research in
support of DOE missions.
The fiscal year 2003 request for BER includes $52,088,000 to
maintain support of the Department's major scientific user facilities.
BER facilities include structural biology research beam lines at the
synchrotron light sources and neutron sources including a new station
for small angle neutron scattering that has been completed at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and provides U.S. scientists with a much needed
world-class facility. The Laboratory for Comparative and Functional
Genomics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory will begin operations in
fiscal year 2003. BER also provides for the operation of the William R.
Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, where research
activities underpin long-term environmental remediation and other DOE
missions in energy and national security, and creation of tools for the
detection and defeat of bioterrorism. With the fiscal year 2003
funding, BER will provide for the operation of these facilities,
assuring access for scientists in universities, Federal laboratories,
and industry. BER will also leverage both federally and privately
sponsored research.
Genomes to Life activities will develop novel research and
computational tools that, together with capabilities in genomics,
structural biology, and imaging will lead to an understanding of and
predictive capabilities for complex biological systems. In fiscal year
2003, the BER program will further develop the research infrastructure
needed for Genomes to Life research. In fiscal year 2002, the program
funded several large teams of scientists at multiple national
laboratories and universities to work together across institutional
boundaries as members of virtual, distributed research centers
addressing core questions for Genomes to Life. These virtual research
centers will be expanded in fiscal year 2003 to include research
capabilities needed for analyses of the functions of microbial
populations comprised of multiple microbial species, enabling the
development of strategies for using complex microbial communities to
address DOE needs in clean energy production, carbon sequestration, and
environmental cleanup. The fiscal year 2003 BER request for this
program is $36,675,000--an increase of $15,161,000.
Human Genome research continues to develop advanced sequencing
technologies needed by research and clinical scientists. It provides
high throughput DNA sequencing resources to address sequencing needs
across the Federal Government, including for biothreat reduction. With
the completion of the high quality DNA sequence of human chromosomes 5,
16, and 19, DNA sequencing capabilities at the Joint Genome Institute
will increasingly emphasize the needs of research on microbes for
energy, the environment, and national security and, through interagency
partnerships, selected sequencing needs of other agencies including the
National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. BER
requests $90,185,000 for this research in fiscal year 2003--an increase
of $2,327,000 over the fiscal year 2002 appropriation.
The goal of the Low Dose Radiation Research program is to support
research that will help determine health risks from exposures to low
levels of ionizing radiation, information that is critical to
adequately and appropriately protect people, and to make the most
effective use of our national resources. In fiscal year 2003, BER will
continue to emphasize the use of new tools such as microbeam
irradiators, the characterization of individual susceptibility to
radiation, and the forging of closer, more productive linkages between
experimentalists and risk modelers--a relationship that lies at the
critical interface between experimental science, risk analysis, and the
development of better risk management policies.
BER sponsored environmental research will improve regional and
global scale climate models, simulations and predictions. Fiscal year
2003 will see the development of an improved climate model with twice
the spatial resolution of the previous version. Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement research will advance our understanding of the role of
clouds and solar radiation to reduce uncertainty in climate models and
increases our understanding of the water cycle to better predict
precipitation patterns. In fiscal year 2003, these U.S. Global Climate
Research Program (USGCRP) efforts will be increased $6,001,000 over the
fiscal year 2002 appropriation for a total of $126,169,000. BER climate
research in carbon and ecosystems also underpins the Administration's
Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI). The objective of the BER
research is to quantify the North American carbon cycle and to
understand the effects of elevated carbon dioxide on terrestrial
ecosystems.
BER bioremediation research will continue its focus on the
biotransformation of radionuclides and metals at contaminated DOE
sites, the community of microbes that affect the transformations in
subsurface environments at the sites, and the development of strategies
for using bioremediation to clean up or stabilize these contaminants at
DOE sites. In fiscal year 2003 the Environmental Management Science
Program (EMSP) and the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory will be
transferred from the Office of Environmental Management (EM) to the
Office of Science. BER will manage these research activities according
to Office of Science principles, but with extensive input from EM.
In fiscal year 2003, funding for the followup of all patients
treated in the human clinical trials of boron neutron capture therapy
(BNCT) at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology will be completed, and the clinical studies
will be transferred to the National Cancer Institute of the National
Institutes of Health.
basic energy sciences
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$999.6M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$1,019.6M
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is a principal sponsor of
fundamental research for the Nation in the areas of materials sciences
and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as it relates
to energy. This research underpins DOE missions in energy, environment,
and national security; advances energy related basic science on a broad
front; and provides unique user facilities for the U.S. scientific
community.
In fiscal year 2003, the engineering activity of the formerly
separate Engineering and Geosciences subprogram becomes part of the new
Materials Sciences and Engineering subprogram. The Geosciences activity
and the Energy Biosciences subprogram become part of the new Chemical
Sciences, Geosciences, and Energy Biosciences subprogram. This directly
aligns Basic Energy Sciences program management and organizational
structures.
The BES program request includes $313,887,000 in fiscal year 2003
to maintain support of the scientific user facilities. Research
communities that have benefited from these facilities include materials
sciences, condensed matter physics, chemical sciences, earth and
geosciences, environmental sciences, structural biology, superconductor
technology, medical research, and industrial technology development.
The level of operations will be equal to that in fiscal year 2002.
A high priority in fiscal year 2003 is continued construction of
the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) to provide the next-generation,
short-pulse spallation neutron source for neutron scattering. BES
requests $210,571,000 in fiscal year 2003 to fund construction of the
SNS. When completed in 2006, the SNS will be significantly more
powerful (by about a factor of 10) than the best spallation neutron
source now in existence and will be used by 1,000-2,000 researchers
from academia, national and Federal labs, and industry for basic and
applied research and for technology development in fields ranging from
condensed matter physics to biology. The project, which is to be
completed in June 2006, is on schedule and within budget with more than
one-third of the work completed as of the end of October 2001. At the
end of fiscal year 2003, construction of the SNS will be 61 percent
complete.
BES requests $6,000,000 in Project Engineering Design (PED) funding
for the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center. The LCLS project will provide the world's first
demonstration of an x-ray free-electron-laser (FEL) in the 1.5-15
angstrom range (about the scale of individual atoms). The purpose of
the LCLS project is to provide laser-like radiation in the x-ray region
vastly exceeding the capabilities of current x-ray sources in three key
areas: peak brightness, coherence, and ultrashort pulses. For example,
the advance in brightness is similar to that of a modern synchrotron
over a 1960's laboratory x-ray tube. These characteristics open new
realms of scientific applications in the chemical, material, and
biological sciences including fundamental studies of the interaction of
intense x-ray pulses with simple atomic systems, structural studies on
single nanoscale particles and biomolecules, ultrafast dynamics in
chemistry and solid-state physics, studies of nanoscale structure and
dynamics in condensed matter, and use of the LCLS to create plasmas.
Synchrotrons have revolutionized science across disciplines ranging
from atomic physics to structural biology. Advances from the LCLS are
expected to be equally dramatic. The preliminary Total Estimated Cost
(TEC) is in the range of $165,000,000 to $225,000,000.
In fiscal year 2003, BES will expand research in selected areas of
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology (NSET) research and will
continue design of three and begin construction for one Nanoscale
Science Research Center (NSRC). NSRCs are user facilities for the
synthesis, processing, fabrication, and analysis of materials at the
nanoscale, and they will serve the Nation's researchers broadly. Funds
are requested in fiscal year 2003 to start construction of the NSRC
located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL); and for continued
Project Engineering Design of the three NSRCs located at ORNL, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories
(Albuquerque)/Los Alamos National Laboratory. These NSRCs were chosen
by peer review from among those proposed, and the Basic Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee has played a strong role in monitoring the
development of the facilities and shaping their progress.
Fundamental research to understand the properties of materials at
the nanoscale will be increased in three areas: synthesis and
processing of materials at the nanoscale, condensed matter physics, and
catalysis. In the area of synthesis and processing, new activities will
develop a fundamental understanding of nanoscale processes involved in
deformation and fracture, synthesis of ordered arrays of nanoparticles
using patterning techniques, and synthesis of nanoparticles of uniform
size and shape. In condensed matter physics, new activities will focus
on understanding how properties change or can be improved at the
nanoscale and how macromolecules reach their equilibrium configuration
and self assemble into larger structures. In catalysis, new work will
focus on fundamental research to understand the role nanoscale
properties of materials play in altering and controlling catalytic
transformations. These research efforts will benefit significantly from
the NSRCs. They will also benefit from the specialized computational
tools for nanoscale science under development by the Advanced
Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program.
advanced scientific computing research
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$157.4M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$169.6M
The mission of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
program is to foster and support fundamental research in advanced
scientific computing (applied mathematics, computer science, and
networking) and to provide the high performance computational and
networking tools that enable DOE to succeed in its science, energy,
environmental quality, and national security missions. A Federally-
chartered advisory committee established in fiscal year 2000 guides
ASCR by providing advice on: promising future directions for advanced
scientific computing research; strategies to couple advanced scientific
computing research to other disciplines; and the relationship of the
DOE program to other Federal investments in information technology
research.
In fiscal year 2003, the ASCR program will continue to build on its
leadership in high performance computing and networks by supporting the
``Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing'' (SciDAC) program,
and initiating new partnerships with the scientific disciplines in the
Office of Science. SciDAC is a collaborative program across the Office
of Science to produce the scientific computing, networking and
collaboration tools that DOE researchers will require to address the
scientific challenges of the next decade. This program was described in
the March 2000 report to Congress entitled, ``Scientific Discovery
through Advanced Computing.''
The SciDAC research portfolio will achieve several milestones in
fiscal year 2003. The Integrated Software Infrastructure Centers
(ISICs) will complete design work and will deliver initial
implementation of the software infrastructure on which the applications
will rely for optimal performance and scalability on terascale
platforms. The Applied Mathematics ISICs will deploy a suite of robust
and scalable software solvers. The Computer Science ISICs will deploy
software for high-throughput access to terascale datasets, and will
deploy a collection of software tools for managing and monitoring large
collections of distributed computing resources.
The ASCR program request includes $28,244,000 in fiscal year 2003
to support the National Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC)
Center. This investment will provide computer resources for about 2,400
scientists in universities, Federal agencies, and U.S. companies. It
will also leverage both federally and privately sponsored research,
consistent with the Administration's strategy for enhancing the U.S.
national science investment. The proposed funding will enable NERSC to
maintain its role as one of the Nation's premier unclassified computing
centers, serving research communities in structural biology;
superconductor technology; medical research and technology development;
materials, chemical, and plasma sciences; high energy and nuclear
physics; and environmental and atmospheric research.
The Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences (MICS)
effort is responsible for carrying out the primary mission of the ASCR
program. In addition, MICS research underpins the success of SciDAC.
The computing and networking requirements of the Office of Science far
exceed the current state-of-the-art and the tools that the commercial
marketplace will deliver. MICS supports both basic research and the
development of the results from this basic research into software
usable by scientists in other disciplines. MICS also supports
partnerships with scientific discipline users to test the usefulness of
the research--facilitating the transfer of research and helping to
define promising areas for future research. This integrated approach is
critical for MICS to succeed in providing the extraordinary
computational and communications tools that DOE's civilian programs
need to carry out their missions. It is important to note that these
tools have applications beyond the Office of Science, including to NNSA
and the private sector after these tools have been initially discovered
and developed by the MICS subprogram. In fiscal year 2003, the MICS
subprogram requests $166,625,000, an increase of $12,225,000, to invest
in applied mathematics, computer and computational science, and high
performance networking, middleware and collaboratory research.
The Laboratory Technology Research (LTR) effort supports high-risk
research that advances science and technology to enable applications
that could significantly impact the Nation's energy economy. The
research portfolio consists of 12 projects and emphasizes the following
topics: advanced materials processing and utilization, nanotechnology,
intelligent processes and controls, and energy-related applications of
biotechnology. LTR fosters the production of research results motivated
by a practical energy payoff through cost-shared collaborations between
the Office of Science laboratories and industry. The fiscal year 2003
request for the Laboratory Technology Research subprogram is
$3,000,000.
fusion energy sciences
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$247.5M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$257.3M
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program leads the national
research effort to advance plasma science, fusion science, and fusion
technology--the knowledge base needed for an economically and
environmentally attractive fusion energy source. The science and
technology of fusion have progressed to the point that the next major
research step is the exploration of the physics of a self-sustained
fusion reaction in a burning plasma physics experiment. FES will fund
research that supports such an experiment. In addition, FES will fund
the exploration of innovative approaches to confining, heating, and
fueling plasmas.
FES has two major foci in fiscal year 2003. One is to begin the
engineering design and fabrication of the National Compact Stellarator
Experiment (NCSX) to provide scientists with a facility for studying
the physics and comparing alternative configurations to the tokamak.
Acting on the recommendations of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee, based on years of study, the FES program will begin
fabrication of the NCSX at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in
fiscal year 2003. A national team is working on the design of a medium-
size NCSX that would be used to study plasma turbulence, energy and
particle transport, and stability in this novel geometry. This
experiment is expected to begin operations in 2007 with a preliminary
Total Estimated Cost of $69,000,000. In fiscal year 2003, $11,026,000
is requested for NCSX fabrication, engineering and design.
The second supports significantly expanded operating time at three
national fusion scientific user facilities to resolve issues in energy
transport and plasma stability. The FES fiscal year 2003 request
includes $111,037,000, which will help reverse a recent trend of
declines in operating time at the FES user facilities. The Department's
three major fusion energy physics facilities are: the DIII-D tokamak at
General Atomics in San Diego, California; the Alcator C-Mod Tokamak at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and the National Spherical
Torus Experiment at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. These
three facilities are each unique in the world, and offer opportunities
to address specific fusion science issues that will contribute to the
expanding knowledge base of fusion. Taken together, these facilities
represent a nearly $1,000,000,000 capital investment by the U.S.
Government, in current year dollars. The funding requested will provide
research time for about 560 scientists in universities, federally
sponsored laboratories, and industry, and will leverage both federally
and internationally sponsored research, consistent with a strategy for
enhancing the U.S. National science investment.
FES will also support innovation in fusion energy, plasma science
and related technologies as one element of the Administration's
National Energy Policy. Exploratory research will also continue on more
than a dozen small-scale, alternative concept devices and basic science
experiments, focusing on the scientific topics for which each
experiment is optimized. The theory and modeling program provides the
conceptual underpinning for the fusion sciences program and the general
plasma science program supports basic plasma science and engineering
research. The fiscal year 2003 request supports increases in research
funding in these areas and at the three FES facilities with increased
operating time. The fiscal year 2003 request also includes a modest
increase in the science of materials for fusion energy systems.
energy research analyses
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$1.0M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$1.0M
The mission of the Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program is to
provide the capabilities needed to evaluate the scientific excellence,
relevance, and international leadership of the Office of Science basic
science research programs; to advance the understanding of how the
Office of Science contributes to DOE and national mission goals; and to
contribute to the effective management of the department's science
enterprise.
The fiscal year 2003 program is continuing at the same level as
fiscal year 2002, but shifting its emphasis to new methods of
evaluation of the science managed by the Office of Science. This shift
in emphasis results from research conducted in fiscal year 2001 and
continuing in fiscal year 2002 that was designed to create new
evaluation tools (e.g., case studies, quantitative measures, and data
mining) that will help to validate the excellence, relevance and
leadership of the Office of Science programs.
science program direction
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$152.5M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$139.5M
Science Program Direction (SCPD) enables a skilled, highly
motivated Federal workforce to manage the Office of Science's basic and
applied research portfolio, programs, projects, and facilities in
support of new and improved energy, environmental, and health
technologies, and educational opportunities. SCPD consists of three
subprograms: Program Direction, Science Education, and Field
Operations.
The Program Direction subprogram supports Federal staff responsible
for directing, administering, and supporting the broad spectrum of
scientific disciplines. The Science Education subprogram supports four
educational human resource development programs that train students to
enter careers in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. The
Field Operations subprogram is the funding source for the Federal
workforce in the Field responsible for management and administrative
functions performed within the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations
Offices, and site offices supporting Office of Science laboratories and
facilities.
safeguards and security
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$43.1M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$43.7M
The Safeguards and Security (S&S) program ensures appropriate
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion,
loss of custody, or destruction of DOE assets and hostile acts that may
cause adverse impacts on fundamental science, national security or the
health and safety of DOE and contractor employees, the public or the
environment. The Office of Science's Integrated Safeguards and Security
Management strategy encompasses a tailored approach to safeguards and
security. As such, each site has a tailored protection program that is
analyzed and defined in their individual Security Plan. This approach
allows each site to design varying degrees of protection commensurate
with the risks and consequences described in their site-specific threat
scenarios.
In fiscal year 2002 increased program emphasis was provided to
cyber security commensurate with increased threats and technology
advances. These improvements are in place and continue to be updated
commensurate with technology advances and program risks. Physical
security upgrades will be completed to ensure the protection of special
nuclear materials as well as technical enhancements to electronic
access controls.
The fiscal year 2003 request meets minimum, essential security
requirements. Protection of employees and visitors is of primary
concern, as well as protection of special nuclear material and research
facilities, equipment and data. As such, priority attention is given to
protective forces, physical security systems, and cyber security.
science laboratories infrastructure
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$37.1M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$42.7M
The mission of the Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI)
program is to enable the conduct of Departmental research missions at
Office of Science laboratories by funding line item construction
projects to maintain the general purpose infrastructure and the clean
up for reuse or removal of excess facilities. The program also supports
the Office of Science landlord responsibilities for the 24,000-acre Oak
Ridge Reservation and provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to
local communities around Argonne-East, Brookhaven, and Oak Ridge
National Laboratories.
In fiscal year 2003, the SLI program has been broadened to include
all of the Office of Science laboratories and the Oak Ridge Institute
for Science and Education. A new subprogram, Excess Facilities
Disposition, has been added to address the disposal of excess
facilities at the Office of Science laboratories. Funding for fiscal
year 2003 is $5,055,000 and will eliminate or clean up 176,000 square
feet of excess space. The Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) program
funded by Congress at $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, is being used to
eliminate or clean up about 400,000 square feet of excess space. This
F&I program was merged with the Multiprogram Energy Laboratories--
Facilities Support (MEL-FS) program to form the SLI program in the
fiscal year 2003 request.
Construction funding for fiscal year 2003 will increase by
$9,785,000 over fiscal year 2002--reflecting the need to modernize the
Office of Science laboratories. Three new construction starts are
planned for fiscal year 2003 including two buildings that will replace
71,000 square feet of space that cannot be economically renovated to
support modern research.
Three projects were completed in fiscal year 2001: the Argonne-East
Central Supply Facility; the Brookhaven Electrical Systems
Modifications, Phase I; and the Argonne-East Electrical Systems
Upgrade, Phase III. Two projects are scheduled for completion in fiscal
year 2002: Lawrence Berkeley Building 77--Rehabilitation of Building
Structure and Systems, Phase I and the Brookhaven Sanitary Systems
Modifications, Phase III. In fiscal year 2003, two projects are
scheduled for completion: Oak Ridge Electrical Systems Upgrades and the
Argonne-East Fire Safety Improvements, Phase IV.
energy supply r&d programs technical information management
Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation--$8.1M; fiscal year 2003 Request--
$8.4M
The Technical Information Management (TIM) program, managed by the
Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), in the Office of
Science, provides electronic access to worldwide energy scientific and
technical information to DOE researchers, U.S. industry, academia, and
U.S. citizens. This is accomplished through a set of Internet-based
information products for technical reports, scientific journals, and
preprints--the three main sources in which scientific and technical
information is recorded. In addition, the TIM program produces an
inventory of R&D projects in progress across the Department.
In fiscal year 2003, the TIM program will continue to lead DOE e-
government initiatives for disseminating information, which include
building the world's most comprehensive collection of physical sciences
information and providing improved electronic access to full-text gray
literature (literature not commercially available), journal literature,
and preprints through partnerships with academia and the commercial
sector.
The TIM program accomplishments for fiscal year 2001 include
expanded and increased access to published and pre-printed scientific
and technical information via cost-effective information retrieval
systems, resulting in a 25 percent increase in users served; completion
of the DOE goal to transition to electronic scientific and technical
reporting; taking a leadership role in the development of science.gov,
the Interagency FirstGov for Science web resource; and launching the
Energy Citations Database, a new web-based information product
containing over 2,000,000 bibliographic records for energy and energy-
related scientific and technical information from DOE and its
predecessor agencies.
conclusion
The Office of Science occupies a unique and critical role within
the U.S. scientific enterprise. We fund research projects in key areas
of science that our Nation depends upon. We construct and operate major
scientific user facilities that scientists from virtually every
discipline are using on a daily basis, and we manage civilian national
laboratories that are home to some of the best scientific minds in the
world.
Our researchers are working on many of the most daunting scientific
challenges of the 21st Century, including pushing the frontiers of the
physical sciences through nanotechnology, and exploring the basic
mechanisms of life through our Genomes to Life program.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity
to discuss the Office of Science's research programs and our
contributions to the Nation's scientific enterprise. On behalf of DOE,
I am pleased to present this fiscal year 2003 budget request for the
Office of Science.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have for me.
Senator Reid. Mr. Magwood.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MAGWOOD
Mr. Magwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Domenici.
I am Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology. We do have a few short slides to show
you today. I am very pleased to be here to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget request. I will submit my
written statement for the record and I have a few summary
points I would like to make.
First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for the
leadership and vision it has demonstrated over the last 3
years. Without your efforts, it is fair to say that there would
be no substantial nuclear energy research program in the United
States and for that we owe you a great deal of thanks.
Your leadership has begun to bear fruit. In terms of both
near-term deployment of nuclear power plants and in exploration
of the long-term nuclear technologies, we have significant
progress to report. In the case of the near-term, I believe the
national discussion regarding the future of nuclear energy has
changed significantly. The President, the Vice President, and
the Secretary of Energy have all urged serious consideration of
the nuclear power option.
NUCLEAR POWER 2010
Just last month, Secretary Abraham announced the Nuclear
Power 2010 Initiative aimed at building new plants in the
United States by the end of the decade. Under this initiative,
we will collaborate with industry to explore sites that could
host new nuclear power plants, to demonstrate untested
regulatory processes, and to conduct research needed to bring
the most advanced technologies to market.
How practical is this goal? We asked the independent
experts at the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee to
work directly with the utility industry to find out. As you can
see in this first chart, NERAC has concluded there are several
nuclear plant concepts that can be brought to the market by the
end of the decade--if DOE and industry work together to
accomplish the tasks described by Secretary Abraham last month.
Congress has a very important role in encouraging these
activities. We applaud the efforts to pass energy legislation
that articulates the benefits of nuclear energy and seeks to
remove the barriers to its expanded use. Just last week, the
Senate passed Price-Anderson reauthorization as part of its
bill, which is so critical to proceeding with new nuclear power
plants. We thank Senators Craig and Domenici for sponsoring an
amendment on Nuclear Power 2010 which also passed earlier this
week.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE
We are also seeing great success in the exploration of
long-term technologies. At the core of our long-range R&D
agenda is the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI. As
you can see from this slide, this investigator-initiated, peer-
reviewed research program has re-energized advanced nuclear
energy research in this country. Over its 3-year existence,
NERI projects have been conducted at 53 U.S. research
organizations in 22 States, including 24 universities, 9
national laboratories, and other institutions.
Importantly, U.S. universities have participated in 66 NERI
projects. One hundred thirty students have worked on NERI
research and 51 doctoral students and 57 graduate students have
prepared their thesis based on NERI research. We are very proud
of this contribution.
NERI has also made important contributions to science and
technology. For example, the University of Florida has
developed a radiation-resistant silicon-carbide material with
excellent thermodynamic properties that can improve the
economics of nuclear fuel. Another example: An international
team led by Westinghouse is developing the IRIS concept, an
innovative passively-safe and proliferation-resistant water-
cooled reactor that can be made available as early as the turn
of the century. Leveraging a 1999 NERI award, a significant
international research effort has been established that
involves nearly 250 scientists and engineers worldwide.
GENERATION IV INITIATIVE
IRIS is but one of more than a hundred concepts that have
been evaluated in the Generation IV initiative. As you can see
in this slide, the Generation IV initiative is designed to
identify and develop next generation advanced reactor fuel
cycle technologies that can become available before 2030. These
technologies will offer significant advantages towards meeting
the challenging goals for sustainability, safety, reliability,
and economics established by NERAC and now accepted by the
international community.
Working with NERAC in the ten-nation Generation IV
international forum which DOE helped establish, we are
developing a Generation IV technology roadmap which will
identify the most promising concepts. The roadmap, which is
being written by over 100 technical experts from all over the
world, will identify the research and development needed to
bring these concepts to reality. We will provide you with the
results of this work next spring.
SPENT FUEL PYROPROCESSING AND TRANSMUTATION
As shown in this last chart, our fiscal year 2003 budget
request fully integrates all the Department's advanced nuclear
fuel cycle research programs into a single program--Spent Fuel
Pyroprocessing and Transmutation. We are combining the related
technology activities being conducted at Los Alamos, Argonne,
and Oak Ridge National Laboratories and also the work ongoing
at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas into a single integrated
program to explore both reactor and accelerator technologies
designed to deal with spent fuel.
Clearly, our budget request does not represent a major
commitment to the program at this time. Before such commitment
can be made, we must agree upon a clear technology plan to
conduct the work over the long term. We are working closely
with the subcommittee and NERAC, chaired by Dr. Burton Richter,
to create such a plan. We expect to submit this plan to
Congress by the 1st of May.
Finally, in addition to providing research grants and
scholarships to support the Nation's nuclear technology
education programs, we are proceeding with the new Innovations
in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education Initiative. We have
issued a solicitation to U.S. universities which will result in
awards totaling $5 million in new focused support to schools to
find creative ways of allowing industry, labs, and other
universities to enhance their programs.
We hope these efforts are not derailed as universities
struggle to meet new requirements in the wake of September 11.
As we have discussed before, university research reactor
programs are already strapped for funding and the new NRC
requirements regarding security could serve as a final blow to
many facilities across the country. I hope we will have an
opportunity to discuss this in the coming months.
With that, I will end my oral remarks and I will be very
pleased to answer any of your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William D. Magwood, IV
Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, and Members of the Subcommittee, it
is a pleasure to be here to discuss the fiscal year 2003 budget
submission for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) is
responsible for leading the Federal Government's investment in nuclear
science and technology. In fiscal year 2003, we are proposing a $250
million investment in nuclear R&D and in the Nation's nuclear science,
technology, and education infrastructure. This funding provides the
stimulus needed to build on the important work begun over the last year
in response to the National Energy Policy and represents a major shift
in focus and priority for the government's nuclear energy program as we
increase our efforts to deploy new nuclear plants in the United States
as a key element of long-term energy security.
nuclear energy key to energy security, climate strategy
The National Energy Policy underscores the important role of
nuclear energy in today's electricity market. Nuclear energy provides
20 percent of electricity supplied in the United States without
producing harmful air emissions. Over the last decade, nuclear power
has been a success story for the country, providing the most reliable
and efficient sources of electricity available on the grid today. The
Nation's 103 operating nuclear power plants had another record
generating year in 2001, averaging 88.12 percent gross capacity, one
percentage point higher than the year before, and operating at an
average cost of less than two cents per kilowatt-hour. The improvement
in gross capacity is equivalent of adding another twenty-three 1,000
megawatt power plants to the grid over the last decade. Operation of
the Nation's existing nuclear power plants avoids carbon emissions on
the order of 175 million metric tons annually.
Nuclear energy is important to the President's major new initiative
on clean air and climate change. With a target of cutting power plant
emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, by 18 percent over the
next ten years, expanded use of nuclear energy and the Nuclear Power
2010 program will be a key element of our strategy to achieve the
President's objectives.
Over the last 5 years there has been a strong market for purchase
of nuclear power plants by nuclear generation companies. This has
resulted in a core group of utilities with experience and resources to
operate nuclear power plants in the most safe, efficient and effective
manner. Industry has successfully moved forward with plant relicensing,
with eight units approved, another 15 that have filed application for
license renewal, and three that have announced plans to file in 2002.
Today, there is broad agreement that most, if not all, of the currently
operating nuclear plants will extend their licenses another 20 years.
Despite these successes, there are still no new plants being built
in the United States and there remain barriers that make it difficult
for a utility to invest in a new plant. These barriers are what define
the role of government and are the focus of our nuclear energy R&D
efforts. Removing institutional and technical barriers to both near-
term and longer-term expansion of nuclear energy for U.S. energy
security is the foundation of this Administration's nuclear R&D
program.
Important progress is being made. President Bush recently notified
the Congress that he considers Yucca Mountain suitable as a geologic
repository for commercial spent fuel and high level waste and qualified
for a construction permit application. This is a significant step
forward in addressing waste disposal, an important consideration to
nuclear energy's future.
There is also strong and visible leadership within the Federal
Government in nuclear energy technology and policy. This is essential
to the expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S. and abroad and has
assured U.S. participation in key international policy discussions on
future technologies and nuclear non-proliferation.
emphasis on near-term progress
In fiscal year 2003, we are proposing $71.5 million for research
and development. Included in the request, are $46.5 million for the
Nuclear Energy Technologies program and $25 million for the Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative. The Nuclear Energy Technologies program
contains two components--Nuclear Power 2010 and Generation IV--focused
on deploying new nuclear plants by the end of the decade and on
developing the next generation of advanced reactor and fuel cycle
technologies.
DOE proposes to invest $38.5 million in fiscal year 2003 on the
Nuclear Power 2010 initiative to collaborate with industry to explore
sites that could host new nuclear plants, to demonstrate the essential
but untested Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory processes
for site permits and combined construction/operating licenses, and to
conduct research to bring the most advanced technologies, such as gas
cooled reactors, to the electricity market. We have set an ambitious
goal but one we believe is achievable.
In fiscal year 2002, with $8 million allocated to near term
deployment efforts, we are working with industry to explore a range of
potential sites. In response to a solicitation by the Department, two
major nuclear utilities were awarded funds for cost-shared scoping
studies of the efforts required to complete and submit an Early Site
Permit (ESP) application to the NRC. These studies will consider
privately-owned sites as well as several DOE sites. We recently issued
a solicitation for proposals to share in the cost of selecting sites in
this country for new nuclear plants and for submitting formal
applications to the NRC for early site permit approval--this is an
important first step in demonstrating the NRC's licensing and
evaluation process. Successful demonstration of the NRC's licensing and
evaluation process will remove a major risk for utilities' future
investments in new nuclear power plants.
At the requested level in fiscal year 2003, we would co-fund with
industry completion of three ESP applications and initiate cost-shared
reactor technology development activities for one advanced light water
reactor and one gas cooled reactor technologies with industry teams led
by power generation companies. The objective of the reactor technology
development activities is the preparation and submission of Combined
Operating License applications to NRC and a decision by industry to
initiate construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. by 2005.
committed to long-term safety and security
In fiscal year 2001, the Department launched the Generation IV
initiative aimed at development of the next generation of advanced
reactor and fuel cycle technologies that can be made available to the
market after the end of the decade but before 2030. These are
technologies that offer significant advances toward challenging
sustainability, safety and reliability and economics goals such that
technologies will be competitive in all markets. Generation IV systems
include water cooled, gas cooled and liquid metal cooled concepts and
non-classical concepts such as reactors with liquid and gaseous cores
or concepts featuring novel energy conversion systems. The goals of the
Generation IV program were developed by the Department's Nuclear Energy
Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) and endorsed by the international
community.
In fiscal year 2001, we led the formation of the Generation IV
International Forum (GIF), an international collective of ten leading
nuclear nations to work in joint cooperation on developing Generation
IV technologies on a multilateral basis and to address the expansion of
nuclear energy globally. A formal GIF charter was signed in July by the
representatives of the nations of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France,
Japan, Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, the United Kingdom
and the United States. Since then, Switzerland has also joined the GIF.
The Department is leading the development of the Generation IV
Technology Roadmap with the GIF, which when complete in early fiscal
year 2003 will identify the six to eight most promising nuclear reactor
and fuel cycle concepts. The Technology Roadmap will identify the R&D
necessary to advance these concepts to the point of maturity for
potential commercialization by the private sector. The long-term R&D
will be conducted in cost-shared cooperation with other GIF member
countries providing a high degree of financial leveraging of R&D
funding. The Department proposes to double the funding to $8 million in
fiscal year 2003 to continue the Generation IV initiative.
international partnerships in nuclear development
The Department will also continue to fund investigator-initiated,
peer reviewed R&D under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI).
Started in 1999, this program is the cornerstone on which the Federal
Government's nuclear R&D initiatives have been built. It has helped
return the United Senate to a key leadership role in international
exploration of nuclear energy. While still early in the life of this
program, NERI has achieved considerable success. It was the birthing
place for what is now Generation IV, and it has helped re-energize
nuclear R&D at U.S. universities, laboratories and industry. The
Department is requesting $25 million in fiscal year 2003 for the NERI
program.
Forty-three NERI projects started in previous years will be
completed this year. Ten projects will continue and twenty-three new
awards will be made. Hopefully, as part of the fiscal year 2002 awards,
there will be more research initiated in the application of nuclear
energy as a clean air alternative for producing hydrogen for the
transportation sector and other applications. In fiscal year 2003, we
will continue to fund the ongoing projects.
Last year, we launched the International-NERI program to promote
international collaborative research focused on the development of
advanced technologies and we signed bilateral agreements with France
and the Republic of Korea. Three collaborative research projects with
France were initiated and this year, six have been initiated with the
Republic of Korea. Discussions with Japan, the Republic of South Africa
and the Nuclear Energy Agency are expected to lead to bilateral
agreements being established this fiscal year that will result in an
additional three to five co-funded research projects. In fiscal year
2003, we will continue the research projects that started over the last
2 years.
In fiscal year 2003, the Department has included no funds for the
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program or for the Advanced
Nuclear Medicine Initiative (ANMI). The NEPO program was established in
fiscal year 2000 as a cost-shared effort with industry to address plant
aging and development of technologies that improve the reliability and
availability of the fleet of existing nuclear power plants in order to
aid plant recertification. The ANMI program was started with $2.5
million and funds nine research grants and five educational grants to
post secondary institutions. The ANMI grants, awarded on a peer review
basis for a term of 3 years, will be completed in fiscal year 2003 with
funds remaining from fiscal year 2002. While the Department believes
some of the objectives of both of these programs may have merit, many
of their objectives--such as nuclear plant recertification--are being
achieved, and the request reflects the need to fund higher priorities
within the Department.
The fiscal year 2003 request would allocate $17.5 million in
funding to train and prepare the next generation of nuclear scientists
and engineers. Among the activities of the University Reactor Fuel
Assistance and Support program, we provide fresh fuel to university
research reactors; receive spent fuel; provide industry matching grants
to 25 participating universities; provide scholarships and fellowships
to outstanding undergraduates and graduate students; fund peer-reviewed
nuclear engineering research; and fund radiochemistry student
fellowships. With the support of Congress, the funding for this program
has increased significantly over the last several years, and we propose
to fund it at the same increased level of funding appropriated last
year.
With additional funding appropriated by Congress in fiscal year
2002, we are launching the Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and
Education initiative to establish regional research centers for U.S.
university nuclear engineering programs. This initiative, structured to
promote partnerships among universities, national laboratories, and the
private sector, follows through on a specific recommendation of the
NERAC and on direction of Congress. Under this initiative, we will
provide assistance to universities on a merit and peer reviewed basis
that could be used to improve the reactors, to maintain qualified
reactor staff, and to better integrate the use of these facilities with
university nuclear engineering programs.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request fully integrates all of the
Department's advanced research related to processing of spent fuel and
transmutation into a single program--Spent Fuel Processing and
Transmutation. The program has evolved significantly over the last
several years and consistent with the direction provided by Congress as
part of the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Conference Report, we are
now in the process of combining the technology activities based at the
Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago, Illinois, the Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee, and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas into a single,
integrated program to explore both reactor and accelerator technologies
associated with spent fuel processing. We are working very closely with
a subcommittee of the NERAC under the leadership of Dr. Burton Richter
to create a plan that will describe how we will meet the policy and
technology goals envisioned by the National Energy Policy. Once the
program integration activities are complete and the plan provided to
Congress, we will be in a position to recommend future funding for this
program that will meet the aggressive technology goals envisioned by
the National Energy Policy.
In the fiscal year 2003 budget request, we will initiate laboratory
scale demonstration of Argonne-developed pyroprocessing technologies.
Non-fertile fuel is being fabricated this year for future irradiation
testing in the Advanced Test Reactor. Also, in fiscal year 2003, 20
graduate students will complete or pursue their graduate degree
educations in engineering and scientific disciplines relevant to
accelerator technology and transmutation. This fiscal year, following
completion of the primary sodium drain, we are achieving a major
milestone by completing deactivation of the Experimental Breeder
Reactor II. In fiscal year 2002, and proposed in fiscal year 2003, we
will treat 0.5 metric tons of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel at
Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-West) in Idaho. The Department is
requesting $18.2 million in fiscal year 2003.
nuclear science and technology infrastructure
In fiscal year 2003, the Department proposes to consolidate NE's
infrastructure spending under a single program, Radiological Facilities
Management, to maintain critical facilities in a safe, secure and
environmentally compliant and cost effective manner to support national
priorities funded by industry and other Federal agencies. The $83
million in funds being requested in fiscal year 2003 will assure the
readiness and the operability of these facilities to respond to the
range of missions that are funded by DOE, industry, research groups,
and other Federal agency users. The Office funds missions at Argonne,
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL),
Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico,
Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, New York, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory in Washington, and the Mound Plant in
Ohio.
We are requesting $31.6 million to maintain key facilities, to
safely and securely manage special nuclear material, and to deactivate
unneeded facilities at ANL-West. We are requesting $11.2 million for
Test Reactor Area at INEEL. The requested increase in funding for Test
Reactor Area will enable the Department to address the backlog of
preventative and corrective maintenance and to proceed more
aggressively to replace aging electrical equipment under an electrical
utility upgrade project. This enables us to begin to reverse the
decline in the infrastructure at the Test Reactor Area that has
occurred over the last several years.
The fiscal year 2003 request includes funding to maintain and
operate facilities at Mound that enable the Department to conduct
operations associated with DOE's radioisotope power systems. In fiscal
year 2002 we will conduct new analyses that examine actions that may be
needed to further protect the community and the materials stored at the
site from potential security threats, in the context of the September
11, 2001, terrorist attack. The results of these analyses will
determine what actions we take at Mound in the future. Until a decision
is made on the nature of the actions to be taken, the materials will be
moved to an interim location at another site.
The Department will continue to maintain the iridium fabrication
facilities at Oak Ridge to support fabrication of radioisotope power
systems. These facilities encapsulate and contain the plutonium (Pu)-
238 pellets used in the space power systems. The Department will
continue to maintain the option to produce Pu-238 domestically to
satisfy national security missions. Fiscal year 2003 activities will
focus on conceptual design activities associated with processing
facilities at Oak Ridge, and on supporting activities to move the
neptunium-237 from the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to Oak
Ridge. DOE plans to produce at least eight iridium cladding sets at Oak
Ridge, at least eight encapsulated Pu-238 pullets at Oak Ridge, and
process at least two kilograms of Pu-238 through the scrap recovery
line at Los Alamos.
Finally, the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) proposes a 5-year,
$1 billion new Nuclear Systems Initiative. In partnership with industry
and academia, DOE will develop for NASA technologies that could power
missions to the far reaches of the solar system. DOE will develop a new
generation of radioisotope power systems to generate electrical power
for spacecraft and scientific instruments for missions in deep space
and on planetary surfaces. For key NASA science missions, these systems
offer enormous advantages over other power options. For example, the
capability of a NASA rover to remain operational on the surface of Mars
can be increased from a few months to a few years, increasing the
science return many times over. Also, DOE will participate in the
development of a nuclear fission reactor with an advanced electric
propulsion system that would enable spacecraft to make faster trips
throughout the solar system, to carry out robust scientific missions,
and to visit multiple destinations on the same mission.
The Department is also proceeding with permanent shutdown and
deactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at the Hanford Site
in Washington this fiscal year. Experience gained from the Experimental
Breeder Reactor II deactivation is being applied to the deactivation of
FFTF, which should result in cost and schedule efficiencies. The
Department has proposed $36.1 million in fiscal year 2003 to continue
making progress on deactivation. In the fiscal year 2003 budget
request, the Department will validate the fuel handling control
systems, reestablish the hot cell operating capabilities, upgrade
sodium drain controls, and restore the Sodium Storage Facility.
medical isotopes for research and health care
The remaining funding requested for Radiological Facilities
Management is to maintain the infrastructure for production and
distribution of isotopes. Although most of our isotopes are for medical
research, the Department does provide isotopes for commercial uses that
otherwise would not be available. In fiscal year 2001, we served 324
customers located in 20 countries, exceeding 94 percent on-time
delivery of 589 shipments. Many of those that were delayed were a
result of actions taken by DOE after September 11, 2001, terrorist
attack to further assure the safety and security of radiological
material shipments.
This year, we are changing the process we apply for producing,
distributing, and pricing our research isotopes. A new protocol--
Nuclear Energy Protocol for Research Isotopes (NEPRI)--will guide the
selection of isotopes for future development, production, and
distribution. A peer review selection process was initiated last month
to decide what research isotopes DOE will produce in fiscal year 2003.
This process is intended to assure that DOE produces those isotopes
that provide the greatest benefit to the research community and the
public. Isotopes will be priced such that production costs are paid in
advance by the customer.
Over the last several years, DOE has been providing actinium (Ac)-
225 for use in cancer research. In fiscal year 2003, DOE will continue
to supply the Ac-225 at the level available in fiscal year 2002.
However, any future processing of thorium-229 needed to increase the
supply of Ac-225 will be financed by the private sector. DOE will issue
a request for proposals this year soliciting private sector
participation in the production of Ac-225.
The Department is requesting $24.3 million in fiscal year 2003 for
salaries, travel, support services and other administrative expenses
and field personnel providing direction to NE programs. Although NERAC
members receive no salary, the program direction account also supports
the activities of the NERAC.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
Senator Reid. Mr. Barrett.
STATEMENT OF LAKE BARRETT
Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Domenici. I do appreciate those kind opening remarks from both
of you.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Fiscal year 2002 has been the most significant year for
this program. The Secretary and the President recommended the
Yucca Mountain site to be the Nation's high level radioactive
waste geologic repository to Congress on February 15. In his
recommendation, the President also urged the Congress to
undertake any necessary legislative action on his
recommendation in an expedited and bipartisan fashion. For
Secretary Abraham to recommend the site to the President, he
determined that sound science supported that the Yucca Mountain
site is scientifically and technically suitable for the
development of a repository. The Secretary and the President
also considered compelling national interests, such as national
and energy security, in their decisions.
A year with such progress still has further challenges
ahead. As the President emphasized, Congress must act in order
to complete the site approval process if the State of Nevada
follows through with its anticipated disapproval. If Congress
does not pass the repository siting resolution, the site will
stand disapproved and the program will be promptly terminated.
The disposition of the Nation's wastes will then still be an
issue for the Congress to resolve.
We face other challenges through litigation over the delay
in meeting our contractual obligation to the nuclear utility
companies to begin accepting their waste and spent fuel in
1998. There is also litigation with the State of Nevada over
the water permits and other issues. For example, effective
April 9 of this year our water permits with the State of Nevada
will expire. Although we have requested extensions of these
permits in a timely manner, we are embroiled in complex
litigation.
If the Congress designates the site, we will proceed with
our plans in 2003. We will work in 2003 to submit a license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2004 and
develop a transportation system necessary to move spent fuel
and high level waste in 2010.
For Yucca Mountain, $425 million is requested to transition
from the site characterization activities to the license
application. In the waste acceptance and transportation
business area, the budget request is $17 million. We will
conduct activities that are necessary to support the removal
and transportation of spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites to
the Yucca Mountain site. These logistical and institutional
planning and development activities for a national
transportation system were deferred due to historical budget
reductions, allowing available resources to be focused upon the
site recommendation decision. We must now resume preparations
necessary for a national transportation system if we are to be
able to move spent fuel and high level waste in 2010.
In conclusion, I am proud to say that we have conducted a
world-class investigative science program to determine whether
the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for the next stage of
possible development. We overcame difficult challenges and made
significant progress. We are developing a repository design and
operational concept that is fully integrated in the local
geologic setting, that would also enable future generations to
make the decisions about the repository, providing them with
the flexibility to determine if the length of the monitoring
period, when to close the facility, or if retrieval of the
emplaced materials would be appropriate. This design would be
fully flexible and compatible with any possible advanced
nuclear technologies that may be developed over the coming
years. This built-in flexibility will allow judgments to be
made on those issues based on the societal issues and the
societal needs by the generation at that time.
We are fully committed to building a safer, more secure
path to the future and to ensure the continued strength of this
Nation and its resources for both present and future
generations.
I thank you for this opportunity to present our budget.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lake H. Barrett
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Lake Barrett,
Acting Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to present
our fiscal year 2003 budget request to you and discuss our plans to
develop a license application for a geologic repository at the Yucca
Mountain site in Nevada.
The year 2002 is a significant year for the program. On February
15, 2002, after receiving the recommendation of the Secretary of
Energy, President George W. Bush considered the Yucca Mountain site
qualified for an application for a construction authorization for a
repository and recommended the Yucca Mountain site to the U.S. Congress
for this purpose. The President also urged the Congress to undertake
any necessary legislative action on his recommendation in an expedited
and bipartisan fashion. In coming to this decision, the President
accepted the recommendation of Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham who
reviewed the scientific research conducted over 20 years. Secretary
Abraham considered and is convinced that sound science supports the
determination that the Yucca Mountain site is scientifically and
technically suitable for the development of a repository. Following his
determination that the site was suitable, the Secretary also considered
compelling national interests. In the end, his recommendation stated
that ``irrespective of any other considerations, he could not and would
not recommend the Yucca Mountain site without having first determined
that a repository at Yucca Mountain will bring together the location,
natural barriers, and design elements necessary to protect the health
and safety of the public.''
A year with such progress still has further challenges ahead. As
the President emphasized, Congress must act in order to complete the
site approval process if the State of Nevada follows through with its
anticipated disapproval. If Congress does not act the site will stand
disapproved and this will result in the shutting down of the Program
even though the site has been deemed scientifically suitable. Second,
we face many other challenges from the State of Nevada. For example,
our water permits will soon expire, effective on April 9, 2002.
Although DOE and the Department of Justice have requested timely
extensions of these permits in accordance with Nevada law, we are
embroiled in complex litigation on this issue that may take months or
years to resolve.
Our fiscal year 2003 budget request of $527 million assumes the
site approval process was successful and allows us to advance our
Nation's policy for the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste. In fiscal year 2003, we will advance work
required to develop a license application for a geologic repository, to
be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2004, and to
develop a national transportation program necessary for moving spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste by 2010.
background
In transmitting his recommendation, President George W. Bush stated
in his letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate on February 15, 2002 that:
Proceeding with the repository program is necessary to protect
public safety, health, and the Nation's security because successful
completion of this project would isolate in a geologic repository at a
remote location highly radioactive materials now scattered throughout
the Nation. In addition, the geologic repository would support our
national security through disposal of nuclear waste from our defense
facilities.
A deep geologic repository, such as Yucca Mountain, is important
for our national security and our energy future. Nuclear energy is the
second largest source of U.S. electricity generation and must remain a
major component of our national energy policy in the years to come. The
cost of nuclear power compares favorably with the costs of electricity
generation by other sources, and nuclear power has none of the
emissions associated with coal and gas power plants.
This recommendation, if it becomes effective, will permit
commencement of the next rigorous stage of scientific and technical
review of the repository program through formal licensing proceedings
before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Successful completion of this
program also will redeem the clear Federal legal obligation to safely
to dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel that the Congress passed in
1982.
[The President's] recommendation is the culmination of two decades
of intense scientific scrutiny involving application of an array of
scientific and technical disciplines necessary and appropriate for this
challenging undertaking. It is an undertaking that was mandated twice
by the Congress when it legislated the obligations that would be
redeemed by successful pursuit of the repository program. Allowing this
recommendation to come into effect will enable the beginning of the
next phase of intense scrutiny of the project necessary to assure the
public health, safety, and security in the area of Yucca Mountain, and
also to enhance the safety and security of the Nation as a whole.
In Secretary Abraham's recommendation, he discussed the growing
number of power plants not able to find additional storage space and
being forced to shut down prematurely. Ten facilities have already
closed, such as Big Rock Point, on the banks of Lake Michigan. They
house spent fuel and incur significant annual costs without providing
any ongoing benefit. Over the long-term, without active management and
monitoring, degrading surface storage facilities may pose a risk to any
of 20 major U.S. lakes and waterways, including the Mississippi River.
More than 161 million Americans in 39 States reside within 75 miles of
a commercial nuclear reactor site. It is essential that the waste is in
one central remote location.
Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, our
Nation has made a substantial investment in permanent geologic disposal
of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. The
President's decision to site Yucca Mountain for the repository was a
significant landmark. The development of a license application in
fiscal year 2003, to be completed in calendar year 2004, is the next
step in the process outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as
amended.
summary of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation request
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management fiscal year
2003 budget request of $527 million is an increase of $152 million
(approximately 40 percent) above fiscal year 2002 funding. The fiscal
year 2003 budget supports the scientific and technical analyses
necessary to prepare a license application for submittal to the NRC in
calendar year 2004. Some of this work had been deferred in prior years
so that all resources could be focused on the site recommendation
activities.
yucca mountain
Of the $527 million request, $424.9 million, over 80 percent,
supports the work at Yucca Mountain to develop a license application to
construct a repository. The information in the license application must
be sufficient for the NRC to conduct an independent review and reach a
construction authorization decision. It must demonstrate that the
repository can be constructed and operated with reasonable expectation
that the health and safety of the public will be protected for at least
10,000 years. The increase in funds provides for work to develop the
design, analyses, and specifications for the license application; to
conduct performance confirmation testing, monitoring, and evaluation
activities, as required by the NRC's licensing regulations; and for the
Nevada transportation planning. The Nevada transportation budget
element is new in fiscal year 2003; it includes $6 million for initial
conceptual design and technical support.
waste acceptance, storage & transportation
In fiscal year 2003, the Program is requesting $17.1 million to
conduct activities that will support the major actions that will
precede removal and transportation of spent nuclear fuel from reactor
sites to the Yucca Mountain facility. The fiscal year 2003 request is
an increase of $12.9 million over the fiscal year 2002 funding. The
logistical and institutional planning and development of a national
transportation system were deferred until the site was recommended to
the President. If Congress approves the site, it is imperative that we
resume the preparations necessary for implementing a transportation
system to support moving spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste in 2010. Prior planning for transportation is being evaluated and
we will regain momentum to develop the transportation system.
program organization
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management was established
by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to implement the Federal policy
for permanent geologic disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste. The Office within the Department of
Energy has approximately 200 full-time equivalent Federal employees and
a managing and operating (M&O) contractor, Bechtel/SAIC, Inc. with a
staff of approximately 1600. The position of the Director for the
Office was also established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The
Director is located in Washington D.C. Most of the employees are in Las
Vegas at the Yucca Mountain Project Office or at the Yucca Mountain
site. The Office of Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation is
located in Washington DC., as well as the Office of Program Management
and Integration.
objectives and accomplishments for fiscal year 2002
The fiscal year 2002 accomplishments are vital for to the next
steps in the process. This year the Program:
--Finalized the Department's Repository Siting Guidelines (10 CFR
Part 963)
--Obtained an NRC sufficiency letter for the site recommendation
--Completed the scientific work necessary to support a Secretarial
decision to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for development
as a repository
--Completed the Environmental Impact Statement; and
--Finalized the Site Recommendation Report for the Secretary to
submit to the President, and subsequently for the President to
submit to Congress.
--The Program's primary objective for the remainder of this year is
to conduct the scientific and engineering work identified in
fiscal year 2001 as necessary to support the preparation of the
license application. This work includes:
--Testing and analyses to further characterize and quantify the
uncertainties in the assessments of the long term
performance of the repository;
--Activities to evaluate modifications to the operations and/or
design of the potential repository to reduce the maximum
temperatures reached after closure of the repository;
--Studies of waste package materials to improve understanding of
corrosion processes; and
--Work on the development of multiple lines of evidence for a
safety case.
performance measures for fiscal year 2003
The fiscal year 2003 performance measures for the program are
outlined in the Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request. They are
to:
--Complete additional testing and analyses required to support
license application design;
--Continue development of the design that will be used in the license
application;
--Continue development of a license application for submittal to the
NRC for authorization to construct a repository;
--Issue final ``Policy and Procedures for Implementation of Section
180c of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended;
--Develop and issue a final request for proposals for waste
acceptance and transportation services; and
--Complete and issue Total System Life Cycle Cost and Fee Adequacy
reports.
The Department will focus its fiscal year 2003 efforts on
activities necessary for license application design and will conduct
activities associated with the Federal government's waste acceptance
obligation, assuming Congress approves the repository site in 2002. It
is critical that funding levels, starting in fiscal year 2003 through
fiscal year 2010, are substantially increased from prior years to
maintain the schedule to begin waste acceptance at Yucca Mountain by
2010. Congressional approval of the Yucca Mountain site in calendar
year 2002 commences the movement to submitting a license application in
calendar year 2004, obtaining NRC authorization as early as thirty-six
months after submittal, and building the system to begin waste
acceptance in 2010.
detailed discussion of the fiscal year 2003 budget request
yucca mountain
The most significant increases requested in the Yucca Mountain
budget are in the area of Licensing and Performance Assessment. This
request increase signals the natural transition from the site
characterization phase to the initiation and development of the license
application phase of the Program. The request to increase Design and
Engineering will provide the detailed design work necessary for the
license application effort.
licensing and performance assessment
The fiscal year 2003 request for Licensing and Performance
Assessment is $111.9 million, a 70 percent increase from last year.
To obtain a NRC construction authorization, the Department of
Energy must submit a license application to include:
--A description of site characteristics;
--Waste package designs;
--Repository surface and subsurface facilities;
--Operation and maintenance plans for surface and subsurface
facilities;
--Results of an integrated safety analysis for the pre-closure
period;
--Results of the Total System Performance Assessment for the post-
closure period; and
--A discussion of how the proposed waste package and repository will
comply with applicable regulatory requirements.
The application will include a discussion of the safeguards,
certification, and physical security plan, and descriptions of the
quality assurance program, test and evaluation plan for the development
and operation of the repository, and required performance confirmation
program. A licensing support network is required for records included
in the license application. Processes have been developed and need to
be maintained for the review of records, verification of data planned
for inclusion, and traceability of the documents. It is essential to
have state-of-the-art technical information management capability to
manage and ensure the integrity of these records.
The Total System Performance Assessment will analyze how a
repository, with each waste type encapsulated in specially designed
waste packages, may perform in the geologic environment of Yucca
Mountain following repository closure. This safety analysis will
evaluate a nominal case that considers those processes and events
deemed likely at Yucca Mountain, and the probabilities and potential
consequences of disruptive events such as earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions, and the possible effects of human intrusion into the
repository after permanent closure.
Another iteration of the Total System Performance Assessment will
be completed in fiscal year 2003 to support the license application.
Each iteration has reflected an increased understanding of how emplaced
waste would interact with the natural and engineered barriers.
The anticipated 25 to 35 technical interactions in fiscal year 2003
with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the NRC, and other
oversight agencies will be necessary to develop the license
application. Comments by these groups on the scientific tests, designs,
and modeling infuse the process with invaluable insight. Pre-licensing
interactions with the NRC contributes to a common understanding of the
issues that are significant to the overall repository performance, and
agreement on the adequacy of methods and approaches to resolve these
issues.
core science
The year's budget request of $71.3 million represents a slight
decrease from last year. Core Science activities include collecting
data from the surface and subsurface; performing laboratory tests;
monitoring and collecting environmental data; and modeling natural
processes. Testing to support the license application continues to
reduce the uncertainty in the technical databases, the Total System
Performance Assessment and design features. These tests will continue
as part of the performance confirmation program required by the NRC.
Some of these studies are conducted under a cooperative agreement with
the University and Community College System of Nevada.
nevada transportation
In fiscal year 2003, $6 million is requested to initiate Nevada
transportation activities. Transportation work within the State of
Nevada would have been premature prior to a site designation. To have
the capability to accept waste at Yucca Mountain the selection and
development of a rail spur from the mainline railroad to the Yucca
Mountain site will need to be completed. The fiscal year 2003 initial
funding of $6 million will allow work to begin on the rail corridor
selection, the preliminary rail design, and the land acquisition
process.
design and engineering
The fiscal year 2003 request for Design and Engineering is $128.5
million, an increase of 179 percent over last year. This increase will
allow us to resume engineering and design work to support a license
application. This work was deferred until mid-2002 while the Program
focused on scientific and technical activities required for a decision
on whether to proceed with repository development.
The design and engineering products needed to support the license
application include the development of the pre-closure integrated
safety analysis; design studies to support the development of the post-
closure safety analyses; design bases; and a description of the waste
package, waste forms, and surface and underground facilities and
systems. The design for license application products will be completed
in calendar year 2004.
In fiscal year 2003 the Program will incorporate modular surface
and subsurface design and construction concepts to evaluate how a step-
wise, flexible repository system can integrate new technologies and new
operation concepts as they become available. The Program is also
analyzing the potential advantages of cooler repository operating
temperatures and what effect they might have on reducing uncertainties
associated with long-term performance.
Substantial design work in support of procurement and construction
activities must be completed before construction can begin. The amount
of design work necessitates that it be started before the license
application is submitted to the NRC.
For repository development, the systems engineering process is
important to the coordination and integration of design functions that
meet regulatory and safety requirements for protecting workers, the
public and the environment. It is essential to demonstrate designs ``as
built'' will operate cost-effectively and efficiently; and it is
crucial to ensure that changes to designs and specifications are
documented and controlled in accordance with quality assurance
requirements.
operations and construction
The fiscal year 2003 request for operations and construction is
$45.6 million, a 34 percent increase from fiscal year 2002. Operations
and Construction encompasses the work required to provide the support
systems, infrastructure, construction, utilities, and safety systems
needed to support field testing, and to maintain access to the site and
underground research facilities at Yucca Mountain. The request for an
increase in fiscal year 2003 is necessary to upgrade or replace some of
the underground systems in the Exploratory Shaft Facility. Systems,
such as rail, power supply, and ventilation systems, built as temporary
construction systems, were adequate during site characterization.
However, to maintain the site and continue compliance for a safe
environment, several site infrastructure improvements are required.
These improvements include: code compliance and safety upgrades; and
the design and construction of a new shop building and warehouse, a
fueling facility with a compressed natural gas design and an operations
center. Also it is necessary to replace the obsolete operating
equipment now being used and to design the balance of plant area
between the portals.
waste acceptance, storage and transportation
The mission of the Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation
Project is to achieve the safe orderly transfer of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste to the repository. The Project also
maintains the waste acceptance agreements between the Department and
the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste.
For fiscal year 2003, we request $17.1 million to begin long lead-
time logistical and planning activities for waste acceptance and
transportation. If Congress approves the President's recommendation,
there will be a need in the future for additional funding for
transportation-related activities.
transportation
For fiscal year 2003, we request $14.2 million to resume the
activities necessary to begin the acceptance and transportation of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste beginning in 2010.
This request is an increase of $12.2 million from last year. The
request would fund the development of our plans for waste acceptance
and transportation services and awarding a contract or multiple
contracts in fiscal year 2003. It provides for the preparation of
acquisition documents, development of technical specifications, and
issuance of a Request for Proposal for waste acceptance and
transportation services after repository site designation. The current
interactions with stakeholders will be increased to resolve
institutional issues such as routing, inspection, and emergency
preparedness in order to ensure our ability to begin the acceptance and
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in 2010.
Also, we are planning to issue a Notice of Policy and Procedures to
provide assistance to States and Indian Tribes for training in the
procedures required for safe routine transportation and emergency
response. We intend to increase our support of work being performed at
the national laboratories that is focused on ensuring that spent
nuclear fuel can continue to be transported safely and securely.
waste acceptance
For fiscal year 2003, $2.3 million is requested, which is a 44
percent increase from last year. These activities include the
collection and maintenance of spent nuclear fuel discharge and
projection information; maintenance and implementation of the Standard
Disposal Contract; and interactions with the NRC, contract holders, and
others concerning nuclear materials management. In addition, we
anticipate an increased level of interactions with contract holders to
assist in the planning and development of the waste acceptance and
transportation system. Numerous issues related to the scheduling of
waste acceptance activities and the physical and logistical
requirements of serving the contract holders sites must be resolved in
order to allow for the implementation of an efficient waste acceptance
and transportation system.
program management and integration
For fiscal year 2003, we request $85 million for Program Management
and Integration activities, which is a 9 percent increase from fiscal
year 2002. The increase supports additional strategic planning
requirements, program management support, and technical support
services.
Program Integration is comprised of Quality Assurance, Program
Management and Human Resources and Administration. These offices
provide management support to the Program Director, the Yucca Mountain
Site Characterization Project, and the Waste Acceptance, Storage and
Transportation Project. The fiscal year 2003 funding supports
activities to:
--Ensure that NRC quality assurance requirements are appropriately
incorporated into technical documents, including the
maintenance of the Qualified Suppliers List and database;
--Integrate, through system engineering, the waste management system;
--Coordinate and participate with external agencies, i.e., NRC, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board;
--Establish updated safeguards and security policy and procedures;
--Provide required reports and documents to Congress;
--Implement our technical information management; and
--Manage the Nuclear Waste Fund investment portfolio.
The fiscal year 2003 request also provides for salaries and
benefits of Federal civilian employees, travel, building maintenance,
rents, communication, utilities, the Working Capital Fund, and support
services.
future funding challenges
To maintain the current schedule for waste acceptance at a
repository by 2010, the fiscal year 2003 budget provides sufficient
funding for DOE to start the license application preparation. However,
funding for the capital costs to ramp-up the transportation system, and
to construct the repository must begin prior to receipt of a license
from the NRC. To sufficiently fund the increases needed, making the
Nuclear Waste Fund available to the Program for its intended purpose
will be a primary issue.
litigation
The Department is in litigation over the delay in meeting our
contractual obligation to nuclear utility companies to begin accepting
their spent fuel by January 31, 1998. The Courts have determined that
the Federal Government is liable to compensate utilities for additional
costs they may have incurred due to the delay.
The Government has estimated its liabilities to all contract
holders to be on the order of $2 to $3 billion. The suits filed in the
Court of Federal Claims allege damages of $5.94 billion. However, many
of the plaintiffs in the cases filed to date have not claimed specific
damages, but have requested the Court to award damages, as appropriate.
Some of the plaintiffs have claimed current damages on the order of $1
billion each, noting that additional damages will occur as the
Governments' delay continues.
concluding remarks
We have conducted a world class investigative science program to
determine that the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for further
development. We have developed repository designs and operational
concepts that would enable future generations to make decisions about a
repository, providing them with the flexibility to choose closure,
indefinite monitoring, or retrieval of emplaced materials. During this
journey we have maintained the essential momentum to implement our
Nation's policy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. We have transformed problems into opportunities; and
replaced enormous challenges with formidable progress. We are committed
to building a safer, more secure path to the future and to ensure the
continued strength of this Nation and its resources for future
generations.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE ROLE IN NATIONAL SECURITY MISSION
Senator Reid. Dr. Orbach, how does the Office of Science
fit into the national security mission of the Department of
Energy?
Dr. Orbach. We have created the basic research framework to
address many of the questions dealing with homeland security.
We have funded research which is now being developed at other
laboratories. We are implementing research programs ourselves.
For example, in the Genomes to Life project we are in the
process of working out, the ability to identify the genome of
biological agents by using methods on a chip, so that one can
deploy handheld devices in the field that could detect chemical
agents or biological agents or radiological agents across the
spectrum and hopefully develop methods for dealing with them.
It is an integrated program that involves almost every
component of the Office of Science, but it is one that I
believe is active and has already contributed. We already have
handheld devices in the field developed by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory for radiation detection.
We are also developing neutron sources that would be
immediately available for detection of explosives by neutron
activation. You will see across the breadth of the office a
desire to assist homeland security in every aspect of our work.
Senator Reid. So it is fair to say--well, I should not say
that. You have outlined some of the things that are being done
in relation to the homeland security. What major new research
opportunities in addition to those you have outlined are
available to you this coming year?
GENOME IDENTIFICATION
Dr. Orbach. In the budget which has been submitted to you,
there are developments explicitly associated with the genome
identification. There are about 50 agents which are currently
being sequenced. We have a role in that sequencing in order for
immediate identification, so that in the field one will know
what the agent is as opposed to having to send to a laboratory
or waiting. That is part of our genome initiative. I believe we
have $3 million associated with it.
Senator Reid. What are some of the other things you are
going to be doing that are new?
NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
Dr. Orbach. There will be other activities associated with
new materials that will be able to withstand large pressures or
radiation effects. We have a nanotechnology initiative which is
being fully developed now which will create at the nanoscale
level materials which can resist radiation and other difficult
environments. They will also be of use in other areas, for
example fusion research. But they will enable us to provide
materials for the effort.
We also are working with the Office of Homeland Security to
assist them in the basic science needs that they have.
FUSION
Senator Reid. We hear, and I just heard you mention the
word ``fusion.'' We all have heard for years and years that
fusion research is on the verge of a breakthrough. Recently I
heard news reports concerning something called coffee cup
fusion and these reports seem to have generated a great deal of
controversy in the press. How about in the scientific
community?
Dr. Orbach. They have also generated a great deal of
controversy in the scientific community. It is referred to
often as bubble fusion because of the thermoluminescence method
used to create the conditions. If I were to give you a summary
statement, it would be a quote from a very famous British
scientist at the turn of the century who said that ``Nothing is
too wonderful to be true, if it be confirmed by experiment.''
Right now we are attempting to confirm independently by
experiment that those results are right.
We have at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where the report
originated, in conjunction with RPI, Rensalaer Polytechnic
Institute, we are going to redo that experiment. Unfortunately,
we have learned that the apparatus itself degraded and so we
are going to construct a new apparatus with the principal
investigator working with a team of other scientists from Oak
Ridge, that will attempt to replicate the experiment under very
carefully controlled conditions, in particular to measure the
neutron flux and make sure that it is coincident with the
collapse of these bubbles in the liquid.
We are not sure of what the answer will be, but we hope to
finish that new experiment by about the middle of June. I can
assure you that elsewhere in this world there are a lot of
people attempting to reproduce that experiment as we speak.
PROBLEMS ATTRACTING SCIENTISTS AT NATIONAL LABS
Senator Reid. Are there any problems that you have found
attracting research scientists at any of the national labs,
especially given the fact that some of these labs are getting
over 50 years old?
Dr. Orbach. Absolutely. We have a serious manpower problem,
both of retention but also of hiring. Something like half of
the scientists within the Department of Energy will be eligible
for retirement over the next 10 years. It is a daunting
prospect in terms of where their replacements will come from.
What makes it even more troubling is that the number of
Ph.D.'s in the physical sciences is dropping. The test scores
in K through 12 are dropping in science. We regard this as a
very serious issue and one that is very difficult to grapple
with.
I would like in the future to attempt to address this as
best I can in conjunction with the National Science Foundation
and the Department of Education to see if we can use some of
the unique DOE facilities, for example our laboratories, to
work on the science education area to try to develop a work
force in science.
Senator Reid. It would be great if you could come up with
some direction for us. Senator Domenici and I just traveled to
New Mexico. I for the first time went through those two labs
there. I was stricken by a couple things. Number one is the
intensity of the feelings of the people that work there in
those labs. It is like these men and women are part of a team
that is headed for the Superbowl. They had such great spirit.
The other thing I was struck with is how little money they
make. We had there at Sandia a medical doctor who gave up a
very lucrative medical practice to come there and work for
about $100,000 a year. He said he is happier than he has ever
been in his life. But a lot of people correlate happiness with
money. This man did not and he is I am sure a better person for
that.
But if you could help us as we work our way through this
year, give us some ideas what we can do to make people feel
better about the work they do, and they already feel pretty
good about it, but, more importantly, what we can do to recruit
more scientists and perhaps educate more scientists.
Dr. Orbach. I would be delighted to work with you.
Senator Reid. You having come from an academic background,
I think are uniquely situated and suited to help us with that.
Dr. Orbach. I would be delighted. I was in northern New
Mexico myself for 2 days and worked with the elementary
schools, middle schools, high schools and community colleges to
encourage children to go on for science degrees for higher
education.
Senator Reid. We all encourage them to do that. I have
about as much knowledge about science as this glass here, but I
know that it is important that we do that. You know, there are
some things going on in the world today that is going to help
us. I think this book, this movie I should say, ``Beautiful
Mind,'' I think that--I saw the movie and I read the book. I
was fascinated by the academic communities that he found
himself in and how interesting it was to read about some of the
research that he and others were involved in. We have to get
others to feel how important it is to be involved in things
scientific. So we need your help there.
Mr. Magwood, I have a couple questions of you. Do you still
feel that technology holds the potential for treating waste in
the future?
SPENT FUEL TREATMENT
Mr. Magwood. I think there are tremendous possibilities. We
have been working with the national laboratories and the
international community to examine what might be possible if we
are able to develop these new technologies. We clearly have a
long, long way to go. We have taken only the early steps.
Senator Reid. But if we do not start we never get to the
end, do we?
Mr. Magwood. Granted. But we have started, the very early
steps. If you look at the work that has been accomplished so
far in showing that we know how to, for example, pull the
uranium out of spent fuel and reduce the volume without
separating plutonium and creating a proliferation hazard--
looking at the progress that has been made over the years at
Argonne National Laboratory in demonstrating the viability of
electrometallurgical processes--we really have started.
However we do have to make a commitment to go further. As I
said in my oral statement, we are developing a plan that will
be delivered to Congress in May that will focus on how we
proceed in the future. I think it will show the right way to go
forward.
Senator Reid. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Well, that is true, but we have to fund
the program, too.
Could I just--the Department has reduced the budget request
from $80 million to $18 million. They chose to combine the AAA
program with the pyroprocessing. In combining them, that might
be reasonable. In fact, redefining the whole program emphasizes
the importance of both reactors and accelerators in improving
the management of spent fuel. The accelerators clearly are not
the only one in the future for the AAA program. But a better
title for this whole area might be ``Advanced Fuel Cycle
Development'' and you might consider that.
But clearly we cannot continue with a funding level that is
so much reduced from last year when that level seems to be
inconsistent with the President's energy policy. If you read
what Vice President Cheney put together with reference to
nuclear, it would appear that areas like this should have been
funded and kept going at a very significant momentum. Yet they
were reduced.
Can you use the money if we bring it up to the level we had
in for this year or more in your program
Mr. Magwood. As I mentioned, we are making considerable
progress in developing the plan and as such I have a fairly
good idea of where we stand. In looking at what we have been
able to accomplish with the NERAC Subcommittee led by Dr.
Richter, we have been able to scope out a potential research
and development effort that could proceed over the next 5 or 6
years, an effort that could easily use the kinds of resources
you are talking about.
Before we embark on that kind of work we clearly require a
solid commitment from all the relevant branches of government
that we really want to go forward with this activity. Otherwise
I think it is unfair to the scientists at the laboratories, it
is unfair to the students at the universities and the people in
industry who support these activities if we simply stop and
start. I would rather get a firm consensus and then launch
forward as fast as possible.
NUCLEAR POWER 2010
Senator Domenici. All right. Let me suggest, however, that
there is one part of your budget that has very good news in it.
The Department is providing $38 million to support a near-term
effort. The goal of that is having advanced reactors operating
in the United States by 2010. Obviously, those are reactors
that are completely different than what we are talking about.
They cannot melt down, they are smaller in size, they use a
different cycle of fuel.
Can you elaborate on how that program is going to be
implemented?
Mr. Magwood. I would be very happy to. We are working very
closely with the industry. While working closely with the
industry often can expose a program like ours to allegations
that we are engaged in corporate welfare, I believe we are
doing exactly what government should be doing at this point in
time. We are looking at the institutional barriers to new
nuclear power plants in this country. While industry must make
the economic case for new nuclear power that this is the right
thing to do from a business perspective, there is a role for
government removing barriers such as regulatory barriers. As
you know, there are very important but untested licensing
processes of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that though
streamlined have never been demonstrated, have never been
proven to be effective. It is a very high risk for industry to
test those processes without government support.
While I do not believe that we will provide most of the
dollars involved in testing those processes, I think that
having the government involved in those processes, working as a
partner with industry, is absolutely essential to moving
forward.
The NERAC has determined that there are a range of
technologies that are available that can make it to 2010. Some
of them are variations of the light water reactors that we
developed with industry back in the early nineties, the late
nineties, rather, such as the AP-1000 from Westinghouse. There
are some more exotic technologies, such as the reactor that is
being worked on in South Africa and that Exelon has been very
interested in. I think that these technologies are going to
compete against each other over the next few years and we are
going to really work closely with industry to make sure that
there can be a clear business decision on whether those things
go forward or not.
Senator Domenici. I have one last question with reference
to global climate that somebody can answer, perhaps you, Dr.
Orbach, and then I want to make an observation regarding
research on alternatives with reference to the fuel cycle.
Global climate change research, I do not know who answers
that. Is that yours?
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH
Senator Domenici. The Department of Energy had a
longstanding role in global climate change research, although a
lot of people do not know that, just like they do not know that
the Department has a very big job in the genome program, always
did, had one-third of the program in terms of dollars for many
of the years that we were funding the Genome Project.
But the Department of Energy's role there, longstanding
role, is there on global climate change. The White House has
just recently announced a new global climate change strategy.
Can you describe for me the role that the Department of Energy
will have in that new White House agenda, the need for enhanced
research in global climate change that will take advantage of
the assets of the laboratories?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, thank you. It is an inter-agency
initiative and the Office of Science has been charged with the
carbon cycle for North America. It has been said that the North
American area is actually a sink for carbon, not a source, even
given our large economy. In order to understand what the flow
of carbon is, we are looking at both the sources of carbon,
carbon dioxide, and also the sinks, which include both land
masses and ocean. So we hope to improve the accuracy of the
carbon cycle for North America as part of that initiative.
SPACE POWER SYSTEMS
Senator Domenici. Now, the 2003 NASA budget proposes a
nuclear systems initiative. Is the DOE involved in that? What
role might they have in that program?
Dr. Orbach. I am sorry, Senator. I am unaware of that.
Senator Domenici. Are you aware of it, Mr. Magwood?
Mr. Magwood. Yes. As you may recall, Senator, we have in
our fiscal year 2002 budget a component of our advanced reactor
power systems program called special purpose fission, in which
we were provided dollars to look at the possibility of using
space reactors to power NASA spacecraft for deep space
exploration. After working with NASA very closely for the last
several years, NASA has concluded that the time is right to
begin a major new program to explore the use of these
technologies for deep space exploration. NASA will spend, as
you said, about a billion dollars over the next 5 years to look
at these technologies.
DOE will be the primary contractor, I guess I would say, to
NASA to develop these nuclear technologies.
Senator Domenici. Well, I want to say, in wrapping up any
questions I might have of you, Mr. Magwood, I remain committed
to the new programs with reference to waste disposal. I do not
think just because the President is moving down using the
statutory powers to establish a repository for nuclear waste at
Yucca Mountain, I do not believe we have come close to solving
the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
I am going to work very hard with my friend the chairman to
see that we continue to fund the programs for alternative ways
to do this. It appears to this Senator if we would have started
10, 15 years ago with anything close to the kind of money we
were spending for the underground repository on doing research,
we could have come up with a program with much less toxicity in
the residue than what we have got now.
We understand we could be moving toward a 300-year life
rather than 10,000 year. Half-life, I should have said half-
life. It is very hard to find a repository that you can model
in terms of safety with a 10,000 year half-life, but it would
not have been difficult and will not some day when we have a
much lesser number of years.
So wherever that has been reduced here, I am going to work
hard to put it back in. So your job is going to continue. I
hope you are optimistic about it, and the fact that it is not
included with sufficient resources to continue at the level we
had this year in the President's budget, I hope that will not
hold you down if in fact we give you the money and urge that
you proceed in that regard, because I think it is very, very
important.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I have a number of questions for you, doctor, but I am
going to submit them for the record. Unless the chairman cares
to proceed, I am finished for the day.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted From Senator Harry Reid
biotechnology
Question. We are aware that the Office of Biological and
Environmental Research (BER) oversees basic research including
biotechnology research programs. What is the prospect of these programs
contributing to the DOE mission?
Answer. We are quite confident that basic biotechnology research
programs in BER will contribute substantially to the DOE mission.
Already the genomic DNA sequencing of microbes with relevance for clean
energy, carbon sequestration, bioremediation, and biothreat detection
and defeat has stimulated research in each of these areas throughout
the scientific community. Similarly, the planned genomic sequencing of
the poplar tree has energized the research communities that study the
use of the poplar for energy biomass, carbon sequestration, and
bioremediation. Research in BER's Natural and Accelerated
Bioremediation Research program is developing biological solutions for
the cleanup of metals and radionuclides, contaminants unique to DOE
waste sites. BER research has developed novel biological sensors with
broad applications ranging from environmental monitoring for cleanup
activities or biothreat agents to the broader medical and defense needs
of other agencies. BER research on the carbon cycle and on the
molecular details of the carbon cycle in ocean and terrestrial
ecosystems will impact our ability to design strategies to sequester
carbon and to estimate the North American carbon sinks, important in
the global politics of carbon emissions and sequestration. Finally, the
Genomes to Life program, jointly managed by BER and the Office of
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), will support fundamental
systems biology research that will underpin our ability to use Nature's
solutions and design strategies to develop our own solutions for clean
energy, carbon sequestration, bioremediation, and the defeat of
bioterrorism.
Question. The BER Advisory Committee has recommended that funding
of $200 million annually be provided for a new initiative in biology
and biotechnology--the Genomes to Life program. For the upcoming fiscal
year, the budget request is only $40 million. In which year would you
anticipate that the $200 million recommendation will be requested?
Answer. As part of its out-year planning, the Department will
consider Genomes to Life program needs and develop the appropriate
budget profile.
Question. Could you explain how this new initiative in
biotechnology--the Genomes to Life program--applies in each of the four
DOE missions of (1) clean energy; (2) carbon sequestration; (3)
bioremediation; and (4) defeating bioterrorism.
Answer. As we look into the future we believe that fundamental
scientific advances in the Genomes to Life Program will underpin
remarkable and diverse payoffs in each of these four DOE missions.
Clean Energy.--Within the near future advances in systems biology,
computation, and technology will contribute to increased biology-based
energy sources. In a few decades they will contribute to energy
security through a major new bioenergy industry.
Carbon Sequestration.--Within the near future advances in systems
biology, computation, and technology will help us understand earth's
carbon cycle and design ways to enhance carbon dioxide (CO2)
capture. In a few decades they will help us stabilize atmospheric
carbon dioxide to counter global warming.
Bioremediation.--Within the near future advances in systems
biology, computation, and technology will lead to cost-effective ways
for environmental cleanup. New technology will save billions in waste
cleanup/disposal.
Defeating Bioterrorism.--Within the near future new technology will
enable rapid detection of biothreat agents and identification of
molecular targets for antibacterials and antivirals to underpin
enhanced detection and response to biothreat agents.
Question. If the Congress were to provide additional funds this
year, doubling the budget request of $40 million, to accelerate this
initiative to meet these important DOE missions and urgent national
needs, how would these additional funds be used?
Answer. We believe the President's Request strongly and adequately
funds this program. A key component of the Genomes to Life program is
the formation of large, interdisciplinary teams of scientists at
universities, national laboratories, and industry conducting research
at the interfaces of the biological, physical, and computational
sciences. Additional funds would, in part, be used to more quickly fund
a critical mass of these research teams addressing each of the
program's research goals. A second long-term goal of the program is to
develop new scientific capabilities that we could use today but that
simply do not exist in a generally useable form, such as real time
molecular imaging and single molecule chemistry. These capabilities
could be accelerated. Finally, the Genomes to Life program will require
novel capabilities for new high throughput biology for protein
production, molecular imaging, small molecule production, and
proteomics. Development of these novel capabilities is a central
component of the new high throughput biology that will characterize the
Genomes to Life program and could be accelerated.
energy biosciences
Question. The Department of Energy fiscal year 2003 budget request
deletes the separate budget line for Energy Biosciences within the
Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences and instead provides funding
for Energy Biosciences under the broader category of Chemical Sciences,
Geosciences, and Energy Biosciences. Does this represent a reduced
emphasis by DOE Basic Energy Sciences on Energy Biosciences research?
Answer. Energy biosciences research is a very important component
of the Basic Energy Sciences program and its support will continue.
Indeed, the purpose of the change is to strengthen biosciences in the
organization. The change directly aligns the budget and management
structure within the Office of Basic Energy Sciences. Chemical
sciences, biosciences, and geosciences have been managed together
because of the growing convergence of these disciplines, especially
between chemistry and biology. We expect that strengthening of energy
biosciences research will occur by growth in the traditional areas
supported by this program, for example, by developing a systems
approach to the genetic modification of plants, and by growth in other
areas that build upon the convergence of the chemical, materials, and
biological sciences. For example, a workshop held early this year
highlighted the interactions of the biological and materials sciences
for biomolecular materials production. A forthcoming workshop later
this spring will highlight the interactions of the biological and
chemical sciences in the area of catalysis. In the past few years, we
have nearly doubled the staff of the Energy Biosciences activity from 2
to 3\1/2\ scientific program managers in recognition of the importance
of this area of research within the organization. The energy
biosciences research is clearly identified in the Basic Energy Sciences
program budget on page 547.
Question. Does DOE Basic Energy Sciences plan to use any funds that
the Congress appropriated for Energy Biosciences research for fiscal
year 2002 for other purposes?
Answer. No. All of the funds that the Congress appropriated for
Energy Biosciences research for fiscal year 2002 will be used for this
purpose only.
______
Questions Submitted From Senator Pete V. Domenici
science funding
Question. I've been concerned for several years that there is
inadequate recognition in the scientific community and the
Administration on the importance of the physical science research
conducted by the Department's Office of Science.
Strong increases for NIH budgets have been the norm, and there is
good recognition of the importance of NSF on the Hill. The Health
Sciences share of our R&D has moved from about 25 percent of the
Federal budget in 1980 to almost 55 percent in 2003.
But, in my view, the important role played by the Office of Science
in our Nation's high technology infrastructure is not well recognized.
I suggest that the Department should develop a strong campaign to
help the public and lawmakers understand the contribution made by the
Office of Science. The public needs to understand that advances in one
key area like health sciences depend on research in multiple fields. If
physical sciences are not advancing at rates close to the medical
sciences, I fear we are losing opportunities for key breakthroughs.
Do you share my view that the Office of Science should undertake
such an educational campaign? And do you share my concern for a growing
imbalance in the research portfolio of our Nation?
Answer. The Office of Science plays a critical role in the Nation's
scientific enterprise. Not only do we build and operate large
scientific instruments essential to virtually every research area, but
we are also the primary support for many important areas of science
ranging from whole fields, such as high energy physics, and nuclear
physics, to subfields, such as combustion chemistry. I agree with you
that this is not well recognized, as does Secretary Abraham, who made
educating both the public and the Congress on the value of the Office
of Science one of my highest priorities.
I also understand and share your concern about funding for the
physical sciences, and the potential loss of opportunities for key
breakthroughs in many areas. The physical sciences are in a period of
revolutionary change, based in large part on the insights offered by
new generations of scientific instruments of the type built and
operated by the Office of Science, such as synchrotron light sources,
neutron sources, atomic resolution microscopes, particle physics
accelerators and computing centers--tools that are also absolutely
essential to continued progress in the life sciences. I sincerely
believe that the scientific opportunities facing us in the physical
sciences have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the
universe and create better lives for our Nation's citizens, and that we
should exploit those opportunities. Our fusion science program is
making progress toward a new source of energy to reduce our dependence
on oil and reduce atmospheric emissions; nanoscience research promises
materials designed atom-by-atom to meet the needs of industry, our
programs in high energy and nuclear physics are leading the world in
increasing our knowledge of the fundamental nature of matter, energy
and time. Nevertheless, I also support the recent increase in funding
for the life sciences. It has sparked a biotechnology revolution that
is changing the face of medicine and creating new industries, and the
Office of Science is part of this biotechnology revolution. We
initiated the Human Genome Project and developed many of the tools and
techniques that underly it's success. We plan to apply these tools and
techniques to our (Genomes to Life) program to develop a sophisticated
understanding of microbes and plant biology that will allow us to use
them for energy production, carbon sequestration, countering
bioterrorism and remediation of hazardous waste.
The President's budget request that is before the Congress is a
substantial step toward strengthening the scientific base of the Office
of Science and allowing us to exploit the opportunities before us. The
completion of some projects, along with reduced funding requirements
for the Spallation Neutron Source, effectively provides a 5 percent
increase in funding for science, allowing us to strengthen our research
programs while also increasing operating times at our user facilities.
low dose radiation research
Question. I helped you initiate your important program in low dose
radiation research a few years ago, to try to better determine health
risks from exposures to low levels of ionizing radiation. This research
could have far-reaching implications, from improved cleanup standards
for DOE sites to better appreciation of the risks associated with
operations involving radioactive materials. With the National Academy's
seventh study on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (called BEIR
VII) nearing a conclusion, results from this program are especially
timely.
In past years, this budget has been reduced in Budget Requests,
only to be restored by Congress. I appreciate that this year the
request of $17.5 million is close to the current year level of $17.8
million. But it's my understanding that the DOE's own program plan for
this study calls for budgets of about $25 million.
Is this work advancing the state of knowledge in this critical area
at a pace to impact the BEIR VII study?
Answer. Yes. To date, 153 peer-reviewed papers have been published
in the scientific literature reporting results of research funded by
the Low Dose Radiation Research Program. A number of these published
papers have already been listed on the BEIR VII website as citations
provided to BEIRVII committee members for consideration (http://
www7.nationalacademies.org/brer/BEIR__VII__refs.html). The entire list
of current publications has been sent to the BEIR VII staff at the
National Academy and will be available to the committee well before the
next meeting of BEIR VII, in July of 2002. The estimated time of
completion of the BEIR VII report is late 2003 and will allow time for
additional publications from the Low Dose Program to be considered in
their final report. BEIR VII staff members have also attended all three
of the Low Dose Program's investigator workshops that are attended by
all scientists funded by the program.
Although the program is only in its fourth year, much has already
been learned. Because of new technology, arising in part from genomics
research and the success of the Human Genome Program, we are able to
measure changes in gene activity at the cellular and molecular level
that were previously below the limits of measurement. A key finding is
the observation that low doses of radiation (less than 10 rads, a dose
that is twice the annual DOE radiation worker exposure limit) activate
hundreds of genes most of which are different from the genes activated
by high doses of radiation. While the significance of this observation
for human health risk remains to be determined, this result clearly
shows that biological responses to low doses of radiation are not
simply less than the response to high doses of radiation but are
qualitatively very different.
Research in the program is also investigating the biological
responses of unirradiated cells that are neighbors of a cell that was
irradiated the situation inherent at low doses of radiation. This
research has clearly shown that irradiated cells can elicit a response
in their unirradiated neighbors demonstrating the importance of
communication between cells in biological systems. Further studies will
determine whether this communication is ultimately deleterious or
protective for intact tissues.
The Low Dose research has reanalyzed the doses received by atomic
bomb survivors. These calculations will be completed in fiscal year
2002 and used by the BEIR VII committee in writing their report.
Question. And is it resource constrained in its progress?
Answer. The funding is adequate within the context of the overall
priorities for the Office of Science and the Biological and
Environmental Research program. To date, the Low Dose Program has
funded a total of 76 separate projects--30 at national laboratories,
and 46 at universities and other institutions. Currently 52 projects
are funded and we are in the process of reviewing more than 50
proposals and applications for new research received in response to our
most recent solicitation for new research. The program has attracted
and is supporting the best science in low dose radiation biology and is
the leading program internationally. The program has been very
productive as indicated by the number of publications that have
appeared in the peer-reviewed literature.
science in an underground laboratory
Question. Last year there was a review by NSF to explore deep
underground sites for sensitive nuclear experiments.
As part of their review, there was strong recognition that some
experiments require the deepest location--like the Homestake mine--and
others benefit more from the ultra-low background, ultra-clean
conditions, and superb infrastructure associated with the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant at Carlsbad.
I provided funding within the EM budget this year to start a
neutrino experiment at WIPP. But logically, these experiments should be
championed within the Office of Science.
Will the Office of Science seriously evaluate and champion
opportunities for key experiments in the environment provided by WIPP?
Answer. The Office of Science strives to champion the most
interesting and promising experiments in all fields of basic energy
research. The Office would, of course, be interested in receiving
promising proposals for experiments utilizing the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant at Carlsbad. As is customary with all proposals received in the
Office of Science, these proposals would undergo external peer review
and be funded based on the results of this peer review and the
availability of resources.
Some of these experiments (EXO, OMNIS, high pressure helium
detector) are aimed at WIPP, with this site claimed by scientific
proponents to be a good match to their needs. For the neutrino/nucleon
decay experiments, there is an on-going scientific debate involving the
relative location of accelerator facilities that might provide neutrino
beams and the energies of these beams.
global climate change research
Question. The Department of Energy has had a long-standing role in
the Global Climate Change research agenda.
The White House just recently announced a new Global Climate Change
strategy.
Can you describe for me the role that the Department of Energy will
have in the new White House agenda and the need for enhanced research
on Global Climate Change that would take advantage of the assets in
DOE's laboratories?
Answer. One role the Department will play in the Administration's
Climate Change program is to advance our understanding of the carbon
cycle. Specifically, our research will seek to understand where the
carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere is going and what role
terrestrial ecosystems in North America play in the carbon cycle as
either a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The Department's other
programs in climate change research are also expected to play an
important role in the White House agenda for research beyond the
Climate Change Research Initiative.
For example, the national laboratories provide our climate change
research facilities, such as the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
Cloud and Radiation Testbed facilities--the ARM sites--and the high
performance computing facilities essential for developing and using the
advanced climate model and the ARM data. Coupled with these facilities,
the laboratories also provide science teams needed to develop advanced
high-resolution ocean and sea ice models as components of coupled
climate models, novel diagnostic tools to evaluate the performance of
climate models, and new models for simulating climate processes, carbon
cycling and sequestration in terrestrial and ocean systems, and the
ecological impacts of climate change.
university reactor fuel assistance and support
Question. For the current year, the Congress provided $17.5 million
for the University Reactor Support Program. This included a $5.5
million add over the budget request to specifically establish
geographically distributed university research reactor user facilities
and geographically distributed training and education research
reactors?
This was one of the major recommendations of the April 2001 NERAC
Report on University Research Reactors.
Can you assure me that the $5.5 million increase is being used for
this purpose?
Answer. Yes, the $5.5 million added by the Congress for
geographically distributed university research, training and education
reactors will be used exclusively for that purpose. The Innovations in
Nuclear Infrastructure and Education (INIE) program was established in
fiscal year 2002 to accomplish this task.
Question. Can you give me an update on this effort? Will it be peer
reviewed? Will it involve substantial financial support from the
nuclear industry?
Answer. On December 21, 2001, after the fiscal year 2002
Appropriation Bill was signed by the President, the Department issued a
solicitation for proposals under the Innovations in Nuclear
Infrastructure and Education (INIE) program. By the solicitation
closing date of March 15, 2002, 13 proposals had been received from the
university community. A peer review panel of seven independent experts
from outside the Department has been established to review the
proposals and make award recommendations to the Department's selection
official. The peer review panel is scheduled to meet in late April and
report back to the selection official by May 1, 2002. It is expected
that the announcement of awards will occur by early June 2002 with
grants issued in July 2002. Industry support is one of several review
criteria being used by the peer review panel in evaluating the
proposals and it appears that many of the proposals include substantial
financial support from industry.
uranium-233
Question. The Congress has urged the Department to proceed with a
Request for Proposal on a project to extract medically valuable
isotopes from the excess uranium 233 stored at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
This is potentially a very exciting effort.
When do you expect to present a project plan to the Congress on
this effort?
Answer. House Report 107-258 requested a budget-quality project
plan that presents all costs, including the estimated life-cycle costs
for storage and disposal of the excess 233U before the Request for
Proposals (RFP) is issued. The project plan is in final Departmental
review and should be delivered to Congress by the end of May.
Question. Can you provide an update on this effort and tell when
you expect the RFP will be out?
Answer. A final draft of the Request for Proposals (RFP) has been
prepared; we expect the Department will be ready to issue the RFP in
FedBizOps following submission of the project plan to Congress.
nuclear power 2010 initiative
Question. Two years ago, this Subcommittee led the way in creating
a new R&D program in Nuclear Energy Technologies. The effort has been
focused on both near-term and longer-term development of next
generation power reactors.
There are great opportunities to deploy new reactors that would
have superior economics, no possibility of a core-meltdown, reduced
waste, and more proliferation resistant.
I commend the Department for providing $38 million to support a
near-term effort with the goal of having new advanced reactors
operating in the United States by 2010.
Can you elaborate on this program in greater detail?
Answer. The Nuclear Power 2010 initiative is a joint government/
industry cost-shared program to develop advanced reactor technologies
and demonstrate new regulatory processes leading to initiation of
private sector construction of new nuclear power plants in the United
States by 2005 and their operation by 2010.
The Department's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee issued
on October 31, 2001, A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in
the United States by 2010, which recommends actions to be taken by
industry and the Government to support deployment of new advanced
nuclear power plants in the United States by 2010. The recommendations,
which have broad industry support, provide the basis for the activities
of the Department's Nuclear Power 2010 program.
The Nuclear Power 2010 program includes a phased plan of action to
achieve near-term deployment. This phased approach includes a
Regulatory Demonstration phase and a Design Completion phase. The
Regulatory Demonstration phase will demonstrate the previously untested
Early Site Permit (ESP) and combined Construction and Operating License
(COL) regulatory processes to reduce licensing uncertainties and the
attendant financial risks to the licensee. The Design Completion Phase
will support work to finalize and certify those advanced reactor
designs which U.S. power generation companies are interested in
constructing as evidenced by their willingness to share in the costs of
obtaining a certified design ready for deployment.
In fiscal year 2002, cost-shared Regulatory Demonstration projects
will be initiated with industry to demonstrate the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) ESP licensing process. The ESP process was established
by the NRC to enable completion of the site evaluation component of
nuclear power plant licensing before a utility makes a decision to
build a plant. In response to the Department's February 2002
solicitation for ESP License Demonstration Projects, proposals were
submitted by Dominion Energy, Inc., Entergy, and Exelon Generation
Company. These proposals are currently under review with award
selection planned for May 2002. The Department anticipates NRC approval
of the ESP applications by late 2004.
During fiscal year 2002, fuel development and test planning
activities were initiated at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
support of advanced gas-cooled reactors. In addition, the Department is
continuing to fund NRC for development of a gas reactor regulatory and
licensing framework.
In fiscal year 2003, the Regulatory Demonstration activities
initiated in fiscal year 2002 will continue. In addition, cost-shared
Design Completion projects will be initiated with industry to support
NRC design certification and design completion of at least one advanced
reactor. The Department anticipates that these Design Completion
activities will include cost-shared first-of-a-kind engineering, fuel
qualification and prototype component development.
In fiscal year 2004, cost-shared projects will be initiated with
industry to demonstrate the NRC combined Construction and Operating
License (COL) process. The Department anticipates these NRC license
applications to lead to initiation of private sector construction of
new nuclear power plants in the United States by 2005 for operation by
2010. The Department will also conduct a nuclear industry
infrastructure assessment to identify the current state of fabrication,
manufacturing, and construction capabilities required to support
deployment of new nuclear power plants by 2010.
Question. What is the projected cost of this program over the next
8 years?
Answer. The total cost of the program over the next 8 years will
depend largely on the reactor technologies that are found to be
attractive by different generation companies in different regions of
the country and the costs associated with design completion and
licensing new nuclear power plants. The Department has established
plans to invest $38.5 million in fiscal year 2003. Once it becomes
clear which technologies would be involved in new nuclear plant
deployments in the United States, we will be able to project the total
cost of the programs.
Question. Would it be possible to accelerate the program with
additional resources?
Answer. The program can be accelerated if additional resources are
received in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004. Specifically, the
activities associated with design completion including first-of-a-kind
engineering and material testing could be accelerated. Regulatory
demonstration activities including Early Site Permit applications and
combined Construction and Operating License activities are proceeding
at a pace consistent with current NRC and industry plans. Accelerated
design completion would reduce uncertainty in plant construction cost
estimates and would likely accelerate a decision by industry to
construct a new nuclear plant.
Question. How is the Department using the $3 million provided last
year to support the longer-term recommendations that will come out of
the Generation IV Technology Roadmap?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation associated provided $3,000,000 for advanced reactor
development consistent with the longer-term recommendations of the
Generation IV Technology Roadmap and to continue research begun in the
current fiscal year in small modular nuclear reactors. The Department's
Generation IV Technology Roadmap is scheduled for completion in early
fiscal year 2003. The research and development activities for next
generation nuclear energy systems will begin in earnest in fiscal year
2003.
nasa's nuclear system initiative
Question. The Fiscal year 2003 NASA budget proposes a (Nuclear
Systems Initiative.) This initiative will develop new radioisotope
power systems for on-board electric power on future space platforms,
and it will also conduct research and development on nuclear electric
propulsion systems that would allow future spacecraft to speed
throughout the outer reaches of the solar system. NASA has proposed
spending $126 million in fiscal year 2003 and up to $1 billion in the
next 5 years. What will be DOE's role in this exciting new effort?
Answer. As you indicated, the NASA nuclear systems initiative has two
primary parts, radioisotope power systems and nuclear electric
propulsion. DOE will have major roles in both parts. Historically, DOE
has developed and delivered radioisotope power systems to NASA for 35
years. DOE will perform that same function as part of this new
initiative. NASA will provide funding to DOE to develop new
radioisotope power systems.
Currently, the planning focuses on two key systems. One will be a
new Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator that will build
on the systems used in past missions but will be designed to operate on
both surface environments such as Mars as well as in the vacuum of
space. The second will be a new Stirling Radioisotope Generator that
will take advantage of the higher efficiency offered by this dynamic
conversion technology in order to reduce the amount of plutonium-238
that is required to power the generator. This system will also be
designed to work both on planetary surfaces (Mars) as well as in space.
In addition to funding DOE for specific system development efforts,
NASA will also pursue, through its own Centers, advanced technologies
that may be applicable to future systems.
DOE's role in the nuclear electric propulsion efforts is still
evolving. As the nuclear agency for the Federal Government, DOE will
play a lead role in the research related to developing the space
reactor portion of a nuclear electric propulsion system. However,
initial planning has the power conversion and heat rejection subsystems
remaining the primary responsibility of NASA. Because of the direct
interrelationship of the reactor and the power conversion and heat
rejection subsystems, the precise roles and interfaces are still being
negotiated. In any event, the Department will have a significant and
key role in supporting NASA in the space reactor portion of the
initiative. Discussions are presently ongoing between the NASA
Administrator and senior Department officials on organizational options
for managing the space fission reactor portion of the initiative.
advanced nuclear medicine initiative (anmi)
Question. The Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative (ANMI) provides
basic research and educational grants in the field of nuclear medicine.
These R&D grants have yielded exciting results for the development of
new radiopharmaceuticals, insights in radiobiology, and possible new
methods of treating cancer.
In recent years the program has been funded at the level of $2.5
million per year. In fiscal year 2003 funding has been dropped to zero.
The Department has also proposed changing the manner in which it
provides radioisotopes to the research community.
I am concerned that these changes have been made without a senior
level agreement with NIH as to how the government is going to continue
to support this important mission.
Will the Department work to secure such an agreement?
Answer. We have communicated with senior officials of the
Department of Health and Human Services and initiated a dialog with the
National Institutes of Health about the changes anticipated in our
medical isotope program and our mutual interest in assuring an adequate
supply of isotopes to support nuclear medicine research. Additionally,
as a first step, we are jointly sponsoring a special session at the
annual Society of Nuclear Medicine meeting in June 2002, to explore the
roles of our respective agencies in assuring research isotope
availability.
Question. Will you elaborate as to why, at a time when nuclear
medicine has an opportunity to contribute tremendously to molecular
medicine, you have chosen to reduce support of the Advanced Nuclear
Medicine Initiative (ANMI)?
Answer. As you indicated, in fiscal year 2003, the Department has
not included funds for the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative (ANMI).
The ANMI program was launched in fiscal year 2001 with $2.5 million in
each of fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. With this funding, we
have supported a total of nine research grants and five educational
grants to post-secondary institutions, including the expansion or
establishment of nuclear pharmacology graduate programs at U.S.
universities. These 14 awards, which were provided for up to 3 years,
will be completed in fiscal year 2003, with funds remaining from fiscal
year 2002.
The ANMI concludes with a record of considerable success, including
the development of new scientific and technical innovations,
represented by several papers that have been presented at topical
meetings and submitted to professional periodicals.
Two papers accepted for publication.
--Yao, Z., DeNardo, S.J., DeNardo, G. L., et.al. ``Effect of
Molecular Size of PEGylated Peptide on the Pharmacokinetics and
Tumor Targeting in Lymphoma Bearing Mice'', Cancer Research,
2002; accepted.
--Balogh, L., Bielinska, A., Eichman, J. D.,Valluzzi, R., Lee, I.,
Baker, J. R., Lawrence, T. S., and Khan, M. K. ``Dendrimer
Nanocomposites in Medicine,'' Chemica OGGI, 2002; accepted.
Five presentations given or to be given at meetings involved in
nuclear medicine.
--Balogh, L., Cook, A. C., Baker, J. R.,Khan, M. K., ``Development of
Radioactive Dendrimer Nanocomosites.'' To be presented at the
Society of Nuclear Medicine, June 15-19, 2002. Los Angeles, CA.
--Balogh, L., Eichman, J. R., Baker, J. R., Khan, M. K., Lawrence, T.
S., Sorenson, D. R., and Edwards, C. A., ``Imaging and Drug
Delivery Using Dendrimer Nanocomposites.'' 1st International
Meeting On Nanoparticles 2001, Feb. 24-27, 2001 Orlando, FL.
--Balogh, L., Baker, J. R., Khan, M. K., Lawrence, T. S., Sorenson,
D. R., and Edwards C. A., ``Imaging Gold Dendrimer
Nanocomposites in Cells,'' Symposium Y5.3 MRS Spring Meeting,
April 16-20, 2001. San Francisco, CA.
--DeNardo, S. J., Yao, Z., DeNardo, G. L., Song, A., Kukis, D. L.,
Mirick, G. R., Lamborn, K. R., O'Donnel, R. T., and Lam, K. S.
``Effect of Molecular Size of PEGylated Peptide on the
Pharmacokinetics and Tumor Targeting in Lymphoma Bearing
Mice.''
--DeNardo, S. J., Yuan, A., Richman C., O'Donnel, R. T., Goldstein,
D. S., Shen, S. S., and DeNardo, G. L. ``Therapeutic Index
Enhancement by DOTA Peptide Linkage in 111-In/90-Y DOTA-Lym-1
and m170 Mabs in Clinical Trials.'' To be presented at the
Society of Nuclear Medicine Meeting June 15-19, 2002.
Subjects of these articles include: development of antibodies for
cancer therapy; development of nanocomposites to treat tumors; tumor
targeting for radioisotope therapy; delivery of alpha-emitting isotopes
and improving the methods for their delivery to cancers such as breast
and prostate and also leukemia.
Five Nuclear Medicine and Pharmacy graduate programs have been
established or enhanced at the following universities through the ANMI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purdue University......................... Nuclear Pharmacy Education
Washington University (St Louis).......... Graduate Research in Nuclear
Medicine
University of Wisconsin................... Training for MS-Level PET
Medical Physicists
Washington State University............... Nuclear Pharmacy Graduate
Certificate Program
University of New Mexico.................. Nuclear Pharmacy Graduate
Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These grants will produce masters and doctoral level graduates to
fulfill a recognized shortage of trained nuclear medicine personnel.
Specifically, the grants have expanded the number of institutions
graduating nuclear pharmacists and have increased the availability of
medical physicists to meet the rapidly growing demand for these
specialists in the United States.
While we continue to support the objectives of this program and
recognize the value of DOE's infrastructure to medical isotope
research, we must focus our attention and resources on other issues of
greater priority.
advanced accelerator applications program (aaa)
Question. Within the last year, Congress received a report on
future plans for the AAA program that painted a picture of major
contributions involving study of improved nuclear waste strategies.
The President's National Energy Policy spoke strongly about the
importance of this work. It specifically recommended development of
advanced nuclear fuel cycles and next generation technologies for
nuclear energy as well as reexamination of our policies for reducing
waste streams and enhancing proliferation resistance through study of
advanced reprocessing and waste transmutation. That is exactly what AAA
is doing.
The Department chose to combine the AAA program with the pyro-
processing program in the budget request. Combining those programs may
be reasonable, and in fact, redefining the whole program to emphasize
the importance of both reactors and accelerators in improved management
of spent fuel would be reasonable. Perhaps a better title for this
whole area might be something like Advanced Fuel Cycle Development.
But the Department also reduced the budget from about this year's
$80 million to a proposed $18 million.
Would additional resources to support this important effort be
consistent with the direction the President laid out in his National
Energy Policy Report?
Answer. This program activity has evolved significantly over the
last 3 years. Originally, it was directed to apply high-energy
accelerators to transmute spent fuel to lower quantity, less toxic
forms. Consistent with the direction of Congress, we are combining the
technology activities at the national laboratories and the University
of Nevada-Las Vegas into a single, integrated program to explore both
reactor and accelerator technologies associated with spent fuel
pyroprocessing and transmutation.
While we are interested in the potential of this research, we also
recognize that it represents a long-term, potentially expensive
commitment of the Department's scarce nuclear technology research
funding.
An independent expert committee chaired by Dr. Burt Richter
believes that the next phase of this research could cost about $500
million per year over the next 5 to 6 years. Before we can commit to
such an investment, it is important that we be certain that the goals
and approach of this research be carefully reviewed and a clear plan
established.
Such a plan is now being written with considerable input from Dr.
Richter's committee and should be provided to Congress in May.
Unfortunately, this plan could not be completed in time to support a
more robust funding request during the formulation of the Department's
fiscal year 2003 budget.
Once it is complete, however, I am confident that the plan will
detail a technical approach to this research that we will be able to
discuss with Congress and use to determine an appropriate path-forward,
including funding, for this research.
Finally, I agree with your observation that this area of research
might more appropriately be designated Advanced Fuel Cycle Development.
nuclear energy plant optimization (nepo)
Question. Nuclear Energy is making immense contributions to the
Nation's electricity needs. Plants are operating at record levels of
efficiency, with a plant capacity factor approaching 91 percent in
2002.
The goal of NEPO is to ensure that our plants continue their
performance, and extend their contributions beyond their initial 40-
year license period. NEPO is a fully cost-shared program, with equal or
greater funds invested by private industry.
NEPO was supported in a formal letter from all 33 U.S. members of
the EPRI Nuclear Power Council, who recommended increased funding.
Those 33 members represent virtually every nuclear power company in
America.
NEPO received $5 million in 2000 and 2001 and $6.5 million in 2002.
The Department recommends zero in 2003.
Given the importance of optimum plant operation and the importance
of re-licensing plants, what is the rationale for the proposal to zero
budget in 2003?
Answer. The Department continues to support the goals of the NEPO
program which are to ensure that current plants can continue to deliver
reliable and affordable energy supplies through the end of their
extended licenses. The Department requested no funding for NEPO for
fiscal year 2003 in order to fund other, higher priority programs.
Question. Are the goals of the NEPO program consistent with the
President's National Energy Policy?
Answer. Yes. The goals of the NEPO program are consistent with the
Nuclear Energy Policy objective of U.S. energy security.
The research and development conducted under NEPO seeks to increase
electrical generating capability from our current fleet of 103
operating nuclear plants through technical innovation, to improve on
the recent gains by the industry in operating capacity factors which
are near 90 percent, and to break through the technical barriers to
continued operation so that our existing plants can achieve and exceed
a total of 60 years of operation.
nuclear energy research initiative
Question. I've been a strong champion for re-creating the research
infrastructure that can underpin a strong future for nuclear energy.
The NERI program is one of the most important of these programs, with
its focus on R&D projects essential for regaining and maintaining
American's nuclear energy leadership.
With the Nation's requirements to provide nearly 400,000 megawatts
of new electric generating capacity by 2020, the NERI program takes on
even more importance.
In the current year, NERI is funded at $32 million. The President's
budget suggests $25 million, a significant cut. I can easily understand
the rationale for a significant increase, I fail to understand how a
cut could logically be proposed.
How many ongoing research programs will be terminated, and how will
these affect new awards?
Answer. No research projects will be terminated as a result of the
fiscal year 2003 budget request. The Department's funding request will
support continuation of the 16 new projects expected to be awarded in
fiscal year 2002 as well as projects ongoing from prior years. However,
the fiscal year 2003 budget request will not support the initiation of
new NERI research projects.
Question. NERI was just starting an international component, to tap
the immense opportunities for international collaboration in nuclear
energy research. How does the President's budget impact the ability to
progress on international efforts?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request fully
supports International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I-NERI)
activities currently being conducted under bilateral agreements with
France and South Korea and activities planned with South Africa, Japan
and Brazil. The Department currently has four I-NERI projects with
France, six projects with Korea and one project with the OECD Nuclear
Energy Agency. The Department also anticipates initiating up to five
new I-NERI projects with South Africa, Japan and Brazil in fiscal year
2002. The Department's fiscal year 2003 budget will support the
continuation of these activities.
science at the proposed yucca mountain repository
Question. Recent reports and press statements have expressed
concern that the Department is relying too heavily on engineered
barriers to limit potential dispersal of radioactive materials from
spent fuel?
How do you respond to these reports?
Could a stronger case be made for the integrity of the natural
barriers than the Department has done to date?
And if so, will you encourage that the scientific studies to
possibly support the natural barriers be conducted?
Answer. Geologic isolation plays a significant role in repository
performance at Yucca Mountain. We included both natural and engineered
systems in evaluating long-term Yucca Mountain performance, in
accordance with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations
and with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.
Critics have implied that our total system performance assessment
relies almost entirely on engineered barriers: that implication is
incorrect, or misinformation. The Department designed the Total System
Performance Assessment (TSPA) to forecast the performance of the
repository within the Yucca Mountain setting, and assess that
performance against the regulatory standards as specified by NRC in 10
CFR 63. The NRC's regulatory requirements conform to the EPA standards
for the protection of the public health and safety as specified in 40
CFR 197, which, pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, are
consistent with the recommendations of the NAS. The risk-informed,
performance-based approach embodied in the NRC and EPA regulations
requires DOE to analyze compliance with public health and safety
standards based on a TSPA that takes into account the features, events,
and processes associated with the natural geological setting at Yucca
Mountain working in concert with the man made engineered barriers.
Yucca Mountain is an isolated site in a closed hydrological basin.
Tunnels that might isolate spent nuclear fuel and high level waste
would be nearly 1,000 feet below the surface and the water table is
nearly 2,000 feet below the surface. Our understanding of the water
movement within Yucca Mountain suggests that over 90 percent of the
annual rainfall at this site is evaporated, meaning less than half an
inch of rain water might travel beneath the surface. Our analysis of
water samples within the mountain suggests that water in the rocks is
thousands of years old.
Natural properties in the rock formation beneath Yucca Mountain
provide sorption that would further reduce any movement of molecules.
These are some examples of natural features and process that our TSPA
took into account along with man made engineered systems to ensure that
we meet the NRC and EPA's regulations.
The natural systems of Yucca Mountain do provide substantial
barriers to the release of radionuclides from a repository and
thousands of years of protection. Should any of the waste packages fail
during the regulatory compliance period of 10,000 years, the natural
barriers of Yucca Mountain would also assure that the public's health
and safety are protected.
transportation security
Question. In light of the events of September 11, there are a lot
of concerns from the States regarding security of transportation of
nuclear wastes.
What specifically is DOE working on to address this?
I am especially interested in how DOE is cooperating with NRC. Will
you elaborate on that relationship?
Answer. The September 11 attacks have prompted the Department and
many other Federal agencies, including the NRC, to review the
safeguards and security regulations and the basis for their threat
assessments. If these reviews result in changes to the NRC requirements
for physical protection, the Department will comply.
______
Questions Submitted From Senator Larry Craig
environmental science
Question. As a result of its (Top to Bottom Review) of the
Environmental Management Program, the Department of Energy concluded
that the EM Science and Technology program was not focused on EM
program needs. For this reason, DOE proposes in its fiscal year 2003
budget request that the EM Science and Technology program be
transferred to the DOE Office of Science.
For the record, would you please provide a detailed ``cross walk''
which maps the EM Science and Technology program elements which were
funded in fiscal year 2002 to the proposed budget structure for fiscal
year 2003?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 Presidents Request proposes to move
two EM Science and Technology program elements to the Office of
Science. In fiscal year 2002 the EM Defense Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management, Science and Technology program, included the
Environmental Management Science Program and the Savannah River Ecology
Laboratory. In fiscal year 2003 the President's Request proposes to
move these two activities to the Office of Science's Biological and
Environmental Research Program, Environmental Remediation subprogram
under the Clean-Up research activity.
em science and technology program elements
Question. Please also provide a list of those EM Science and
Technology program elements which would no longer be funded in either
EM or Science under DOE's proposed fiscal year 2003 budget.
Answer. In response to recommendations from the Top-to-Bottom
Review, the Science and Technology (S&T) program is being refocused to
ensure its activities support its core mission of accelerated cleanup
and closure. As part of this effort, the basic research that had been
conducted in partnership by the DOE Offices of Environmental Management
(EM) and Science (SC) will transfer to SC. Remaining S&T activities in
the EM S&T program are being realigned to support two areas: (1)
closure site support, to ensure that closure sites, such as Rocky Flats
and the Ohio sites, have the necessary technology and technical support
to meet closure scheduled, and (2) alternatives and step improvements
to current high-risk/high-cost baselines, to ensure all possible
alternatives have been evaluated and that workable alternatives are
available and implemented as cleanup activities progress.
Each field manager is currently developing plans to achieve more
risk reduction and accelerate cleanup at the sites. The manager is also
assessing what the S&T requirements are to support these accelerated
plans and is prioritizing these requirements for the site. Based on
this input, EM will determine which S&T activities should be supported
in fiscal year 2003. EM anticipates making determinations about
specific S&T projects to be supported within the fiscal year 2003
funding request in summer of 2002.
allocation criteria for funding for environmental science
Question. For any EM Science and Technology program elements that
are to be retained and managed out of the EM Headquarters program
element, please provide the criteria upon which DOE will allocate these
program dollars to the field.
Answer. The technology development activities conducted in EM's
Office of Science and Technology program in fiscal year 2003 will be
realigned to address a streamlined program that is focused on (1)
closure site support, to ensure that closure sites have the necessary
technology and technical support to meet closure schedules, and (2)
alternatives and step improvements to current high-risk/high-cost
baselines, to ensure all possible alternatives have been evaluated and
that workable alternatives are available and implemented as cleanup
progresses.
EM plans on allocating S&T funds requested for fiscal year 2003 to
projects that align with the new program focus, and that are needed to
support plans being developed by the sites to accelerate cleanup. We
are currently working with the EM field offices to determine which S&T
projects will receive funding in fiscal year 2003.
electrometallurgical treatment
Question. The requested funding level for fiscal year 2003 for
electrometallurgical work at Argonne National Laboratory will only
support the treatment of about one half ton per year of EBR II fuel.
This will not allow the lab to meet its compliance commitment to the
State of Idaho for treatment of this fuel. The overall funding level
would also result in a layoff of approximately 160 positions in
Illinois and Idaho.
Given the endorsement of the pyroprocessing technology in the
National Energy Plan, how does DOE justify this requested funding level
and the adverse impacts created by it?
Answer. The Department is very interested in the potential of
pyroprocessing, transmutation, and other advanced fuel cycle
technologies. The successful demonstration of electrometallurgical
treatment technology at Argonne National Laboratory has provided
additional confidence regarding the practicality of this technological
approach. Additional research may show that this research is applicable
to the development of a future advanced technology approach to managing
spent nuclear fuel.
A subcommittee of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee,
chaired by Nobel Laureate Burton Richter, believes that the research
required to investigate these advanced nuclear fuel technologies could
require an investment of about $500 million over the next 5 to 6 years.
Before the Department could consider a commitment to such an activity,
it is essential that the goals and technical approach of this research
be carefully reviewed and a clear plan established.
Pursuant to this, the Department is preparing a plan that details
the research that would be necessary to carry out an advanced fuel
cycle program. This report, developed with input from Dr. Richter's
subcommittee, will soon be provided to Congress. It will provide a
basis for informed discussions as the Administration and Congress weigh
the potential benefits and costs of a new research initiative in this
area--an initiative that will meet the aggressive technology objectives
anticipated by the National Energy Policy.
Unfortunately, neither our current research efforts nor the
deliberations of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee were
sufficiently advanced last year to permit this report to be completed
in time for the fiscal year 2003 budget request. As a result, the
Department's request for this research represents the funds required to
continue the treatment of sodium-bonded fuel and meet our commitments
to the State of Idaho.
That said, the current EMT rate is approximately one half ton of
spent nuclear fuel per year and we anticipate that with the funding
requested in fiscal year 2003, we can continue to operate the Fuel
Conditioning Facility at this treatment rate. We also intend to
increase this rate in the future with the intent of fulfilling our
commitment with the State of Idaho to treat and remove all EBR-II spent
fuel. Finally, it is our intent to minimize any adverse worker impacts
at Argonne National Laboratory and we stand committed to working
closely with the Laboratory, the workers, stakeholders and Congress to
assure that this objective is met.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reid. The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., Friday, March 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2002
U. S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Harry Reid (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reid and Domenici.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. GORDON, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DR. EVERET BECKNER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS
LINTON BROOKS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION
ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN, U.S. NAVY, DIRECTOR, NAVAL NUCLEAR
PROPULSION PROGRAM AND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR NAVAL
REACTORS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. The subcommittee will come to order.
I really appreciate everyone's patience. This hearing was
scheduled for 10:00. Senator Domenici asked if I could put it
off, and I was happy to do that. I saw him a little while ago,
and he said that he had a meeting with Senator Lott that should
be ending soon. We are going to go ahead and start the meeting,
though.
Today is the third in a series of four budget oversight
hearings for the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. We
have heard, so far, from three offices at the Department of
Energy: the Office of Science, the Office of Nuclear Energy,
and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. We
have also heard from the Bureau of Reclamation and accepted
written testimony from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, for reasons
that are obvious to everyone.
For the information of other Members and staff, the
subcommittee will hold one more budget oversight hearing this
year. We will wrap up our budget hearings on April 18th. On
that day, we will hear from the Office of Environmental
Management and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, two important programs within the Department.
Today we will hear from four witnesses: General John
Gordon, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration; Dr. Everet Beckner, Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs, and Ambassador Linton Brooks, Deputy
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; and Admiral
Frank Bowman, Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors.
Senator Domenici and I both appreciate you being here. My
duties as the Assistant Majority Leader require my presence on
the Floor when we are in session. As a result, it is extremely
difficult to find time on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday to do
these hearings, and we have decided to do them, on this
committee and another that I run, on Mondays and Fridays. So we
appreciate your flexibility.
The good part about having them on Mondays and Fridays is
that we are not interrupted by votes, so we will be able to
start this and end it. And it is better for everyone, I
believe.
It is my understanding, General Gordon, that you just got
back from a series of meetings in Europe. I am particularly
grateful for your attendance so early in a busy week, after
having just gotten back.
In the interest of time, I will have my written statement
be a part of this record, and will extend the same opportunity
to members of the subcommittee and the full committee who wish
to be heard on these matters in today's hearings.
Once we have heard from subcommittee members, and that is
going to be fairly limited today, I will have a series of
questions, including some that will be submitted for the
record.
General Gordon, I hope you will take a few minutes to
clarify some of the recent press accounts generated on
development of new weapons testing capabilities and the
possibility of resumption of weapons testing. The more I read
about these subjects, it appears the less I know, so I need
some direction, as we all do.
To the extent that the administration is hoping to change
some of these policies, I expect there will be a full
consultation and collaboration with Congress, especially that
most of these rooted in the Federal law.
General Gordon, I appreciate the good work that you are
doing, pleased that you have nearly a full team in place now,
and hope that they will be able to ease the burden on you
personally.
I look forward to hearing from each of you. At today's
hearing, as has been indicated, we will hear from four
individuals, and we will do that in the order that I have
announced, with General Gordon, Dr. Beckner, Ambassador Brooks,
and Admiral Bowman, going in that order.
If you would proceed General Gordon, after each of you have
completed your statements, if you wouldn't mind waiting, and we
will do the questions all at once.
General Gordon?
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN A. GORDON
General Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have a
larger written statement, which we have submitted for the
record.
Senator Reid. And I would ask each of you to hold your
remarks to about 10 minutes, with the exception of you, General
Gordon, because of the elaboration that I have asked that you
give.
General Gordon. I will try to not take much longer than
that, as well, in the interest of your time, sir.
And what I would like to do this morning, Mr. Chairman, is
give you actually more of a report on the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) than the gory details of the
budget, which of course are available, and we can talk to you
in the detail that you like.
Last year, I once likened the job at NNSA to changing the
jet engines of an airplane while we were flying the airplane
and trying to accomplish the mission at that same time, and to
do so with a short-handed crew.
Mr. Chairman, the job and the concept of the job has not
gotten a lot easier. We are still spending the greatest
percentage of our time, the priorities of our efforts, on the
mission; on flying the airplane. And I can report that that
actually is going quite well. I am broadly satisfied with the
products and the performance of the Federal workforce, our
great laboratories, the plants, the Nevada Test Site, our
critical nonproliferation programs, and the great work done on
target every day from Naval Reactors.
The leadership of these sites and these organizations are
focused on output. They are focused on making strong
contributions to the mission every day. And they are making
real progress, improving management, improving business
practices, working together better than they have in a long
time as a system, laboratories and plants.
And, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, I can no longer report
that we have a short crew, just the opposite. After about a
year, we now have in place a strong leadership team, so that as
we actually go to change out our jets that is, some rather
significant changes in the structure of our organization--we
finally have in the right place the people to make it happen,
with Ambassador Brooks, Dr. Beckner, and our old friend,
Admiral Skip Bowman.
Now, we have been busy, Mr. Chairman, despite not having in
place a full management team for much of the last 13 months.
And NNSA is not without accomplishment.
More than anything else, and with no small amount of
support from the Congress, we have really revitalized the
mission. People feel pretty good about their work. They feel
pretty good about their future. There is a sense that morale is
up, recruitment is up, and retention is up.
We are making progress on diversity. We have solid security
and counterintelligence programs. Infrastructure is now on a
long-term planning schedule. It is linked to our planning
program and budget system. We have a strong manager with a
discipline process, and, again, with great support from the
Congress to get started. And we have a specific line in this
year's budget request from the President.
We have an improved relationship with DoD, seen through the
work of the NPR, the Nuclear Posture Review. That report stands
as an important vision of the way forward to identify long-term
requirements for NNSA. But I would point out a maybe not so
obvious result of that was, in fact, a renewed spirit of
cooperation and coordination between DoD and the NNSA. This
relationship is working at the Nuclear Weapons Council level,
at the policy level, and at the technical level. The DoD has
come out and vocalized its strong support for our needed
programs, and that is a most welcome development.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have launched a significant
reorganization effort to streamline NNSA. We will eliminate an
entire layer of management of the complex. And when complete,
each of NNSA's eight contractor-operated sites, at least those
in DP and NN, will report to an area office, which will, in
turn, report to the administrator. And there should be no more
questions about two headquarters.
To be able to do this, we will reengineer the entire
complex to reduce the number of separate offices, eliminate
unnecessary layers, focus on needed functions. So what we are
seeking here is a streamlined Federal structure, where the
laboratory and plant managers will be given clear, more
consistent expectations, and can be effectively held
accountable for achieving expected results.
We are taking steps to be much more efficient. We have
significantly streamlined oversight. In place today is improved
oversight for Environmental, Safety, and Health, and security.
We have launched an initiative to cut administrative burdens by
50 percent, even though we get stacks of paper for those who
ask us to cut these burdens. And we are running a pilot program
to change the regulatory burden that we place on our labs and
plants.
All of this is nothing if we do not, in fact, accomplish
the missions. It is just process, but our Stockpile Stewardship
Program confirms that the Nation's nuclear weapons remain safe,
secure, and reliable. We are continuing to improve our
surveillance tools. When we find aging problems, we know what
to do with them, we know how to fix them, and we go off and do
that.
No identified problems, by the way, suggest a need to
return to nuclear testing anytime soon.
Our science campaigns are moving ahead, and the National
Ignition Facility seems solid on its new track, with strong
leaders and strong management.
The pit manufacturing and certification campaign is coming
around, again, with strong and committed leadership.
Nevada programs are pointing the way in many areas. The
subcritical experiments at U1A are, indeed, critical to our
work, both on pit certification and the broader questions of
certification. A total of five more tests are scheduled this
year. JASPER, one of the world's only gas gun of this nature,
is moving ahead and, again, will provide very important and
valuable information to the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Our nonproliferation programs continue to make good
progress. They received a real shot in the arm and, frankly, a
shot of money after 9-11. Using that supplemental funding, we
are accelerating our programs and expect to see new success in
reducing the threats we might face. After a comprehensive
review by the administration, we are launching a less costly
and, I think, a more effective plutonium disposition program.
And Naval Reactors continues to improve and produce every
day.
Mr. Chairman, probably what I am most proud of is the
response of this enterprise to the tragedy of 9-11. From
enhanced security to people and to equipment on the scene, I
could not have asked for a more rapid, a more competent, or a
more generous response.
The security responses remain in place to this day, Mr.
Chairman, at some expense and some hardship. But they are
necessary. And over a period of time, we will need to rethink
our architecture for security. But we have about the best
protected sites in the country today, and I intend to keep them
that way.
We are also showing the Homeland Security Council the
unique and special capabilities of our people and our sites. We
have much, much to offer in the war against terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, we have made truly remarkable progress with
our budget process and the support from the administration. We
are enjoying a new relationship with the Office of Management
and Budget. We are broadly pleased with the proposed increase
in the budget submitted by the President, and our 5-year plan
is finishing its way in the administration, en route to
Congress.
I would comment that full implementation of our planning,
programming, and budgeting system is going a little more slowly
than I had hoped, but I believe we are on the right course.
Mr. Chairman, the budget request for all of NNSA is just
over $8 billion. The increase for Defense Programs to $5.9
billion demonstrates the support of the administration for the
weapons programs and puts us on track to restoring the health
of the enterprise, its infrastructure, and accomplishing the
required work to maintain the stockpile and to build a long-
term scientific base to support these weapons long into the
future. The Administration requests $1.1 billion for defense
nuclear nonproliferation. This is the largest such request
ever. In many ways, the events of 9-11 have driven home the
importance of these programs.
This increase comes after a long and extensive review of
our nonproliferation programs in what was, frankly, a pretty
skeptical environment. That skeptical review both strengthened
the programs and, importantly, strengthened the
Administration's support for them. We certainly did not get
rubberstamp approval. We now have their full support.
This budget would permit us to make real progress on all
fronts of our programs, from MPC&A through safeguards and
security, and helps prevent weapons and material from falling
into the wrong hands. We help at borders here and in Russia. We
are moving ahead with the plutonium disposition program with
the decision to proceed with the MOX-only initiative.
And NNSA is also providing support to homeland security. We
develop advanced technologies to detect chemical, biological,
and nuclear contamination. We are deploying these technologies
to protect us today. We have requested $283 million for nuclear
nonproliferation R&D to continue this type of research.
As an aside, Mr. Chairman, we are doing this somewhat ad
hoc, as we understand fully the dimensions and the requirements
of the Homeland Security Council and the counterterrorism
operators. We may want to align ourselves a little differently
within our organizations, once we understand the full dimension
of how we will support this ongoing effort.
Mr. Chairman, we are requesting $708 million for the Naval
Reactors Program, which supports the submarines and carriers
now on-stations around the world. This relatively small
increase above inflation is primarily for our work to bring the
dry spent-fuel storage facility in Idaho on-line, while
maintaining the safety, performance, and reliability of
operating reactors in aircrafts and submarines.
Nuclear-powered ships have served a vital deterrent role
for well over half a century. They continue to prove their
worth, their value, every day in the aftermath of September 11.
Mr. Chairman, I want to be here today in front of you and
sound optimistic about the future of NNSA. I am pleased with
the direction we are going, and I want to lock in our
successes. But I am not fully content with the pace of what we
are accomplishing.
Despite my optimism, certainly not all is perfect as we
face uncertainties and difficulties as we move ahead. Actually
making the kind of organizational changes we are trying to do
is difficult and time-consuming. We still run big programs that
push the limits of technology. That in itself entails
considerable risk. And there is near certainty that in one or
more programs sometime in the future we will have some
unexpected problems, and we will be up talking about those. We
struggle with large and complex programs in a large and complex
organization, but we are pushing the bounds of technology. The
directions are good. The missions are good. And the resources
are becoming available.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I thank
you and all the members of the Subcommittee for the support
they give to this enterprise, to this mission, but, most
importantly, to the people who accomplish it. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John A. Gordon
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the fiscal
year 2003 President's budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). The fiscal year 2003 unified NNSA budget request
totals $8.0 billion, representing an increase of $433 million, or
nearly 6 percent over the fiscal year 2002 enacted appropriation, which
includes $357 million in supplemental funding. I would like to begin my
testimony here today by setting a policy framework and discussing the
issues faced by NNSA.
transforming the national security strategy
President Bush is transforming our national security strategy to
meet the threats of the 21st century. The NNSA is intimately involved
in the formulation of the Administration strategy through participation
in the Strategic Review, Nuclear Posture Review and the review of
nonproliferation programs. We have accelerated research and development
into technologies to detect and deter weapons of mass destruction. We
responded swiftly and comprehensively to the terrorist events of
September 11th, protecting our valuable national security assets and
employees, and offering our unique capabilities to the national
response. We have contributed directly to the Homeland Security needs
of Governor Ridge with our technology and scientific staff. Work such
as this will extend into fiscal year 2003 and beyond.
While the policies and priorities established by the President, the
Secretary, and the Congress will determine the scope of our work over
the years to come, nuclear deterrence remains the cornerstone of our
national defense strategy for the foreseeable future. The NNSA will
also be deeply involved in arms reduction and nonproliferation
activities, and will make significant contributions to the
Administration's new capabilities-based national security strategy that
requires us to maintain our military advantages in key areas while
developing new capabilities. The NNSA will continue to be involved in
the nation's Homeland Security efforts. The Naval Reactors program will
continue to be responsible for all naval nuclear propulsion work.
The NNSA faces major challenges during the next 5-year period in
responding to evolving customer requirements while maintaining and
improving the health of the nation's national security enterprise. The
expanded focus on international terrorism following the September 11th
attacks underscores the importance of maintaining a strong capability
in the science and technology of national security. NNSA's ability to
perform its national security functions depends upon renewing our
internal capabilities. As we conduct our daily technical work of
maintaining the reliability, safety, and security of the Nation's
nuclear weapons and developing the scientific tools necessary to
perform our work, we need to ensure that our national security
enterprise remains capable. Both the physical and intellectual
infrastructure of the national security enterprise were built during
the era of underground nuclear testing, and have eroded to the point
that we are no longer able to perform some essential tasks. It is
imperative that we address these issues during the upcoming 5 year
period. NNSA's program and budget planning emphasizes maintaining an
adequate workforce of scientific, technical and business skills, and
building a diverse, multi-talented leadership. We must be able to
recruit, train, and develop quality employees throughout our
organizations in a highly competitive employment environment. We must
implement our plans to renew the physical infrastructure to ensure
adequate capability and capacity as well as compliance with
environment, safety, health and security standards.
Another key element to NNSA's ability to perform its national
security functions is an organizational plan to achieve greater
effectiveness and efficiency. Last month, I submitted NNSA's ``Report
to Congress on the Organization and Operations of the NNSA'' describing
our accomplishments to date and our strategy for operating an
integrated national security enterprise. I will further discuss this
plan later in this testimony.
budget summary
This request for fiscal year 2003 marks the first unified NNSA
budget request to the Congress. In this request, the NNSA is $8.039
billion, an increase of nearly 6 percent over fiscal year 2002.
By way of summary, the NNSA fiscal year 2003 request supports the
recommendations from the Nuclear Posture Review to maintain weapon
capability without underground nuclear testing, develop a stockpile
surveillance engineering base, refurbish and extend the lives of
selected warheads, and maintain the science and technology base needed
to support nuclear weapons. The request protects the operational
readiness of the nuclear weapons stockpile through surveillance,
experiments, and simulations for individual weapons and weapon systems,
and investment in advanced scientific and manufacturing for the future.
The Administration's full commitment to nonproliferation and a
major effort with Russia is reflected within the fiscal year 2003
request as we seek to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This request provides a down payment on that commitment which fully
supports the U.S. policy on bilateral cooperation.
The funding requested also maintains NNSA's critical role in
providing for Homeland Security through our expertise in the detection
of nuclear materials and the capability to respond to emergencies
involving them, including capabilities in detection of chemical and
biological threats.
The Naval Reactors program, a critical part of the national
security mission supporting the nuclear submarines and carriers
stationed around the world, is fully supported in the request.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 NNSA CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REQUEST
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2001 2002 Fiscal year
Comparable Comparable 2003 request Dollar change Percent change
appropriation appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator: $326,148 $326,486 $347,705 $21,219 6.5
Program Direction..............
Weapons Activities:
Defense Programs............ 4,531,533 \1\ 4,811,761 5,116,913 305,152 6.3
Safeguards and Security..... 411,418 \2\ 554,881 509,954 -44,927 -8.1
F&I Recapitalization........ 8,700 196,800 242,512 45,712 23.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons Activities. 4,951,651 \3\ 5,563,442 5,869,379 305,937 5.5
===============================================================================
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 864,131 \4\ 1,026,586 1,113,630 87,044 8.5
Naval Reactors.................. 688,761 689,273 708,020 18,747 2.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Prior Year Balances -3,244 -269 0 -269 -100.0
(Other Defense Activities).....
===============================================================================
Total, National Nuclear 6,827,447 \5\ 7,605,518 8,038,734 433,216 5.7
Security Administration..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $25,000 supplemental appropriation for Secure Transportation Asset.
\2\ Includes $106,000 supplemental appropriation.
\3\ Includes $131,000 supplemental for notes 1 and 2 above.
\4\ Includes $226,000 supplemental appropriation.
\5\ Includes $357,000 supplemental for notes above.
The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request was developed based
on three primary resource drivers. First, the strategic reviews of
national security-related activities conducted this past year. The NNSA
actively participated in the President's Strategic Review of deterrence
and missile defense policy, and review of U.S. nonproliferation
programs with Russia. The NNSA was also a key participant in the
Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) which lays out the
direction for this nation's nuclear forces over the next 5 to 10 years.
These reviews validated the NNSA's activities in weapon systems
refurbishments and the need for a robust, responsive research and
development and industrial base. The second driver is the war on
terrorism as we work to counter weapons of mass destruction and support
the Homeland Security effort. The NNSA Laboratories are on the cutting
edge of technology and have a vital national security role to play in
combating terrorism. The third and final driver is the President's
Management Initiatives on the human capital management and competitive
sourcing initiatives which serve to focus our fiscal year 2003
activities, particularly in the Federal Program Direction budget.
Recruitment, retention, and skill mix are critical to NNSA's success in
the future and are key to our plans for re-engineering the workforce.
These drivers to the fiscal year 2003 budget presented serious
challenges in balancing our funding request. These challenges included:
maintaining the safety, security and reliability of the nuclear
deterrent without underground testing or new warhead production;
countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; supporting
the nuclear propulsion needs of the U.S. Navy; dealing with the rapidly
evolving counter terrorism and security environment; and balancing
these mission activities with real progress in the standup of the NNSA
organization and streamlining the Federal management structure. We
answered the challenges with a unified NNSA budget for the fiscal year
2003 request that:
--Balances the near-term needs for stockpile maintenance and
refurbishments with longer-term scientific programs to assure
stockpile certification in the future.
--Maintains the safe and secure operation of the Weapons Complex.
--Expands U.S. nonproliferation programs in Russia and elsewhere,
including Plutonium Disposition, Russian Transition
Initiatives, Nuclear Safety, and Materials Protection, Control
and Accountability.
--Increases multi-year efforts to refurbish the physical
infrastructure of the Weapons Complex.
--Accelerates research and development of nonproliferation
technologies, including those with significant counter
terrorism applications.
--Advances weapons technology development.
--Implements Presidential Management Initiatives through re-
engineering and streamlining.
I will now address the most significant funding changes requested
in fiscal year 2003. Detailed explanations of all NNSA program
activities are contained in the formal budget request.
stockpile stewardship
In spite of the many challenges we are facing, the NNSA has
continued to meet the core Stockpile Stewardship mission that is to
maintain the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear
stockpile to meet national security requirements.
As I stated earlier, the NNSA actively participated in the
strategic reviews of national-security related activities conducted by
the Administration. Participation by NNSA ensured that the choices,
plans, and requirements being developed were within the realm of the
technical and production capabilities of the NNSA. It also increased
the awareness of our issues and technical capabilities by the
Administration's national security senior management team.
While there are many important points and conclusions in the NPR
including the goals to reduce operationally deployed nuclear weapons to
between 1,700 and 2,200 by calendar year 2012 and the maintenance of a
``responsive force'' for use as a hedge against unforeseen problems,
several points are of particular relevance to the NNSA:
First, nuclear weapons, for the foreseeable future, remain a key
element of U.S. national security strategy. The NPR reaffirms that
NNSA's science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program is necessary to
assure the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile in the
absence of nuclear testing. This includes basic surveillance of our
aging weapons, systems refurbishment, chemistry and metallurgy of
materials aging, detailed understanding of weapons physics,
reestablishment of warhead advanced concepts teams, and development of
additional diagnostic and predictive tools for long-term stewardship.
The NPR revalidated the stockpile refurbishment plan previously
developed and approved by the NNSA and the Department of Defense. The
fiscal year 2003 budget request for Directed Stockpile Work is $1.2
billion, an increase of $190 million, or about 18 percent over last
year. Principally, this increase allows us to support life extension
activities for the W80, W76, and B61 warheads, including supporting
research and development and additional hydrodynamic testing for
assessment and certification. Also, $2.1 billion is requested for the
17 scientific and engineering campaigns that provide the knowledge,
technologies and capabilities to address current and future stockpile
issues.
Second, more than any previous review, the NPR's concept of a New
Triad emphasizes the importance of a robust, responsive research and
development and industrial base. This calls for a modernized nuclear
weapons complex, including contingency planning for a Modern Pit
Facility, which will provide the nation with the means to respond to
new, unexpected, or emerging threats in a timely manner. The fiscal
year 2003 budget request supports our industrial base in two key ways:
a request of $1.7 billion for Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities, a 10 percent increase supporting the operations of weapons
complex facilities; and, a $243 million request for the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization program to continue this important
multi-year initiative into its third year.
Third, a study examining the aspects of reducing test readiness
lead time below the 24 to 36 month requirement for a fully diagnosed
test. The NPR states that the lead time needs to be shortened out of
prudence, not because there is a current need to test. In fiscal year
2002, the NNSA and the DOD will study the optimum test readiness time
that best supports the new triad as directed by the NPR. Pending the
outcome of the study, the fiscal year 2003 request includes $15 million
for Enhanced Test Readiness activities at the Nevada Test Site.
Finally, the NPR calls for a stable, adequately funded Future-Years
Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP). The NNSA's costs will not be reduced
in the immediate future as a result of NPR. Near-term costs are driven
by restoring production capabilities and revitalizing the
infrastructure, not by the number of warheads in the stockpile or even
the number to be refurbished. In fact, we expect that cost savings from
refurbishment of a smaller number of weapons will not be realized until
about fiscal year 2010. The NNSA enterprise's capacity will be
stretched, approaching maximum capacity while our systems are on the
process line for refurbishment, thereby limiting our ability to
dismantle significant numbers of weapons over the next 10 years. The
FYNSP document is in final preparation and is expected to be provided
shortly.
Also, I would like to point out a less obvious, but significant
result of the NPR. Conduct of the NPR has improved the cooperation and
coordination between the NNSA and DOD. The Nuclear Weapons Council is
working, policy levels between the agencies are effective, and the DOD
has offered strong support for needed programs in NNSA.
In addition to the activities discussed above, the fiscal year 2003
budget request for the Stockpile Stewardship Program will support:
--Assessment of manufacturing concepts for a Modern Pit Facility.
--Production of tritium in Tennessee Valley Authority reactors
beginning in fiscal year 2003.
--Manufacture of a certifiable pit, and the capability to certify a
pit by 2009 with the goal of achieving an earlier date of 2007.
--Maintenance of ability to conduct underground testing.
--Complete National Ignition Facility internal infrastructure
required for ``first light'', eight beam, stockpile stewardship
experiments in fiscal year 2004.
I would like to note that, for the first time in a number of years,
weapons systems cost data is included in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request as requested in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act Conference Report, 107-258. The weapons
systems cost data for fiscal year 2003 are provided in the Directed
Stockpile Work section of the budget. In addition, we have resumed
reporting for nuclear weapons acquisition costs for weapons systems in
Phase 6.3 and beyond (W87, W76, and W80 Life Extension Programs) in a
separate, classified document.
nonproliferation activities
At $1.114 billion, the fiscal year 2003 budget request for
nonproliferation related activities is the highest at which these
programs have ever been funded.
When Secretary Abraham came into office he began working closely
with the White House to review our cooperative assistance programs with
Russia. It was important that nonproliferation programs were responsive
to the new strategic environment being shaped by Presidents Bush and
Putin. At the Crawford summit, the two Presidents called for improved
cooperation with respect to the protection and accounting of nuclear
materials, and the prevention of illicit nuclear trafficking.
Shortly after the Bush/Putin summit, the Secretary met with Russian
Minister of Atomic Energy Rumyanstev to accelerate and expand
cooperative measures on materials security and accountability. The
Secretary's meeting with the Russian minister was a major success.
Agreement was reached on the need for greater cooperation, improved
steps for protection of dangerous materials, enhanced safeguards of
fissile materials, and ways to boost safety and security in the
peaceful use of atomic energy. The Administration is fully committed to
the success of this deepening cooperation between these former foes.
This commitment is reflected in the diversity of our programs to
address non-proliferation concerns in Russia and indeed, throughout the
world. NNSA uniquely integrates technical and policy expertise to guide
and implement the full range of U.S. nonproliferation priorities and
initiatives. Whether ensuring that former Russian weapons experts are
able to put their skills to use on peaceful and commercial initiatives,
reducing the footprint of Russia's ``closed'' nuclear cities, or
leading on-the-ground programs to secure at-risk nuclear materials in
Russia, North Korea, or elsewhere, NNSA is at the forefront of U.S.
efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
advance U.S. nuclear security interests. As a scientific organization
and working closely with our national laboratories, NNSA brings to the
table unique assets that have allowed us unprecedented access to
foreign scientific communities. In Russia and other former Soviet
states, for example, the great strides that have been made to secure
nuclear materials and WMD expertise or improve reactor safety are made
possible by the access NNSA has to its counterpart organizations in
these countries.
The Administration's strategic review of NNSA's nonproliferation
programs with Russia confirmed the importance of these programs and
resulted in a significant policy change which is reflected in the
fiscal year 2003 budget request. In January 2002, the Administration
announced plans to proceed with a workable, technologically possible,
and affordable approach to disposal of surplus U.S. plutonium.
The United States plans to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus
weapons grade plutonium by turning the material into mixed oxide fuel
(MOX) for use in commercial nuclear reactors. This decision follows a
review by the Administration of alternative technologies to dispose of
surplus plutonium to meet the nonproliferation goals agreed to by the
U.S. and Russia while making the program less costly and more
effective.
In September 2000, the U.S. and Russia signed the Plutonium
Management and Disposition Agreement committing each country to dispose
of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium each, in rough
parallel. With the U.S. decision, we will be able to move forward on
meeting our obligations under this agreement.
Previously the U.S. government endorsed a dual-track approach to
dispose of the plutonium by turning some of the material into MOX
reactor fuel and immobilizing the remaining plutonium for long-term
storage. Eliminating immobilization from the disposition pathway saves
nearly $2 billion in life cycle funding, decreases plutonium storage
costs, and facilitates closure of the former nuclear weapons complex
sites. Importantly, the MOX fuel technology is proven, having been used
by European countries in their reactors for more than 20 years.
The MOX conversion process is expected to cost $3.8 billion over 20
years, including the construction of new disassembly and fuel
fabrication facilities at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
Construction of the facilities is set to begin in fiscal year 2004.
The Department of State and the NNSA will work with their
counterparts in Russia to achieve the disposition of Russian surplus
weapons-grade plutonium through the MOX process. Bilateral cooperation
and inspections will assure progress and compliance with the agreement.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Fissile Materials
Disposition program, including both Operating and Maintenance and
Construction funding, is $384 million.
security and combating terrorism
The NNSA employees and assets responded aggressively and
immediately in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11,
2002. Specifically, the NNSA:
--Strengthened physical security at our sites to assure the safety
and security of nuclear weapons, the weapons complex and its
employees, special nuclear material and other high value assets
in custody of NNSA.
--Provided technical assets and staff to aid in the recovery efforts
in New York City and at the Pentagon.
--Worked closely with intelligence and law enforcement by providing
NNSA experts in their facilities, on the working groups, on the
White House Counter Terrorism Task Force, and in the Office of
Homeland Security.
--Began studies to analyze the potential of high-energy, high-
velocity attacks at key nuclear material and nuclear material
storage locations.
--Established NNSA's Combating Terrorism Task Force to coordinate a
systematic review of twelve key areas of NNSA security and
operational responsibilities to recommend immediate
improvements.
--Established a working group, drawing from all the work at NNSA
facilities, to define what capabilities we can bring to bear on
the problems at hand, and not just in the nuclear arena. NNSA
has capabilities in many technical areas ranging from chemical/
biological weapons to sensors, to aircraft and airport
security. In the area of sensors, we have the best capability
in the world and are working to promote greater integration
across our research and development programs.
--Responded to the changed threat by joining with the DOD in an
immediate review of the ``design basis threat.''
The NNSA laboratories are being used to improve homeland security
in ways that are not perhaps fully recognized by the public. The
laboratories develop advanced technologies that detect chemical,
biological and nuclear agents. These technologies help protect us
today. Chemical and biological technologies and agents developed by the
NNSA laboratories were used to help cleanup the Congressional office
buildings of anthrax.
In the aftermath of the September 11th attack, the NNSA efforts
required substantial additional funding in order to achieve a safer
security posture. This needs to be considered when making comparisons
between the fiscal year 2003 request and the total fiscal year 2002
available funds. The fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental
appropriation for terrorism related activities provided $357 million to
the NNSA. Weapons Activities Safeguards and Security program received
$106 million to hire and train additional protective force personnel,
initiate physical security upgrades, and to address cyber-security
infrastructure upgrades. The Secure Transportation Asset program
received supplemental funding of $25 million to enhance security
against the emerging threat.
The Defense Nuclear Proliferation program account received $226
million in supplemental funding to accelerate priority efforts in
Nonproliferation Research and Development, International Nuclear
Materials Protection and Cooperation, International Nuclear Safety and
Cooperation, and additional Federal staffing.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request continues to emphasize NNSA's
security and nonproliferation programs. The Weapons Activities
Safeguards and Security program request is $510 million. This allows
for continued enhancements to protective forces and security systems.
However, NNSA may need to revisit this funding level to accommodate
emerging issues. We need to look at a new security architecture and a
new way of doing business that does not assume ever increasing
resources for security, or prevent the conduct of science and
production at our facilities. The National Center for Combating
Terrorism at the Nevada Test Site is separately requested in fiscal
year 2003 at $10 million.
facilities and infrastructure recapitalization
As I have testified and discussed with many of you over the past
year, improving the condition of the nuclear weapons complex's
facilities and infrastructure remains a priority effort. Your support
for these efforts is both necessary and timely. The restoration,
revitalization, and rebuilding of the physical infrastructure is key to
the maintenance of mission-capable facilities which contribute to
credible nuclear deterrence. Recently, the NPR validated the findings
of the NNSA regarding the condition of the complex and our path
forward.
Currently, Defense Programs acts in a landlord capacity and manages
the complex day-to-day through its Readiness in the Technical Base and
Facilities activities. From our studies, we have determined that the
complex deteriorates by about $200 million annually. To arrest this
deterioration and eventually begin to improve the condition of the
weapons complex, the NNSA established the Facility and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program. The fiscal year 2003 budget request places a
high priority on this activity, with a request of $243 million a 23
percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 level. Future plans call for
ramping up this expenditure from the current annual range of $200
million to $500 million and sustaining the funding for about a decade.
We continue to refine this outlook but that is about the size of the
requirement.
I have added a corporate facilities management program that
complements the infrastructure spending and addresses one of your major
concerns regarding responsible fiscal accountability. We have
instituted Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Planning, established industry
standard performance measures, and accurate reporting measures that now
provide for measuring progress.
The recapitalization program will focus on working off maintenance
backlogs, prioritized to reduce or eliminate the risk of unplanned
operational downtime due to equipment failure, extend the expected
effective life span of equipment, optimize facility efficiencies, and
repair, renew and refurbish existing structures. Also, the program
supports dismantlement and removal of deactivated facilities and
infrastructure that are excess to current and future mission
requirements, and infrastructure planning activities to prepare and
develop necessary plans for the execution of outyear Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program projects.
The condition of the nuclear weapons complex is poised for
improvement across its eight sites. A year ago, I unfolded this story
of condition and need. The response has been substantial. The NNSA will
continue this initiative until the complex has restored lost
capabilities, modernized other capabilities, and is sound, safe, and
secure.
naval reactors
Our Naval Reactors program, which supports the nuclear powered
submarines and carriers now on station around the world, remains a
critical part of the national security mission. This program is
requesting the smallest increase in the NNSA's fiscal year 2003 budget.
We are requesting $707 million, an increase of about 3 percent. The
increase will help to maintain the constant progress and consistent
contribution to the nation's nuclear deterrent force that we have come
to rely upon from the Naval Reactors program. The small increase above
inflation is primarily for work to bring the dry spent fuel storage
facility in Idaho online while continuing Naval Reactors activities to
ensure the safety and reliability of the 102 Naval reactor plants,
upgrade and improve existing reactor plants, and develop new reactor
plants.
office of the administrator
Finally, the budget request for my office in NNSA, the Office of
the Administrator, is 6 percent higher than the fiscal year 2002
appropriation--a $21.2 million increase. This account provides
corporate direction and oversight of NNSA operations consistent with
the principles of protecting the environment and safeguarding the
safety and health of the public and the workforce of the NNSA. As you
will remember, the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act consolidated the program direction funds from
weapons activities and defense nuclear nonproliferation within the
Office of the Administrator appropriation. The Naval Reactors program
direction and the Secure Transportation Asset program direction retain
separately funded program direction accounts. The increase in the
Program Direction budget supports annual cost-of-living increases in
salaries and benefits while support services and other related expenses
remain at their fiscal year 2002 program levels.
nnsa organization standup
At the beginning of this testimony, I noted that the NNSA
organizational objectives are to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
We approached the NNSA organization standup by implementing a two-phase
plan. The first phase, essentially complete, focused on creating an
integrated Headquarters organization, and defining the structural
relationship between the Federal elements at Headquarters and the field
locations. The second phase focuses on realigning our field structure
and improving efficiencies through eliminating overlaps in
responsibilities within the Federal structure and reducing unnecessary
administrative burdens placed on those performing the mission.
Last month, I submitted NNSA's ``Report to Congress on the
Organization and Operations of the NNSA'' describing our
accomplishments to date, our plan for assigning roles and
responsibilities to and between Headquarters and field organizational
units, and our strategy for operating an integrated national security
enterprise. Much was accomplished in the past year. The NNSA:
--Developed the first NNSA Strategic Plan as a framework for all
programs and the new organization.
--Implemented a new organizational structure that consolidates
Headquarters support functions allowing mission programs to
focus more intensively on achieving results.
--Installed the NNSA leadership team responsible for mission
performance and driving organizational improvement.
--Began integrating NNSA decision making through a new Management
Council. Adopted the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
Evaluation (PPBE) system as NNSA's core business model in order
to restore financial credibility and discipline to our
financial processes.
--Further defined NNSA's relationship as a ``separately organized
agency'' within the Department of Energy through streamlining
external oversight of environment, safety, health, and
security, and established an independent federal human resource
capability.
--Resolved the key organizational issues left unanswered by the May
2001 report.
--Refined NNSA's strategy for achieving an effective and efficient
organization.
The recently released report summarizes our first-ever NNSA
Strategic Plan, provides a detailed plan for assigning roles and
responsibilities between Headquarters and field elements, and discusses
our objectives in fiscal year 2002 and beyond. We plan to eliminate a
layer of management and oversight over the nuclear weapons complex by
removing the Operations Offices from the NNSA chain of command and
converting these offices to service centers providing support services
such as procurement and human resources. Each of the eight NNSA
contractors will report to eight site offices which will in turn report
to the Administrator. This locates NNSA support, decision making and
oversight close to the contractor, consolidates service functions, and
allows staff reductions downstream.
Contract and project management will rest with each NNSA site
office. Integration of weapons production activities will be performed
in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Headquarters staff will continue to be
responsible for program planning, budgeting, policy development, and
management of weapons research and development and nonproliferation
activities.
NNSA will launch a systematic re-engineering campaign to reduce the
number of separate offices and layers of Federal management, reduce the
overall number of Federal employees, and correct skills mismatches.
Federal staff not performing core functions will be redeployed and
retrained as necessary. We intend to use incentives to encourage
higher-than-average attrition, career development, and retention of
highly skilled employees to right size and reinvigorate our staff.
We will need your support in funding the Office of the
Administrator Program Direction request of $348 million to implement
the re-engineering campaign. Successful re-engineering cannot be
accomplished without adequate resources to retain highly skilled
employees, retrain employees with skills mismatches, recruit the right
technical skills, and to cover the significant costs associated with
separation incentives.
NNSA has instituted an Administrative Workload Reduction Initiative
using comprehensive input from the laboratories and plants, with task
forces identifying specific improvement and reducing administrative
burdens. As a result, NNSA contractors will be given clearer and more
consistent expectations. They will also continue to comply with all
environment, safety and health and security policies.
When these changes are fully implemented, we will realize the goals
set by Congress in establishing the NNSA. By clearly defining roles and
responsibilities, we will increase accountability and reduce
duplication. By reducing administrative burdens on the NNSA
contractors, we will operate more efficiently and hold the contractors
accountable for delivering on our expectations.
conclusion
This concludes my written testimony on the policy framework and
issues that shaped the formulation of the unified NNSA budget request
for fiscal year 2003. The specific program activities are discussed in
great detail in that request. Now, I will be pleased to answer your
questions.
Senator Reid. Senator Domenici, would you like to give your
statement now?
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN
Senator Domenici. Let's proceed. I will give it in a little
while.
Admiral Bowman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. And let me also thank you and the committee
for the faith that you have placed in this program and for
protecting the core values that have been the hallmark of the
Naval Reactors Program's success for more than 50 years.
Through your efforts, our nuclear fleet remains deployed
around the world, fully engaged in the war on terrorism. Our
ongoing campaign against terrorism underlines the importance,
as General Gordon was saying, of nuclear-powered ships.
Aircraft from the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers U.S.S.
Enterprise and U.S.S. Carl Vinson, and Tomahawk missiles
launched from submarines and surface ships, carried out the
initial attacks on targets in Afghanistan without any of the
restrictions faced by most of our land-based forces. Our
nuclear fleet again demonstrated the capability to operate
freely, wherever needed, to protect our Nation's interests.
Many of the impressive capabilities these ships and
submarines possess were developed with funding supported by and
provided by this subcommittee. Although new development is
important, my number one priority is ensuring that the officers
and sailors out there defending our Nation's interests are
operating safe and effective nuclear propulsion plants. In
fact, this is where most of my funding supports.
The average age of these ships today is 16.5 years, but
this average will exceed 22 years by the end of the decade
because so few ships are being added. As these ships age, they
place a greater and greater demand on Naval Reactors' DOE
budgets.
Also with the funding provided by this subcommittee, we are
designing better, more cost-effective nuclear propulsion plants
for the future. The Navy's new Virginia-class attack submarine,
when delivered, will provide needed capability for the 21st
century at an affordable price.
The nuclear propulsion plant design of the new CVNX
aircraft carrier is well underway. The CVNX reactor plant will
provide 25 percent more energy than the Nimitz-class ships and
substantially more electric-generating capacity than the
reactors and electric plant used in those Nimitz-class ships
today.
To meet the increasing demands on our submarine fleet, I
have started conceptual work on a Transformational Technology
Core to deliver a significant energy increase to future
Virginia-class ships with minimum impact to the overall ship
design.
To accomplish all this work, the fiscal year 2003 budget
request, as General Gordon said, is $708 million, an increase
of $5 million (after inflation) from fiscal year 2002 to 2003.
To put the budget request in perspective, it is less than 4
percent of the total DOE budget. From the early 1990s to 2000,
Naval Reactors' budget actually declined 32 percent in real
terms and has remained fairly steady for the last 3 years.
Naval Reactors' fiscal year 2003 budget request is adequate
to meet Program requirements for now. To live within our means,
over the past several years, Naval Reactors has eliminated
infrastructure, consolidated functions and facilities, revised
work practices to become more efficient, and downsized the
nuclear industrial base.
Simply put, we have cut out the fat, but we are now cutting
into the muscle of the organization.
I am reviewing future resource requirements to determine
what will be necessary to deliver technology that the Fleet
will need in the decades ahead.
Our husbanding of the taxpayers' dollars provided by this
subcommittee has been positively recognized in two very recent
reports.
The GAO just reported: ``The Office of Naval Reactors has
long been recognized as having a focused mission, strong
leadership, clear lines of authority, long-serving employees,
and a strong set of internal controls, as well as a culture
that enhances accountability and good controls over its costs
and contractor performance.''
In forwarding the Naval Reactors fiscal year 2003 budget
request to you, OMB noted: ``Outputs are identifiable and make
key contributions to national security; delivery schedules are
consistently met; contracts have positive and negative
incentives and include performance requirements.''
Let me briefly discuss the most important issue I see with
our submarine fleet today. It is simply that we do not have
enough of them.
Today we have only 54 operational SSNs, or fast-attack
submarines, not enough to meet all of our unified commanders'
and national intelligence community's highest operational and
collection requirements.
We have done a great deal to stretch existing assets within
existing budgets and overall defense priorities. We are
refueling the first generation of the Los Angeles-class
submarines and extending those submarines from 30 to 33 years
of life. We are also forward-basing three submarines in Guam to
maximize their effectiveness by putting them closer to the
action. The only long-term solution, however, to meeting force
level requirements is to build more submarines. This must be
part of future budget deliberations within the Department of
Defense.
The practice of buying submarines one at a time will not
achieve the submarine numbers we need for the future, nor is it
a cost-effective way to buy anything, especially submarines.
Multi-year procurements of more than one ship per year would
provide significant savings compared to one per year (the way
we are doing it now). Innovative contracting approaches should
be encouraged in this period of tight resources for ship
construction.
As my very good friend Admiral Bob Natter, our Atlantic
Fleet Commander, says: ``You know, we can fight them over here
or we can fight them over there, and I prefer to fight them
over there.''
Well, I do, too. Everybody knows and agrees that submarines
will be an absolutely necessary part of fighting them over
there.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently said:
``We must exploit our military strengths as the war on
terrorism continues. These strengths are intelligence,
precision strike, and the ability to operate underwater.''
Well, that sounds just like submarines to me. And I think
we need to get going on this build program.
The unique capabilities inherent in nuclear power have
played a vital role over the past 50 years in our Nation's
defense. This legacy is as strong and vibrant today as it has
ever been. Because of your strong support, this program has
been able to establish and maintain an unparalleled record of
excellence in meeting the threats to our Nation with speed and
resolve.
I thank you for that support and ask only that your support
continues on into the future.
Naval Reactors' record is strong. Our work, I believe, is
important. And the funding needs are modest.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will submit for the
record a written statement that contains more detail on the
Naval Reactors' DOE budget and also the program's annual
environmental, occupational radiation exposure, and
occupational safety and health reports.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Frank L. Bowman
Thank you for inviting me to testify on Naval Reactors' fiscal year
2003 Department of Energy budget request.
Let me also thank you for the faith you continue to place in my
Program and for protecting the core values that have been the hallmark
of the Program's success for more than 50 years. Through your diligent
efforts and support, our nuclear fleet remains deployed around the
world, fully engaged in the war on terrorism.
We all recognize that the threats our country faces today are as
great as anytime in the past. We also know these threats are not
limited to hostile nations with fixed borders but can come from
organizations with no fixed borders, operating under a veil of secrecy
and outside the international community.
Our ongoing campaign against terrorism underlines the importance of
nuclear-powered ships in defending our national interests and in
responding to aggression against the United States. As our Nation was
being attacked on September 11, USS ENTERPRISE was headed home, by way
of a planned port visit. Upon seeing the attack on our country on CNN
at sea, the captain ordered the rudder hard over and USS ENTERPRISE
reversed course and prepared for action as the first aircraft carrier
in position to respond to the attack. Also, a nuclear-powered submarine
was within striking distance to attack targets in Afghanistan on
September 11.
When the President did order our military forces into action,
aircraft from the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, ENTERPRISE and
CARL VINSON, along with Tomahawk missiles launched from submarines and
surface ships, carried out the initial attacks on targets in
Afghanistan without any of the restrictions imposed on most land-based
aircraft. Our nuclear fleet again demonstrated its capability to
operate freely over much of the globe within striking range of the
majority of targets.
It is more than a commercial--our aircraft carriers are 4\1/2\
acres of sovereign U.S. territory from which we can conduct sustained
combat operations quickly and without having to negotiate staging
rights on foreign soil. Nuclear power enhances these warships'
capability and flexibility to sprint where needed and arrive ready for
around the clock power projection and combat operations. Sustained
high-speed capability (without dependence on a slow logistics train)
enables rapid response to changing world circumstances, allowing
operational commanders to surge these ships from the United States to
trouble spots or to shift them from one crisis area to another. Nuclear
propulsion helps the Navy stretch available assets to meet today's
worldwide commitments.
Our 54 operational nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) in the Navy's
inventory possess inherent characteristics such as stealth, endurance,
mobility, firepower, and multimission flexibility. These
characteristics allow submarines unfettered access to contested
battlespace 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for as long as required.
Once there, submarines can covertly monitor adversaries without risk of
political or military escalation--a particularly valuable capability
since adversaries understand and can sometimes avoid reconnaissance.
Should tensions escalate, submarines can also execute Tomahawk strikes
from undisclosed locations without warning, often from inside an
adversary's defensive umbrella.
The Nation's 18 strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
continue to form the bedrock of the country's strategic deterrence.
These submarines carry the majority of our nuclear triad's warheads and
are the most survivable units in this force, at the least cost.
Many of the impressive capabilities these ships possess were
developed with funding that was supported by this subcommittee.
While new development is important, the number-one priority is
ensuring the officers and Sailors that are out there defending our
Nation's interests are operating safe, effective nuclear propulsion
plants. This is where most of Naval Reactors' funding goes. Today, the
Naval Reactors Program supports 102 reactors in 54 operational attack
submarines, 18 ballistic missile submarines, 9 nuclear-powered aircraft
carriers, 4 training and prototype platforms, a deep submergence
vehicle, and 1 attack submarine undergoing inactivation.
The average age of these ships today is 16 years, but this average
will exceed 22 years by the end of the decade because so few new ships
are being added to the Fleet. As these ships age, they place a greater
and greater demand on Naval Reactors' DOE budgets.
Also, with the funding provided by this subcommittee, we are
designing better, more cost-effective nuclear propulsion plants for the
future. When the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarine is
delivered, it will provide needed capability for the 21st century at an
affordable price. The reactor plant design uses advanced component and
systems technology--including the first core designed from the start to
operate throughout the life of the ship. The VIRGINIA-class also has a
simplified plant arrangement with fewer components compared to previous
designs, which reduces construction costs and will reduce future
maintenance costs.
The nuclear propulsion plant design of the new CVNX-class aircraft
carrier is well underway. The CVNX reactor plant will provide 25
percent more energy than NIMITZ-class ships and substantially more
electric generating capacity than the reactors and electric plant used
in NIMITZ-class ships. The extra energy will support higher operational
tempos and future electrical load growth in the CVNX-class or longer
life. We are designing and developing the CVNX nuclear propulsion plant
without an increase in our DOE budget.
To meet the increasing demands on our submarine fleet, Naval
Reactors is working on a Transformational Technology Core (TTC) to
deliver a significant energy increase to future VIRGINIA-class ships
with minimum impact to the overall ship design. New transformational
capabilities will soon be coming to the nuclear-powered submarine fleet
through the conversion of four Trident submarines into SSGNs. With
these ships, the Navy will be able to give theater CINCs an
extraordinary strike/Special Operating Forces capability with a
flexible, survivable platform that simultaneously relieves the
operational strain on our naval forces. Surface ships and attack
submarines now carrying Tomahawks can be freed up for other missions--a
force multiplier. To this end, we are on course for a UUV and Tomahawk
demonstration in December 2002 on an OHIO-class submarine.
nuclear fleet issue
Let me briefly discuss the most important issue I see with our
submarine fleet today--put simply, we do not have enough of them:
--Today, we have only 54 operational SSNs--not enough to meet all of
the Unified CINCs' and the national intelligence community's
highest operational and collection requirements as identified
in the 1999 Joint Staff SSN report on force level.
--Fleet operational data and Joint CINC demands clearly show the
mismatch between current force structure and requirements. With
force structure decreasing over the past several years,
submarine operational commanders have had to reduce the number
of deployed ships. And in spite of the fact that fewer SSNs
have been available to deploy, the demand for submarines
continues to increase, especially since September 11.
--The Navy is doing what it can to stretch existing assets to meet
requirements within today's budget and overall priorities. For
example:
--We are refueling the first generation of the LOS ANGELES-class
submarines and extending these submarines from 30 to 33
years. However, pushing the hull life comes at a cost. Life
extension exacerbates the ``aging Fleet'' problem. As the
Fleet ages, more resources are required for support, and we
have our young submariners out there with outdated
technology.
--Additionally, to improve the operational effectiveness of the
submarine fleet, we have taken steps to forward-base three
submarines in Guam to maximize their effectiveness by
putting them closer to the action.
--To meet just the highest priority requirements being placed on
the submarine fleet, we should refuel all remaining LOS
ANGELES-class submarines. Two are currently scheduled for
inactivation. While this is the right near-term decision to
stem the bleeding for submarine force restructure,
refueling LOS ANGELES-class submarines does not solve the
longer-term problem with submarine force structure. Next
decade, we will decommission three or four LOS ANGELES-
class submarines per year as the boats built in the 1980s
reach end of service life.
The only long-term solution to meeting force level requirements is
to build more submarines. As we consider future budgets, we must
include increasing the VIRGINIA-class submarine build rate to meet the
Nation's long-term force level requirement for attack submarines. The
force level issue is ultimately a resource question. The practice of
buying submarines one at a time will not achieve the submarine numbers
we need for the future and is not a cost-effective way to buy anything,
including submarines. Multi-year procurements of more than one ship per
year would provide significant savings compared to one per year.
Coupled with leverage from buying material in Economic Ordering
Quantities, real savings can be achieved. Innovative contracting
approaches should be encouraged in this period of tight resources for
ship construction.
As my good friend, Admiral Bob Natter, our Atlantic Fleet
Commander, says, ``We can fight em here or we can fight em over there.
I prefer to fight them over there.'' Well, me too. Everyone knows and
agrees submarines will be an absolutely necessary part of fighting them
over there. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently said we
must exploit our military strengths as the war on terrorism continues.
These strengths, he said, are intelligence, precision strike, and the
ability to operate underwater. Well, that sounds just like submarines
to me. We need to get going.
fiscal year 2003 department of energy budget request
Naval Reactors' fiscal year 2003 DOE budget request is $708M, an
increase of only $5M after inflation from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal
year 2003. To put my budget request in perspective, it is less than 4
percent of the DOE budget. From the early 1990s to 2000, Naval
Reactors' budget has declined 32 percent in real terms, and has
remained fairly steady for the last 3 years.
Naval Reactors supports the 81 nuclear-powered warships that make
up over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants. This responsibility
includes ensuring safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in
these ships, enhancing the reactor plants' performance, as well as
developing improved reactor plants to support the Navy's needs for the
future.
Sustaining today's 102 operating reactors requires continual
analysis, testing, and monitoring of plant and core performance.
Nuclear propulsion is a demanding technology--the harsh environment
within a reactor plant subjects equipment and materials to the harmful
effects of irradiation, corrosion, high temperature, and high pressure
over a lifetime measured in decades. In addition, naval reactor plants
must be rugged enough to accommodate ships' pitching and rolling; have
the resilience to respond to rapidly changing demands for power; be
robust enough to withstand the rigors of battle and shock; and be safe
and easily maintainable by the Sailors who must live next to them.
Naval Reactors' DOE laboratories have made significant advancements
in components, materials, core lives, and predictive capabilities.
These advancements allowed the Navy to extend the service life and
intervals between major maintenance periods for nuclear-powered
warships and to reduce ship off-line time for maintenance. Increasing
ship availability also increases the Navy's warfighting capability,
while reducing maintenance costs. Added ship availability is
particularly important in the face of Fleet downsizing, because the
operational demands on each remaining ship continue to increase. In the
same vein, some development effort is devoted to ensuring Naval
Reactors can meet the Navy's need to extend warship lifetime. Longer
ship lifetimes are achievable because we are able to extend reactor
plant lifetime. But longer lifetimes require more resources to support
an older fleet.
We are able to extend the lifetime of existing reactor plants
because of the robust designs that resulted from solid engineering and
design work done upfront. After significant additional engineering
work, we determined that those reactor plants will be able to stay in
service longer than we had originally intended. The engineering work to
support those ships in their extended lives will continue during that
period of life extension. For new reactor core and reactor plant
designs, we are using the experience of the past 50+ years to
incorporate improvements into both design and construction. It is
imperative that we continue to deliver robust designs. It is equally
important that we do the necessary engineering work now to ensure that
those reactor plants are able to meet the needs of national defense
now, and for the next several decades.
New plant development work at the Program's DOE laboratories is
focused on completing the design of the next-generation submarine
reactor for the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarines and on
continuing the design for a new reactor plant for the Navy's new CVNX-
class aircraft carriers.
The design of the reactor plant for the VIRGINIA-class submarine is
nearly complete. Today, 100 percent of reactor plant components have
been delivered--all on schedule to support ship construction, and
within budget. The pre-reactor-fill testing and initial reactor fill
for the lead ship have been completed. Reactor plant construction is
over 98 percent complete, and overall lead ship construction is over 70
percent complete and on schedule. VIRGINIA is expected to go to sea in
fiscal year 2004 and will provide needed capability for the Navy at an
affordable price.
CVNX is the first new carrier designed since the 1960's NIMITZ-
class. The CVNX reactor plant will build on three generations of
nuclear propulsion technology developed for submarines since NIMITZ.
This plant will incorporate needed advancements in warfighting
capabilities and significantly reduce lifecycle costs.
Reactor plant design work is on schedule to support the long design
and manufacturing lead-times of reactor plant components needed for the
CVNX ship construction schedule. Current design efforts include general
arrangement design, system description and diagram development, and
component design (such as final sizing and system interface
evaluations). Long-lead reactor plant forging procurements began in
fiscal year 2001, and the first reactor core procurements will begin in
fiscal year 2003. Necessary system descriptions and general
arrangements required for later design activities have been
established.
Major inactivation work on shutdown prototype reactors is nearly
finished. The last of the prototype reactor plants at the Naval
Reactors Facility in Idaho was defueled in fiscal year 1999.
Inactivation and cleanup work at the Windsor site in Connecticut is
complete, and regulatory approval for unrestricted release has been
requested. The two shutdown prototype reactors at the Kesselring site
in New York have been inactivated and defueled, and major dismantlement
work will be completed in fiscal year 2002.
program budget requirements
Naval Reactors' fiscal year 2003 DOE budget request of $708M is
adequate to meet Program requirements for now. To live within our means
over the past several years, Naval Reactors has eliminated
infrastructure, consolidated functions and facilities, revised work
practices to become more efficient, and downsized the nuclear
industrial base. To support higher priority efforts--fleet support,
CVNX- and VIRGINIA-class reactor plant designs, spent fuel processing,
and prototype inactivation work--I have deferred important work, such
as advanced reactor technology work and technology development for a
submarine with electric drive, dismantlement and clean up of shutdown
facilities and laboratory facility upgrades. It is not healthy to defer
advanced concept development for a long period. This is the seed corn
to meet future requirements and to ensure that we maintain our
preeminent position in naval power. In addition, my laboratory
facilities are approaching or exceeding the 50-year point and need
upgrading and refurbishment. Also, we are beginning development of a
new, high-energy core to meet Fleet demands in the future. I am
reviewing future resource requirements to determine what will be
necessary to deliver technology the Fleet will need in decades ahead.
naval reactors fiscal year 2003 department of energy budget detail
Naval Reactors' technical budget request is categorized into four
areas of technology: Reactor Technology and Analysis, Plant Technology,
Materials Development and Verification, and Evaluation and Servicing.
This approach supports the integrated and generic nature of our DOE
research and development work. The results of Naval Reactors DOE-funded
research, development, and design work in the following technology
areas will be incorporated into future ships, and retrofitted into
existing ships.
The $228.6M requested for Reactor Technology and Analysis will fund
continued work on the next generation reactor for the VIRGINIA-class
submarine and development work on the new reactor for CVNX-class
aircraft carriers, and will ensure the safe and reliable operation of
existing reactors. The reduction in operating plant maintenance periods
places greater requirements on thermal-hydraulics, structural
mechanics, fluid mechanics, and vibration analysis work to accurately
predict reactor performance and to identify and avoid problems. Also,
the continued push for longer life cores means we will continue to
operate reactors beyond our operational experience base for many years
to come. Developing improved analysis tools and a better understanding
of nuclear data will allow us to predict performance more accurately
throughout extended core life. Other efforts in this area include
improving and streamlining core manufacturing processes to reduce cost
and hazardous waste, performing reactor safety analyses, developing
components and systems to support the Navy's acoustic requirements, and
developing improved shield designs to reduce costs while preserving our
record of excellence in radiological and environmental control. In
addition, Naval Reactors is beginning concept studies on a new high-
energy core, the transformational technology core (TTC), to support
increased Fleet operation requirements.
The $112.1M requested for Plant Technology provides funding to
develop and analyze those systems that transfer, convert, control, and
measure reactor power to maximize plant performance. The request
reflects the goal of enhancing steam generator performance, which will
benefit CVNX steam generators--the largest components developed to date
by Naval Reactors. Development of technologies in the areas of
chemistry, energy conversion, instrumentation and control, plant
arrangement, and component development will continue to improve
performance and support operational requirements. Naval Reactors is
also developing components to address known limitations or to improve
reliability of instrumentation and power distribution equipment to
replace older, technologically obsolete equipment that is increasingly
difficult to support.
The $136.2M requested for Materials Development and Verification
will fund essential material analysis and testing as ships are kept in
service longer than originally intended as well as part of Naval
Reactors' share of the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). Reactor core and
reactor plant materials will have to perform safely and reliably for a
longer time. Work on the core and core structural materials includes
testing and analysis of fuel, poison, and cladding materials to verify
acceptable performance, as well as developing materials with improved
corrosion resistance. Testing and development of reactor plant
materials also ensures reliable performance and leads to improvements
such as reduced cracking and stress.
The $144.4M request for Evaluation and Servicing sustains the
operation, maintenance, and servicing of land-based test reactor plants
and part of Naval Reactors' share of the ATR, a specialized materials
testing facility operated by the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science,
and Technology. Materials, components, cores, and systems in these
plants provide important technical data and experience under actual
operating conditions, thus allowing potential problems to be identified
and addressed before they occur in the operating Fleet. With proper
maintenance, upgrades and servicing, the two operating test reactor
plants and the ATR will continue to meet testing needs for quite some
time.
Evaluation and Servicing funds also support initiation of a dry
spent fuel storage process line that will allow for placement into dry
storage at Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) of naval spent nuclear fuel
currently stored at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center
(INTEC). Additionally, these funds support ongoing cleanup of
facilities at all Naval Reactors sites to reduce hazards to personnel,
and reduce potential liabilities due to aging facilities, changing
conditions, or accidental releases.
program infrastructure and administrative requirements
In addition to the budget request for the important technical work
discussed above, infrastructure and administrative funding is also
required for continued operation of the Program. Specifically, the
fiscal year 2003 budget request includes:
--Facility Operations.--$50.0M in funding is to maintain and
modernize the Program's facilities, including the Bettis and
Knolls laboratories and the Expended Core Facility (ECF).
--Construction.--$11.3M in funding is to refurbish and replace
Program facilities. This includes the continuation of the ECF
Dry Cell project in Idaho, which will significantly improve
Naval Reactors' ability to process naval spent fuel for dry
storage. (As identified and agreed to in a Settlement Agreement
signed by the Department of Energy, the Navy, and the State of
Idaho, Naval Reactors fuel must be among the early shipments of
spent fuel to the first permanent repository or interim storage
facility.) The requested funding also enables the continuation
of the Major Office Replacement Building project.
--Program Direction.--$25.4M in funding is to cover Naval Reactors'
191 DOE personnel at Headquarters and the Program's field
offices, including salaries, benefits, travel, and other
expenses. This staff maintains oversight of the Program's
extensive day-to-day technical and administrative operations,
while continuing to ensure compliance with growing
environmental, safety, and other regulatory requirements, all
of which, notwithstanding our excellent record, necessitate
substantial effort.
performance measurements, goals, and accomplishments
My Program has a long history of operating with the highest levels
of integrity and operational accountability. Our husbanding of taxpayer
dollars provided by this subcommittee has been positively recognized in
two very recent reports. In forwarding my fiscal year 2003 budget
request to you, The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated Naval
Reactors as ``Effective''--the highest adjectival rating on OMB's scale
and noted: ``Outputs are identifiable and make key contributions to
national security. Delivery schedules are consistently met. Contracts
have positive and negative incentives, and include performance
requirements.''
Furthermore, in a report dated December 12, 2001, the General
Accounting Office recognized Naval Reactors' strong performance within
DOE and NNSA. The report stated: ``The Office of Naval Reactors, which
is a part of NNSA, has long been recognized as having a focused
mission, strong leadership, clear lines of authority, long-serving
employees, and a strong set of internal controls, as well as a culture
that enhances accountability and good control over its costs and
contractor performance.'' The Naval Reactors Program has always been
dedicated to continual improvement. We use semiannual reviews of short-
and long-range plans to rebaseline work and revisit Program priorities.
Monthly financial reports from contractors are used to compare actual
performance against short- and long-range plans. Additionally, Naval
Reactors headquarters maintains close oversight of its Management and
Operating contractors through periodic reviews, formal audits, and
performance appraisals.
For fiscal year 2001, my Program met or exceeded all three major
performance targets. We ensured the safety, performance, reliability,
and service life of operating reactors for uninterrupted support of the
Fleet. We exceeded 90 percent utilization availability for test reactor
plants, and by the end of fiscal year 2001, U.S. nuclear-powered ships
had safely steamed over 122 million miles. Naval Reactors developed new
technologies, methods, and materials to support reactor plant design,
which included surpassing the fiscal year 2001 goal of 93 percent
design completion of the next generation submarine reactor. We
initiated detailed design on the reactor plant for the next generation
aircraft carrier, which is on schedule to meet the planned ship
construction start. Additionally, Naval Reactors maintained its
outstanding environmental performance--no personnel exceeded Federal
limits for radiation exposure, and no significant findings resulted
from environmental inspections by State and Federal regulators.
conclusion
The ongoing support of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, is one of the most
important factors in our success story. The Subcommittee has recognized
the requirements and demands the Program confronts daily: a growing
need for power projection and forward presence far from home, which
strains our dwindling number of nuclear ships; an aging nuclear fleet;
and the funding required to meet these commitments today and in the
future.
The unique capabilities inherent in nuclear power have played a
vital role over the past 50 years in our Nations' defense. This legacy
is as strong and vibrant today as it ever has been. Actions in the
Persian Gulf, peacekeeping actions in Eastern Europe, and, most
recently, the war against terrorism have demonstrated the value of
nuclear power. With your continued support, this legacy will continue
far into the future as the Nation meets each new threat with strength
and resolve. Naval Reactors' record is strong, the work is important,
and the funding needs modest.
I thank you for your support.
Senator Reid. Dr. Beckner?
STATEMENT OF DR. EVERET BECKNER
Dr. Beckner. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Subcommittee.
I am pleased to be here today as the first Senate-
confirmed, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs.
The support of this committee is very gratifying for the
thousands of men and women across the country who have
dedicated their professional lives to making the Stockpile
Stewardship Program a success.
As I said in my confirmation hearing, I believe in systems
analysis, and using the best information available to find the
right solutions, not by intuition or accommodation, but by
hardheaded analysis. And that is what we are doing with all the
elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
We are investing the resources that the Congress provides
in the tools, and experimental capabilities that we must have
to deliver on our commitments to our customer, the Department
of Defense and the citizens of the United States, to ensure the
long-term success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
This morning I will talk about several Stewardship Programs
that are of particular interest to the committee, and ones that
I focus on regularly.
First and most important are the Life Extension programs
for the W87, the W76, the W80, and B61, all coming up in the
fairly near future. Second, I will spend some time with the W88
pit manufacturing and certification activities at Los Alamos
and our planning for the Modern Pit Facility. Third, the Nevada
Test Site and its continuing role in meeting national security
requirements. Fourth, the National Ignition Facility under
construction at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. And
finally, the Commercial Light Water Reactor program and the
production of new tritium to support the stockpile.
First, let's talk about getting work done. The men and
women of the Stockpile Stewardship Program continue to meet
their formidable day-to-day challenges with ingenuity and
innovation, both in the way we do science and in the way we
organize the work we do. Without the critical work of our
stockpile stewards at the labs, plants, and in the Federal
structure, we could not perform our mission. Our people remain
our number one resource, and that must be carefully attended
now and into the future.
To that end, the NNSA must, and is working to improve the
infrastructure across the complex. This committee has heard and
seen first hand some of the antiquated working conditions we
ask our people to work in. The funds available this year and
the $242 million in the President's budget this year for the
Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) initiative will continue
and make additional progress in correcting this problem. We
believe this will have a direct impact on worker morale and
productivity.
On the life-extension program, as Members of this Committee
are well-aware, the NNSA labs and plants have a validated
requirement from the Nuclear Weapon Council to extend the
service life of the W87, the W76, the W80, and the B61. This
requirement was, if you recall, revalidated by the recently
completed Nuclear Posture Review, which lays out the direction
for this Nation's nuclear forces for the next five to 10 years.
Life-extension work involves all elements of the weapons
complex. For the last several years, we have been extending the
life of the W87 warhead for the Air Force. This work is ongoing
at Y-12, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and at Pantex. We are more
than halfway through this effort and expect to wrap it up early
in 2004.
Life-extension for the W76 involves comprehensive overhaul
of the warhead, including replacement of the arming, fusing,
firing set; high explosives; gas transfer system;
refurbishments. We will also be requalifying the weapon
primary. For the W80, we will be replacing the trajectory
sensing signal and the neutron generators, the tritium bottles,
and the incorporating safety upgrades. For the B61, we will be
refurbishing the secondary.
These life-extension programs will ensure that these
weapons remain safe, secure, and reliable for an additional 30
years, once the work is complete.
On the W88 pit manufacturing and certification program,
over the last several years, NNSA has been implementing a pit
manufacturing certification program to restore the capability
of the United States to manufacture and certify this critical
component without nuclear testing. This project is a pivotal
challenge to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. I am pleased
with the high level of management attention the program
receives at Los Alamos, and the progress made in meeting this
important national security objective.
We remain on track to deliver a certifiable pit in fiscal
year 2003 and a certified pit in fiscal year 2007.
On the Modern Pit Facility, while the Los Alamos, TA-55,
for making the W88 pits is adequate for the task at hand, it
lacks the capacity and flexibility to manufacture pits in
sufficient quantity to support the entire stockpile, so the
NNSA is working on a longer term solution. We have a project
team in place that has undertaken the required preconceptual
planning work. During this phase, we will be carefully
examining a number of issues, including technology development,
to ensure the facility will meet both current and future
requirements to fabricate replacement pits for the current
nuclear stockpile, or pits for new designs, if required. Our
next decision point for the Modern Pit Facility will be later
this spring, at which time we will decide on proceeding to
conceptual design.
On enhanced test readiness, as Members of this Committee
are well-aware, the NNSA is maintaining a capability to conduct
an underground nuclear test within 24 to 36 months, based on
existing presidential direction. The Nuclear Posture Review,
however, raised several concerns about our test readiness
posture, which we are addressing in a study to be completed
later this spring. DoD and NNSA will work together to refine
nuclear test scenarios and evaluate cost-benefit tradeoffs in
order to determine, implement, and sustain the optimum test
readiness time to support the policies of the Nuclear Posture
Review.
The President's fiscal year 2003 budget has requested an
additional $15 million to implement the results of the
aforementioned study, once the administration determines the
best path forward.
Senator Domenici. Did you say $15 million?
Dr. Beckner. Yes, $15 million. The Nevada Test Site is a
unique and critical component, not only for the Stewardship
program but other national security activities as well. The
subcritical experiments conducted at U1A, which General Gordon
mentioned earlier, continue to provide our scientists and
engineers vital data. Our most recent experiment, code-named
Veto, was successfully carried out on February 14.
The National Ignition Facility is one of the most important
science and engineering programs we have in the Stockpile
Stewardship program. I know this committee has been a strong
supporter of the project, and we are grateful for that support.
In 2002, the NIF team at Lawrence Livermore is continuing to
make steady progress against its milestones. We have recently
reported to the committee and others that several important
milestones were met on or ahead of schedule, including
completion of conventional construction. The program remains on
track to begin stewardship experiments in 2004 with eight
beams. And by the time all 192 laser beams are brought up in
2008, we will have conducted some 1,500 stewardship
experiments.
On tritium, we are continuing to make progress in
establishing the new source of tritium. We have in place a
multi-year contract with the TVA to provide irradiation
services. We expect the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will
grant license amendments to the TVA reactors--Watts Barr and
Sequoyah--that will be used for tritium production. Commercial
vendors across the country are manufacturing parts for the
tritium-producing rods that will go into the reactors in early
fiscal year 2004.
NTS's capabilities are broader than just stewardship. NTS
has a critical role in helping the Nation deal with the new
security challenges in the aftermath of September 11. Locating
the National Center for Combatting Terrorism (NCCT) at the NTS
with its infrastructure, facilities and resources assures that
we ultimately prevail. Governor Ridge and the FEMA director,
Joe Allbaugh, have been at the NTS, and I know were deeply
impressed with the resources that can help train personnel and
test technologies needed to win the war on terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I know that Congress wants less bureaucracy
and more output from this program, with fewer problems along
the way. I know you want program output which enhances
security, which maintains and enhances the safety and
reliability and performance of the nuclear stockpile, and which
bolsters U.S. leadership in science and technology.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I am convinced that the management reforms that the NNSA is
implementing will address your first concern. I am also
convinced that the Stewardship program is today ensuring that
America's nuclear deterrent is safe, secure, and reliable. And
of equal importance, the science and engineering campaigns of
stewardship are advancing the frontiers of science and
technology to help the country meet the economic and security
challenges of this new millennium. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Everet Beckner
introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am
pleased to be here today as the first Senate confirmed Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs. The support of this committee is
very gratifying for the thousands of men and women across this country
who have dedicated their professional lives to making the Stockpile
Stewardship Program a success.
As I said in my confirmation hearing, I believe in systems
analysis, in using the best information available to find the right
solutions, not by intuition or accommodation, but by hard headed
analysis and that's what we are doing with all the elements of the
Stewardship Program. We are investing the resources that the Congress
provides, in the tools and experimental capabilities that we MUST have
to deliver on our commitments to our customer, the Department of
Defense, and the citizens of the United States, to ensure the long term
success of the Stewardship program.
This morning I will talk about several Stewardship programs that
are of particular interest to this committee, and ones that I focus on
regularly. First, and most important are the life extension programs
for the W87, W76, W80, and B61. Second, W88 Pit manufacturing and
certification at Los Alamos and our planning for a Modern Pit Facility.
Third, the Nevada Test Site and its continuing role in meeting national
security requirements. Fourth, the National Ignition Facility under
construction at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. And
finally, the Commercial Light Water Reactor program and the production
of new tritium to support the stockpile.
First, lets talk about getting work done. The men and women of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program continue to meet their formidable, day-
to-day challenges with ingenuity and innovation both in the way we do
science and in the way we organize the work we do. Without the critical
work of our ``stockpile stewards'' at the labs, plants and in the
federal structure--we could not perform our mission. Our people remain
our Number One resource that must be carefully attended now and into
the future. To that end the NNSA must, and is, working to improve the
infrastructure across the Complex. This committee has heard and seen
first hand some of the antiquated working conditions we ask our people
to work in. The $242 M in the President's budget this year for the F&I
initiative will begin to correct this problem. This will have a direct
impact on worker morale and productivity.
life extensions
As members of this committee are well aware, the NNSA labs and
plants have a validated requirement from the Nuclear Weapons Council to
extend the service life of the W87, the W76, W80, and B61. This
requirement was, if you will, revalidated by the recently completed
Nuclear Posture Review, which lays out the direction for this Nation's
nuclear forces for the next 5 to 10 years.
Life extension work involves all elements of the weapons complex.
For the last several years, we have been extending the life of the
W-87 warhead for the Air Force. This work is ongoing at Y-12, Lawrence
Livermore, Sandia and Pantex. We are more than half way through this
effort and expect to wrap up the work by early 2004.
Life extension for the W76 involves a comprehensive overhaul of the
warhead, including replacement of the Arming, Firing and Fuzing set,
high explosives, and gas transfer system and refurbishment of the
secondary. We will also be requalifying the weapon primary. For the
W80, we will be replacing the Trajectory Sensing Signal and Neutron
Generators, the tritium bottles and incorporating surety upgrades. For
the B61 we will be refurbishing the secondary.
These life extension programs will ensure that these weapons will
remain, safe, secure and reliable components of the U.S. nuclear
deterrent for an additional 30 years once the work is complete.
w-88 pit manufacturing/certification
Over the last several years the NNSA has been implementing a pit
manufacturing and certification program to restore the capability of
the United States to manufacture and certify this critical component
without nuclear testing. This project is a pivotal challenge to the
Stockpile Stewardship program. I am pleased with the high level of
management attention this program continues to receive at Los Alamos
and the progress made in meeting this important national security
objective. We remain on track to deliver a certifiable pit W88 pit in
fiscal year 2003. Headquarters and LANL staffs have been able to
accelerate the date for a certified pit to fiscal year 2007, resulting
in a savings for the American taxpayers.
modern pit facility
While the LANL facility (TA-55) for making W88 pits is adequate for
the task at hand, it lacks the capacity and flexibility to manufacture
pits in sufficient quantity to support the entire stockpile, so the
NNSA is working on a longer term solution. We have a project team in
place that has undertaken the required preconceptual planning work.
During this phase we will be carefully examining a number of issues
including technology development to ensure that the facility will meet
both current and future requirements to fabricate replacement pits for
the current nuclear stockpile or pits for new designs, if required. Our
next decision point for the Modern Pit Facility will be later this
spring at which time we will decide on proceeding to conceptual design.
enhanced test readiness
As members of this committee are well aware, the NNSA is
maintaining a capability to conduct an underground nuclear test within
24 to 36 months, based on existing Presidential direction. The Nuclear
Posture Review, however, raised several concerns about our test
readiness posture which we are addressing in a study to be completed
later this Spring. DOD and NNSA will work together to refine nuclear
test scenarios and evaluate cost/benefit tradeoffs in order to
determine, implement and sustain the optimum test readiness time to
support the the policies of the Nuclear Posture Review.
The President's fiscal year 2003 budget has requested an additional
$15 M to implement the results of the aforementioned study once the
Administration determines the best path forward. We will of course,
keep the Congress fully informed on this important national security
activity as we proceed.
other national security activities at nevada test site
The Nevada Test Site is a unique and critical component not only
for the Stewardship Program but other national security activities as
well. The subcritical experiments, conducted at U1A continue to provide
our scientists and engineers vital data on the performance
characteristics of plutonium. Our most recent experiment, code named
Vito, was successfully carried out on February 14. Vito was the first
of three subcritical experiments in fiscal year 2002 in support of pit
certification. NTS experimental capabilities are also being enhanced
with the JASPER gas gun and the transfer of the Atlas machine. JASPER
based experiments using plutonium will begin later this year. A new
facility for Atlas is now under construction and on target for
completion by the end of fiscal year 2002.
national ignition facility
One of the most important science and engineering programs we have
in Stewardship is the National Ignition Facility. I know that this
committee has been a strong supporter of the NIF project and we are
grateful for that support. In 2002, the NIF team at Lawrence Livermore
is continuing to make steady progress against its milestones. We have
recently reported to this committee and others that several important
milestones were met on, or ahead of schedule, including completion of
conventional construction and positioning and seismic tie down of the
target chamber. The program remains on track to begin Stewardship
experiments in 2004 with 8 beams, and by the time all 192 lasers beams
are brought up in 2008, we will have conducted some 1,500 stewardship
experiments.
tritium
We are continuing to make progress in establishing the new source
of tritium. We have in place a multi-year contract with the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) to provide irradiation services. We expect that
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will grant license amendments to the
TVA reactors, Watts Bar and Sequoyah, that will be used for tritium
production. Commercial vendors across the country are manufacturing
parts for the tritium-producing rods that will go into the reactors in
early fiscal year 2004.
I am concerned however with the Tritium Extraction Facility at
Savannah River. While construction of the civil/structural portion of
the Tritium Extraction Facility is well along it is several months
behind schedule. In addition, the bids on the Rest-of-Plant contract
were well above the baseline estimate. As the result of these and other
factors, we are carefully reviewing and revising our cost and schedule
estimates for completion of the facility. It is likely that we will be
coming to the Congress with a new baseline in a reprogramming package
yet this year, following completion of these cost and schedule reviews.
national center for combating terrorism
NTS' capabilities are broader than just stewardship. NTS has a
critical role in helping the Nation deal with the new security
challenges in the aftermath of September 11. Locating the National
Center for Combating Terrorism (NCCT) at the NTS with its
infrastructure, facilities and resources assures that we will
ultimately prevail. Governor Ridge and FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh have
been to the NTS and I know were deeply impressed with the resources
that can help train personnel and test technologies needed to win the
war on terrorism, just as it helped win the Cold War.
conclusion
Mr Chairman, I know that the Congress wants less bureaucracy and
more output from this program, with fewer problems along the way. You
want program output which enhances security, which maintains and
enhances the safety, reliability and performance of the nuclear
stockpile, and which bolsters U.S. leadership in science and
technology. I am convinced that the management reforms that the NNSA is
implementing will address your first concern. I am also convinced that
the Stewardship program is today ensuring that America's nuclear
deterrent is safe, secure and reliable. And--of equal importance--the
science and engineering campaigns of Stewardship are advancing the
frontiers of science and technology to help the country meet the
economic and security challenges of this new millennium.
Senator Reid. Ambassador Brooks?
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LINTON BROOKS
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee.
This is my first opportunity to appear before this
committee since my confirmation. I want to start by thanking
the committee both for its support for me, but, much more
importantly, for its support for the important programs that I
am privileged to work on.
Like my colleagues, I also want to call attention to the
dedicated men and women, both at the Department of Energy and
in the national labs, who have been working extremely hard to
carry out these programs, often under quite difficult
conditions in the Russian Federation.
In less than 2 months, the President will meet with his
counterpart in Moscow, and national security issues will be
prominent on that agenda. We will benefit from the new
strategic relationship the President has forged, but we also,
in many ways, represent an example of it.
Our relationship with the Russian Federation is
cooperative, based on common actions against common threat. It
is also a good paradigm for the new relationship that our two
countries are forging.
Building on that relationship and the support of the
Secretary of Energy and General Gordon, we are now enjoying
levels of access in the Russian Federation that are
unprecedented. We have made enormous strides in securing
nuclear materials, in controlling the exodus of technologies
and expertise. But, as this committee knows as well as anyone,
only a small amount of plutonium or highly enriched uranium is
enough for a weapon.
We continue to be concerned, particularly in the aftermath
of the attacks of September 11, that this material is simply
too tempting an opportunity we must not allow it to fall into
the hands of rogue States.
This has given great impetus both in the Congress and in
the Department of Energy to our programs for material
protection. And I am pleased with the progress we have made.
But I want to make it clear that there are other important
programs in the Department as well.
Our programs are built, as you know, on four pillars:
technology research and development; promotion of international
nuclear safety; threat reduction efforts in Russia and the
newly independent States and support for nonproliferation
regimes. As General Gordon mentioned, we are seeking $1.13
billion, which is a 36 percent increase from the last budget of
the previous administration. This reflects not only the depth
of the administration's commitment but the criticality of
dealing with the threat.
Our research and development focus is not only on nuclear
detection but on chemical and biological threat detection. We
have accelerated our nuclear materials programs in Russia. We
now expect to finish these programs at least 2 years ahead of
schedule. We are accelerating our so-called Second Line of
Defense Program. We will use, if appropriated, our fiscal year
2003 funding to install radiation detection at 21 additional
strategic transit sites in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Our efforts to find commercially viable and peaceful work
for former nuclear weapons scientists in Russia are enjoying
increasing success. These individuals are involved in many
commercial initiatives, some of them directly relevant to how
we address the terrorist threat.
We are working with the Customs Department to improve its
ability to detect nuclear materials. We have developed a new
approach to disposing of excess plutonium. We got the job done
3 years faster than the previous approach, saved a total of $2
billion, reduced peak-year funding, and reduced the technical
risk.
We have assumed responsibility for shutting down the three
remaining plutonium production reactors in the Russian
Federation. We expect to accomplish this by 2007. We have also
taken a new approach to international nuclear safety,
recognizing our enduring responsibilities there beyond the
Russian Federation.
Nonproliferation, in particular, is an area that has to be
attacked on many fronts. We are working closely with our
colleagues in the Department of Defense and the Department of
State to cut off the supply of nuclear materials, to tighten
international borders, and to help tighten our own borders. It
is an ambitious agenda. We are very pleased with the support we
have gotten from Congress in the past and very pleased with the
clear support that we have gotten following the administration
review that General Gordon mentioned. We look forward to
continuing to work to accelerate these important programs in
the coming year. Thank you, sir.
Senator Reid. I apologize to you, Ambassador Brooks, for
stepping out for a minute, but each of the statements has been
extremely helpful. Frankly, I have a long list of questions
here, and most of them have been answered with the statements,
and that is unusual. I think you have been very forthright. I
have been extremely, I repeat, impressed with the statements.
I am going to ask a couple of questions, and, Pete, turn
things over to you, and you can do your statement, if you want
to make it, and ask all the questions you want. I am going to
leave in about 15 minutes. Is that okay with you?
Senator Domenici. That is fine.
Senator Reid. If you have to leave at noon, I will make it
10 minutes. How's that?
Senator Domenici. I have to leave at noon.
Senator Reid. So we will divide the time. I will go to 10
till, and then you take the rest of the time.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
STORAGE OF DISMANTLED WEAPONS STOCKPILE
Senator Reid. General Gordon, if we start pulling thousands
of weapons out of the stockpile, is the weapons complex capable
of dismantling and storing all of the unneeded weapons
inventory at this time?
General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question
about are we capable of storing them safely and securely, the
answer is yes. To bring them through a formal dismantlement
process on a schedule and a time would eat into capacity that
we are just now rebuilding to do this stockpile stewardship
life-extension program work. So there is a balance to be made
in how quickly we could dismantle weapons.
PIT PRODUCTION FACILITY
Senator Reid. Maybe I should know the answer to this
question from the statements that have been given, but how much
pit production capacity will be required to meet future
stockpile needs? And also, what are NNSA's plans for
construction of a modern pit facility to meet these needs? When
will it be required? And then, is there a cost associated with
it?
General Gordon. There is no reason you should know that
from our testimony, because I do not think we know the precise
answer to that ourselves. From the NPR, we know that the
deployed stockpile will be on the order of 1,700 to 2,200
weapons. A number of weapons will be kept in a reserve status
beyond that. And a precise number and the disposition of those
weapons has yet to be resolved.
With respect to a pit facility, we do know that sometime in
the future, a Modern Pit Facility will be required. The numbers
will depend both upon the size of the stockpile and the results
of ongoing. They will also depend on the aging studies.
The work that is going on now, the scientific work on the
aging issues, indicates a pretty long life for the pits is 45
or more years. And we will have another year or two to really
stretch that out.
So, the idea of the Modern Pit Facility is to cut the time
off the front of it by doing the required design and the
preliminary work, but not to come close to building it until we
can answer those questions much more precisely. The costs would
have B's in it, though, for billions. With nuclear facilities,
people sort of wave their hands and say they cost about $10,000
a square foot in today's environment. So we need to get it
right. We need not overbuild it. But when the time comes to
build it, it will be expensive.
LEGISLATION TO MODIFY NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Senator Reid. There has been talk that the department is
considering research into modified nuclear weapons; some say
even new ones. Would the law have to be changed to do this?
General Gordon. You asked me to comment on that in my
statement, and I think I did not do a very good job of that.
Let me come back to that. The proposal that is in front of us
right now, is limited to one program, which is to build a so-
called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which is simply take an
existing design, package it in a way that could give it an
opportunity to penetrate to depths greater than existing
systems. That is the only specific work that is on the book.
There is talk of some modifications to another system and there
is no defined requirement for a new weapon at this time. So, by
definition, everything is within the requirements of the
legislation as now defined. And I do not see anything happening
in the immediate future.
To be clear, though, or just to be certain we are on the
same wavelength, I have asked, and the NPR has validated the
suggestion that we begin an advanced concept group at our
laboratories. The purpose of that is not to go out and look to
design a specific new weapon, where we do not have a
requirement for it.
But I would point out that in our ideas of retention of
critical skills, one of those skills that is potentially fading
rapidly, is the ability to design weapons. So what we have
asked is that the labs put together a small group of young
people who can begin to think about what the limits are, what
the possibilities are, while they still can reach into the
existing design community of the older designers who actually
have had some experience.
Senator Reid. We saw that in my tour of the labs. There was
talk from some of the white-hairs and no-hairs that they felt
that there should be new people coming up, that the work that
they had done in years past was something that the new people
have never done. So I am glad to see that being thought about.
RADIOLOGICAL DISPERSAL DEVICES
Ambassador Brooks, and anyone who wishes to comment on
this, this morning's Washington Post has an article that is
quite interesting, front page. And it talks about the risk of
dirty bombs associated with the missing nuclear material in
Russia. Would anyone comment about the article? Has anyone read
it, I guess I should say?
General Gordon. Do you have anything on the article?
Mr. Brooks. I just skimmed the article. I do not have
anything particularly on the article.
General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, the news of the specific
radionuclide generator as it is talked about in this article
is, frankly, new to me. And I am not up-to-speed on it.
The concept of radiological dispersal devices, so-called
dirty bombs, is reasonably well-understood and is a potential
terrorist threat.
The idea would be that you could take waste material,
radionuclide-generated material like this, medical waste
material, fuel waste material, and somehow cause it, with an
explosion, to be dispersed in the atmosphere, which would then
contaminate an area, depending on how carefully and how
accurately it was done.
This is, as the newspaper pointed out, this is a difficult
problem to do in a very effective way. It is an easy weapon, if
you can steal some and just try to get it around.
What we generally believe is that the only people who are
likely to be killed by a so-called dirty bomb or radiological
dispersal device are the people who try to assemble it or
someone who happens to be caught up in the explosive radius of
the conventional explosion that takes it out.
That said, it could, if well-designed, spread the material
over a region, which would then have to be decontaminated, and
could come with it the effects of some negative economics and
the whole effect of terrorism that comes from being around
unexplained, unintended radioactive sources.
U.S. CUSTOMS ASSISTANCE ON EXPORT CONTROL
Senator Reid. Are we doing anything to help the Customs,
regarding these nuclear products that are coming in?
General Gordon. Active programs----
Senator Reid. Not ``coming in''; I should say that people
may try to bring in.
General Gordon. Very active programs. Do you want to
comment?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, may I add one thing to what General Gordon
said on radiological dispersal devices? In one of the changes
following September 11th, we are investigating with the Russian
Federation whether there is work we can do to help improve the
security of that material in Russia. We expect using about $15
million of the additional funding provided to us in the
supplemental to address this issue directly.
With regard to the Customs, we are doing several things. We
have R&D that looks at detecting nuclear materials as they
enter the country. We are looking, in particular, at how to do
this in a way that doesn't slow throughput. For example, screen
large containers, one concept is a sensor that is in a crane.
Everything gets moved by cranes, and you could scan the
container at the same time.
Detecting material is not particularly hard. Detecting
material without slowing down the throughput is quite
difficult.
Second, we are working closely with Customs on export
controls. We are providing training, based on our experience
overseas, in what we have learned in helping to improve the
border security in the Russian Federation. So we are trying to
make sure that what we learn in the overseas part of our
program is also applied in the United States.
Senator Reid. One thing, Mr. Ambassador, in general, you
should be aware, Customs is terribly, terribly understaffed.
And you should be aware of that. So expecting them to do much
with manpower won't happen.
Mr. Brooks. We understand that, sir. And, in fact, the idea
of the R&D--and, remember, we can't prove to you the R&D is
going to succeed; but that is why they call it research.
But the idea is, in fact, not to depend on things that are
staffing-intensive. If you had enough people, you would just
take apart all the containers. But you can't do that.
RUSSIAN PROGRAM FUNDING
Senator Reid. My last question, and you have talked about
it a little bit, Ambassador Brooks, your current-year
appropriation for the Russian program is almost $300 million.
That is $120 million more than the 2001 level. The extra funds,
they helped, according to what you just said, what you said in
your prepared statement. Is that right?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Reid. And one of the little battles we had in our
conference with the House last year was how much money we put
in this program.
How much money do you think we should have in the program?
I don't want you to be a Corps of Engineers Mike Parker.
But do you have any idea what we should have in a perfect
world?
Mr. Brooks. I think we are quite happy with where we are--
--
Senator Reid. Perfect answer.
Mr. Brooks [continuing]. In both the 2002 and 2003, sir.
Senator Reid. Just testing you. That was a good answer.
Pete?
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank you
for starting the meeting at 11:00, which was done at my
request. And clearly, I don't want to hold these people beyond
12:00, so I am going to put my statement in the record, and
just ask a few questions, and make a few observations.
Senator Reid. And we will both have a series of questions
that will be submitted to you in writing. If you would answer
those within the next couple weeks, that would be great.
General Gordon. Absolutely.
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORY PENSION PLAN
Senator Domenici. Fine. I have the same situation, and they
are broken down for each of you, as best I could.
Let me first say, General Gordon, I am pleased that the
department has made a decision with reference to the pension
plan at Sandia National Laboratory, with reference to an effort
to disperse in the future some of the excess funds that have
been accumulating, and also to put the scientists and engineers
at Sandia more on a par with those who are at the two other
national laboratories. And that is a very good starting point
for the morale at Sandia, which is beginning to change to a
very positive one, since they are being asked to do some very
interesting, exciting, and important things.
General Gordon. Thank you for saying that, Senator. The
laboratory has already reported that it has resulted in the
retention of several important employees.
Senator Domenici. I am quite sure. And I am sure that it
will do that in the future, and it probably will bring some
people on to their staff that they are looking for, in these
particular times.
PIT PRODUCTION FACILITY
Of all the issues, the one that surprises me the most,
because it is just sort of like a migraine headache--if you
have it, it just keeps coming back, you aren't quite sure when.
But this pit production issue, we just have to get it finished,
so that it doesn't keep coming back, at least to me.
So let me just say, I am very concerned about the fact that
we had the money at the right level and then along comes a cut,
and it seems to me that we decreased, what we have been told is
necessary to stay on schedule, by $52 million.
General, can you support that or tell me what we can
expect? Why are we doing it this way?
General Gordon. Well, as you know, Senator, there was both
a cut to the budget and some required funding to go into other
areas, which resulted in something approaching a couple hundred
million dollars to rebalance the programs. We rebalanced them
as best we could at the time, leaving a shortfall primarily in
the contingency of the pit program. We think it is very tight
right now. We are continuing to look to be able to move some
additional money against it, and we will be able to do some
more as time goes on. It is a bit of a migraine, in that
regard. I think about it every day, as well.
So we are running on a knife-edge balance. The program
remains very tight and really well-balanced. And we are trying
every day to make the best priority decisions we can. That is
probably the best we can do with this answer right now. I would
take 10 seconds, though, and tell you that the reports for lack
of a better word, of where the management is going of the
program itself is much improved. We were up there the other day
and looked at a schedule. And for the first time, the program
manager said we live or die by this schedule, and that is a new
process.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Well, I understand how complicated
it is. But I think the sooner you get rid of a migraine
headache, if you can, the better off you are. That program, we
ought to finish it, so we can tell everybody that is concerned
about it that it has reached that critical stage.
Dr. Beckner. If I could, Senator, I would add to the
earlier comments. We do have a plan to make a decision on
beginning the conceptual design work for that facility in,
literally, the next 2 months.
Senator Domenici. I heard that.
Dr. Beckner. So we are moving ahead.
Senator Domenici. I didn't get a chance to say thank you,
Dr. Beckner, for taking this job. We have known each other for
years. There is no doubt in my mind that you will do a
wonderful job, and I thank you.
NAVAL REACTORS FUNDING AND TECHNOLOGY
And Mr. Ambassador, we are glad that you took this and that
you have come here. And I was going to make note of the fact
that while you are relatively new to the NNSA--I think you
joined in October--by my calculation, in the 6 months you have
been on the job, the administration's budget request for your
area alone has gone from $774 million to $1.1 billion for the
next year. That is a 44 percent increase.
Now, General, if you can get some additional people to join
you that can have that big an impact--In 6 months, you ought to
just tell us about them.
General Gordon. Okay, Everet, the bar has been set.
Dr. Beckner. Am I next?
Senator Domenici. You're next.
Let me ask, Admiral, we are hearing a lot about new nuclear
reactors. It is so optimistic that some are saying we will be
on our way, in the United States, to a new nuclear reactor
within the next 7 years. I am not speaking of military; I am
speaking of a reactor to produce electricity. Rather exciting.
Does any of this total new design concept have anything to
do with the United States Nuclear Navy?
Admiral Bowman. Senator, I think that it is fair to say
that my organization has, for these 50 years, been at the
leading edge----
Senator Domenici. No question.
Admiral Bowman [continuing]. Of pushing the technology. And
I think that some of the ideas that are being discussed today
are leveraging some of the technology that we have developed
with the funds provided by this committee over the years. So to
that extent, yes.
Naval Reactors is not now looking at any of the new kinds
of reactors that you have heard about--the pebble-bed, modular,
high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor--explicitly for any
immediate use.
But we certainly are a part of the materials area. And I
think industry, for sure, leverages and enjoys the research and
development that comes from our laboratories.
Senator Domenici. Well, Nuclear Navy is a tremendous
example for those of us who attempt to be objective about the
risks or lack of risks in having nuclear reactors around, and
even moving the reactors from place to place, and certainly
moving the spent fuel around. The United States Navy is doing
that all the time, and it is doing it out there in an ocean, in
water, which it totally miscible. If you put something
overboard, it affects a very large area. And yet, you are in
every port except one in the Nation, which is a pretty good way
to say, when you do it right, it is about as safe as anything
that you can do in that area.
General Gordon, I want to close by congratulating you. It
did take awhile to get going, and I appreciate the objectivity
of your statement in saying that we still have a long way to
go. But when you have people on board like the two that are
with you and some others that are joining you, I have no doubt
that, within a couple of years, you will prove to all of those
who might have been skeptics that the NNSA is going to work.
Already, I believe, it gives people better answers. You
know who to talk to. You know who is in charge. And I think my
colleague, who is now chairman, who was ranking member when we
did that, when we accomplished that legislation, has also
indicated, from his standpoint, that he had doubts, but the
NNSA, in his opinion, was a good move.
And that is probably attributable as much as anything to
the fact that we were fortunate to get you as the first person
to be in charge. Best of luck, move ahead, get the management
moved over under your jurisdiction as soon as you can. That's
the job of these wonderful people that are helping you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
As we move into this era of danger here in America, clearly
they are going to look more and more to how you have arranged
your agency, so you can be helpful to our country in the area
of terrorism for years to come.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
overall budget for stockpile stewardship
Question. General Gordon, you are to be commended for what is
overall a much improved budget request compared to previous years. This
year's budget request is $300 million over the current year's enacted
level (a 5.5 percent increase). However, even within that budget
request, there are some real question marks.
For example, the budget request for pit production is $54 million
below what you indicated would be required in last year's report to
Congress. Also, the Science Campaigns, which are critical to
maintaining our capability to certify the stockpile, are cut by 11
percent. Will you please comment on these two problem areas?
Answer. With regard to pits, the $242 million for fiscal year 2003
in the September 2001 pit report to the Congress covers W88 pit
manufacturing and certification and includes a contingency of some $53
million, with a funding profile that was based on an fiscal year 2009
W88 pit certification date. Los Alamos and the NNSA have been able to
accelerate the pit certification date to fiscal year 2007. This is
expected to produce substantial savings in the out years (fiscal year
2008/09), but no near term savings are expected.
The Department's request of $194 million in fiscal year 2003 for
W88 pit manufacturing and certification also includes pit manufacturing
technology and Modern Pit Facility activities. To balance near-term
priorities for the Stockpile Stewardship Program, this request of $194
million reduces fiscal year 2003 risk contingency funding for the W88
pit manufacturing and certification project and planned activities in
pit manufacturing technology and the Modern Pit Facility. In addition,
some funds were shifted to the Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities account so that facilities needed in manufacturing and
certification would be ready. NNSA is fully committed to making the pit
program successful. If additional funding is determined to be needed in
fiscal year 2003, we will propose the necessary adjustments.
The reduction in funding requested for the Science Campaigns
reflects a delay in the design of the Advanced Hydrodynamic Test
Facility. While significant preliminary research work has been
completed on the Advanced Hydrodynamic Test Facility, the requirements
and thus the critical design features for this facility are still under
development. Upon completion and review of the requirements, now
expected in fiscal year 2003, the NNSA will consider funding for
facility design work on a schedule consistent with those requirements
and other Stockpile Stewardship priorities.
overall budget for stockpile stewardship
Question. Could you use additional resources in these areas if they
were provided?
Answer. It is premature to apply additional resources to the
Advanced Hydrodynamic Test Facility. Design work should follow the
requirements, which are not yet adequately understood. For pits,
additional resources would be used to reduce schedule risk and to
ensure that the fiscal year 2003 manufacture of a certifiable W88 pit.
If additional funding is determined to be needed in fiscal year 2003,
we will propose the necessary adjustments.
Question. What are some of the highest priority tasks that you will
not be able to accomplish within the requested budget?
Answer. The overall 6 percent increase in the fiscal year 2003
request for NNSA is the largest growth in any DOE organization for this
year. Within that amount, the Directed Stockpile Work activities
receive an increase of 18 percent over the fiscal year 2002 level. All
of the highest priority tasks for Stockpile Stewardship are
accommodated within those increases.
five year budgeting plan
Question. General Gordon, section 3253 of the National Nuclear
Security Administration Act of 1999 required you to submit a detailed
5-year budget plan. In your testimony, you said that the Nuclear
Posture Review called for a stable and adequately funded 5-year budget
plan. However, the NNSA budget documents indicate an outyear funding
plan that grows only 2 percent a year, and includes the following
statement, ``Beyond 2003, the Administration will work with the
Department of Defense to provide resources to meet NNSA's requirements
outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review.'' What does that last statement
mean, and when do you expect to deliver a detailed 5-year funding plan
to the Congress?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003-2007 NNSA Future-Years Nuclear
Security Program (FYNSP) was transmitted to cognizant congressional
committees on March 26, 2002. The programs and 5-year funding envelope
in the plan is based on the DOE outyear targets for NNSA combined with
additional future years obligational authority currently scored in DOD
accounts for NNSA's NPR-related activities. The OMB will work with NNSA
and DOD during the fiscal year 2004 budget process to assure that
sufficient national defense budget authority is provided to NNSA to
meet NPR requirements.
Question. Can you give us some insights as to what levels of
funding the plan will call for over the next several years?
Answer. The funding estimates for NNSA programs contained in the
FYNSP are contained in the table below:
FUTURE-YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM
[Dollars in Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Appropriation ------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities....................................... $5,869 $6,457 $6,738 $7,023 $7,314
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......................... 1,114 1,406 1,502 1,639 1,604
Naval Reactors........................................... 708 720 733 747 761
Office of the Administrator.............................. 348 354 360 366 373
------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA.......................................... 8,039 8,937 9,333 9,775 10,052
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
general reduction from the current year
Question. General Gordon or Dr. Beckner, the appropriations bill
for the current year (fiscal year 2002) included an $80 million general
reduction to be generally applied proportionately across all programs,
projects and activities. Your staff briefed the committee staff early
this year and suggested that 30 percent of the general reduction ($24.5
million) be applied to the long-troubled pit manufacturing program. I
believe that is unacceptable, particularly given the great priority the
Congress, the NNSA and Los Alamos have put on getting the pit program
back on track. I understand you are revising your proposal on applying
the general reduction, but we are now almost half-way through the
fiscal year. How will the General Reduction be applied?
Answer. The general reduction was assessed to all Weapons
Activities programs consistent with the guidance in the congressional
reports and programmatic budget execution priorities. A decision was
made to exempt the Safeguards and Security activities based on the post
9/11 security situation. A Base Table containing the distribution of
the General Reduction for all DOE programs was provided to Chairmen and
Ranking Minority members of cognizant congressional committees by the
DOE CFO on January 31, 2002.
Question. Will you assure me today that the pit program will be
funded consistent with your own funding plan, and the resources
provided by the Congress?
Answer. The NNSA will ensure that the pit program receives adequate
funding to meet the fiscal year 2003 W88 pit manufacturing and fiscal
year 2007 W88 pit certification milestones. Reprogramming have been
proposed which will provide funding for the program in fiscal year
2002, consistent with current project needs.
tritium
Question. General Gordon or Dr. Beckner, the Nuclear Posture Review
states a goal of moving to 1,700 to 2,220 deployed weapons by 2012 plus
a substantial number of weapons in reserve. Previously, you suggested
that in order to maintain a 5-year reserve, you would need a new
production capability on line by 2005. Given the conclusions of the
latest NPR, do we still need a new production capability by 2005?
Answer. The changes in the nuclear force structure resulting from
the recent Nuclear Posture Review do not affect the date when NNSA
needs to begin irradiating tritium producing rods in the Tennessee
Valley Authority's Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors. Irradiation will
still begin in the fall of 2003 as currently scheduled, particularly
because the initial core loads of tritium rods will be ``transition
cores'' that will not contain nearly as many tritium rods as will be
utilized for steady state production.
Question. The NNSA is preparing to spend over $400 million on a
Tritium Extraction Facility over the next few years in South Carolina.
I understand the project is not going particularly well and the project
may have substantially over-run its projected cost. What is the status
of the Tritium Extraction Facility project?
Answer. Construction of the civil/structural portion of the Tritium
Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site is well along, but is
several months behind schedule. In addition, the bids on the Rest-of-
Plant contract were well above the baseline estimate. As a result, we
are currently in the process of reviewing and revising our cost and
schedule estimates for completion of the facility. We have also asked
the Department's Inspector General to review the program and recommend
additional corrective measures, as appropriate. A reprogramming request
has been submitted to the Congress for the necessary additional fiscal
year 2002 capital funding required for construction of the facility, as
well as proposing the necessary shifts in fiscal year 2003 funding.
Question. Given a possible change in tritium requirements, and
substantial cost overruns in the tritium extraction facility, why
should we not delay this project to fund other, more pressing,
priorities?
Answer. The critical issue in tritium supply-demand assessments is
the size and composition of the nuclear weapons stockpile. A reduction
in the force structure would impact the tritium ``need date'' and,
therefore, the number of tritium rods that must be irradiated in the
TVA reactors. However, the fall 2003 initial irradiation date would not
be affected This is particularly true in view of the fact that the
initial core loads of tritium-producing rods in each TVA reactor will
be ``transition cores'' that will not contain nearly as many rods as
will later be utilized for steady-state production.
nuclear posture review
Question. What are the budget implications of the NPR that we
should see over the next 5 years?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003-2007 Future-Years Nuclear Security
Program provided to cognizant congressional committees on March 26,
2002, contained estimates of the funding required for NNSA to carry out
NPR-related activities. This information is contained in the table
below:
FUTURE-YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM
[Dollars in Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Appropriation ------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities....................................... $5,869 $6,457 $6,738 $7,023 $7,314
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......................... 1,114 1,406 1,502 1,639 1,604
Naval Reactors........................................... 708 720 733 747 761
Office of the Administrator.............................. 348 354 360 366 373
------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA.......................................... 8,039 8,937 9,333 9,775 10,052
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What activities are included in this budget that support
the recommendations of the Nuclear Posture Review?
Answer. NNSA has been a key participant in the Administration's
comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review, (NPR). The fiscal year 2003
budget request supports the NPR by requesting significant increases for
Directed Stockpile Work to support upcoming weapon refurbishments, and
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization to assure a robust and
responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure in sustaining deterrence and
dissuasion.
In this connection, the report notes that the flexibility to
sustain our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile, to adapt current
weapons to new missions, or to field new weapons, if required, depends
on a healthy program for stockpile stewardship and peer-review-based
certification as well as a robust infrastructure for nuclear weapons
production. It is a key point that not only the forces, but the
demonstrable capabilities of the nuclear weapons complex itself,
including its ability to sustain and adapt, are required to underpin
credible deterrence in a changing security environment.
nuclear posture review
Most importantly, this review reemphasizes the importance of
nuclear weapons to deter the threats of weapons of mass destruction, to
assure allies of U.S. security commitments, to hold at risk an
adversary's assets and capabilities that cannot be countered through
non-nuclear means and to dissuade potential adversaries from developing
large-scale nuclear or conventional threats. To accomplish this goal,
the NNSA expects to certify the stockpile through an aggressive
science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program without resorting to
underground nuclear testing. As discussed in the NPR, the NNSA will
seek to reduce the lead-time to carry out a test by working with the
DOD to refine test scenarios and evaluate the cost-/benefit tradeoffs
in order to determine, implement, and sustain the optimum test
readiness time that best supports the New Triad. The review also
reaffirms a stockpile refurbishment plan that has been under
development between DOD and DOE and outlines the shape of the nuclear
weapons stockpile as we significantly reduce the number of
operationally deployed nuclear weapons to the 1,700-2,200 range over
the next 10 years. The number and condition of warheads to be provided
under the NPR is consistent with the plan put forth in this budget
request. Simultaneously, the review calls for maintaining a
``Responsive Force'' which can be used to hedge against unforeseen
problems in the deployed stockpile or an unexpected evolution of
international relations. In addition, the NPR calls for NNSA to re-
establish an advanced concepts effort to ensure that our nuclear
weapons capability can respond to a spectrum of threats to U.S.
security.
To indefinitely ensure the reliability and performance of this
smaller number of weapons, the NPR calls for a modernized responsive
nuclear weapons infrastructure to recover and sustain our nuclear
weapons capability. Having significantly downsized the footprint of the
nuclear weapons complex over the past 10 years, a modernized responsive
infrastructure means upgrading our key facilities, many of which are
now approaching 50 years in age, with a dedicated refurbishment
program. It also means accelerating contingency planning for a modern
pit facility to address long-term pit replacement needs.
Question. Are there items the NPR recommends that you cannot
accommodate within this budget?
Answer. No. The NPR calls for a stable, adequately-funded Future
Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) to accomplish its goals, and the
FYNSP transmitted on March 20, 2002, should be adequate to meet known
requirements of the NPR.
pit production
Question. General Gordon or Dr. Beckner, in September of last year
you notified this Committee that the W88 Pit Project costs at Los
Alamos would be $213 million for the current year, and $242 million in
fiscal year 2003. I worked to ensure the Congress ultimately provided
every penny you said you needed. You can imagine my surprise, when your
staff briefed the committee and suggested that 30 percent of the
general reduction ($24 million) be applied to this long-troubled
program. Furthermore, the budget request for pit work at Los Alamos for
fiscal year 2003 is not $242 million--as you indicated in your report
to us last fall--but only $190 million. This is a decrease of $51
million. Please explain the rationale for the reduced request for pit
production.
Answer. The $242 million for fiscal year 2003 in the September 2001
pit report to the Congress covers W88 pit manufacturing and
certification and includes a contingency of some $53 million, with a
funding profile that is based on an fiscal year 2009 W88 pit
certification date. Los Alamos and the NNSA have been able to
accelerate the pit certification date to fiscal year 2007, this is
expected to produce substantial savings in the out years (fiscal year
2008/09), but no near term savings are expected.
The Department's request of $194 million in fiscal year 2003 for
W88 pit manufacturing and certification also includes pit manufacturing
technology and Modern Pit Facility activities. To balance near-term
priorities for the Stockpile Stewardship Program, this request of $194
million reduces fiscal year 2003 risk contingency funding for the W88
pit manufacturing and certification project and planned activities in
pit manufacturing technology and the Modern Pit Facility. In addition,
some funds were shifted to the Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities account so that facilities needed in manufacturing and
certification would be ready. NNSA is fully committed to making the pit
program successful. If additional funding is determined to be needed in
fiscal year 2003, we will propose the necessary adjustments.
facilities and infrastructure initiative
Question. General Gordon or Dr. Beckner, last year I was very
pleased to work with Chairman Reid in getting the Facilities and
Infrastructure rebuilding effort underway with $200 million. I am
pleased you have requested another $240 million for fiscal year 2003--a
20 percent increase, however, I am still concerned. At this
subcommittee's hearing on infrastructure earlier last year, you
testified that there was an immediate need for and additional $300-$500
million per year for the next 17 years to refurbish the weapons
complex.
In your written testimony today, you said you have ``determined
that the complex deteriorates by about $200 million annually.'' With
these kinds of numbers, it will take much more than the currently
requested amounts to rebuild the complex for the future. Will you up
date the Committee on the Facilities and Infrastructure Initiative?
Answer. It is my firm intention to update the Committee
periodically on the newly renamed Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program. In addition, my staff is in close contact
with the staff members of your Committee and the staff members of House
and Senate's authorization and appropriations Committees and
Subcommittees. The combined staffers were briefed in January 2002 and
another briefing is scheduled for the July/August 2002 timeframe.
Question. What have you accomplished, and where do we need to go in
the future?
Answer. As we have discussed, the difficult challenge of rebuilding
of the complex required a change of culture regarding the maintenance
of the facilities and infrastructure of the weapons complex, adopting a
corporate facilities management approach, and money. Culture change is
happening, albeit slowly. However we have accomplished much with regard
to a corporate facilities management of the complex. A brief
enumeration follows:
--Improved comprehensive planning throughout the complex
--Integrated planning process with budget activities subsequently
improving assessment of F&I condition
--Implemented financial accountability and project execution measures
Improve condition assessments throughout the complex
--Developed priority approach to sifting requirements on a ``worst
first'' basis Funding from approved priority project list
--Integrated performance measures to all plants and laboratories
appraisal systems Initiated cost saving through ROI project
selection and execution Funding the elimination of excess
facilities
--Funding from approved priority project list
--Integrated performance measures to all plants and laboratories
appraisal systems Funding the elimination of excess facilities,
to include reducing the complex footprint by some 500,000 sq ft
in fiscal year 2002, and saving some $5 million in surveillance
and maintenance costs
--Managing through use of a coordinated project execution plan
--Developed facilities and infrastructure budget guidance which is
being executed in the field
--Established Ten Year Comprehensive Site Planning process, now in
its second year of usage
--Executed $8.7 million (fiscal year 2001 Supplemental) worth of
projects
--Establishing meaningful databases by which to manage the Facilities
and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
--Using the $200 million fiscal year 2002 appropriated funds, NNSA
will execute 81 Recapitalization projects (primarily
maintenance & repair), 37 Planning projects (design &
engineering for fiscal year 2003 recapitalization and facility
disposition projects), and 32 Facility Disposition projects
(ridding the complex of excess facilities)
With regard to the future, we are changing the culture, and the
approach to facilities management. At this point money becomes
important. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
is a multi-year approach to restoring, rebuilding, and revitalizing the
nuclear weapons complex. The congress began the process by providing
$8.7 million in the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriation, which
was followed by almost $200M in the fiscal year 2002 Appropriation. The
NNSA's plan is to ramp up in $50 million increments annually over the
next few years to a level of $500 million. Once this level is reached,
the plan is to sustain that level for a decade. I believe that our 5-
year plan provides for this approach, which is, in my estimate, about
the correct level of funding, all things considered. The continued
support of congress is key to the future success of the Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program.
advanced hydrodynamic test facilities
Question. General Gordon or Dr. Beckner, hydrodynamic test
facilities are some of the most important in the entire stockpile
stewardship program. Los Alamos has been studying the use of proton
radiography as a new tool with great promise. This works builds on the
long legacy of accelerator-based programs at that Laboratory.
I realize that we are not ready to specify parameters of such an
advanced hydrodynamic facility for future years, but I strongly support
a research effort focused on understanding this technology and
evaluating options for future construction. Failure to support the
research effort will lead to loss of the key staff and destroy the
research momentum completely. Once terminated, it would be extremely
difficult to restart at a future date.
I'm very disappointed that the Department has chosen to cut the
budget for ``Advanced Radiography'' by 36 percent and has suspended all
work on an advanced hydrotest facility in fiscal year 2003. Please
discuss your views of the importance of radiography to the weapons
program.
Answer. Radiography is one of the fundamental tools required by the
weapons laboratories for the study of nuclear stockpile issues. The
Contained Firing Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and
the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT) at Los
Alamos are two important radiography tools. The first axis of DARHT is
operating and the hydrotests done to date have provided data of
unprecedented quality to help resolve questions related to the
stockpile. We continue to refine the operation of the DARHT first axis,
while completing the second axis which will allow simultaneous views of
hydrodynamic tests from two directions at multiple times. We are
studying the needs of the stockpile certification processes in
conjunction with the capabilities of the existing radiography
facilities to determine future facility requirements.
Question. Why has the NNSA chosen to suspend conceptual design of
an advanced hydrotest facility?
Answer. NNSA has a prudent path forward for the Advanced
Hydrodynamic Test Facility. We have completed preliminary design work
on the facility, however, the requirements and thus the critical design
features for this facility are still under development. Additional
design work without firm requirements, based on the needs of the
stockpile is not appropriate.
advanced hydrodynamic test facilities
Question. If additional resources are made available, how could
such resources be used to support the advanced hydrotest facility?
Answer. It is premature to apply additional resources to an
advanced hydrotest facility. Significant preliminary design work has
already been completed. Additional design activities should follow the
technical and schedule requirements, which are not yet adequately
understood. Any additional facility resources should be applied to the
NNSA's maintenance and construction backlog.
los alamos construction items
Question. General Gordon or Dr. Beckner: Los Alamos has recently
completed, or will complete this year, several construction projects
that are coming in substantially under budget. I am referring to the
CMR Upgrades Project, the Strategic Computing Complex, and the
Nonproliferation and International Security Center. All told, I believe
the projects will be over $10 million under budget. Will Los Alamos be
allowed to keep the ``under-run'' amount and apply to other pressing
infrastructure projects at the lab?
Answer. NNSA has directed that these under-runs proposed for
reprogramming to more pressing program needs at the laboratory such
replacing contingency funding in the pit program and paying the
closeout costs for the Accelerator Production of Tritium program.
los alamos administration building (a/k/a ``sm-43'')
Question. Dr. Beckner, on many visits to Los Alamos, I've noted the
condition of its administration building. This building has had a
long--almost 50 year--history of contributions to national security,
but that long history has resulted in an obsolete building that is
sadly in need of replacement.
It certainly is one of the buildings in our complex that does not
represent an atomosphere even vaguely appropriate for a premier
scientific facility. It represents a significant impediment to plans to
entice new staff to consider location at Los Alamos to replace the many
retiring scientists and technical staff.
The NNSA and the Laboratory were moving ahead with replacement of
the building and ``design-build'' proposals were solicited and a
winning team was identified. The work was poised for kick-off in fiscal
year 2003, but the Department has recently decided to postpone the
project. Will you re-evaluate the Department's decision to postpone
work on SM-43 and consider including SM-43 within the infrastructure
upgrade funds that I've worked to obtain in the last year?
Answer. All NNSA line-item construction projects (including SM-43)
that are part of the Future Years Nuclear Security Plan (FYNSP) (fiscal
year 2003-2007) were recently reviewed. The outcome of this evaluation
was the development of an Integrated Construction Program Plan (ICCP)
that fully supports line-item construction projects within the FYNSP.
This plan fully supports the SM-43 project over a 2-year period (ending
in fiscal year 2005) vice versa what was originally proposed as a 3-
year project (ending in fiscal year 2005). Los Alamos, as well as the
other seven NNSA sites will review the ICPP and will integrate it with
the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) and
the Operations of Facilities programs in a Ten-Year Comprehensive Site
Plans. We will continue to work with LANL to ensure that concerns with
the SM-43 funding are properly addressed within the sites' overall
priorities.
los alamos national laboratory foundation
Question. Dr. Beckner, Section 3136 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, which I sponsored, specifically
authorized the Secretary to continue payments to the Los Alamos
National Laboratory Foundation for fiscal year 2003.
That Foundation enables vital educational enrichment programs in
the region surrounding the Laboratory in Los Alamos. It directly
supports the Laboratory's ability to recruit and retain the scientific
staff who certify our nuclear stockpile and are playing a vital role in
homeland security and the war against terrorism.
The Laboratory has announced their intent to hire up to 1,000 new
employees in the near future, those employees will be encouraged to
consider the Laboratory by the quality of schools in the vicinity of
the Laboratory. Please explain the Department's rationale for zeroing
this support in fiscal year 2003?
Answer. Although further payments were authorized, no further
funding was requested for the Northern New Mexico Educational
Enrichment Foundation in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget
because the Department's commitment to endow the fund with $25 million
was completed in fiscal year 2002. However, based on the Department's
latest analysis of the situation as described in our May 7, 2002 report
to Congress, the Department plans to continue support for the
Foundation after fiscal year 2003.
Question. Dr. Beckner, Section 3161 of last year's National Defense
Authorization Act directed the Department to issue a report by March 1,
2002, on future requirements for support of educational programs
associated with the Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation and the
Los Alamos Public schools.
As of today, March 18, that report has not been received by
Congress. It is our understanding that a draft of that report is
prepared and awaiting approval within the Department. Will you please
expedite prompt release of this report?
Answer. The Office of Defense Programs will work with the other
elements of the National Nuclear Security Administration and the
Department to deliver this report to the Congress in mid May 2002. High
quality schools in Los Alamos have always been considered a crucial
factor in our ability to attract and retain world class scientists and
engineers for the Stockpile Stewardship program. Continued
congressional support for this activity is critical.
nonproliferation budget--general
Question. General Gordon, I am pleased to see the broad and
specific goals of your nonproliferation program receive strong support
from last year's NSC review. Overall, I believe you have a good budget
for fiscal year 2003. How would you characterize your progress in the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Program over the life of the program?
Answer. The progress has been steadily increasing in both its rate
and effectiveness. We have successfully overcome much of the mutual
suspicion of our former Cold War rival and the cooperation is at an
all-time high. This is reflected in the accelerating rate of both site
and material upgrade completions. The high degree of cooperation is
also reflected in the greater opportunities presented by Russian
officials for material security, such as the presentation of new sites
and the offer to work with the Strategic Rocket Forces.
Question. How many sites did you protect last year compared to
previous years?
Answer. Last year, in fiscal year 2001, the MPC&A Program completed
comprehensive upgrades at 7 sites in Russia, bringing the total number
completed to 38. During the current fiscal year, the program plans to
complete comprehensive upgrades at 5 more sites. The ambitious fiscal
year 2003 Plan calls for the completion of comprehensive upgrades at an
additional 12 sites, bringing the overall total number of sites
completed to 55.
Another way to measure the progress is the percentage or proportion
of Russian nuclear materials brought under the program's auspices.
During the 3 year period 2001-2003, the percent of the approximately
600 metric tons of material secured under comprehensive upgrades will
double, from 12 percent at the beginning of fiscal year 2001 to 23
percent at the end of fiscal year 2003. Also, the percent of the nearly
4,000 Navy warheads secured under comprehensive upgrades has risen from
0 percent at the beginning of fiscal year 2001 to approximately 74
percent secured by the end of fiscal year 2003.
Question. What, if anything is needed to ensure the success of this
program?
Answer. Continued high-level support by the Administration and
Congress is critical to ensure program success. The improvement in the
relationship between the leaders of the two countries has helped to
implement activities at the working level. Also, continued funding and
support from Congress help us to maintain our current accelerated pace
of completions and deepening trust with our counterparts in Russia.
materials protection in russia
Question. Ambassador Brooks, the Secretary recently said that
progress on the MPC&A tasks in Russia is 2 years ahead of schedule.
That's excellent news--I'm a very strong proponent of this program. How
has the program planning change recently?
Answer. Since the September 11 attacks, NNSA has taken aggressive
steps to accelerate and expand its role in facilitating nuclear
security cooperation. Last year NNSA estimated that that the completion
of comprehensive upgrades to the security at the 53 known weapons-
usable nuclear materials sites in Russia would not take place until
2010. This time-frame has been shortened because of an access agreement
signed in September of 2001 that utilized budgetary resources provided
by supplemental appropriation. At this time, NNSA estimates that all 53
sites will be completed at least 2 years ahead of the 2010 completion
estimate.
Russian naval sites have also received increased attention. NNSA
estimated in 2001 that it would take until 2008 to complete
comprehensive upgrades at 42 Russian naval sites storing nuclear
warheads; NNSA has accelerated its efforts and the completion date is
now 2006.
Another new initiative is a concerted effort to reduce the threat
posed by a Radiological Dispersion Device (RDD) against the United
States. The NNSA has started work with Russia, Uzbekistan and the IAEA
to secure materials that could be used to develop and deliver an RDD.
It is hoped that future cooperation will be expanded to include
additional countries in regions of concern.
Question. Are the Russians fully on board with these new forecasts
of progress and specifically have new agreements reduced past concerns
on ``access'' issues to various facilities?
Answer. Yes, the Access Agreement signed in September of 2001 with
MinAtom includes all MPC&A work at MinAtom's civilian and weapons sites
covering over 500Mt's of nuclear materials. It allows up to 120 site
visits per year by teams of up to six people drawn from an access list
of 185 program personnel. At the outset of fiscal year 2002, work
resumed under the MPC&A program at the three key MinAtom sites (VNIITF,
VNIIEF, and Elektrostal). This work had been suspended indefinitely at
the end of fiscal year 1999. In April 2002, MPC&A program
representatives and MinAtom agreed to a list of mutually acceptable
site-wide MPC&A upgrades at VNIITF (formerly known as Chelyabinsk-70)
estimated to be worth approximately $38 million. These upgrades include
construction of a new central storage facility for nuclear material
that will reduce the number of locations at the site where
proliferations attractive nuclear material is stored. A similar
agreement for VNIIEF (formerly Arzamas-16) is very close to completion.
It identifies a suite of site-wide MPC&A upgrades valued at
approximately $44 million, including completion of a central storage
facility. At Elektrostal, DOE teams have been given access to buildings
where we were told 3 years ago we would never be allowed to visit. We
have made confirmatory measurements of the nuclear material at the
sites and have begun MPC&A upgrades.
materials protection in russia
Question. Significant additional funds were provided in the current
year for MPC&A. Have you been able to adjust the program to effectively
utilize these increased funds?
Answer. Yes, additional resources provided by the fiscal year 2002
supplemental appropriation combined with the signing of the 2001 Access
Agreement have bolstered the MPC&A program enabling it to aggressively
shorten its completion target dates for securing Russian nuclear
facilities and materials. As mentioned previously, comprehensive
upgrades at Russia's 53 known weapons-usable nuclear material
facilities will be completed 3 years earlier than expected. The
securing of Russia's 40 naval sites with nuclear weapons will be
completed 2 years ahead of schedule. Finally, as testament to the
administrative handling of the program, over 90 percent of the program
funds will be committed to projects by the year's end.
Question. Russia has four serial production facilities with immense
production capacity, which hold enormous quantities of weapons-usable
materials. I understand that we do not have an MPC&A program at these
facilities. What is being done to change this limitation?
Answer. For several years, MPC&A program management has been
working with MinAtom at a very high level at the four serial production
enterprises. In April 2002, MinAtom was presented with over $35M worth
of contracts to construct central storage facilities at the two largest
serial production enterprises (SPE's). Discussions continue on what
would be unprecedented cooperation with Russia. Successful signing of
these new contracts would open the door for expanded opportunities to
finish securing the weapons-usable materials at the SPE's.
materials protection control and accounting program issues around the
world
Question. Ambassador Brooks, I've championed the Materials
Protection Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program as its been applied
to Russia. Russia is certainly the largest source of nuclear materials
which could become potential threats to our security. But the events of
last September must heighten our concern with materials for any weapon
of mass destruction anywhere in the world.
We need to look beyond MPC&A in Russia and ask how to best expand
these efforts globally. I remember that in Russia, early progress was
largely accomplished on a scientist-to-scientist basis through the so-
called ``lab-to-lab'' approach. It was only after scientific ties were
established that more formalized government-to-government approaches
began to make some progress. Is the original ``lab-to-lab'' approach
being revisited to encourage progress in some of the countries that may
present threats?
Answer. The NNSA national laboratories have and will continue to
play a critical role in carrying out the MPC&A Program's mission. The
MPC&A Program is committed to using the most cost-effective methods,
including expanded lab-to-lab engagements to accelerate the security of
nuclear warheads and material.
Question. Could Congress provide new authorizations for the
Department that would facilitate MPC&A progress on all materials, not
just nuclear, and not just in Russia?
Answer. The NNSA's MPC&A program has, and will continue to, focus
on securing nuclear materials considered to be at risk to illicit
diversion and/or vulnerable to terrorists. Congressional authorization
is required if the MPC&A program is to be expanded into these areas of
emerging threats.
Question. Please provide me with specific suggestions on enhanced
authorizations that would enable this progress.
Answer. The MPC&A is working aggressively to secure nuclear
materials in Russia. A specific suggestion is to grant the authority
for the MPC&A program to work cooperatively with countries throughout
the world in order to prevent nuclear materials from being illicitly
diverted or falling in the hands of terrorists.
russian plutonium disposition program
Question. Ambassador Brooks, I appreciate that the President and
Secretary proposed funding for a robust U.S. plutonium disposition
program utilizing MOX fuel in commercial reactors. As you know,
progress on plutonium disposition must be coordinated between the
United States and Russia.
The United States cannot be the only nation with a disposition
program, especially when Russia has far more surplus plutonium then the
United States. Without the full cooperation of the Russian government
in finalizing their program, progress on this vital area is at risk in
both nations.
In past years, the focus within Russia was on disposition of their
plutonium via a MOX program--but in talks with Russian leaders, I'm
aware that the Russians have minimal interest in this approach and will
pursue it only if paid to do so. To date, attempts to get international
cooperation on funding package to cover the $2 billion Russian MOX
program have not been successful. Is the Department actively discussing
with the Russians other options for plutonium disposition that would be
more in line with their national priorities, where they would be ready
to invest significant amoungs of their own funds?
Answer. Russia remains committed to the September 2000 Plutonium
Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) (i.e., use of existing
VVER-1000 light water reactors and the BN-600 fast reactor for
plutonium disposition). While the Russians appear willing to modify
some elements of the Russian plutonium disposition program in order to
make it less costly and more sustainable, they are firm in the view
that the existing PMDA should serve as the framework for plutonium
disposition in the two countries. In this regard, representatives from
the Departments of State and Energy have begun a series of meetings
with senior officials of the Russian Ministries of Atomic Energy
(MinAtom) and Foreign Affairs to discuss ways to improve the Russian
program. By the fall of 2002, the Administration expects to have a much
better definition of the details of Russian plutonium disposition and a
much better appreciation of the costs of possible improvements or
alternatives in the Russian program.
In addition to examining ways to make the Russian program more cost
effective, the Department of State, working with the Department of
Energy, has intensified efforts and meetings with G-7 to obtain
additional international pledges. The Administration is discussing with
other G-8 countries a ``Global Partnership'' initiative, wherein the
United States will pledge $10 billion in support of nonproliferation
programs over the next 10 years, to be matched by a similar $10 billion
commitment by other G-8 members. The allocation of these funds among
nonproliferation programs will be the subject of future discussions and
negotiations.
russian plutonium disposition program
Question. Specifically, are the following alternatives to MOX being
discussed?
--Use of existing Russian fast reactors
--Assistance in construction of another Russian fast reactor
--High temperature gas-cooled reactors
--Plutonium-thorium fuel combinations in existing VVER reaactors.
Answer. No decisions or agreements exist at present concerning the
employment of the BN-800 fast reactor for Russian plutonium
disposition. In January 2002, DOE and MinAtom formed a joint U.S.-
Russian working group to conduct a preliminary assessment of the costs
that would be involved in employing a combination of (BN-600 and BN-
800) fast reactor units for Russian plutonium disposition. Results of
preliminary cost assessment are expected in July. The United States has
no plans to assist in the construction of another Russian fast reactor
for implementing the Russian plutonium disposition program.
Russia is the early stages of researching the possible use of
plutonium-thorium fuel in existing VVER reactors for the disposition of
surplus plutonium beyond the 34 metric tons in the 2000 Agreement. In
addition, Russia and the United States are researching gas reactors for
use as a possible long-term option for of surplus Russian plutonium
beyond the 34 metric tons. Both of these reactors are unrealistic for
meeting the needs of the first 34 tons of the plutonium disposition
program because they are more costly and dispose of plutonium more
slowly than the existing MOX approach. The risks of failure or
significant delay using these options are high because they depend on
unproven, immature technologies.
The Department is also participating with MinAtom in an experts
group for examining technologies associated with proliferation
resistant fuel cycles. The joint U.S.-Russian experts group began work
immediately after the May Presidential Summit and will report its
findings to the Secretary of Energy and the Russian Minister.
disposition of 2 tons of our plutonium
Question. Ambassador Brooks, in announcing the decision for
disposition of our weapons-grade plutonium via MOX, the Department
indicated that plans for the disposal of 2 tons of plutonium-bearing
wastes were not final. There were suggestions that materials might be
diluted to remove them control of safeguards and then to proceed with
disposal in WIPP.
I've since been assured in writing by the Secretary that a range of
alternative disposition paths will be examined for these materials and
that they will not be shipped to WIPP. What is the status of studies of
alternative pathways for that (2 tons of U.S. plutonium) material?
Answer. The Department is still evaluating a range of disposition
alternatives for this material. Key employees involved in these studies
were working on preparing for the recent litigation involving plutonium
shipments to the Savannah River Site. Now that the lawsuit is near
completion, efforts on evaluating a range of disposition alternatives
for this material will resume.
russian transition initiatives
Question. Ambassador Brooks, on several occasions the
Administration indicated its strong support for programs designed to
employ scientists in the Former Soviet Union. The Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention (IPP) has enjoyed tremendous success, and the
Nuclear Cities Initiative has tremendous potential to make progress in
downsizing the former Soviet weapons complex. However, even though you
propose a budget increase for nonproliferation overall, the budget
request for these Russian Transition Initiatives drops from $57 million
to $39 million. If you were provided additional resources in this area,
would you be able to effectively use them in fiscal year 2003?
Answer. The potential of both RTI programs are determined by the
level commitment; the more money invested in them, the more that they
are able to do. With additional resources, NCI could accelerate many of
its efforts, speeding the closure of Avangard, for example, while IPP
could fund additional projects to meet U.S. industry demand in new
technology areas.
role on nnsa labs in counter-terrorism/homeland security
Question. General Gordon, in your testimony you indicated you had
created a working group to define what capabilities we can bring to
bear on the problems at hand, and not just in the nuclear arena. NNSA
has many capabilities in many areas that should be applied to fighting
terrorism both at home and abroad. Will you elaborate on your goals and
expectations in this area?
Answer. NNSA has world class science and technology resources and
its goal is to focus those resources on the problem of homeland
security and combating terrorism (CT). We have already drawn from our
nuclear weapons R&D, test and manufacturing base in developing
technologies that have made significant contributions, for example, to
the detection of chemical and biological agents. Substantial efforts
are also underway to understand and prioritize our domestic
vulnerabilities and develop and implement the tools to mitigate them.
We expect to continue these contributions whenever and wherever they
are needed.
Question. Are the resources of DOE/NNSA complex being effectively
and efficiently utilized in this arena?
Answer. Yes, but there is always room for improvement. A major
effort is underway to strengthen coordination among various entities
with CT responsibilities within the Department. Recently, the NNSA
enterprise (i.e., the labs, production plants, Nevada Test Site, and
Headquarters) are strengthening efforts to reach out to state and local
agencies to understand better their particular needs in CT. In many
cases there are near-term solutions being identified (e.g., providing
data on R&D and nuclear weapons threats) and longer-term R&D programs
that address more difficult problems (e.g., port security and the
containerization problem).
Question. Have you considered a fund or pool of funds that could be
utilized by the labs to work on combating terrorism for other agencies?
Answer. This year, I have undertaken an initiative to identify new
R&D initiatives or acceleration of ongoing initiatives for application
in the war against terrorism. An example of the use of this fund is R&D
and the demonstration of a Radiological Detection Tracking System. This
system has potential use by a number of agencies to combat terrorism.
We have funded these within current authorities and funds available to
NNSA.
role on nnsa labs in counter-terrorism/homeland security
Question. Is DOE/NNSA sufficiently represented in the multi-agency
task forces and committees working on developing the appropriate
response to terrorist threats?
Answer. The Office of Homeland Security (OHS) has created several
interagency working groups to coordinate agency programs for countering
terrorism. Several existing Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) interagency working groups, initiated to coordinate R&D
programs, have been incorporated into this effort. The NNSA is a full
participant in these groups. For example, DOE/NNSA is a member of the
OSTP/OHS R&D strategy group identifying research and technology needs
to combat WMD terrorism. Members, in addition to DOE/NNSA, represent a
broad cross section of the nation's research and technology agencies.
NNSA, is also a member of the Technical Support Working Group, working
with the Departments of Defense, State and others to conduct a research
and development program for combating terrorism requirements, both
nationally and internationally.
Question. What is the NNSA doing to make the resources of its
laboratories more readily available to the Office of Homeland Security?
Answer. The scientific and technological resources, world-class
scientists and facilities of the NNSA national laboratories are
available to OHS and other Federal agencies conducting the war against
terrorism through the reimbursable Work for Others (WFO) program. We
presently have a working group, chartered by General Gordon, to explore
ways that the WFO process can be strengthened to provide broader and
more timely support to the war against terrorism. The group's efforts
include review of present policies and procedures governing WFO and
discussions with policy officials and program managers across the
interagency on ways the laboratories can be made more readily available
to assist them in CT and related missions. These are part of NNSA's
efforts to strengthen its scientific and technical leadership and serve
as the lead agency for science and technology for OHS.
Question. What additional funding will be needed to make this
possible?
Answer. If the NNSA were to serve as the lead technical agency for
the OHS, additional funding would be required to establish the
infrastructure and hire additional staff to perform the expanded
mission. The additional funds required to serve as lead technical
agency would be based on the specific role that NNSA would perform
(e.g., interagency coordination of S&T initiatives vs. management and
conduct of S&T initiatives). Specific funding estimates are not yet
available.
role on nnsa labs in counter-terrorism/homeland security
Question. Related to the previous question, what is being done to
lower barriers to access of these capabilities by other agencies,
notably DOD, through the work for others (WFO) process?
Answer. Immediately following the September 11 attacks, General
Gordon called upon the national labs, plants and test site to respond
immediately to requests for technical assistance. Emergency
authorization was provided for this work that eased many WFO
restrictions, especially regarding starting work before funds arrive
from the requesting agency. Also the labs, plants, and Nevada Test Site
provided technical experts and specialized equipment in response to
several urgent requests including, for example, early warning of
nuclear, chemical, or biological attack at key locations, support to
New York City clean up efforts, support to FBI investigation of the
anthrax letters, support to the Post Office and the Senate Hart
building in connection with biological decontamination efforts, and
many more.
DOE/NNSA is now promulgating new, streamlined WFO procedures to
facilitate access by other agencies with antiterrorism responsibilities
to the technical capabilities at the national labs/plants/test site.
This includes establishing technical teams to work with agencies to
help define problems, work towards solutions, and provide necessary
technology and training. With regard to DOD, NNSA has recently signed
an agreement with DTRA to carry out jointly the Model Cities program
that will demonstrate improved surveillance and detection methods
against the threat of biological terrorism in urban centers. NNSA and
DOE Emergency response are working jointly with DOD and other Federal
agencies across a broad front to upgrade and develop new capabilities
to prevent, detect and respond to nuclear terrorist threats of all
kinds-ranging from radiological dispersal devices at the low end of the
threat spectrum to crude nuclear explosive devices (improvised nuclear
weapons) at the high end.
role on nnsa labs in counter-terrorism/homeland security
Question. How can DOE/NNSA expand it nonproliferation and Russian
programs to counter the emerging threat of nuclear and radiological
devices? What about expansion to other countries and regions?
Answer. The DOE/NNSA is undertaking a number of initiatives to
expand our efforts to counter these threats. First, we have worked to
accelerate existing efforts to address vulnerabilities associated with
nuclear material and expertise in the Russian Federation and the Newly
Independent States (NIS). These efforts have resulted in greater access
to sensitive facilities where vulnerabilities exist, and significant
reductions in program implementation schedules. More nuclear facilities
and border crossings are receiving security upgrades in parallel than
ever before. We are investigating the possible expansion of our work to
address national security threats posed by radiological dispersal
devices or ``dirty bombs'' by assessing and prioritizing threats posed
by various source materials in a range of locations. Pilot efforts to
secure vulnerable materials are already underway.
Regarding other countries or regions, we are intensifying efforts
to engage with countries outside the Former Soviet Union (FSU) where
significant vulnerabilities associated with nuclear materials,
expertise, or export controls exist. Nuclear security cooperation is
being discussed when we believe a credible threat exists and diplomatic
and legal issues do not prohibit dialogue with a potential recipient
country. We are also intensifying our efforts to support International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) programs to train member states on nuclear
material security concepts.
Question. NNSA's laboratories have played a key role in the
investigation of the mail-based anthrax attacks. Do you see a growing
role for the NNSA and its laboratories in this area of bio-terrorism
prevention and response?
Answer. Yes, the NNSA laboratories played a key role in the anthrax
attacks deriving from the R&D program structured and executed by NNSA.
If NNSA had not been poised to respond in areas such as biological
forensics, interior fate and transport modeling, and decontamination,
the identification of and response to the mail-based attacks would have
been more difficult. NNSA continues to develop, validate, demonstrate,
and transfer much needed technologies and capabilities for civilian
protection and defense, working with other agencies toward the ultimate
goal of an integrated biological and chemical defense approach for
urban environments. By working closely with the user community,
especially the state and local governments, their needs are
incorporated into the planning and execution of research projects.
Sustained, stable funding greatly enhances our ability to achieve
program goals focusing on the civilian population.
national infrastructure simulation and analysis center (nisac)
Question. General Gordon, I would like to talk to you briefly about
the NNSA's role in Homeland Security, particularly as it relates to the
Department's leadership role in protecting our national energy
infrastructure--such as pipelines, power plants, and transmission
systems.
The Department's Office of Energy Security and Assistance provides
the technical support, response and recovery for the United States
critical energy infrastructure, by working to protect the Nation
against severe energy supply disruptions.
One of the Government's best tools for this effort is the National
Infrastucture Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) which utilizes the
supercomputers at Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories to better
understand the interdependence and vulnerabilities of critical
infrastructure.
NISAC will prove very useful to the Department of Energy, but it
also has many applications outside the purview of the Department.
Governor Ridge's Office of Homeland Security has taken a great interest
in using NISCAS.
The development of NISAC has been supported by many agencies. In
the past three years, I have worked to provide $24.5 million for NISAC
through the Department of Defense. The Administration has requested $20
million for NISAC through the Department of Energy instead of the
Department of Defense in fiscal year 2003. What role could you envision
for NISAC if it were within the NNSA?
Answer. I support the President's proposal that the NISAC be
managed within the Department of Energy. I am confident that under
DOE's leadership, the NISAC will become a national asset that enhances
both the economic and physical security of our nation. By placing NISAC
under the direct control of the Secretary of Energy, the President has
recognized that the analytical capabilities available in the DOE
complex are critical to its success. The NISAC will be a strategic
asset and the Department will manage it as such. Interagency and
intergovernmental coordination for the development of fiscal year 2003
and outyear NISAC requirements is already underway. The DOE Office of
Energy Assurance is working closely with the Sandia and Los Alamos
National Laboratories to ensure scientific capabilities are properly
aligned with the national security strategy. Additionally, the
Department is closely coordinating with the Office of Homeland Security
and the President's Critical Infrastructures Protection Board to
develop a review process for NISAC requirements. The Department of
Energy is the appropriate agency to provide long-term oversight and
management of this critical project.
national infrastructure simulation and analysis center (nisac)
Question. If NISAC is funded through the NNSA, how could you ensure
that it is available to the Office of Homeland Security and other
agencies involved in critical infrastructure protection?
Answer. The Department is developing a plan to ensure requirements
developed for the NISAC are national, not departmental. The
capabilities under development within the NISAC are much broader than
the individual needs of any one agency. DOE understands the importance
of detailed analysis of the interdependencies associated with critical
infrastructure protection. The Secretary also supports the need for the
Office of Homeland Security and other agencies to be partners in
identifying what studies are required and in what priority order they
must be completed. The Secretary of energy is committed to protecting
the scientific capabilities resident within the DOE complex to do so.
Understanding that not all agency needs will gain consensus as high
priority in an interagency review process, the NISAC will also be able
to provide analytical support to requesting agencies utilizing joint
funding and Work for Others programs.
security costs
Question. General Gordon, the fiscal year 2003 budget request does
not include funding to continue to current rate of security operations
through-out the weapons complex. I believe it would take at least an
additional $65 million for fiscal year 2003. Why were these funds not
included in the budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 budget was formulated before the
September 11 attack occurred and resulting implications for fiscal year
2002 and beyond became known.
Question. Can we expect to see these funds requested in a future
supplemental?
Answer. We continue to assess the safeguards and security posture
of our complex in response to the evolving threat to our environment
and we are prepared to rebalance our funding priorities as necessary to
assure continued protection of our critical national assets.
nnsa's nuclear systems initiative
Question. Admiral Bowman, the fiscal year 2003 NASA budget proposes
a ``nuclear systems initiative.'' This initiative will develop new
radioisotope power systems for on-board electric power on future space
platforms, and it will also conduct research and development on nuclear
electric propulsion systems that would allow future space craft to
speed throughout the outer reaches of the solar system.
NASA has proposed spending $126 million in fiscal year 2003 and up
to $1 billion in the next 5 years. I understand the NASA Director has
expressed an interest in collaborating with Naval Reactors in this
effort. What is your view of this effort and the role for Naval
Reactors?
Answer. Dr. Sean O'Keefe, NASA Administrator, has established a
bold ``nuclear systems initiative'' to reach outer space more
efficiently than today's technology would allow.
Naval Reactors does not have any ongoing work, nor do we have any
budgeted work, for space nuclear propulsion. We have had discussions
with NASA regarding what issues would need to be addressed for us to be
involved. These discussions have been very preliminary in nature. No
agreements have been reached.
In discussions with high level officials at NASA and DOE, we
explained that in the past, our work has been limited to Naval Nuclear
Propulsion, and civilian power reactor programs as assigned. We
expressed that we consider it inappropriate for NR to begin to design
or build a space reactor unless given clear direction to do so by the
White House or Congress. We have also discussed providing peer review
of the effort as long as funding for this purpose is provided.
Naval Reactors is fully employed with our current workload.
However, if there were a defined national need for a space nuclear
program, we would undertake this project if assigned by proper
authority and appropriately funded.
Question. Do you agree that the other NNSA labs with expertise in
nuclear systems for space should play a strong role in this effort?
Answer. Any project of this magnitude would certainly require the
expertise of a large number of organizations.
If reactor design or construction work is assigned to us, it would
make sense to use the experience of the NNSA laboratory designers and
infrastructure who have helped build our record of 50-plus years of
operational success. Our involvement, if requested, should include
maintaining the independence of both Naval Reactors Headquarters and
our NNSA laboratories as provided in Executive Order 12344 and codified
in two public laws.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reid. The subcommittee stands recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Monday, March 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray presiding.
Present: Senators Murray, Domenici, Cochran, Bennett, and
Craig.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF HON. JESSIE HILL ROBERSON, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID GARMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. The subcommittee will come to order.
Senator Reid, chairman of this subcommittee, was unable to be
here at the last minute this morning. He is presiding over the
energy debate on the floor. We have two very, very critical
votes coming up in about an hour and a half here and he was
unable to make it. We will submit his testimony for the record,
but he knows how critical these issues are. He has worked very,
very hard on them, and we will submit his statement and his
questions for the record and he gives all of you his apologies
for not being here.
I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Reid and Senator
Domenici for holding this hearing today and for scheduling it
to accommodate those members who do have a vital interest in
the environmental management program. The effort at the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation and all of our national sites is not just
about cleaning up nuclear wastes. To me it is about honoring
our commitments to people and communities who have sacrificed
over the years to ensure our safety.
During World War Two and the Cold War, the people of the
Tri-Cities in Washington State produced the material that went
into our strategic arms. We won those wars in part because of
the sacrifices made in the Tri-Cities. One legacy of that
sacrifice is the freedom that we enjoy today. But another
legacy is the nuclear waste.
We have one of the most polluted sites in the world, the
Hanford Nuclear Facility on the banks of the Columbia River.
When it comes to environmental management program, the Bush
Administration has some real credibility problems. Before the
President's first budget was released, the budget director
assured me that, despite press reports, Hanford's budget would
not be cut. When the budget finally emerged, we found out the
Hanford was cut after all. This year, for the second year in a
row, the President's budget shortchanges Hanford.
Equally disturbing are some of the recent management
decisions made by the Department of Energy. DOE has failed to
provide real assurances to the State of South Carolina. DOE is
replacing a very successful site manager at Hanford. DOE is
cutting the staff at the Office of River Protection, and DOE's
actions have drawn a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense
Council.
All of these decisions by the Bush Administration do not
give me a lot of confidence that the Department of Energy is on
the right track. I have to tell you that in my community and in
other sites across the country these actions have created the
perception that the administration is taking unilateral actions
that pit sites against one another in a competition for
funding.
You have the opportunity to reverse that perception by
committing to work with the communities, the States, the
regulators, to move the cleanup forward in a cooperative
manner. I am not just talking about the Hanford site. We have
Savannah River, Idaho, and others. It will not be acceptable to
me or, I trust, this subcommittee to fail to meet Federal
obligations at Hanford and the other sites.
I recognize the potential contained in the letter of intent
recently signed between the State of Washington and the
Department of Energy. However, it is going to take a lot of
work and cooperation to make that intent a reality, and I'm not
yet convinced that the administration is doing its part.
With the help of my colleagues on this panel and the
Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus, I will continue to push the
Federal Government to meet its Federal obligations at every
site.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I am
pleased that both Secretary Garman and Secretary Roberson are
with us this morning. We are going to hear testimony on two
programs that are awfully important to, I believe, DOE and the
Nation and to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory in my State.
Now, I must tell you that I, along with the chairman, have
been somewhat of a skeptic and a critic of DOE's accelerated
cleanup proposal for EM. While we can embrace the Secretary's
goals of accomplishing more cleanup and doing it faster, and I
think we all do, I have looked the Secretary straight in the
eye and said: This has to be real. It cannot be just a
mechanism for cheapening up cleanup standards and compromising
on the protection of the environment.
I must tell you that we all know the Secretary well enough
to know that he looked me right back and said without question
that there would be no compromises. He and I very early, on
while he was a nominee-talked of this long period of time in
which we had spread out cleanup at these facilities and that if
there was any way to shorten it and do it as well as we planned
to do it and do it in less time, that we would be dealing in
tomorrow's dollars and not the dollars of next year or next
year or decades later. Very frankly, that made sense to me.
Cleanup acceleration cannot be a mechanism for DOE to walk
away, though, from its commitments and obligations, and we know
that. I believe the Secretary is a man of his word. He has
assured me that his effort to reform and accelerate cleanup is
a sincere one.
I have nothing against a new leadership team wanting to
take a fresh look at the cleanup programs. In fact, I think
sometimes we bureaucratize these things in a way sometimes
causing folks to go back and look again and be shaken a bit by
an effort that can produce the kind of productivity that we
need to have at these facilities.
The EM program will take decades and cost many tens of
billions of dollars. That is the reality that this country is
committed to, and I think it deserves our best effort and our
highest scrutiny.
I am also pleased that yesterday the Governor of Idaho has
been able to announce a resolution to Idaho's longstanding
dispute with DOE over the Pit 9 cleanup issue. Pit 9 has been a
cloud on our horizon, your horizon, way too long, frustrating
all of us. We now have, I believe, a workable path forward for
demonstrating the cleanup at Pit 9.
Although Idaho and DOE can agree to disagree, and we have,
on the legal interpretation of DOE's entire obligation for
buried waste, we now have a way to break the logjam and move
forward, and I think the Secretary and all of you, Secretary
Roberson, you certainly demonstrated your commitment to doing
that.
This resolution will also allow Idaho to engage in a very
earnest effort with DOE to begin to discuss how Idaho's cleanup
can be accelerated. Although I do not support DOE's request for
the appropriations of $800 million unallocated pot of money for
acceleration, I do believe that the subcommittee should examine
the results of DOE's accelerated cleanup discussion and try to
factor the outcome of those proposals in the cleanup budget,
which we will then appropriate for the sites.
Secretary Abraham and I have discussed this and we both
desire to see the reform discussion move forward as soon as
possible. Secretary Roberson, I look forward to you and your
office working on this in the coming weeks so that we can be
successful in Idaho. Hanford has already spoken, as the
chairman said, to their direction in acceleration.
Assistant Secretary Garman, I recently sent you a letter
and I understand you are exploring the opportunities to visit
Idaho to see the capability of that site and what we think is a
tremendous opportunity for our country. We have lots of
resource and talent at the INEL and we believe that it can be
channeled in the right direction to be a phenomenally
productive effort for our country, for our future, and for our
energy needs.
We thank you both for being here and look forward to your
testimony.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Craig.
We will now hear from Jessie Hill Roberson, Assistant
Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management, and David
Garman, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. Ms. Roberson.
STATEMENT OF JESSIE HILL ROBERSON
Ms. Roberson. Thank you, Senator Murray and Senator Craig
and for those members that show up while I am speaking. Thank
you for having me here today.
I am here today to ask for your support of the Department's
Environmental Management budget request. I am pleased to report
to you that the transformation of the Environmental Management
program has begun. DOE has already taken the first steps to
change our focus from risk management to risk reduction and
elimination, to shift our focus from process to product, and to
instill in this program the kind of urgency necessary to clean
up and close the nuclear legacy of the Cold War, to protect the
environment, and secure the homeland.
We have already taken several steps to immediately
implement proposals for reforming and revitalizing this
program. We have deployed special teams to most of our sites to
work with our field DOE, contractors, State and Federal
regulators, and other stakeholders to develop accelerated
cleanup plans.
We are taking actions to further augment the Nation's
security through this consolidation of nuclear material at EM
sites, a key recommendation of the top to bottom review. We are
working in partnership with the National Nuclear Security
Administration to ensure that our nuclear materials remain safe
and secure. This accelerated effort will lead to more secure
protection of our nuclear material inventory while reducing the
cost of storage and protection at multiple sites.
DOE has also taken the initial steps to align our internal
processes and management to enable a streamlined and more
focused approach to cleanup. EM has begun reviewing our
contracts to ensure that they are effectively meeting our
cleanup and closure needs. We have also begun reviewing
existing systems and, where necessary, developing new systems
of managing our contracts to ensure effective government
oversight.
The progress we have made so far is significant. It would
not have been possible without the active support of the
Members of this Subcommittee and I appreciate your support. As
far as we have come to date, the unfinished work ahead of us is
great. Most of the hardest work and the toughest challenges are
still before us.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
The Environmental Management budget request for fiscal year
2003 contains key initiatives and tools we need to help us
continue the work of transforming this program. Our budget
request of $6.7 billion is about the same amount as
appropriated last year. However, if we can achieve agreements
for accelerated cleanup at most of our DOE sites across the
complex, we are prepared, the administration is prepared, to
amend our request consistent with the funding needs of those
agreements.
Our fiscal year 2003 request has two components, a base
request of $5.9 billion and a new Cleanup Reform account. This
new account is proposed specifically to fund projects and
activities at sites that achieve agreements with our States to
enable accelerated cleanup.
Simply put, our goal is to achieve a safer environment
sooner. To take those actions, we can base on information
acquired from past experiences and past investments in science
and technology and to position ourselves for future remediation
opportunities.
I would like to make several points clear at the outset. We
believe, first, that this account is critical to the success of
our efforts. Second, it is our intent to look for more
effective and efficient ways of achieving cleanup and risk
reduction in the base budget request of $5.9 billion, thus
demonstrating more visible and tangible results for the entire
budget request. Third, it is not our intent to get out of
compliance with any of our regulatory agreements. This is not
an assault on our cleanup agreements. These agreements are
living documents with processes to enable improvement and
revision to achieve our mutual goals. Fourth, DOE is not only
looking at States, but even looking more so at ourselves. We
cannot achieve the results we want unless we address our own
business practices. Fifth, DOE is not seeking any new authority
from Congress at this time to achieve our accelerated
objectives. We believe we have adequate authority within the
current statutory framework. If in the future we believe we
need new authority from Congress to carry out reforms of this
program, we will seek help at that time.
Members of this panel have appropriately demanded more of
DOE--more accountability, more fiscal responsibility, and more
tangible results. We are strongly aligned with your efforts to
improve our work. The fiscal year 2003 budget request is based
on a simple premise: The Congress, the States and the
communities that host DOE sites all want accelerated risk
reduction. This budget request will put into place a valuable
set of tools and instruments we need to achieve that mutual
goal.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I do not come before you today claiming that we have all
the answers. In many respects, this is still a work in
progress, and to get here we have benefited greatly from those
who were here before us. Nonetheless, we do feel a sense of
urgency that requires that we forge ahead in spite of some
uncertainties. I am confident that we can, working together, be
successful.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jessie H. Roberson
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Department of Energy's
Environmental Management (EM) program and its fiscal year 2003 budget
request.
We meet today at an historic moment for the Environmental
Management program. This is no ordinary year. This budget request does
not come at an ordinary time. This Administration has just completed a
comprehensive review of EM and has concluded that this program is badly
in need of repair. For 10 years we have spent tens of billions of
dollars but have failed to make commensurate progress towards cleanup
and risk reduction. If present trends continue unchecked, we will
squander taxpayer money and make only minimal progress towards cleanup
and risk reduction. This is unacceptable. This Administration is
determined to make changes.
This budget represents the first step towards addressing the
fundamental problems facing EM. DOE has analyzed what is wrong and has
taken the first steps forward. To go further, we need the help and
support of Congress. We need the help and support of states and our
state and federal regulators. We need the help and support of
stakeholders and communities throughout America. We can turn this
program around and produce real progress towards cleanup, but only if
we all work together towards our common goals.
The Department is requesting $6.714 billion for the EM program for
fiscal year 2003. This is approximately the same level as Congress
appropriated for the program in fiscal year 2002. In a year when
demands for Federal dollars are particularly high, this request
demonstrates the Administration's commitment to cleaning up the
contamination resulting from Cold War nuclear weapons production and to
ensuring that our surplus nuclear materials are safe and secure to
protect the Homeland.
The budget request before you begins to fundamentally change the
way the cleanup is carried out. We have proposed structural changes in
our request to enable us to begin these badly needed changes. The
request provides ``base funding'' to ensure safety and security, and to
support on-going cleanup activities at the sites. But it also includes
a new and separate $800 million EM Cleanup Reform account. These funds
will be made available to those sites that can--in partnership with
their regulators, their contractors and their communities--change their
way of doing business to provide more tangible progress towards cleanup
and risk reduction. If the vast majority of sites agree to the reforms
we think are necessary, it is possible that the $800 million may become
over-subscribed. In this event, the Administration is prepared to
support additional resources to complete reforms at remaining sites.
The reforms proposed in the fiscal year 2003 budget request do not
fully meet my own--or the Secretary's--expectations of an effective and
revitalized EM program. Rather, it is a transitional budget. It
contains some elements of the changes we plan to put in place, but it
is really only a first step in the transition toward a more risk-based
and efficient cleanup program. Therefore, in my testimony, I would like
to take a step back from the details of the request to discuss the
current circumstances of the EM program, the conclusions of the
recently completed program review, and key elements of my
implementation strategy. I will then address the priorities used to
formulate the fiscal year 2003 request and provide highlights of the
critical work we plan to accomplish in fiscal year 2003.
laying the groundwork for fundamental change
the challenge before us
The EM program is responsible for cleaning up the environmental
legacy of the nation's nuclear weapons program and government-sponsored
nuclear energy research. The cleanup program is one of the largest and
most diverse and technically complex environmental cleanup programs in
the world. Responsible for the cleanup of 114 sites across the country,
the EM program faces the challenge of:
--safely dispositioning large volumes of nuclear wastes, including
over 340,000 cubic meters of high-level waste stored at the
Hanford, Idaho, West Valley and Savannah River sites;
--safeguarding materials that could be used in nuclear weapons,
including over two thousand tons of intensely radioactive spent
nuclear fuel, some of which is corroding, and more than 18
metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium;
--deactivating and decommissioning several thousand contaminated
facilities no longer needed to support the Department's
mission; and
--remediating extensive surface and groundwater contamination.
The painful truth is that EK has not effectively managed this
daunting task. Ironically, EM's own indicators would say we are doing
well. We have met over 90 percent of our regulatory milestones, and our
contractors routinely receive over 90 percent of their available fee.
In large part, however, we are measuring process, not progress. This
must change.
To illustrate the magnitude of the challenge, EM's own internal
estimates of what it will cost to complete cleanup continue to grow.
EM's most recent life-cycle cost estimate, based on current plans, is
$220 billion, an estimate that could easily increase to more than $300
billion without breakthrough changes in the program. Additionally, only
about one-third of the EM program budget today is going toward actual
cleanup and risk reduction work. The remainder is spent on maintenance,
fixed costs, and other activities required to support safety and
security.
The schedule estimates from just a few years ago have also proven
to be overly optimistic. Over just the past few years, the estimated
closure or cleanup completion dates have slipped for numerous sites.
Moreover, the three largest sites--Savannah River, Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and Hanford--have such long-
term completion dates (2038, 2050, and 2070, respectively) that the
estimates for cost and schedule are highly uncertain and subject to
change.
While most of the risks at these contaminated sites do not pose an
imminent threat to public health and the environment, the complacency
and inaction of the status quo will eventually have startling
consequences. DOE spends billions of dollars each year simply to keep
these materials safe and secure. Each year we do not move aggressively
to reduce and remove these risks, they become costlier to manage and
maintain. On the present course, we face the real possibility that we
will never meet our cleanup and closure goals.
While these outcomes are not acceptable, they are also not
inevitable. This Administration believes firmly that reform of the
complex is possible, as well as urgent. We have seen examples even
under the current approach where an accelerated risk-based approach has
yielded concrete results that have served the public interest in
cleanup and closure. At Rocky Flats in Colorado, risk-based management
approach, effective contracting strategies and an overall sense of
urgency have produced real progress towards cleanup and closure. This
site has worked hard and struggled to be at the point it is today. That
same effort is needed throughout the DOE complex.
I believe with appropriate management and with your support, we can
replicate these successes throughout the nation.
conclusions of the top-to-bottom review
Last year, the Secretary of Energy told Congress that the status
quo in the EM cleanup program was unacceptable. He directed me to
conduct a comprehensive review of the cleanup program with the goal of
quickly improving performance. The team I formed to conduct the review
concluded that there are numerous structural and institutional problems
that are driving EM's poor performance. The report also included
several specific calls to action to remedy this situation. In the
broadest sense, the report urged that the EM program transform its
mission from managing risk to reducing and eliminating risk. The report
was issued on February 4, 2002. I am moving out aggressively to
evaluate and act on the recommendations of this report and work with
Congress, the states, and stakeholders to develop mutually acceptable
approaches.
The recommendations, and the problems they address, generally fall
into four areas:
Improve DOE's Contract Strateg and Management.--The issue here is
both our overall contracting strategy and how we manage contracts. The
report concludes that EM's contracting approach is not always focused
on accelerating risk reduction and applying innovative approaches to
doing work. Effective contracting practices are essential to improve
program performance. The EM Review concluded that the processes for
contract acquisition, establishment of performance goals, funding
allocation, and government oversight are managed as separate,
informally related activities rather than as an integrated corporate
business process. This results in performance standards that are
inconsistently and ineffectively applied. The report recommends that
EM:
--Improve the quality of the contract solicitation process to attract
broader contractor participation.
--Require clarity in contracts with respect to work scope, regulatory
requirements, and end points.
--Clearly identify the nature and extent of uncertainty and risks,
and align the type of contract accordingly.
--Increase emphasis on real risk reduction by focusing fees on end
points rather than intermediate milestones.
--Eliminate the use of subjective performance measures.
The report recommends that DOE undertake a review of all existing
contracts for their alignment with these principles and revise or amend
those contracts to improve this alignment. Our point here is not to
criticize or penalize contractors. Obviously, they did what DOE asked
for. But I do not believe that we asked for the right things, and we
did not create contract vehicles that pushed them to perform. We must
begin implementing more aggressive contracts--ones that genuinely
challenge them to achieve and to shoulder more risk--while providing
significant profit for truly outstanding performance. But, conversely,
it means that mediocrity will reap no rewards.
Move EM to an Accelerated, Risk-Based Cleanup Strategy.--EM's
cleanup strategy is not based on a comprehensive, coherent,
technically-supported risk prioritization. The framework, and in some
cases, the interpretation of DOE Orders and requirements, environmental
laws, regulations, and agreements have resulted in the diversion of
resources to lower-risk activities and over-emphasis on process. To
move towards a more risk-based approach:
--Cleanup work should be prioritized to achieve the greatest risk
reduction at an accelerated rate.
--Realistic approaches to cleanup should be based on technical risk
evaluation, anticipated future land uses, points of compliance,
and points of evaluation.
--Cleanup agreements should be assessed for their contribution to
reducing risk to workers, the public, and the environment.
The report recommends that DOE initiate an effort to review current
DOE Orders and requirements as well as regulatory agreements, and
commence discussions with states and other regulators with a view to
achieving regulatory agreements that accelerate risk reduction based on
technical risk evaluation. The issue here is not to avoid compliance
with regulatory agreements. The issue here is that we need to work with
states and regulators to ensure that these agreements truly match up
with a risk-based approach. We are determined to begin this effort now.
Align DOE's Internal Processes to Support an Accelerated, Risk-
Based Cleanup Approach.--The review concluded that EM's internal
business processes are not structured to support accelerated risk
reduction or to address its current challenge of uncontrolled cost and
schedule growth. We must instill a sense of urgency in the system. If
we are to accelerate the cleanup and reduce risk, we must transform
EM's processes and operations to reflect this urgency and time
sensitivity. Some specific actions include:
--Improve work planning to increase the up-front understanding and
planning of work and apply project management principles to all
core work areas.
--Expand the application of Integrated Safety Management (ISM) to
higher-level work planning, where decisions are made about what
work is appropriate and desirable and breakthrough safety
improvements may occur.
--Develop ``Lessons Learned'' at a corporate level to provide a frank
description of significant project issues, with corporate
lessons learned required for all EM managers.
--Apply DOE requirements in a manner consistent with the work at
hand, clarifying requirements relevant to cleanup and
streamlining the process for interpreting DOE Orders and
requirements for more complex cleanup projects.
--Accelerate the closure of small sites. With relatively little
additional investment, the risks at remaining small sites can
be eliminated sooner, and the life-cycle costs reduced.
Realign the EM program so its scope is consistent with an
accelerated risk-based cleanup and closure mission.--The current scope
of the EM program includes activities that are not focused on or
supportive of an accelerated, risk-based cleanup and closure mission.
EM should redeploy, streamline, or cease activities not appropriate for
accelerated cleanup and closure. Specifically, EM should:
--Accelerate the consolidation of activities that require safeguards
and security infrastructure to enhance safety and security,
reduce threats, reduce risk, and save money.
--Refocus the EM technology program to directly address the specific,
near-term applied technology needs for cleanup and closure.
--Eliminate or transfer from EM those activities not directly
supporting an accelerated, risk-based cleanup and closure
program.
making changes on a fast track
The review identified specific issues and recommendations that will
allow us to move aggressively to change the EM program's approach to
its cleanup and closure mandate. Similarly, the sites have contributed
their own site-specific strategies and proposals to refocus and
accelerate their efforts. All the recommended changes are designed to
focus the program on one primary result--reducing risk to public
health, workers, and the environment on an accelerated basis.
We have already instituted some changes, and will continue to take
action as soon as possible and practicable to bring about the changes
that are needed. We have deployed special teams to most of our sites to
work with DOE, our contractors, state and federal regulators, and other
stakeholders to develop revised cleanup plans. I am very pleased that
we signed a letter of intent with the Hanford site in Washington that
will enable us to significantly accelerate our work there and achieve
more risk reduction. We are engaged in similar discussions at the
Savannah River, Oak Ridge, and Brookhaven sites, and I expect to
achieve similar results at these sites over the next few months.
Additionally, we are already acting to ensure our contracts align
with and support our accelerated cleanup mission. We recently announced
that a new contract will be competed and awarded for cleanup of the
Mound Site in Ohio. The new contract, streamlined and focused on
reducing risk, will emphasize completing cleanup safely and more
quickly, with a goal of transferring the site to the community by 2006
or earlier.
Similarly, as the review makes clear, EM needs to get its own house
in order to ensure its internal processes and policies support the
urgency of its mission. As part of our human capital strategy, we have
just completed a reassignment of 40 percent of the program's 70 Senior
Executives in order to strengthen, streamline, and remove unnecessary
layers from the leadership of the program. Our purpose is to better
leverage the unique talents of these executives, force better
integration between the field and headquarters on the challenges
confronting the program, and to stimulate new thinking and creative
solutions to the cleanup.
We are taking actions to further augment the nation's security
through the consolidation of nuclear material at EM sites, a key
recommendation of the Top-to-Bottom report. We are working in
partnership with the National Nuclear Security Administration to ensure
that our nuclear material is safe and secure. This accelerated effort
will lead to more secure protection of our nuclear material inventory
while reducing the expensive cost of storage and protection at multiple
sites.
This is just a beginning. We will continue to work quickly to
implement the recommendations of the Top-to-Bottom report.
the fiscal year 2003 budget request
A key element for implementing the review's recommendations is to
ensure that the program's funding is properly aligned to support needed
change. The fiscal year 2003 budget request is a first step towards
achieving that alignment. It incorporates some new ways of doing
business and includes a significant structural change designed to
foster agreement on expedited, more risk-based cleanup approaches.
EM's fiscal year 2003 budget request of $6.7 billion is essentially
the same level as appropriated for fiscal year 2002. The budget request
is composed of two parts: a base budget request and a new Environmental
Management Cleanup Reform appropriation request of $800 million to
implement fundamental changes to the cleanup program.
cleanup reform appropriation
EM is requesting a new Cleanup Reform Appropriation that is
critical to beginning implementation of the recommendations of the Top-
to-Bottom Review. While the overall size of the request is consistent
with past years, DOE is requesting from Congress new discretion in
allocating this money among the sites, and for specific projects within
sites. We believe that this approach is essential to meeting the common
goal of states, taxpayers and DOE--accelerated cleanup and risk
reduction. DOE realizes that we are asking a great deal from Congress
with this request, and we are eager to work with you to accomplish this
goal.
The Cleanup Reform Appropriation would in essence be a performance
tool--a pool of funds available to those sites that both demonstrate
their ability to realign to a more accelerated risk-based approach, and
provide to DOE specific proposals consistent with this new approach
that achieve greater risk reduction, faster.
We are now in the midst of reassessing and realigning our
activities to enable a more risk-based, accelerated cleanup approach.
It is our goal to develop agreements at each site on a specific set of
changes and commitments by all parties that will reflect this new
approach. I have no doubt that this process may often be difficult.
Everyone will have to let go of certain things they favor in the
broader public interest of achieving more risk reduction faster.
Indeed, the Top-to-Bottom review concluded that every player in the
cleanup business needs to make changes to enable a more effective
cleanup strategy.
Once these strategic agreements are reached, we will develop
specific plans that implement this new approach. These plans should be
supported by the state and federal regulators, should align with a
revised contract and regulatory strategy, and should reflect a risk-
based accelerated approach. These plans might be new projects not
previously in the sites' baselines. They might be modified, accelerated
versions of existing projects. I am also open to supporting projects
that already reflect an accelerated risk-based approach, but where
additional funds can achieve even greater risk reduction at a lower
life-cycle cost. Each project proposed for the cleanup fund would have
a new cost savings and funding profile. Funds from the Cleanup Reform
Appropriation would then be made available to fund or supplement
existing funding from the base budget for the project. The appropriate
Congressional committees will be informed of the agreement and the
commitment of funds from this appropriation. The funds identified with
the acceleration will be merged with the funds in the parent
appropriation (e.g., Closure, Site/Project Completion, Post-2006) of
the old activity.
This new appropriation will provide the stimulus necessary to
encourage our sites, our contractors, DOE headquarters and program
elements, and state and federal regulators to quickly forge agreements
to enable more effective cleanup approaches. An example of the
candidate projects identified during the review for alternate
strategies that should produce results quicker and with substantial
life-cycle savings are high-level waste vitrification projects. The
review identified alternative approaches to treating high-level waste
that would limit vitrification to the high-risk component and pursue
alternative treatment approaches for lower-risk components. These
alternative approaches offer the potential of earlier true risk
reduction and could save the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
In summary, this Cleanup Reform Appropriation provides EM with the
tool we need to jump-start our reform agenda. It enables DOE, Congress,
communities, regulators, and contractors to work together to achieve
our common goal of accelerated cleanup and risk reduction. It also
maintains for Congress the necessary oversight and checks and balances
to ensure that this fund is managed prudently, and consistently with
our common goals.
base budget request
The base budget request would protect our workers, the public and
the environment while continuing cleanup progress across the DOE
complex. As I said earlier, this fiscal year 2003 budget is a
transitional budget. It does not fully reflect the changes we have
proposed and will be implementing throughout the DOE complex over the
next several months. The progress towards cleanup and risk reduction
reflected in this request does not meet either my, or the Secretary's,
expectations for this program. But it does provide us with the set of
tools we need to begin the process of improving EM's performance. In
building the request, the Department applied the following principles
and priorities:
Protect human health and the environment.--The budget request
continues to place the highest priority on protecting the health and
safety of workers and the public at all DOE sites. We expect
outstanding safety performance as a matter of course. We demand this
from our contractors and ourselves, and we will accept nothing less.
Surveillance and maintenance.--Surveillance, maintenance, and
support activities needed to maintain waste, materials, facilities, and
sites in a safe and stable condition are fully funded in the base
budget. This funding maintains the sites in an operating and safe
condition. Examples of these types of activities in the request
include:
--Safe storage, configuration, and accountability of nuclear
materials and spent nuclear fuel at sites such as the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the
Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the Hanford Site in
Washington;
--Safe storage of high-level, mixed, and low-level waste, as well as
management and disposal of hazardous and sanitary waste, across
the DOE. complex, including tank safety activities at the
Hanford, INEEL, and Savannah River high level waste tank farms;
--Long-term stewardship at more than 35 sites where cleanup has been
completed but where some contaminants still remain. In fiscal
year 2003, this will include Weldon Spring in Missouri, which
is expected to complete cleanup and transition to long-term
stewardship by the end of fiscal year 2002;
--Maintaining the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio in cold
standby, including uranium deposit removal;
--Surveillance and maintenance of more than 62,000 depleted uranium
hexafloride and other uranium cylinders located at gaseous
diffusion plants in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee;
--Surveillance and maintenance of facilities, including excess
contaminated facilities pending deactivation and
decontamination; Groundwater monitoring and continued operation
of treatment systems;
--Essential landlord functions.
Safeguards and security.--This is first EM budget request since the
events of September 11. Our nation is more aware than ever before of
the critical need to maintain vigilance in our domestic security and to
protect against terrorism. The EM program is responsible for many tons
of surplus nuclear material. The budget request provides funding at
approximately the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, reflecting both
increased and decreased safeguards and security needs. In particular,
reduced requirements in Environmental Management Defense Facilities
Closure Projects are commensurate with the planned removal of special
nuclear materials from Fernald and Rocky Flats sites, and reflect
completion of security upgrades in Miamisburg this year.
Accelerated cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats Fernald and Mound.--
The request supports the work necessary to continue accelerated cleanup
and closure of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in
Colorado. The request maintains a focus on closure of the Fernald
Environmental Management Project and the Mound Site in Ohio. Closing
these sites will eliminate significant risk and financial liabilities
that EM cannot afford to maintain. Our base budget request also funds
supporting activities at sites such as the Savannah River Site and Oak
Ridge in Tennessee that are critical to achieving closure of these
three major sites.
At Rocky Flats, the fiscal year 2003 request keeps the site on
track for closing in 2006. In fiscal year 2003, it supports:
--Eliminating the Security Protected Area. In fiscal year 2001,
special nuclear material was consolidated into a single
building, significantly reducing the size of the Protected
Area. This both reduced security costs for the buildings being
dismantled and improved productivity by reducing the time it
takes work crews to gain access to these facilities. In fiscal
year 2003, based on the current estimates for shipping nuclear
material off-site, we will be able to eliminate the Protected
Area entirely. Cost savings can than be shifted to active
cleanup, rather than maintaining costly safeguards and security
measures.
--Shipping 3,700 cubic meters of transuranic waste to WIPP, and
35,000 cubic meters of low-level waste and 3,600 cubic meters
of low-level mixed waste for disposal, subject to receiver site
availability;
--Completing shipments of plutonium metals and oxides off-site; and
Continuing deactivation and decontamination (D&D) activities
for Buildings 371, 707, 771, and 776/7, and associated
remediation work.
At Fernald, the fiscal year 2003 request supports:
--Continuing remediation of the Silos;
--Shipping about 93,500 cubic meters of waste to a permitted off site
commercial disposal facility; continuing packaging and on- or
off-site disposition of mixed and low-level wastes; and placing
43,000 cubic meters of remediation waste in the on-site
disposal facility; and
--Continuing D&D of the Pilot Plant Complex and Multicomplex, and
initiating D&D of the Liquid Storage Complex.
At Miamisburg (Mound), we will continue efforts to cleanup
contamination and transfer land to the community for economic
development. We have already transferred 121 acres, or about 40 percent
of the site, for this purpose. The fiscal year 2003 request supports:
--Continuing acceleration of site cleanup and transfer of site
properties by completing ``critical path'' deactivation and
decontamination activities in the Main Hill Tritium facilities
(i.e., R, SW, and T Buildings);
--Completing site preparations and beginning excavation of thorium-
and polonium-contaminated soil (i.e., Release Site 66), the
largest contaminated soil excavation project at Mound; and
--Shipping over 19,000 cubic meters of contaminated soil and debris
for off-site disposal.
Increased Shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP.--The
request maintains support for a significantly increased rate of
shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP. The WIPP facility in New Mexico
is critical to EM closure and completion goals at other sites. For
example, WIPP is critical to the Department's commitment to the State
of Idaho to ship 3,100 cubic meters of transuranic waste out of the
state by December 2002, and to meeting the schedule for closure of
Rocky Flats. In fiscal year 2002, the Department provided an additional
$12 million to WIPP to increase by almost 50 percent the rate of
shipments. The fiscal year 2003 request supports:
--Continued increased shipments of contact-handled transuranic waste;
and
--Continued progress toward beginning shipments of remote-handled
waste, including submission of regulatory documentation to the
New Mexico and EPA regulators and facility upgrades and
modifications needed for remote-handled disposal operations.
Continuing Progress.--EM will continue to make progress in
completing cleanup projects in accordance with existing approaches and
under existing agreements. The Department will continue efforts to
clean up release sites; to treat, store and dispose of hazardous and
radioactive waste; and to decontaminate and decommission facilities at
many sites. However, we expect to accelerate the pace of progress of
many of these projects as we begin to implement the top-to-bottom
review recommendations. For example, the request provides funding to:
At the Hanford site, continue construction of the Waste Treatment
Plant to vitrify high level waste. By the end of fiscal year 2002, we
will have begun construction of two of three major facilities, and
completed 50 percent of the engineering and design for all three. Work
in fiscal year 2003 will focus on continuing construction of the
vitrification facility, starting construction of the pretreatment
facility, and purchasing major equipment, as well as designing the feed
delivery system.
At INEEL, begin operation of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment
Facility, treat about 1,625 cubic meters of transuranic waste, and
complete construction and begin operation of the CERCLA disposal
facility for remediation waste, as well as continue operations to move
spent nuclear fuel to safer storage.
At the Savannah River Site, continue stabilization of high-risk
nuclear material solutions in the canyons; continue activities to
suspend and deactivate F-canyon; complete construction work to
stabilize and package plutonium for long-term storage, and the transfer
of americium/curium solutions to the high level waste tanks for
eventual vitrification.
At the Oak Ridge Reservation, complete major risk reduction
remediation projects, including excavation, treatment, and off-site
disposal of highly contaminated sediments from ORNL surface
impoundments, and excavation of uranium contaminated soils from the Y-
12 Boneyard/Burial site and disposal in the new on-site disposal cell.
The request also continues D&D work at East Tennessee Technology Park,
including completing the dismantlement of two of the three remaining
cascade units in Building K-31.
At the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky, complete high
priority remedial actions, including cleanup of the North/South
diversion ditch and continue scrap metal removal and groundwater
actions, as well as characterization of high priority DOE Material
Storage Areas.
At the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, complete high priority
remediation projects, and continue groundwater remediation, storage
yard removal, and disposal of mixed low level waste. At West Valley in
New York, continue decontamination of spent fuel processing and storage
facilities, and continue construction of the Remote-Handled Waste
Facility that will be used to prepare transuranic and other high-
activity waste for shipment and disposal. We will complete all
vitrification processing operations and deactivation of vitrification
facilities, including shutdown of the melter, by the end of fiscal year
2002.
At the Nevada Test Site, continue low-level waste operations in
support of the DOE complex and priority remediation work, including
modeling activities at the Underground Testing Area, and remediation of
13 industrial sites.
At Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, continue high
priority groundwater monitoring and remediation, and finalize and begin
implementing the cleanup plan for the Peconic River.
Focusing on Cleanup.--This budget request is the first reflection
of a key tenet that success for the EM program requires a laser-like
focus on its core mission of cleanup and closure. If activities do not
support that mission, then EM should not be doing them. This budget
request begins to implement this tenet by shedding several activities
traditionally funded by EM, but which are not essential to achieving
the Department's cleanup goals. For example:
The request reflects a significant reduction in funding in
headquarters-controlled and--managed accounts. Overall, funding for
such headquarters-based programs and support services will be reduced
to almost 50 percent of the fiscal year 2002 levels. While our request
significantly reduces support services for headquarters-directed
activities related to such programs as pollution prevention, hazardous
worker training, and long-term stewardship, these functions will
continue at some level as appropriate, but will be carried out by
Federal employees rather than contractors.
The budget request also reflects major shifts in the structure of
the EM technology program to focus efforts on specific, short-term
applied technology needs for cleanup and closure. These changes are
discussed below.
refocusing science and technology
EM's fiscal year 2003 request of $92 million for science and
technology is significantly less than the $204.7 million appropriated
in fiscal year 2002. This is the result of a dramatic shift in the
program structure to ensure it is clearly focused on meeting cleanup
and closure needs.
In parallel with the broader review of the EM program, we have also
undertaken an in-house evaluation of EM's Science and Technology (S&T)
Program. As a result of this review, we concluded that an integrated
technology program is an essential element for successful completion of
the EM cleanup effort and for post-closure requirements. However, for
the program to have maximum impact, it must be streamlined and highly
focused on a limited number of critical, high-payback activities where
real, measurable improvements can be gained versus a larger number of
activities that offer only marginal improvement. It must be end-point
and risk-driven to provide the necessary technical basis for future
decision making.
Toward this end, we are reorienting the S&T program to focus on two
primary areas: (1) direct technical assistance to closure sites to
ensure they have the necessary technology and technical support to meet
closure schedules, and (2) alternative approaches and step improvements
to high-risk, high-cost baselines to ensure all possible alternatives
have been evaluated and that workable alternatives are available and
used as the cleanup progresses. EM will execute this new approach using
streamlined management structures and processes.
As the first step, we are thoroughly reviewing ongoing activities
to determine their applicability to the new areas. By June 30, 2002, we
expect to have decisions on these activities and an operational plan
for transitioning and managing S&T activities in fiscal year 2003 and
beyond. We believe this realigned S&T program will better suit the
Department's needs.
conclusion
The changes that I envision are not changes on the margin. The
reforms undertaken thus far are but a beginning, and must permeate the
entirety of the scope and management of this program to create and
sustain meaningful measurable success. They are a complete overhaul of
the Department's environmental cleanup program that cannot afford to
wait.
I believe we face an historic opportunity to refocus, reshape and
transform this program. All of us, and all of our regulators and
stakeholders throughout the country want the same things from this
program: accelerated cleanup and risk reduction. Making the changes we
propose will not be easy. It will involve painful changes in the way
all of us do business. I believe we have no alternative. The status quo
is not an option. Muddling through and hoping for something different
later is not an option. We cannot wait for a future time in the hope
that making these changes might be easier.
This is our moment. If we do not start to do what is needed now, we
will have failed the taxpayers of today and the future generations of
tomorrow.
This is a marathon, not a sprint. This is not a process that will
be completed overnight, but neither can we afford to delay. Delay only
leads to increased cost and lack of real risk reduction. Eventually,
delay will turn festering high cost problems into immediate public
health risks.
If we are ultimately to be successful, we need your help. I ask
your support for the budget request before you. It is a critical first
step to achieving our mutual goal of completing the cleanup of the
nuclear weapons sites. I look forward to working with the Congress and
others to achieve this goal.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Ms. Roberson.
Mr. Garman.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GARMAN
Mr. Garman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This is our first
budget request since the release of the President's National
Energy Plan, and for our Energy and Water Development
Appropriations programs in fiscal year 2003 we are requesting a
5.6 percent increase over fiscal year 2002 comparable
appropriations and a 47 percent increase compared with our
fiscal year 2002 request.
But we are not merely seeking to spend more on these
programs, we are seeking to achieve more from them. We have
undertaken a strategic program review that has identified
activities that should be expanded, refocused, or activities
that require watch list scrutiny to ensure that they advance
effectively. This review has driven many of the shifts you see
in our fiscal year 2003 budget.
Second, as part of a pilot effort we have applied new
evaluation criteria to our research and development programs in
accordance with the President's management agenda.
Finally, we have been driven by a challenge issued to us by
our Secretary, to take a bolder approach to our work and to
leapfrog the status quo and pursue dramatic environmental
benefits.
The lesson that we learned during our strategic program
review along with the direction provided to us by Secretary
Abraham and the President's management agenda, have also led me
to propose a significant reorganization of our office to
strengthen our focus on program management, to make our program
and organization more responsive, to focus on results rather
than process, and to link budget with performance. When our new
organization is in place and fully functional, it will enhance
our ability to ensure the most judicious use of the taxpayer
dollars entrusted to our use.
With the time I have remaining, let me highlight some of
the activities we are proposing. In the area of integrated
biomass research and development, we are proposing a sharper
focus on the program by unifying all biomass activities under
one office and setting integrated priorities across all
projects, including biofuels, biopower, and bio-based products.
In geothermal Research and Development, our program will
focus primarily on exploration and drilling research, because
better understanding of geothermal resources and improved
analytical methods of exploration will enable industry to
locate and characterize new geothermal fields with greater
success and to lower costs through advanced drilling
technologies.
Our hydrogen Research and Development activities are
focused on hydrogen production, storage, and utilization
technologies that can foster the transition to a hydrogen
economy. The hydrogen program's Research and Development
activities also strongly support the administration's recently
announced Freedom Car initiative, to reduce or even end U.S.
dependence on foreign oil by developing technologies that will
ultimately result in vehicles requiring no oil and that emit no
harmful pollutants.
Our hydropower Research and Development program focuses on
making hydropower plants more compatible with aquatic life and
other water resource users through fish-friendly turbines and
reducing changes in the quality of dissolved gases in
downstream water.
In our solar Research and Development program, we are
seeking increases in the photovoltaic and integrated building
technology lines. In our wind energy Research and Development
program, we are shifting our focus to new and different turbine
advances that will allow for competitive wind development in
the more prevalent lower speed wind areas closer to population
and load centers.
In our electric energy systems and storage activities, we
propose to focus on high-temperature superconductivity and
distributed energy systems.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, the President has offered a long-term energy
strategy that promotes clean energy technologies. Our budget
submission gives us the chance to play a major role in the
Nation's energy future and to make a difference in the lives of
our citizens.
This concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to
respond to any questions, either today or in the future. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Garman
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on the President's fiscal year
2003 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE).
This budget request is our first since the release of the
President's National Energy Policy (NEP)--a balanced, comprehensive
strategy that recognizes the importance of energy efficiency and
renewable energy. A majority of the 105 recommendations in the National
Energy Policy document-54 to be exact-pertain to the importance of
improving America's energy efficiency and expanding our use of clean,
renewable energy sources. Some of these recommendations provide
direction for EERE's programs.
EERE's budget request is split, as you know, between the Energy and
Water Development and Interior Appropriations Bills. Our overall budget
request for fiscal year 2003 is $1.31 billion, up $10.2 million over
the amount appropriated last year. For our Energy and Water Development
programs in fiscal year 2003, we request $407.7 million, a 5.6 percent
increase above fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations of $386.4
million, and a 47 percent increase compared with our fiscal year 2002
request of $276.7 million.
However, more important than how much we propose to spend on these
programs is the fact that we are working to achieve more from them. As
we developed this budget we were driven by some very fundamental
questions. For example, what public benefits do we expect to achieve
with the expenditure of these taxpayer dollars? How can we better
measure success in pursuit of those public benefits? How can we
leverage federal dollars through partnerships with States, communities
and the private sector to achieve greater success? We grappled with
these questions in several ways:
First, in response to recommendations in the President's National
Energy Policy, we undertook a Strategic Program Review to review
historical performance of EERE programs, and propose appropriate
funding for those that were performance-based and modeled as public-
private partnerships. This extensive review was accompanied by a series
of public meetings held across the country. Our review identified
activities that should be expanded, activities that have come to the
end of their useful lives and should be terminated, activities that
should be refocused, and activities that require ``watch list''
scrutiny to ensure they advance effectively. This review has driven
many of the shifts you will see in our fiscal year 2003 budget.
Second, we evaluated the results of an external, retrospective
review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) designed to determine
whether the benefits of our programs have justified the associated
public expenditure. The NAS found that a number of our Research,
Development and Demonstration (RD&D) programs have yielded significant
economic and environmental benefits, new technological options, and
important enhancements to engineering and scientific knowledge in a
number of fields. The NAS also offered recommendations that will
improve our methods for estimating program benefits. We have taken
these recommendations seriously and are evaluating how to best
implement them.
Third, as part of a pilot effort, we applied new evaluation
criteria to our research and development programs in accordance with
the President's Management Agenda. While only a pilot, the criteria
helped us steer our R&D portfolio toward activities where there was a
clear Federal role; a strong R&D plan; a competitive awards process;
and a demonstration of results and potential for public benefit. We
hope to improve the application of these criteria in the evaluation of
our R&D portfolio as we move ahead.
Finally, we were driven by a challenge issued to us by Secretary
Abraham to take a bolder approach to our work. Recognizing ``our
increasing dependence on energy from areas of the world that are
periodically unstable,'' Secretary Abraham directed us to concentrate
our efforts on programs that ``revolutionize how we approach
conservation and energy efficiency.'' He challenged us to ``leapfrog
the status quo and prepare for a future that, under any scenario,
requires a revolution in how we find, produce and deliver energy.'' He
challenged us to pursue ``dramatic environmental benefits.''
Some of the lessons we learned during our Strategic Program Review,
along with the direction that has been provided to us by Secretary
Abraham and the President's Management Agenda, have led me to propose a
significant reorganization of EERE. Our Strategic Program Review told
us that we needed to strengthen our focus on programs and program
management. The President's Management Agenda challenged us to flatten
the organization to make it more responsive; to focus on results, not
process; to link budget with performance; and end overlapping functions
and inefficiencies. When our new organization is in place and fully
functional, it will enhance our ability to ensure the most judicious
use of the taxpayer dollars entrusted to us to achieve results.
fiscal year 2003 energy and water development budget request
For fiscal year 2003, we request a $21.3 million increase above
fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations. Mr. Chairman, I believe
that the budget request I am presenting today will move us forward in
meeting our program goals and those of the NEP to modernize our energy
infrastructure, to increase the development and clean use of our
Nation's domestic energy supplies, and to improve the overall
efficiency in the way our country uses energy. For example, some of our
goals are:
--Biomass R&D will reduce the production cost of cellulose-based
ethanol from about $1.40 per gallon today to $1.20 per gallon
by 2005, and to $1.07 per gallon by 2010.
--Hydrogen R&D will demonstrate a conversion technology that will
lower the cost of large-quantity hydrogen production from
natural gas, from $3.75 per kilogram in 2000 to $2.50 per
kilogram in 2006.
--Wind Energy R&D activities will provide the technologies to reduce
the cost of wind powered electricity generation in Class 4 wind
areas (13 mph annual average) from 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour
in 2002 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2010.
--Distributed Energy Systems R&D activities will increase the share
of new distributed energy electricity-generating capacity from
5 percent in 2000 to 7 percent in 2005.
--High Temperature Superconductivity R&D efforts will lead to the
development of HTS wire capable of carrying 100 times the power
of comparable copper wire--with zero electrical resistance--by
2007.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I will now briefly
discuss the portfolio of Renewable Energy Resources programs within the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
integrated biomass r&d
In fiscal year 2003, we are requesting $108.9 million for this
restructured activity. In the Energy and Water Appropriations, we
request $86 million, a decrease of $2.5 million from fiscal year 2002
comparable appropriations, but an increase of $4 million compared with
our fiscal year 2002 request. The remaining $22.9 million (i.e.,
Agriculture $8.3 million; Forest Products $1.0 million; and
Crosscutting Combustion Gasification $13.6) has been requested from
Interior Appropriations.
Biomass is a priority for the Administration as reflected in the
NEP. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we have found that our biomass program has
lacked focus in the past. In response, we have proposed unifying all
biomass activities under one office and have worked to set integrated
priorities across all projects including biofuels, biopower, and
biobased products. Research opportunities and priorities were
identified by using the draft industry-developed Biobased Products and
Bioenergy vision and roadmap. The criteria used to choose new program
direction include: activities requiring a strong government role;
activities that can achieve a significant reduction in foreign oil
dependence; activities that accelerate the biorefinery concept; and
critical path activities to achieve key enabling technology goals. The
result of this process is a portfolio that is balanced across three
major areas: Gasification, Fuels and Chemicals, and Conversion and
Processing. As with all our programs, we would like the R&D that we
support through the Integrated Biomass program to be competitively
awarded to the maximum extent possible.
We are driven by our vision of the widespread operation of an
integrated industrial biorefinery and our goal to reduce America's
dependence on foreign oil. We already see the results of our efforts:
we have closed dozens of projects since fiscal year 2001; we are de-
emphasizing biomass co-firing with coal and lignin routes to ethanol,
and we are moving away from our work on plant sciences and feedstock
production. Instead we are concentrating our overall funding on
cellulosic ethanol, gasification, and biobased chemicals. Our fiscal
year 2003 activities are:
--In Biopower Systems, we request $33.0 million, a $6.2 million
decrease from fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations ($4.8
million below our fiscal year 2002 request), to support the
following research and development activities:
--Advanced gasification and biosynthesis gas technology suitable
for application in power generation (both large-scale and
distributed-energy systems), in an integrated biorefinery,
and for the production of chemicals;
--Biomass (forest and agricultural residues) gasification systems
with capacities up to 1,000 dry tons per day at several
locations to illustrate their applicability in locations
with a variety of characteristics;
--The development, field-testing, and optimization of the design of
prototype integrated biomass gasification/fuel cell
systems, and the establishment of their costs; and,
--The implementation of demonstration facilities for biorefining
with multiple outputs: power, fuels, chemicalsand products.
--In Biofuels, we request $53.0 million, a $4.2 million increase from
fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations ($8.8 million above
our Fiscal Year 2002 request), to:
--Demonstrate integrated enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of
cellulosic feedstocks to fuel and chemicals.
--Support the development of novel harvesting equipment design,
storage and logistics for agriculture wastes reducing the
feedstock cost for the production of fuels and chemicals.
--Initiate validation of multiple use feedstocks for renewable
diesel production.
--Contribute to the implementation of demonstration facilities for
biorefining with multiple outputs: fuels, power, chemicals
and products.
geothermal
The Geothermal Technology Development Program works in partnership
with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as an economically
competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply, capable of meeting a
portion of the Nation's heat and power needs, especially in the West.
The program is focusing primarily on exploration and drilling research
because better understanding of geothermal resources and improved
analytical methods of exploration will enable industry to locate and
characterize new geothermal fields at greatly reduced risk.
--In fiscal year 2003, we request $26.5 million for geothermal
program activities, a decrease of $799,000 from fiscal year
2002 comparable appropriations ($12.6 million above our fiscal
year 2002 request). At this funding level, our activities will
include:
--continuing core laboratory and university research to better
understand complex geothermal processes and to develop
technology to produce geothermal resources economically;
--continuing development of Enhanced Geothermal Systems to double
the amount of accessible and economically-viable geothermal
resources in the West;
--continuing research on enhanced detection and mapping efforts and
advanced drilling technology to (1) expand our domestic
geothermal resource base, (2) improve the success rate in
exploratory drilling from 20 percent in 2000 to 40 percent
by 2010, and (3) reduce the costs of drilling wells by 50
percent by 2008; and
--continuing to reduce the costs of heat conversion and power
systems.
hydrogen
The Hydrogen Program supports the research, development and
validation of hydrogen production, storage, and utilization
technologies that will foster the transition to a hydrogen economy.
Hydrogen is a nearly ideal energy carrier. It can be oxidized in a fuel
cell, combusted in a conventional engine, or simply burned. When used
in this manner, the only by-product is water. Hydrogen can be produced
from either fossil or renewable resources. As a transportable fuel, it
has greater flexibility than electricity for vehicle and remote area
use.
The Hydrogen Program works with industry to improve efficiency and
lower the cost of technologies that produce hydrogen from natural gas
and renewable energy resources. In addition, the program works with the
national laboratories to reduce the cost of technologies that produce
hydrogen directly from sunlight and water. Hydrogen can be used in
stationary applications for residential, commercial and industrial fuel
cells, as well as in fuel-cell powered vehicles. Development of this
clean energy carrier will lessen our dependence on imported fuels in
both stationary and transportation applications. The Hydrogen Program's
R&D activities also strongly support the Administration's recently-
announced FreedomCAR Initiative, which, in the long run, will help to
end U.S. dependence upon foreign oil by developing technologies that
will ultimately result in vehicles requiring no oil, and that emit no
harmful pollutants or greenhouse gases.
--In fiscal year 2003 we request $39.9 million for the Hydrogen
Program, an increase of $10.7 million above fiscal year 2002
comparable appropriations ($13 million above our fiscal year
2002 request). Activities will include:
--Continuing to improve the efficiency and lower the cost of
fossil-based and biomass-based hydrogen production
processes to achieve $12-$15 per million Btu for
pressurized hydrogen when reformers are mass-produced by
2010 (compared to today's price of $18-$24 per million
Btu).
--Continuing development of other advanced reformer and refueling
station components that can reduce the cost of hydrogen
production by an additional 25 percent, to achieve $9-$12
per million BTU for pressurized hydrogen when reformers are
mass-produced by 2015.
--Continuing to develop and demonstrate safe and cost-effective
storage systems for use in stationary distributed electricity
generation and vehicle applications in urban Clean Air Act non-
attainment areas.
hydropower
In the case of hydropower, already an abundant and relatively
inexpensive source of electricity, the program focuses on making
hydropower plants more compatible with aquatic life and other water
resource users through ``fish-friendly'' turbines and reducing changes
in the quality of dissolved gases in downstream water. In addition, the
Hydropower Program improves the technical, economic, and environmental
performance of the Nation's abundant, in-place hydropower resources
through collaborative research and development with industry and other
Federal agencies.
--In fiscal year 2003, we request $7.5 million for the Hydropower
Program, an increase of $2.5 million above fiscal year 2002
comparable appropriations and our fiscal year 2002 request. The
request will accelerate the development of a commercially
viable turbine technology capable of reducing the rate of fish
mortality to 2 percent or lower by 2010. This is compared to
turbine-passage mortalities of 5 to 10 percent for the best
existing turbines and 30 percent or greater for some turbines.
This environmentally-friendly turbine technology should also
help reverse the decline in hydroelectric generation, our
largest renewable energy resource.
solar
The EERE Solar Energy Technologies Program supports a range of
applications including on-site electricity generation, and thermal
energy for space heating and hot water. A primary objective of the
program is to compound the value of solar by putting it at the point of
use, making it an integral part of super efficient, state-of-the-art
residential and commercial buildings. Efforts to reduce building energy
consumption through energy efficiency and to provide on-site renewable
energy production could lead to attractive and affordable ``zero-net-
energy buildings'' where all energy needs are met by renewable energy
sources.
--In fiscal year 2003, we request $87.6 million for the Solar Energy
Technologies Program, a decrease of $1.8 million from fiscal
year 2002 comparable appropriations ($38.3 million above our
fiscal year 2002 request). Our fiscal year 2003 request
includes: $73.7 million, an increase of $2.1 million, for
Photovoltaics; $12.0 million, an increase of $7.3 million, for
Solar Buildings; and $1.9 million, a decrease of $11.2 million,
for Concentrating Solar Power. The fiscal year 2003 activities
are as follows:
--Photovoltaics research will focus on increasing domestic capacity
by lowering the cost of delivered electricity and improving
the efficiency of modules and systems. Fundamental research
at universities will be increased to develop non-
conventional, breakthrough technologies while both
laboratory and university researchers work with industry on
large volume, low cost manufacturing, including increased
deposition rates, improved materials utilization and
characterization techniques, and materials recycling.
--The Solar Buildings request emphasizes developing the ``zero-net-
energy building'' concept, a concept linking energy
efficiency and renewable energy integration into building
designs. Reducing the cost of solar water heating by using
light-weight polymer materials to replace the heavy copper
and glass materials used in today's collectors is also
underway.
--The Concentrating Solar Power program will complete the evaluation
of the 25 kW dish systems at the University of Nevada at Las
Vegas and terminate all remaining activities. The decision to
end these concentrating solar activities is based upon the
results of the external Renewable Power Pathways review
conducted by the National Research Council; the recently-
completed EERE Strategic Performance Review; and the R&D
Investment Criteria issued by the Office of Management and
Budget.
wind
Advanced wind turbines are currently providing cost-competitive
power in high wind speed (Class 6) areas. As a result, the Wind Energy
Systems Program is shifting its focus to new and different turbine
advances that will allow for competitive wind development in the more
prevalent or common lower wind speed (Class 4) areas. The Wind Energy
Systems Program seeks to provide economic, environmental, and energy
security benefits by expanding the domestic use of wind energy and by
fostering a world-class wind energy industry.
--In fiscal year 2003, we request $44.0 million for Wind Energy
Systems activity, an increase of $5.4M compared to fiscal year
2002 comparable appropriations ($23.5 million above our fiscal
year 2002 request). Theprogram will:
--Accelerate the Low Wind Speed Technology (LWST) project that will
produce cost effective wind technology for Class 4 wind
resource areas, making wind energy more economically
attractive in areas of the Nation closer to population and
load centers. Such technology has the potential to expand
the economically-accessible U.S. wind resources 20-fold.
--Increase its research into distributed wind systems. Distributed
wind systems (typically small turbines sized less than 100
KW) provide a valuable alternative source of energy for a
variety of applications, such as for farmers, homeowners,
and in isolated villages. Smaller turbines also produce
useful energy in lower speed wind resources, and thus are
potentially cost-effective in more locations. Due to their
low capital cost, distributed wind systems are also more
available to individual landowners. The Program is funding
research and development on distributed wind systems and
applications through public/private partnerships following
the successful model of utility-scale technology.
electric energy systems and storage
The Electric Energy Systems and Storage program has two components:
the High Temperature Superconductivity Program (HTS) and Distributed
Energy Systems (DES). DES activities are key components of a larger
Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Program to lead a national effort to
develop a flexible, smart, and secure energy system by integrating
clean, efficient, reliable, and affordable distributed energy
technologies.
EERE's HTS and DER programs together are tackling the power-related
issues confronting the Administration's goals of modernizing energy
conservation and modernizing our energy infrastructure. The HTS Program
seeks to reduce the electricity losses associated with moving
electricity within largely urban areas, as well as improving the
efficiency of large electric motors and generators. The DER Program is
composed of five major activities, three of which are funded by Energy
and Water Development appropriations: energy storage system research
and integration; transmission reliability; and DER electric systems
integration.
For fiscal year 2003, our Electric Energy Systems and Storage
request of $70.4 million, a decrease of $249,000 below fiscal year 2002
comparable appropriations ($18.7 million above our fiscal year 2002
request), will support the following activities:
--For the HTS program, we request $47.8 million in fiscal year 2003,
an increase of $15.5 million above fiscal year 2002 comparable
appropriations ($11 million above our fiscal year 2002
request), to develop applications of superconducting materials
to the electricity infrastructure. The lack of electrical
resistance of HTS materials makes possible electrical power
systems, super efficient generators, transformers, and
transmission cables that reduce energy losses by half and allow
equipment half the size of present electrical systems.
--At this level, we will complete final testing and evaluation for
the prototype 100-MW, 3-phase, HTS cable installed in
downtown Detroit. We will complete final testing and
evaluation for the prototype reciprocating magnetic
separator and the HTS-bearing, energy-storage flywheel and
begin construction of new prototypes of generators, power
cables, and other HTS systems under cost-shared projects
with industrial consortia. The national laboratories and
industry will demonstrate the capability to reproducibly
fabricate 10-meter lengths of Second Generation Wire that
carry 50 amps of electricity and 1-meter lengths that carry
100 amps of electricity.
--The DES program includes three activities: (a) Energy Storage
Research; (b) Transmission Reliability; and (c) Electric
Systems Integration.
--The Energy Storage Research activity addresses important
challenges to the delivery of electricity. As a peak
shaving tool during times of transmission overload or
during price peaks, storage allows more efficient
allocation of energy resources without producing additional
emissions. Storage has the potential of saving U.S.
industry many billions of dollars in downtime costs by
improving the customer's power quality. In fiscal year
2003, we request $7.6 million for Energy Storage Research
activities, a decrease of $1.5 million from fiscal year
2002 comparable appropriations ($0.7 million below our
fiscal year 2002 request).
--The Transmission Reliability activity has developed and installed
prototype voltage and frequency monitoring and
visualization systems that allow transmission operators to
immediately recognize and correct system problems. Other
prototype satellite-synchronized reliability tools are
being installed that afford operators a real-time view of
system conditions, provide information for reliable
operation of the grid, and for efficient operation of
competitive electricity markets. In fiscal year 2003, we
request $7.7 million, a decrease of $10.5 million from
fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations ($3.2 million
above our fiscal year 2002 request).
--The DER Electric Systems Integration (formerly Distributed Power)
activity is developing standards and conducting tests and
analyses for the interconnection and integration of
distributed generation technologies at the customer site
and into the electric distribution system. The activity is
developing the microgrid concept to analyze the impact of
high penetrations of distributed generation on the
distribution system, and supporting removal of other
technical, institutional, and regulatory barriers to full
distributed generation technology deployment. In fiscal
year 2003, we request $7.2 million, a decrease of $3.5
million from fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations
($2.7 million above our fiscal year 2002 request).
renewable support and implementation
The Renewable Support and Implementation activity is comprised of
five elements for which we request $23.8 million, an increase of $10.1
million above Ffiscal year 2002comparable appropriations ($14.3 million
above our fiscal year 2002 request). These elements are:
The Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP) targets services
at DOE facilities to improve energy and water efficiency, promote
renewable energy use, and manage utility costs in facilities and
operations. In fiscal year 2003, we request $3.0 million for DEMP
activities, an increase of $1.5 million above fiscal year 2002
comparable appropriations ($2 million above our fiscal year 2002
request). The request will allow two to three renewable energy or other
emerging energy technology projects to be funded. Wind, geothermal,
biomass or solar projects will be evaluated and selected from
applications submitted by DOE field offices.
The International Renewable Energy Program promotes the export of
clean U.S. technologies that contribute to global environmental
improvements in greenhouse gases and to local air and water pollution.
In fiscal year 2003, we request $6.5 million for international
activities, an increase of $3.6 million above fiscal year 2002
comparable appropriations ($4 million above our fiscal year 2002
request). In fiscal year 2003, the $3,660,000 increase is to support
the Clean Energy Technology Exports (CETE) initiative. The CETE
approach will initiate two types of international activities: industry-
initiated export projects, and ``showcase'' projects that demonstrate
the CETE vision of coordinated activities among the USG agencies with
export responsibilities. Priority will be given to advancing the U.S.
recommendations in the National Energy Policy. We anticipate major
leveraging of these funds with those of other agencies and U.S.
industry.
The Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program stimulates
electricity production from renewable sources owned by States or
smaller private sector groups. In fiscal year 2003, we request $4.0
million, an increase of $213,000 above fiscal year 2002 comparable
appropriations (approximately equal to our fiscal year 2002 request).
--The Indian Renewable Energy Resources Program provides assistance
to Native American Tribes and Tribal entities in assessing
energy resources, comprehensive energy plan development, energy
technology training, and project development. In fiscal year
2003, we request $8.3 million, an increase of $5.5 million
above fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations (no funds
requested in fiscal year 2002), to begin assisting Tribes in
ways to use renewable energy technologies on Tribal lands.
Funds will be awarded competitively.
The Renewable Program Support includes activities that promote the
use of renewable technologies in uunder-served regions of the United
States. In fiscal year 2003, we request $2.0 million, a decrease of
$781,000 from fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations (same as our
fiscal year 2002 request).
national renewable energy laboratory (nrel)
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is the Nation's
premier laboratory for renewable energy R&D. It also works to improve
energy efficiency, advance related science and engineering, and
facilitates technology commercialization. For 25 years, NREL research
has focused on developing technologies that harness the energy in
natural resources in order to provide consumers with clean, non-
polluting energy alternatives to conventional fossil fuels. Since its
inception, NREL's research has won 31 prestigious R&D 100 awards. In
fiscal year 2003, we request $4.2 million for operating expenses, an
increase of $130,000 above fiscal year 2002 comparable appropriations
(same as our fiscal year 2002 request). This year we are also
requesting $800,000, the same as last year's appropriated level, to
complete the design of a research laboratory and office space for a
Science and Technology Facility at NREL.
program direction
Program Direction funding provides Federal staffing resources as
well as associated properties, equipment, supplies and materials for
the Department's Renewable Energy programs. In fiscal year 2003, we
request $16.9 million, a decrease of $2.6 million from fiscal year 2002
comparable appropriations ($2.3 million below our fiscal year 2003
request).
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the President has challenged us by setting forth a
long-term strategy that integrates energy, environment and economic
policy. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will
continue to build on our successful technology research, development,
demonstration and deployment activities to meet the recommendations of
the National Energy Policy. Our budget submission gives us the chance
to play a major role in this Nation's energy future and to make a
difference in the lives of our citizens. We welcome this opportunity.
Senator Murray. Before we move to questions, we have
several members who have joined us, including the ranking
member, Senator Domenici. We will turn to them for opening
statements and then we will go to questions. Senator Domenici.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. I am just going to
put my remarks in the record and proceed.
I welcome both of you here. We have a real job ahead of us.
We will do our very best to come up with the right thing in the
areas that you are going to be testifying on, and thank you for
your diligence in trying to make these programs work.
Senator Murray. Senator Bennett, do you have an opening
statement?
Senator Bennett. No.
Senator Murray. Senator Cochran?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, let me just join you in
welcoming our witnesses this morning. This is an interesting
area of research that these agencies and the Assistant
Secretaries are responsible for overseeing. I know in our
State, for example, we have biomass projects for alternative
fuels. We have a nuclear waste cleanup procedure that has been
analyzed at Mississippi State University that shows great
promise, and from what I hear in trying to keep up with these
activities is that these are very important to our
environmental interests, they are very important to our energy
independence.
So I hope we will look very carefully at the funding levels
to be sure that we have enough money in our budget for these
ongoing projects that are showing great promise.
I am happy to be a part of this subcommittee's effort to
review this budget request and we appreciate the cooperation
and the diligent efforts of these Assistant Secretaries in that
regard.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Could I just respond? Thank you very
much.
Senator Cochran, I just wanted to say, this subcommittee in
terms of how many dollars it has to spend in the title energy
and water, for some people it is rather difficult, what is this
all about? But I can say your observation is absolutely true
and that this subcommittee has an enormous diversity of
jurisdiction that I for one am glad that you share with me. It
does all of the nuclear weapons activity. Who would think that
under the rubric or title of energy and water that you have the
nuclear weaponry of the United States being funded and assured,
and all the way down to solar energy--a rather exciting list of
things we will be doing. Thanks for your observation.
OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION MANAGEMENT
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Domenici.
Ms. Roberson, I am going to begin with you. You decided to
replace Harry Boston as site manager at the Office of River
Protection. You took this action despite the fact that the
State, the community, Senator Cantwell, Congressman Hastings,
and myself appealed for Mr. Boston to be kept in place. Mr.
Boston came to the ORP right after the meltdown of the BNFL
privatization effort. He got the project back on track. He
reestablished much-needed community confidence and he helped
create a very important cooperative effort with the State and
the Federal regulators.
The project right now is really at a critical juncture. We
are 6 months away from groundbreaking. Why are you replacing
Mr. Boston and why did you ignore all the interested parties
who told you how important it was to keep him there?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Murray, I would like to say I believe
that I did not ignore your request. The request that I got in
conversation with the members was to delay that reassignment to
ensure that we had a smooth transition supporting construction
start of the project, which is exactly what we did.
I do believe that as the project goes into heavy
construction, the Department has the opportunity to deploy an
executive that has been through the same kind of project both
in tank-farm operations and construction of a vitrification
plant, and that we truly have an obligation to deploy those
resources to ensure that the lessons we learned in that
previous experience could be applied to where successful, to
repeat our successes, and where it was not a success, know what
to look for and do not repeat those mistakes.
So I believe for the health of the project it was important
to ensure that the lessons we had learned were appropriately
applied to the project at this critical point.
HANFORD COMMUNITY DISSENT
Senator Murray. Well, do you realize how much this decision
to replace Mr. Boston has caused the community to question
DOE's commitment to the project? We have an editorial from the
Tri-City Herald January 25th edition and I will quote it:
``Now, if Boston is leaving, the community is left to wonder
about Energy Department motives in jeopardizing the Office's
progress.''
There is an article in this morning's Seattle Post-
Intelligencer that says ``But, as always with Hanford, there
are no guarantees. Boston, a widely respected leader in the
cleanup, is being transferred this summer by top DOE officials.
Those same officials recently started backing away from
promises to turn all of the waste to glass, fueling
environmentalists' fears about the future of the 586 square
mile reservation.''
Do you realize how much community dissent there is over
this?
Ms. Roberson. I spent quite a bit of time before this
decision communicating with members of the community as well as
our regulators. I believe that allowing a delay in that
reassignment to support a smooth transition is the appropriate
action to take, and that is what we did. We are not backing
away from our commitment to the construction and operation of
the vitrification plant. We think that our actions both in the
budget and our actions on the ground demonstrate that.
EQUITABLE CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS
Senator Murray. Well, I understand that the contract with
Bechtel and the Washington Group for construction of the waste
treatment plant requires the companies to leave their senior
managers in place for 2 years or face a fine of $1 million.
Now, DOE included that requirement because they understand that
moving managers can really harm a project.
Harry Boston has been in place for 18 months. Why does DOE
demand certain practices of its contractors, but it does not do
the same for itself?
Ms. Roberson. Actually our demand of our contractors is the
same demand of ourselves. What we asked our contractors to do
was not to change out project managers without our agreement.
But we fully expect them to consider the work to be done, the
phase the work is in, and to ensure that they have the best
available resource to carry it out.
Senator Murray. You did not consider Harry Boston to be a
part of that?
Ms. Roberson. I am sorry, I do not understand.
Senator Murray. You said that you expect your managers to
be able to carry out the project as designed. Do you believe
now that you have a different mission than Harry Boston had in
place?
Ms. Roberson. I believe going into construction is a
different phase of the project and may require a different set
of skills. We would expect our contractors to do exactly the
same.
Senator Murray. You felt that Mr. Boston did not have those
skills?
Ms. Roberson. I believe that the Department had at hand
someone who had been through the experience and could and had
demonstrated the capability, and that our best chances of
success were to deploy our resources in that manner.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Who came first?
Senator Murray. Senator Bennett--well, Senator Craig was
first.
HIGH LEVEL WASTE
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
I think one of the frustrations we all have is demonstrated
by this map, that shows that when we go to clean up Rocky Flats
it is a matter of moving the waste to another site. Then we say
one site is clean, but the other sites--well, we do not say
they are dirtier because we like to think that we are storing
it safely.
But I think that is symptomatic of a problem, a very big
problem, a very real problem, is the way we handle high level
wastes. Of course, we are struggling to try to get that under
control. The Secretary has been forthright, as has the
President, with Yucca Mountain, and we hope we can resolve that
and go forward there for a high level waste repository.
I know that my ranking member and I have other thoughts
about high level waste. At the same time, our thoughts are
still appropriate today. When we open Yucca Mountain, it is
full by definition of the waste that is already out there and
its design capacity. So clearly we are going to have to move
forward and look at other approaches toward handling high level
waste and cleanup. That is going to be very, very critical, I
think, for the future of nuclear energy, and we hope it has a
future and we are working hard to make that happen.
IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCELERATED
CLEANUP
Secretary Roberson, now that the State of Idaho and DOE
have entered into this settlement agreement on Pit 9 as I have
talked about, that our governor and DOE announced yesterday,
how do you and your discussions with the State progressing on
the opportunities of accelerated cleanup at the INEEL work and
fit this budget cycle?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Craig, as you are aware, we had
initiated discussions on a proposed accelerated strategy with
the State of Idaho and the regional EPA. With disposition of
the dispute at hand, it really allows all the parties to focus
all of their attention. I think we have a great base strategy
to work from and I do not believe that we are behind. I believe
we are in a position to secure an agreement that will be
completed well ahead of the appropriations schedule.
ACCELERATED CLEANUP EFFORTS
Senator Craig. Well, that is my next question, because, as
we know, the clock is ticking on Congressional action on the
Energy and Water bill, the appropriations work that this
subcommittee is underway in doing. I guess my question is how
are you factoring in the Congressional schedule in your
discussions with DOE sites on accelerated cleanup?
Ms. Roberson. We are working very hard at every one of our
sites to try to satisfy that schedule. I cannot confirm that we
will be able to do it because it is very difficult for all
parties, but we are committed to give our best effort to do so.
Senator Craig. Well, as you know, in absence of that and an
unallocated pot of money for DOE accelerated cleanup, I think
there is a great tendency here for us to move ahead, if you
will, and lock into a bill dollars and cents for sites as it
relates to EM. That will be our tendency. We want to guarantee
that. I do not want a budget in Idaho reflective of a step
back.
Last year this committee and the staff and Senators worked
overtime getting more money and to accelerate the cleanup, not
to step back from it. So the ability to get this done in
sequence with the budget and the cycle is going to be awfully
darned important for all of us.
Ms. Roberson. Our commitment is to definitely support that
need.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murray. Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
TAILINGS AT THE ATLAS MOAB SITE
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Roberson, you and I have visited before about
Moab and I wanted to get it into the record and therefore will
go through some questions that we have already discussed off
the record. For the record, this is tailings from a uranium
mill which produced most of the uranium that was in America's
weapons stockpile for many years. The Atlas Corporation that
produced that has now gone bankrupt and DOE has taken title to
the tailings pile and therefore the responsibility for deciding
eventually what will be done.
When I first became a Senator and became aware of this,
why, NRC recommended capping in place and said there was no
health risk involved in doing that and that that was by far the
cheapest and environmentally best thing to do, because moving
the tailings involves some degree of disturbing them and in the
disturbance they were afraid that some of the environmental
impact of the tailings might get into the air in the form of
dust.
Now the Utah officials have examined the impact downstream
from the pollution--or the toxicity, is probably a better
term--leaking into the Colorado River, and there is indication
that it is endangering fish in the Colorado River and that long
term the groundwater going into the river will produce
significant problems.
So we are looking now at not capping it in place. We are
looking at moving it.
Given that history, then, my first question is how do you
intend to allocate the $966,000 included in your budget request
for this year with respect to the tailings at Moab?
Ms. Roberson. The activities that we perform are to
continue. I am going to give you the very specifics of what is
involved: to initiate groundwater cleanup along the banks of
the Columbia River.
Senator Bennett. In the Colorado River.
Ms. Roberson. Colorado River, I am sorry. We are doing it
on the Columbia River, too.
Senator Bennett. We would love to have the water from the
Columbia River in Utah.
Ms. Roberson. Our fiscal year 2003 budget request supports
groundwater cleanup along the Colorado River, continue air and
water monitoring, and continue our efforts to control fugitive
dust and storm water control.
As you are aware, the National Academy of Sciences is near
the end of their review and has given us a status briefing.
They are on schedule to complete their review in June. We
believe that within 3 months of the release of the NAS report,
we could make a final decision and start to design a
remediation action.
COLORADO RIVER POLLUTION
Senator Bennett. Do you think you have got enough money to
expand the current focus on protecting endangered fish in the
river? I have asked Chairman Reid and Ranking Member Domenici
for $4 million in this year, thinking that maybe $966,000 is
not enough for us to deal with the other pollutants that pose
environmental and human health risk.
Ms. Roberson. Senator Bennett, in conjunction with our
evaluation at the other sites, we really are seeking some
insight from the National Academy of Sciences. If it appears
that additional funding would be necessary to make sure that we
are maintaining the site appropriately and proceeding
appropriately with the remediation, then the Moab site will be
included in our proposed allocation of the reform account
money.
Senator Bennett. When do you expect that evaluation to be
available to us?
Ms. Roberson. The first of June.
Senator Bennett. The first of June. So you and I can
revisit this issue sometime in June?
Ms. Roberson. And we are hoping that the NAS can accelerate
their schedule.
MOVING MOAB TAILINGS
Senator Bennett. I do not want to put words in your mouth,
but I take it from what you are saying that you are still open
to the idea of moving it?
Ms. Roberson. There has been no decision made. We
absolutely are open to the options that are on the table.
Senator Bennett. And moving it sooner rather than later?
Ms. Roberson. Moving it is clearly an option, and if moving
it is the necessary action we are certainly focused on
accelerating our remediation.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
attention to this, our past conversations about it, and your
responses here today. Thank you.
Ms. Roberson. Thank you, sir.
Senator Murray. Senator Cochran.
DEPLOYMENT OF THE ADVANCED VITRIFICATION SYSTEM
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you.
Secretary Roberson, I want to commend you and Secretary
Abraham for the work you are doing to help develop less costly
and faster-deployed procedures for nuclear waste cleanup. The
fact that you are exploring alternative technologies to me is
encouraging because of the estimates for cleaning up sites
right now and how those costs continue to seem to spiral upward
at an alarming rate.
My specific interest comes from my knowledge of the work
that is being done at Mississippi State University at the DIAL
Lab, the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory,
that the Department of Energy helped create to explore these
and other interests. Do you have specific plans for the
deployment of the advanced vitrification system that is under
review there?
Ms. Roberson. We certainly have a desire. We see an
opportunity and, as you are probably aware, we are working with
the sponsors on deployment of that technology. We hope to begin
in 2003, and so we do have specific plans and we are trying to
work out those details with them.
Senator Cochran. Does the budget request that is submitted
before the committee now contain funding that would enable you
to pay that?
Ms. Roberson. This will be funded from the science and
technology budget and, as you are aware, we have been reviewing
over the last month all of the technology investment. At the
end of this month that team, which is a team from around the
complex, will provide its assessment, but I have had the
opportunity to sit with them and this technology does indeed
provide a real opportunity and is going to be supported.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I have some additional questions with some
more specificity about the nature of this research and why it
appears to me to be very important, and I would ask that those
questions could be just submitted for the record.
Senator Murray. Without objection.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Murray. Senator Domenici.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEANUP REFORM ACCOUNT
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Let me say to both of you, I hope you have a good year.
Obviously, in a number of areas that you have control over
there will be some very serious disagreements, but
fundamentally the biggest one that we are going to have on the
funding levels has to do with the $800 million that you have
carved out, that you are holding there, saying that we are
going to release it to sites to increase their money if they
have entered into the kind of contracts that will expedite the
cleanup that they are supposed to do and also do it in a more
timely manner.
Frankly, I am not sure that that will work, and I am sure
that you are not sure it will work, either, because in the
meantime we have to put appropriation bills out and we are
going to have the Senators from all of the sovereign States
that are affected. They are going to come before us and say
that they should not be cut 25 percent because we are looking
for a new system to make things better.
On the other hand, I am more than willing to acknowledge
that you are on the right track. I do not think you will ever
get it done with such a huge carveout, but I think we have to,
sooner rather than later, find some way to modernize the
agreements and to enter into better ones where we will get
better results.
We are put, all of us that have sites, we are put in a
position where we have become used to a certain portion of this
budget that is cleanup money going to our States for the
cleanup. It has almost become our cleanup, meaning the States
and Congressmen who represent the area.
So that no one will have any misunderstanding about your
reductions, you did not play any favorites. The sites that have
been reduced percentagewise the most are in New Mexico, so for
that I thank you very much. I have already expressed with our
chairperson the notion that anybody that thinks we have a very
good and friendly relationship going with the Department, they
can just look at this one.
But I can assure you that we cannot live with the cuts that
you put in the budget unless we did have a whole new system in
place, and I am not sure by the time we have to mark this bill
up that you are going to have that.
I wonder if we could have a question put to them that they
would report to you and I on the progress being made so that we
will know something before the appropriation time on where they
are. I am assuming it would be to the Chairman, Chairman Reid,
but I would put that to you, Madam Chairperson, that, let us
set a date and give them that date.
ACCELERATED SCHEDULE PROGRESS REPORTING
Senator Murray. In terms of the contracts?
Senator Domenici. Let us ask them to report to us if they
are having, making any progress.
Senator Murray. I think that is a good idea.
Ms. Roberson. I think that is a wonderful idea. I would be
honored to do so.
Senator Domenici. Well, just so none of us get carried
away, it is a wonderful idea, but the chances that you will get
anything done that is really a big departure, that will save a
lot of money, do not seem to me to be very--there is not a high
probability that that will occur. But we would like to see what
you are doing and whether you are achieving anything or not.
MODERNIZING CLEANUP CONTRACTS
Could you tell us as of now, you produced this budget with
this kind of approach a few months ago. What has been
happening? Have you been having any success in modernizing any
of these contracts, or is anybody thinking about changing the
way they are going to do the work?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Domenici, I actually think we are
making wonderful progress. Clearly, we will not achieve
everything we wanted, but the thing that has been the most
stark to me is the true sense of cooperation around each of the
sites, every one of the sites. It is rewarding to sit across
the table, as I have done at most of our sites and within the
next 30 days will do at just about all of them, from our
regulators and with interested stakeholders.
Everyone is in agreement with the goal. I recognize that
there will be details that will be hard to work through. But if
we can establish a path, which is our goal here, I think the
opportunity for success is tremendous. If I may talk for a
minute about our facilities in your State proper, at the Los
Alamos National Lab, we have about 2,000 containers of
transuranic (TRU) waste which we have been unable to figure out
how to prioritize, bring to the top of our cleanup agreement,
and disposition that material.
Working in conjunction with the facility, our local DOE,
our regulators, and in that case with the NRC that regulates
transportation, we believe we are definitely on the path to
reach agreement to initiate movement of that material years in
advance.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
Your other facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
obviously is a receiver site for many of the other sites and
therefore we are looking at it in the context of how do we make
sure it is equipped and staffed and funded to support the plans
from the other sites around the complex.
I do believe we have a tremendous opportunity in front of
us and, no, we will not get everything that we think should be
gotten, but we will establish a path and I think that that is,
quite frankly, a great achievement for all of us.
Senator Domenici. Secretary Roberson, let me talk about
WIPP for a minute with you, Waste Isolation Pilot Project. Let
me ask, have you been there?
Ms. Roberson. I have been there.
Senator Domenici. Just one time?
Ms. Roberson. I have been there one time.
Senator Domenici. That is enough. I just wanted to make
sure you were not a big expert. I have only been there one
time.
In any event, the proposal now being put forth by the
Department of Energy is to expedite the filling of this
repository, which would cut the time almost in half between now
and when it will be filled versus how long it would be if we do
not do anything. I gather the savings are in more than a few
billions of dollars over time. Do you happen to have the
number?
Ms. Roberson. No, sir, I do not have handy with me the
estimated savings of that operation.
Senator Domenici. All right.
Ms. Roberson. But we can get that for you.
[The information follows:]
Cost Savings From Expedited Filling of WIPP Repository
The Department of Energy is proposing to expedite shipment
of transuranic waste from the sites to the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) as part of the accelerated closure of sites
in the weapons complex. This will be accomplished through the
use of mobile vendors, pursuit of commercial rail to make
shipments, as well as other initiatives, and would result in a
ramp down in the WIPP operations sooner than anticipated. The
potential cost savings associated with accelerated closure of
WIPP is approximately $8 billion, resulting from approximately
a 50 percent reduction in life-cycle cost by completing its
mission by 2016, instead of 2034.
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CONCERN
Senator Domenici. Would you? I think it is very important
if we are going to be making any adjustments with reference to
what happens to that community. You understand that the
community of Carlsbad and the surrounding area has been about
as helpful to the Department as any recipient State on anything
that has to do with the Department. They actually are excited
about WIPP and have been supporters, traveled all over the
country and in New Mexico, to our legislature, cohesively from
the area.
I believe it is very important, if we are going to come
along now after they made all these arrangements and their city
is going along, if we are going to cut the time in half, that
we consider their economic vitality for the future. They expect
to become a diverse economy and if we are going to all of a
sudden switch gears and say you have got 15 years instead of 30
to get that done, then we have to work with them in some ways
to protect their citizens in that regard.
I assume you would be the people that we would work with;
is that correct?
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACCELERATED CLEANUP REFORM ACCOUNT
Ms. Roberson. That is absolutely correct, sir.
Senator, may I comment further?
Senator Domenici. Please do.
Ms. Roberson. What we are attempting to do through this
accelerated account is to establish a path and develop the
ability to be flexible in acquiring and learning from
experiences, and focusing our investigations to ensure that we
are prepared to carry out the remediation. We have a baseline
that you are holding us accountable to delivering, but there is
other work scope that also must be dispositioned.
For instance, with the modernization of the weapons
complex, additional facilities, materials, would come to the EM
program at Oak Ridge. We are expecting to receive the FFTF
facility at Hanford. There is additional work scope as the
complex modernizes and moves ahead.
The EM program is not done. We simply try to establish some
boundaries and some process for dispositioning the work at hand
right now, recognizing that there is additional work to come.
So their role is not over. But I would also say to you that
they have certainly demonstrated their support of the mission
and the Department. They have been a wonderful community to
work with and the Department is prepared to work with you and
the rest of the delegation and the community to support their
needs as well.
SECRETARIAL MEETING WITH NEW MEXICO DELEGATION
Senator Domenici. Do you happen to know whether the
Secretary of Energy is going to be in Washington in the next
couple of weeks? You would not happen to know about his
itinerary? You do not have to. I just thought I might luck out.
Ms. Roberson. We can get back to you. I do not know. We
think he will be here next week.
Senator Domenici. We will find out. Carlsbad, that
delegation you spoke of is going to come to town.
Ms. Roberson. I am going to meet with them.
Senator Domenici. I have not made arrangements yet.
I am going to stop for a while and let the chairperson
proceed and then I will come back with a few more.
WASHINGTON STATE CONCERNS ABOUT ACCELERATED CLEANUP
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici. I do
think it is a good idea for Ms. Roberson to give us an update
constantly on where these contracts are. The State of
Washington has signed a letter of intent, but the Department of
Ecology has already sent a letter that addresses some very
serious concerns. I think they want to have opportunity and
hope ahead of them, but they say it is simply too early to make
definitive statements regarding their success, the number of
years that may be cut from Hanford cleanup time line, or the
amount of associated cost savings.
Likewise, most targets are not yet sufficiently fleshed out
to enable a decision by Ecology on whether to support
implementation. I think there is a number of serious concerns.
They have a work plan due by May 1st and an August 1st deadline
as well, and I think, just looking at the Department of
Ecology's latest letter, addressed April 8th, I think we are a
long way from satisfaction on this, a lot of questions left out
there.
On behalf of Senator Reid, I do want to ask you a question,
Ms. Roberson. It has been more than 2 months since announcing
the cleanup reform initiative with the fiscal year 2003 budget
request. Can you tell us, in that time has any State or
regulatory agency agreed to waive legally binding cleanup
agreements for a portion of the $800 million fund?
Ms. Roberson. Not that I am aware of, and I am not aware
that we have asked any State to do so.
WORKFORCE REDUCTIONS AT THE OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION
Senator Murray. Let me go back to ask you about Washington
State again. The waste treatment plant is the largest
environmental cleanup project in the world. It is a one of a
kind facility. It has tremendous technical challenges. The
Federal Government is going to be investing billions of dollars
into that plant.
You have recently directed a reduction in the work force at
ORP from 129 employees down to 109. By comparison, Richland
operations has over 300 employees for projects with a smaller
budget. How do you justify to our communities cutting the work
force at the Office of River Protection with this tremendous
project ahead of us, with the tremendous amount of dollars that
are being invested, and the tremendous amount of work and
progress that we expect to have?
Ms. Roberson. The staffing targets were established in the
beginning of the fall of last year when we established staffing
targets for all of our sites. In fact, the Richland office is
over its target as well. In that time frame we have supported
the sites with certain options to redeploy personnel. I have
committed to work with them.
But there has been no unique action taken against ORP. That
target was established in October of last year, and since that
time the staffing level has gone up. I have agreed with. What I
have told the field managers is, on an annual basis, we will
reevaluate the appropriate targets for each of the sites, but
we have to have constraints and we have to ensure that we are
being diligent about those resources.
I have approved some of those hires at ORP even since that
time. I have taken another reduction in headquarters to support
that increase. I think I have tried to be fair and diligent in
that process. But they are far from the only ones that have
been given a challenge on their staff.
DOE COMMITMENT TO OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION
Senator Murray. This has contributed to a lot of the
community concern about the Department of Energy's commitment
to the Office of River Protection. As you know, I worked with
all the other members of the Washington delegation to establish
that Office of River Protection as a separate DOE project
office. The reason that we did that was because the project was
of such critical importance and such complexity that we really
felt it warranted the need for an individual site manager who
would give it his attention and who would report directly to
headquarters. In fact, Congress reinforced that position by
extending this separate designation at least through 2010.
Can you assure me this morning that the manager of ORP will
continue to report directly to you and not to the manager of
Richland operations?
Ms. Roberson. Yes, I can. I can assure you of that. There
are no plans to change that.
Senator Murray. Absolutely?
Ms. Roberson. Absolutely.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEANUP REFORM ACCOUNT
Senator Murray. Ms. Roberson, let me go again to you. DOE
announced upon the signing of the letter of intent with
Washington State that the administration supports an additional
$433 million above the President's request for Hanford. We have
been told DOE's specific allocation of the $433 million among
the Office of River Protection and Richland operations would be
decided by May 1st, when the draft work plan is released. Is
this still your agency's intention?
Ms. Roberson. Yes, it is, Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Will DOE be making a revised budget request
for Hanford reflecting this agreement to allocate $433 million
more for Hanford?
Ms. Roberson. That is our intention, Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. When will we receive that?
Ms. Roberson. Our expectation is soon after May 1. We have
a very close working relationship with the site and the
regulators over the last few weeks and we actually think that
tremendous progress has been made in the development of that
performance agreement. Let me just say, I have not seen the
State's letter. I am not surprised that they are cautious, as
they should be.
The performance management plan primarily focuses on the
actions that the Department is to take. So I believe that we
can still press forward. Now, I know one of the concerns is why
can we not just communicate what the distribution of that $433
million is. That is primarily because there are certain work
scopes with the integration of the Central Plateau that we have
to understand whether it is going to be a part of ORP or of
Richland.
For instance, there was some duplication of solid waste
management activities. The management plan will provide us the
opportunity to see what that path is and what activities fall
where.
Another activity as an example is the disposition of the
cesium-strontium capsules. That was in the ORP baseline for
vitrification in the 2020 timeframe. With the revised strategy,
that distribution of responsibility is likely to change. So we
cannot be absolutely sure what will need to fall into the ORP
baseline and what will fall into Richland baseline. That is the
reason we say we need that performance plan to do that.
We believe we understand, the appropriate cost of the
strategy. But the distribution of functional responsibilities
still needs to be laid out.
Senator Murray. You have been highlighting your commitment
to seek an additional $300 million for the EM program if all of
the cleanup agreements necessitate that. I should ask when, but
how will the administration let us know what that support is?
Ms. Roberson. As best I understand--and I think I might ask
to respond in writing so that our CFO, Bruce Carnes, can
respond.
[The information follows:]
Cleanup Reform Initiative
If needed to complete required reforms at all sites, the Department
expects to request additional appropriations of up to $300 million for
the Environmental Management Cleanup Reform Account. The Department
believes we will have sufficient information during the fiscal year
2003 appropriations process to determine whether additional funds are
required. If needed, a budget amendment would be an appropriate vehicle
for this request.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEANUP REFORM ACCOUNT
Senator Murray. Will we see it in the supplemental request?
Ms. Roberson. My understanding is it will come in the form
of a supplemental or an amendment, but that is about the extent
of what I can tell you. We would be glad to have him respond in
writing or give you a call.
Senator Murray. I would just tell you, Chairman Reid is not
here. Senator Domenici, the ranking member, is. My assumption
is that we will get our marching orders from Senator Byrd and
Senator Stevens fairly quickly to mark up. So hopefully we will
see that sooner rather than later and understand what the
impacts are going to be.
Ms. Roberson. Thank you.
Senator Murray. I have one other question, but, Senator
Domenici, why do you not go ahead.
LOS ALAMOS LAND TRANSFERS
Senator Domenici. I am going to submit about eight or ten
questions in writing and just take one of them with you.
Secretary Roberson, this is regarding Los Alamos and in
particular regarding the land transfer to San Ildelfonso
Pueblo. I hope you can find that so we can talk here on the
record. The Secretary of Energy is required to transfer lands
in Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties--New Mexico, that is--that
are in excess to the Department's needs. This has been a very
long process and very frustrating for this Senator, because it
was supposed to take a couple of years and it has taken 5 or 6.
It was supposed to be a lot of land that, if you look at the
maps, we no longer needed, were just sitting out there. It
turned out there was a use for much of it. Much of it was not
environmentally usable.
But we are down to getting some things done. The land
transfer is intended to meet the responsibilities of the
Department to provide land suitable for economic development so
that the county could expand its tax base, diversify its basic
economic base. We were hoping that this would get done years
ago, but now we are down to the point where we have to get it
done.
Do you know its status and what is holding it up? Will we
be able to transfer this land soon so we can at least have a
few people believing that we are going to get them the excess
land for them to use? Can you report to us on the, please?
Ms. Roberson. Actually, the status that I have before me is
that current planning is to transfer a total of 4,045 acres,
but I believe about 2,000 of those we are trying to transfer in
2002, I believe 1900 in 2003, and the sequencing that we are
doing is to ensure that we are doing the environmental
clearance on that land before transfer.
The confirmation I have is that we will meet the schedule
specified in Public Law 105-119, but I do not have more
details.
Senator Domenici. All right. You have to get yourself a
little more current on it, but I just want to proceed and do
not want to take any more time. I just want you to know that
this is very, very important to this Senator. I get very
frustrated when we commit to people and then the Department
finds things that they should have found before that make it
not possible to live up to what you are saying, said to your
constituents.
This is an important one and all of the land transfers that
are pending there are under a specific proposal that has been
adopted a few years ago, are going to come into fruition, and I
want you to know that I do not want them to go to the bottom of
the pile and not come back up unless I call, and I will not
call unless somebody calls me, and you know what happens, we
are 4 years into something.
So in that regard, I would appreciate your assistance.
HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
We have a high-temperature superconductivity center. Mr.
Garman, during the past 2 years I have been very interested in
the Department's effort to accelerate the development and
application of high-temperature superconducting technologies
through the joint efforts of Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. I
believe that you have requested about $9 million to continue
the work in 2003. Could you provide us with an update of this
effort and describe the types of commercial potential that
exists, and in order to achieve commercial success what level
of investment should be made in Research and Development, over
what period of time?
No, I do not expect you to necessarily do that now, but
perhaps you can just tell me a little bit about this project
and get those answers for the record.
Mr. Garman. Sure, I will provide an extensive answer for
the record. But I would say that high-temperature
superconducting wiring is a breakthrough in technology. We are
in the middle of a demonstration project in Detroit now that
shows great promise, particularly in constrained areas,
carrying more and more power, longer and longer distances, at
more reasonable costs. We are very excited about the work that
is done at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge on the high-temperature
superconducting wire. We will give you a map.
[The information follows:]
High Temperature Superconductivity
The Accelerated Coated Conductor project was initiated to assure
continue U.S. leadership in the development of High Temperature
Superconducting (HTS) wire for electric power applications. This
project was designed to accelerate the development, commercialization,
and application of high temperature superconductors through joint
efforts among DOE laboratories, American industry, and universities.
Based on their technological advances in HTS coated conductor
development, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories lead this
effort by making available state-of-the-art equipment and expert
scientists to work cooperatively with U.S. industry developing
fabrication techniques that lead to commercial manufacturing. This
public- private partnership provides equipment, facilities, and
technical expertise to accelerate industry R&D.
The new equipment has been installed and scientists and engineers
from the HTS companies have started using the facilities at the Los
Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Approximately $9 million of
the fiscal year 2003 budget request will fund this cooperative research
and development. Collaboration with industry also involves the design,
development, and testing of pre-commercial prototype equipment in 50-50
cost shared Cooperative Agreements to ultimately apply the coated
conductors in power applications such as transmission lines,
generators, transformers, and fault current limiters. Five companies
have committed to using these advanced facilities: American
Superconductor, 3-M Corporation, IGC-SuperPower, DuPont, and
MicroCoating Technologies. Several other companies have indicated
interest in using the facilities and have opened discussions with the
laboratories.
Approximately $9 million of the fiscal year 2003 budget request
will specifically support this project and an additional $30 million
will be needed to completion in fiscal year 2007 when industrial pilot
plants are expected to have grown into mature manufacturing lines. Five
companies have committed to using these advanced facilities at the
national laboratories, and some initial work has already begun.
FUEL CELL RESEARCH AT LOS ALAMOS
Senator Domenici. Fine. Then I will just quickly move to
the Fuel Cell National Resource Center at Los Alamos. That
comes under you also. Will you please for the record comment on
your work in this area and elaborate on the future role of this
center and Los Alamos in this area?
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir. The work that is done at Los Alamos
on the proton exchange membrane fuel cell is very important to
us, particularly in the context of the administration's
initiative on the Freedom Car project. PEM fuel cells tend to
be lightweight, lower temperature than some other types of fuel
cells. The work that has been done at Los Alamos to date has
been very important in reducing the cost of the fuel cell
stack, mainly through reduction in the platinum catalyst needed
in the membrane.
This is extremely important work. The best people in the
program that we have are working at Los Alamos and we foresee a
continued relationship with Los Alamos and an expansion of that
effort in keeping with our initiative in the Freedom Car
program.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
I have no further questions. We will submit them in
writing. I want to thank you for your courtesies this morning
and pledge to you, working with Senator Reid, we will try to
expedite our bill and try to prove our case to our Senators
that have to do the allocating that we need more than a few
hundred million plus-up in the accounts here. But that is not
their problem. It is above their grade, I think.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Domenici, and thank you
for your support on these issues over the 10 years I worked
with you on this committee as well.
Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
HAMMER TRAINING FACILITY REDUCTION
Senator Murray. Ms. Roberson, let me go back to you again.
The administration budget zeroes out funding for HAMMER, the
training facility at Hanford. That facility has trained over
150,000 Hanford and non-Hanford students since 1997. Managers
and workers at the site tell us that HAMMER is responsible for
the increased safety record and in fact since 1997 HAMMER has
directly contributed to over three million safe work hours and
about a quarter of a million hours of safe training.
Since HAMMER has contributed to this significant safety
record, why has DOE proposed to eliminate it?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Murray, I had the opportunity to
speak with our site manager at Richland, Keith Klein, as well
as some of the workers on this topic. What I have advised Keith
Klein is that the Department does indeed support the
contribution that HAMMER has made to the preparedness and
training of our workers, and I communicated that to
representatives from our union, who benefit from that for the
Department.
I know that they are in discussions as to how that
facility's contribution integrates in support of our
accelerated cleanup, because the demands on it may be greater
even as a result of that.
Senator Murray. Correct.
Ms. Roberson. They are discussing the budget and how that
is to be integrated with the allocation of funding. I cannot
tell you the specifics of that, but I know that those
deliberations are ongoing.
Senator Murray. But you have zeroed it out in your budget,
HAMMER?
Ms. Roberson. Because it needs to. Its value really has to
be integrated with the cleanup plan. I believe that case can be
made and is being made.
Senator Murray. So you expect to take the money out of
cleanup funds?
Ms. Roberson. Well, it would have to be funded from the
budget. The training of the employees at that facility, what
they are doing is looking at the cost-benefit of some other
training avenue. They have convinced me that this is the most
efficient way to acquire those training services, and so we pay
for training out of the budget one way or the other. Their
recommendation is to support that training at HAMMER.
Senator Murray. Out of the cleanup budget?
Ms. Roberson. We would, with our distribution of funding,
we would recommend a budget for HAMMER as a result of that,
yes.
Senator Murray. I understand workers from across the
complex are training at Hanford. Is your budget proposing to
eliminate training at HAMMER for all of the non-Hanford workers
as well?
Ms. Roberson. I am not aware of where the other workers are
from. I have not been approached by the workers from other
sites nor the site management, that there is an issue or
concern. My understanding is that what the Department has done
in the past is to support the training needs through Hanford
and that is the way that I propose we go forward. So no, I have
not considered that and I have not been approached with a
proposal.
Senator Murray. Well, as you alluded to, the operation of
the waste treatment plant is going to take a lot of training to
operate that. I will tell you, labor and the community again
are gravely concerned that a lack of funding will really limit
the training and will really prevent full operation of that
waste plant.
Have you considered the inability to train enough workers
to affect the facility's operation with the cut of the HAMMER
funding?
Ms. Roberson. As I said, what I have asked Keith Klein and
Harry Boston to do is to, based on their evaluation at the site
of the training needs for employees and new employees integrate
those training needs, which the Department will pay for one way
or the other, into the needs of that facility and the timing.
They have a responsibility to provide that recommendation.
Senator Murray. Well, I will have some further questions
about that, but I will work with the committee and submit them.
TANK WASTE AT HANFORD
Let me go to one final question for myself. Ms. Roberson,
statements by you and others at the DOE have suggested a desire
to vitrify less tank waste and to leave some of the waste in
the tanks permanently. I have to tell you that has raised a lot
of concerns again in my State, because it is contrary to the
requirements of the tri-party agreement. In fact, the
Washington State Department of Ecology sent a letter to DOE
noting that State and Federal regulators do not agree with some
of the assumptions in the draft accelerated cleanup plan.
Will you commit your agency to working with the State and
Federal regulators to reach consensus on all the issues which
would require actions contrary to the tri-party agreement?
Ms. Roberson. Absolutely. There is no other way for us to
do it. It is an agreement and we have to work together. We are
absolutely committed to do so.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Murray. I appreciate that. Again, I will just tell
you that a lot of the actions have raised a lot of concerns
among the community, as I have described throughout my
questioning here, and I think it is very important that DOE
understands the high level of concern about the commitment from
DOE to ongoing efforts at Hanford.
I do want to submit for the record a question from Senator
Hollings regarding the South Carolina budget. He has some real
concerns about that. I will submit that question to you.
Mr. Garman, I did not mean to ignore you this morning. I do
have some questions I will submit for the record for both of
you. Senator Reid would like to keep the record open for a week
for other members' questions as well.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
listing of site managers
Question. Ms. Roberson, please provide me with a list of all site
managers in the complex and how long (to the month) they have been in
their current positions.
Answer. The following is a list of the current site managers in the
Environmental Management complex and the length of time they have
served as of May 2002:
Dr. Ines Triay, Manager, Carlsbad Field Office--3 years this month
Vacant, Manager, Idaho Operations Office Vacant, Ohio Field Office
Keith Klein, Manager Richland Operations Office--3 years this month
Dr. Harry Boston, Manager, Office of River Protection--2 years 5
months
Barbara Mazurowski, Manager, Rocky Flats Field Office--1 year 11
months
Greg Rudy, Manager, Savannah River Operations Office--4 years this
month
However, DOE has announced the following management changes:
Greg Rudy, will move to the National Nuclear Security
Administration in Washington, D.C. and Charles Hansen, Deputy Manager
of the Savannah River Operations Office, will become the Acting
Manager.
Eugene Schmitt, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Policy, Planning, and Budget at EM Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
will replace Barbara Mazurowski as Manager of the Rocky Flats Field
Office.
Roy Schepens, currently at the Savannah River Site will replace
Harry Boston as the Office of River Protection Site Manager.
river corridor closure project
Question. Ms. Roberson, the Department recently released a final
RFP to select a contractor for the River Corridor Closure Project at
Hanford. How is this solicitation consistent with the views expressed
in last year's DOE contractor readiness report that the Department
should expand competition by attracting interest from a broader base of
contractors?
Answer. In the report, ``Analysis of the DOE Contractor Base''
(January 2001), the authors recommended various actions that DOE should
take to improve contractor responsiveness to Requests for Proposals
(RFP). One of the recommendations was to promote competition and high
quality contractor performance by (1) providing an emphasis on
performance-based contracting; (2) giving greater clarity and details
in the scope of work; (3) providing more background information and
documents to potential offerors; and (4) making sure that the draft
comment period is adequate and comments are fully considered.
This was incorporated into the River Corridor Solicitation by (1)
making the contract a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, where the
amount of fee earned is directly related to the performance and cost of
that performance; (2) refining the scope of work to ensure that it
contains only those areas that are well understood and documented; (3)
providing on the website all the available documents for the use of
potential offerors; and (4) providing a comment period of 27 days for
the draft RFP. In addition, three separate site tours were held, one
for a general overview of the Hanford Site and two for specific areas
or facilities requested by the potential offerors.
Another recommendation expressed in the report was to reward high
quality contractor performance by (1) allowing contractors to earn
market fees commensurate with performance and level of risk and
liability assumed; and (2) sustaining or even strengthening the aspect
of DOE competition policy that encourages up to 5-year extensions for
strongly performing companies.
This was incorporated into the River Corridor Solicitation by (1)
making the maximum allowable fee attainable by an extremely successful
contractor 15 percent of proposed target cost with a minimum fee of 2.5
percent.; and (2) placing an option into the contract which provides
for a large increase in scope for a highly successful performer. With
the exercise of the option, the contract performance period would be
increased by at least 5 years.
The other recommendations pertained to monitoring of the
marketplace and/or the administration of contracts after award. Insofar
as the acquisition was concerned, these recommendations were addressed
by holding one-on-one meetings with prospective offerors on two
occasions prior to release of the final RFP. The Source Evaluation
Board Chairman and Contracting Officer conducted telephone
solicitations with qualified companies not normally performing on DOE
contract activity to expand the pool of prospective offerors. It
appears at this time that this particular action was successful.
Question. You do agree that the contractor selected for the River
Corridor Closure Project should to the extent possible, subcontract
with local companies in the Tri-Cities?
Answer. Since this is a cost-plus-incentive-fee type of contract,
the selected contractor will be incentivized to place subcontracts
which respond to competitive solicitations at the lowest cost.
Companies closest to the area of performance will have an advantage due
to lower transit and mobilization/demobilization costs. In addition, a
small business plan and socioeconomic goals are to be incorporated into
the contract. The contract itself will penalize the contractor if there
is any non-compliance with the plan and goals. Finally, the contractor
is also required to have a mentor/protege program in place during
contract performance. Because of the number of qualified small
businesses in the local area, it is reasonable to expect that a fair
percentage of the selected small businesses will be Tri-Cities
companies.
low-level waste
Question. Ms. Roberson, last year in the fiscal year 2002 Energy
and Water Appropriations Conference Report, the Committee directed your
office to prepare a report on the life-cycle costs for the disposal of
low-level radioactive waste at DOE and commercial disposal facilities.
What is the status of that report? What are the major findings of that
report?
Answer. The cost study is in final Departmental review, and is
expected to be delivered to Congress this summer. As a result of doing
this analysis, we have drawn five major conclusions concerning our
management of DOE low-level radioactive waste.
--Generator site pre-disposal costs offer the greatest opportunity
for cost savings. All DOE decisions for choosing low-level
waste disposal locations should be based upon the full ``cradle
to grave'' cost of managing the specific waste stream, not just
the fee charged by the disposal facility or the cost of
disposal facility operations.
--On-site DOE disposal cells for cleanup waste are cost effective.
--Commercial facilities offer the lowest disposal cost for some DOE
waste.
--DOE disposal sites offer services not available commercially.
--Comparison of disposal alternatives must consider more than just
disposal fees. The DOE practice of charging a ``fee'' that does
not include capital costs and costs for closure and long-term
stewardship does not unfairly favor DOE disposal sites as long
as the ``cradle to grave'' cost for managing a waste stream is
considered in making disposal site selections.
low-level waste
Question. Ms. Roberson, what is your office doing to make it easier
for sites to choose the least expensive disposal option of low-level
radioactivite wastes? Do you believe that the DOE's preference for the
use of DOE disposal facilities should be changed to allow sites to use
the most cost-effective option, whether that option is a DOE or
commercial facility? If so, what is your office doing in this regard?
What guidance does Headquarters plan to provide to its field offices to
ensure that they are aware of the findings of your report and that they
implement the most cost-effective options for the disposal of low level
wastes?
Answer. We have prepared a report that is in final Departmental
review on the life-cycle costs for disposal of low-level radioactive
waste at DOE and commercial disposal facilities. The report was
prepared in response to the report accompanying the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of 2002. One of the findings of that
study is that commercial facilities offer the lowest disposal cost for
some DOE waste. To facilitate our sites' use of licensed commercial
disposal facilities, we are considering changing our radioactive waste
management directive to remove the requirement that sites seek an
exemption to use non-DOE disposal facilities. Subsequent guidance may
be issued to clarify implementation of this policy change.
life-cycle costs of disposal
Question. Ms. Roberson, DOE's PEIS indicates that low-level waste
and mixed low-level waste from off-site sources will be shipped to the
Nevada Test Site and Hanford for disposal. Some have raised concerns
that Hanford and the Site may be subsidizing DOE's disposal of these
wastes unless the Department requires that generator sites pay the full
amount of the life-cycle costs for disposal. If such wastes were to be
disposed at Hanford, what are you planning to do to ensure that off-
site generators pay the life-cycle costs of disposal at Hanford, so
that Hanford does not subsidize those costs from its budget?
Answer. The Department is not really subsidizing any waste disposal
costs at Hanford since the disposal site and the generator sites are
all Federal Government entities. DOE's situation is different from
private industry where the generator organization and the disposal
organization are different. The disposal organization would charge the
generator organization the full cost of disposal to maximize its
profit. In turn, the generator organization would have the incentive to
reduce the amount of waste generated in order to maximum its profit.
There is no profit incentive for DOE. DOE implements other incentives
(e.g., transportation, packaging, and waste minimization requirements)
that have successfully minimized the amount and hazards of waste
generated.
Life cycle disposal costs include the costs for surveillance and
monitoring many years after the disposal site has stopped receiving
waste and has been closed. Individual generator sites would need to pay
today for activities that will occur well after they have stopped
disposing of waste at the disposal site. (Indeed, some generator sites
would need to pay today for activities that would occur well after they
are cleaned up, closed, and are no longer part of DOE). If individual
generators were required to bear these costs, long-term carryover of
congressional appropriations would be required.
The Department recognizes that the DOE practice of charging ``fee''
that does not include capital costs and costs for closure and long-term
stewardship may unfairly favor selection of DOE disposal sites when DOE
waste generators are evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various
disposal options. To address this, we are developing guidance that will
require generators to consider the ``cradle to grave'' cost for
managing a waste stream when making disposal site selections.
innovative technologies
Question. Ms. Roberson, DOE officials have stated that the
Department intends to provide extraordinary incentives to contractors
that can provide exceptional technology in order to achieve its goal of
accelerated environmental cleanup. Specifically, does the Department
intend to utilize private sector technologies that have been developed
through the use of their own capital by entering into contracts that
will offer a portion of measured savings enabled by the privately
developed technology as compensation for taking the risk to bring the
technology to market? Further, will DOE develop a related procurement
policy and model, if so when might this policy and model be brought
forward?
Answer. Accelerating the cleanup inherently involves two
potentially conflicting objectives: 1) provide the highest confidence
in estimating the cost and schedule to complete the cleanup, which will
typically require the use of currently available technologies; and 2)
implement accelerated schedules and reduced costs, which will typically
require the use of innovative technologies that need additional
development.
The Department is reinforcing the incentive structure of contracts
to ensure there are sufficient incentives for contractors to accept the
risk of utilizing an innovative technology, but at the same time
meeting cleanup commitments. The Department is reviewing current
contracts to determine if changes are necessary.
renewable energy production incentive (repi)
Question. Mr. Garman, it's my understanding that the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive (REPI) was created in the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 to help communities served by municipal electric utilities and
rural electric cooperatives (combined representing 25 percent of the
industry nationwide) invest in renewable energy projects. My state of
Washington has over 100 years of experience with public power systems,
and they currently serve 3.2 million residential consumers--or over 50
percent of the population. The REPI program represents the recognition
that these not-for-profit electric utilities cannot utilize the
production tax credits for renewable energy made available to private
entities, including for-profit utilities. If the goal is to increase
the use of renewable energy in this country--as I believe it is--then
not-for-profit electric utilities need the same types of Federal
incentives that Congress has provided to private entities through the
tax code. Otherwise, we're telling 50 percent of the people in my home
state and 25 percent of the people in this nation that their
communities aren't worth the Federal investment.
What is the current backlog of projects awaiting funding through
the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) program? What was the
backlog in 2001?
Answer. The current backlog of projects awaiting funding is in the
table below. The Department interprets ``current backlog'' to mean REPI
Tier II projects that have unpaid electricity production as of December
of the previous year. The current backlog is from the last year of
production (i.e., fiscal year 2001) as well as from years prior to the
fiscal year 2001 year of electricity production.
CURRENT REPI TIER II UNPAID BACKLOG
[Dollars in Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Facility Owner/Utility Name 2002 Backlog Fiscal year
State (kWh) 2002 Backlog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASalt River Project 1,815,029 $31,712
CCentral Valley Financing 164,285,585 2,870,422
Authority, (SMUD)
CCity of Glendale 261,279,986 4,565,123
CCounty of Sacramento, Waste 111,516,895 1,948,440
Management & Recycling
Division
CMonterey Regional Waste 66,461,485 1,161,225
Management District
CSonoma County Dept of 84,892,518 1,483,255
Transportation and Public
Works
CThe Regents of University of 96,118,603 1,679,399
California c/o UCLA Energy
Services
FJacksonville Electric 34,402,619 601,088
Authority
NCatawba County 13,283,325 232,088
OEmerald Peoples' Utility 40,084,778 700,367
District
OPacific Northwest Generation 68,011,141 1,188,301
Coop
PLycoming County Resource 31,968,825 558,564
Management Services
SSantee Cooper 857,097 14,975
WPublic Utility District #1, 122,620,940 2,142,452
Klickitat County
WPublic Utility District No. 1 795,445,504 13,898,143
Snohomish County
WCounty of Dane, Dept of Public 45,623,828 797,146
Works
-----------------------------------
Totals for Tier II, 1,938,668,160 33,872,701
fiscal year 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The backlog for 2001 is given in the table below:
YEAR 2001 REPI TIER II UNPAID BACKLOG
[Dollars in Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Facility Owner/Utility Name 2001 Backlog Fiscal year
State (kWh) 2001 Backlog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCentral Valley Financing 128,028,921 $2,182,385
Authority, (SMUD)
CCity of Glendale 205,182,974 3,497,556
CCounty of Sacramento, Waste 50,323,004 857,808
Management & Recycling
Division
CMonterey Regional Waste 51,034,909 869,943
Management District
CSonoma County Dept of 65,490,372 1,116,351
Transportation and Public
Works
CThe Regents of University of 74,348,165 1,267,341
California c/o UCLA Energy
Services
FJacksonville Electric 27,129,131 462,444
Authority
OEmerald Peoples' Utility 33,631,952 573,291
District
OPacific Northwest Generation 53,558,651 912,963
Coop
PLycoming County Resource 25,219,272 429,889
Management Services
WPublic Utility District #1, 73,170,039 1,247,259
Klickitat County
WPublic Utility District No. 1 631,458,266 10,763,859
Snohomish County
WCounty of Dane, Dept of Public 33,687,669 574,241
Works
-----------------------------------
Totals for Tier II, 1,452,263,327 24,755,330
fiscal year 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
renewable energy production incentive (repi)
Question. What has the Administration requested for the program in
the last 5 fiscal years?
Answer. The budget requests for REPI in the last 5 fiscal years
are:
--Fiscal year 1998--$4.0 M
--Fiscal year 1999--$4.0 M
--fiscal year 2000--$1.5M
--Fiscal year 2001--$4.0 M
--Fiscal year 2002--$3.991M
Question. Given that the demand for REPI funding has increased
pretty significantly, even in the past year, why has the Administration
again requested $4 million for fiscal year 2003 for the program?
Answer. There are several reasons why the Department did not
request a greater amount for REPI:
First, the annual REPI budget request is determined after careful
consideration and balancing of the many research, development, and
deployment priorities within EERE and the Department.
Second, fully funding REPI would not be fair to some categories of
private entities and private utilities. REPI was originally conceived
to provide public utilities with similar benefits as the tax incentives
given to private utilities. The majority of applications to REPI are
for electricity from landfill gas projects, but landfill gas projects,
if privately owned, do not have a tax credit comparable to the REPI
incentive payment (although the President has proposed such a tax
credit in the fiscal year 2003 budget).
Currently, publicly-owned, landfill gas projects are eligible for
REPI payments, but only as lower-priority Tier II projects that receive
funds only after funds are exhausted for Tier I projects. Tier I
technologies are those that would be eligible for tax credits if
privately owned, and include solar, wind, geothermal, and closed-loop
biomass technologies.
The REPI budget request is sufficient to cover expected qualified
electricity from projects using Tier I technologies that could, if
privately-owned, get tax credits. Requesting REPI funds of $13.4
million (at an estimated inflation-adjusted fiscal year 2003 payment
rate of 1.71 cents/kwh) to cover all the possible qualified energy
generated in fiscal year 2002 would mean that the Federal Government
provides a significant incentive to projects, mostly landfill gas, that
would not qualify for tax credits if privately-owned. Such an action
would give an advantage to public entities over private entities.
Finally, while acknowledging that REPI does provide some level of
incentive, the Department recognizes the uncertainty about the full
incentive value of REI due to the reliance on annual appropriations,
particularly compared to tax credits. DOE is exploring options for
improving this situation.
Question. Municipal electric utilities and rural electric
cooperatives represent 25 percent of the electric utility industry
combined. Given both the national energy policy's and the climate
change initiative's emphasis on increasing tax credits for renewable
energy for the remaining 75 percent of the industry, why not a similar
commitment--in the form of an increased REPI program--from the
Administration for the mostly small and rural communities served by
public power systems and rural electric cooperatives? In the
Administration's recently-released climate change initiative there is a
10-year, $7.1 billion commitment of tax incentives to ``spur
investments in renewable energy and landfill gas conversion.''
Municipal electric utilities are uniquely suited to proceed with
landfill-gas-to-energy projects in particular and could substantially
help the Administration achieve its worthwhile objectives if some of
the costs were mitigated through REPI.
Answer. The Administration's priorities for renewable energy are
set out in the National Energy Policy, the President's fiscal year 2003
Budget Request and the President's Global Climate Initiative. These
priorities, when implemented, will improve the cost and performance of
renewable energy technologies for the benefit of, and use by, all
communities, whether small or large, urban or rural, and served by
private, public, or cooperative utilities.
Question. It's my understanding that, since its inception, REPI
projects have received about $25 million total. Do you know how much
money the for-profit utilities have received in production tax credits
during that same time (since 1992)? My point is not to discount the
worthiness of the production tax credits--they've obviously been
beneficial to the nation--but to highlight the disparity.
Answer. The Department does not keep these data nor does it have
knowledge of the amount of tax expenditures on production tax credits
given to for-profit utilities since 1992. The raw data upon which such
an analysis could be done are kept by both the Department of the
Treasury and by Congress' Joint Tax Committee. The Department of Energy
has contacted the Department of the Treasury seeking the requested
information. The Department of Energy was informed that the answer is
not readily retrievable from the raw data, and thus that the Department
of the Treasury could not provide the requested information at this
time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
mound closure savings and costs
Question. In February, you announced that the Department would
compete the Mound contract over 2 years before the current contract
expires. We understand that the Mound cleanup in on pace to finish by
the end of 2005, well before the 2006 closure date and may be the first
site to close in the Defense Facilities Closure Projects account. What
additional savings and progress to you expect to achieve by competing
this contract? What termination costs are you expected to pay the
current cleanup contractor and what additional funds will be required
to pay these costs and when will you request them?
Answer. The Department has decided to recompete the Mound contract
to capitalize on the advanced that have been made in the area of
contract strategy for closure sites since the award of the current
contract in 1997. EM plans to utilize a more incentivized contract
structure at the Mound site that will be mutually beneficial to the
contractor and to DOE. In addition, the current contract ends in 2004
and has no options to extend. In order to reach closure, either a
competition would need to be pursued at that time, or a sole source
extension would be required. Few firms would be willing to invest in a
competition at that stage of closure. The Department believes that a
competition at this stage will provide the maximum opportunity for the
receipt of innovative approaches from industry.
Competition normally produces greater innovation and cost
efficiency than sole source negotiation. EM anticipates that will be
the case for the Mound solicitation. We will not know the cost savings
and productivity improvements that may be realized, but we are working
to develop a Request for Proposals that provides more flexibility and
incentives for cost savings and accelerated progress than the current
contract structure does.
It is difficult to estimate the cost of changing to the new
contract. If the incumbent contractor, which has stated its intention
to compete for the contract, wins the award, the current contract may
be modified, and a termination action would not be necessary. In this
case, the cost of transition to a new contract should be minimal. If a
new contractor wins the award, the incumbent contractor will present a
termination-for-convenience proposal, and the government will audit it
and negotiate a fair and equitable settlement.
decision to compete mound contract
Question. We understand that your own independent review of the
current Mound project baseline determined it to be on track for closure
before the end of 2006 and one of the best in the DOE. How is your
decision to compete the contract consistent with the fact that the
Mound project baseline is on track and one of the best in the DOE?
Answer. The internal DOE review, which has not been made available
publicly because of ongoing procurement, concluded that the proposed
baseline had the potential to meet the 2006 closure data. Technical
risk-assumption, and funding issues remained to be negotiated, and such
discussions never took place because of the decision to compete.
Accordingly, it is not possible to say that baseline progress is ``on
track for closure before the end of 2006.''
EM officials have not made and are not aware of the statement that
the Mound project baseline ``is on of the best in the DOE,'' and
therefore, we cannot comment on theat statement except to say that we
anticipate receiving a strong, fully validatable baseline through the
competitive process.
The Department's decision to compete the contract is consistent
with its commitment to congress to close the Mound site by or before
2006, to adhere to the tenents of the Competition in Contracting Act
(CICA), to have a contract that will be in existence until the Mound
site is remediated and transitioned to the community, and to provide
the types of incentives that will motivate the successful contractor to
accelerate the project to the greatest extent possible, consistent with
DOE health and safety standards.
contract termination for convenience
Question. We understand that the government has broad rights to
terminate contracts for convenience, but isn't this decision a
significant increase in those rights and have implications for
procurement policy?
Answer. The rights of the government to terminate a contract for
convenience are well established in government procurement law. The
standard applied for a decision to terminate for convenience is that
the termination must be in the best interest of the government. The
decision to terminate the Mound contract is within the established
standard because it offers an opportunity to accelerate the schedule
for closure of the Mound site at a reduced cost. In addition, it
provides an opportunity to maximize application of innovative
approaches from industry and capitalize on advances at other
Departmental cleanup sites. The Department, the general public, and the
contractor all benefit from a strategy designed to reduce risks, apply
innovative approaches, and provide incentives to motivate the
contractor to safely achieve the critical cleanup mission at an
established target cost.
The decision to terminate the Mound contract was based solely on
facts specifically related to that contract. It does not alter the
rights currently available to the Government for contract termination
or reflect any changes in Departmental procurement policy.
contract competition
Question. Has the Office of Management and Budget, including the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy, reviewed the decision to compete
the Mound contact and, if so, what have they advised the Department?
Answer. The Office of Management and Budget, including the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy, has not conducted a formal review of the
decision to compete the Mound contract; therefore, they have not
provided advice to the Department concerning the decision to compete
the contract.
As a general rule, however, the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy has strongly endorsed competition, and has made Competitive
Sourcing a top priority. The competitive sourcing initiative strives to
create a market-based government that is not afraid of competition,
innovation, and choice. Although the competitive sourcing initiative is
related to public-private competition, the Department believes that the
significant improvements in performance and cost savings projected
through public-private competition will also be realized in competing
work to improve cleanup schedules and capitalize on positive
experiences to accelerate schedules and reduce costs. It is the firm
conviction of the Department that the anticipated cost savings and
accelerated completion of cleanup at the Mound site will more than
offset the minimal disruption and potential costs associated with
competing the contract.
doe's goals for our nation's energy future
Question. Last year during this hearing, I asked about DOE's plans
for efficiency, renewables, and overall goals for 10, 20 and 50 years
from now. I was not given any real answer. Nor have I been given an
answer since that time. Do you have any idea whether DOE, and the EERE
Office in particular, are developing short, medium, and long term goals
to better determine our nation's energy future? If so, what are these
plans? If not, why haven't any plans been developed?
Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
is currently preparing a Strategic Plan that will address important
energy-related challenges and opportunities facing our country. This
plan identifies the goals and strategies EERE will pursue in the years
ahead to address these programs. In developing this plan, EERE is
paying greater attention to long-term impacts, specifically using a
longer time horizon, extending from 1973 through to 2050. The plan will
address quantitative results for the next 30 years and will look ahead
50 years at structured energy markets. The Strategic Plan is explicitly
tied to the vision and recommendations of the National Energy Plan,
containing a sharper delineation of EERE's role and objectives.
eere reorganization
Question. What is involved with your recently announced
reorganization? For example, you mention that your reorganization is
going to make the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) more efficient, but how is it more efficient if you will have
the same number of staff as before? Isn't this about rearranging staff?
If you are not eliminating any positions in this process, how will this
save money or improve efficiency? Have you met with stakeholders/
businesses about your reorganization plans? What do they think of your
plans?
Answer. The EERE reorganization directly responds to the
President's Management Agenda by proposing to eliminate the current 5
sector stovepipe organizations, several management layers, place
greater emphasis on the 11 programs and program management, and improve
our business practices. The new business model accomplishes all this by
realigning staff resources into two business units each directed by an
Deputy Assistant Secretary. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Technology Development oversees the 11 programs while the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Business Administration oversees three business
management units. By realigning staff resources into these two business
units, EERE will realize efficiency gains by placing greater emphasis
on project, contract, and acquisition management and leaner
administrative/support functions, with fewer layers of management. The
business model is based on the following principle: make the 11
Programs the center piece of the EERE organization and develop strong
business services to support the programs and the program managers. Our
goal is not to eliminate personnel positions. By developing an
integrated corporate management system, used throughout the EERE
organization, we will achieve economies of scale and process
efficiencies in our project management and business management
processes.
The EERE stakeholder/business community has been briefed on our
proposed reorganization. The general reaction has been favorable with
most of the business/stakeholder community expressing a willingness to
work with the EERE structure.
Question. Your reorganization would reduce the number of Deputy
Assistant Secretaries from 5 to 2, one for Technology Development and
one for Business Administration. Each of these Deputy Assistant
Secretaries would have 11 Program Offices reporting directly to them.
Are you confident that these two individuals will be able to manage
such a broad scope of responsibility? What steps would you take if a
logjam occurs?
Answer. Under the proposed EERE reorganization, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Technology Development oversees the 11 programs
and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Business Administration oversees
3 corporate business units. The selection of the two Deputy Assistant
Secretaries was made after extensive interviews by Assistant Secretary
Garman of all 14 Senior Executive Service (SES) members in the EERE
organization. He is confident that his selections have the broad range
of experience and capability to manage this new structure. Fundamental
to making the proposed organization effective is to select the best,
give them direction, not micro-manage their efforts, and trust their
judgements. Similarly, the creation of the Board of Directors affords
the Assistant Secretary the opportunity to tap the extensive knowledge
and skill base of the senior career executives who compose the Board.
expanding eere's international efforts
Question. In your Strategic Program Review you call for an
expansion of EERE's international efforts. In the Review document you
cite that ``current investments in this area are extremely modest'' and
go on to recommend that ``R&D support is needed to develop energy
supply and service applications appropriate to developing countries--
applications for use in buildings, industry, power, transport,
agriculture, education, health and in particular, that can generate
income for the user-building on U.S. renewable energy and energy
efficiency technologies.'' I couldn't agree with you more that we need
to expand EERE's international activities. But don't you need to expand
EERE's international activities. But don't you need to do much more
than just ``R&D support''? What additional plans do you have to expand
EERE's international efforts?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 Budget Request is responsive to the
language in the fiscal year 2002 Conference Report: ``The conferees
expect the Department to work with the Department of Commerce, the U.S.
Agency for International Development, and other relevant agencies to
complete, and begin implementation of a 5-year plan to open and expand
export markets for U.S. clean energy technologies. The conferees urge
the Administration to include adequate funding for this initiative in
the fiscal year 2003 budget submission.''
The Department proposes an increase of $3,660,000 for the
International Renewable Energy program. The requested $3,660,000
increase is to support the Clean Energy Technology Exports (CETE)
initiative. The 5 year plan has been drafted, is currently in agency
concurrence, and is expected to be submitted to Congress within the
next few weeks. The CETE approach will be to initiate two types of
international activities: support for industry-initiated export
projects and ``showcase'' projects that demonstrate the CETE vision of
coordinated activities among the USG agencies with export
responsibilities. Priority will be given to advancing the U.S.
recommendations in the National Energy Policy. We anticipate major
leveraging of these funds with those of other agencies and U.S.
industry.
The remaining $2,840,000 under the $6.5 million request will be
used to support the energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions
of existing DOE and U.S. Government bilateral and multilateral
agreements. The most important of these agreements include the North
American Energy Working Group (NAEWG) with Mexico and Canada, the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and new Science and Technology
agreements with Italy and Japan. Since September 11, these agreements
have been expanded in scope to include the role that diversified energy
resources can play in increasing national security.
transmission
Question. Why is the electric system and storage account only level
funded with last year, given the importance of improving the
transmission situation in this country?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 funding request of $70M for electric
energy systems and storage account is actually higher than last year
given that some congressionally directed activities are expected to end
in fiscal year 2002. Closure of these specific projects will provide
additional funding to advance superconducting technologies in support
of the transmission situation in the U.S. Additionally, the Department
has recently released the National Transmission Grid Study that
contacts 51 specific recommendations to modernize the Nation's electric
transmission systems.
The following activities initiated in fiscal year 20002 and
proposed for fiscal year 2003 funding support recommendations in the
study: model assessment and development to designate grid bottlenecks;
development and implementation of grid metrics for reliability and
market monitoring; and identification of tools, analysis methods, and
data to perform future bottleneck assessments.
Question. What is the Department doing to increase transmission
availability so we can develop more renewable energy, particularly wind
energy, in the Dakotas and other States?
Answer. The Department's Office of Distributed Energy and Electric
Reliability is conducting research and development (R&D) aimed at
upgrading the capacity of existing transmission corridors without
building new lines. Research includes the development of advanced
transmission technologies, such as advanced overhead composite
conductors, superconducting transmission and distribution cables,
superconducting transformers, superconducting flywheel storage systems
and other advanced energy storage systems. Additionally, the Department
is developing real time monitoring and control systems that will
improve the response of the transmission system.
The Department is performing high-current testing on an advanced
aluminum composite core conductor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
partnership with 3M, and will install and evaluate this conductor on a
major transmission line in North Dakota this year. This conductor can
replace the conventional conductors on existing corridors with no
changes to the towers or foundations, and carries two to three times
the load of the conventional conductors. This capability increases
overall transmission capacity, and allows the system to reliably
accommodate wind farms loads under peak output conditions.
Additionally, the Department just completed and released the
National Transmission Grid Study that supports full competition, and
identifies bottlenecks, and technologies for a modern grid system. The
study contains 51 specific recommendations including the use of
distributed generation to relieve bottlenecks, and other advanced
technologies, including high voltage direct current (HVDC) lines that
are attractive in the Dakotas for moving power long distances into the
Western U.S. system that requires a DC tie.
green tag program
Question. What is the latest update on the Green Tags program?
Answer. DOE's Federal Energy Management Program provides technical
assistance to Federal agencies to help them meet the renewable
portfolio standard of Executive order 13123. Our guidance and technical
assistance activities encourage agencies to purchase green power and
use Green Tags to meet or help others meet their renewable energy
goals. The Green Tags program is an important market mechanism to help
individual Federal markets and facilities meet the standard with
maximum flexibility. The renewable energy purchase program, including
green tags, is a very important mechanism to help Federal agencies meet
the renewable energy goals of Executive Order 13123.
The latest update on Green Tags involves the Department's
leadership by example in the purchase of renewable energy. The
Secretary recently signed DOE Order 430.2 on utility and energy
management. That Order establishes a Department wide goal of purchasing
three percent of the electricity used by DOE's facilities from
renewable resources by 2005 and seven percent by 2010, exceeding the
Executive Order goal.
Additionally at this year's DOE Earth day ceremony, DOE announced
its plan to purchase of 17 percent of the DOE Headquarters Complex's
electricity at competitive prices from renewable resources and the
Secretary challenged DOE sites to find cost effective and creative ways
of meeting their renewable energy goals.
biomass
Question. There is a growing interest in this country in the value
of biomass as a renewable energy source. This would be especially
valuable to areas with high agricultural use such as my State of North
Dakota. What does your Department plan to do to research and develop
the use of biomass, and what funding have you requested for such
efforts?
Answer. With the support of the President and the guidance of the
National Energy Policy, DOE's overall Biomass Program is working to
increase national energy security and protect the environment by
developing a domestic, renewable energy supply. The technologies that
we are developing will significantly benefit the environment and rural
economies by providing new energy sources, reducing emissions, and
building new markets for America's farmers. We are also working to
improve our national security by developing alternative fuels from
agricultural wastes to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
DOE is working to maintain its leadership role in the promotion of
biobased fuels, power and products by integrating its biomass programs
to ensure that they are aligned with the goals outlined in the
President's National Energy Policy. We have identified the industrial
biorefinery as the most promising strategy to utilize fuels, power, and
industrial products for the establishment of a sustainable renewable
energy industry. Thus far, our Integrated Biomass Program has helped
move two new biomass-based product technologies toward
commercialization and lowered the estimated production cost of
cellulase enzymes by 50 percent. Our goals for the future include
sustaining our efforts to reduce the cost of cellulase enzymes to 5 to
10 cents per gallon of ethanol produced to achieve a five-fold increase
in the market share for chemicals and materials produced from biomass.
wind resource data and mapping
Question. Money is needed for mapping wind resources to better
refine wind resource data. What is the Department doing to fund and
promote such efforts?
Answer. The Department's Wind Energy Program is supporting
activities to develop, verify, and improve the quality of wind resource
information in the form of maps and data. This effort would
substantially build on information developed in the mid-1980's using
limited data, technology, and practices. The Department's support of
advanced modeling techniques, new tools (such as Geographic Information
Systems and more powerful computer systems), and new data sets ((such
as digital terrain data at 1 square kilometer or better resolution) are
leading to more accurate estimates of the wind resource than were
previously possible. These new wind maps are instrumental in helping
state and local officials, project developers, utilities and landowners
identify suitable wind sites for more detailed evaluation.
The Department's mapping effort is focused on developing wind
resource information at the state level and is being conducted in
concert with state officials and provide industry. This arrangement has
lead to a more robust effort that meets end-user needs, allows for
cost-sharing from state and other organizations, and helps build a wind
resource assessment infrastructure at the state level. The Department
has also undertaken regional development of wind resource information,
particularly in contiguous states, such as wind mapping projects for
the Northwest, Southwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. This
allows for further leveraging of resources and builds regional support
for exploring wind energy development.
The Department is confident that U.S. wind resource mapping
activities can be appropriately supported within the Wind Energy
Systems program funding levels requested in the President's fiscal year
2003 Budget Request.
tribal energy programs
Question. The DOE has requested funds this year for the Tribal
Energy Program. What efforts will the DOE take to work with tribes to
develop renewable systems? What further opportunities are there to
develop Federal use of renewable energy.
Answer. Under the Tribal Energy Program, the Department will offer
workshops and educational activities to build the capacity within the
Tribes to make informed energy decisions. The program will work with
other Federal agencies to collaborate in efforts mutually beneficial to
the Tribes and to assure that duplication of efforts is avoided. The
program will issue a competitive solicitation for both renewable energy
project feasibility studies and implementation projects on Tribal
lands. Being mindful that Tribes are at differing stages on an energy
developmental spectrum, the program will offer: (1) assistance in
investigating and formulating specific potential renewable energy
projects through feasibility study funding; (2) assistance for
technology validation projects; and (3) assistance in assessing Tribal
renewable energy resources and identifying the options available to
utilize those resources.
development of federal use of renewable energy
Question. What steps are being taken by the Administration to
develop Federal renewable use in general?
Answer. The Administration has activities underway to both increase
access to the renewable resources that can be found on Federal lands as
well as increase Federal sector use of renewable energy. The
Administration's National Energy Policy, issued in May 2001,
recommended that Federal agencies examine ways to increase renewable
energy production on Federal lands. In response, the Departments of
Interior, Energy, Agriculture and Defense created an interagency task
force to examine potential renewable resources, as well as enhance the
processes related to renewable energy project development. The
Department of Energy (DOE) will support other Federal agencies by
providing technical expertise to efforts to revise Federal land use
plans, as well as develop more accurate renewable energy resource
assessments.
The Administration also continues to encourage Federal use of
renewable energy at the over 500,000 domestic and international Federal
facilities. DOE issued guidance to Federal agencies on May 15, 2000,
directing Federal agencies to obtain 2.5 percent of their electricity
use from renewable resources by 2005. DOE's Federal Energy management
Program (FEMP) provides technical assistance and limited financial
support for renewable energy projects at federal facilities; develops
financial mechanisms to support renewable purchases; provide technical
training sessions for facilities managers; and supports agency
purchases of renewable generated power. In addition, as DOE leads the
Federal Government by example, Secretary Abraham has directed DOE to
purchase 3 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2005,
and 7.5 percent by 2010.
As an example of the Administration's commitment to developing
Federal renewable energy use, on April 22, 2002, Secretary Abraham
announced the largest ever purchase of electricity generated from
renewable energy for DOE headquarters facilities in Washington, D.C.
and Germantown, MD.
As a result, roughly 17 percent of DOE Headquarters electricity
needs will be met by renewable resources. This green power purchase
will allow the DOE headquarters to become a partner in the
Environmental Protection Agency's Green Power Partnership, a voluntary
program that encourages public and private organizations to purchase
renewable power.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jean Carnahan
weldon spring site
Question. What historic missions did the Atomic Energy Commission
perform at the Weldon Spring Site in Missouri?
Answer. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) performed operations
relating to the assay of uranium ore concentrates shipped to the site
from mines and mills in western states. This assay was to determine
uranium concentration within the ore concentrates to establish payment
for the mines and mills. After assay, some portions of the ore
concentrates were shipped to other AEC facilities and remaining
portions were processed on site by conversion from ore concentrates to
pure uranium metal ingots. These ingots received some machining and
were subsequently shipped off site to other AEC facilities for further
processing. Also performed were process research and development for
the conversion of ore concentrates to metal for both uranium, and to a
limited extent, for natural thorium ores. In addition, the AEC
performed waste disposal functions for both process wastes from the
site and for disposal of the wastes from dismantling the Mallinkrodt
Destrahan Street facilities in St. Louis, Missouri.
Question. What historic missions did other DOE-predecessor agencies
perform at the Weldon Spring Site in Missouri?
Answer. Following closure of the facility and while the site was in
a caretaker mode, the Energy Research and Development Agency performed
site surveillance, monitoring and maintenance activities.
Question. Were the historic missions at the Weldon Spring Site
related to defense atomic energy activities or non-defense activities?
If so, explain why site cleanup and long-term stewardship is funded
from the Department's non-defense budget account.
Answer. The activities at the Weldon Spring Site were early steps
in the uranium processing cycle, one step after the milling process
used at Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Action Project sites. Uranium
metal product from the site went into many elements of the Atomic
Energy Commission's mission, including reactor fuel and weapons
material. Because the site was inactive from 1966 onward, the
Department's remedial effort, which began in the 1980's, placed the
Weldon Spring Site in the non-defense segment of work.
grand junction site
Question. Is there any reason why the long-term surveillance and
maintenance of the Grand Junction site cannot be funded using the
defense EM account given the Department's January 2001 report to
Congress on long-term stewardship indicating that most sites requiring
such maintenance should fall under defense-funded sites?
Answer. The funding source has traditionally been non-defense, but
other alternatives could be considered.
weldon spring site
Question. Your fiscal year 2003 budget request indicates two
apparently contradictory statements regarding the Weldon Spring Site in
Missouri:
Statement 1.-- ``Project complete; long-term stewardship activities
transfer to Idaho/Grand Junction beginning in fiscal year 2003.''
Statement 1.--``The post remediation activities require long-term
surveillance and maintenance, and may also require long-term treatment
of groundwater if decided by the final site groundwater Record of
Decision.''
Which statement is correct: Is the project ``complete'' or is
``long-term treatment of groundwater'' still required? Please fully
explain the accurate status of the project including any resolution on
whether ``long-term treatment of groundwater'' will be required.
Answer. Both statements are correct. However, long-term stewardship
may be a component of the groundwater remedy that has yet to be decided
for the Weldon Spring Site. All anticipated field construction
activities will be complete as of September 2002, and the site cleanup
is, therefore, at the appropriate point for entry into the long-term
stewardship phase of the project. The numerous studies and remedial
efforts for groundwater indicate that monitoring will be the
appropriate remedy, and DOE's budget planning reflects that technical
view. This does not preclude a different technical decision regarding
groundwater remediation, which could require other remediation efforts.
In that case, the Department would make the appropriate budget
adjustment, as has been done at other locations.
Question. Explain why the Department has not yet proposed follow-up
groundwater work such as containment, cleanup studies, and continued
observation as part of a post-closure long-term stewardship plan?
Answer. Groundwater has been monitored at this site since 1986.
Several focused studies of groundwater contamination were done in the
1990s. This led to a proposed plan and draft record of decision for
groundwater which was presented to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the State. It called for active remediation of one
contaminant, trichloroethene (TCE), and long-term monitoring of the
remaining contaminants. The State objected, and DOE agreed to conduct
additional studies in addition to the active remediation of TCE. As a
result, an additional study of the aquifer to address State concerns
and an interim record of decision for treatment of TCE were approved.
The results of the study of the aquifer are being analyzed. Data from
the treatment performance will be added to the results of the study of
the aquifer, and at that time a proposed plan and record of decision
regarding the long-term program for groundwater will be re-issued.
Whatever the decision is, it will be incorporated into the long-term
stewardship plan. Until the decision is reached, DOE will continue to
implement the existing annual site environmental monitoring plan to
ensure that no interruption in groundwater monitoring occurs.
Question. The Grand Junction office is experienced in completing
surface cleanup and conducting follow-up groundwater work as part of a
long-term surveillance and maintenance program. The Department
indicated that the Weldon Spring Site would be transferred to the Grand
Junction Site yet provided no funds for that additional work. What is
the purpose of making such a transfer without providing the funding the
office needs to perform follow-up groundwater work?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 budget request includes funds for
Grand Junction to assume responsibility for long-term stewardship
activities, including surveillance and maintenance at the Weldon Spring
Site. There are carryover funds from fiscal year 2002 being given to
Grand Junction to supplement the request.
cercla closeout document matrix
Question. Please provide a copy and a summary description of the
``CERCLA Closeout Document Matrix'' and any and all documentation that
provides a reliable technical schedule pertaining to the cleanup and
closure of the Weldon Spring Site including the expected date of
completion.
Answer. The attached Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project
summary schedule is provided below.
predicted 2002 closure date documents
Question. The fiscal year 2003 budget request indicates a predicted
2002 closure date; when will the Project Closeout Report and the final
sections of your groundwater operable unit and institutional control
plans be submitted? If these documents predict a closure date later
than the 2002 date in the fiscal year 2003 budget, when does the
Department anticipate submitting an amended budget request with
accurate information?
Answer. The referenced documentation is scheduled to be completed
in fiscal year 2004. All CERCLA closeout documentation done in fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 will be funded by fiscal year 2002
Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project carryover funds. No amended
budget request is necessary.
site closure dates
Question. Please list any and all other project closures dates in
the budget request that are incorrect, based on information that the
Department and available at the time the budget request was submitted
to Congress.
Answer. All site completion and project completion dates contained
in the fiscal year 2003 budget request were based on current cleanup
plans. As you are aware, EM has developed an aggressive plan of action
to change how the EM program approaches its cleanup mission. The EM
program is now focusing on one primary result B reducing risk to public
health, workers, and the environment on an accelerated basis. Since
submittal of the fiscal year 2003 request, EM has made significant
progress in defining the risk reduction and accelerated cleanup
strategies at each of its sites. Once negotiations with regulators are
completed and detailed site performance plans are finalized, EM will
develop integrated project baseline for each site, which will be used
to manage its cleanup activities. New site and project completion dates
will be developed from these baselines.
march 1999 fusrap mou between doe and usace
Question. In March 1999, the Department signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delineating
administration and execution responsibilities for the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). DOE's more recent Top-to-Bottom
Review indicates ``EM should develop a strategy for transferring lands
that are not owned by DOE or associated with DOE missions but for which
it is slated to perform long-term stewardship to other governmental
agencies with land management missions.'' Why DOE still planning to
take back sites from the Corps after cleanup while simultaneously
planning to transfer other sites to other agencies for long-term
stewardship?
Answer. The Department is coordinating with other Federal agencies
in an effort to identify options for the efficient and effective long-
term management of contaminated sites. This is an issue facing multiple
Federal agencies. In the particular case of FUSRAP sites, most are on
land that is privately owned. While the Department has long-term
stewardship responsibility for these sites, the responsibility will, in
the majority of cases, be limited to record keeping and information
management.
The land at four of the Federally-owned FUSRAP sites is under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Energy. Another
Federally-owned site proposed for cleanup under FUSRAP, where the
Atomic Energy Commission previously did work, is under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. Under the
Memorandum of Understanding, once the Corps completes the remediation
effort, the responsibility for managing these Federally-owned lands and
for post-closure care reverts back to DOE. This arrangement is
consistent with the direction provided in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2000. For those
Federally-owned sites currently under the administrative jurisdiction
of DOE, we are working with the Corps to identify options for future
use that would allow their transfer from the Federal Government.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
hydrogen and fuel cell demonstration activities
Question. What are the Department of Energy's ((DOE's) major
hydrogen and/or fuel cell demonstration activities proposed for fiscal
year 2003? Given that the University of Hawaii was designated as a
Center of Excellence in Hydrogen Research and Education by the DOE, is
Hawaii being considered as a location for these demonstration
activities--especially as they relate to renewable energy resources?
Answer. The Hydrogen Program (funded by Energy and Water
Development Appropriations) intends to continue support jointly with
the Office of Transportation Technologies (funded by Interior
Appropriations) for several activities that were awarded through
competitive solicitations. These include the demonstration of a power
park that co-produces hydrogen and electricity for an industrial
complex, several residential power parks that demonstrate hydrogen
production and use with advanced storage systems and fuel cells, and
electrolysis systems that produce more than 10,000 standard cubic feet
per day of hydrogen from water to fuel hydrogen vehicles.
The University of Hawaii is being supported with DOE funds through
a competitive solicitation to conduct research and development in the
area of photoelectrochemical hydrogen production and alanate hydrogen
storage systems in fiscal year 2002. Additionally, in fiscal year 2002,
the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism was
awarded a cooperative agreement to develop a Hydrogen Power Park on the
Big Island. This award was a 50:50 cost share and directed toward using
renewable energy resources, and fuel cells/engines for power
production. Our fiscal year 2003 request includes the second increment
for the Hydrogen Power Park.
freedomcar university research programs
Question. The DOE has announced plans to replace the Partnership
for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV) with the FreedomCAR partnership.
How much of the FreedomCAR budget will be for university research
programs?
Answer. Historically about 3 percent of the Department's automotive
research budget has funded university R&D. FreedomCAR activities will
continue this trend. With FreedomCAR's emphasis on longer-range, high-
risk technologies, and with a focus on individual component research,
there will likely be increased opportunities for universities to
participate in the coming years. In addition, we have efforts designed
to make the entire program more accessible to universities. The CARAT
(Cooperative Automotive Research for Advanced Technologies) program is
restricted to universities and small businesses. The GATE (Graduate
Automotive Technology Education) program provides assistance to
graduate institutions to set up interdisciplinary curricula related to
advanced vehicle development and provides support for a limited number
of graduate students. We also have had solicitations restricted to
university participation. One such effort (a university consortium) is
focused on basic research into one type of advanced combustion that may
solve some of the emissions problems that are a current barrier to
using internal combustion engines. Under the current budget request
just these three examples (CARAT, GATE, and the consortium) would total
about $2.5 million.
priority of hydrogen as an alternate energy source
Question. Given the DOE's commitment to hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies in the FreedomCAR, what is the Department's priority of
hydrogen as an alternative energy source with respect to the 2003
budget request?
Answer. Much of the Department's ongoing transportation fuel cell
technology activities (which total $50,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003
budget request) focus on hydrogen as an alternative energy resource. To
emphasize hydrogen-related work, the Department's fiscal year 2003
budget request for Fuel Cell R&D and Fuel Processor/Storage increased
by $2,800,000 or approximately 13 percent from the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 2002. This increase would fund research into on-board
hydrogen storage and associated off-board hydrogen fuel processing,
purification, storage, and dispensing technologies. In addition, Field
Evaluations, a new program element requesting $3,000,000, was added to
conduct field evaluations of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and associated
hydrogen fuel technologies. In addition, the Components program element
is requesting a 16 percent increase for R&D efforts that include
research into air compression technologies necessary for hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles. FreedomCAR also includes a portion of the hydrogen
program funded by the Energy and Water Development appropriation; that
program request for fiscal year 2003 is over 50 percent higher than the
fiscal year 2002 appropriation.
fuel cell testing standards
Question. Are there testing standards promulgated by the DOE or
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding fuel
cells to ensure that claims of energy production and efficiency by
demonstration or pilot programs can be verified?
Answer. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), through its Fuel
Cell Standards Committee, is developing the necessary fuel cell vehicle
testing standards for on-board energy production and efficiency. The
Committee's working groups are developing testing standards for fuel
cell power system performance, reliability, fuel economy, emissions,
and safety. In addition, SAE is working to coordinate and integrate its
fuel cell testing standards work with those of international standards
organizations. The Department participates in these SAE activities
through representation in the working groups.
The Department is also developing testing standards to evaluate and
validate technologies in the area of on-board hydrogen storage. This
activity includes developing test protocols, procedures, and baseline
testing of low pressure hydrogen storage materials and systems
including metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, and carbon-based
approaches.
energy security and assurance
Question. The Department is requesting a 683 percent increase in
energy security and assurance. How will this increase be spent?
Answer. In November of 2001, the Department of Energy's Office of
Emergency Operations undertook the responsibility to include the
protection of the National Energy Infrastructure as part of our core
mission. We began an immediate and intensive outreach program to
ascertain what had been done to protect the energy infrastructure and
to identify what activities the Department needed to undertake to
assist industry, as well as state and local governments. The energy
infrastructure is comprised of 157,810 miles of transmission lines,
5000 power plants generating a capacity of 800,000 Megawatts, two
million miles of oil pipelines, refineries, ports, storage facilities,
and a natural gas distribution system moving 23 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas in additional pipelines. The Department and the Federal
Government have a tremendous amount of unique capabilities to offer and
we have instituted a program to make those capabilities available
through training, exercises and staff assistance. We have carried this
message to the energy sector through a variety of methods, including:
As of today, teams have visited 42 states to identify what specific
Energy Security and Assurance needs exist and put in place plans to
support each state. The remaining states will be visited by the mid-
April. With this initial outreach effort complete, the Office of Energy
Assurance will develop a long-term state engagement plan that will
ensure active communications and support for each state, as well as
regional and national strategies.
Industry Vulnerability Survey Assistance.--We have begun an initial
assessment of the 25 top critical energy assets throughout the country
to provide a baseline analysis on the security of the energy
infrastructure at a cost of $1.8M. Fourteen sites have been completed
to date and the remainder will be complete by the end of March. In
addition, the Department is conducting cyber vulnerability analyses of
energy facilities to ensure the SCADA systems are protected. A total of
174 critical energy assets have been identified, conducting
vulnerability assessments on all of them sill require $12.5M.
Development of National Security Standards.--We are in the process
of developing national security standards/guidelines that will assist
industry in developing security plans and procedures to better protect
the national energy infrastructure. These standards are being
developing cooperatively with industry and our interagency partners and
will establish a baseline for developing national training standards
for industry personnel.
Technology Development and Sharing.--We conducted a technology expo
in Washington, D.C. that allowed industry and government
representatives to view first hand the technologies available in the
national laboratories at a cost of $71,000.
Training Support and Outreach.--Utilizing the expertise of the DOE
Emergency Operations Training Academy, we have conducted a review of
training already available within the Federal system that would be
beneficial to industry and we are in the process of providing
specialized training in weapons of mass destruction preparedness and
response. Two sets of customized weapons of mass destruction emergency
response interactive-training CDs are being distributed to states this
week. We have completed the development of a Vulnerability Assessment
two-day course, which has been made available through distance learning
and we are in the process of completing a detailed five-day course that
will be available to states and industry later this month. The
interactive CDs cost $496,000 and the two-day course cost $6,000.
All of these initiatives were undertaken because we saw an urgent
need to help safeguard the energy infrastructure. We have absorbed the
costs of these Energy Assurance activities within our existing funding
although, to continue these aggressive efforts at this accelerated
rate, we have requested fiscal year 2002 supplemental funding. The
initiatives detailed above are the beginning of a long overdue program
to share the resources of the Federal Government and lead the way to a
more secure and assured energy infrastructure. We require the budget
increase to continue these and similar activities.
Question. How will the Department assure the energy supply of an
isolated state like Hawaii not be disrupted or made unaffordable by
terrorist attacks?
Answer. The Federal Government cannot assure that the energy supply
of any state is not disrupted by a terrorist attack. What we can do is
what we began in the wake of the September 11 attacks. That is to reach
out to the State and local governments and the energy industry and
listen to their answer when we ask ``What do you need? How can we
help?'' We will have visited every one of the fifty states by mid-
April. We do not go with the typical Federal Government message to tell
them what we're going to do and what they must do to help us. Instead,
we ask them where they need help and then we figure out how to do that.
They are telling us they need training. We have responded by
customizing three sets of interactive training CDs--two in emergency
response to a weapon of mass destruction attack, and one on how to
search a vehicle for a bomb. It is impossible to protect every electric
pole, every substation, every wire so, which ones must be protected? We
have developed a Vulnerability Assessment two-day course, which has
been made available through distance learning and we are in the process
of completing a detailed five-day course that will be available to
states and industry later this month. This training and the associated
training aids, shows them the many facets of physical and cyber
vulnerabilities. While we are conducting baseline assessments of the
nation's most critical energy infrastructure nodes, the training
institutionalizes the skills to allow state, local and industry
officials to assess their own entire infrastructure. All of this
training is being provided at no cost.
We are sharing the technical resources of the Department through
mapping capabilities of their energy infrastructure and we are making
our plume modeling technology available through the Internet so that,
in the event of an attack, local officials can make the very time
critical decisions needed to minimize exposure. We hosted a technology
exposition in February, and we plan to host another next year, that
showcased technologies developed by the National Laboratories that may
be of benefit the energy infrastructure.
In our role as the energy sector lead, we are in the perfect
position to work across all energy industries and facilitate
development of national security standards/guidelines that will assist
industry in developing security plans and procedures to better protect
the national energy infrastructure. These standards are being developed
cooperatively with industry and our interagency partners and will
establish a baseline for developing national training standards for
industry personnel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
advanced vitrification system (avs)
Question. I commend you and the Secretary for your efforts to put
the clean-up campaign on a less costly and faster track. I am very
pleased with the leadership that you and the Secretary have shown, and
I encourage you to keep moving in this direction. I also understand
that DOE has had success with the development of the Advanced
Vitrification System, which has the potential to lower the cost of
waste cleanup, and that you have a plan to deploy this system. What are
your plans for deployment of the Advanced Vitrification System?
Answer. Last year, an independent panel performed a review of
Advanced Vitrification System (AVS)-produced waste from bench-scale
tests on DOE-provided waste surrogate to determine the system's ability
to produce a borosilicate glass form that fully complies with the Waste
Acceptance Product Specifications (WAPS). The panel determined that the
AVS-produced product did not satisfy two of the six WAPS.
In fiscal year 2002, the Department requested the developer of AVS,
Radioactive Isolation Consortium (RIC), Inc., to prepare a Work Plan
for completion of the third stage (of seven that a developing
technology must successfully complete) and the design, construction and
operation of a pilot-scale facility for bench-scale ``hot'' tests. RIC
is currently performing tests to satisfy the remaining two WAPS and
addressing technical issues associated with its Work Plan. Once results
from the newest tests are analyzed and an acceptable Work Plan has been
developed, decisions on future plans for AVS can be made.
Question. What is the status of DOE's obligation of the $4 million
provided in fiscal year 2002 for development of Advanced Vitrification
System and how much of the $4 million appropriated for fiscal year 2001
has been obligated?
Answer. In the report accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, Congress provided up to $4
million to continue evaluation, development and demonstration of the
Advanced Vitrification System (AVS) upon successful completion of
supplemental testing. Approximately $464 thousand was provided to the
Radioactive Isolation Consortium (RIC), Inc., during fiscal year 2001
as the Department reviewed the analysis of tests performed on DOE-
provided surrogate wastes during fiscal year 2002. An independent team
determined that the resulting AVS product did not satisfy two of six
Waste Acceptance Product Specifications (WAPS).
As of May 2002, approximately $2.7 million has been provided to
RIC. The remaining funds for the project, a total of $4.0 million, will
be available for obligation in July 2002. RIC is continuing bench-scale
tests to establish whether AVS, using Hanford waste simulant, can
produce borosilicate glass waste forms that fully comply with all six
of the WAPS.
To date, at the direction of Congress, the Department has invested
over $7 million in the phased testing of AVS.
Question. How much additional funding will you need to implement
and expedite your plans for AVS?
Answer. We believe any continued work on the Advanced Vitrification
System (AVS) should be contingent upon successful completion of each
stage of a series of phased tests. It is the Office of Environmental
Management's policy to support full-scale work only after a project has
successfully completed Stage 5 (of seven stages an emerging technology
must complete). AVS has not yet fully completed Stage 3, and current
efforts are focused on additional bench-scale tests to determine if an
AVS product can successfully meet all six Waste Acceptance Product
Specifications (WAPS), two of which an independent review team found
were not met during fiscal year 2000 tests. Until results from the
newest tests are analyzed and demonstrate that the AVS product can meet
the remaining WAPS, it would be premature to develop future plans for
AVS.
Question. The Administration's budget summary says, ``The current
cost estimate for cleaning up this set of 53 sites if $220 billion, an
increase of 50 percent in just 3 years. As of 2001, DOE has completed
14 of those 53 sites.'' Previous DOE testimony to the Committee has
stated that the AVS appeared to be the only system that would work at
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and the
AVS single-use feature was also supported by the National Academy of
Sciences as a solution for INEEL. Are you considering the potential
savings of deploying the Advanced Vitrification System for applications
to a broader array of wastes at sites in addition to Hanford?
Answer. The Advanced Vitrification System's (AVS) applicability to
a wider array of wastes is not being examined at this time. AVS has not
yet been developed to the point that it is considered a deployable
technology, as it is still in the early research and development
phases. Currently, work on AVS is focused on whether the system can
produce a borosilicate glass waste form that satisfies six Waste
Acceptance Production Specifications for the repository, while also
reducing the volume of waste produced. The current target of this
research is a Hanford tank waste simulant.
AVS is not the only system that could work at the INEEL. Joule-
heated melters that are currently available could meet INEEL
requirements. While the 1999 National Academy of Sciences' report,
``Alternative High Level Waste Treatments at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,'' did identify single-use
melters as one option that could have a potential advantage for some of
the wastes at INEEL, AVS was not specifically mentioned in the report.
Question. Does AVS' ability to vitrify waste without a great deal
of pretreatment offer the potential for its use as the next generation
vitrification system at Savannah River whenever the current melter
system is spent?
Answer. The Department is certainly interested in technologies that
reduce the amount of treatment and separation required in order to
stabilize high-level waste. For the high-level waste at the Savannah
River Site, the Department is considering options which can cost-
effectively process the waste and meet both safety and production
requirements. While the Advanced Vitrification System (AVS) has certain
attributes which appear to be effective in the processing of high-level
waste, there are two additional Waste Acceptance Product Specifications
which still need to be met in order for AVS to be a viable option.
$800 million funding allocation
Question. I applaud the Administration for its efforts to reduce
future costs and at the same time speed-up the cleanup program.
Obviously, you will need flexibility in the budget to accomplish it. I
understand, the budget request for fiscal year 2003 includes ``$800
million in a new `reserve' fund to implement fundamental program
changes, with the expectation that the proposed reforms will improve
cleanup efficiency by completing construction projects within
baselines, reducing the cost of waste treatment and disposal, and
integrating cleanup strategies across different sites.'' How would you
allocate this funding?
Answer. The $800 million request for the EM Cleanup Reform account
is intended to provide a pool of funds to support accelerated risk-
reduction cleanup strategies that have been agreed to by state and
Federal regulators. We will allocate funds to those sites that
demonstrate their ability to re-align to a more accelerated risk-based
approach, and develop specific performance plans that lay out actions,
schedules and funding requirements consistent with this new approach.
Funds would be made available to sites to support these plans once
agreements have been reached with appropriate state and Federal
officials.
advanced vitrification system (avs)
Question. How would you feel about using a portion to expand the
use of alternative technology, such as the Advanced Vitrification
System for plutonium, mixed wastes, and other contaminated wastes at
all of the DOE sites?
Answer. Funds from the Environmental Management Cleanup Reform
account are intended to support sites' accelerated cleanup approaches
to achieve more risk reduction and accelerate cleanup with technologies
that are currently available. Science and technology projects such as
the Advanced Vitrification System are not likely candidates for
allocations from this account since by definition they require some
period for technology development. Rather, such activities should be
funded in the EM Science and Technology budget.
Question. Given the rising costs and delays that have plagued the
cleanup program, wouldn't you agree, Madam Secretary, that DOE should
introduce alternative technology as quickly as possible to help reduce
costs and speed up the cleanup program?
Answer. Absolutely. We believe that any innovative technology that
has been proven to be an improvement over existing available methods or
to provide a cleanup solution that did not previously exist should be
deployed in cleanup operations as quickly as possible. This would allow
the Department to meet EM's cleanup goals as quickly, safely, and
efficiently as possible.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Murray. With that, I will recess subject to the
call of the chair.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., Thursday, April 18, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2003
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition
On behalf of the Nuclear Waste Coalition Strategy (NWSC), I commend
your efforts with regard to the Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal
year 2003 budget request to include the nuclear waste disposal program.
As testimony for the record, the NWSC strongly supports increasing
the DOE's budget request for $527 million for the civilian nuclear
waste disposal program. The $527 million requested by the DOE is the
minimum required to keep the nuclear waste disposal program on track.
The amount approved in the fiscal year 2002 budget for nuclear waste
disposal ($375 million) was lower than the Administration's request of
$445 million. It was the 50 consecutive year that the DOE's budget for
nuclear waste disposal was reduced by Congress. These years of cutbacks
have caused the DOE to fall behind on their scheduled milestones. The
continued lack of vigorous funding by the U.S. Congress for the nuclear
waste disposal program is unacceptable to the NWSC.
The fact is that while the nation's ratepayers continue to pay
annually more than $1 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), the
U.S. Congress has appropriated less than half of this amount in recent
years. Since 1983, the nation's ratepayers have paid more than $19
billion, including interest, into the NWF for the DOE to obtain a
license, construct, operate and monitor a repository for commercial and
military high-level nuclear waste, beginning in 1998. The DOE has spent
more than 20 years extensively studying the geology, hydrology,
chemistry and climate of Yucca Mountain. Since 1987, the DOE has spent
approximately $8 billion to characterize a repository at Yucca
Mountain. Studies undertaken clearly demonstrate that the science and
technical evaluations support the Yucca Mountain site as the nation's
permanent repository. Should Congress pass a resolution to designate
the Yucca Mountain site as a repository, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
clearly mandates the DOE to continue with its scientific studies to
conduct a multistep process for identifying and licensing the
repository and transportation systems.
However, unless Congress allocates essential funds from the NWF,
the program's schedule--which is already 12 years behind schedule--will
continue to slip. In fact, due to the lack of sufficient funding, the
DOE's timeline to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste at the repository by 2010 may already be in jeopardy. The
licensing application process has already slipped to 2004, and the
award of the initial Phase A transportation planning activities may
slip from the middle of 2003 to 2004.
We believe it is particularly important--in light of the September
11 terrorists' attacks--that requested funds be made available to
initiate planning in fiscal year 2003 to expedite the DOE's near-term
actions to prepare for fuel acceptance. These actions should include
funding directed to development of transportation-related
infrastructure and contingency planning, which will ultimately be
needed to remove spent nuclear fuel and resolution of outstanding fuel
acceptance issues.
Again, the NWSC strongly urges members of Congress to appropriate
the $527 million as requested by the DOE. Hopefully, the beleaguered
civilian nuclear waste disposal program will proceed forward as
envisaged by lawmakers in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
The Coalition is comprised of state regulators, state attorneys
general, nuclear electric utilities and associate members working
together to hold the Federal government accountable for its contractual
and statutory obligations to remove spent nuclear fuel from power
plants across the nation to interim storage and eventually to a
permanent repository. The NWSC is made up of participants from 44
organizations in 25 states.
______
Prepared Statement of the Solar Energy Industries Association
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Solar
Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the national trade organization
representing the photovoltaics and solar thermal manufacturers,
component suppliers, and national distributors, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony on solar energy programs sponsored by
the Federal Government. In large part due to the Department of Energy's
stewardship over the solar program, the industry is growing at a
blistering pace--with growth over the past decade exceeding 20 percent
annually. SEIA is thankful to this Committee for its support for the
solar program. Continued support is more important now than ever. As
the Director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
Admiral Richard Truly, remarked at the National Press Club on March
14th, ``Renewable energy technologies offer the nation powerful tools
for enhancing homeland security. . . . More broadly, the growing energy
contributions made by wind, biomass, geothermal and solar can be
especially useful in helping offset our nation's reliance on foreign
energy sources, thereby bolstering U.S. energy security.''
The demand for clean energy in the United States and around the
world must rival the demand for any product on Earth. A recent Newsweek
poll found an extraordinary 84 percent of Americans nationwide favor
increased funding for the development of solar and wind power. These
poll results have been echoed in the ballot booth. Last November, 73
percent of San Francisco voters approved a plan to issue $100 million
in municipal-revenue bonds to fund solar on public buildings. U.S.
government support for renewables is tame compared to Germany, Japan,
and other countries. The question is which country will implement the
policies to take advantage of the seemingly unlimited, booming market
for renewables. The United States already has lost most of the wind
turbine industry as well as its lead in PV production. In addition to a
generously funded, well-managed Research Development and Deployment
program, tax incentives and national net metering and interconnection
standards are essential for a vibrant U.S. solar industry.
Given the charter of this Committee, I will focus my remarks on RD
& D. SEIA respectfully requests $100 million for the photovoltaics (PV)
program, $25 million for concentrating solar power (CSP), and $12
million for Solar Buildings. This funding level is necessary to
accelerate the technological advances of this energy source, which
would increase our national security, add value to the electricity
grid, provide high technology jobs, and improve our environment.
The request also reflects that although Congress appropriated $95
million for solar in fiscal year 2002, after funding reductions and
earmarks are accounted for, the available funding is considerably less.
In other words, the solar program got cut last year. The SEIA request
reflects that peer reviews conducted in 2001 determined that the solar
programs at DOE are expertly managed and achieving important national
objectives such as cost reduction and improvement in technology.
We are pleased that the Administration proposed a budget that
boosts funding for the photovoltaics program and launches a thoughtful
and aggressive campaign to promote Zero Net Energy Buildings. I commend
the Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
David Garman, for his commitment to the solar program and for his
commitment to reduce bureaucracy at the Department to improve the
effectiveness of all of the programs under his purview. The strong
Administration endorsement of the Zero Energy Buildings program in the
fiscal year 2003 Budget is particularly exciting, because this program
spans the range of solar technologies. However, we are, of course,
disappointed that the Administration once again proposes a close-out
budget for the CSP program. This closeout budget is inconsistent with
the congressional directive to the Administration to prepare a report
to Congress as to how best to deploy 1000 MW of troughs, dishes, and
power towers, in the Southwest--an initiative that the Western
Governors Association supports. (Governors Jane Hull of Arizona, Kenny
Guinn of Nevada, and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, all signed their names
to the WGA letter.) And the budget undermines the impressive
international interest in deploying these technologies.
Additionally, the funding priorities within the PV program will
need some readjustment. The focus on basic research is important, but
it is the cost-shared programs that keep a solar manufacturing base in
this country. Increased emphasis also needs to be placed on the systems
and reliability accounts to maximize system performance.
I would first note that the PV program as a whole is the jewel of
the EE/RE office. The 2001 Peer Review of the DOE Photovoltaic Program
concluded that:
``In terms of the program's relevance to national needs, the
panelists found that the PV program's work was outstanding across all
activities. . . . In summary, it is the panel's considered opinion that
the PV program is doing an extremely effective job of setting
priorities, balancing allocation of available resources, recognizing
and addressing critical problems and barriers to progress and
commercialization, and supporting the quality of work required to
achieve its goals. . . . The panel notes that the consistently high
rankings assigned in this evaluation are very unusual, and they are
also very deliberated. . . The panel believes this to be a truly
outstanding element of the Department of Energy's programs.''
The cost-shared DOE programs, such as PVMat, Thin Films
Partnership, and Building Integrated PV (BiPV) keep solar manufacturing
in the United States. In fact, many states including, California,
Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Florida, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, manufacture solar. The
industry already employs some 20,000 workers. If the PV industry
continues to grow at an annualized basis of 20 percent as it has for
the past decade, the number of workers employed in the solar industry
will soon rival the glass and other more mature industries.
These programs also are highly effective. All of these programs are
cost-shared research and enjoy exceptionally high remarks from the
independent peer review team. The PVMat program has cut the cost of
manufacturing solar modules in half. A record in efficiency in
electricity produced by solar cells made from cadmium telluride used to
manufacture thin film panels was achieved last year. And the
Administration's fiscal year 2003 Congressional Budget Document
recognizes the value of BiPV, finding that: ``Building integrated
photovoltaics is an exciting and rapidly growing solar application in
which solar panels serve the dual purpose of replacing conventional
building materials and generating electricity. . . . By offering more
than one functionality, BiPV systems will help cross the profit
threshold that holds the key to significant growth in distributed,
grid-connected electricity markets.''
In fiscal year 2002, Congress earmarked $18,500,000 for the Thin
Films Partnership. SEIA requests that number for fiscal year 2003. For
PVMat [Advanced Manufacturing R & D] we request at a minimum the fiscal
year 2001 funding level of $11 million. And for BiPV, SEIA supports at
least a $2 million allocation.
The three programs mentioned above succeed in the most important
metrics of success: (1) cost reduction; (2) efficiency improvement; and
(3) job creation in the United States.
SEIA continues to support and urges full funding for Senator Frank
Murkowski's innovative Residential Renewable Energy Grant program,
which would offset a portion of the cost of renewable energy systems.
Consumer rebate programs have been a leading engine for growth in the
states and the Federal Government should look to replicate this effort
in appropriate areas (i.e., solar systems on Federal land, etc.).
The systems and reliability account should be restored to fiscal
year 2001 levels. The Administration's emphasis on the most promising
research in this area is not funded at an adequate level to cover all
of the necessary inverter and balance-of-systems work.
Cost-shared research programs and effective consumer incentive
initiatives are essential elements to keep solar jobs in America.
Another important item is consumer education. SEIA supports the
Administration's request to continue funding for the Solar Solutions
project. The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) has been working
with DOE on this initiative to determine the next stage of creating
market demand for photovoltaic energy systems and to showcase
successful projects. The initiative recognizes the role of key players,
including electric energy service providers and utilities, which
continue to be a catalyst for successful community-based solar
deployment.
SEIA also requests that funds be included for an initiative to
boost the supply of solar-grade silicon. Over 90 percent of solar
modules are produced with silicon. Solar cell manufacturing growth (up
38 percent this year) has outpaced the supply of affordable silicon. A
meeting organized earlier this month--comprised of the companies that
manufacture the vast majority of PV in this country--identified the
severity of this roadblock to growth. Without an effective response,
the potential growth of the industry will be compromised. This is a
barrier that needs to be immediately addressed. Once a world leader,
the U.S. has been continuously losing market share over the past 5
years. Developing a strong silicon feedstock program in the U.S. can
help turn that trend around.
With respect to CSP, we believe that Congress should restore the
proposed cuts to the funding for this program and instruct DOE to use
its energies to make the 1000 MW Southwest Initiative a reality. The
Senate will soon pass a tax bill that includes solar in the Production
Tax Credit, which will improve the economics of this effort. According
to RDI Consulting, the solar resource in the Southwest is the most
abundant renewable resource available. As Western governors grapple
with how to produce clean energy for a rapidly expanding population and
states adopt Renewable Portfolio Standards, the attractiveness of CSP
increases. Let's not forget that this is a proven technology. Some 354
MW of CSP continues to produce, clean, affordable, and reliable energy
in California. Even an evaluation of the Administration's own budget
document demonstrates the promise and performance of CSP technologies:
Distributed Power System Development.--``Because these systems are
efficient (29.4 percent solar-to-electric conversion) and can be
hybridized with other fuels (e.g., natural gas, hydrogen) they show
great potential as a cost-competitive clean source of distributed
power.''
Dispatchable Power System Development.--``Large-scale CSP
technologies have been operating successfully in the California desert
for 15 years. Over this time the cost of these systems has decreased by
a factor of 3, and at 12-14 cents/kWh they are currently the least
expensive source of solar electricity. Recent technology advancements
such as molten-salt thermal storage, low-cost receiver tubes, and
concentrators has revitalized the CSP industry and placed them in
position to play a major role in near-term green power opportunities,
both domestically and overseas, as costs are projected to drop into the
6-8 cents/kWh range. In fiscal year 2001 a new solar trough receiver
was identified as being able to reduce the overall system cost by 20
percent.''
As to Solar Buildings, again, SEIA applauds the Administration's
vision in this area. For solar to play more of a role in our energy
mix, the distributed technologies need to get on the rooftops. The
potential is incredible. Donald Osborn, Superintendent for Renewable
Generation at SMUD, estimated that if every new home in California
placed a 2.2 kW array on its roof, it would displace a dirtier 500 MW
power plant. SEIA also endorses the Administration's emphasis on low-
cost, polymer-based solar water heaters to cut the cost of solar water
heating by 50 percent to an equivalent of 4 cents kWh by 2004. Solar
thermal could play a significant role in meeting the energy needs of
the United States. Israel displaces 6 percent of its electricity with
solar hot water heaters--an amount three times the level of non-hydro
renewables in the United States.
With some modifications to the Administration's budget, this
Committee would greatly help the U.S. solar industry grow and prosper.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Society for Optical Engineering
Issue.--The Department of Energy (DOE) is the Nation's leading
sponsor of research in the physical sciences, second in computer
science and mathematics, and third in engineering. The research funded
by DOE underpins the Department's missions in energy, environment, and
national security. It advances energy-related basic science, and
provides unique user facilities for the U.S. scientific and engineering
communities. This research is critical to sustaining and enhancing our
national and homeland security, energy supply, economy, quality of
life, and educational growth. DOE also provides a significant portion
of the Federal R&D funding supporting scientists and engineers at our
universities. These researchers and their students--the next generation
of scientists and engineers--are conducting long-term, peer-reviewed
basic research that is tackling present problems and preparing for
future challenges.
Position SPIE.--The International Society for Optical Engineering--
urges Congress to strengthen the Nation's investment in DOE's Office of
Science (OS) programs and facilities by providing an increase of at
least $300 million, for a minimum budget of $3.580 billion for fiscal
year 2003. Setting aside funds for efforts requiring one-time funding
in fiscal year 2002, the Administration's budget for DOE proposes only
a 5 percent boost for OS--an inadequate increase to meet U.S.
priorities in national defense, energy security, and environmental
quality.
SPIE appreciates and supports the Administration's plan to
significantly increase funding for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), which maintains and enhances the safety,
reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile to
meet national security requirements. However, SPIE is concerned about
the significant funding reduction planned for the High Energy Density
Physics Campaign. This Campaign is essential for certification of the
life extension of our weapons stockpile and contributes to the science
and engineering that enables NNSA to utilize experiments, simulations,
and surveillance information in place of underground nuclear testing to
make science-based judgments for stewardship. SPIE urges Congress to
bolster funding for this extremely important program.
Rationale.--DOE's Office of Science is one of the primary
government sponsors of basic research in the United States and leads
the Nation in supporting the physical sciences and engineering. OS
funding supports world-class, peer-reviewed and competitively selected
research in areas of national priority as well as the construction and
operation of major scientific user facilities (such as high intensity
X-ray sources and massively parallel computer centers) for the Nation's
scientists and engineers. Annually, more than 18,000 of our Nation's
researchers conduct research at OS user facilities. Unfortunately,
these facilities will continue to operate at approximately 75 percent
of the optimally available hours without a funding increase, thus
limiting the Nation's scientific and engineering communities in
scheduling experiments that require consistent operating or long lead
times, or present a narrow window of opportunity for collecting data.
The results of research conducted by the Office of Science's
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences
(BES) programs greatly impact the public and the entire Nation.
Developing the knowledge necessary to understand and mitigate the
adverse health and environmental consequences of energy production, BER
contributions include new medical diagnostic and therapeutic tools for
disease diagnosis and treatment, non-invasive medical imaging, and
biomedical engineering. The goal of BER's Medical Applications and
Measurement Science program--to deliver relevant scientific knowledge
that will lead to innovative diagnostic and treatment technologies for
human health--is vital to recognizing and responding to bioterrorism.
The BES program is a principal sponsor of fundamental research for
the Nation in the areas of materials, science and engineering,
chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as related to energy. BES
applications include solar conversion, batteries and fuel cells, and
solar photo-conversion processes. With funding priorities such as the
design of the next-generation Linac Coherent Light Source, and improved
instrumentation of the Neutron and X-ray scattering facilities, BES
provides the knowledge to support the President's National Energy Plan
for improving the quality of life for all Americans.
As the details of the fiscal year 2003 DOE budget are discussed,
SPIE recommends that Congress increase funding for DOE's Office of
Science and the High Energy Density Physics Campaign beyond the amount
requested by the Administration. Funding for these programs is an
investment that will enable the Nation's scientific and engineering
communities to discover and develop the technologies of tomorrow.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern States Energy Board
The Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) is pleased to provide
testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development as it considers fiscal year 2003 funding
for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE), and specifically related to the biomass/
biofuels fiscal year 2003 budget request.
Request.--SSEB governors recommend that the Congress appropriate
$5,000,000 to the DOE Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP) and direct
that the Southern States Energy Board receive $2,000,000 of that
appropriation to conduct a regional governors biobased products and
bioenergy economic development initiative in the southern region.
This line item, which would continue an appropriation that has
appeared in every Federal budget since fiscal year 1983, is for the
purpose of promoting economic development by fostering the use of
biobased products and bioenergy, and takes advantage of and sustains
existing networks and infrastructure developed throughout the Nation by
the regional governor organizations.
Purpose.--The regional governors biobased products and bioenergy
economic development initiative (the ``Initiative'') will coordinate
State policies, programs and activities at the regional level and
provide a logical structure for the Federal Government to interface
with individual States. Through interstate coordination and
cooperation, the Initiative will improve efficiency by reducing
activities that overlap with other States and by sharing resources
between states and the Federal Government through coordinated,
collaborative efforts. Critical to sustaining a ``new economy'' in the
Southern States and elsewhere in the Nation, the Initiative will take
advantage of and sustain existing biobased product and bioenergy
networks and infrastructure previously developed by the regional
governor organizations.
Benefits.--The economic benefits of RBEP are striking: the Federal
investment of $68.5 Million over the life of the program has had an
estimated impact of some $720 Million, with Federal dollars leveraging
State and private sources in the $2-$4 range. By cost sharing projects
and activities with the public and private sector, the economic benefit
translates into a cost share equal to $29 Million, making the value of
the total benefits in excess of $43.9 Million over this 6-year period.
Beyond the potential economic development benefits, participating
States gain the opportunity to strengthen and integrate the work of
energy, agriculture, forestry, environmental and other State agencies.
Where issues are the same among several States, strategies can be
developed to address these issues without regard to State borders.
Examples include the development of similar legislative actions,
working with the private sector with multi-state locations, and multi-
state training and outreach to economize resources.
The National Energy Policy.--Energy independence is a critical
element in the President's Energy Policy and can be significantly
enhanced by developing viable domestic alternative energy sources. This
is precisely the purpose of the RBEP, a goal that over 20 years has
been successfully promoted through this modest appropriation.
The Administration's performance-based focus is to achieve the
greatest possible return on each taxpayer dollar. The National Energy
Policy recommends funding R&D programs that are ``performance-based and
modeled as public-private partnerships'' and recognizes unique regional
energy concerns. The President expressly encourages working with
regional governors organizations to determine how to better serve the
needs of diverse areas of the country.
The RBEP relies on interstate coordination on a regional level to
accomplish its goals. Through an intricate and long-standing network of
the public and private sectors, the RBEP provides extensive technical
and policy expertise necessary for identifying strategies that have
multi-state and multi-discipline applications. The five regional
programs with State agency participation offer a well-connected
national network of expertise for serving regional, State and local
needs.
Even though RBEP represents a model program for return on each
taxpayer dollar through public-private partnerships and is an integral
component to the DOE's justification for the fiscal year 2003 budget
request, the fiscal year 2003 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
budget request paradoxically eliminates funding for the RBEP.
History.--The Regional Biomass Energy Program was created by
Congress in 1983 under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bills Public Law 97-88 and Public Law 98-50. The enabling legislation
instructed DOE to design its national program to work with States on a
regional basis, taking into account regional biomass resources and
energy needs. Today, there are five regional programs, working with
representatives in all 50 States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,
and hosted primarily by regional governors organizations (Southern
States Energy Board, Coalition of Northeastern Governors and the
Council of Great Lakes Governors).
From fiscal year 1983-fiscal year 1996, the budget for this program
averaged $3.9 Million per year. Beginning in 1997, the program was
transferred to the Office of Fuels Development (OFD), with the
understanding that it would receive funding from both OFD and the
Office of Hydropower and Biopower Technologies. Since 1997, the RBEP
base program has received approximately $14.9 Million in DOE funding.
Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program.--Among the most
valuable aspects of the RBEP are the host organizations and the program
managers. Their combined experience related to biomass technologies and
policies is recognized nationally. Because of their long-term
association with the States, RBEP host organizations and program
managers are trusted resources that States rely upon for advice and
assistance.
The Southern States have participated in this strategy through the
Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program (SERBEP), which has
provided over $5.8 Million in project funds since 1992 with a cost-
share over $21 Million by leveraging State and private funding for
technology development. The SSEB has created awareness and support for
bioenergy/biobased products in the executive and legislative branches
of State government, improved the effectiveness of SERBEP activities,
provided more formal interaction between the States, and improved
policy development and coordination in particular.
From 1983 through 1998, the SERBEP was operated by the Tennessee
Valley Authority. Then, in 1999, as an interstate compact with enabling
legislation in each member state, SSEB was selected as the ``host
organization'' for the SERBEP and received funding through a 5-year
cooperative agreement. Because SSEB covers 16 States, Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands, with the governor and a member of the House
and Senate from each member State, roughly one-third of the governors
and their legislatures in the United States are actively involved in
bioenergy-related activities through SSEB.
Projects are selected through a competitive solicitation that
undergoes a peer review evaluation process. Major beneficiaries are
universities and small businesses, which have the greatest potential
for job creation, and rural organizations, where jobs are most
desperately needed. Grants to States under this program provide seed
investment and venture capital at the ``grass roots level'' to small
businesses, entrepreneurs, universities and State and local
governments. The investment promotes technology development, deployment
and transfer while creating jobs, strengthening the economy and
contributing to homeland security.
Energy Policy in the South.--In September 2001, the SSEB and the
Southern Governors' Association addressed energy policy and adopted
Energy Policy in the South--Integrating Energy, Environment and
Economic Development: A Balanced and Comprehensive Approach that is in
concert with the President's National Energy Plan. It was presented to
Vice President Cheney at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Southern
Governors Association and the SSEB.
The cornerstone of this report is the need for a stable, reliable
and secure energy supply. The five key principles highlighted in the
document are as follows:
--Ensure diversity of domestic energy resources to achieve energy and
economic stability;
--Address supply to enable market stability and ensure energy
reliability;
--Increase conservation and improve efficiency to minimize
environmental impact and foster demand response;
--Expand and strengthen infrastructure capacity; and
--Advance R&D and use clean energy technologies and systems.
The Southern Governors recognize that in order to maintain the
world's strongest economy and protect national security coupled with a
clean environment, States must support and develop policies and
technologies that enable a diversity of domestic energy resources to be
utilized throughout the region. SERBEP is a prime example of the call
upon the Congress by the Southern Governors to provide adequate funding
and incentives for further development of clean and efficient
technologies and systems to provide an effective approach to increasing
domestic energy supplies.
In the Energy Policy in the South, the Southern Governors recommend
that States should develop programs and policies that will foster a
regional market in the Southern States for biofuels and bioenergy. In
addition, the Southern Governors recommend increased funding for the
regional biomass energy program in order to foster economic development
of bioenergy and biofuel projects in the Southern States.
Conclusion.--The ``zeroing out'' of the RBEP greatly diminishes the
states' ability to participate in the development of biomass energy
markets-just as the Federal energy policy seeks to encourage diverse
energy sources. By eliminating access to the states' expertise,
knowledge and experience with biomass resources and markets, DOE will
be remain as the primary public sector participant in the development
of policy and markets.
Now that DOE is reorganizing the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy and integrating all bioenergy activities, SSEB, the
regional governor organization for energy and environment in the South,
and the other regional governor organizations are uniquely positioned
to implement a ``regional governors biobased products and bioenergy
economic development initiative.'' The Initiative will both support the
goals of EERE and complement the National Biobased Products and
Bioenergy Initiative.
SSEB and the other regional governor organizations hosting regional
biomass energy programs are critical partners of DOE for achieving the
Renewable Energy Resources program's three EE principal strategies of:
(1) improving energy technologies and practices through R&D; (2)
formulating policies and standards; and (3) facilitating private sector
deployment of advanced energy technologies and practices into their
target markets.
We urge the Congress to restore this modest but vital appropriation
to protect the Federal Government's 20-year investment in RBEP, and to
continue the promotion of the strong Gederal interest in viable and
growing biobased products and bioenergy. Restoration of the
appropriation for RBEP places the Federal focus where it belongs: with
the states and not on energy alone, but rather the broad application of
biobased products and bioenergy to create economic development in
America's next century.
economic and environmental impacts of rbep projects funded through the
states
AL.--In Alabama, for example, the RBEP is providing over $39,000 to
Pro-Gen Power to assist them in the planning for installation of a 20
million gallons per year of ethanol plant in Alabama by 2003. Pro-Gen
also contributed over $39,000 to the study. The installation of this
facility will provide 150 construction jobs over a 12-month period and
60 ongoing jobs for plant operations, plus indirect jobs. The plant
will produce the equivalent of 194,789 barrels-of-oil and reduce carbon
dioxide Greenhouse Gas emissions by over 146,000 tons per year. This
ethanol will either be used in Alabama to reduce gasoline imports or
the ethanol will be exported from the state, either way providing
beneficial cash flows to the State.
KY.--In Kentucky, for example, the RBEP provided $25,000 (fiscal
year 2000 funds) and technical assistance to the Kentucky Division of
Energy and the Paducah/McCracken County Joint Sewer Agency to assess
the feasibility of recovering methane gas from their wastewater
treatment plant and using this gas to provide energy to operate the
plant. The County also provided $128,000 toward the study. Based on the
results of the SERBEP funded study, the project is now being
implemented and will be operational by early June 2002. In full
operation, the project is projected to save the County over $49,000 per
year in electrical costs, and provide energy equivalent to 1,402
barrels of oil per year.
MS.--In Mississippi, for example, the RBEP provided $32,000 to the
Mississippi Energy Office and Alcorn State University to assist them in
establishing an ethanol production industry in the State. These
partners also provided in $16,600 in cost sharing for the project. Just
utilizing the 2.8 million tons of wood waste generated in Mississippi
per year could create 280 million gallons of ethanol with a value of
$336 million, while reducing gasoline imports into the State by 280
million gallons. Benchmark studies by the State of Minnesota project
that ethanol production of 100 million gallons per year would result in
about 2,400 new jobs, an annual payroll of about $60 million, and an
overall impact on the State economy in excess of $200 million.
MO.--In Missouri, for example, the RBEP provided $110 to the
University of Missouri and the Missouri Energy Center to develop
computerized decision tools to allow rural electric cooperatives to
inexpensively determine the feasibility of incorporating biopower
technologies into their electricity generation mix. The University of
Missouri contributed an additional $30,000 to the project and the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association contributed $70,000.
Encouraging electric cooperatives to use bioenergy is important, as the
cooperatives are owned the members of the communities they serve, and
the economic impact from producing and using biomass for energy stays
in the local (rural) community.
SC.--In South Carolina, for example, the RBEP provided $49,500 and
technical assistance to the South Carolina Energy Office to assist
Linpac Paper perform a feasibility study on using biomass resources to
substitute for natural gas in their operations. Linpac and others
provided $96,000 in cost sharing for the project. Linpac Paper, a
recycling paper company located in Cowpens, South Carolina, is now
proceeding with implementation of systems to allow them to generate a
significant part of their natural gas needs from biomass resources. The
study found over 342,000 tons of waste biomass resources available in
the State, including animal manures. In addition to providing an
environmentally acceptable method of waste disposal for various biomass
residues, a facility to dispose of half of this waste would have a $38
million investment, produce 4-5 MW of power, insulate Linpac Paper from
natural gas price increases and interruptions, and reduce economic
drain from purchasing natural gas from outside the State.
WV.--In West Virginia, for example, the RBEP provided $80,000 to
the West Virginia Energy Efficiency Program and West Virginia
University to develop a new process to convert poultry litter into a
valuable, renewable transportation fuel. The RBEP seed money enabled
the technology developers to obtain $318,000 in cost sharing, including
over $30,000 from a private industry fabricator in West Virginia, who
plans on marketing the technology throughout the United States. In
addition to preventing poultry litter and other waste from polluting
surface and groundwater, the potential value-add to poultry litter in
West Virginia alone is over $6 million per year, producing over 2
billion barrels-of-oil equivalent energy per year, and reducing carbon
dioxide Greenhouse Gas emissions by over 146,000 tons per year. Like
many SERBEP sponsored projects, in spite of its preliminary successes
and potential benefits, the only source of Federal funding received for
the project was from SERBEP, and this funding was crucial to the
initiation of the project.
TX.--(Covered by the Western Regional Biomass Energy Program hosted
by the Nebraska Energy Office) In Texas, the Western Regional Biomass
Energy Program (WRBEP) provided $57,040 to Texas Engineering Experiment
Station. In College Station, TX evaluate selected aspects and the
economics of the utilization of feed lot cow manure as a coal/manure
blend for boiler burners. This recently completed project did
laboratory work that demonstrated that manure can be mixed with coal
and reduces the NOX emissions. Another project was completed
at West Texas A&M University by Dr. David B. Parker. This project
explored the anaerobic digestion of cattle manure in controlled
landfill cells. Dr. Parker did laboratory studies and field
demonstrations. The Western states have massive quantities of animal
manure in feed lots and in confined animal facilities. These animal
feeding operations have considerable environmental problems in dealing
with their animal wastes. These WRBEP funded project in Texas and other
States help find positive energy alternatives for dealing with animal
waste products.
Funds of $10,000 went to Dr. Max Schauck with Baylor University at
Aviation Sciences Department in Waco, TX to help support an
International Aviation Conference on Alternative Aviation Fuels. Using
support from WRBEP and other sources Dr. Schauck has done lead work on
getting ethanol certified by the FAA as a clean burning aviation fuel.
WRBEP is supporting other projects in other States to certify aviation
fuels. A WRBEP funded project in South Dakota is using a Texas Skyways,
a nationally know aviation company to the engine modification work and
testing under a subcontract under a $44,997 WRBEP grant.
Funds were provided to the University of Texas at Austin and the
University of Texas at El Paso to participate in the 2000 Ethanol
Vehicle Competition. In these contests University students compete
nationally to improve a production vehicle to run more effectively on
E-85. Texas won first place in this competition.
WRBEP has provided over $92,000 in funding to Mr. Joe D. Craig of
Cratech, Inc. located near Tahokia, TX. With WRBEP funding support
Cratech has developed a state of the art computer controlled biomass
gasification unit. The unit is nearly market ready. The unit can gasify
rice hulls, wood chips, cotton gin trash and other waste materials. The
combustible gas generated by this unit is then used to run a turbine to
generate electricity. Rice hulls and cotton gin trash are available in
large quantities in Texas and other Southern States and create
expensive disposal problems for agricultural producers. This technology
can turn a waste material into an effective asset. The technology is
sized to fit the needs of small to medium manufacturers with one
megawatt of power production as its goal. $23,963 in funds was provided
to the Texas Renewable Energy Industries Associations, Inc. for a
workshop series which included: Texas Clean Transportation Seminar 99,
The Renewable Fuels Solution, Building and Industry and Infrastructure,
Seminar, 4/26/99, Austin, TX; Seminar on Integrating Environmental and
Energy Technologies for Large-Scale Swine Operations, 6/9/99, Etter,
TX; Landfill Gas Opportunities for Municipalities, 7/20/99, San
Antonio, TX. These workshops helped alert Texans to biomass energy
opportunities.
______
Prepared Statement of Plug Power, Inc.
Plug Power urges the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee to approve $42 million for the Hydrogen Research and
Development Program in the Office of Power Technologies at the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE.)
My name is Dr. Roger Saillant, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Plug Power, Inc., a developer of on-site energy generating
systems utilizing proton exchange membrane (``PEM'') fuel cells for
stationary power applications. I am particularly pleased about the
opportunity to comment on the DOE Budget. Plug Power, our Latham, NY-
based company was founded in 1997, as a joint venture of DTE Energy
Company and Mechanical Technology Incorporated. Plug Power's fuel cell
systems for residential and small commercial stationary applications
are expected to be sold globally through a joint venture with the
General Electric Company, one of the world's leading suppliers of power
generation technology and energy services.
Plug Power is very enthusiastic about the attention being paid to
the impact of fuel cell technology on energy transformation and the
interest level in Washington. I believe that we as a nation currently
have an opportunity to make a great difference to our economy, to our
world position, and to the environment. As an auto company executive
veteran of 30 years experience, who participated in the auto emission,
safety, and fuel economy improvements, I see parallels in the magnitude
of the challenges and the scope of the outcomes. First, the auto
company transition costs were enormous but were forced by regulation.
Currently, the fuel cell industry in partnership with the U.S.
Government is trying to facilitate fuel cell based energy
transformation improvements through R&D and buy-down incentives at a
significant dollar cost. Second, this upcoming change in our energy
situation is related to worldwide problems of natural resource
depletion rates and global environmental degradation. Thus, the United
States must be a technological leader in the emergence of this economic
opportunity. And third, going from a centralized distribution model to
a mosaic of centralized and distributed generation based on fossil
fuels, wind, biomass, solar, and nuclear will require inspired
leadership from our government over an extended period of time.
Development of a hydrogen economy is vital for our society's
economic well being. For years, we have relied on central station
energy generation and transportation derived from finite natural
resources and have thereby both depleted those resources and degraded
environmental quality. A hydrogen infrastructure that supports both
stationary and transportation fuel cells is the bridge to an energy
system that values our ``natural capital'' and moves towards a
sustainable energy economy. Many states are already starting to embrace
development of a hydrogen infrastructure.
stationary fuel cell description
A stationary fuel cell is an on-site power generation system that
electrochemically combines hydrogen with oxygen in the air to form
electricity. The hydrogen fuel can be obtained from readily available
fuels, such as natural gas or propane, or in the longer term from
renewable sources. It can also be generated by electrolyzing water with
low-cost off-peak electricity, or with electricity obtained from
renewable sources such as solar, wind, or biomass. Fuel cell systems,
whether for the residential, commercial or institutional markets,
produce not only electricity, but also heat that can be captured and
beneficially utilized in these applications (combined heat and power
(CHP)). This makes such fuel cell systems highly efficient as well as
environmentally friendly. This is in stark contrast to central power
plants where generally the heat is not captured or utilized. The heart
of the stationary PEM fuel cell system is the stack, which is comprised
of the same technology as is used in most fuel cell vehicle
applications.
stationary fuel cell benefits
Our traditional central generation model for supply of power in the
United States is failing to meet the needs of a growing economy with
increasing demand for high-quality power. There are weaknesses in power
generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure that can best
be met with the new paradigm of distributed generation: placing the
generating assets on site, where both the thermal and electric energy
is needed. Fuel cells will be an important technology component in our
nation's distributed generation portfolio.
When fueled by hydrogen from a renewable energy source such as
solar, wind, or hydropower, or if the fuel source is bio-fuel like
ethanol from plant wastes, CO2 emissions are net zero.
Fuel cells can provide highly reliable electricity. Some studies
estimate that power quality and reliability issues cost our economy as
much as $150 billion per year in lost materials and productivity alone
(source: Bear Stearns, April 2000 Distributed Energy, p. 8).
Fuel cells require hydrogen and oxygen to react chemically and
produce electricity (and heat) and can therefore use any hydrogen rich
fuel, or direct hydrogen. This allows fuel cell products to be
``customized'' for customers' available fuel. It also provides the
option of renewably generated hydrogen for a fully renewable and zero
emissions energy system.
Because fuel cells provide electricity at the site of consumption,
they reduce the load on the existing transmission and distribution
system. Siting the fuel cells at the point of consumption also avoids
the line losses (up to 15 percent) inherent in moving electricity and
provides an alternative to costly and unattractive traditional power
lines.
Because fuel cells make both electric and thermal energy where it
is needed, the heat can be recaptured in combined heat and power
applications to attain combined efficiencies of over 80 percent.
hydrogen and fuel cell research and development needs
Our company is participating in the Department of Energy road-
mapping process for the hydrogen program. It is becoming increasingly
clear that, eventually, renewably generated hydrogen running fuel cell
systems, will provide much of the electricity that this country
requires. While the Department has fuel cell R&D programs in Fossil
Energy as well as in the Transportation budget, the hydrogen program is
the glue that holds all of these activities together.
The Department requested a significant increase for hydrogen, from
$29 million in 2002 to a request of $39 million in 2003 and we at Plug
Power believe such an increase is well justified. Way back in March of
last year we provided information about moving to a hydrogen economy to
the Secretary and to the White House Task Force on Energy. We were
pleased to see this interest reflected in the National Energy Plan and
in the budget request.
Of particular interest to Plug Power Inc. is the increased emphasis
on hydrogen storage technologies, distributed and remote power
validations, and infrastructure validation. Our company is working with
rural communities on hydrogen-based fuel cell systems used for back up
and peak power. The use of hydrogen, converted from existing
electricity and stored until needed, can reduce the need for less
environmentally friendly generation and can save money on investment in
new electric infrastructure. Additionally, Plug Power is exploring some
potential hydrogen refueling scenarios that would feed both stationary,
power generation fuel cells as well as automotive fuel cell systems. In
fact, we met recently with personnel at the White House about hydrogen
infrastructure options and a means to move as quickly as possibly to a
widespread national infrastructure akin to that of the natural gas
pipeline industry.
need for government r&d and systems integration
We have heard repeatedly over the past several months about a large
industry wide research and development effort for fuel cells and about
a hydrogen economy, and frankly, we at Plug Power are thrilled to hear
it. We feel that there is a vital role for the U.S. Government, and
specifically the Department of Energy, to work with industry on pre-
competitive research and on development of a robust hydrogen
infrastructure.
Pre-competitive research is tough for industry. Further,
development of a national hydrogen infrastructure will require
significant government participation. As with Rural Electrification
after World War II, a widespread infrastructure for hydrogen will be a
difficult and costly challenge. DOE, as an unbiased participant, must
do the work now to develop the various options and pathways to such a
hydrogen future. The roadmapping process is a good start, but the
participants have already identified hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of research and development that must take place. We have the
opportunity in this country to lead the world in fuel cell and hydrogen
technology development and deployment, but it will take all of us
working collectively, with private sector dollars being stimulated by
government commitment.
This sort of cooperative effort is not something a competitive
industry will readily undertake. Rather, the government has to take the
lead in bringing us all together, ensuring that no one's rights are
infringed upon, similar to the Semetech approach used in Austin in the
late 80's. I feel very strongly that there are ``leapfrog''
technologies that will help all of us, while helping the United States
become a global technology leader in this field. We need to work
together, with the DOE taking the lead because without this private-
public partnership, the U.S. industry will fail to develop and will
allow another country to win the race to lead this industry.
We urge this Subcommittee to approve a Budget of $42 M for the
Hydrogen Research and Development Program in the Office of Power
Technologies. We would urge that any increase above the President's
request, reflect the infrastructure and distributed/remote power
emphasis we discussed earlier.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman
Harry Reid and Ranking Member Pete V. Domenici for the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record on the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.
As you may know, ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational
organization, chartered by Congress, representing more than 163,000
individual chemical scientists and engineers. The world's largest
scientific society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases
public understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on
state and national matters.
Advances in science and engineering have produced more than half of
our nation's economic growth in the last 50 years. Each field of
science contributes to our diversity of strengths and capabilities and
has given us the flexibility to apply science in unexpected ways.
Together, science and engineering and the highly trained people who
work in these fields remain the most important factor in the
productivity increases responsible for economic growth and rising
living standards, economists agree. Increased attention to national
security and counter-terrorism activities and the bipartisan commitment
to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health over five
years led to record investments in federal research and development
(R&D) in fiscal year 2002. Nevertheless, the R&D investment in some
federal agencies is still inadequate for them to achieve their
missions. Opportunities to perform high-quality research, recruit U.S.
students to science and engineering fields, and fully utilize world-
class federally supported research facilities are being missed. U.S.
intellectual leadership and competitive position in the global economy
almost certainly will erode in the long term as a result. For fiscal
year 2003, Congress and the administration will be challenged by the
costs of the war on terrorism, budget deficits, and an uncertain
economic outlook. As these challenges are confronted, strength in
science should remain a key national objective.
DOE Budget Recommendations
The Office of Science helps DOE foster a secure and reliable energy
system that is environmentally and economically sustainable,
responsibly steward the Nation's nuclear weapons, clean up DOE
facilities, and support continued U.S. leadership in science and
technology. By supporting people, research, and world-class science and
engineering facilities, the Office of Science expands the frontiers of
science in areas critical to DOE's missions and builds the nation's
scientific infrastructure. It is the nation's largest supporter of
research in the physical sciences.
The Society is disappointed with the flat funding request for this
vital Office. Consistent investments in four areas are critical to the
Office of Science's success--workforce, basic energy research, physical
infrastructure, and developing the next generation of scientific tools.
To meet these challenges, ACS strongly supports funding the Office of
Science at $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $300
million or 10 percent over fiscal year 2002. The additional funds
should be targeted to increase the number of grants and improve
research infrastructure.
Within the Office of Science, ACS is particularly supportive of the
Basic Energy Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research
programs. The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program funds an array of
long-term basic research to improve energy production and use and
reduce the environmental impact of those activities. In addition, the
BES program manages almost all of DOE's scientific user-facilities. The
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program advances
fundamental understanding in fields such as waste processing,
bioremediation, and atmospheric chemistry to better understand
potential long-term health and environmental effects of energy
production and use, and identify opportunities to prevent pollution.
Progress in these fields also is needed to develop and advance new,
effective, and efficient processes for the remediation and restoration
of DOE weapons production sites. ACS supports a strong role for DOE in
federal efforts to understand and address global climate change. The
Society applauds the $3 million request for DOE's participation in the
new Climate Change Research Initiative.
ACS recommends that a majority of the proposed $300 million
increase be invested to advance basic energy research in core programs
and in initiatives such as nanotechnology. DOE is the primary source of
federal support for a variety of scientific areas such as catalysis,
carbon cycle research, photovoltaics, combustion, corrosion, fission
engineering, plasma science, nuclear imaging, and advanced computer
science that are essential to our nation's energy security and economic
performance. Currently, DOE must decline many highly rated grant
proposals. These are lost opportunities for significant discoveries.
Inadequate investment in any research field constricts the supply of
trained people who are able to apply research and develop new advances.
The steady decrease in degrees awarded at both undergraduate and
graduate levels in these areas therefore threatens the future
capabilities of U.S. industry, universities, and government.
ACS applauds the Administration for proposing to invest an
additional $40 million to increase operating time at DOE research
facilities and provide new instrumentation. Each year, over 15,000
scientists and students from academia, industry and government--many
funded by agencies other than DOE--conduct cutting-edge experiments at
the national laboratories and user facilities that DOE manages.
Additional funding would allow more operating time, upgrades,
instrumentation, and technical support. DOE also must look toward the
future by funding R&D for and conceptual design of the next generation
of user facilities and equipment to ensure the long-term
competitiveness of the U.S. research enterprise. Because both people
and equipment are needed to perform an experiment, additional funding
for user-facilities should not come at the expense of research grants.
For example, some facilities are underutilized because support has
declined for investigators that use them. More complete utilization of
DOE's facilities would increase the return on investment made in their
construction and maximize their scientific contributions and
educational value.
Outside of the Office of Science, ACS is supportive of DOE's Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Fossil Energy programs. These
programs have definite environmental, economical, and intellectual
benefits. The National Academies estimated that the total net realized
economic benefits associated with the Energy Efficiency programs it
reviewed were approximately $30 Billion (valued in 1999 dollars),
substantially exceeding the roughly $7 Billion (1999 dollars)
expenditure made by the government over the 22-year life of the
programs. The Academies estimated that the realized economic benefits
associated with the Fossil Energy programs amounted to nearly $11
Billion (1999 dollars) over the same 22-year period. Continuing
investment in these programs will build on the advances made by the
Office of Science programs and strengthen America's traditional and
alternative energy sources. However, a December 2001 General Accounting
Office report concluded that DOE's poorly integrated missions have
created significant organizational challenges, and that the Department
has not yet found an effective organizational structure that integrates
the different operating styles and requirements of its diverse
missions. These challenges have to be overcome in order to improve
coordination between the applied and basic research programs at DOE.
Better coordination between the applied research programs and the
Office of Science would leverage advances in all these programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: As Chairman of the
Southeastern Federal Power Customers' (``SeFPC'' or ``Customers'')
Operation and Maintenance Committee, I hereby submit the following
testimony on the Administration's fiscal year 2003 Budget Request for
the Army Corps of Engineers' (``Corps'') South Atlantic Division
(``SAD'') and the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (``LRD'') on
behalf of the SeFPC.
The SeFPC represents approximately 238 rural electric cooperatives
and municipal electric systems that provide electricity to some 5.8
million customers in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Illinois. As the Committee is aware, the Corps is
responsible for operating and maintaining hydropower generating
facilities at federal multipurpose water projects pursuant to the
Federal Power Marketing Program. The energy and capacity of these
projects in the southeast are marketed by the Department of Energy's
Southeastern Power Administration (``SEPA''). SEPA supplies as much as
30 percent of the capacity and 10 percent of the energy needs of
individual SeFPC members. In certain cases, it is the members of the
SeFPC who purchase power directly from SEPA under the Federal Power
Marketing Program; in other cases, it is their member distribution
systems that are the purchasers of federally generated hydropower.
Importantly, the Federal Power Marketing Program was designed by
Congress to be self-supporting--it is one of the few programs that
literally pays for itself. Pursuant to the Federal Power Marketing
Program, electric consumers, like the SeFPC members, are responsible
for repaying (with interest) the federal taxpayer investment of the
hydropower production component in the Corps' multi-purpose projects.
Currently, the rates charged by SEPA to preference customers such as
the SeFPC's members include the hydropower portion of the costs for
future operation and maintenance (``O&M'') and renewals and replacement
(``R&R'') activities at these facilities. In turn, these revenues are
deposited in the Federal Treasury and are used to reimburse
Congressionally-appropriated funds for O&M and R&R expenses at the
Corps' hydropower facilities. To date, preference customers have paid
in SEPA rates over $125 million in excess of the amounts spent on O&M
and R&R.
The Administration's fiscal year 2003 Budget Request proposes to
alter this funding arrangement. Modeled after the Bonneville Power
Administration's (``BPA'') financial schematic, the Budget calls for
the direct funding of routine hydropower O&M for the three other
Federal Power Marketing Administrations, including SEPA, that sell
power generated at Corps' facilities. This dramatic shift in policy
necessarily raises a number of questions. However, we will await the
Administration's legislative proposal before addressing this issue. We
do, though, have several issues of concern based on the preliminary
description of this change that is set forth in the Administration's
Budget Request:
--It is the SeFPC's understanding that the direct O&M funding for the
Corps would be assigned specifically for hydropower, thus
prohibiting any reprogramming of the funds. While disallowing
the reprogramming of hydropower monies is a positive step, the
SeFPC believes that some level of Congressional oversight of
the Corps' activities would be appropriate.
--As drafted, the proposal fails to provide for any customer
involvement. Instead, the O&M decisions are made exclusively by
the Corps and the relevant PMA. The SeFPC notes that preference
customers are in an ideal position to provide advice on
prioritizing among the backlog of Corps' projects, as is
currently done via the Southeast Alliance. The SeFPC would
welcome the opportunity to continue to participate in the
selection process.
--The SeFPC questions how this financial scheme would be funded
initially. The BPA has operated under a direct funding
arrangement since 1999 and now has a revolving fund for these
expenses. In contrast, preference customers may be obligated to
advance the O&M money to the Corps and pay O&M costs in SEPA
rates. The Customers, then, will experience a double hit. And,
as noted above, the Customers have already paid $125 million
for O&M and R&R that has not been used for that purpose.
--The contemplated funding procedure may place an undue accounting
and administrative burden on the Customers.
The Administration's general O&M funding request represents a 4.3
percent reduction from the prior year. As noted previously, 5.8 million
SeFPC customers rely on the economic power produced in the Corps' SAD
and LRD divisions. Any shortfall in hydropower funding means that the
Corps will not be able to perform necessary O&M work at the aging
federal hydropower projects, thus placing the long-term reliability of
the southeastern facilities in jeopardy. If a generating facility
becomes inoperable as a result of this neglect, SEPA will have to
purchase market-priced replacement power--the cost of which it will
seek to recover through future rate increases. Despite having repaid,
with interest, the federal investment incurred to construct these
projects through SEPA rates, the Customers and their consumers could be
forced to incur an over-charge simply because this account was not
adequately funded.
In conclusion, a number of details should be worked out before such
a marked departure from the current standard operating practice of the
Federal Power Marketing Program in the southeastern United States is
undertaken--particularly where the change does not involve
Congressional oversight. Additionally, Congress should ensure
sufficient funding for the Corps' ongoing O&M costs. For too long,
customers such as the SeFPC members have been paying for O&M work in
SEPA funds without receiving the corresponding Congressional
appropriations. Any alteration in the Corps' O&M funding process should
correct this costly discrepancy.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Rochester
Summary and Requested Action
The inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program is a key element in
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP)
authorized by Public Law 103-160 to ``establish a stewardship program
to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.'' The OMEGA laser
at the University of Rochester (UR) is the principal laser research
facility for UR and the three National laboratories (Los Alamos,
Sandia, and Livermore) for purposes of ICF and SSP experiments. The
Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE) is the only facility that also
trains significant numbers of graduate students in inertial fusion. The
OMEGA laser, the highest-power ultraviolet fusion laser in the world,
is the principal laser facility for SSP activities for DOE in fiscal
year 2003 and will be for a number of years to come. The Secretary of
Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) National Ignition Facility Laser System
Task Force Report noted the importance of continuing scientific contact
with ``. . . the laser-based research at the University of Rochester.''
LLE (since 1970) is the only ICF program that has been jointly
supported by the Federal government, State government, industry,
utilities, and a university. LLE makes fundamental scientific
contributions to the National program. The Laboratory transfers
technology to the public and private sectors through the training of
graduate students and interactions with industry and other Federal
laboratories. The Laboratory serves as a National Laser Users' Facility
benefiting scientists throughout the country.
LLE's primary ICF mission is to validate the direct-drive option
for ICF, including ignition and gain on the National Ignition Facility
(NIF). In addition, DOE proclaimed that OMEGA is also needed to meet
mission-critical requirements for the indirect-drive ignition plan
developed by DOE for the NIF, and to conduct experiments to support the
SSP mission, including some that are classified, in collaboration with
the National laboratories.
OMEGA is the only operating facility that can demonstrate the
scientific potential of direct drive to provide a modest- to high-gain
energy option for the Nation. For fiscal year 2003, we are also
requesting funds to add an extended performance capability (EP) on the
OMEGA facility and funds necessary to develop petawatt technologies.
The preconceptual design of this extended facility was completed in
fiscal year 2002. A 500-trillion watt capability will add substantial
utility to the existing OMEGA facility, enhance our capability to
perform SSP experiments, test high-gain concepts, and provide a premier
high-intensity laser-interaction facility in the U.S. Additional
capabilities on OMEGA are required to support the SSP and high-energy-
density physics programs due to current over subscription of OMEGA and
future over subscription of the NIF. Concomitantly, since the cost per
shot on OMEGA is considerably less than that on the NIF and the
repetition rate is higher by a factor of 4 or greater, many relevant
experiments can use OMEGA at a significant cost savings to the program.
Since the OMEGA facility will be the only large laser implosion
facility for NNSA in the U.S. until at least 2008, it is vital to keep
its capabilities current to support the National program.
To provide the support for program deliverables and the operation
and extension of OMEGA (for both ICF experiments and SSP experiments),
and to maintain the training programs at Rochester, a total
authorization and appropriation of $54,200,000 for the University of
Rochester for fiscal year 2003 is required. This amount includes
$15,000,000 for the OMEGA extended performance capability and
$3,000,000 for petawatt technology development.
Background
Thermonuclear fusion is the process by which nuclei of low atomic
weights, such as hydrogen, combine to form higher atomic weight nuclei
such as helium. In this process some of the mass of the original nuclei
is lost and transformed to energy in the form of high-energy particles.
Energy from fusion reactions is the most basic form of energy in the
universe. Our sun and other stars produce energy by thermonuclear
fusion reactions occurring in their interior. Fusion is also the
process that provides the vast destructive power of thermonuclear
weapons.
To initiate fusion reactions, the fuel must be heated to tens of
millions of degrees. In ICF the heating and compression of fusion fuel
occur by the action of intense laser or particle beams. There are two
approaches to ICF, direct and indirect drive. Indirect drive involves
the conversion of beam energy to x-rays to compress a fuel capsule in
an enclosure called a hohlraum. Direct drive involves the direct
irradiation of a spherical fuel capsule by energy from a laser and is
generally more efficient energetically than indirect drive. In either
approach, if very extreme density and temperature conditions are
produced, it is possible to produce many times more energy in these
fusion reactions than the energy provided by the drivers.
The OMEGA Extended Performance (EP) Facility at UR/LLE
The University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics (UR/
LLE) is the lead laboratory for direct-drive inertial confinement
fusion (ICF) and is the location of the OMEGA laser facility. OMEGA is
currently one of two facilities available to conduct high-energy-
density physics (HEDP) experiments in support of the Nation's Stockpile
Stewardship Program (SSP). OMEGA and the National Ignition Facility
(NIF) are designed to support SSP by performing planar-target and
spherical-implosion experiments at irradiation intensities of 10\15\ to
10\16\ Watts/cm\2\. At these intensities, a highly compressed core of
deuterium-tritium fuel can be assembled that, with the full energy of
NIF, will achieve ignition.
Existing laser technology also allows high-energy laser systems
with significantly higher laser intensities, up to 10\20\ Watts/cm\2\,
to be built. With success in the petawatt technology program these
intensities can be increased by a factor of ten. The availability of
such lasers would be very beneficial to the stockpile stewardship and
fusion energy programs. They also have many exciting basic science
applications. The establishment of a National high-intensity laser-
matter interaction program would significantly enhance the ability to
attract and retain the scientific expertise required for the United
States' nuclear weapons program in the future.
The UR/LLE proposes to put in place a high-intensity, high-energy
laser facility with a peak power initially of 510\14\ Watts
that could achieve irradiation intensities up to 10\20\ Watts/cm\2\
using existing technology. Given success of the National petawatt
initiative to advance technology, the peak power and irradiation
intensities could be increased by a factor of ten. This facility would
then significantly benefit SSP through the ability to produce intense
photon, proton, and electron beams for radiography and by conducting
HEDP experiments to test advanced computer codes relevant to nuclear
weapons, basic science, and astrophysics. Additionally, the
availability of a short-pulse backlighter source would significantly
advance ignition physics. Such a facility could test the ``fast
ignitor'' concept to increase the gain of an ICF target. Should this
concept prove viable, it would support SSP as well as the inertial
fusion energy program.
This extended performance capability on OMEGA is required in
support of SSP and HEDP programs. Concomitantly, with the delay of the
NIF this added capability will contribute substantially to the critical
need to recruit and retain graduate students, postdoctoral associates,
university faculty members, and National laboratory scientists in areas
of National need.
Locating a high-intensity, high-energy facility at UR/LLE offers
several advantages. Most importantly, since OMEGA is the only facility
capable of assembling a highly compressed deuterium-tritium core from a
cryogenic target, it is the only location at which a fully diagnosed,
integrated ``fast ignitor'' experiment could be conducted. Other
advantages include: (1) operating synergies with OMEGA will reduce
operating costs, (2) UR/LLE has an established scientific user base,
and (3) UR/LLE has a proven track record of delivering similar-sized
projects on time and on budget and of operating and maintaining large-
scale laser systems.
The construction time line and cost for this extended capability is
as follows:
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design & Long Lead Procurement..... $15 ....... ....... .......
Procurement and Assembly............ ....... $25 $25 .......
Integration & Commissioning......... ....... ....... ....... $13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
commitment to r&d a crucial factor in achieving wind energy market
potential
u.s. wind energy industry coming off most successful year in history
with nearly $2 billion in economic activity
more emphasis needed on small wind systems used to power homes, farms
and small businesses
The American Wind Energy Association \1\ (AWEA) appreciates this
opportunity to provide testimony for the record on the Department of
Energy's Fiscal 2003 wind energy program budget before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. AWEA's
testimony addresses the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, was formed in
1974. The organization represents virtually every facet of the wind
industry, including turbine and component manufacturers, project
developers, utilities, academicians, and interested individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for the Department of Energy Wind Program: $55 million
AWEA requests a funding level of $55 million for the wind energy
program at the Department of Energy (DOE) to support wind energy
development at the national, state, and local levels. Working in
conjunction with the U.S. wind industry, power producers, suppliers,
industrial consumers and residential users, DOE provides important
technical support, guidance, information, and limited cost-shared
funding for efforts to explore and develop wind energy resources.
Moreover, the research and development (R&D) program at DOE is helping
to support advanced wind energy research that is attracting support
from major industrial companies. AWEA's fiscal year 2003 budget
testimony is focused on two areas within the wind program:
Utility-Scale Wind Development
This cost-shared DOE/industry partnership program has proven to be
successful and with modest annual appropriations has been helpful in
significantly lowering the cost of wind power. In fact, over the past
twenty years, the cost has been reduced by over 80 percent. The program
is aimed at further driving down the cost of wind power to a level
fully competitive with traditional fuel technologies. An important
emphasis is on developing wind turbines capable of operating in areas
with lower wind speeds. This would expand wind development potential by
20 times as well as allow the placement of turbines closer to existing
transmission lines. In addition to lowering the cost of wind power, R&D
support is necessary for enhanced wind site forecasting and power
systems integration.
Small Wind Systems
More emphasis on DOE's small wind turbine program (machines rated
at 100 kilowatts or below) will help achieve greater cost reductions
and increase the availability of this energy option for homes, farms,
schools, and businesses.
Overview
On the heels of its most successful year in history, the U.S. wind
industry is poised for significant growth. However, important
challenges lay ahead. For its part, the wind industry continues to work
to drive down the cost of wind-generated electricity, thereby enhancing
the competitiveness of the product to electricity providers.
AWEA appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided to the
DOE wind program. Last year, the subcommittee significantly raised the
funding level for the program above the fiscal year 2002 request of the
Administration. The Administration's fiscal year 2003 Congressional
Budget request of $44 million for the wind program more closely
reflects the view of Congress and that of the wind industry.
The wind energy program at the Department of Energy has a strong
history of success. Over the last twenty years, the cost of wind energy
has dropped by more than 80 percent, to a level that is close to
competitive with traditional energy technologies. Cost shared industry/
government research and development activities at DOE and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have played an important role in
this achievement. Programs such as Wind Powering America have been
educating interested parties across the country on the benefits of wind
power.
Continued investment at DOE in domestic energy alternatives like
wind power will allow the industry to keep driving down costs and
improving the efficiency of new wind turbines. Wind energy holds the
greatest potential of all non-hydro renewables to contribute to our
energy needs over the next decade.
Wind energy is positioned to be an important part of the nation's
energy mix. Wind can be an important component in protecting against
volatile electricity rates. The costs of a wind plant are primarily up-
front capital costs, thus the price for electricity is stable over the
life of the plant because the fuel, the wind, is free.
Investing in domestic, inexhaustible renewable energy technologies
strengthens our national security, provides rural economic development,
spurs new high-tech jobs, and helps protect the environment. There are
no downsides to investing in wind and other renewables.
Finally, we want to stress the importance of the wind energy
Production Tax Credit (PTC), which provides a 1.5-cent per kilowatt-
hour credit for electricity produced (the credit is currently 1.7 cents
adjusted for inflation). A 2-year extension of this tax credit was
approved with bipartisan support in March 2002 and signed into law by
the President. The wind industry is seeking a full 5-year extension of
the credit, in order to provide for more certainty and stability for
the industry. Legislation calling for a 5-year PTC extension has
attracted strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate and is
included in comprehensive energy policy legislation.
Utility-Scale Wind Development
The U.S. wind industry achieved unprecedented success in 2001,
installing a record amount of new generation across 16 states. The
final tally of 1,695 megawatts (MW), equal to $1.7 billion of economic
investment, lifted the wind industry's total generating capacity by
approximately 66 percent over the previous year. Current installed
capacity nationwide is now 4,261 MW across 26 states, or enough power
to serve about 1 million average U.S. households.
By mid-2003, installed wind energy capacity in the United States is
expected to be upward of 5,000 MW. The states of Texas, Minnesota,
Oregon, Wyoming and Iowa account for most of the new wind energy
development. Texas alone accounted for over 900 MW of new development
in 2001.
In 2002, development is planned in a number of states, including
West Virginia, California, Montana, Iowa and Pennsylvania. This new
development will help spur rural economic development through new
construction and manufacturing jobs, lease income for landowners, and
local and county tax payments.
Cost shared research and development programs at DOE have played a
key role in the development of wind energy. There is important work to
be done, however, to continue the momentum the industry has built. For
instance, the current generation of wind turbines have successfully
lowered the cost at the best wind sites (Class 5 & 6). However, in
order for wind to reach its full potential, the industry must penetrate
areas with moderate wind speeds (Class 3 & 4). Tapping such areas,
which are often closer to necessary transmission lines, could increase
the amount of wind development by a factor of 20.
Small Wind Systems (100 kW and below)
AWEA believes a greater emphasis on small wind turbine research and
development is needed as the demand for these turbines continues to
grow. Distributed generation with small customer-sited power plants has
great potential for reducing energy costs, promoting competition in the
marketplace, and strengthening the nation's electrical supply network.
AWEA recognizes that some progress has been made at DOE in the
small wind turbine program. However, it is vital that additional
resources be dedicated to programs that will help make small wind
turbines cost-competitive for homeowners. DOE has significant programs
for technology development and deployment of other distributed energy
technologies, but programs for small wind have received little
attention despite the fact that small wind systems arguably have a
greater market potential.
The high up-front costs of small wind systems make it very
difficult for this technology to gain wide acceptance in the domestic
market. This would change if DOE had the resources to work with
America's small wind manufacturers to achieve cost reductions similar
to those achieved by the large, utility-scale wind industry. In some
states like California, that provide a state rebate for purchasers,
small wind turbine manufacturers have experienced a surge in sales,
demonstrating the public support for cost-effective small wind
turbines.
AWEA requests that a Small Wind Turbine Initiative (SWTI) be
developed at the Department of Energy. Such an initiative would reduce
the costs of small wind systems for homes, farms, and small businesses
by promoting deployment leading to higher production volumes, reducing
market barriers, and improving the technology. SWTI aims to make small
wind turbines cost effective for an estimated 6-10 million potential
rural residential users over the next twenty years.
Additional Funding Request: Renewable Energy Production
Incentive (REPI): $8 million
AWEA also advocates for additional funding for the Renewable Energy
Production Incentive (REPI) program as a separate item within the
Renewable Energy budget. Year-to-year uncertainty regarding funding
levels for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) plays havoc
with the long-term planning needs of running a municipally owned
utility. Due to insufficient funds for the program, full payments for
eligible projects have not been made for a number of years. For this
reason, AWEA suggests the Congress work with the Department of Energy
to develop long-range alternatives to annual funding of this program.
The REPI program, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
encourages municipally owned utilities to invest in renewable energy
technologies including wind energy systems. REPI permits Department of
Energy to make direct payments to publicly and cooperatively owned
utilities at the rate of 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity
generated from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Because
wind energy projects require a two to three year lead-time for
permitting and construction, it is very important that stable and
predictable funding be provided.
Conclusion
Continued investments in wind energy R&D are delivering value for
taxpayers by developing another domestic energy source that strengthens
our national security, provides rural economic development, spurs new
high-tech jobs, and helps protect the environment.
While the wind industry is coming off a record year in 2001 in
terms of new generation capacity installed, continued Department of
Energy wind energy R&D is vital to growing this domestic power source.
The current debates in Congress regarding energy policy have brought to
light the important role wind and other renewable energy technologies,
both utility-scale and small-scale, can play in our nation's energy
strategy.
AWEA appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to the
Subcommittee. We would be pleased to answer any questions that may
arise. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science organization in the world, with more than 42,000 members,
appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal
year 2003 budget for the Department of Energy (DOE) science programs.
The ASM represents scientists working in academic, medical,
governmental and industrial institutions worldwide. Microbiological
research is focused on human health and the environment and is directly
related to DOE programs involving microbial genomics, climate change,
bioremediation and basic biological processes important to energy
sciences.
The scientific enterprise has benefited enormously from the
investments in the basic sciences made by the DOE Office of Science.
The DOE Office of Science is the nation's primary supporter of the
physical sciences and is an essential partner in the areas of
biological and environmental science research as well as in
mathematics, computing, and engineering. Furthermore, the Office of
Science supports a unique system of programs based on large-scale,
specialized user facilities that bring together working teams of
scientists focused on such challenges as: global warming, genomic
sequencing, and energy research. The Office of Science is also an
invaluable contributor to the scientific programs of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)
and supports peer-reviewed, basic research in DOE-relevant areas of
science in universities and colleges across the United States. These
cross-disciplinary programs contribute enormously to the knowledge base
and training of the next generation of scientists while providing
worldwide scientific cooperation in physics, chemistry, biology,
environmental science, mathematics, and advanced computational
sciences.
The Office of Science will play an increasingly important role in
the Administration's goal of U.S. energy independence in this decade.
Many DOE scientific research programs share the common goal of
producing and conserving energy in environmentally responsible ways.
Programs include basic research projects in microbiology, as well as,
extensive development of biotechnological systems to produce
alternative fuels and chemicals, to recover and improve the refinement
process of fossil fuels, to remediate environmental problems, and to
reduce wastes and pollution.
The Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2003 requests
$22 billion for the DOE overall, an increase of $600 million or 2.7
percent and $3.3 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of $4
million over fiscal year 2002. The ASM would like to submit the
following comments and recommendations for funding levels for research
in the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy
Sciences (BES) programs for fiscal year 2003.
Microbial Genomics Program (MGP)
The DOE is the lead agency supporting the genomic sequencing of
non-pathogenic microbes. This sequenced information provides clues into
how we can design biotechnological processes that will function in
extreme conditions and potentially solve pressing national priorities,
such as, biosecurity, global warming, and energy production. The
Administration has requested $11 million for fiscal year 2003, which is
essentially flat with fiscal year 2002. In view of the tremendous
potential of microbial genomic sequencing, the ASM recommends that
Congress provide $15 million for fiscal year 2003. DOE's role in this
science frontier needs to be expanded.
Since microbes power the planet's carbon and nitrogen cycles, clean
up our wastes, and make important transformations of energy, they are
an important source of biotechnology products, and are extremely
valuable for advancing our knowledge of the non-medical microbial
world. Knowing the complete DNA sequence of a microbe provides
important keys to the biological capabilities of the organism and is
the first step in developing strategies to more efficiently detect,
counteract, use, or reengineer that microbe to address an assortment of
national issues. The DOE has completed the DNA sequencing of more than
50 microbes with potential uses in energy, waste cleanup, and carbon
sequestration. For instance, the recently sequenced Deinococcus
radiodurans, a bacterium that is extremely resistant to radiation.
Deinococcus radiodurans could potentially be used in hazardous waste
clean up at DOE energy facilities that previously relied upon expensive
decontamination processes.
The ASM applauds DOE's leadership in recognizing this important
need in science and endorses expansion of its microbial genome
sequencing efforts, particularly in using DNA sequencing to learn more
about the functions and roles of the 99 percent of the microbial world
that cannot yet be grown in culture.
Genomes To Life Program
Our world is filled with microorganisms that have evolved on Earth
over 3.8 billion years and, as suggested by their diversity and range
of adaptation, have long ago solved many of the nation's energy and
environmental problems (i.e., energy transformation and carbon
sequestration). A deeper, genetically based understanding of these
organisms, culminating in computational models of their function, can
be used to predict and even modify their functions to address energy
needs, biothreat reduction, and toxic waste cleanup. The Genomes to
Life program is on the cutting edge of biology. The ASM strongly
supports the Administration's funding of the program at $36.7 million
for fiscal year 2003, an increase of $15 million over fiscal year 2002.
The Genomes to Life program and others are just beginning to
demonstrate the potential applications of microorganisms for energy,
medicine, agriculture, environmental, and national security needs. This
research will potentially offer new biotechnology solutions to these
challenges and those of tomorrow. Underlying the potential applications
of biotechnology for clean energy, mitigating climate change, and
environmental cleanup is the need for a solid understanding of the
functions, behaviors and interactions of every biological part (the
genes and proteins) of a microorganism. If we are to improve the
productivity of forests, bioremediation agents, biomass crops and
agricultural systems, it is imperative to understand how these
biological machines work. This will require a staggering amount of
expertise across the sciences, new computational capabilities, new
tools, and new interdisciplinary approaches to genomics research.
The ASM applauds the bold vision of the Genomes to Life program and
notes that this represents the kind of interdisciplinary science that
DOE has done successfully in the past, making use of advanced
technologies, specialized facilities, teams of scientists, and
computational power. The ASM also sees this program as the basis for an
expanded effort to understand more broadly how genomic information can
be used to understand life at the cellular level and urges Congress to
fully support this exciting program.
Climate Change Research
The ASM is pleased to see the Administration's support of Climate
Change Research continue in its fiscal year 2003 budget. The ASM
endorses the President's proposed $137 million budget, a 7 percent
increase over fiscal year 2002. The Society is also supportive of the
proposed $13.9 million budget for the Ecological Processes section for
fiscal year 2003, a $1.5 million increase over fiscal year 2002.
The Climate Change Research subprogram seeks to apply the latest
scientific knowledge (i.e., genomic, new computational methods) to the
potential effects of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the
climate and the environment. This program is DOE's contribution to the
interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program proposed by President
Bush in 1989 and codified by Congress in the Global Change Research Act
of 1990 (Public Law 101-106). This program is vital if science is to
advance its understanding of the radiation balance between the surface
of the Earth and the uppermost portions of the atmosphere and how this
will affect the planet's climate and ecosystems.
The Ecological Processes portion of the subprogram is focused on
understanding and simulating the effects of climate and atmospheric
changes on the biological structure and functioning of planetary
ecosystems. Research will also identify potential feedbacks from
changes in the climate and atmospheric composition. This research is
critical if we are to better understand the changes occurring in our
ecosystems from increasing levels of atmospheric pollutants.
The ASM urges Congress to support this important research within
the Office of Science budget. The Climate Change Research subprogram is
a key component in developing more accurate climate modeling and
ecosystem data, and promises to yield new technologies to address
future climate shifts.
Basic Energy Science
The Administration's requested funding for the Office of Basic
Energy Sciences (BES) is $1.02 billion for fiscal year 2003. This
funding level is a $20 million increase over fiscal year 2002. This
program is a principal sponsor of fundamental research for the nation
in the areas of materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and
biosciences as it relates to energy. Program initiatives include
microbiological and plant sciences focused on harvesting and converting
energy from sunlight into energy feedstock such as cellulose and other
products of photosynthesis, as well as how those chemicals may be
further converted into energy rich molecules such as methane, hydrogen
and ethanol. Alternative and renewable energy sources will remain of
strategic importance in the nation's energy portfolio, and DOE is well
positioned to advance basic research in this area. The advances in
genomic technologies have given this research area a tremendous new
resource for advancing the Agency's bioenergy goals.
Bioremediation
The MGP's research into bioremediative microorganisms' complements
the research supported by the DOE's Natural and Accelerated
Bioremediation Program (NABIR) and other DOE bioremediation research
initiatives. The Administration's proposed budget for the NABIR program
is $24.7 million, a $2.6 million increase over fiscal year 2002. The
ASM supports the Administration's request for bioremediation research.
However, the ASM believes that greater benefits will be achieved if the
NABIR program is increased to $30 million, which is more consistent
with the original $40 million plan for the program.
Bioremediation scientists are searching for cost-effective
technologies to improve current remediation methods to clean up DOE's
contaminated sites. This research has the potential to lead to new
discoveries into reliable methods of bioremediation of metals and
radionuclides in soils and groundwater. The NABIR program supports the
basic research that is needed to understand this technology to more
reliably develop the practical applications for cost-effective cleanup
of pollutants at DOE sites. The ASM strongly recommends that additional
funding be allocated to balance the program elements and pollutants
studied as originally envisioned when the NABIR Program was designed.
New Technologies and Unique Facilities
New technologies and advanced instrumentation derived from DOE's
expertise in the physical sciences and engineering have become
increasingly valuable to biologists. The beam lines and other advanced
technologies for determining molecular structures of cell components
are at the heart of current advances to understand cell function and
have practical applications for new drug design. DOE advances in high
throughput, low cost DNA sequencing; protein mass spectrometry, cell
imaging and computational analyses of biological molecules and
processes are other unique contributions of DOE to the nation's
biological research enterprise. Furthermore, DOE has unique field
research facilities for environmental research important to
understanding biogeochemical cycles, global change and cost-effective
environmental restoration. In short, DOE's ability to conduct large-
scale science projects and draw on its unique capabilities in physics,
computation and engineering is critical for future biological research.
The ASM strongly supports the basic science agenda across the
scientific disciplines and encourages Congress to maintain its
commitment to the Department of Energy research programs to maintain
U.S. leadership in science and technology.
______
Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
introduction
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy offers testimony on the
role it foresees for the Department of Energy's (DOE) renewable and
distributed energy research, development, demonstration and deployment
programs.
The Council was formed one decade ago by businesses and industry
trade associations sharing a commitment to achieve our nation's
economic, environmental and national security goals through the rapid
deployment of clean and efficient natural gas, energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies. Our members range in size from Fortune
500 enterprises to small entrepreneurial companies, to national and
international trade associations.
We thank the Committee for its exceptional work crafting the fiscal
year 2002 appropriations bill and generally compliment the
Administration for its fiscal year 2003 proposals. The trend is for the
most part positive and it is critical that it continue so that American
energy security will be put under the control of American technology
and taken out of the hands of potentially unreliable international
energy suppliers.
a federal commitment to energy is critical
Although circumstances now appear radically different from those of
a year ago, we are in fundamentally the same situation from an energy
security perspective; the reality has only become that much more stark.
While blackouts and price swings have abated, our revived economy may
prompt their return. Furthermore, the events of September 11 renewed
attention on energy security in a way that was completely unimaginable.
The importance of energy security, due to our domestic and
international vulnerabilities, now claims great interest.
federal programs to promote renewable resources
The Council has long recognized that the market, not the U.S.
government, makes energy supply choices. Unfortunately, foreign
governments are in a position to make energy supply choices for us, and
the reality is that energy technology and infrastructure cannot be
developed overnight. Like our military, in order to have an option
available when the need arises, we may only count on those resources we
had the foresight to prepare ahead of time. The ability to have a
secure, affordable and clean supply of energy to drive our economy
comes from a sustained commitment by industry and the federal
government to research, develop and deploy appropriate technologies.
Countless risks arise all throughout this process, most of which are
borne by industry; however, there are points at which governmental
support is most appropriate, effective and critical.
solar energy
We are pleased that the Administration has become aware, as this
Committee already knew, of the promise of solar technologies. That
comports with the attitude of the American public, where recent
nationwide media polls found 84 to 91 percent of respondents favor
increased funding for solar power development.
It's critical for the cost-shared programs to receive adequate
funding. The Administration, with the exception of concentrating solar
power, has made great progress in the last year in its recognition of
the value of solar energy programs and for that it deserves accolades.
Concentrating Solar Power
The one disappointing aspect of the Administration's solar energy
budget proposal is its continued failure to see the promise of
concentrating solar power technology. CSP received a strong peer review
and Congressional direction in the fiscal year 2002 energy and water
appropriations bill to produce a report on how 1,000 MW of CSP in the
Southwest received support from Governors Jane Dee Hull of Arizona,
Kenny C. Guinn of Nevada, and Gary E. Johnson of New Mexico on behalf
of the Western Governors Association.
To effectively support this program, we recommend a $25 million
appropriation, with half of that amount being devoted to support the
1,000 MW initiative in the Southwest.
Photovoltaics
This technology utilizes silicon to convert sunlight directly into
electricity. Vigorous research has cut costs in half since 1995. On the
horizon is the potential to halve costs yet again, making photovoltaic-
produced electricity competitive with other distributed electricity
generation options in the U.S.
We request a total of $100 million for photovoltaic programs,
including at least $11 million for the PVMat program (Advanced
Manufacturing R&D), $2 million for BiPV, and $18.5 million for Thin
Films.
The Zero Energy Building Initiative
The Administration endorsement of the Zero Energy Buildings program
in this budget is particularly exciting and something the Council
strongly supports because this program spans a range of solar and
energy efficiency technologies including integrated solar thermal and
solar absorption cooling systems, photovoltaics, fuel cells and smart
inverters and controls. The ZEB program is a multifaceted technology
integration effort to create buildings that generate as much energy as
they consume. The seeds to a longterm solution to our nation's energy
and environmental challenges are germinating in this dynamic research
program. We request $15 million for this program.
wind
Utility-scale wind energy reported its single best year of growth
in 2001, which saw just short of 1,700 MW of new capacity installed.
This doubles the previous record year of 1999. The success of this
industry is a testament to industry and government working together.
Research continues to create more efficient and economical turbines,
increasing output in the best wind locations and opening up other
regions to wind power production. What was once a day long trip to see
is now a scant two-hour drive from the Capitol, where one can witness
wind turbines generating electricity along the Pennsylvania Turnpike in
Somerset County.
Wind energy technology continues to advance, soon to make wind
capable of providing cost-competitive electricity in more than the five
percent of potential sites where it is competitive today. To do so,
federal support is critical. For overall wind energy programs, the
Council is asking for $55 million in funding.
Demand for small wind turbines also continue to grow. Companies
like Bergey Windpower, a Council member and manufacturer of small wind
systems serving the distributed generation market for rural homes and
facilities, are still working overtime to satisfy orders from
electricity-starved regions. These distributed generation systems have
great potential to reduce energy costs, promote competition and
strengthen the electrical grid.
DOE has significant programs for many technologies but not for
small wind. A Small Wind Turbine Initiative (SWTI) would reduce the
costs of small wind systems for homes, farms, and small businesses by
promoting deployment that would lead to higher production volumes,
reducing market barriers and improving the technology. SWTI aims to
make small wind turbines cost-effective for an estimated six million to
ten million potential rural residential users, opening a potential
market of thousands of megawatts that could make small wind a major
contributor to our domestic energy supply.
geothermal energy
The Council supports federal programs directed at taking advantage
of geothermal resources. California today receives six percent of its
electricity from geothermal resources and the western United States
could realize nearly 20,000 megawatts of electrical and thermal energy
using enhanced geothermal technology. That would represent a tripling
of today's output, and would satisfy the needs of 18 million residents.
The Council requests an increase to $45 million in geothermal funding
in fiscal year 2003.
hydrogen
The Council supports federal hydrogen programs and the inclusion of
alkaline fuel cells in the hydrogen program.
distributed energy resources
Reliable, on-site generated power continues to increase in its
importance as more and more manufacturing processes and information
technologies become dependent upon a continuous supply of high-quality
power. Whether energy is produced by microturbines, reciprocating
engines, fuel cells or other gas-fueled systems or by renewable energy
technologies, challenges to widespread deployment remain. Some of these
technologies need further refinement, while all need federal
intervention in the development of interconnect standards to gain
access to the electricity grid. Also, many of these technologies
benefit from integration into energy delivery systems, a challenge not
undertaken within individual technology development programs. In
essence, despite the pull from the marketplace, the federal role
remains strong.
The DER program is significantly under-funded. The Office of Power
Technologies receives nearly ten solicitation applications for every
award it makes. While more manufacturers are entering the market,
significant RD&D requirements abound. DER provides the opportunity for
more efficient use of waste heat to achieve total system efficiency
levels as high as 80 percent. Further, the higher efficiency of DER
systems inherently leads to lower emissions since they typically use
cleaner feedstock fuels than many central power plants.
The national economy is inextricably linked to information and
electronically sensitive computer systems that require uninterruptible
power that the 50+ year old electric grid is increasingly challenged to
serve. Many utilities are now exploring the utilization of DER to
reduce the strain on congested transmission systems. On-site DER
systems are especially important for high-tech and mission-critical
facilities as they offer dramatic power quality and reliability
increases. Mission-critical systems, be it in high-tech, healthcare,
manufacturing or government facilities, are enhanced by DER.
We are very supportive of the modest $7.5 million proposal for
proton membrane exchange fuel cell program within the Office of Power
Technologies. We highlight the need for these resources to be
concentrated toward the research needs to develop a robust and reliable
power generation unit.
Collectively, tremendous work remains in the areas of system
development, advanced batteries, smart controls and sensors, power
quality and reliability, storage, and interconnection. DOE has studied
the technical, regulatory, market and institutional barriers to
widespread utilization of DER, is working in partnership with industry
to advance the state of the art of these technologies and is working to
promote commercial acceptance.
renewable energy production incentive
We respectfully request that the program be funded at a level that
at least approaches that needed to cover currently authorized
expenditure, approximately $40 million. The $4 million Administration
request for fiscal year 2003 will for the first time not even fully
fund the tier 1 projects, solar and wind. That means that it would not
cover any of the tier 2 renewable energy projects such as a county
landfill gas-to-energy project. Last year, these tier 2 projects
received less than 10 percent of the amount that a plain reading of
Title XII, section 1212 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 clearly
intends.
Municipally owned utilities like the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District, Los Angeles Department of Water and Public Works and others
read the words in Section 1212 as they pondered the economics of
important public energy projects. Full funding of REPI in fiscal year
2003 will begin a rebuilding of confidence and stability in federal
incentives for responsible, local, renewable energy projects.
international activities
Finally, the Council supports federal programs designed to help
open international markets for renewable energy technologies.
Competition in rapidly growing developing country markets is intense;
U.S. renewables manufacturers face the dual obstacles of competition
from conventional energy sources and foreign renewables manufacturers
often buoyed by government assistance.
Our participation in international markets is more critical than
ever. Over two billion people in the world lack a reliable supply of
electricity. Growth in developing nations will take their energy use
levels above that of the industrialized nations within two decades,
with an anticipated expenditure of $4 trillion to $5 trillion.
Traditionally, most ``new'' environmentally friendly and efficient
technologies are not the first choice of decision-makers in these
markets. With encouragement and bureaucratic streamlining, however,
U.S. clean energy exports could easily double in less then five years,
resulting in up to $5 billion in export revenues and 100,000 new
American jobs.
The Council is extremely supportive of funding for international
energy programs and urges that funding not come at the expense of
existing research, development and deployment programs. Beyond the
benefit to U.S. exports, these technologies can help ensure
international economic and political stability and enhance our national
security by meeting the profound needs of these countries.
conclusion
A variety of energy options is needed to create energy security and
ensure our economic and environmental integrity. With a full slate of
choices, choices in part aided by research and development supported by
the Department of Energy, the marketplace will be able to select the
most appropriate solutions to meet specific needs, take American energy
security out of the hands of overseas suppliers of questionable
reliability and reduce our domestic infrastructure vulnerabilities.
The Council strongly urges the Congress to continue its support of
federal research, development, demonstration and deployment programs
for renewable and distributed energy technologies. By adopting a robust
budget, Congress can demonstrate its genuine commitment to the nation
throughout this critical time.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
UCAR is a consortium of 66 universities that manage and operate the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional programs
that support and extend the country's scientific research and education
capabilities. The UCAR mission is to support, enhance, and extend the
capabilities of the university community, nationally and
internationally; to understand the behavior of the atmosphere and
related systems and the global environment; and to foster the transfer
of knowledge and technology for the betterment of life on earth. In
addition to its member universities, UCAR has formal relationships with
approximately 100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools
including several historically black and minority-serving institutions,
and 40 international universities and laboratories. UCAR is supported
by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies
including the Department of Energy (DOE).
doe office of science
DOE is the fourth largest supporter of basic research in the
federal government. The programs and national user facilities of the
agency's Office of Science are vital to the nation's basic research
investment across all disciplines in the natural and physical sciences.
These yield both short-term benefits and future advances in
environmental research, basic computing and physics research, energy
supply, homeland security, and educational growth. For fiscal year
2003, UCAR joins the Association of American Universities and the
Energy Sciences Coalition in urging the Committee to support an
increase of 9.1 percent, or $300 million, for DOE's Office of Science,
for a total of $3.58 billion.
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program develops the knowledge necessary to identify,
understand, and anticipate the potential health and environmental
consequences of energy production and use. These are issues that are
absolutely critical to our country's well-being and security, yet the
program's request is down 11.6 percent from the fiscal year 2002
enacted level of $570.3 million. I urge the Committee, in following the
recommendation made above for the Office of Science, to increase BER's
allocation by 9.1 percent, for a total of $622.2 million. I would like
to comment on the following programs within DOE's Office of Science
that are of particular importance to the work of the atmospheric
sciences community:
biological and environmental research (ber) climate change research
subprogram
Critical to our nation's health, well-being, and security is BER's
responsibility to develop the knowledge needed to understand and
anticipate the long-term environmental consequences of energy
production, development and use; and to develop creative solutions to
related environmental challenges including climate change. Much of the
funding for this research is provided to the country's universities and
laboratories through a peer-reviewed, competitive process that ensures
the highest possible caliber of work. BER's Climate Change Research
subprogram (previously the Environmental Processes subprogram) will
contribute to the reduction and resolution of key uncertainties. I urge
the Committee to support at least the Climate Change Research
Subprogram request of $137.9 million, a 7.0 percent increase over the
fiscal year 2002 budget.
The subprogram's following components are of great importance in
DOE's contribution to the multi-agency U.S. Global Change Research
Program:
Climate Modeling
BER's Climate Modeling effort, within the subprogram's Climate and
Hydrology program, improves the capacity to produce long-term climate
change scenarios for climate change research and assessment purposes.
Some of the remaining mysteries of climate change prediction include
the roles played by clouds, evaporation, precipitation, and surface
energy exchange, all of which are addressed by the Climate Modeling
program. This work is of great importance to our understanding of the
manner in which climate change, natural or otherwise, affects specific
areas of the country with ramifications to local environmental and
economic systems. The proposed funding of $27.2 million for Climate
Modeling in fiscal year 2003 reflects flat funding and is insufficient
to cover inflation, much less make the advances that are necessary and
possible. I urge the Committee to appropriate an amount of at least
$29.0 million, a 7.0 percent increase, for Climate Modeling within BER.
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program
ARM, funded within the subprogram's Climate and Hydrology program,
contributes to determining the role of clouds in climate change and
addresses the interaction of solar energy with water vapor and aerosols
as they affect the atmospheric radiative balance that drives the
climate system. ARM data are critical to the improvement of General
Circulation Models (GCMs), which simulate the global atmosphere and
enable us to understand and predict changes in global and regional
temperature and precipitation patterns that result from both
anthropogenic and natural influences. ARM supports the work of many
university principal investigators and makes possible interactions and
collaborative work with DOE National Laboratories and scientists at
NASA, NOAA, and DOD. To facilitate the transfer of ARM research to
premier modeling centers, the ARM program supports scientific
``Fellows'' at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NOAA and a
European center. Requested fiscal year 2003 funding for ARM Research is
$13.3 million, exactly the same amount as the fiscal year 2002 level.
The request for ARM Infrastructure to support the three ARM sites and
instrumentation is $31.4 million, a much-needed 14 percent increase. I
urge the Committee to increase the level for ARM Research to $14.3
million, or a 7.0 percent increase, and to support the $31.4 million
request for ARM Infrastructure.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle
BER's Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle programs support
research at university, DOE, and non-DOE laboratories across the
country to provide information on the atmospheric environment that is
critical for long-range energy planning. DOE's carbon cycle research
explores movement of carbon on a global scale and is key to
understanding the sources and sinks of carbon both in terrestrial and
ocean systems. The agencies of DOE, NOAA, NSF, and EPA have a
coordinated strategy to work toward completing our knowledge of the
carbon cycle. One of the especially important aspects of the DOE carbon
cycle program is its support of long-term measurement sites and data
holdings that are used by climate change researchers around the world.
Proposed overall funding for this critical work appears to receive
$37.7 million, an 8.9 percent increase over fiscal year 2002. However,
essentially all of this increase comes from the addition of the
Administration's Climate Change Research Initiative mentioned below.
This means that the request for Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle
is flat. I urge the Committee to support a real increase of at least 7
percent for Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle for a total of $39.9
million.
Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI)
In fiscal year 2003, the Administration will institute the CCRI as
part of a new interagency effort, the DOE portion of which is to be
funded within BER's Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle program.
CCRI deliverables will be targeted at information of strategic use to
policy-makers, such as more reliable predictions of what the future
climate would be under different greenhouse forcing scenarios and how
much climate and land use changes will affect natural sources and sinks
of carbon. DOE will participate in one of the specific research areas:
understanding the North American Carbon Cycle (with NOAA, NSF, and
USDA), which is identified as a priority need in the interagency Carbon
Cycle Science Plan. I urge the Committee to support the establishment
of the Climate Change Research Initiative, to enable to the fullest
extent possible CCRI enhancement of and collaboration with USGCRP
research, and to support the Initiative's needed growth in years to
come in order to provide continuous knowledge and guidance that
contributes to the nation's security and well-being.
Human Interactions--Global Change Education
BER's Global Change Education program performs a great service for
the atmospheric sciences community by joining with the NSF and other
agencies to support students involved in the UCAR-managed program,
Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS).
SOARS, recipient of one of this year's Presidential Award for
Excellence in Science, Math, and Engineering Mentoring, is a four-year
graduate and undergraduate program for students pursuing careers in the
atmospheric and related sciences. In its relatively short history,
SOARS has already increased the number of under-represented students in
this scientific area by a significant percentage. I would like the
Committee to be aware that BER's Climate Change Research program is
contributing to the SOARS effort to ensure that tomorrow's scientific
workforce reflects the diversity of our citizenry and provides
opportunity to all students.
advanced scientific computing research (ascr)
DOE's ASCR provides advances in computer science and the
development of specialized software tools that are necessary to
research the major scientific question being addressed by the Office of
Science. ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance to
atmospheric scientists involved with complex climate model development,
research that takes enormous amounts of computing power. By their very
nature, problems dealing with the interaction of the earth's systems
and global climate change cannot be solved by traditional laboratory
approaches. Of particular importance to the U.S. National Assessment
effort in global change is ASCR's critical contribution to the multi-
agency effort to develop the Coupled Parallel Climate Model (PCM) and
its successor, the Community Climate System Model (version 2.0). I urge
the Committee to support the request of $169.6 million, an 8 percent
increase, for ASCR in fiscal year 2003.
On behalf of UCAR and the atmospheric sciences research community,
I want to thank the Committee for the important work you do for U.S.
scientific research. We appreciate your attention to the
recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal year 2003 budget
of the Department of Energy.
______
WATER PROGRAMS
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose,
California
guadalupe river project
Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
through a highly developed area of San Jose, in Santa Clara County,
California. A major flood would damage homes and businesses in the
heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has flooded downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso. According to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) 2000 Final General Reevaluation & Environmental
Report for Proposed Project Modifications, estimated damages from a 1
percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over $575 million.
The Guadalupe River overflowed in February 1986, January 1995, and
March 1995, damaging homes and businesses in the St. John and Pleasant
Street areas of downtown San Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains resulted
in breakouts along the river that flooded approximately 300 homes and
business.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the local community requested that the
Corps reactivate its earlier study. Since 1972, substantial technical
and financial assistance have been provided by the local community
through the Santa Clara Valley Water District in an effort to
accelerate the project's completion. To date, more than $85.8 million
in local funds have been spent on planning, design, land purchases, and
construction in the Corps' project reach.
The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the General Design
Memorandum was completed in 1992, the local cooperative agreement was
executed in March 1992, the General Design Memorandum was revised in
1993, construction of the first phase of the project was completed in
August 1994, construction of the second phase was completed in August
1996. Project construction was temporarily halted due to environmental
concerns.
To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of
flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental
impacts, and project maintenance costs, a multi-agency ``Guadalupe
Flood Control Project Collaborative'' was created in 1997. A key
outcome of the collaborative process was the signing of the Dispute
Resolution Memorandum in 1998, which resolved major mitigation issues
and allowed the project to proceed. A joint General Reevaluation Report
& Environmental Report was developed to address project modifications
and the environmental effects for public review. Response to public
comments was documented in the final report which was approved by
Brigadier General John Griffin, Corps Director of Civil Works, on
November 16, 2001. General Griffin also signed the Record of Decision.
Completion of the last phase of flood protection construction is
estimated in 2004 and is dependent on timely federal funding.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$8 million was appropriated in fiscal
year 2002 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
continue construction to provide critical flood protection for downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $15 million,
in addition to the $5 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2003
budget, for a total of $20 million to continue construction of the
final phase of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
llagas creek project
Background.--The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern
Santa Clara County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy,
Morgan Hill and San Martin. Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in
1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
The 1997 and 1998 floods damaged many homes, businesses, and a
recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan Hill and San
Martin. These are areas where flood protection is proposed. Overall,
the proposed project will protect the floodplain from a 1 percent flood
affecting more than 1,100 residential buildings, 500 commercial
buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land.
Project Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service completed an economic feasibility study in 1982
for constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Llagas Creek. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service completed construction of the
last segment of the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing
protection to the project area in Gilroy. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is currently updating the 1982 environmental
assessment work and the engineering design for the project areas in
Morgan Hill and San Martin. The engineering design is being updated to
protect and improve creek water quality and to preserve and enhance the
creek's habitat, fish, and wildlife while satisfying current
environmental and regulatory requirement. Significant issues include
the presence of additional endangered species including the red-legged
frog and steelhead, listing of the area as probable critical habitat
for steelhead, and more extensive riparian habitat than were considered
in 1982.
Until 1996, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
traditional Public Law 566 federal project funding agreement with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service paying for channel improvements
and the District paying local costs including utility relocation,
bridge construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to the steady
decrease in annual appropriations for the Public Law 566 construction
program since 1990, the Llagas Creek Project has not received adequate
funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture to complete the Public Law
566 project. To remedy this situation, the District worked with
congressional representatives to transfer the construction authority
from the Department of Agriculture to the Corps under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section 501). Since the transfer of
responsibility to the Corps, the District has been working the Corps to
complete the project.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$500,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2002 for the Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project for planning and
design.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $650,000, in
addition to the $225,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2003
budget, for a total of $875,000 for planning and environmental updates
for the Llagas Creek Project.
coyote creek watershed study
Background.--Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara County's largest
watershed, an area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of
the eastern foothills, the City of Milpitas, and portions of the Cities
of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows northward from Anderson Reservoir
through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and
empties into south San Francisco Bay.
Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding
occurred in 1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930
and 1931. Since 1950, the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the
magnitude of flooding, although flooding is still a threat and did
cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Significant areas of
older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation
corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The federally-
supported lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague
Expressway) which was completed in 1996 did protect homes and
businesses from storms which generated of record runoff in the northern
parts of San Jose and Milpitas.
The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches
upstream of the completed federal flood protection works on lower
Coyote Creek.
Objective of Study.--The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are
to investigate flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to
identify potential alternatives for alleviating those damages which
also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife resources, provide
opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational
opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to
proceed into the Feasibility Study Phase.
Study Authorization.--The existing study authority is the 1941
Guadalupe River and Adjacent Streams authorization. This authorization
is limited in scope to flood protection issues only. Congressional
representatives are currently pursuing an updated study resolution to
authorize a multipurpose study of the watershed.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--No federal funding was received in
fiscal year 2002.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
initiate a multipurpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek
Watershed.
san jose area water reclamation and reuse program (south bay water
recycling program)
Background.--The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program,
also known as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the
City of San Jose and its tributary agencies of the San Jose/Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant to protect endangered species habitat,
meet receiving water quality standards, supplement Santa Clara County
water supplies, and comply with a mandate from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Water Resources Control Board to
reduce wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) collaborated with
the City of San Jose to build the first phase of the recycled water
system by providing financial support and technical assistance, as well
as coordination with local water retailers. The design, construction,
construction administration, and inspection of the program's
transmission pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline was performed by the
District under contract to the City of San Jose.
Status.--The City of San Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1,
consisting of almost 60 miles of transmission and distribution
pipelines, pump stations, and reservoirs. Completed at a cost of $140
million, Phase 1 began partial operation in October 1997. Peak
operation occurred in August 2000 with actual deliveries of 10 million
gallons per day of recycled water. The system now serves over 300
customers and delivers over 6,000 acre-feet of recycled water per year.
Phase 2 is now underway. In June 2001, San Jose approved an $82.5
million expansion of the program. The expansion includes additional
pipeline extensions into the cities of Santa Clara and Milpitas, a
major pipeline extension into Coyote Valley in south San Jose, and
reliability improvements of added reservoirs and pump stations. The
District and the City of San Jose executed an agreement in February
2002 to cost share on the pipeline into Coyote Valley and discuss a
long-term partnership agreement on the entire system. Phase 2's near-
term objective is to increase deliveries by the year 2010 to 15,000
acre-feet per year.
Funding.--In 1992, Public Law 102-575 authorized the Bureau of
Reclamation to work with the City of San Jose and the District to plan,
design, and build demonstration and permanent facilities for reclaiming
and reusing water in the San Jose metropolitan service area. The City
of San Jose reached an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to
cover 25 percent of Phase 1's costs, or approximately $35 million;
however, federal appropriations have not reached the authorized amount.
To date, the program has received $23 million of the $35 million
authorization.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$4 million was appropriated in fiscal
year 2002 for project construction.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $8 million,
in addition to the $2 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2003
budget, for a total of $10 million to fund the Phase 2 study and work.
upper guadalupe river project
Background.--The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways
flowing through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County,
California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has
flooded the central district and southern areas of San Jose. According
to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study, severe
flooding in the upper Guadalupe River's densely populated residential
floodplain south of Interstate 280 would result from a 100-year
flooding event and potentially cause $280 million in damages.
The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of
flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed
in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995,
and February 1998, causing damage to several residences and businesses
in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street areas. The 1995 floods in January
and March, as well as in February 1998, closed Highway 87 and the
parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) requested the Corps to reactivate its earlier study. From
1971 to 1980, the Corps established the economic feasibility and
federal interest in the Guadalupe River only between Interstate 880 and
Interstate 280. Following the 1982 and 1983 floods, the District
requested that the Corps reopen its study of the upper Guadalupe River
upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a reconnaissance study
in November 1989, which established an economically justifiable
solution for flood protection in this reach. The report recommended
proceeding to the feasibility study phase, which began in 1990. In
January 1997, the Corps determined that the National Economic
Development Plan would be a 2 percent or 50-year level of flood
protection rather than the 1 percent or 100-year level. The District
strongly emphasized overriding the National Economic Development Plan
determination, providing compelling reasons for using the higher 1
percent or 100-year level of protection. In 1998, the Acting Secretary
of the Army did not concur to change the basis of cost sharing from the
50-year National Economic Development Plan to the locally preferred
100-year plan, resulting in a project that will provide less flood
protection, and therefore, be unable to reduce flood insurance
requirements and reimbursements, as well as eliminate recreational
benefits and increase environmental impacts. Based on Congressional
delegation requests, the Assistant Secretary of the Army directed the
Corps to revise the Chief's Report to reflect more significant federal
responsibility. The Corps feasibility study determined the cost of the
locally preferred 100-year plan is $153 million and the Corps National
Economic Development Plan 50-year plan is $98 million. The District has
requested that the costs of providing 50-year and 100-year flood
protection be analyzed again during the preconstruction engineering
design phase for the determination of the National Economic Development
Plan. In a memorandum for the Assistant Secretary of the Army, dated
October 12, 2000, Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Deputy Commander
for Civil Works, made a similar recommendation. The federal cost share
has yet to be determined. The project was approved for construction by
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section 101).
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$300,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2002 for the Upper Guadalupe River Project to continue preconstruction
engineering and design.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from the upper Guadalupe River and the need to complete
preconstruction engineering and design, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $2 million
in fiscal year 2003 to complete preconstruction engineering and design
for the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
upper penitencia creek project
Background.--The Upper Penitencia Creek Watershed is located in
northeast Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the
San Francisco Bay. In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in
1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1998. The January 1995 flood damaged
a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business park. The
February 1998 flood also damaged many homes, businesses, and surface
streets.
The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote
Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of
San Jose and Milpitas. The floodplain is completely urbanized;
undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and
a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' (Corps) 1995 reconnaissance report, 4,300 buildings in
the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in the flood prone
area, 1,900 of which will have water entering the first floor. The
estimated damages from a 1 percent or 100-year flood exceed $121
million.
Study Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service completed an economic feasibility study (watershed
plan) for constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Upper
Penitencia Creek. Following the 1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farm Bill, the Natural Resources Conservation Service watershed plan
stalled due to the very high ratio of potential urban development flood
damage compared to agricultural damage in the project area.
In January 1993 the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)
requested the Corps proceed with a reconnaissance study in the 1994
fiscal year while the Natural Resources Conservation Service plan was
on hold. Funds were appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and
the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October 1994. The
reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995, with the
recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The
feasibility study, initiated in February 1998, is scheduled for
completion in 2003.
Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
District submitted a Section 104 application to the Corps for advance
approval to construct a portion of the project. Approval of the Section
104 application was awarded in December 2000. The advance construction
is for a 2,500-foot long section of bypass channel between Coyote Creek
and King Road. The District plans to begin construction on this portion
of the project in 2002.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$400,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2002 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for
project investigation.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Upper Penitencia Creek and the need to proceed
with the feasibility study, it is requested that the Congressional
Committee support the $559,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2003
budget for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project.
coyote/berryessa creek project, berryessa creek project element
Background.--The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast
Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay. A major tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek
drains a large area in the City of Milpitas and a portion of San Jose.
The Berryessa Watershed is 22 square miles.
On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every four years. The most
recent flood in 1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and
automobiles. The proposed project on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras
Boulevard to Old Piedmont Road, will protect portions of the Cities of
San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely urbanized with a mix
of residential and commercial development. Based on the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) 1993 draft General Design Memorandum, a 1 percent
or 100-year flood could potentially result in damages of $52 million
with depths of up to three feet.
Study Synopsis.--In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District) applied for federal assistance for flood protection
projects under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the
Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a combined Coyote
Creek/Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the Cities of
Milpitas and San Jose.
The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The
Berryessa Creek Project element proposed in the Corps' 1987 feasibility
report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. The Corps
and the District are preparing a General Reevaluation Report which
involves reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local
community and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will
include setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas
(minimizing the use of concrete), appropriate aquatic and riparian
habitat restoration and fish passage, and sediment control structures
to limit turbidity and protect water quality. The project will also
accommodate the City of Milpitas' adopted trail master plan. Estimated
total costs of the General Reevaluation Report work are $3.8 million,
and should be completed in the winter of 2003.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$750,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2002 for the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project to
continue the General Reevaluation Report and environmental documents
update.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--Based on the continuing
threat of significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to
continue with the General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $1 million
for the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project.
san francisquito creek watershed project
Background.--San Francisquito Creek forms the boundary between
Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, California and separates the cities
of Palo Alto from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. San Francisquito Creek
is one of the last continuous riparian corridors on the San Francisco
Peninsula and home to one of the last remaining viable steelhead trout
runs. The creek flows through five cities and two counties, from
Searsville Lake above Stanford University to the San Francisco Bay near
Palo Alto Airport. It is a highly valued resource by these communities.
Area between El Camino Real and the bay is subject to flooding during a
1 percent flood and has a flooding frequency of approximately once in
15 years. Over $155 million in damages could occur in Santa Clara and
San Mateo counties from a 1 percent flood, affecting 4,850 homes and
businesses, according to the 1998 Reconnaissance Investigation Report
done by San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council, a local stakeholder
group.
Flooding History.--Overflowed seven times since 1910 with record
flooding in February 1998. Flooded significant areas of Palo Alto in
December 1955, inundating about 1,200 acres of commercial and
residential property and about 70 acres of agricultural land. April
1958 storms caused a levee failure downstream of Highway 101, flooding
Palo Alto Airport, the city landfill, and the golf course up to four
feet deep. Overflowed in 1982 near Alpine Road, at University Avenue,
and downstream of Highway 101, causing extensive damage to private and
public property. Overflowed at numerous locations on February 3, 1998,
causing severe, record consequences with more than $28 million in
damages, based on a March 1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Survey Report. More than 1,100 homes were flooded in Palo Alto, 500
people were evacuated in East Palo Alto, and the major commute and
transportation artery, Highway 101, was closed.
Status.--Active citizenry anxious to avoid a repeat of February
1998 flood. Since 1955, numerous floodplain management studies have
been commissioned by the Corps, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District), Stanford University, and the San Mateo County Flood Control
District. Grassroots, consensus-based Watershed Council has
productively united local and state agencies with citizens, flood
victims, developers, and environmental activists. The cities of Palo
Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Mateo County and the District
have established a Joint Powers Authority to coordinate creek
maintenance issues, to develop a solution to flooding and to address
other creek-related issues. The Joint Powers Authority Board has
initiated Congressional involvement to authorize a Corps reconnaissance
study. Should federal interest be demonstrated by the reconnaissance
study, the next step would be a cost-shared feasibility study. The
feasibility study would require six to seven years work and cost $5-6
million. Study elements will include an investigation to define
flooding, erosion and other stream needs within the project area; an
analysis of alternative solutions; a public participation program
followed by preparation of an Engineer's Report; and an Environmental
Impact Report. Flood protection alternatives for the San Francisquito
Creek project might include raising the levees downstream of Highway
101, storage of flows upstream, channel diversions such as detention
basins or auxiliary channels, or instream improvements that increase
the capacity of the channel through the urban area. The riparian
habitat and urban setting of San Francisquito Creek offer unique
opportunities for a multi-objective project which could enhance
habitat, improve water quality, and provide for recreational use.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--No federal funding was received in
fiscal year 2002.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 in
fiscal year 2003 to conduct a Reconnaissance Study of the San
Francisquito Creek Watershed.
coyote creek at rock springs project
Background.--Coyote Creek flows through the cities of Milpitas and
San Jose. The Rock Springs neighborhood is upstream of the recently
completed, federally-supported flood protection works on Coyote Creek.
The neighborhood suffered severe damages to approximately 25 apartment
buildings in January 1997 when Coyote Creek flooded in the vicinity of
the low-income Rock Springs neighborhood. This event was estimated to
be a 15-year event. The neighborhood was almost flooded again in
February 1998, when Coyote Creek in the vicinity of the neighborhood
was within a foot of overtopping its banks.
Status.--In February 1999, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) initiated discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for a Section 205 study to reduce flood damage in Rock Springs
neighborhood. A cost-sharing agreement for the Section 205 Small
Projects Program $1.16 million three-year feasibility study was signed
by the Corps and the District on January 4, 2000. Funding is a 50/50
cost share. Preliminary alternatives consist of a levee or floodwall.
Project Timeline.--
--District requested federal assistance from Corps under Section
205--Feb 1999
--Feasibility cost sharing agreement signed--Jan 2000
--Public Scoping Meeting--May 2001
--Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement--Nov 2002
--Final Detailed Project Report/Environmental Impact Statement--Apr
2003.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$200,000 was received in the fiscal year
2002 Section 205 appropriation.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
continue the feasibility study to provide critical flood protection for
the low-income Rock Springs Neighborhood, it is requested that the
Congressional Committee support an earmark of $100,000 within the
Section 205 Small Flood Protection Projects Program.
pajaro river watershed study
Background.--Pajaro River flows into the Pacific Ocean at Monterey
Bay, about 75 miles south of San Francisco. The drainage area
encompasses 1,300 square miles in Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey,
and Santa Cruz counties. Potential flood damage reduction solutions
will require cooperation between four counties and four water/flood
management districts. There is critical habitat for endangered wildlife
and fisheries throughout the basin. Six separate flood events have
occurred on the Pajaro River in the past half century. Severe property
damage in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties resulted from floods in
1995, 1997, and 1998. Recent flood events have resulted in litigation
claims for damages approaching $50 million. $20 Million in U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood fight funds have been expended in
recent years.
Status.--Two separate Corps activities are taking place in the
watershed. The first activity is a Corps reconnaissance study
authorized by a House Resolution in May 1996 to address the need for
flood protection and water quality improvements, ecosystem restoration,
and other related issues. The second activity is a General Revaluation
Report initiated in response to claims by Santa Cruz and Monterey
Counties that the 13 mile levee project constructed in 1949 through
agricultural areas and the city of Watsonville is deficient. The
reconnaissance study on the entire watershed has been initiated by the
San Francisco District of the Corps and will be complete in fiscal year
2002. Watershed Stakeholders are working cooperatively to support the
Corps' reconnaissance study, which will provide information to help
reach an understanding and agreement about the background and facts of
the watershed situation.
Local Flood Prevention Authority.--Legislation passed by the State
of California (Assembly Bill 807) in 1999 titled ``The Pajaro River
Watershed Flood Prevention Authority Act'' mandated that a Flood
Prevention Authority be formed by June 30, 2000. The purpose of the
Flood Prevention Authority is ``to provide the leadership necessary to
. . . ensure the human, economic, and environmental resources of the
watershed are preserved, protected, and enhanced in terms of watershed
management and flood protection.'' The Flood Prevention Authority was
formed in July 2000 and consists of representatives from the Counties
of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz, Zone 7 Flood
Control District, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, San Benito
County Water District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The
Flood Prevention Authority Board sent a letter of intent to cost share
a feasibility study of the Pajaro River Watershed to the Corps in
September 2001.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$50,000 was authorized in fiscal year
2002 for the Pajaro Watershed Reconnaissance Study. In addition, $1
million was authorized for continuation of the General Revaluation
Report.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Congressional Committee support the Administration's fiscal year 2003
budget of $100,000 for the Pajaro River Watershed Study. It is also
requested that the committee support $275,000 for continuation of the
General Revaluation Report in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties.
calfed bay-delta program
Background.--In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water
supply is imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta estuary (Bay-Delta) watersheds through three water projects: The
State Water Project, the federal Central Valley Project, and San
Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally-developed
water, this water supply supports 1.7 million residents in Santa Clara
County and the most important high-tech center in the world. In average
to wet years, there is enough water to meet the county's long-term
needs. In dry years, however, the county could face a water supply
shortage of as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or roughly 20
percent of the expected demand. In addition to shortages due to
hydrologic variations, the county's imported supplies have been reduced
due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation of the state and
federal water projects.
There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-
Delta water as a drinking water supply. Organic materials and
pollutants discharged into the Delta, together with salt water mixing
in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection
by-products that are carcinogenic and pose reproductive health
concerns.
Santa Clara County's imported supplies are also vulnerable to
extended outages due to catastrophic failures such as major earthquakes
and flooding. As demonstrated by the 1997 flooding in Central Valley,
the levee systems can fail and the water quality at the water project
intakes in the Delta can be degraded to such an extent that the
projects cannot pump from the Delta.
Project Synopsis.--The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an
unprecedented, cooperative effort among federal, state, and local
agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With input from urban, agricultural,
environmental, fishing, and business interests, and the general public,
CALFED is developing a comprehensive, long-term plan to address
ecosystem and water management issues in the Bay-Delta.
Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of
its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing
to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability and
water quality for millions of Californians and the state's $700 billion
economy and job base.
The June 2000 Framework for Action and the August 2000 Record of
Decision/Certification contain a balanced package of actions to restore
ecosystem health, improve water supply reliability and water quality.
It is critical that federal funding be provided to implement these
actions in the coming years.
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding.--$30 million was appropriated for the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program in the final fiscal year 2002 appropriations
legislation.
Fiscal Year 2003 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Committee support an appropriation add-on of $35 million, in addition
to the $25 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget, for
a total of $50 million for the CALFED Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the NAPA County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
napa river flood control project
Background
The Napa River is the main waterway into which all tributaries on
the Napa Valley flow. The river reaches its highest flow and the main
point of concentration of storm water in the heart of the downtown city
of Napa. The original town of Napa was established at the head of the
navigable Napa River channel in 1848 as its only port for
transportation and commerce until the railroad extended from Benicia to
Napa in 1902.
The project is located in the city and county of Napa, California.
The population in the city of Napa, approximately, 67,000 in 1994, is
expected to exceed 77,000 this year. Excluding public facilities, the
present value of damageable property within the project flood plain is
well over $500 million. The Napa River Basin, comprising 426 square
miles, ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain, is subject to
severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower reaches of the
river, flood conditions are aggravated by high tides and local runoff.
Floods in the Napa area have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1986
(flood of record), 1995, and 1997. In 1998, the river rose just above
flood stage on three occasions, but subsided before major property
damage occurred.
Over the years, the community has expressed a strong desire for
increased flood management. Since 1962, twenty-seven major floods have
struck the Valley region, exacting a heavy toll in loss of life and
property. The flood on 1986, for example, killed three people and
caused more than $100 million in damage. The town of Napa is
particularly vulnerable to floods: during a typical 100-year flood,
more than 325,000 gallons of water flow through the downtown river area
per second, with the potential of inundating 2 million square feet of
businesses and offices and nearly 3,000 homes.
Flood damage in downtown Napa has recurred in January 1993, January
and March 1995, January 1997, and February 1998, resulting in disaster
declarations and Damage Survey Reports filed with FEMA, reaffirming the
urgent need to implement the cost-effective project. In March 1995 and
January of 1997, additional flood disasters occurred.
Damages throughout Napa County totaled about $85 million from the
January and March 1995 floods. The floods resulted in 27 businesses and
843 residences damaged countrywide. Almost all of the damages from the
1986, 1995, and 1997 floods were within the project area.
Locally developed flood measures currently in place provide minimal
protection and include levees, floodwalls, pump stations, upstream
reservoirs, restrictive flood plain management ordinances, and
designated flood evacuation zones. Vast areas of flood plain are
restricted to agricultural and open space uses, precluding development
that would be damaged by flooding. These local measures still leave
most of the city of Napa vulnerable to frequent damaging floods.
Congress has authorized a flood control project since 1944, but due to
expense, lack of public consensus on the design and concern about
environment impacts, a project had never been realized. The most recent
Corps of Engineers project plan consisted of a deepening and
channelization project. In mid-1995, federal and state resource
agencies reviewed the plan and gave notice to the Corps that this plan
had significant regulatory hurdles to face.
Approved Plan--Project Overview
In an effort to identify a meaningful and successful plan, a new
approach emerged that looked at flood control from a broader, more
comprehensive perspective. Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was
formed, bringing together a diverse group of local engineers,
architects, aquatic ecologists, business and agricultural leasers,
environmentalists, government officials, homeowners and renters and
numerous community organizations.
Through a series of public meetings and intensive debate over every
aspect of Napa's flooding problems, the Citizens for Napa River Flood
Management crafted a flood management plan offering a range of benefits
for the entire Napa region. The Corps of Engineers served as a partner
and a resource for the group, helping to evaluate their approach to
flood management. The final plan produced by the Citizens for Napa
River Flood Management was successfully evaluated through the research,
experience and state-of-the-art simulation tools developed by the Corps
and numerous international experts in the field of hydrology and other
related disciplines. The success of this collaboration serves as a
model for the nation.
Acknowledging the river's natural state, the project utilizes a set
of living river strategies that minimize the disruption and alteration
of the river habitat, and maximizes the opportunities for environmental
restoration and enhancement throughout the watershed. This strategy
replaces the former project and now entails flood plain acquisition and
restoration of a geomorphically stable river channel, replacement of
bridges and environmentally sensitive stream bank treatment in the
urban reaches of the city of Napa.
The Corps has developed the revised plan, which provides 100-year
protection, with the assistance of the community and its consultants
into the Supplemental General Design Memorandum (SGDM) and its
accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (SEIS/EIR). These reports were released for public comment in
December of 1997 and underwent final review by Corps Headquarters.
Construction of the project began two years ago.
The coalition plan now memorialized in the Corps final documents
includes the following engineered components: lowering of old dikes,
marsh plain and flood plain terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek
flood plain terrace, upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa
Creek, new dikes, levees and flood walls, bank stabilization, pump
stations and detention facilities, and bridge replacements. The
benefits of the plan include reducing or elimination of loss of life,
property damage, cleanup costs, community disruption due to
unemployment and lost business revenue, and the need for flood
insurance. The plan will protect access to businesses, public services,
and create opportunities for recreation and downtown development,
boosting year-round tourism. In fact, the project has created an
economic renaissance in Napa with new investment, schools and housing
coming into a livable community on a living river. As a key feature,
the plan will improve water quality, create urban wetlands and enhance
wildlife habitats.
The plan will protect over 7,000 people and over 3,000 residential/
commercial units from the 100-year flood event on the Napa River and
its main tributary, the Napa Creek, and the project has a positive
benefit-to-cost ratio under the Corps calculation. One billion in
damages will be saved over the useful life of the project. The Napa
County Flood Control District is meeting its local cost-sharing
responsibilities for the project. A countywide sales tax, along with a
number of other funding options, was approved four years ago by a two-
thirds majority of the county's voters for the local share. Napa is
California's highest repetitive loss community. This plan is
demonstrative of the disaster resistant community initiative, as well,
as the sustainable development initiatives of FEMA and EPA.
Project Synopsis
Fiscal Year 2002 Funding
The 2002 appropriations bill included $7,000,000 to continue
construction of the project. The funding was sought for demolition of
buildings and fixtures on 24 parcels that have been acquired by the
non-federal sponsor, relocation of the Napa Valley Wine Train rail line
for an approximate 3 mile distance, as well as relocation of the
attenuate buildings serving this public utility, construction of marsh
and flood plain terraces for an approximate 3 mile distance. Included
in this amount is the reimbursement to the non-federal sponsor for
expenditures in excess of 45 percent of the total project costs to
date.
Necessary Fiscal Year 2003 Funding
Funding for the Napa River Project during 2003 in the amount of
$15,000,000 is needed to continue construction of the project. These
funds will be used to accomplish the following tasks:
--Complete HTRW remediation along the east side of the river;
--Initiate and complete the Contract 1B excavation work in Kennedy
Park;
--Initiate Contract 2East excavation work on the east side of river
from Imola to the Bypass;
--Continue engineering and design on future contracts;
--Accomplish Construction Management on contract underway;
--Initiate reimbursement of local sponsor with funds not required for
the above.
Included in this amount is the reimbursement to the non-federal
sponsor for expenditures in excess of 45 percent of the total project
costs to date. By the end of June, 2002 the non-federal sponsor will
have expended $93,000,000.
napa valley watershed management
Background
Napa Valley watershed faces many challenges and stresses to its
environmental health and flood management abilities. From a healthy
river point of view, the Napa River has been on a recovery path since
its low point in the 1960's, when the last of the native salmon were
taken from the system by severe water pollution and habitat
destruction. Steelhead trout have survived as a remnant population of
two hundred that is presently in need of higher quality and more
extensive spawning areas for recovery to a significant population.
Beginning populations of fall run Chinook salmon have taken up
residence in the watershed in those few areas available for spawning.
While the chemical and wastewater pollution of earlier years has been
effectively dealt with, excess sediment is still a critical stress on
the salmon population, as it is to the spawning and rearing areas of
the river in the estuarine zone upstream of San Pablo Bay, populated by
delta smelt, splittail, green sturgeon and striped bass.
The U.S. EPA and Region II Water Quality Control Board have
prioritized the River as an impaired water body because of the sediment
production. The excess sediment generated in the watershed suffocates
spawning areas, reduces the stream's flood-carrying ability, fills deep
pools, increases turbidity in the stream and estuary, carries with it
nutrients that bring significant algae blooms during the summer and
fall, and changes the morphological balance of the streams and river
toward more unstable conditions.
Over time, both private and public diversions and levees have been
constructed in a chaotic way. The accumulated encroachment has
constrained the river and its riparian corridor to approximately one
third of its optimum morphological width for much of its length. The
Napa Valley has also been extensively drained in the last century,
eliminating nearly all of the sloughs and extensive wetlands that once
covered the valley floor. Combined with increasing agricultural and
urban development, the narrowed channel and loss of wetlands has
greatly changed the river and its major tributaries, limiting its flood
management capabilities. The river now regularly scours extensively on
both bed and banks generating large amounts of sediment that settle in
the lower river and estuary, only to be stirred and moved by the tides
during the dry season. Loss of tidal wetlands in the lower river due to
70 years of dike construction has resulted in a much smaller area to
disperse sediment, exacerbating losses in all types of riverine and
estuarine-related complex habitats in the system.
In an effort to address these conditions and to develop local tools
for improving natural resource management, the Corps and the Napa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is currently
developing a Napa Valley Watershed Management Plan (WMP) which would
identify problems and opportunities for implementing environmentally
and economically beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley watershed
providing ecosystem benefits, such as flood reduction, erosion control,
sedimentation management, and pollution abatement. The plan, which is
the feasibility study the District is requesting funds for, would
include the identification, review, refinement, and prioritization of
restoration and flood protection opportunities with an emphasis on
restoration of the watershed's ecosystem (e.g.: important plant
communities, healthy fish and wildlife populations, rare and endangered
habitats and species and wildlife and riparian habitats). The
development of the plan would be an iterative process, providing
technical planning, and design assistance to local entities to foster
restoration of watershed ecosystem.
The purpose would be to complete the WMP by providing technical,
planning, and design assistance to the non-Federal interests for
carrying out watershed management, restoration and development on the
Napa River and its tributaries from Soscol Ridge, located approximately
5 miles south of the city of Napa, to Mt. St. Helena, the northern most
reach of the Napa River watershed, California. The watershed plan would
look at the upper Napa Valley watershed including Napa, Yountville, St.
Helena, Calistoga, and the unincorporated areas of Napa County north of
Soscol Ridge. A management program incorporating flood protection and
environmental restoration would be developed as a result of the
watershed plan.
To address the above mentioned and other local, regional, and
national watershed concerns, the Napa County Board of Supervisors
appointed a Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF) to identify
community based and supported solutions. The WTF submitted their
recommendation for further action to the Napa County Board of
Supervisors. Preliminary watershed analysis is being completed with an
understanding that additional scientific and technical decisions and
solutions would be incorporated into the Napa Valley watershed plan.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District (Corps)
and the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(NCFCD) developed the Napa Valley Watershed Project Management Plan
with input from the Napa County Planning Department (NCPD), Napa County
Up-Valley Cities, Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF), Napa County
Resource Conservation District (RCD), Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), and other
regional and local stakeholders. Coordination of a local and regional
restoration programs would be critical in the planning process to
provide a watershed management plan that identifies the best management
practices for the watershed and supports potential spin off projects to
be implemented independently of the WMP. The regional monitoring and
assessment strategy being developed by regional interests will be a
component in the development of the feasibility report. The monitoring
and assessment strategy incorporates different indicators,
classifications, and potential pilot projects to provide benchmarks for
future restoration activities.
In an effort to identify problems and opportunities for
implementing beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley Watershed, the
Napa County Flood Control District is seeking that the Napa Valley
Watershed Management Study be continued by the Corps of Engineers. The
authority for this study is the Northern California Streams Study
Authority stemming from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, Public Law
87-874. Specifically, the Napa County Flood Control District is working
closely with the Corps in the feasibility report in examining the
watershed management needs, including flood control, environmental
restoration, erosion control, storm water retention, storm water runoff
management, water conservation and supply, wetlands restoration,
sediment management and pollution abatement in the Napa Valley,
including the communities of Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, Calistoga
and the incorporated areas of Napa County.
Project Synopsis
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Funding
The fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill included $250,000 to
continue the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study.
Necessary Fiscal Year 2003 Funding
Funding for the Napa Valley Watershed Management Study during
fiscal year 2003 in the amount of $250,000 is needed to have the Corps
of Engineers continue the feasibility study to examine watershed
management needs.
milliken-sarco-tulocay creeks groundwater basin study
Background
The groundwater basin underlying the unincorporated area east of
the City of Napa is in overdraft. This area is referred to as the
Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay groundwater basin, or MST. The Board of
Supervisors enacted a Groundwater Conservation Ordinance in an effort
to limit all new and permitted users in the MST area to a very
restrictive amount of groundwater until such time as a recharge project
can be implemented to reverse the declining water table. The Napa
County Flood Control District also took action by contracting with the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) to perform an update to their
1977 study of the MST groundwater basin. This study will determine the
extent of the problem, the recharge characteristics, the inter-basin
communication capabilities, the solutions that are likely to succeed
and the groundwater budget for the area. The three year USGS study has
been underway for a year and early results confirm that the groundwater
basin is in decline and is in need of serious recharge efforts.
There is a sense of urgency in establishing a recharge program to
address this decline in water inventory available to the residents and
businesses within the basin. A number of potential solutions have been
identified and must be further assessed to ascertain their viability in
solving the groundwater problems existent in the basin.
Possible solutions include the following:
--Recharge enhancement at the infiltration galleries.--The 1977 USGS
study revealed that 95 percent of the recharge of the
groundwater basin occurred at 23 isolated locations along the
creeks and tributaries, generally where the arable soils meet
the foothills. Enhancing recharge in these areas may have a
dramatic impact on the overall water balance equation for the
basin. The USGS work will give a general analysis of this
possible solution, but a reconnaissance level evaluation must
be done to evaluate cost effectiveness.
--Importing recycled water.--Recycled water will soon be available at
the south end of this basin. Great opportunities exist for
recycled water usage within the south and middle sections of
the basin, especially at an existing golf course located in the
middle section. Benefit would be gained by substituting
recycled water for pumped groundwater, thereby leaving
groundwater for others in the area. Substituted water could be
used by this golf course and nearby agriculture.
--Importing surplus groundwater from another basin.--A unique
opportunity exists to import surplus groundwater from a
construction project into the north basin. The project at hand
is a depressed underpass, that gets into the local groundwater
table (not the MST basin), results in year round pumping, and
creates a year round surplus that would be available for
substitution for groundwater within the MST basin (which is
located about 3 miles east of the project site.) The most
likely user is a golf course located in the north basin.
--Other possible solutions include.--Construction of very small local
reservoirs to enhance recharge; Construction of small
reservoirs to provide water for agriculture; and, Importing
treated water, which, in addition to political problems, would
involve finding other imported water to make the treating and
delivering agency whole.
Additionally, there are likely many more possibilities, all of
which need to be identified, developed, and evaluated. All of these
possibilities need to be studied at the reconnaissance level to
determine their feasibility.
At the heart of this reconnaissance level evaluation must be the
environmental analysis. As an example, the property owners constructing
reservoirs have impacted the ecology of the area, which results in
lessening the sustaining flows to the Napa River. Another example is
the continuous decline in the groundwater table, which results not only
in the one time expenditure of effort, materials and energy to drill
deeper wells, but more tragically, in the ongoing expenditure of energy
associated with pumping from deeper depths.
Following directly on the environmental benefits within the
groundwater basin itself are the other benefits flowing from bringing
the basin into balance. USGS staff believes that the basin, if in
balance and in its naturally recovered condition, will actually return
to its original state of flowing to the Napa River. This would provide
tremendous benefit, not only to Milliken, Sarco, and Tulocay Creeks, in
the local setting, but also to the Napa River, both by stream flow and
by underground flow. Additional water into the Napa River system during
protracted portions of the year would greatly restore and enhance the
local watershed ecosystem.
Action is needed. The sooner steps are taken to identify and
address the problem, the smaller the cost of implementing solution
measures.
Request
In an effort to identify problems and opportunities for
implementing solutions in the MST groundwater basin, Napa County Flood
Control District is seeking to have the Corps initiate a reconnaissance
study to evaluate all prospective water sources that could alleviate
the widespread water quantity problems and identify and implement
engineering measures to restore ecological recovery of the MST
groundwater basin and associated groundwater infiltration and recharge
in the Napa River watershed. Such measures could include conjunctive
use; recharge enhancement and importing recycled and potable water.
Necessary Fiscal Year 2003 Funding
Funding for the Napa Groundwater Recharge Study during fiscal year
2003 in the amount of $100,000 is needed to have the Corps initiate the
reconnaissance study to examine groundwater needs in the basin.
napa river dredged material recycle facility
Background
The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(District) and the Corps of Engineers (Corps) are currently
constructing the Napa River Flood Protection Project which provides not
only the public safety and economic benefits of flood protection but
also provides large-scale environmental restoration of wetlands, tidal
marshes and upland wildlife habitat. A main feature of the Flood
Project, in addition to the restoration element is the maintenance of a
minimal low flow/navigation channel which retains the historic central
channel and removes levees and other man-made structures to accomplish
hydraulic efficiency as a natural, largely self-maintaining river.
At present, the Corps is responsible for maintaining the Napa River
navigation channel from the Mare Island Causeway to the Third Street
Bridge in downtown Napa. Upon completion of the Napa River Flood
Protection Project (scheduled for 2005), the Corps will continue to be
responsible for maintenance of the Napa River navigation channel from
Mare Island Causeway to Kennedy Park and the Corps will share
responsibility for maintenance of the Napa River navigation/low flow
flood conveyance channel from Kennedy Park to Third Street Bridge with
the District. The maintenance of the Napa River channel consists
primarily of periodic removal of the accumulated sediments by dredging
to maintain a minimum width and depth in the central river channel
adequate to provide safe navigation and sufficient flood flow
conveyance. The most recent dredging project was completed over a 3-
year cycle from 1997 through 1999. As a result of that project and the
subsequent closure of the District's main disposal site at Kennedy
Park, additional disposal capacity is needed to dispose of and recycle
for beneficial use a projected 1,500,000 cubic yards of sediment over
the next 50 years.
The Napa River Dredged Material Recycle Facility is envisioned not
only as a permanent disposal site, but also as a material-handling
facility, including an off-loading terminal with facilities to handle
pump-out for hydraulic slurried material as well as off-loading from
barges and other surface vessels. A secure, bermed dewatering facility
with capacity for stockpiling, dewatering and treating up to 1.5
million cubic yards of solids and 20 acre feet of tailwater would be
used for temporary storage pending re-location to final use sites. It
is noted that the subject land parcel has 1,300+ frontage feet of
direct access to the railroad which connects to SPRR's Western Division
line at Suisun and the Coast Division line at Schellville. The facility
will therefore be a potential source of trans-shipping from rail to
barge for other off-site beneficial uses.
Project Description
The Napa River dredged material facility is located within the San
Pablo Bay watershed and adjacent to the California Department of Fish
and Game's 8,000 acre Napa Marsh preserve. The Project area is
approximately 219 acres and has been used as a salt production site.
The project will fulfill the long-term dredged material management
plans of the District.
Request
In an effort to meet the long-term dredged material management
plans of the District for the Napa River, the District is seeking to
have the Corps initiate the assessment for the dredged material
handling and disposal site to replace the 2 existing disposal sites
which have been filled and closed. Phased implementation of the project
includes: project design including environmental assessments,
cooperation agreements, land purchase, relocations and construction of
containment structures, water control structures, off-loading and
docking facilities and securing all necessary permits.
Necessary Fiscal Year 2003 Funding
Funding for the Napa River Dredged Material Recycle Facility during
fiscal year 2003 in the amount of $300,000 is needed under the Corps'
Operation and Maintenance Program to have the Corps conduct an initial
assessment, including an environmental assessment and alternatives
analysis of the facility.
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
murrieta creek flood control project
Murrieta Creek poses a severe flood threat to the cities of
Murrieta and Temecula. Over $10 million in damages was experienced in
the two cities as a result of Murrieta Creek flooding in 1993. The 1997
Energy and Water Appropriations Act dedicated $100,000 to conducting a
Reconnaissance Study of watershed management in the Santa Margarita
Watershed ``including flood control, environmental restoration,
stormwater retention, water conservation and supply, and related
purposes''. The study effort was initiated in April 1997 and completed
the following December. The Reconnaissance Study identified a Federal
interest in flood control on the Murrieta sub-basin, and recommended
moving forward with a detailed feasibility study for a flood control
project on Murrieta Creek.
Efforts on the Feasibility Study began in April 1998, and were
completed in September 2000. The Feasibility Study Report recommends
the implementation of Alternative 6, the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP)
for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation. The LPP
is endorsed by the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, and by the
community as a whole.
H.R. 5483, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000 included
specific language authorizing the Corps to construct ``the locally
preferred plan for flood control, environmental restoration and
recreation described as Alternative 6, based on the Murrieta Creek
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement dated September
2000.''
After finalizing the necessary cost sharing agreement in February
2001, the Corps initiated the detailed engineering design necessary to
develop construction plans and specifications for a Murrieta Creek
Project utilizing an fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $750,000. The
project received an additional appropriation of $1,000,000 for
engineering design efforts in fiscal year 2002. Those funds were
utilized to develop design-level topographic mapping for over 4 miles
of the project, to complete all necessary geotechnical work, and to
begin the preparation of construction drawings for the initial phase of
construction. The District now respectfully requests that the Committee
support an fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $750,000 so that the Corps
may further its efforts on the Preconstruction Engineering and Design
phase of the Project.
The Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project is being designed, and
will be constructed in four distinct phases. Phases one and two include
channel improvements through the City of Temecula. Phase three involves
the construction of the 240-acre detention basin, including the 160+
acre restoration site and recreational facilities. Phase four of the
project will include channel improvements through the City of Murrieta.
The Corps is confident that in fiscal year 2003, its engineering
design effort will be completed for the downstream reach of the project
through Old Town Temecula, and that phase one of the project will be
ready for construction. Equestrian, bicycle, and hiking trails as well
as a continuous habitat corridor for wildlife are components of this
and every phase of the project.
The District, therefore, respectfully requests the Committee's
support of a $2,000,000 appropriation in fiscal year 2003 so that the
Corps may initiate a construction start on the much awaited Murrieta
Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration, and Recreation Project.
santa ana river--mainstem
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
authorized the Santa Ana River-All River project that includes
improvements and various mitigation features as set forth in the Chief
of Engineers' Report to the Secretary of the Army. The Boards of
Supervisors of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties continue
to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to
Congress.
The three local sponsors and the Corps signed the Local Cooperation
Agreement (LCA) in December 1989. The first of five construction
contracts started on the Seven Oaks Dam feature in the spring of 1990
and the dam was officially completed on November 15, 1999. A dedication
ceremony was held on January 7, 2000. Significant construction has been
completed on the lower Santa Ana River Channel and on the San Timoteo
Creek Channel. Construction activities on Oak Street Drain and the Mill
Creek Levee have been completed.
For fiscal year 2003, an appropriation of $9.5 million is necessary
to initiate construction activities on several features within ``Reach
9'' of the Santa Ana River immediately downstream of Prado Dam. This
segment of the Santa Ana River project is the last to receive flood
protection improvements. The streambed existing today in a relatively
natural state, would receive only localized levee and slope revetment
treatment to protect existing development along its southerly bank.
Approximately $3.5 of the total $9.5 million appropriation requested
for Reach 9 would fund environmental mitigation measures necessitated
by the Corps construction activities.
The completion of landscaping activities on Reaches 4 and 8 of the
Santa Ana River Channel would require a $3 million appropriation. The
removal of accumulated sediment within an already completed section of
the Santa Ana River Channel near its outlet to the Pacific Ocean will
necessitate an fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $3 million. This
dredging work is necessary before project turnover to the Local
Sponsors for operation and maintenance.
Construction activities on phase 3b of San Timoteo Creek Channel, a
Mainstem feature located within San Bernardino County, would be
completed given an additional $16 million appropriation.
The Prado Dam feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project is in
need of several major upgrades in order that it mitigate the potential
impacts of a 100-year storm. The Corps is now ready to initiate
modifications to the dam embankment and outlet works including the
emergency spillway. All of the engineering design for the dam is now
complete. An fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $26.5 million would
allow the Corps to proceed directly into construction on Prado Dam's
outlet works and embankment, and would fund all necessary environmental
mitigation measures.
We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support an
overall $58 million appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year
2003 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project including Prado Dam.
san jacinto & santa margarita river watersheds special area management
plans
The County of Riverside recognizes the interdependence between the
region's future transportation, habitat, open space, and land-use/
housing needs. In 1999, work was initiated on Riverside County's
Integrated Planning program (RCIP) to determine how best to balance
these factors. The plan will create regional conservation and
development plans that protect entire communities of native plants and
animals while streamlining the process for compatible economic
development in other areas. The major elements of the plan include
water resource identification, multi-species planning, land use, and
transportation.
In order to achieve a balance between aquatic resource protection
and economic development, the Corps is developing what are termed
Special Area Management Plans (SAMP) for both the San Jacinto and Santa
Margarita Watersheds. This comprehensive planning effort will be used
to assist Federal, State and local agencies with their decision making
and permitting authority to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic
resources while accommodating various types of development activities.
The Santa Margarita and San Jacinto watersheds include such resources
as woodlands, wetlands, freshwater marshes, vernal pools, streams,
lakes and rivers.
The final product of the SAMP will be the establishment of an
abbreviated or expedited regulatory permit by the Corps under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' effort includes facilitating
meetings between all potential watershed partners, and the integration
of the joint study effort with the planning efforts of the balance of
the RCIP project.
The $500,000 Federal appropriation received for fiscal year 2001
allowed the Corps to initiate work on this three year, $6.5 million
SAMP effort. The $2 million appropriation received in fiscal year 2002
allowed the Corps to make significant progress on a ``landscape level
aquatic resource delineation'', and to initiate a functional assessment
to determine the value of waters and wetlands.
Further funding is now needed to complete the SAMP effort. We,
therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support a combined
$2,000,000 appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year 2003 for
the Corps to continue its work on the Special Area Management Plans for
the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River Watersheds.
Board of Supervisors--Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
resolution no. f2002-06 supporting federal appropriations for flood
control projects for fiscal year 2003
WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations, Sub-Committee on Energy and Water Development, and the
United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, Sub-Committee on
Energy and Water Development are holding hearings to consider
appropriations for Flood Control and Reclamation Projects for Fiscal
Year 2003 and have requested written testimony to be submitted to the
committees prior to March 31, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District supports the continuation of design efforts, and initiation of
construction for a critical flood control project on Murrieta Creek;
the furtherance of construction activities on the Santa Ana River
Mainstem project; the initiation of construction activities at Prado
Dam; and the continuation of Corps efforts in developing Special Area
Management Plans for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River
Watersheds; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District in regular session
assembled on March 5, 2002, that they support appropriations by
Congress for Fiscal Year 2003 for the following projects:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Murrieta Creek:
Preconstruction Engineering & Design................ $750,000
Construction--General............................... 2,000,000
Santa Ana River Mainstem: Construction--General......... 31,500,000
Prado Dam: Construction--General........................ 26,500,000
San Jacinto & Santa Margarita River Watersheds
(Riverside County) Special Area Management Plans
(SAMP).............................................. 2,000,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager-Chief Engineer is
directed to distribute certified copies of this resolution to the
Secretary of the Army, Members of the House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations and Sub-Committee on Energy and Water
Development, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Sub-Committee
on Energy and Water Development, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
and Sub-Committee on Energy and Water Development, and the District's
Congressional Delegation--Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer,
Congressman Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa, and Congresswoman Mary Bono.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Buster, Venable and Mullen
Noes: None
Absent: Tavaglione and Wilson
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
On behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago (District), I want to thank the Subcommittee for this
opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2003 and, at the
same time, express our appreciation for your support of the District's
projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor for three
Corps of Engineers priority projects of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. We are requesting the
Subcommittee's full support for McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, as the
O'Hare Reservoir has been completed. Specifically, we request the
Subcommittee to include a total of $30,000,000 in construction funding
for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects in the bill. The
following text outlines these projects and the need for the requested
funding. Also, attached is a booklet indicating the benefits of the
project, the municipalities in our area which benefit from these
projects, and the need for the requested funding. The booklet reviews
the history of the issues involved, including newspaper articles and
pertinent data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Illinois State Water Survey.
The Chicagoland Underflow Plan
The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs:
the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. These reservoirs are a part
of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). The O'Hare Reservoir Project
was fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) and completed by the Corps
in fiscal year 1999. This reservoir is connected to the existing O'Hare
segment of the TARP. Adopted in 1972, TARP was the result of a multi-
agency effort, which included officials of the State of Illinois,
County of Cook, City of Chicago, and the District.
TARP was designed to address the overwhelming water pollution and
flooding problems of the Chicagoland combined sewer areas. These
problems stem from the fact that the capacity of the area's waterways
has been overburdened over the years and has become woefully inadequate
in both hydraulic and assimilative capacities. These waterways are no
longer able to carry away the combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges
nor are they able to assimilate the pollution associated with these
discharges. Severe basement flooding and polluted waterways (including
Lake Michigan, which is the source of drinking water for millions of
people) is the inevitable result. We point with pride to the fact that
TARP was found to be the most cost-effective and socially and
environmentally acceptable way for reducing these flooding and water
pollution problems. Experience to date has reinforced such findings
with respect to economics and efficiency.
The TARP plan calls for the construction of the new ``underground
rivers'' beneath the area's waterways. The ``underground rivers'' are
tunnels up to 35 feet in diameter and 350 feet below the surface. To
provide an outlet for these tunnels, reservoirs will be constructed at
the end of the tunnel system. Approximately 101.5 miles of tunnels have
been constructed or are under construction at a total cost of $2.4
billion and are operational. The tunnels capture the majority of the
pollution load by capturing all of the small storms and the first flush
of the large storms. Another 16 miles of tunnels costing $399 million
need to be completed. The completed O'Hare Reservoir provides 343
million gallons of storage. This Reservoir has a service area of 13.7
miles and provides flood relief to 21,000 homes in Arlington Heights,
Des Plaines and Mount Prospect. Thornton and McCook Reservoirs have not
been built yet, so significant areas remain unprotected. Without these
outlets, the local drainage has nowhere to go when large storms hit the
area.
Since its inception, TARP has not only abated flooding and
pollution in the Chicagoland area, but has helped to preserve the
integrity of Lake Michigan. In the years prior to TARP, a major storm
in the area would cause local sewers and interceptors to surcharge
resulting in CSO spills into the Chicagoland waterways and during major
storms into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for the region.
Since these waterways have a limited capacity, major storms have caused
them to reach dangerously high levels resulting in massive sewer
backups into basements and causing multi-million dollar damage to
property.
Since implementation of TARP, 1.1 billion gallons of CSOs have been
captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached waterways. Area
waterways are once again abundant with many species of aquatic life and
the riverfront has been reclaimed as a natural resource for recreation
and development. Closure of Lake Michigan beaches due to pollution has
become a rarity. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99
percent of the CSO pollution will be eliminated. The elimination of
CSOs will reduce the quantity of discretionary dilution water needed to
keep the area waterways fresh. This water can be used instead for
increasing the drinking water allocation for communities in Cook, Lake,
Will and DuPage counties that are now on a waiting list to receive such
water. Specifically, since 1977, these counties received an additional
162 million gallons of Lake Michigan water per day, partially as a
result of the reduction in the District's discretionary diversion since
1980. Additional allotments of Lake Michigan water will be made to
these communities, as more water becomes available from reduced
discretionary diversion.
With new allocations of lake water, more than 20 communities that
previously did not get lake water are in the process of building, or
have already built, water mains to accommodate their new source of
drinking water. The new source of drinking water will be a substitute
for the poorer quality well water previously used by these communities.
Partly due to TARP, it is estimated by IDOT that between 1981 and 2020,
283 million gallons per day of Lake Michigan water would be added to
domestic consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million
additional people that would be able to enjoy Lake Michigan water. This
new source of water supply will not only benefit its immediate
receivers but will also result in an economic stimulus to the entire
Chicagoland area by providing a reliable source of good quality water
supply.
The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs
The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs of the Chicagoland Underflow
Plan (CUP) were fully authorized for construction in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676). These CUP
reservoirs, as previously discussed, are a part of TARP, a flood
protection plan that is designed to reduce basement flooding due to
combined sewer back-ups and inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban
waterways.
These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15 billion
gallons and will provide annual benefits of $104 million. The total
potential annual benefits of these projects are approximately twice as
much as their total annual cost. The District, as the local sponsor,
has acquired the land necessary for these projects, and will meet its
cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99-662.
These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of
return. They will enhance the quality of life, safety and the peace of
mind of the residents of this region. The State of Illinois has
endorsed these projects and has urged their implementation. In
professional circles, these projects are hailed for their
farsightedness, innovation, and benefits.
Based on two successive Presidentially-declared flood disasters in
our area in 1986 and again in 1987, and dramatic flooding in the last
several years, we believe the probability of this type of flood
emergency occurring before implementation of the critical flood
prevention measure is quite high. As the public agency for the greater
Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as our
past sponsorship for flood control projects, we have an obligation to
protect the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your
support in helping us achieve this necessary and important goal of
construction completion.
We have been very pleased that over the years the Subcommittee has
seen fit to include critical levels of funds for these important
projects. We were delighted to see the $17,000,000 in construction
funds included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2002. However, it is important that we receive a total
of $30,000,000 in construction funds in fiscal year 2003 to maintain
the commitment and accelerate these projects. This funding is critical
to continue the construction of the McCook Reservoir on schedule, in
particular, to complete construction of the slurry wall, distribution
tunnels, and pumps and motors to accelerate the design of the Thornton
Reservoir. The community has waited long enough for protection and we
need these funds now to move the project in construction. We
respectfully request your consideration of our request.
Summary
Our most significant recent flooding occurred on February 20, 1997,
when almost four inches of rain fell on the greater Chicagoland area.
Due to the frozen ground, almost all of the rainfall entered our
combined sewers, causing sewerage back-ups throughout the area. When
the existing TARP tunnels filled with approximately 1.2 billion gallons
of sewage and runoff, the only remaining outlets for the sewers were
our waterways. Between 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., the Chicago and Calumet
Rivers rose six feet. For the first time since 1981 we had to open the
locks at all three of the waterway control points; these include
Wilmette, downtown Chicago, and Calumet. Approximately 4.2 billion
gallons of combined sewage and stormwater had to be released directly
into Lake Michigan.
Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity of flooding
in our area, the Corps was compelled to develop a plan that would
complete the uniqueness of TARP and be large enough to accommodate the
area we serve. With a combined sewer area of 375 square miles,
consisting of the city of Chicago and 51 contiguous suburbs, there are
550,000 homes within our jurisdiction, which are subject to flooding at
any time. The annual damages sustained exceed $150 million. If TARP,
including the CUP Reservoirs were in place, these damages could be
eliminated. We must consider the safety and peace of mind of the two
million people who are affected as well as the disaster relief funds
that will be saved when these projects are in place. As the public
agency in the greater Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution
control, and as the regional sponsor for flood control, we have an
obligation to protect the health and safety of our citizens. We are
asking your support in helping us achieve this necessary and important
goal. It is absolutely critical that the Corps' work, which has been
proceeding for a number of years, now proceeds on schedule through
construction.
Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $30,000,000 in
construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2003 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act to continue construction of the
McCook and Thornton Reservoir Projects.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of this important
project over the years and we thank you in advance for your
consideration of our request this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association
Good morning. My name is M.V. Williams. I serve as President of the
West Tennessee Tributaries Association and appear before you today
representing the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. It is my
privilege to serve as Chairman of the Executive Committee for the
Association.
The Executive Committee is vested with the management and direction
of the Association in accordance with the policies adopted by the
Association. I and the other nine members of the Executive Committee
are elected for a one year term by the members from our respective
states, two each from Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas and one each
from Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois and Missouri. Each of us are the
head of our respective organization be it levee board, drainage
district, state agency or municipality. We serve without pay but are
rewarded with the knowledge that we are serving for the benefit of our
friends and neighbors in the Mississippi River Valley.
Our Association was first organized in 1922 and we have been coming
to Washington to meet with our elected representatives for over 60
years. As always we appreciate this opportunity.
Today we in this great nation are faced with a war against terror,
one that we must win. The Congress is faced with the almost
insurmountable problem of how best to fund this war and at the same
time provide for the necessary appropriations to protect, preserve and
make the necessary improvements and enlargements to the infrastructure
that is of such great importance to the continued growth and prosperity
of our nation.
To not do both is unthinkable.
We as an Association and as patriotic citizens realize what a
tremendous problem you are faced with. For that reason, after long
consideration and lengthy discussion we have arrived at the barest
amount we consider necessary to continue with necessary and vital on-
going construction work and to do the minimum amount of maintenance
work that is necessary to prevent further deterioration of the federal
investment already made to our flood control and navigation work.
We must also continue the work of restoring and protecting our
natural environment.
We have seen what happens to countries, even world-powers, when
they do not make the required improvements to their infrastructures and
properly maintain what they have in place. We cannot afford this to
happen to us anymore than we can allow terrorists from the axis of evil
to dictate to us and to destroy our hard-won freedoms that we enjoy.
For these reasons we are firmly convinced that the minimum amount
of appropriations required in fiscal year 2003 for the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project is $391,000,000. I have attached a sheet
to my statement that reflects our request in more detail.
This amount will not allow for new construction work that is so
vitally needed nor will it allow for investigations to begin that will
lead to reports to the Congress for consideration of additional work
that will be required to improve the safety and well-being of the
citizens of the great Mississippi River Valley and to allow the entire
country to benefit from the many bounties of our rich and fertile
valley.
We very reluctantly do not request funds in a sufficient amount to
accomplish these things but we as individuals and collectivity as an
Association come before you today with the hope that the Congress in
its inherent wisdom will consider the wonderful investment for the
country's future that appropriations for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries has always been. The return in benefits for each dollar
invested is properly larger than any other appropriation made by the
Congress.
At times such as those we now face, we must not forget the
important role the Mississippi River and its tributaries have played in
national defense. The worth of the waterways system to move military
equipment has been proven over and over again.
The Administration's Budget for the Corps of Engineers' Civil Works
Program reflects a trend that is disturbing to us. The budget that has
been submitted to this body indicates strongly a move to change the
Corps of Engineers from the premier engineering and construction agency
of the entire world to one concerned principally with the maintenance
of work already in place. We are totally in agreement that maintenance
is vital and must be done expeditiously but the design and construction
work performed by the Corps of Engineers must continue if our Nation is
to remain strong and the world leader.
The speakers to follow me will be more specific in their
statements, so speaking for the entire Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association I wish to thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you today and special thanks for your kind attention and actions this
group has taken in the past to assist us with our problems and
concerns.
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association--Fiscal Year 2003 Civil
Works Requested Budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations
PROJECT AND STATE MVFCA REQUEST
SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING AND ENGINEERING &
ADVANCE ENGINEERING & DESIGN:
Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS......................... $25,000
Germantown, TN...................................... 345,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............................. 123,000
Millington, TN...................................... 150,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkansas...................... 180,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico................ 420,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.................. 2,880,000
Donaldsonville, LA to Gulf of Mexico................ 780,000
Spring Bayou, LA.................................... 505,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.................... 600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL--SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING
..................................................
& ENGINEERING & ADVANCE ENGINEERING &
..................................................
DESIGN.......................................... 6,008,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
CONSTRUCTION:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............ 5,020,000
Eight Mile Creek, AR................................ 1,960,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............................... 1,360,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............................ 12,200,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...................... 100,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................................. 1,995,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................................... 710,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......................... 4,270,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................................... 46,300,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................... 28,210,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.......................... 10,000,000
MS Delta Region, LA................................. 3,500,000
Horn Lake Creek, MS................................. 509,000
MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA..................... 25,000
Louisiana State Penitentiary, LA.................... 2,449,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA... 39,140,000
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS &
LA................................................ 50,285,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL--CONSTRUCTION............................ 208,033,000
SUBTOTAL--MAINTENANCE............................. 200,837,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES......... 414,878,000
LESS REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE................... -30,878,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES............ 384,000,000
FULL FUNDING FOR FEDERAL RETIREE COSTS.................. 7,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES...... 391,000,000
______
Prepared Statement of the Eastern Municipal Water District
The Eastern Municipal Water District respectfully requests your
support for inclusion of $5 million in the fiscal year 2003 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill for the District's ``Water Supply
Desalination Infrastructure South Perris Project'' as well as for
inclusion in the same bill, $4 million for the District's ``Regional
Water Related Infrastructure Project''.
The South Perris project was authorized in the 106th Congress for
design and construction as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Water Resources management Act projects, that were included in H.R.
4577, Section 108, Subsection (d), item number 52 for the amount of
$25,000,000. The Regional Water Related Infrastructure project was
authorized for preliminary engineering, feasibility studies and
environmental documentation as part of H.R. 4577, Section 108,
Subsection (a), item number 24.
These two projects are important components to the overall plan of
the District to address increasing needs as a result of concerns over
the future availability of imported water supplies from Northern
California and the Colorado River. I have attached fact sheets and maps
for each of these projects.
In addition, we would strongly request that you support efforts to
increase the overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau's
Budget has been cut 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year
2000. This is the primary Federal agency that we have relied upon in
the past for funding our infrastructure needs and would like to use to
fund future authorizations. We know the Bureau of Reclamation has a $5
billion backlog of work. That work, as well as any new authorizations
in this congress will not be addressed in a timely manner if the Bureau
continues to be cut and underfunded. We support the western water
industry's campaign to increase the Bureau's Water and Related
Resources Budget from its present $762 million by another $115 million
in fiscal year 2003 as part of the goal to have the Water and Related
Resources Budget at $1 billion by fiscal year 2005.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Eastern Municipal Water
District and the General Manager, I want to thank you for your
consideration of our request for assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
Industry
lower mississippi river and connecting waterways, the j. bennett
johnston waterway and the calcasieu river waterway
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.--Recommend
the Corps be funded $200,000 (Construction General) to perform required
work on the saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and complete design
studies for potential phase III 55-foot channel.
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging.--
The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is $57,482,000 under O&M
General. Recommend that the Corps be funded $66,162,000 to repair and
construct channel training structures.
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), LA., Maintenance Dredging.--
The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is $13,061,000 under O&M
General. Recommend that the Corps be funded $16,351,000 for maintenance
dredging and bank stabilization.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA.--The President's
fiscal year 2003 Budget is $9,000,000 in Construction General funds.
Recommend that the Corps be funded $30,000,000 to continue construction
and mitigation for the IHNC Lock replacement.
Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--The President's fiscal
year 2003 Budget is $80,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the Corps
be funded $2,755,000 to perform critical maintenance dredging.
Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA.--The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is
$110,000 under General Investigation Studies. Recommend that the Corps
be funded $500,000 to advance pre-engineering design for the
replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(GIWW), Morgan City-to-Port Allen alternate route.
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX.--The President's fiscal year
2003 Budget is $19,129,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the Corps
be funded $27,464,000 to perform critical maintenance at the navigation
locks.
Calcasieu Lock, LA.--The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is
$150,000 in GI funds. Recommend that the Corps be funded $800,000 to
advance the feasibility phase of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on
the GIWW.
Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--The President's fiscal year 2003
Budget is $15,852,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the Corps be
funded $21,352,000 to construct revetment at Devil's Elbow.
MRGO Reevaluation Study, LA.--The President's fiscal year 2003
Budget has no funding for this study. Recommend that the Corps be
funded $1,711,000 (Construction General). Funds are needed to complete
a study to determine the advisability of maintaining the 36-foot depth
of the MRGO.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
LA.--The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is $11,016,000
(Construction General) and $7,297,000 (O&M General). Recommend that the
Corps be funded $29,000,000 (Construction General) and $16,764,000
(O&M, General) to complete work already underway.
As Chairman of the Louisiana Governors Task Force on Maritime
Industry, I hereby submit testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development on behalf of the ports on the lower
Mississippi River, the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and the Calcasieu
River waterway and the maritime interests related thereto of the State
of Louisiana relative to Congressional appropriations for fiscal year
2003.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 2000 a total of
434.1 million tons of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce moved
through the consolidated deepwater ports of Louisiana situated on the
lower Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and the Gulf of Mexico.
Deepening of this 232-mile stretch of the River to 45 feet has been a
major factor in tonnage growth at these ports. Due in large part to the
efforts of Congress and the New Orleans District of the Corps,
Louisiana's ports and the domestic markets they serve can compete more
productively and effectively in the global marketplace. Ninety-one
percent of Americas foreign merchandise trade by volume (two-thirds by
value) moves in ships, and 21.3 percent of the nation's foreign
waterborne commerce passes through Louisiana's ports. Given the role
foreign trade plays in sustaining our nation's growth, maintaining the
levels of productivity and competitiveness of Louisiana's ports is
essential to our economic well-being.
In terms of transportation services and global access, Louisiana
ports enjoy a distinct competitive advantage. Hundreds of barge lines
accommodate America's waterborne commerce on the lower Mississippi
River. The high level of barge traffic on the river is indicated by the
passage of more than 229,000 barges through the Port of New Orleans
annually. In 2000, 2,336 ocean-going vessels operated by more than 100
steamship lines serving U.S. trade with more than 150 countries called
at the Port of New Orleans. The Port's trading partners include: Latin
America (40.5 percent); Asia (26.6 percent); Europe (21.6 percent);
Africa (9.4 percent) and North America (1.8 percent). During the same
year, more than 6,014 vessels called at Louisiana's lower Mississippi
River deepwater ports.
The foreign markets of Louisiana's lower Mississippi River ports
are worldwide; however, their primary domestic market is mid-America.
This heartland region currently produces 60 percent of the nation's
agricultural products, one-half of all of its manufactured goods and 90
percent of its machinery and transportation equipment.
The considerable transportation assets of Louisiana's lower
Mississippi River ports enable mid-Americas farms and industries to
play a vital role in the international commerce of this nation. In
2000, the regions ports and port facilities handled 238.6 million tons
of foreign waterborne commerce. Valued at $43.8 billion, this cargo
accounted for 18.7 percent of the nation's international waterborne
trade and 26.1 percent of all U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily
consisting of tremendous grain and animal feed exports and petroleum
imports, made up 89.5 percent of this volume. Approximately 50.2
million tons of grain from 17 states, representing 56.3 percent of all
U.S. grain exports, accessed the world market via the 10 grain
elevators and midstream transfer capabilities on the lower Mississippi
River. This same port complex received 97.8 million short tons of
petroleum and petroleum products, 17.1 percent of U.S. waterborne
imports of petroleum products.
In 2000, public and private facilities located within the
jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans,
the fourth largest port in the United States, handled a total of 90.8
million tons of international and domestic cargo. International general
cargo totaled 12.2 million tons. Although statistically dwarfed by bulk
cargo volumes, the movement of general cargo is of special significance
to the local economy because it produces greater benefits. On a per ton
basis, general cargo generates spending within the community more than
three times higher than bulk cargo. Major general cargo commodities
handled at the Port include: iron and steel products; coffee; forest
products; copper; aluminum products; and natural rubber.
Fostering the continued growth of lower Mississippi River ports is
necessary to maintain the competitiveness of our nation's exports in
the global marketplace and, consequently, the health of the nation's
economy. Assuring deep water access to ports has been a priority of our
trading partners around the world. Moreover, an evolving maritime
industry seeking greater economies of scale continues to support
construction of larger vessels with increased draft requirements.
Because it facilitated the provision of deepwater port access, passage
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, played a most
significant role in assuring the competitiveness of ports on the lower
Mississippi river and throughout the United States.
By December 1994, the Corps completed dredging of the 45-foot
channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, LA (Mile 233 AHP).
Mitigation features associated with the first phase of the channel
deepening project in the vicinity of Southwest Pass of the river,
accomplished in 1988, are nearing completion. We urge the continued
funding for this work in fiscal year 2003 to complete construction of
improvements to the Belle Chasse water treatment plant. This will
complete the approximate $15 million in payments to the State of
Louisiana for construction of a pipeline and pumping stations to
deliver potable fresh water to communities affected by saltwater
intrusion. We further urge that the Corps be provided funding to
proceed with design studies for Phase III, which will allow deepening
of the river to the 55-foot authorized depth.
Along with the Port of New Orleans, the Port of South Louisiana,
the nation's largest port with 217.8 million tons of foreign and
domestic cargo in 2000, and the Port of Baton Rouge, the nation's ninth
largest port with 65.6 million tons of foreign and domestic cargo in
2000, and other lower Mississippi River ports are dependent upon timely
and adequate dredging of Southwest Pass to provide deep draft access to
the Gulf of Mexico. The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is
$57,482,000 under O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the
Corps be funded $66,162,000 to repair and construct foreshore dikes,
lateral dikes and jetties.
Maintenance of adequate depths and channel widths in the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Channel (MRGO) is also of great concern.
This channel provides deep draft access to the Port of New Orleans
principal container terminals and generates an annual economic impact
of nearly $800 million. In 2000, 469 general cargo vessels calling on
the MRGO Tidewater facilities accounted for 30.1 percent of the general
cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port of New Orleans
and 74.3 percent of Louisiana's containerized cargo.
Because of the MRGO's demonstrated vulnerability to coastal storm
activity, annual channel maintenance dredging and bank stabilization
are essential to assure unimpeded vessel operations. In 1998, heavy
shoaling related to Hurricane Georges resulted in the imposition of a
draft restriction from the project depth of 36 feet to 25 feet. The
President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is $13,061,000 under O&M General.
We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded $16,351,000
for maintenance dredging and bank stabilization.
We recognize the need for the Corps to evaluate the feasibility of
continuing the maintenance of a deep draft channel in the MRGO because
of increased maintenance costs and environmental impacts. Any thoughts
of not maintaining a deep draft channel in the MRGO must be preceded
with the completion of another deep draft access (IHNC Lock) to the
many businesses serviced by the MRGO, even though the Port of New
Orleans is planning to relocate the container terminals to the
Mississippi River. The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget has no
funding for this study. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps
be funded $1,711,000 to complete this study.
The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in
the U.S. Inland Waterway System as well as the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (GIWW), and provides a connection between the Port of New
Orleans Mississippi River and IHNC terminals. In 1998, the Corps
approved a plan for replacement of this obsolete facility. The Corps
estimates that the lock replacement project will have a cost-benefit
ratio of 2.1 to one and will provide $110 million annually in
transportation cost savings. In addition to minimizing adverse impacts
to adjacent neighborhoods, the project includes a $37 million Community
Impact Mitigation Program. The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget of
$9,000,000 for the IHNC Lock Replacement will pay for engineering and
design work, construction, and the mitigation program, all on a delayed
basis. We, therefore, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded
$30,000,000 to complete demolition on the east side, and advance
engineering and design, levee contracts, and mitigation measures.
Operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River Outlets at
Venice, La. are essential to providing safe offshore support access to
energy-related industries. In 2000, these channels accommodated cargo
movements exceeding 3.1 million tons. In addition to routine traffic,
Baptiste Collette Bayou is used by shallow draft vessels as an
alternate route between the MRGO, GIWW and the Mississippi River. The
President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is $80,000 under O&M General. We,
however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded $2,755,000 to
perform critical maintenance dredging.
More than 77.9 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New
Orleans District annually. The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is
$19,129,000 under O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the
Corps be funded $27,464,000 to perform critical maintenance at the
navigation locks.
The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget for the Bayou Sorrel Lock,
LA project is $110,000 in GI funds. To assure the efficient flow of
commerce on the GIWW, we urge that the Corps be funded $500,000 to
advance the completion of the pre-engineering design for replacement of
the Bayou Sorrel Lock, Morgan City-to-Port Allen alternate route. We
further recommend that the Corps be funded $800,000 in GI funds to
advance the completion of the feasibility phase of the study to replace
Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW by three years.
The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
River, which often does not meet project depth and width requirements.
This Port is one of Louisiana's major deep-water ports, benefitting the
economy of the state and the nation. In 2000, the Port handled 33.8
million tons of import cargo and 15.8 million tons of export cargo. The
Port and private facilities along this waterway provide thousands of
jobs for the Lake Charles area. In 2000, 1,127 ships and 7,586 barges
used the Calcasieu River waterway. The Port area's growth and continued
success depends on the provision of a reliable and safe channel at full
project dimensions. The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is
$15,852,000 under O&M General. We, however, strongly recommend that the
Corps be funded $21,352,000 to construct revetment at Devil's Elbow.
One additional project warrants consideration. The J. Bennett
Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, La. Project
provides 236 miles of navigation improvements, 225 miles of channel
stabilization works and various recreational facilities. Project
completion will stimulate economic growth along the Red River Basin and
increase cargo flows through the deep draft ports on the lower
Mississippi River. The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is
$11,016,000 (Construction General) and $7,297,000 (O&M General). We,
however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded $29,000,000
(Construction General) and $16,764,000 (O&M, General) to complete work
already underway.
The need and impetus to reduce the Federal budget is certainly
acknowledged; however, reduced funding on any of the above projects
will result in decreased maintenance levels which will escalate
deterioration and, ultimately, prevent them from functioning at their
full authorized purpose. Reduction in the serviceability of these
projects will cause severe economic impacts not only to this region,
but to the nation as a whole that will far outweigh savings from
reduced maintenance expenditures. Therefore, we reiterate our strong
recommendation that the above projects be funded to their full
capability.
Supporting statements from Mr. Gary P. LaGrange, Executive Director
of the Port of New Orleans; Mr. Joseph Accardo, Jr., Executive Director
of the Port of South Louisiana; Mr. Roger Richard, Executive Director
of the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission; Mr. Terry T. Jordan,
Executive Director of the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District;
Mr. Channing Hayden, President of the Steamship Association of
Louisiana; and Capt. Mark Delesdernier, President of the Crescent River
Port Pilots Association are attached. Please make these statements
along with my statement part of the record. Supplemental graphics
relating to my statement have been furnished separately for staff
background use. Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the
subcommittee on these vital projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of New Orleans
The Port of New Orleans is located at the terminus of the most
extensively developed waterway system in the world, the 14,500 mile
inland waterway system of the United States. The Port, via the
Mississippi River and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, serves as the
gateway between America's heartland and the global marketplace.
The Louisiana Governor's Task Force on the Maritime Industry has
submitted a statement in support of fiscal year 2003 Congressional
appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This statement
addresses Corps activities on the Lower Mississippi River and
connecting waterways, the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, and the
Calcasieu River Waterway. We endorse the statement of the Governor's
Task Force and the funding levels recommended therein.
We greatly appreciate the outstanding support and cooperation
received over many years from the subcommittee, and look forward to
working with you on these vitally important projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Steamship Association of Louisiana
I am President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana (SALA).
Our Association represents ship owners, operators, and agents who
handle the majority of the 7,000 to 8,000 ocean-going vessels that call
Louisiana's deep-water ports each year. SALA is dedicated to the safe,
efficient movement of maritime commerce through the state's deep-water
ports. We endorse the testimony of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of
the Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry.
Channel stabilization and maintenance dredging in Southwest Pass
(SWP) are critical to maintaining project draft. Project draft ensures
the Mississippi River's deep-water ports will continue to handle the
country's foreign and domestic waterborne commerce in the most cost-
effective way possible.
For years we have urged this Committee to provide funds to maintain
project draft at SWP. You have responded, and your wisdom has
benefitted the entire American heartland served by the Mississippi
River system. SWP was greatly restricted throughout the 1970s. From
1970 to 1975, the channel was at less than project draft 46 percent of
the time. In 1973 and 1974, the channel was below the 40-foot project
draft 70 percent of the time. During some periods, drafts were limited
to 31 feet. Fortunately, those conditions have not recurred because of
a combination of factors: Your help, and the constant vigilance of the
Pilots, the Corps, and the maritime community. The years 1990 through
2001 show a tremendous improvement in channel stability. The funding
you provided was money well spent. The repairs to the jetties and
dikes, and the Corps' ability to rapidly respond to shoaling, have been
instrumental in maintaining project dimensions. However, the lack of
available hopper dredges has, at times, threatened the integrity of the
channel.
The Pilots have taken advantage of tidal flows and other factors to
recommend the maximum draft possible consistent with safe navigation.
This results in additional sales and increased competitiveness for U.S.
products on the world market. Industry's partnership with you has kept
Mississippi River ports competitive and attractive to vessels. An
additional twelve inches of draft to a large vessel with a loading
capacity of 250 metric tons per inch is an added 3,000 tons of cargo.
As of this writing, freight rates for grain moving from the Mississippi
River to the Far East are $18 per metric ton. Using this figure, each
foot of draft represents an additional $54,000 in vessel revenue, or
$270,000 for the five additional feet over the old 40-foot project
draft that the new channel provides.
The funds we request for maintenance dredging ($66.2 million, $8.7
million over the President's request) are essential for the Corps to
maintain a reliable channel and respond rapidly to potential problems.
This builds the confidence of the bulk trade in a reliable Mississippi
River draft, which is critically important. Much of Louisiana's bulk
trade is exported agricultural products and imported petroleum
products. The export commodities are neither captive to Louisiana nor
the United States if they can be shipped from competing countries at a
consistently lower cost.
The deeper the channel, the more important channel stabilization
becomes. Adequate channel stabilization work minimizes the maintenance
cost of the deeper channel--a cost-effective investment. The faster the
project is stabilized, the faster and greater the benefits of reduced
O&M costs will be realized. Also, we recommend that the Corps conduct
research on prototype dredging techniques.
Funds are also needed for dustpan dredges to work the crossings
above New Orleans. These crossings control the draft to the Ports of
South Louisiana and Baton Rouge, home to eight of our ten major grain
elevators plus many mid-stream and other bulk cargo facilities. This
area caters to the bulk trade and must have a stable channel depth
consistent with the depth at Southwest Pass. Only two dustpan dredges
in the world are available to maintain the deep-draft crossings between
New Orleans and Baton Rouge. There are times when a high river is
followed by a rapid drop in the river's stage. In such cases, the
dustpan dredges may not be available, or both dredges may not be
capable of restoring the 12 crossings within a reasonable time. When
this happens, hopper dredges are used to assist in the work.
For all of the above reasons, we request full funding for the
mitigation features of the O&M General, 45-foot Mississippi River
project.
We also support Phase III of the Mississippi River channel
deepening project and urge that the Corps be funded to proceed with
design studies for the 55-foot channel, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of
Mexico.
The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) is also a viable channel
for the state of Louisiana. The funds you provided in past fiscal years
have allowed the Corps to improve the channel considerably. However,
the channel width has remained limited primarily because of erosion.
For safety reasons in this narrow channel, one-way traffic restrictions
apply to vessels with a draft of 30 feet or more, causing delays to the
tightly-scheduled container traffic using the MR-GO. These specialty
vessels serving the Port's facilities are becoming larger. The highest
wages under the International Longshoremen's Association's contract
($26 per straight-time hour) is paid for work at the MR-GO container
facilities. Anything that threatens the MR-GO jeopardizes these high-
paying jobs, which are held mostly by minority workers.
To improve safety on the MR-GO and protect Louisiana's container
trade (and the well-paying, minority employment it produces), we
request that the Corps be funded at $16.4 million for the MR-GO in
fiscal year 2003. This will allow annual maintenance dredging, north
and south bank stabilization, and jetty maintenance, which is essential
to provide the stability needed for vessel and port operations.
With facilities located on both the MR-GO and the Mississippi
River, an adequate route between the two is essential for efficient
transit between these facilities. The shortest route is the inadequate,
antiquated Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock built in the 1920s
with a width of 75 feet and limited depth of 30 feet. Its maximum
capacity has long been exceeded. The average waiting time for passage
through the Lock has increased from 8 percent hours in 1985 to about 12
hours at present; however, we understand that waiting time can be more
than a day in some instances. A much larger ship lock is necessary to
accommodate today's traffic.
The replacement project for the IHNC Lock is important to the ports
on the lower Mississippi River and to the nation's commerce since it is
on the corridor for east/west barge traffic. Without full funding, the
project will be delayed and increase the overall cost of the project.
We urge Congress to provide the Corps' full fiscal year 2003 capability
($30 million) for this important project to insure its completion.
Delays are unthinkable since the new lock is long overdue.
The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
River, which is often below project depth and width. This is another of
Louisiana's major deep-water ports that benefits the economy of the
State and the nation. The public and private facilities along this
waterway provide thousands of jobs for the Lake Charles area. This
channel, because of its project deficiencies, requires one-way traffic
for many ships, causing delays that disrupt cargo operations. This is
costly and inefficient for industry. The Port area's growth and
continued success depends on a reliable and safe channel that should be
at full project. We request funding to the full capability of the Corps
($21.4 million) to maintain this channel at its project dimensions and
to construct needed revetments at Devil's Elbow.
The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
Louisiana, Project is directly related to our deep-water ports. The
continuation and completion of this work will stimulate the economy all
along the Red River Basin with jobs and additional international trade.
This increased trade will help the Port of Shreveport and the ports on
the lower Mississippi River, providing needed growth and benefitting
the states of Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which are
served through the Shreveport distribution center. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability for
fiscal year 2003.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of South Louisiana
The Port of South Louisiana very much appreciates being given the
opportunity to submit this statement and supportive material to signify
its endorsement of the statement of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman
of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry.
The Port of South Louisiana is comprised of nearly 54 miles of
Mississippi River north of New Orleans and south of Baton Rouge, with
more than fifty private and public docks and wharves. The Port of South
Louisiana is the largest tonnage port in the United States and third
largest in the world, handling more than 253 million short tons of
cargo during 2001. Of this total tonnage, more than 130 million tons
are shipped in international trade by deep water vessel and 123 million
tons are shipped in domestic trade by vessels and barges. Each year
more than 100,000 barges transport cargo at the Port of South Louisiana
and more than 4,300 ships call at the public and private wharves of our
Port.
A recent study by Dr. Tim Ryan of the University of New Orleans
indicates that nearly 20 percent of the domestic gross product of the
State of Louisiana is dependent upon the maritime industry and one of
eight jobs is created from the economic activity of the maritime
industry. Attached you will find statistics which have been developed
from the records of the Port of South Louisiana.
The Port of South Louisiana strongly urges the Congress to fund all
of the following projects. Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to
Baton Rouge, LA; Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf,
Maintenance Dredging; Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA.,
Maintenance Dredging; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA;
Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA; Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA; Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX; Calcasieu Lock, LA; Calcasieu River &
Pass, LA; Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) Reevaluation Study, LA;
and J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport.
The Port of South Louisiana strongly believes that the funding and
completion of the above maritime projects will enhance the ability of
the ports in the region to be competitive in the global economy and
will enhance the ability of domestic industry and agriculture to
compete in the export of its products.
If we can provide any further information, please feel free to call
upon me.
COMMODITY STATISTICS AND SUMMARY
[Total Throughput 2001 (short tons)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Domestic 2001 Total
Exports Imports Shipments Receipts Tonnage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Feed............................... 7,295,822 14,948 23,194 5,621,077 12,955,041
Barley.................................... 28,839 33,259 ............ 97,566 159,663
Chemicals/Fertilizers..................... 893,124 5,155,475 7,296,969 3,824,099 17,169,667
Coal/Lignite/Coke......................... 181,268 834,216 2,388,848 624,538 4,028,871
Concrete/Stone Products................... 26,347 2,027,689 1,279,978 523,383 3,857,398
Crude Oil................................. 942,982 46,257,711 5,536,647 1,882,355 54,619,695
Edible Oils............................... 852,182 ............ 108,957 361,327 1,322,466
Maize..................................... 30,702,645 28,665 ............ 28,974,208 59,705,518
Milo...................................... 1,375,042 ............ ............ 564,588 1,939,630
Ores/Phosphate Rock....................... ............ 2,853,316 1,038,838 1,981,166 5,873,320
Petro-Chemicals........................... 2,073,556 3,146,846 25,661,727 13,814,156 44,696,286
Rice...................................... 608,534 ............ ............ 1,582,341 2,190,875
Soybean................................... 17,021,772 ............ 15,971 15,039,925 32,077,668
Steel Products............................ 6,749 3,230,475 651,582 395,545 4,284,351
Sugar/Molasses............................ 153,249 22,382 82,333 18,781 276,744
Wheat..................................... 3,727,424 39,682 58,099 3,203,727 7,028,932
Wood/Woodchips............................ 27,786 ............ ............ 12,372 40,158
Other..................................... 111,948 382,418 91,636 6,768 592,771
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................... 66,029,272 64,027,083 44,234,780 78,527,921 252,819,056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Port of South Louisiana Data.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Greater Baton Rouge
Maintaining open navigable channels for the Mississippi River and
its tributaries is vital to the nation's commerce and national
interest. Therefore, the Port of Greater Baton Rouge respectfully
requests that your committee give favorable consideration to the
following U.S. Corps of Engineers projects:
--Mississippi River Ship Channel--Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(Construction General).--We support full funding of $200,000 in
fiscal year 2003 to the U.S. Corps of Engineers General
Construction Budget. This will allow for the required work on
the saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and the Phase III
design studies for the fifty-five foot channel. Both projects
are important to the future success of the Port of Greater
Baton Rouge.
--Mississippi River--Baton Rouge to the Gulf--Maintenance Dredging.--
We support maximum funding for maintenance dredging for the
Mississippi River and recommend approval of the President's
fiscal year 2003 Budget of $66,162,000.
--Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA, Maintenance.--We
support the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget of $13,061,000
under O&M General to include increase funding to the U.S. Corps
budget to increase capability for bank stabilization.
--Bayou Sorrel, Lock, LA.--The President's fiscal year 2003 budget is
$110,000 under General Investigation Studies. Recommend the
U.S. Corps be funded $500,000 to advance pre-engineering design
for the replacement of the Bayou Sorrel Lock on the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Morgan City-to-Port Allen
alternate route.
--Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--The President's fiscal
year 2003 budget is $80,000 under O&M General. recommend that
the Corps be funded $2,755,000 to perform critical maintenance
dredging.
--Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.--The President's fiscal year budget is
$19,129,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the Corps be
funded $27,464,000 to perform critical maintenance at the
navigation locks.
--J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
LA.--President's fiscal year 2003 is $11,016,000 in
(Construction General) and $7,297,000 for Operations and
Maintenance. We support full funding to the U.S. Corps budget
to complete work already underway and recommend the U.S. Corps
be funded $29,000,000 (Construction General) and $16,764,000
(O&M General) to complete work already underway.
As stated in previous correspondence, these projects are vital not
only to the Port of Greater Baton Rouge but to the entire lower
Mississippi River and the nation. They are projects of critical
national significance. The great Mississippi River is the premier
national waterway, providing accessibility to and from foreign
countries for the transportation of goods and services used by
countless numbers of U.S. companies and individual citizens. The
channel must be properly designed and maintained for the benefit of all
ports and commerce.
We also earnestly request your support for funding of the other
projects included in March 22, 2002 testimony prepared and submitted by
Mr. Donald T. Bollinger. A summary of Mr. Bollinger's statement is
attached. Our waterway infrastructure must be properly maintained if we
are to increase trade and have the confidence of our trading partners
around the world. Your cooperation and support of these important
projects for the Mississippi River are greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the Associated Branch Pilots
Mr. Chairman: The Associated Branch Pilots is an Association of
Pilots that have been guiding oceangoing vessels into the entrances of
the Mississippi River system for over 125 years. We are called Bar
Pilots because we guide the ships past the constantly shifting and
shoaling sand bars in the area.
Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River is the main entrance for
deep draft oceangoing vessels entering the Lower Mississippi River
System. It is the shallowest stretch of the Lower Mississippi River
System and the area that requires the greatest effort by the Corps of
Engineers to maintain project depth.
In 2001, the Associated Branch Pilots made 10,348 transits on
oceangoing vessels through Southwest Pass. Of these ships 3,309 were of
50,000 deadweight tons or greater and 809 had a draft in excess of 4
feet.
This number of heavily laden vessels calling on the Lower
Mississippi River System is a result of having a channel with a depth
of 45 feet.
This first phase has proven to be extremely well designed and well
maintained by the fact that the maximum draft recommended by my
Association for vessels using Southwest Pass has been 45 feet or
greater, except for periods of extremely high water that caused
shoaling that overwhelmed the dredging efforts. This is in stark
contrast to the late 1970's and early 1980's when we often had to
recommend drafts less that the project depth due to shoaling.
To the world shipping community, this means that calling at ports
on the Mississippi River system will be more profitable because larger
ships can enter and carry greater amounts of cargo.
This is beneficial to the entire United States because it makes the
large quantities of petroleum, agriculture, and manufactured products
shipped from the Mississippi Valley more desirable due to the increased
profitability.
I would also like to comment briefly on the East-West navigation
channels near Venice, Louisiana. Tiger Pass and Baptiste Collette
provide a shorter, more direct route to Breton Sound and the Gulf of
Mexico for offshore supply boats and small tugs and barges. These
channels not only represent a savings in time and money for these
vessels, but reduce the traffic in the main shipping channel, the
Mississippi River and its passes, which is one of the most congested
waterways in the country.
The dredging and maintaining of South Pass would contribute to the
safety of the overall waterway.
The Associated Branch Pilots also pilot vessels in the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet, a man-made tidewater channel 75 miles long,
stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to an intersection of the
Intercoastal Waterway in New Orleans.
This channel leads to the Main Container Terminals for the Port of
New Orleans, the Roll On, Roll Off Terminal, the Port of New Orleans
Bulk Handling Plant, and additional General Cargo Docks. For the Port
of New Orleans to remain competitive in the ever-growing container
trade, the continued maintenance of this channel is crucial. In 2001,
837 ships called on the port using the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
Much is being said pro and con concerning the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet. There is, admittedly, an erosion problem in the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, but any curtailment of shipping traffic
in the channel without regard to the long-term effect upon the Port of
New Orleans would be disastrous. I strongly support approval of funding
for both the maintenance dredging/jetty repair project and the erosion/
rip rap study for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
Funding of the Corps of Engineers' projects in the Lower
Mississippi River System has proven to be money well spent. It has
increased exports and imports that have benefited the entire United
States. I urge your support of the funding requested to enable the
Corps to continue to maintain and improve the most efficient and
productive waterway system in the country.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District
The Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District respectfully requests
favorable consideration from you and your committee for the following
projects:
--Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--The President's fiscal year 2003
Budget is $15,852,000 under O&M General. Recommend that the
Corps be funded $21,352,000 to construct revetment at Devil's
Elbow.
--Calcasieu Lock, LA.--The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget is
$150,000 in GI funds. Recommend that the Corps be funded
$800,000 to advance the feasibility phase of the study to
replace Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.
--Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX.--The President's fiscal year
2003 Budget is $19,129,000 under O&M General. Recommend that
the Corps be funded $27,464,000 to perform critical maintenance
at the navigation locks.
These projects are vital not only to the Port of Lake Charles, but
to many parts of the nation. The Calcasieu River provides a route for
oil and gas to enter the country's 11th largest port and ultimately be
distributed to the Midwest and Northeast areas. The Port also provides
a route for exports such as bagged grains, wood and paper products, dry
bulk materials and other commodities, which originate from as far as
the Pacific Northwest.
The District also requests support for funding of the other
projects included in the testimony of Mr. Donald Bollinger. These
projects are extremely important to Louisiana ports as well as the
nation.
Your assistance with these matters is most appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the Crescent River Port Pilots' Association
I am President of the largest pilot association in the United
States. The Crescent River Port Pilots furnish pilots for ships
destined to the Port of Baton Rouge, Port of South Louisiana, Port of
New Orleans, Port of St. Bernard, and the Port of Plaquemines.
The Crescent River Port Pilots have piloted and shifted over 15,500
ships during 2001. We pilot deep draft vessels on more than 100 miles
on the lower Mississippi River and 35 miles on the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet.
The lower end of our route on the Mississippi River has a shoaling
problem starting with the high water season each year. The shoaling
requires daily attention by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
to maintain project depth.
Heavy-laden vessel calls on the lower Mississippi River system as a
direct result of the completion by the Corps of Engineers of the
deepening of the channel from 40 feet to 45 feet.
For several years now, we have had extraordinary success in keeping
the river dredges to project depth. This success is a direct result of
an experienced and vigilant Corps of Engineers that, through
experience, is able to timely bid in dredges to avoid extra dredging
cost by waiting too long to start maintenance dredging.
Channel stability sends a positive message to the world's shipping
community that schedule cargo for deep draft vessels months in advance
is reliable. This makes the port call on the Mississippi River very
profitable since the ships can lift greater tonnage.
Keeping project depth is beneficial to 27 states that are directly
tied to the Mississippi River Port Complex.
Additionally, I would like to comment on the east and west
navigation channels near Venice, Louisiana. Baptiste Collette and Tiger
Pass provide a shorter and more direct route to Breton Sound and West
Delta in the Gulf of Mexico for oil field support vessels.
The Crescent River Port Pilots also pilot ships in the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet. A man-made channel approximately 75 miles long
starting in Breton Sound in the Gulf of Mexico and ending in New
Orleans where it intersects with the Intercoastal Waterway.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet feeds the main container
terminals in the Port of New Orleans. Additional docks, such as Bulk
Terminal and general cargo facilities depend on this channel, which
handled approximately 847 ship calls last year.
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has been a controversial channel
since its inception, but being an integral part of the Port of New
Orleans, it would be a disaster if it is not kept at project width and
depth. The Crescent River Pilots strongly support approval of funding
for both the maintenance dredging, and jetty repair projects.
Funding of the United States Army Corps of Engineers projects in
the lower Mississippi River system which includes the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet, Tiger Pass, Baptiste Collette, and Southwest Pass has
proven to be money well spent.
I urge your support of the funding requested to allow the Corps of
Engineers to continue to maintain and improve the most productive
waterway system in the world.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to submit my
comments to your subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is
pleased to submit the following testimony for the record, regarding
programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's, the Department
of Energy's and the Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2003 budgets
for your Subcommittee's hearing record.
MWD strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation fiscal year
2003 budget that includes $30 million in funding for the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program. In addition, MWD urges your support for the San Joaquin
Water Supply and Exchange Program, as part of the reauthorization of
the California Bay-Delta Act. We ask for your support for additional
federal funding for Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program. We request that Congress appropriate $17.5 million for
implementation of the basinwide program that will ensure protection of
water quality for this important source of water supply. MWD also urges
your support for Reclamation's Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation effort and for the Lower Colorado River Operations
Program. These programs will provide for conservation of endangered and
threatened species and habitat along the lower Colorado River,
mitigation for impacts associated with Reclamation's projects, and
support for the Arizona-California-Nevada/federal Lower Colorado River
Multi-Species Conservation Program.
California has developed a Colorado River Water Use Plan
(California Plan) to provide a framework for the agencies which rely on
river water to reduce diversions to within California's 4.4 million
acre-foot per year normal apportionment. Successful implementation of
the California Plan is vital to the water supply reliability of the
State of California, and is critical to the Colorado River interests of
the six other Colorado River Basin states and Mexico. MWD supports
Reclamation funding of $2 million for Salton Sea Habitat Enhancement
activities in support of environmental permits required to proceed with
the California Plan. Two water management reservoirs near the All-
American Canal, an 8,000 acre-foot reservoir to the east of the
Imperial Valley and a 3,000 acre-foot reservoir on the western side of
the Valley, would help facilitate the implementation of the California
Plan and could be of significant benefit to the other Colorado River
Basin states and Mexico. Reclamation funding of $6.9 million is needed
in fiscal year 2003 in order to complete the environmental impact
analysis and, if a decision is made to move forward, the initial stage
of project design.
Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) and the
Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-266) will greatly enhance Southern California's water supply
reliability and the environment through effective water recycling and
recovery of contaminated groundwater. Funding in the fiscal year 2003
budget for previously unfunded projects, as well as the continued
support for previously funded projects, is a positive step toward
realizing regional water supply reliability. The Bureau of
Reclamation's budget request for research into the technologies and
science of water recycling is another vital step toward making water
reuse a viable alternative for communities faced with limited water
supplies. MWD urges your full support for the $35 million for Title
XVI.
Metropolitan requests federal funding for desalination activities
aimed at developing new and innovative technologies. Technologies to be
investigated include innovative pretreatment options such as
nanofiltration, ultra low-pressure reverse osmosis membranes and ultra
violet (UV) light technology for disinfection and oxidation. Brackish
water desalination represents a potentially viable alternative water
source to reduce reliance on imported water supplies and minimize the
economic impact associated with high salinity water. Current salinity
removal technologies are energy-intensive and expensive. Treating
Colorado River water to the secondary total dissolved solids (TDS)
standard of 500 milligrams/liter, using conventional membrane
technology, can cost $300 or more per acre-foot. These high costs have
precluded the widespread implementation of brackish water desalination
technologies, especially for large-scale applications. Breakthroughs in
desalination technology will offer potential benefits to water
utilities with sources impaired by high salinity levels. It is
estimated that $3 million will be required to continue this research
being sponsored by Metropolitan and its member agencies.
MWD supports the recommendation by the National Drought Policy
Commission that drought planning assistance funding needs to be
increased at the national level and recommends the Bureau's drought
planning program be increased to $5 million. MWD desires your support
of funding at the level of $4.1 million necessary for work required to
remove radioactive uranium mill tailings in Moab, Utah. These programs
are essential for regional water supply reliability.
The Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) comprehensive civil works
program has the capability to contribute to the social, economic, and
environmental well being of California. MWD is primarily interested in
the Corps' environmental restoration studies and projects that address
the needs of the Bay-Delta Estuary. The President's proposed fiscal
year 2003 budget includes numerous programs in the Corps' South Pacific
Division, which includes California. Several ecosystem restoration
studies and projects specifically address significant habitat issues at
various locations in the Bay-Delta watershed. Corps programs that will
contribute to the long-term Bay-Delta solution include environmental
restoration studies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds,
habitat conservation and mitigation elements of flood damage prevention
projects, and ecosystem restoration programs. MWD urges Congress to
fully support these Corps programs as the fiscal year 2003 federal
appropriations process moves forward.
We look forward to working with you and your Subcommittee. Please
contact Brad Hiltscher, MWD's Legislative Representative in Washington,
D.C. at (202) 296-3551, if we can answer any questions or provide
additional information.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003 APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Bill MWD Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation:
California Bay-Delta $30 million
Ecosystem Restoration.
Salton Sea Habitat $2 million
Enhancement Activities.
Yuma Area Project............ $6.9 million for Water Management
Reservoirs near the All-American
Canal
Colorado River Basin Salinity $17.5 million plus sufficient funds
Control Program--Title II. for required operation and
maintenance of constructed units and
for plan formulation
Endangered Species Recovery $12.747 million
Implementation.
Lower Colorado River $12.421 million
Operations Program.
National Fish and Wildlife $850,000
Foundation.
Title XVI Water Reclamation $35 million
and Reuse Program.
Water Conservation Field $500,000 for MWD
Services Program Earmark.
Drought Assistance Program... $5 million
Brackish Water Desalination.. $3 million
Department of Energy: Removal of $4.1 million
Radioactive Tailings in Moab,
Utah.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Support Corps programs
South Pacific Division.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Arizona
As a member of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
representing the State of Arizona, I wish to indicate strong support
for the designation of funds for the Colorado River Basin salinity
control program.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the lead agency for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. In recent years, this
salinity control program has been funded at $12 million. These funds,
together with cost-sharing from the Colorado River Basin states, have
produced projects which demonstrate a cost-effective and successful
methodology for controlling salinity in the Colorado River. However,
the water quality control plan, which is prepared by the Forum, adopted
by the Colorado River Basin states, and approved by the EPA, recommends
that Reclamation's portion of these efforts be funded at $17.5 million.
An appropriation of this amount would allow the implementation of the
approved water quality control plan and help control the economic
damages in the Lower Basin states due to salinity from the Colorado
River.
Arizona's cities, industries, farms, and Indian Tribes depend on
the Colorado River. As we import the water to support our growing
economy, we also import the salt that has accumulated in the river.
Approximately 1.5 million tons per year of salt are now being imported
into Arizona via the Colorado River. If the accumulation of salt in the
river can be reduced, the economic costs of salt disposal and salt
damages will be reduced. Currently, the damages due to salt are
estimated to be over half a billion dollars annually in Arizona,
Nevada, and Southern California. These damages would be significantly
higher if the Colorado River Basin Salinity program had not been in
place during the last three decades.
Over the last few years the salinity control efforts by Reclamation
have been under-funded, resulting in control efforts lagging behind
goals agreed upon in the program's salinity control plan. The $17.5
million recommended for Colorado River salinity control would provide
the appropriations necessary to more aggressively meet these goals and
reduce the significant economic costs to the Lower Basin States.
In addition to controlling water quality for water users in the
United States, the Salinity Control program helps the United States to
comply with Minute 242 of the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. The United
States has always met the commitments agreed to in Minute 242, but
water quality at the International Boundary continues to be a subject
of discussion between the United States and Mexico sections of the
International Boundary and Water Commission.
Thank you for your subcommittee's consideration of additional
funding for the Colorado River Salinity Control Program and we hope to
have your continued support of this vital program.
______
Prepared Statement of Audubon
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of over one million members and supporters
of Audubon, thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on the
fiscal year 2003 budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
The focal point of our statement on the Corps' fiscal year 2003 budget
is our mission, to protect birds, other wildlife, and their habitat.
Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program (EMP)
Each year over 400 bald eagles and nearly 30,000 wild tundra swan,
along with hundreds of thousands of other birds use the Upper
Mississippi River. Audubon is deeply concerned about the historically
low and grossly inadequate funding levels proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2003 budget for the Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program (EMP). The current Administration's
request of $12 million is approximately one-half of the program's
funding in recent years and just over one-third of the fully authorized
levels needed to adequately restore damaged river habitat, and monitor
the delicate Mississippi River ecosystem.
To date, the EMP is a leading example of the type of collaborative
process the federal government can use to develop a balanced and
sustainable river plan. Its participants are committed and diverse,
including the Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and the states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin, and the environmental community, all of whom
cooperate to share costs and achieve a common goal. This goal, the
mission of the EMP, is to ``ensure the coordinated development and
enhancement of the Upper Mississippi River System'' which stretches
from Minneapolis, Minnesota to Cairo, Illinois. The efforts of the EMP
contribute to the management of navigation and flood control. The EMP
enhances and rehabilitates riverine wetland areas up and down the river
stimulating transportation uses, attracting visitors, adding
recreational opportunities, and bolstering local economies. The program
helps preserve this natural treasure by managing river navigation and
flood control, promoting recreation on the river--helping people to
enjoy the river now while ensuring its preservation for future
generations.
The Corps estimates that the low levels of funding in the
President's proposed fiscal year 2003 budget could result in the
elimination of several critical restoration projects in the Rock Island
District (Smiths' Creek and Rice Lake projects), St. Paul District
(Long Meadow project and Biological Monitoring), and in the St. Louis
District (Scheming Chute project). We strongly urge the Subcommittee to
fund the EMP at its fully authorized level of $33.17 million to
maintain a capacity for the long term monitoring and habitat
restoration of this irreplaceable river ecosystem, and to save key
programs and offices that will otherwise be eliminated by drastic
budget cuts.
Everglades Restoration
Thank you for your past support of the restoration of America's
Everglades. Because the Everglades has been severely abused for more
than 100 years, its restoration is the most ambitious environmental
challenge our nation has ever undertaken. At this time, however, the
outcome remains uncertain. What happens to this living treasure greatly
depends on America's actions now and how much we acknowledge the need
to honestly balance the use and conservation of natural resources. If
our effort is successful, the restoration of the South Florida/
Everglades ecosystem will serve as the hemispheric model for
sustainability. If not, we face forever losing this natural treasure.
Congress approved, with support from the State of Florida, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework for
changes to the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. The CERP,
which along with Modified Water Deliveries and the C-111 project, are
critical to restoring, preserving, and protecting the South Florida
ecosystem, while still providing for other water-related needs of the
region.
--The President's request for the Corps share of CERP funding in
fiscal year 2003 is $37 million, an increase of $9 million over
fiscal year 2002. We are concerned that this amount is far
short of the Corps' original projection of $83 million needed
for CERP implementation in fiscal year 2003 and that the
proposed budget does not include $2.5 million necessary for
construction of CERP pilot projects. In March of 2001, the
Corps projected $83 million for CERP implementation in fiscal
year 2003. In December of 2001, that figure was revised
downward to $33.6 million and the CERP implementation schedule
was revised so as to postpone construction of several projects.
We are concerned that this $50 million downward revision in the
projected fiscal year 2003 funding levels, and a $30 million
downward revision in projected fiscal year 2004 funding levels,
will require much higher levels of funding in future years that
may be difficult to attain.
--We are concerned that the construction of CERP Pilot Projects will
not be funded for the second consecutive year in the
President's proposed budget due to the ``no new starts'' policy
of the Administration, causing further delay in essential
restoration. The ``no new starts'' policy should be limited to
new projects that have not received funding. This policy has
been mistakenly applied to the pilot projects; these projects
are critical components of a pre-existing project--the C&SF--
changes to which were previously authorized in WRDA 1999 and
WRDA 2000 and funded in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. These
projects include the Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer Storage &
Recovery Pilot Projects; the L-31N Seepage Management Pilot;
and the Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology Pilot. The
Total Construction funding required for the pilot projects in
fiscal year 2003 is $2.5 million.
Everglades restoration is a long-term commitment, and it must be
completed in its entirety. Each component depends on others therefore,
all of the ``building blocks'' must be in place for the restoration to
succeed. We urge the Committee to continue to provide adequate funding
for the timely implementation of other previously authorized programs
whose performance assumptions have been included in the CERP, including
Kissimmee River Restoration, Modified Waters Delivery Project, C-111,
and Critical Projects (authorized in WRDA 1996).
The Challenge 21 Program (Flood Mitigation and Riverine Restoration
Program, Sec. 212 WRDA 1999)
Increasingly, communities at risk for flooding are implementing
non-structural solutions to reduce potential flood damage. These
solutions include moving frequently flooded homes and businesses out of
the floodplain and working to return the floodplains of rivers and
creeks to a condition where they can naturally moderate floods. In
addition to reducing flood losses, non-structural projects help meet
many other goals of riverside communities including improving water
quality, increasing opportunities for recreation, and improving and
restoring wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, most federal spending does
little to support these non-structural solutions. Challenge 21, a non-
structural flood damage reduction program authorized in 1999, is
explicitly designed to help support such community-driven and
environmentally-beneficial efforts. Challenge 21 allows the Corps to
relocate vulnerable homes and businesses in smaller communities away
from floodplains, restore floodplain wetlands, and increase
opportunities for riverside recreation, serving to improve quality of
life in riverside communities. This deserving program is the best
current method for communities to achieve both flood hazard mitigation
and restoration of this nation's great rivers.
We strongly urge you to appropriate $25 million in funding in
fiscal year 2003, one-half of the programs' authorized level of
funding, to ensure that all willing communities and non-federal
partners may participate in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Challenge
21 program.
Section 1135 Program (Project Modification for Improvement of the
Environment)
The Section 1135 Program allows the Corps to modify the structures
and operations of existing Corps projects to improve the quality of the
environment where those projects have contributed to the degradation of
the environment. The program also authorizes the restoration of areas
harmed by Corps projects.
The environmental damage caused by existing Corps projects, many
constructed before federal laws requiring mitigation, are enormous.
These projects have caused devastating impacts to natural systems such
as the Everglades, and severely degraded rivers such as the Missouri,
Upper Mississippi, Illinois, and Apalachicola Rivers. The environmental
impacts from Corps projects include the loss of rivers' critical side
channels, sandbars and wetlands, and jeopardizes the continued
existence of federally listed endangered bird and other wildlife
species. We strongly urge you to appropriate full funding of $25
million, $9 million above the Administration's proposed budget, to
ensure that non-federal partners may participate in the Corps' 1135
program in fiscal year 2003.
Section 206 Program (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration)
The Section 206 Program allows the Corps to undertake small-scale
projects to restore the aquatic environment, regardless of the
existence or impact of the Corps' projects in the area. Projects
carried out under this program must improve the quality of the
environment, be in the public interest, and be cost-effective.
Individual projects under this program may not exceed $5 million, and
non-federal interests must provide 35 percent of the cost.
In order for willing communities and non-federal partners to
ameliorate both environmental and economic impacts caused by altering
our nation's rivers, floodplains, and wetlands, we strongly urge you to
appropriate full funding of $25 million, $15 million above the
Administration's request, for the Corps' Section 206 program in fiscal
year 2003.
Missouri River Restoration
The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is the
primary habitat restoration program for the lower Missouri River
between Sioux City, Iowa and St. Louis. Congress established it in 1986
to help reverse the long-term decline of Missouri River fish and
wildlife habitat due to the federally sponsored channelization and
stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. Congress approved $13.5
million in fiscal year 2002 for the project, the highest appropriation
yet received. We applaud the proposed increase in the President's
budget to $17.5 million in fiscal year 2003 for this program, however,
it is imperative that the funding be increased to $20 million to meet
the critical demand for accelerated habitat restoration on the lower
Missouri River. The Missouri River remains a nationally significant
resource, attracting tens of millions of visitors annually and
supporting over 150 species of fish and wildlife. However, severe loss
of important habitat--such as side channels, wetlands, and sandbars--
threaten the river's long-term health. As the nation prepares to
celebrate the 200th anniversary of Lewis and Clark's Voyage of
Discovery, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore the
Missouri River and revitalize our riverside communities.
Supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project
will help reverse the decline of river wildlife by restoring historic
chutes, side channels, wetlands, backwaters, and other habitat fish and
wildlife need to feed, conserve energy, and reproduce. We urge you to
bolster critically important efforts to reverse the decline of the
nation's longest river by supporting an appropriation of $20 million
for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project in fiscal
year 2003.
Napa River Salt Marsh Feasibility Study
Audubon has made San Francisco Bay restoration a national priority.
The Napa River Salt Marsh is a critical component of efforts to restore
the entire San Francisco Bay ecosystem. The restoration of 10,000 acres
of former industrial salt ponds in the northern San Francisco Bay would
create the largest restored tidal wetland in the Western United States.
The restored wetlands will provide extensive wildlife habitat for
endangered species, migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, and fish and
aquatic species. Once restored, the tidal marsh will also improve water
quality, provide beneficial use for recycled treated wastewater and
improve public open space and recreational opportunities. In order for
the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility study and complete
the restoration design with the California Coastal Conservancy, $1.3
million is needed in fiscal year 2003 for the Napa River Salt Marsh
Restoration Project. There is an urgent need to complete the study and
begin restoration. As the salinity rises within the ponds and as the
infrastructure (levees and water control structures) deteriorates,
ponds no longer provide habitat for wildlife, the risk of a high-saline
spill to the Napa River rises, and the cost of future restoration
increases.
Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed fiscal year 2003 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
bureau of reclamation--fiscal year 2003 appropriation
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum's Recommendation:
--Program Authorized in 1995 (Public Law 104-20)--$17,500,000.
--General Investigation Funds--Adequate Funding.
--Operation and Maintenance--Adequate Funding.
This testimony is in support of funding for the Colorado River
Basin salinity control program. Congress has designated the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be the lead
agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This role and
the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the Congress when
Public Law 104-20 was enacted. A total of $17,500,000 is requested for
fiscal year 2003 to implement the needed and authorized program.
Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic
damage in the United States and Mexico.
The President's request for funding is $10.1 million. Studies have
shown that implementation of the program has fallen behind the needed
pace to control salinity concentrations. In previous years, the
President has supported, and Congress has funded, a program at $12
million. Most recently, the President's requests have dropped and this
year's request, in the judgement of the Forum, is inappropriately low.
Water quality commitments to downstream United States and Mexican water
users must be honored while the Basin states continue to develop their
Compact apportioned waters of the Colorado River. Concentrations of
salts in the water above water quality standard mandated levels would
cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in the United States
and result in poorer quality water being delivered by the United States
to Mexico. For every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there
is $75 million in additional damages in the United States. The Forum,
therefore, believes implementation of the program needs to be
accelerated to a level beyond that requested by the past President.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
exceeded the available funding and Reclamation has a backlog of
proposals. Reclamation continues to select the best and most cost-
effective proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin
states' cost sharing for the level of federal funding requested by the
Forum. Water quality improvements accomplished under Title II of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of
water delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met
the commitments of the International Boundary & Water Commission's
(Commission) Minute 242 to Mexico with respect to water quality, the
United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing
Mexico's request for better water quality at the International
Boundary.
overview
In 2000, Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
Following hearings, and with Administration support, the Congress
passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized by this
program by $100 million. Reclamation has received cost-effective
proposals to move the program ahead and the Basin states have funds
available to cost-share up-front.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through Minute 242, to Mexico concerning the quality of water
being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act
established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado
River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates
of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary
of the Interior and Reclamation were given the lead federal role by the
Congress. This testimony is in support of adequate funding for the
Title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while leaving
implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the
Interior, also gave new salinity control responsibilities to the
Department of Agriculture, and to the Bureau of Land Management.
Congress has charged the Administration with implementing the most
cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept as
the Basin states consider cost sharing 30 percent of federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts in the
Colorado River Basin.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress to
support the implementation of the program necessary to control the
salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under requirements of the
Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum prepares a formal report
analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
salinity, and the program necessary to keep the salinities under
control.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity levels measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and Hoover
Dams in 1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The plan
necessary for controlling salinity and to reduce downstream damages has
been captioned the ``plan of implementation.'' The 1999 Review of water
quality standards includes an updated plan of implementation. The level
of appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the
agreed upon plan. If adequate funds are not appropriated, state and
federal agencies involved are in agreement that damage from the high
salt levels in the water will be widespread in the United States as
well as Mexico and will be very significant.
justification
The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin states is the level of funding necessary to
proceed with Reclamation's portion of the plan of implementation. In
July of 1995, Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act. The amended Act gives Reclamation new latitude and
flexibility in seeking the most cost-effective salinity control
opportunities, and it provides for proposals and more involvement from
the private as well as the public sector. The result is that salt
loading is being prevented at costs often less than half the cost under
the previous program. Congress this last year recommitted its support
to the revised program when it enacted Public Law 106-459. The Basin
states are, pursuant to Public Law 104-127 (FAIRA), cost sharing up-
front on an annual basis, which adds 43 cents for every federal dollar
appropriated. The federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Advisory Council, created by the Congress in the Salinity
Control Act, has met and formally supports the requested level of
funding. The Basin states urge the Subcommittee to support the funding
as set forth in this testimony.
additional support of funding
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the newly authorized program, the Salinity Control Forum urges the
Congress to appropriate necessary funds needed to continue to maintain
and operate salinity control facilities as they are completed and
placed into long-term operation. Reclamation has completed the Paradox
Valley unit which involves the collection of brines in the Paradox
Valley of Colorado and the injection of those brines into a deep
aquifer through an injection well. The continued operation of this
project and other completed projects will be funded through Operation
and Maintenance funds.
In addition, the Forum supports necessary funding to allow for
continued general investigation of the salinity control program. It is
important that Reclamation have planning staff in place, properly
funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
coordination between various federal and state agencies can be
accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
salinity so that the Basin states can continue to develop their
Compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and
Dry Prairie Rural Water
fiscal year 2003 budget request
The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
Water respectfully request fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the
Bureau of Reclamation from your subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development. Funds will be used to construct critical elements of the
Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, Montana, (Public Law 106-382,
October 27, 2000). The amount requested is $14,853,000 as set out
below:
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assiniboine and Dry Prairie
Item Sioux Tribes Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Contract Activities:
Administration/Easements.......................... $200,000 $95,000 $295,000
Poplar to Big Muddy Design (Part)................. 500,000 .............. 500,000
Dane Valley Design................................ ...................... 53,000 53,000
Intake Inspection................................. 120,000 .............. 120,000
Water Treatment Plant Inspection.................. 586,000 .............. 586,000
Culbertson to Medicine Lake Inspection............ ...................... 215,000 215,000
Reclamation Oversight............................. 479,000 115,000 594,000
Construction Activities:
Intake............................................ 1,713,000 .............. 1,713,000
Water Treatment Plant............................. 8,372,000 .............. 8,372,000
Culbertson to Medicine Lake....................... ...................... 2,405,000 2,405,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 11,970,000 2,883,000 14,853,000
=========================================================
Percentage...................................... 80.59 19.41 100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sponsor Tribes and Dry Prairie greatly appreciate the
appropriations from the subcommittee for fiscal year 2002 that have
permitted significant progress in the first year.
proposed activities
This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by Public Law 106-
382, October 27, 2000. The budget request provides the funds necessary
to complete the intake on the Missouri River. Approximately half of the
funds for intake construction are in the appropriations for fiscal year
2002. The budget request also provides for construction of water
treatment plant for this regional drinking water project. Funds are
required in both fiscal year 2003 and 2004 for completion of the water
treatment plant. The project will also design the first portion of the
pipeline leaving the water treatment plant. The section will be east of
the water treatment plant and will serve the community of Poplar,
headquarters community for the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes.
Construction is scheduled to start in fiscal year 2004. This will also
provide a source of water for a section of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation contaminated by oil drilling operations and the subject of
EPA orders to the non-Tribal oil company responsible. The oil company
will provide the distribution system necessary to mitigate the problems
and the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System will provide the
interconnecting pipeline without duplicating any facilities identified
in the Final Engineering Report. This is an exigent circumstance that
will be corrected by the project in fiscal year 2004.
An urgent project will be undertaken in the Dry Prairie area to
bring water supplies from Culbertson with an existing treatment plant
on the Missouri River to Medicine Lake where the existing water
treatment is inoperable and requires major revisions to bring it into
operation. Even with the extra expenditures, the treatment plant will
only produce water of the poor quality that will be replaced by Dry
Prairie. The system to be constructed in fiscal year 2003 will also
serve the Dane Valley residents with fiscal year 2004 funds and
mitigate costs of hauling water so prevalent there. The budget request
is consistent with the construction schedule in the Final Engineering
Report.
status of project planning and design
The Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of facilities
to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Rural Water System
outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is submitted to the Bureau of
Reclamation for final review and will be before Congress in spring
2002. The water conservation plan is also before the Bureau for review.
Bureau of Reclamation concluded a value engineering session on the
project in April, 2001, and the Accountability Report in response to
the value engineering investigation is complete.
The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
project total $192 million, October 1998$. The total Federal costs will
be $175 million (October 1998$), less or comparable to similar projects
in the Western United States.
Environmental assessment is near completion for both the
Reservation and the Dry Prairie areas of the project.
Pilot studies and design of the water treatment plant are scheduled
in the third and fourth quarters fiscal year 2002 with construction of
the intake beginning in the fourth quarter. Design of the Culbertson to
Medicine Lake project by Dry Prairie will also begin in second and
third quarter fiscal year 2002 with capability to begin construction in
first quarter fiscal year 2003.
local project support
The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
$62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
$182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
the region. The planning was a logical step after successful completion
of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
initiatives. The Tribes did not seek financial compensation for the
settlement of their water rights but contemplated water development for
meaningful projects as now authorized.
Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
all 14 communities within the service area to participate in the
project. Rural support is strong, with about 70 percent of area farms
and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
of $100 per household.
enterprise community designation and need for water quality improvement
The Fort Peck Indian Reservation is designated as an Enterprise
Community, underscoring the level of poverty and need for economic
development in the region. The success of the Enterprise Community
designation within the Reservation will be enhanced by the availability
of safe and adequate municipal, rural and industrial water supplies
that this regional project will bring to the Reservation. Outside the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the Dry Prairie area has income levels
that are higher than within the Reservation but lower than the State
average.
The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
supplies of the region are of poor quality. More than 80 percent of
rural households draw water from near-surface aquifers with nitrates
exceeding primary contaminant levels for drinking water pursuant to
regulations implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some of the worst
water on the North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation in the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human
or livestock consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated
than sea water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that
have been subjected to oil and gas development and have been
contaminated, in part, by those activities.
The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie have
successfully planned a regional water project, comparable to Garrison,
WEB, Mni Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that relies on the high quality waters
of the Mainstem Missouri River.
The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
nature in the Northern Great Plains.
For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Dissolved
Project Community Solids
(mgl)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck........................................ Fort Kipp....................................... 2,730
Lewis and Clark.................................. Upper Limit..................................... 2,600
Mni Wiconi....................................... Red Shirt....................................... 2,332
Mni Wiconi....................................... Reliance........................................ 2,056
Mni Wiconi....................................... Murdo........................................... 1,761
Mni Wiconi....................................... Kennebec........................................ 1,740
Mni Wiconi....................................... Presho.......................................... 1,398
Fort Peck........................................ Poplar.......................................... 1,380
Fort Peck........................................ Frazer.......................................... 1,180
Lewis and Clark.................................. Lower Limit..................................... 1,179
Mni Wiconi....................................... Wakpamni Lake................................... 1,125
Mni Wiconi....................................... Horse Creek..................................... 869
Fort Peck........................................ Brockton........................................ 748
Mni Wiconi....................................... Pine Ridge Village.............................. 416
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfate (mgl)
Project Community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis and Clark.............................. Upper Limit.................................. 1,500
Mni Wiconi................................... Reliance..................................... 1,139
Fort Peck.................................... Fort Kipp.................................... 1,120
Mni Wiconi................................... Red Shirt.................................... 1,080
Mni Wiconi................................... Murdo........................................ 1,042
Mni Wiconi................................... Kennebec..................................... 984
Mni Wiconi................................... Presho....................................... 644
Lewis and Clark.............................. Lower Limit.................................. 538
Fort Peck.................................... Frazer....................................... 498
Mni Wiconi................................... Horse Creek.................................. 410
Mni Wiconi................................... Wakpamni Lake................................ 398
Fort Peck.................................... Brockton..................................... 212
Fort Peck.................................... Poplar....................................... 103
Mni Wiconi................................... Pine Ridge Village........................... 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners, Port of Los Angeles
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are Nicholas G.
Tonsich, President of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners, and Larry A. Keller, Executive Director of the Port of
Los Angeles. Together, we oversee the activities of the Port of Los
Angeles, the largest container seaport in the United States. Our
testimony speaks in support of continuing the Federal role in carrying
out the major navigation improvements underway at the Port, which
underpin our country's decisive role in global trade.
We thank your Subcommittee for its unwavering support of the Pier
400 Deep-Draft Navigation and Landfill Project, the first phase of the
2020 Infrastructure Development Plan at the Port. With the Corps of
Engineers, we are proud to have completed Pier 400 in April 2000--under
budget and ahead of schedule! In August of this year, the Maersk
Sealand shipping company--now the largest shipping line in the world--
will open its state-of-the-art container terminal on Pier 400. Last
year, your Subcommittee's earmark helped us begin the Channel Deepening
Project, the second phase of the navigation improvements under the 2020
Plan. The Corps has scheduled construction to begin this August.
Today, we present testimony evidencing the need for full federal
funding for construction of the Channel Deepening Project. The
President's fiscal year 2003 Budget targets funds to construction
projects that, ``provide the greatest economic return to the nation . .
.'' \1\ By all objective standards, the Channel Deepening Project
squarely meets the President's tests as do the Port's operation and
maintenance projects that support our commercial navigation
initiatives. Therefore, we respectfully ask the Subcommittee to fully-
fund our fiscal year 2003 appropriations requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, Corps of Engineers--Civil
Works,'' Page 296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the economic impact of the 2020 infrastructure development plan on the
united states economy
In the late 1970s, the San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach quite accurately forecast the current surge in the international
trade needs of the Southern California region, and the Nation. The
dramatic increase in trade volumes would come from Pacific Rim and
Latin American countries. In the early 1980s, the Port of Los Angeles
entered a long-term cooperative planning effort with the Army Corps of
Engineers, known as The 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan. The 2020
Plan acknowledges the phenomenal growth of trade through the Port of
Los Angeles. It is a blueprint for the Port's infrastructure
development and adaptation to changes in maritime technology and to the
projected growth in trade volumes well into this century. The Channel
Deepening Project marks the second phase of the 2020 Plan that began
with the Pier 400 Deep-Draft Navigation and Landfill Project. The Port
of Los Angeles is aggressively moving forward with the 2020 Plan's
goal: to meet the extraordinary infrastructure demands placed on the
port of Los Angeles in the face of the explosion in global trade.
The forecast has proved true, far exceeding our expectations!
Consequently, infrastructure development at the Port of Los Angeles is
now more critical than ever, with more than 35 percent of containerized
trade entering the United States through the San Pedro Bay port
complex. Approximately 19 percent is attributed to container
throughputs at the Port of Los Angeles. In fact, the Port of Los
Angeles handled more than 5.1 million TEUs in 2001, representing a
first in the history of American seaports. Pacific Rim and Mexican
trade volumes with the United States are also at an all-time high.
These increased trade volumes have solidified the Port of Los Angeles
as a pivotal player in the global trading network.
With a more robust Asian economy, we can best describe the
potential for increased two-way trade with the Pacific Rim, alone, as
colossal. To illustrate, in 2000, nine start-up shipping lines entered
the trans-Pacific trading network, seven of which now call at the Port
of Los Angeles. Last year, the Port and its customers recorded an
unprecedented increase in containerized cargo from the Pacific Rim
valued at more than $300 billion. These goods went on to stores and
manufacturing plants across the United States supporting jobs and local
economies. In 2001, goods imported from China accounted for 55 percent
of the overall Pacific Rim trade with the United States. Conversely,
China is the primary importer of American goods. Modifications in its
trade policies and investment practices make it a favorable market for
American businesses and would boost the continued upswing in the United
States economy and the strong purchasing power of American consumers
seeking competitively priced retail merchandise. 2001 was a year of
continued burgeoning trade opportunities with Latin America, also.
Trade volumes between Mexico and Southern California, for instance, has
increased 152 percent since 1994. As such, the Port handled
approximately 5 million containers, in 2001 alone, resulting in the
maritime industry's recognition of the Port of Los Angeles as the
busiest container port in the United States.
As we have testified in the past, cargo throughput for the San
Pedro Bay--and the Port of Los Angeles in particular--has a tremendous
impact on the United States' economy. This fact cannot be over
emphasized. The ability of the Port to meet the spiraling demand of the
phenomenal growth in global trade through its facilities is dependent
upon the construction of sufficiently deep water channels that will
accommodate the largest state-of-the-art deep-draft cargo container
ships that are already in service. These new ships provide greater
efficiencies in cargo transportation, thereby offering American
consumers lower prices on imported goods and exports that are more
competitive from the United States to foreign markets. However, for
American seaports to maintain their position in global trade, the
federal government must immediately make the necessary infrastructure
improvements that will enable our ports to participate in this rapidly
changing global trading arena.
The Channel Deepening Project is clearly a commercial navigation
project of national economic significance and one that will yield
exponential economic returns to the United States well into the future.
The national economic benefits are evidenced by the creation of more
than one million permanent well-paying jobs across the United States;
more than $1 billion in wages and salaries; and, local state and
federal sales and income tax revenues, including increased U.S. Customs
Service revenues, deposited to the Federal treasury. The return on the
Federal investment is real and quantifiable, and we expect it to
surpass the cost-benefit ratio as determined by the Corps of Engineers
project Feasibility Study many times over. The Federal investment in
the Channel Deepening Project will ensure that the Port of Los Angeles,
the nation's largest container seaport, remains at the forefront of the
new global trade network well into the 21st century.
the channel deepening project
The Channel Deepening Project began in February 1999 when the Port
and the Los Angeles District Corps executed a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA). The MOA expedited the preliminary study phase required to engage
the Corps in the Channel Deepening Project, a federal navigation
project. In anticipation of a favorable Chief of Engineers' Report,
Congress authorized the Channel Deepening Project in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. The Corps approved the Feasibility
Study on December 29, 2000, thereby enabling the Port to proceed with
the Channel Deepening Project.
The Port of Los Angeles requests that your Subcommittee include an
appropriation of $20,000,000 for the federal share of construction
dredging of the main navigation channel, to begin in August of this
year. The Corps of Engineers' has estimated the total project cost of
approximately $171,000,000 \2\ with a federal share of $49,800,000, and
a local share of $121,200,000. The Corps has formally stated that it
has capability to spend fully the $20 million in fiscal year 2003. In
May of this year, we expect to execute a simple Project Cooperation
Agreement (PCA) with the Corps, enabling the project to begin on time.
Along with the executed PCA, we need Congress to fully-fund the Channel
Deepening Project in fiscal year 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Escalated through end of construction in fiscal year 2005, per
OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot emphasize too strongly the critical importance of
initiating construction dredging on the Channel Deepening Project in
calendar year 2002. At -45 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), the Main
Channel is, simply, too shallow to accommodate the new state-of-the-art
container vessels designed to draft as much as -48 feet and hold
containers weighing more than 6,000 TEUs. The 2000 Chief of Engineers'
Report concurred with the Feasibility Study's recommendation that the
Corps dredge the Channel to at least -53 feet, including a modest
allowance for varied tidal conditions and under-keel clearance. The
project also includes dredging approximately 6.6 million cubic yards of
sediment from the Turning Basin, the West and East Basins, and the East
Basin Channel. Five of the major container shipping lines that
currently call at the Port of Los Angeles have vessels that draft -46
feet when fully loaded. Consequently, they call with only partial loads
to be able to safely navigate the harbor's channels. While unavoidable,
this makes for an inefficient shipping system and opens the door to
cargo diversion to Vancouver, Canada.
To further illustrate the urgency of fully funding the Channel
Deepening Project, the China Shipping Company is awaiting six 9,000 TEU
container ships. Its partner, CMA-CGM (Compagnie Maritime
d'Affretement-Compagnie Generale Maritime)--also known as ``The French
Line''--ordered three 6,600 TEU container ships. Each ship drafts at
-48 feet. Beginning in 2004, these lines will begin calling exclusively
at the Port of Los Angeles from the Pacific Rim. Unless construction
dredging begins this year and remains on schedule, the Port would be
unable to service its customers' infrastructure needs and provide the
planned state-of-the-art functional navigation gateway for the imported
consumer goods and manufacturing parts to enter the American stream of
commerce.
Simply, Mr. Chairman, there are no other ports on the west coast of
the United States with the current infrastructure capacity to serve
these container ships or to absorb the volume of container throughputs.
These state-of-the-art container ships represent the new competitive
requirements for international shipping efficiencies in this century.
It is imperative that Congress appropriate the requested funding that
will enable the Channel Deepening Project to begin this August, with
ongoing full funding that will keep the project on schedule for
completion in 2005.
ongoing maintenance of the los angeles harbor and breakwater and the
los angeles harbor models
For the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance Program,
the Port of Los Angeles seeks $4,000,000 to continue the hydrographic
surveys, and the ongoing maintenance dredging of the federal channels
and turning basins, and to continue engineering studies and
rehabilitation of the federal breakwater at the Los Angeles Harbor. The
efficient operation of the completed Pier 400 Project relies, too, on
the ongoing maintenance of the federal navigation channels and the
hydrographic surveys.
Furthermore, the Port of Los Angeles also requests a total
appropriation of $3,165,000 for the San Pedro Bay Models at the Corps
of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station (WES) at Vicksburg,
Mississippi. This funding is critical for the Corps' maintenance of the
Los Angeles Harbor Model studies and the Wave Gauge Program. Our
request includes $165,000 for the maintenance of the physical model of
the San Pedro Bay to maintain operational readiness for the continued
study of navigation improvements at the Port, and $3,000,000 to upgrade
the wave gauges, wave generators, and computer systems that are now
outdated.
The information derived from these study tools is critical to the
validation of the numerical and physical models used for the design of
ongoing projects under the Port's 2020 Plan. For example, during the
state-of-the-art design of the Pier 400 Project, the scientists and
engineers at WES, the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps' Los Angeles
District used eight separate, but related models, to site the land
reclamation element of the project and its effect on tidal resonance on
container ships at dock. As a result, maintenance of the hydraulic and
physical models at WES, and their prototype data acquisition
facilities, continue to be an essential resource for the Corps of
Engineers and the Port of Los Angeles.
in summary
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your
Subcommittee to include the following earmarks in the fiscal year 2003
Budget to support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects on behalf
of the Port of Los Angeles:
--$20,000,000 to start construction dredging of the Channel Deepening
Project;
--$4,000,000 for channel maintenance dredging and rehabilitation of
the Federal breakwater;
--$3,165,000 for ongoing maintenance of the Los Angeles Harbor Model
at WES.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this
testimony in support of continued Congressional support of the Channel
Deepening Project and other important Federal navigation projects at
the Port of Los Angeles. The Port has long valued the support of your
Subcommittee and its appreciation of the port industry's importance to
the economic vitality of the United States, and, in particular, the
role of the Port of Los Angeles in contributing to this country's
economic vigor.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and
its more than 200 member tribal nations, we are pleased to have the
opportunity to present written testimony on fiscal year 2003
appropriations for the Department of Energy.
The tragic events of September 11 brought forth the strength and
the determination of our nation to survive in the face of adversity. It
is this same spirit that has carried Indian Country through years of
annihilation and termination. It is this same spirit that has propelled
Indian Nations forward into an era of self-determination. And it is in
this same spirit of resolve that Indian Nations come before Congress to
talk about honoring the federal government's treaty obligations and
trust responsibilities throughout the fiscal year 2003 budget process.
The federal trust responsibility represents the legal obligation
made by the U.S. government to Indian tribes when their lands were
ceded to the United States. This obligation is codified in numerous
treaties, statutes, Presidential directives, judicial opinions, and
international doctrines. It can be divided into three general areas--
protection of Indian trust lands; protection of tribal self-governance;
and provision of basic social, medical, and educational services for
tribal members.
NCAI realizes that Congress must make difficult budget choices this
year. As elected officials, tribal leaders certainly understand the
competing priorities that members of Congress must weigh over the
coming months. However, the fact that the federal government has a
solemn responsibility to address the serious needs facing Indian
Country remains unchanged, whatever the economic or political climate
may be. We at NCAI urge you to make a strong commitment to meeting the
federal trust obligation by fully funding those Department of Energy
programs that are vital to the creation of vibrant Indian Nations.
office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
The Solar Program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy provides electricity restructuring technical
assistance and analysis to state and tribal decisionmakers to achieve
renewable and energy efficiency goals. It also provides for competitive
solicitation for cost-shared awards for renewable and hybrid field
feasibility studies National Congress of American Indians fiscal year
2003 Energy Appropriations Testimony Page and validation projects. We
support the Administration request of $87 million for the Solar
Program.
In the Renewable Indian Energy Resource Program, the NCAI strongly
urges enactment of the proposed $8.3 million funding level, which would
help tribes with much-needed capacity building activities.
NCAI also supports the proposed increase for the Weatherization
Assistance to $277.1 million. This funding level would greatly assist
in the delivery of cost-effective, energy efficient improvements to
lower-income households.
office of environmental management
The Office of Environmental Management Office of Public
Accountability (EM-11) funds cooperative agreements with several tribes
that are participating in the cleanup and restoration of federal
facilities and lands impacting tribal environmental quality. Funding
for tribal cooperative agreements has been frozen for the past five
years, while the scope of program issues and activities has expanded.
We urge increased funding for all tribal cooperative agreements in
order to provide realistic resources to the tribes involved in cleanup
and environmental restoration programs.
Under the President's budget request, Hanford Site activities would
receive up to $800 million for expedited cleanup efforts in fiscal year
2003. The amount and timing of the increase proposed for the Hanford
Site is dependent upon an agreement between Washington State, the
Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Because
the Hanford Site is on ceded lands of the Umatilla, Yakama, and Nez
Perce tribes, these governments should be included as a consenting and
planning party before finalization of cleanup goals, objectives, and
implementation.
office of civilian radioactive waste management
The Administration has proposed a $150 million increase for the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Programs, which
oversees development of a high-level radioactive waste and spent
nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The funding
increase would be utilized for completing characterization studies,
program integration, and waste acceptance and transportation services.
The State of Nevada and ten counties surrounding Yucca Mountain
have received several million dollars for scientific review of the
studies, yet tribal governments have not received funding for oversight
activities or review and analysis of technical assessments. We urge the
Subcommittee to direct the Department of Energy to provide at least $10
million for impacted tribes to assess the full range of impacts of the
Yucca Mountain repository to their homelands and culture. The Yucca
Mountain Project Office has identified and worked with impacted tribes
and should immediately implement a consultation and funding outreach
with impacted tribal governments.
conclusion
Thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony
regarding the fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the Department of
Energy. The National Congress of American Indians calls upon Congress
to fulfill the federal government's fiduciary duty to American Indians
and Alaska Native people. This responsibility should never be
compromised or diminished because of any political agenda or budget
cut. Tribes throughout the nation relinquished their lands and in
return received a trust obligation, and we ask that Congress maintain
this solemn obligation to Indian Country and continue to assist tribal
governments as we build strong, diverse, and healthy nations for our
people.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ventura Port District
The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress:
--Support the Administration's request for $2,590,000 to be included
in the fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
maintenance dredging of the Ventura Harbor federal channel and
sand traps.
--Include $1,510,000 to the fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to repair the serious structural damage to the South
Beach Groin at Ventura Harbor.
--Include $400,000 in the fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill to continue a cost shared
Feasibility Study to determine the advisability of modifying
the existing Federal navigation project at Ventura Harbor to
include a sand bypass system.
background
Ventura Harbor, homeport to 1500 vessels, is located along the
Southern California coastline in the City of San Buenaventura,
approximately 60 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles. The harbor
opened in 1963. Annual dredging of the harbor entrance area is usually
necessary in order to assure a navigationally adequate channel. In
1968, the 90th Congress made the harbor a Federal project and committed
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide for the maintenance of the
entrance structures and the dredging of the entrance channel and sand
traps.
The harbor presently generates more than $40 million in gross
receipts annually. That, of course, translates into thousands of both
direct and indirect jobs. A significant portion of those jobs are
associated with the commercial fishing industry (the harbor is
consistently amongst the top ten commercial fishing ports in the United
States), and with vessels serving the offshore oil industry.
Additionally, the headquarters for the Channel Islands National Park is
located within the harbor, and the commercial vessels transporting the
nearly 100,000 visitors per year to and from the Park islands offshore,
operate out of the harbor. All of the operations of the harbor,
particularly those related to commercial fishing, the support boats for
the oil industry, and the visitor transport vessels for the Channel
Islands National Park are highly dependent upon a navigationally
adequate entrance to the harbor.
operations & maintenance needs
Maintenance Dredging
It is estimated that $2,590,000 will be required to perform routine
maintenance dredging of the harbor's entrance channel and sand traps
during fiscal year 2003. This dredging work is absolutely essential to
the continued operation of the harbor.
South Beach Groin
It is estimated that $1,510,000 will be required during fiscal year
2003 for the Corps of Engineers to repair extensive storm damage to the
South Beach Groin. While the Congress did add funds to the fiscal year
2002 Appropriations Bill to effectuate these repairs, heavy seas in
late December 2001 and early January 2002 caused a breach to develop in
the trunk of the harbor's offshore breakwater and in light of the fact
that the breach had the potential to immediately impair the
navigability of the harbor entrance the Corps of Engineers, with the
Port District's concurrence, redirected the fiscal year 2002
appropriation to the more urgent breakwater repairs. Thus, the groin
repairs will not be accomplished in fiscal year 2002 and the structure
continues to experience further degradation.
study needs
It is estimated that $400,000 will be required during fiscal year
2003 to continue a cost shared Feasibility Study to determine the
advisability of modifying the existing Federal navigation project at
Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass system. Given the continuing
need for maintenance dredging, it is appropriate to determine if a sand
bypass system or other measures can accomplish the maintenance of the
harbor in a manner that is more efficient and cost effective than the
current contract dredging approach.
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development
mississippi river and tributaries project
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office
of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, is the agency designated
to represent the State of Louisiana in the planning and orderly
development of its water resources. This statement is presented on
behalf of the State of Louisiana and its twenty levee boards. It
contains recommendations for fiscal year 2003 appropriations for work
in Louisiana under the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, which has
the third largest drainage basin in the world, exceeded only by the
watersheds of the Amazon and Congo Rivers. The Mississippi River drains
41 percent, or 1\1/4\ million square miles, of the contiguous United
States and parts of two Canadian provinces. All of the runoff from
major river basins, such as the Missouri and Upper Mississippi, the
Ohio including the Tennessee and others, and the Arkansas and White,
flow into the Lower Mississippi, which empties into the Gulf of Mexico
through Louisiana.
The jurisdiction of levee boards in Louisiana includes one-third of
the State's total area. However, the importance of this one-third of
the State can be seen by the fact that it contains nearly 75 percent of
the State's population and about 90 percent of the State's disposable
personal income. Traditionally, the levee district areas are water rich
and many have fallen heir to industrial development that ranks high in
the nation. It has been estimated that about 60 percent of the State's
agricultural products come from levee district areas. So you can see
why Louisiana and its twenty levee districts are so interested in
seeing the completion of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
In making the following recommendations regarding construction,
studies, and some selected operation and maintenance items, the State
of Louisiana hopes that Congress and the Administration will honor
their prior commitments to infrastructure development and fund our
requests.
Operation and Maintenance.--Request: $62,892,000
--Atchafalaya Basin
--Old River
--Lower Red River, South Bank Levees (Bayou Rapides Drainage
Structure and Pumping Plant)
--Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)
--Channel Improvement (total MR&T)
The operation and maintenance of completed works are essential to
achieving the full benefits of projects. In times of budget constraints
it is essential that operation and maintenance of projects continue as
scheduled in order to maintain their effectiveness, otherwise more
expensive maintenance and rehabilitation would be required at a later
date.
The above listed projects have reached a point where delayed
maintenance is now essential and we urge you to fund these projects to
the full capability of the Corps.
Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T).--Request: $30,600,000
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project above Louisiana is
about 90 percent complete, but to a much lesser extent in Louisiana.
Because of the improvements upstream, increased flows are a major
problem in Louisiana where the project is lagging behind the
construction in the upper valley. Of the total request for levee
construction, most is needed for Louisiana projects. In the Vicksburg
District there is a deficiency of 4 to 7 feet on mainline Mississippi
River levees in the Fifth Louisiana Levee District. It is also
requested that Federal funds be provided to purchase rights-of-way for
this critical work as the Levee District is in an economically
depressed area and does not have a tax base capable of producing the
funds necessary for both maintenance and rights-of-way purchase.
Channel Improvement (total MR&T).--Request: $23,750,000
Channel improvement and bank stabilization provide protection to
the levees and the development behind them, as well as, preventing
unsatisfactory alignment where the river's bank is unstable. The funds
we are requesting will provide for the dredging and revetment work
necessary to accommodate increased flows caused by upstream
improvements.
Morganza to The Gulf of Mexico.--Request: $8,000,000
Funds are requested for pre-construction engineering and design.
This hurricane protection project is vital for coastal Louisiana and
should be constructed as soon as possible. Authorization should be in
WRDA 2002.
Local Contributions for Flood Control Improvements
Historically, Louisiana has always done its part in cooperation
with the Federal agencies concerned with flood control. The Louisiana
Board of State Engineers, the forerunner of the Department of
Transportation and Development, Office of Public Works and Intermodal
Transportation, was created in 1879, the same year as the Mississippi
River Commission, to coordinate the planning and construction of the
required flood control facilities to protect the State. Since that
time, local expenditures for flood control have exceeded $730,000,000.
This amount adjusted to present day dollars represents expenditures in
excess of $5.5 billion. Nearly one-half of the potential flooded area
of the Lower Mississippi River Valley lies in Louisiana. Local
expenditures for flood control have increased with the growth of the
valley. This record not only meets, but exceeds any National Water
Policy local participation requirement ever put into practice.
Conclusion
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has been underway
since 1928 and isn't scheduled for completion until the year 2031--a
date that will continually move further into the future unless an
adequate level of funding is provided each year. We understand the need
for budget constraints, but the past budget requests for the total MR&T
Project has not been adequate. We endorse the recommendation of the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association in their request for $391
million for the MR&T project throughout the whole valley.
The State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and
Development, Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, in
particular, wishes to commend the Appropriations Subcommittees on
Energy and Water Development and express our appreciation for the
foresight and understanding exhibited for water resources projects
which are vital to the national interest. We solicit your further
consideration of the recommendations presented herein.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES--SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--STATE OF LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana
Louisiana Projects Budget Schedule Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance:
Mississippi River Levees........ $6,875,000 $3,456,000
Atchafalaya Basin............... 12,512,000 17,152,000
Channel Improvement............. 14,610,000 14,610,000
Old River Control Structure..... 11,520,000 25,299,000
Bonnet Carre Spillway........... 3,105,000 3,105,000
Lower Red River-Bayou Rapides 125,000 2,375,000
Drainage Structure & Pumping
Plant..........................
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers........... 2,463,000 3,713,000
Red River Backwater Area........ 3,145,000 3,595,000
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway 2,095,000 2,095,000
System, LA.....................
Baton Rouge Harbor-Devil Swamp, 210,000 210,000
LA.............................
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries.. 75,000 75,000
Mississippi Delta Region, 860,000 860,000
Caernarvon, LA.................
Inspection of Completed Works... 751,000 751,000
Mapping......................... 750,000 750,000
Dredging........................ 6,970,000 6,970,000
Revetments & Dikes (AR, LA, MS). 13,170,000 13,170,000
Construction:
Mississippi River Levees........ 29,100,000 30,600,000
Louisiana State Penitentiary 2,449,000 2,449,000
Levee..........................
Atchafalaya Basin............... 18,873,000 21,873,000
Channel Improvements............ 21,350,000 23,750,000
Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway 7,107,000 10,200,000
System.........................
Mississippi Delta Region, Davis 3,500,000 3,500,000
Pond...........................
Mississippi & Louisiana 25,000 25,000
Estuarine Area (Bonnet Carre)..
General Investigations:
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico.. 2,880,000 8,000,000
Donaldsonville to the Gulf of 780,000 1,300,000
Mexico.........................
Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico 420,000 700,000
Spring Bayou.................... 480,000 1,200,000
Tensas River Basin, LA.......... 0 200,000
West Baton Rouge Parish, LA 0 750,000
(recon)........................
Collection & Study of Basic Data 445,000 445,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana (except
where noted) and directly affect the State. We realize that there are
other projects in the Valley. We endorse the recommendations of the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association.
flood control, navigation, hurricane protection and water resources
projects in louisiana
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office
of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, is the agency designated
to represent the State of Louisiana for the coordinated planning and
development of water resources, including flood control, navigation,
drainage, water conservation and irrigation projects; therefore, this
statement is presented on behalf of the State of Louisiana and its
twenty levee boards. We are pleased to present the recommendations for
fiscal year 2003 appropriations for Louisiana projects. The projects
listed herein are in addition to those covered in the statement by the
Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, which has
the third largest drainage basin in the world. The Mississippi drains
41 percent, or 1\1/4\ million square miles, of the contiguous United
States and parts of two Canadian provinces. In addition to the
Mississippi River system, Louisiana contends with other interstate
waters--the Sabine River, the Red River, the Ouachita River, the Amite
River, and the Pearl River. All of these river systems converge toward
Louisiana, passing on to the Gulf of Mexico, draining a figure
approaching 50 percent of these contiguous 48 states.
Louisiana also plays a strategic part in providing the country with
access to world markets through an inland navigation system.
Approximately 75 percent of all soybeans, animal feed, and corn grown
in the United States are shipped through Louisiana. And almost 50
percent of all rice and cereals. Louisiana has the highest waterborne
traffic by state. The river flood control systems work in conjunction
with the hurricane and coastal protection systems to form a total
integrated protection system to protect us from floods of all types.
This integrated system protects the inland navigation system. It also
protects the petrochemical industry in Louisiana which has the second
largest refining capacity in the country producing approximately 15
billion gallons of gasoline at 19 refineries. Louisiana ranks second in
produced natural gas and third for oil production. The pipeline system
which supplies much of the country with natural gas and petroleum
originates in Louisiana. The petrochemical and oil and gas industries
depend almost totally on Federally constructed levee systems to protect
them from floods and hurricanes, and depend on the Federally maintained
navigation system for transportation. This infrastructure development
which benefits the entire country has contributed to the destruction of
our marshes and wetlands which still produce a commercial fish and
shellfish harvest worth more than $600 million and 40 percent of the
Nation's wild fur and hides harvest worth more than $15 million. This
wealth of natural resources cannot survive and propagate for the
economic benefit of our State and Nation without onshore facilities
that require protection from major storms and hurricanes. It would be a
national loss if these facilities and infrastructures were not
protected. But Louisiana alone cannot support the infrastructure on
which the country depends. All these facilities in Louisiana that
support and contribute to the economic well being of the country are
protected by flood control measures; flood control measures that the
Federal Government has appropriately committed itself to provide.
In making the following recommendations regarding construction,
studies, and operation and maintenance items, the State of Louisiana
would hope that Congress and the Administration will honor their prior
commitments to infrastructure development and fund our requests. We
feel that water resources projects are probably the most worthwhile and
cost-effective projects in the Federal budget, having to meet stringent
economic justification criteria not required of other programs. We ask
that this be taken into consideration in the final decision to
appropriate the available funds.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock.--Request: $30,000,000
The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) lock has long been
considered dimensionally obsolete and is a key to the viability of the
Port of New Orleans, the nation's 4th largest.
West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans, LA.--Request: $25,000,00
We urge Congress to provide for an accelerated construction
schedule for this project to provide hurricane protection to the
metropolitan area of New Orleans.
Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control.--Request: $100,000,000
We urge that the approved five-year construction schedule be
maintained by authorizing funds to the full capability of the Corps.
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Hurricane Protection.--Request:
$14,900,000
Funding to the full capability of the Corps will allow for the
completion of existing construction contracts and to continue with
other required work.
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Baton Rouge to Gulf.--Request: $200,000
The funds will be used to complete existing construction contracts
for saltwater intrusion mitigation to the water supply of Plaquemines
Parish.
New Orleans to Venice.--Request: $3,500,000
This is a hurricane protection project for Plaquemines Parish. The
funds requested are needed to continue construction of this important
hurricane protection project.
Larose to Golden Meadow.--Request: $410,000
This is a hurricane protection project which will protect the
developed areas along Bayou Lafourche. Funds are needed to complete
this project.
Ouachita River Levees.--Request: $3,600,000
The Ouachita River Levees are deficient and need to be brought up
to Federal standards. We request that specific language be added to the
appropriations bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to accomplish
this task.
J. Bennett Johnston (Red River) Waterway.--Request: $29,000,000
Remaining work consists of additional channel training works,
purchase of mitigation lands and construction of recreation features.
We urge the approval of funds for fiscal year 2003 based on the
previously approved schedule.
Grand Isle and Vicinity.--Request: $213,000
Funds are requested to complete the study.
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA.--Request: $1,000,000
The funds requested are needed initiate construction.
Lake Pontchartrain Westshore.--Request: $300,000
Funds would be used to advance Pre-construction, engineering and
design.
MR-GO Reevaluation Study.--Request: $16,351,000
The Environmental Protection Agency, at the request of local
officials, has formed a task force to re-examine the navigation project
based on the amount of economic benefits and the safety issues of
possible storm damage.
Orleans Parish, LA.--Request: $25,000
This project is in addition to the Southeast Urban Flood Control
projects already under construction in Orleans Parish. The funds
requested would be used to advance pre-construction engineering and
design.
Jefferson Parish, LA.--Request: $25,000
This project is in addition to the Southeast Urban Flood Control
projects already under construction in Jefferson Parish. The funds
requested would be used to advance pre-construction engineering and
design.
Calcasieu Lock, LA.--Request: $800,000
The Calcasieu Lock is becoming congested due to an increase in
traffic. The funds will be used to advance the feasibility study.
St. Bernard Parish, Urban Flood Control.--Request: $500,000
Flood control improvements are needed to reduce the repetitive
damages to residential development, which is consistent with
Administration policy. The funds will be used to advance the
feasibility study.
New Study Requests.--Request: $200,000
Several new study requests will address a comprehensive look at the
hurricane protection system, urban flood control, ecosystem restoration
and beneficial use of dredged material. See attached Summary Sheet for
individual projects.
Continuing Authorities Projects
We urge you to discontinue the practice of earmarking funds and to
raise the program limits for Section 205 projects to $60 million.
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
The passage of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act has been a positive force for Louisiana. We support the
continued funding for this program.
Red River Basin Chloride Control Project.--Request: $2,000,000
The funds are needed to continue environmental monitoring and
completion of the Ouchita River re-evaluation studies.
Operation and Maintenance.--Request: Full Capability
It is essential that operation and maintenance not be delayed which
would hamper the effectiveness of the projects and cause more expensive
maintenance at a later date. We urge you to continue funding O&M to the
Corps' full capability.
Conclusion
``The 2003 Budget targets funds to those waterways that provide the
greatest economic return, and substantially reduces funding for those
that provide minor commercial navigation benefits.'' That statement is
from the President's Budget. It is in direct contradiction with the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 9,
which states: ``No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of
Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another;
nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter,
clear, or pay Duties in another.'' Clearly, the President's budget
gives preference to ports that are on the so-called efficient waterways
over the ports that are on the underutilized channels. This preference
is not supported by the Senate who likened the waterways to the
interstate highway system in Senate Report 107-39. The Senate
understands the importance of the smaller channels that feed into the
main arteries of commerce. We believe that this budget policy, if
allowed to become reality, would devastate the national economy. We
need to think and practice ``intermodalism'' throughout the government.
It does no good for the Department of Transportation to promote
intermodal transportation when the administration is actively
neglecting the maintenance of the waterway infrastructure. We urge your
continued support for our marine transportation infrastructure.
We wish to express our thanks to the Appropriations Subcommittees
on Energy and Water Development of the House and Senate for allowing us
to present this brief on the needs of Louisiana. Without reservation,
practically every single project in Louisiana which has been made
possible through actions of these committees has shown a return in
benefits many times in excess of that contemplated by the authorizing
legislation. The projects which you fund affect the economy of not only
Louisiana, but the nation as a whole. The State of Louisiana
appreciates the accomplishments of the past and solicits your
consideration of the appropriations requested for fiscal year 2003.
FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION AND WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS IN LOUISIANA--SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR
2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana
Louisiana Projects Budget Schedule Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal $9,000,000 $30,000,000
Lock...........................
West Bank Vicinity of New 5,000,000 25,000,000
Orleans, LA....................
Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood 20,083,000 100,000,000
Control........................
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, 4,900,000 14,900,000
Hurricane Prot.................
Mississippi River Ship Channel, 200,000 200,000
LA.............................
New Orleans to Venice, Hurricane 900,000 3,500,000
Protection.....................
Larose to Golden Meadow, 410,000 410,000
Hurricane Protection...........
Ouachita River Levees........... 0 3,600,000
J. Bennet Johnston (Red River) 11,016,000 29,000,000
Waterway, LA...................
Grand Isle and Vicinity......... 0 213,000
Comite River Diversion.......... 3,000,000 7,000,000
MR-GO Reevaluation Study........ 0 1,711,000
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA..... 0 1,000,000
Ascension Parish (Environmental 0 1,000,000
Infrastructure), LA............
East Baton Rouge Parish 0 6,574,000
(Environmental Infrastructure),
LA.............................
Livingston Parish (Environmental 0 1,000,000
Infrastructure), LA............
Red River Chloride Control...... ( \1\ ) ................
Pre-construction Engineering and
Design:
Lafayette Parish, LA............ 125,000 750,000
Orleans Parish, LA.............. 25,000 25,000
Jefferson Parish, LA............ 25,000 25,000
West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, 100,000 300,000
LA.............................
Intracoastal Waterway Locks 110,000 500,000
(Bayou Sorrel), LA.............
Authorized Studies:
Calcasieu Lock.................. 150,000 800,000
Louisiana Coastal Area-Ecosystem 785,000 5,000,000
Restoration Feasibility Study
(COAST 2050)..................
St. Bernard Parish, Urban Flood 150,000 500,000
Control........................
St. John the Baptist Parish, LA. 100,000 300,000
Calcasieu River Basin, LA....... 150,000 700,000
Amite River & Tributaries, LA- 100,000 700,000
Bayou Manchac..................
Amite River Ecosystem 150,000 600,000
Restoration....................
Atchafalaya, Chene, Boeuf and 100,000 500,000
Black..........................
Hurricane Protection 125,000 1,000,000
Improvements...................
St. Charles Parish, Urban Flood 100,000 450,000
Control........................
Plaquemines Parish, Urban Flood 100,000 500,000
Control........................
Port of Iberia, LA.............. 185,000 685,000
Ouachita River Bank 37,000 37,000
Stabilization (AR, LA).........
New Study Requests:
Millenium Port, LA.............. 0 100,000
Port Fourchon Enlargement, LA... 0 100,000
Pearl River, Bogalusa (MS)...... 0 500,000
Operation and Maintenance: \2\ 158,428,000 210,949,000
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, 14,681,000 19,181,000
Boeuf & Black..................
Barataria Bay Waterway.......... 0 5,060,000
Bayou Lafourche................. 1,085,000 1,085,000
Calcasieu River & Pass.......... 15,852,000 21,352,000
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway...... 19,129,000 27,464,000
Miss River, Baton Rouge to the 57,482,000 66,162,000
Gulf...........................
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet... 13,061,000 16,351,000
Miss River Gulf Outlets at 80,000 2,755,000
Venice.........................
Ouachita & Black Rivers (AR, LA) 6,491,000 10,795,000
J Bennett Johnson WW............ 7,297,000 16,764,000
Lake Providence Harbor.......... 20,000 441,000
Madison Parish Port............. 5,000 97,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Full capability.
\2\ Note: The following is only a partial listing of the most severely
under budgeted projects.
______
Prepared Statement of Fifth Louisiana Levee District
With the combined efforts of the Washington delegation, the
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, the Vicksburg District,
Corp of Engineers, the State of Louisiana, and the Fifth Louisiana
Levee District, great strides have been made in recent years regarding
flood protection for the people of Louisiana. Vulnerable areas, levee
stretches insufficient in height, have been reduced significantly.
Completing construction of the remaining Levee enlargement projects, as
planned, at the earliest date(s) possible, is the only way to insure
that investments already made in the mainline Mississippi River Levee
System are protected.
It is also the only way to insure that the people of Louisiana are
protected. As long as any section of the Mississippi River Levee System
is deficient, people are at risk. The Levee System in Louisiana and
Mississippi must be brought to heights and capabilities equal to that
of the levees to the north.
The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association has requested a
total appropriation of $391,000,000 (copy attached) in fiscal year 2003
for Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T), to be divided among the
seven states covered by the Project.
To guarantee that the Vicksburg District, Corp of Engineers is able
to proceed with construction plans for the Mississippi River Levee
System and ensure that MR&T construction schedules are met, it is
essential that the $25,5000,000 ``capability'', as requested and
allocated for construction of Levees within the Division, be funded.
The people of Louisiana spend six months each year contending with
the possibility of being flooded by waters descending from the northern
reaches of this nation, and the other six months contending with the
competing demands on the water resources of the area, especially in the
Tensas River Basin in Louisiana. Demands for water use and the decline
of environmental resources combine to create a perpetual problem to the
health and economy of the Basin.
Additional funds in the amount of $250,000, allocated for Tensas
River Basin, Louisiana, Reconnaissance Study, are needed in order for
the Corps of Engineers to complete a thorough study that is required to
ensure proper and efficient use of the Basin's water resources, a study
investigating a comprehensive watershed approach to the problem. I urge
support of that request for funding.
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association--Fiscal Year 2003 Civil
Works Requested Budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations
PROJECT AND STATE MVFCA REQUEST
SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING AND ENGINEERING &
ADVANCE ENGINEERING & DESIGN:
Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS......................... $25,000
Germantown, TN...................................... 345,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............................. 123,000
Millington, TN...................................... 150,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkansas...................... 180,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico................ 420,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.................. 2,880,000
Donaldsonville, LA to Gulf of Mexico................ 780,000
Spring Bayou, LA.................................... 505,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.................... 600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL--SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING
..................................................
& ENGINEERING & ADVANCE ENGINEERING &
..................................................
DESIGN.......................................... 6,008,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
CONSTRUCTION:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............ 5,020,000
Eight Mile Creek, AR................................ 1,960,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............................... 1,360,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR............................ 12,200,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...................... 100,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................................. 1,995,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................................... 710,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......................... 4,270,000
Yazoo Basin, MS..................................... 46,300,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................... 28,210,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.......................... 10,000,000
MS Delta Region, LA................................. 3,500,000
Horn Lake Creek, MS................................. 509,000
MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA..................... 25,000
Louisiana State Penitentiary, LA.................... 2,449,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA... 39,140,000
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS &
LA................................................ 50,285,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL--CONSTRUCTION............................ 208,033,000
SUBTOTAL--MAINTENANCE............................. 200,837,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
SUBTOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES......... 414,878,000
LESS REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE................... -30,878,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES............ 384,000,000
FULL FUNDING FOR FEDERAL RETIREE COSTS.................. 7,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES...... 391,000,000
______
Prepared Statement of St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas
executive summary
The Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association fiscal year
2003 Civil Works Budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries
Appropriations--Requesting Appropriations of $4,270,000 for
Construction and $12,900,000 for Maintenance and Operation in the St.
Francis Basin Project and a Total of $391,000,000 for the Mississippi
River Tributaries Project.
background information
My name is Rob Rash, and my home is in Marion, Arkansas, located on
the West side of the Mississippi River and in the St. Francis Basin. I
am the Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas.
Our District is the local cooperation organization for the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis Basin Project in
Northeast Arkansas. Our District is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of 160 miles of Mississippi River Levee and 75 miles of St.
Francis River Tributary Levee in Northeast Arkansas.
The St. Francis Basin is comprised of an area of approximately
7,550 square miles in Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas. The
basin extends from the foot of Commerce Hills near Cape Girardeau,
Missouri to the mouth of the St. Francis River, seven miles above
Helena, Arkansas, a total distance of 235 miles. It is bordered on the
east by the Mississippi River and on the West by the uplands of
Bloomfield and Crowley's Ridge, having a maximum width of 53 miles.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis
Basin Project provide critical flood protection to over 2,500 square
miles in Northeast Arkansas alone. This basin's flood control system is
the very lifeblood of our livelihood and prosperity. Our resources and
infrastructure are allowing the St. Francis Basin and the Lower
Mississippi Valley to develop into a major commercial and industrial
area for this great nation. The basin is quickly becoming a major steel
and energy production area. The agriculture industry in Northeast
Arkansas and the Lower Mississippi Valley continues to play an integral
role in providing food and clothing for this nation. This has all been
made possible because Congress has long recognized that flood control
in the Lower Mississippi Valley is a matter of national interest and
security and has authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
implement a flood control system in the Lower Mississippi Valley that
is the envy of the civilized world. With the support of Congress over
the years, we have continued to develop our flood control system in the
Lower Mississippi Valley through the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project and for that we are extremely grateful.
Although, at the current level of project completion, there are
areas in the Lower Mississippi Valley that are subject to major
flooding on the Mississippi River. The level of funding that has been
included in the President's Budget for the overall Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project is not sufficient to adequately fund and
maintain this project. The level of funding will require the citizens
of the Lower Mississippi Valley to live needlessly in the threat of
major flood devastation for the next 30 years. Timely project
completion is of paramount importance to the citizens of the Lower
Mississippi. Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou improvements are just one of
many construction projects necessary for flood relief in the St.
Francis Basin. Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou improvements were
reauthorized by Congress through the Flood Control Act of 1928, as
amended. Section 104 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2001
modified the St. Francis Basin to expand the project boundaries to
include Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayous and shall not be considered
separable elements. The first item of work cannot begin until the
Design Document Review and Environmental Assessment are completed in
April 2002 for the total project length of 38 miles. Total project
length includes Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou, Ditch No. 15 and the 10
Mile Diversion Ditch that provide drainage for the West Memphis and
Vicinity. Without additional funds, construction would be delayed and
West Memphis and Vicinity will continue to experience record flooding
as of December 17, 2001. West Memphis and Vicinity would experience
immediate flood relief when the first item of construction is
completed.
proposed funding
We support the amount of 391,000,000 requested by the Mississippi
Valley Flood Control Association for use in the overall Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project. This is the minimum amount that the
Executive Committee of the Association feels is necessary to maintain a
reasonable time line for completion of the overall Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project. Also, the amounts that have been included in
the President's Budget for the St. Francis Basin Project; construction,
operation and maintenance have not been sufficient to fund critical
projects. These declined amounts have resulted in a significant backlog
of work within the St. Francis Basin. Therefore, our District is
requesting additional capabilities of 12,900,000 for the St. Francis
Basin Project construction funds and $4,270,000 for the St. Francis
Basin operation and maintenance funds. The amounts requested for the
St. Francis Basin Project are a part of the total amounts requested for
the Mississippi River and Tributary Appropriations of the Civil Works
Budget.
summation
As your subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget of fiscal year
2003 Appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,
please consider the significance of this project to the Lower
Mississippi Valley and the Nation's, economy and infrastructure. As
always, I feel the Subcommittee will give due regard to the needs of
the Lower Mississippi River Valley as it considers appropriations for
the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. I would like to
sincerely thank the Subcommittee for its past and continued support of
the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
Also, I would like to express our continued support for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the fine water resource projects that they
perform. However, we find the Corps under constant attack from a
variety of organizations and special interests groups. A few members of
Congress are even proposing to reform the Corps. In our opinion,
leadership at the Corps is of the highest level of professional
integrity, and the processes in place result in projects that are
essential to the well being of our great nation. I can think of no
other agency that provides such a vital service to the citizens of this
country. The Corps of Engineers is the worlds' premiere engineering and
construction agency. They have the expertise and technical ability to
perform any task or solve any problem the nation could possibly face.
We depend on their services daily. I would like to respectfully request
that you and your Subcommittee help us defend the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers from these unjustified attacks and accusations and to promote
them as the fine agency that they are and have been for the past 226
years.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION--FISCAL YEAR 2003 CIVIL
WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Recommended
Project and State Budget Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING & ADVANCE ENGINEERING &
DESIGN:
Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS......... $25,000 $0
Memphis Harbor, TN.................. 0 700,000
Germantown, TN...................... 345,000 545,000
Wolf River, Memphis, TN............. 123,000 123,000
Millington, TN...................... 150,000 150,000
Bayou Meto Basin, AR................ 0 1,880,000
Southeast Arkansas.................. 0 900,000
Boydsville, AR...................... 0 150,000
Coldwater Basin Below Arkansas...... 180,000 300,000
Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico 420,000 700,000
Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico.. 2,880,000 7,500,000
Donaldsonville, LA to Gulf of Mexico 780,000 1,300,000
Spring Bayou, LA.................... 505,000 1,250,000
Tensas River, LA.................... 0 200,000
Donaldsonville Port Development, LA. 0 100,000
Collection & Study of Basic Data.... 600,000 600,000
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--SURVEYS, CONTINUATION OF 6,008,000 16,398,000
PLANNING & ENGINEERING & ADVANCE
ENGINEERING & DESIGN.............
===============================
CONSTRUCTION:
St. John's Bayou-New Madrid 100,000 5,020,000
Floodway, MO.......................
Eight Mile Creek, AR................ 750,000 1,960,000
Helena & Vicinity, AR............... 660,000 1,360,000
Grand Prairie Region, AR \1\........ 0 12,200,000
West Tennessee Tributaries, TN...... 100,000 100,000
Nonconnah Creek, TN................. 605,000 1,995,000
Reelfoot Lake, TN................... 0 710,000
St. Francis Basin, MO & AR.......... 1,970,000 4,270,000
Yazoo Basin, MS \2\................. 10,550,000 35,875,000
Atchafalaya Basin, LA............... 18,873,000 28,210,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.......... 7,010,000 10,000,000
MS Delta Region, LA................. 3,500,000 3,500,000
Horn Lake Creek, MS................. 300,000 509,000
MS & LA Estaurine Area, MS & LA..... 25,000 25,000
Louisiana State Penitentiary, LA.... 2,449,000 2,449,000
Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, 36,690,000 39,140,000
AR, TN, MS & LA....................
Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, 42,360,000 50,285,000
MO, AR, TN, MS & LA................
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--CONSTRUCTION............ 125,942,000 197,608,000
===============================
SUBTOTAL--MAINTENANCE............. 162,135,000 200,837,000
===============================
SUBTOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & 294,085,000 414,843,000
TRIBUTARIES......................
LESS REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE... -13,085,000 -30,843,000
-------------------------------
TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & 281,000,000 384,000,000
TRIBUTARIES......................
===============================
FULL FUNDING FOR FEDERAL RETIREE COSTS.. 7,000,000 7,000,000
===============================
GRAND TOTAL--MISSISSIPPI RIVER & 288,000,000 391,000,000
TRIBUTARIES............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Capability--$45,000,000.
\2\ Capability--$44,775,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
This statement today, made on behalf of the citizens represented by
the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board, is not only in support of the
funding request contained herein, but also for the general funding
testimony offered for fiscal 2003 by the Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association. The Association is requesting funding in the
amount of $391 million for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project (MR&T), an amount based on the Association's professional
assessment of the capabilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi Valley Division.
A copy of my remarks is included and I ask that it be made a part
of the record. In the aftermath of the devastating and historic Great
Flood of 1927, the Flood Control Act of 1928 established as national
priority, the development of a comprehensive flood control plan to
reduce the likelihood of such a horrific events ever happening again in
the lower Mississippi valley. As we look back, now 74 years later, the
MR&T has returned $23 in benefits for every dollar expended-truly an
American public works success story.
Significantly, however, a substantial amount of uncompleted work on
the project remains, necessarily exposing many areas to the risks of
flooding. Consequently, the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board asks
Congress to provide funding at a level which will allow the MR&T to
continue at a pace commensurate with the national priority to protect
people and property from the ravages of flooding. In order to avoid the
sorts of delays which can result in the loss of life and livelihoods,
we must again depend upon the good men and women of Congress to add the
necessary funding to the Administration's budget which will allow the
Corps of Engineers to proceed with its work at full capacity.
A brief summation of and justification for our request, along with
a line-item chart reflecting existing and needed funding levels for
MR&T projects in Mississippi follows, with special emphasis given to
those projects most critical to our levee district:
mississippi river levees and channels improvement
Of special interest to our district is the ongoing joint effort
between our board and the Memphis District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, to address significant underseepage and boils which occur
during high river stages at the Hillhouse area of Coahoma County. A
system of relief wells is planned and we urgently hope that adequate
funding for this, and other efforts to strengthen and enlarge the
Mainline Mississippi River Levee will be available. Overall, the needs
for levees and channels in Mississippi and neighboring states totals
$50.285 million, with an additional $2.375 million in maintenance funds
required in Mississippi for additional gravel surfacing and operational
costs, along with $13.170 million earmarked for bank stabilization and
shoreline protection.
upper yazoo projects (uyp)
The number one priority for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee
Board, the Upper Yazoo Project was originally conceived in 1936. This
project includes a system of flood control reservoirs which discharge
into a system of channels and levees intended to safely convey
headwater from the hills to the Mississippi River. While this project
has been proceeding smoothly to date, it is absolutely critical to the
people of the North Delta that it continue on schedule. The necessity
of that was made quite clear by this winter's flooding, all of which
was related to problems which would be solved with completion of the
UYP. We are requesting that $18 million be appropriated for fiscal 2003
so that work items 5A, 5B and Item 7 structures might be completed and
that the acquisition of mitigation lands might continue.
yazoo headwater flood control reservoirs
Four major flood control reservoirs exist in Mississippi to control
the release of headwater into the Yazoo River system--Sardis,
Arkabutla, Enid and Grenada. These have prevented significant flood
damages through allowing drainage from the state's hill section to be
released into the much lower Delta at controlled rates. The proper
maintenance and operation of these reservoirs are essential to all
persons residing downstream. All four require both routine maintenance
and upgrading, and we are requesting that Congress allocate the needed
$53.457 million so that they can continue to function effectively.
big sunflower river construction and maintenance projects
The primary drainage outlet for 10 counties in Mississippi, the
Sunflower River System has been subject to the same siltation factors
common to all Delta streams. The Corps of Engineers has determined that
the river has a 40 percent reduction in its flow capacity. While the
urgently needed completion of this project has been delayed by politics
and litigation, it is our belief that these problems will soon be
resolved, and we are requesting that Congress allocate $4.115 million
in maintenance funds so that scheduled work items might proceed at that
time. Additionally, we are requesting $1.2 million in construction
funds so that Item 66 A/B at Swan Lake might be completed and that
mitigation lands might be purchased.
demonstration erosion control project (dec)
While the Administration's budget contains no funding for these
projects--most of which lie outside our district--we strongly feel that
the continued funding of DEC is important due to the fact that
substantial amounts of the sediments which would be controlled by them
would eventually end up within the Coldwater-Tallahatchie-Yazoo River
system. Just as now exists with the Big Sunflower, such sedimentation
would necessarily result in significant additional maintenance within
the overall river system.
greenwood and yazoo city
Additional maintenance funds totaling $2.725 million are needed to
continue existing pump plant operations, remove silt and install relief
wells.
main stem
Maintenance funding in the amount of $3.239 million is required for
needed repairs and rehabilitation of the Cassidy and Whiting Bayou,
Wasp Lake and Piney Creek drainage structures.
yazoo backwater
Although lying wholly outside our district, we continue to support
the Mississippi Levee Board's efforts to reduce the effects of annual
backwater flooding in the South Delta. We join in their request for
$14.250 million in additional funding in order to accelerate design and
initiate a pumps contract and to acquire right-of-way and easement
lands. We also support their request for $680,000 in maintenance funds
to rehabilitate bulkheads at Steele Bayou, Little Sunflower and Muddy
Bay drainage structures.
continuing authority programs
The YMD Levee Board has committed to assist local governments in
co-sponsoring projects that fall under the Corps Continuing Authority
Program. There is tremendous need for Section 14, Section 205, and
Section 208 programs throughout our district. We urge that Congress
fund these authorities to their maximum appropriation limits.
Those of us at the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee Board are deeply
appreciative of the enormous support lent our efforts by Congress in
the past and it is with full awareness of the challenges facing our
great nation that we earnestly request that you support us again in
meeting our challenge of keeping the flood waters at bay.
Humbly submitted on behalf of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee
Board and all the citizens it seeks to keep dry.
______
Prepared Statement of the Little River Drainage District
My name is Dr. Sam Hunter, DVM of Sikeston, Missouri. I am a
veterinarian, landowner, farmer and resident of Southeast Missouri.
I am the President of the Little River Drainage District, the
largest such entity in the nation. Our District serves as an outlet
drainage and flood control District to parts of seven (7) counties in
Southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable
area of Northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax
supported by more than 3,500 private landowners in Southeast Missouri.
Our District, as well as other Drainage and Levee Districts in
Missouri and Arkansas, is located within the St. Francis River Basin.
This is a project item of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project.
The St. Francis Basin Project was authorized by Congress in 1928
for improvements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The initial
authorization was justified by a projected benefit cost ratio of 2.4:1.
Today this ratio is 3.6:1 and the project is still not completed. As
you can see this has been a wise investment of our federal tax dollars.
Few projects or ventures with funding levels provided by the Federal
Government return more than they cost. This one does and we need to
complete it in a timely fashion.
Local interests have done their part in providing rights of way,
roads, utilities and the like. Our government now needs to fulfill
their part of the project and bring it to completion as quickly as
possible.
The amount allocated for maintenance in the St. Francis Basin
Project for fiscal year 2002 was approximately $11.8 million. This is a
slight increase over what had been occurring for the past five (5)
years which we saw funding levels average approximately $9.5 million.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had a capability of approximately $15
million last year.
We believe the Corps could adequately use approximately $13 million
a year for maintenance within that basin. We respectfully request
Congress approve funding for maintenance in the St. Francis Basin
Project of $12.9 million. This is only $100,000 more than what was
allocated in fiscal year 2002 and is only $2.4 million more than what
is in the President's budget. Further we would request $4.27 million be
budgeted for construction money in this project. The $4.27 million is
equal to the Corps capability.
Since the initiation of the project for improvements we have seen
many positive changes occur such as:
--Many miles of all weather roads have been constructed and are
usable almost daily each year.
--Improved flood control and drainage.
--Development of one of the most fertile and diversified valleys in
the world.
--Growth of towns, schools, churches, industry, commerce, and etc.
--Improvement of our environment: malaria, typhoid and other such
diseases are no longer the norm but seldom occur.
--A future for our young people to have a desire to remain in the
area.
--Production of a variety of food and fiber products.
As you can see many changes have occurred and we who live there
welcome them fully. We, local interests, in Southeast Missouri and
Northeast Arkansas want this project brought to completion and
adequately maintained. We have waited over seventy (70) years and we
believe it is now time to complete a wise investment for our nation.
Our requests to you today is to approve funding for the St. Francis
Basin Project of $4,270,000 for construction for the fiscal year 2003
and with funding of not less than $12,900,000 to perform the required
and needed annual maintenance of items within that project which have
been completed and which are the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
The Corps of Engineers has a capability of more than $391,000,000
for fiscal year 2003 in the MR&T Project. We ask you to give
consideration to provide funding levels at $391,000,000 for this
project for fiscal year 2003. This will provide some new construction
but it will also provide the necessary maintenance monies needed each
year.
Our great Mississippi River and the other navigable tributaries are
valuable assets to our great nation. As far back as 1845 we find
records indicating our forefathers and leaders of this nation
recognized the Mississippi River as a national problem, a national
asset, and a problem local interests could not and should not be
responsible for controlling, namely, flood control and navigation. The
river has always been a viable asset to our nation and important to the
development of our towns along its banks such as New Orleans,
Louisiana, Memphis, Tennessee, St. Louis, Missouri, and of course many
others along it and its tributaries.
We have locks and dams which are more than fifty (50) years old.
They need to be improved and enlarged to meet the needs for our
navigation interest to perform in the 21st century. Our competing
nations are modernizing and building navigation systems in order to
compete with our export of commodities and we need to at least keep
pace. We must upgrade our waterways infrastructure in order to compete
with the foreign markets and we must improve our aging waterway
facilities. No successful private industry does not improve and
modernize it internal and external features in order to keep pace with
the competition and to meet current demands. Our nation needs to do the
same.
It has been proven over and over our waterway transportation system
is the safest, the most environmentally acceptable, and the most fuel
efficient in moving commodities and materials throughout our nation. It
would be totally unacceptable and very unwise to diminish that mode of
moving products throughout our nation and expect them to be moved
either by rail or by highways. Our highway systems already are in dire
need of repair and to add additional demands on them would be extremely
costly, very unsafe, and would expend much more fuel which we currently
do not have but must import. Hopefully, common sense will prevail and
Congress will make the choice to invest into one (1) of the greatest
assets we have in our nation. The many locks and dams on our rivers are
needed. They were designed to accommodate traffic fifty (50) years ago
and it is now time to upgrade, enlarge, and construct them to
accommodate the industry as we have it today. We have done the same
thing with our vehicular traffic on our roads by upgrading, enlarging,
and constructing to meet the modern day demands. It is now time and
past time to do the same for our water industry. Former President
Eisenhower saw an increase in our car and truck traffic on the horizon
and thus we implemented an extensive interstate system. Let's do
something in a similar way on our rivers.
Our nation is the world's leading maritime and trading nation. We
rely on an efficient and effective marine transport system to maintain
our role as a global power.
Our current waterway system has improved the quality of life and
has provided a foundation for economic growth and development in the
United States particularly throughout the Mississippi Valley. Our flood
control systems work, our transport systems are efficient, our multi-
purpose projects all contribute to our national prosperity. The
benefits are real, the flood damages are known to have prevented much
devastation. Transportation costs have been reduced and increased trade
worldwide has increased. Unfortunately our nation has not invested in
water resource projects and has not kept pace with the economic and
social expansion not only in this country but on global markets as
well. Most of our locks and dams are outdated and were designed only
for a fifty year life. We have exceeded that on nearly half of those
locks. Many of our locks are undersized for modern commercial barge
demands and need to be modernized. There is currently $9 billion needed
for waterway improvements in addition to a backlog of approximately
$240,000,000 which we need to address in this country. Our country
should have the same vision and the same goal of modernizing and
upgrading our waterway system as we upgraded and modernized our
interstate system across our country.
Recently the American Society of Civil Engineers provided an
independent report card review on America's infrastructure. Features
that were graded were roads, bridges, transit systems, aviation
schools, drinking water, waste water, dams, solid waste, hazardous
waste, navigable waterways, and energy. The highest grade this
independent organization gave was a C+ to our solid waste disposal
system. The overall average which they gave to our infrastructure was a
D+. This is shameful and this needs to be corrected. The ASCE estimates
approximately $1.3 trillion needs to be spent on our infrastructure
over the next five (5) years.
What a great way for our country to stimulate its economy and at
the same time be building and making investments into a system which
will return back more dollars than expended. This would be a ``win-
win'' endeavor for our citizens. It would be:
--A win for our economy as it would put private contractors to work.
--A win for the environment as it would encourage more companies to
ship products on our waterways which is the cleanest form of
transportation.
--A win for the safety of the movement of those goods throughout our
nation. Barge transportation is the safest form of
transportation we have.
--A win for our taxpayers. What an encouragement, it should be to the
American taxpayer to see our tax dollars invested returning
more than was spent. Few, if any, other government programs do
that.
--A win for our nation since we are upgrading and improving a part of
our infrastructure which is long past due and which will permit
fair and open competition with other nations for foreign
markets.
--A win for saving fuel to ship tons of commodities by water instead
of rail or highways. Barges are the most fuel efficient to move
tonnage of products.
--A win for our defense system should the Mississippi River be needed
to move wartime materials and weapons through our waterway
systems. At least let's have a modern system in place to use
should such a need arise.
We have only a few oil producing fields, therefore, we must look
for as many means as possible to conserve our fuel. Utilizing and
increasing our waterway transportation industry is one (1) way to do
that. We need an energy plan and we encourage Congress to incorporate
increased use of water to move products throughout our nation as one
way to conserve fuel. Every little bit will help when our oil resources
are so small domestically.
This past year there has been much unfair criticism of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for their study procedures and related work.
This organization should have their hands held up high and not with
accusing fingers pointed toward them. We say it is about time the Corps
Program begins to grow. Certainly it does not need to diminish. No
other organization, to my knowledge, must stand before Congress each
year and justify by a favorable cost/benefit ratio of why they need the
funding to do the work Congress has authorized them to do. The
Mississippi and Tributaries Project currently returns back to the
Federal Treasury more than $25 for each dollar spent. In any society
and to any investor that is a good return.
The Corps of Engineers does not do anything beyond what Congress
has authorized them to do. They can and they will improve our great
nation if Congress will only let them and if those groups who oppose
them are not given the never ending ability to interfere. Those groups
and individuals who oppose the Corps seem to only have to point a
finger and we see an investigation occur. They should be required to
provide scientific facts and supporting evidence not ``innuendos'',
``perhaps'', ``maybes'', and ``could have'' type charges before any
consideration is given to their allegations. Simply to delay a project
or to cast doubt in the citizens eyes through their good use of our
news media means they have been successful. Local interests and those
who benefit from the Corps projects are fully aware of the results of
their tactics. We are sure Congress in their wisdom will do the same.
Your assistance in this matter is extremely important. Congressman
Barry from Arkansas and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson from Missouri
understands the problem. Perhaps many more of the other 433 will be
likewise enlightened.
I wish to thank you very much for your time and kind attention and
for taking the time to review the above discourse. We would be very
appreciative of anything this committee can do to help us improve our
environment, improve our livelihood, and improve the area in which we
live and work which ultimately is good for America. We are also very
appreciative of all this Committee has done for us in the past. We
trust you will hear our pleas and act accordingly.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pontchartrain Levee District
mississippi river and tributaries flood control project
SUMMARY FISCAL YEAR 2003 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Budget Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi River & Tributaries Flood $288,000,000 $391,000,000
Control Project........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Flood Control Project has
been under construction as an authorized project for about 73 years,
and yet there are a number of segments not yet complete. Although most
levees are complete to grade and section in south Louisiana an
extensive reach from the Old River Control Structure in lower Concordia
Parish upstream to the Lake Providence area is still below grade.
Should these levees be overtopped during a major flood, those people in
south Louisiana know full well those flood waters are going to head
southward. Other items not yet complete are slope protection and crown
surfacing. It is recommended that a minimum of $50,285,000 be
appropriated for Mississippi River Levees.
The second item of indispensable importance to Pontchartrain Levee
District and the State of Louisiana is Channel Improvements. Main line
levees must be protected from caving banks throughout this lower river
reach where extremely narrow battures are the last line of defense
against levee crevasses and failures. If caving banks are not
controlled the only answer is ``setback''. Simply stated there is no
room remaining for levee setbacks in the Pontchartrain Levee District.
Revetment construction must be annually funded to prevent levee
failures, land losses and relocations. This item also benefits the 55-
foot depth navigation channel. The Pontchartrain Levee District
recommends at least $39,140,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2003
for Mississippi River Channel Improvements.
comments
The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the
necessity of keeping these Subcommittees advised of current and future
needs for federal monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood
Control Project. Beginning in 1995 the Subcommittees refused to give
audience to the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. This year
no oral testimony will be heard. Again, this is a great travesty of
justice. Such actions seriously erode the partnership that has been
built between Congress, the Corps of Engineers and local sponsors.
We trust that this pattern will revert back to the sixty-three year
practice of hearing our delegation. Five representatives from the
Pontchartrain Levee District are present today desiring to present
views to the Subcommittees--they are:
--Commissioners: Joseph Gautreau, President; Jesse J. Bartley; and
Steven Wilson.
--Staff: Mike Babin, Program Administrator; and Susan Canatella,
Secretary to the Board.
conclusion
The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District,
compliments the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development for its
keen understanding of real needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project
along with Hurricane Protection and efficient, alert actions taken to
appropriate funds for the many complex requirements. We endorse
recommendations presented by the Association of Levee Boards of
Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi
Valley Flood Control Association and Red River Valley Association.
______
Prepared Statement of Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name
is Wallace Gieringer. I am retired as Executive Director of the Pine
Bluff-Jefferson County (Arkansas) Port Authority. It is my honor to
serve as Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee,
members of which are appointed by the governors of the great states of
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
In this time of war on terrorism, homeland defense and needed
economic recovery, our thanks go to each of you, your staff members and
the Congress. Your efforts to protect our nation's infrastructure and
stimulate economic growth in a time of trial and budget constraints are
both needed and appreciated.
Our nation's growing dependence on others for energy, and the need
to protect and improve our environment, make your efforts especially
important. Greater use and development of one of our nation's
treasures--our navigable inland waterways--will help remedy these
problems. At the same time, these fuel-efficient and cost-effective
waterways keep us competitive in international markets.
As Chairman of the Interstate Committee, I present this summary
testimony as a compilation of the most important projects from each of
the member states. Each of the states unanimously supports these
projects without reservation. I request that the copies of each state's
individual statement be made a part of the record, along with this
testimony.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
The Interstate Committee continues to identify Montgomery Point
Lock and Dam as our top priority. As completion of construction nears,
we respectfully request a $25 million Congressional Add for a total
budget of $45 million for fiscal year 2003 to insure that this urgently
needed lock and dam is in operation as soon as possible at the lowest
possible cost. Scheduled to be operational in 2003, Montgomery Point
will protect over $5 billion in public and private investments, some
fifty thousand jobs, world trade, growing military shipments and future
economic development. Continuing problems caused by the lowering of the
Mississippi River continue to plague McClellan-Kerr entrance channel
users. During times of low water on the Mississippi River the entrance
channel is drained of navigable water depth. As the Mississippi River
bottom continues to lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total
shutdown. Thus, the entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk,
and its long-term viability is threatened without Montgomery Point.
Use of the temporary by-pass channel increases navigation hazards
and existing dredge disposal areas are virtually full. Ongoing dredging
and disposal of material can mean environmental damage. Construction
needs to continue as rapidly as possible before limited dredge disposal
areas become inadequate.
The good news is that you, your associates and the Congress have
all recognized the importance of constructing Montgomery Point!
Appropriations of $176.3 million have been made to date for
engineering, site acquisition and construction for this project. Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional support
is essential at this crucial time in the history of the project.
The Interstate Committee also respectfully recommends the following
as important priorities:
Backlog of Major Maintenance--Arkansas
A $2 million Congressional Add to the fiscal year 2003 O&M funding
for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in Arkansas is
vitally important. These additional funds will help repair bank
stabilization and other navigational system components that have
deteriorated over the past three decades.
The O&M funding level has been stagnant for the past 10 years while
cost and maintenance needs have continued to increase. Your help in
adding $2 million to the project will reduce the critical backlog of
needed maintenance repairs, the lack of which cause impediments to
commercial navigation.
Equus Beds Aquifer--Kansas
Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project--the continuation
of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the City of
Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas.
This model, nationally acclaimed technology has proven the feasibility
of recharging and providing environmental protection to a major
groundwater aquifer supplying water to irrigation, municipal and
industrial users. The demonstration project has successfully recharged
more than one billion gallons.
Governor Graves supports this much-needed project in order to
secure the quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent
of the state's population.
We are grateful for your previous cost share funding during the
demonstration phase. We request continued Congressional support:
--By authorizing as a Federal project, the Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Project and directing the Bureau of Reclamation to
participate in its final design and construction to completion
as funding is available.
--Through continued cost share funding for Phase One of the full-
scale Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project in the minimum
amount of $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma
We also request funding of $2.5 million to initiate the
installation of tow haulage equipment on the locks located along the
Arkansas River Portion of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. Total cost for these three locks is $4.5 million. This project
will involve installation of tow haulage equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock
and Dam #14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam #15, and Webbers Falls Lock
and Dam #16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage
equipment is needed to make transportation of barges more efficient and
economical by allowing less time for tows to pass through the various
locks.
The testimony we present reveals our firm belief that our inland
waterways and the Corps efforts are especially important to our nation
in this time of trial. National treasures, like the inland waterways,
need be cared for, nurtured and protected for the benefit of the
populace. Without adequate annual budgets this is impossible.
We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to increase the
Corps' fiscal year 2003 budget so that long deferred system-wide
maintenance may be accomplished and delayed construction projects may
be completed in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we respectfully request
that you and members of your staff review and respond in a positive way
to the attached individual statements from each of our states which set
forth specific requests pertaining to those states.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance.
arkansas
statement of paul latture, ii, chairman for arkansas
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony to this most important committee. I
serve as Executive Director for the Little Rock Port Authority and as
Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate Committee. Other committee members
representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this statement is made, are
Messrs. Wally Gieringer of Hot Springs Village, retired Executive
Director of the Pine Bluff-Jefferson County Port Authority; Scott
McGeorge, President, Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company, Pine Bluff;
Barry McKuin of Morrilton, President of the Conway County Economic
Development Corporation; and N.M. ``Buck'' Shell, CEO, Five Rivers
Distribution in Van Buren and Fort Smith, Arkansas.
In this time of war on terrorism, homeland defense and needed
economic recovery, our thanks go to each of you, your staff members and
the Congress. Your efforts to protect our nation's infrastructure and
stimulate economic growth in a time of trial and tight budgets are
needed and appreciated. Our requests for fiscal year 2003 are modest.
We especially call to your attention three projects on the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System that are especially
important to navigation and the economy of this multi-state area:
completion of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, the backlog of Major
Maintenance and completion of the Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR &
OK.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
support is essential as construction for this project nears completion.
We respectfully request a $25 million Congressional Add for a total
budget of $45 million for fiscal year 2003. Adequate funding will
insure that this urgently needed facility is in operation as soon as
possible at the lowest possible cost. Scheduled to be operational in
2003, Montgomery Point will protect over $5 billion in public and
private investments. Some fifty thousand jobs, world trade and growing
military shipments have resulted from the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System. Without Montgomery Point Lock and Dam the future of
our wonderful navigation system remains threatened.
We are very grateful that you, your associates, and the Congress
have recognized the urgency of constructing Montgomery Point, a time
sensitive project. Economic growth along the entire McClellan-Kerr is
being deterred awaiting completion! As the Mississippi River bottom
continues to lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total shutdown.
Existing dredge disposal areas are virtually full. Ongoing dredging and
disposal of material can mean environmental damage. Construction must
continue as rapidly as possible if the project is to be in place before
disposal areas become inadequate.
Backlog of Major Maintenance
A need for a $2,000,000 Congressional Add to the Operation and
Maintenance funding for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System is vitally important. The additional funds would help repair
bank stabilization and other navigational system components, which have
deteriorated over the past three decades.
The O&M funding level has been stagnant for the past 10 years while
cost and maintenance needs have continued to increase. Your help in
adding $2,000,000 to the project will reduce the critical backlog of
maintenance repairs.
Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK
On another crucial matter, a $1,090,000 Congressional Add is needed
for a total budget of $2,000,000 for the most important Arkansas River
Navigation Study, AR & OK. We want to especially express thanks, Mr.
Chairman, for the Committee's past support. In addition, taking into
account the need to realize the total economic potential of the
McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, WRDA 2000 directed the Corps to
``expedite completion of the Arkansas River Navigation Study, including
the feasibility of increasing the authorized channel depth from 9 feet
to 12 feet.''
More than 93 percent of the navigation system already enjoys a 12-
foot or greater channel depth. A 12-foot channel can mean up to 43
percent more cargo in each barge with resultant energy savings, reduced
cost of shipping, reduction in greenhouse gases plus other
environmental advantages. Lock chambers on the McClellan-Kerr were
built to accommodate deeper drafts.
While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr
System, navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Chronic
high-water flows and channel restrictions result in decreased
navigation traffic, as well as continued flooding in the vicinity of
Fort Smith, Arkansas and reduced recreational use. This study addresses
the navigation System Operating Plan and navigable depths to improve
navigation conditions on the river as well as the performance of flood
control measures and the impacts of high/low flows on environmental
quality and recreation uses.
Other projects are important to the environment, social and
economic well-being of our region and nation. We recognize the
importance of continued construction of needed features to the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and strongly recommend
that you favorably consider the following in your deliberations:
--Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. We are grateful that you included $800,000 in fiscal
year 2002 to complete bank stabilization work in the vicinity
of the Little Rock Port.
--Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation Project until remaining channel stabilization
problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of
Engineers have been resolved. It is vitally important that the
Corps continue engineering studies to develop a permanent
solution to the threat of cutoffs developing in the lower
reaches of the navigation system and for the Corps to construct
these measures under the existing construction authority.
--Fund installation of tow-haulage equipment for the locks and dams
on the Oklahoma portion of the McClellan-Kerr. This efficiency
feature will reduce lockage time by as much as 50 percent while
permitting tonnage to double in each tow with only a minor
increase in operating cost.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please help prevent a crisis for the
Arkansas River Navigation System and the multi-state region it serves
by appropriating $45 million for use in fiscal year 2003 for Montgomery
Point Lock and Dam.
The entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk and its
long-term viability is threatened. Some $5 billion in federal and
private investments, thousands of jobs, world trade and growing
military shipments are endangered. The system remains at risk until
Montgomery Point is completed.
We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your most important
subcommittee and urge you to favorably consider these requests that are
so important to the economic recovery of our region and nation.
kansas
statement of gerald h. holman, chairman for kansas
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman,
Senior Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita,
Kansas and Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas
Basin Development Association (ABDA). I also serve as Chairman of ABDA.
The Kansas ABDA representatives join with our colleagues from the
states of Oklahoma, Arkansas and Colorado to form the multi-state
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We fully endorse the summary
statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.
In addition to the important projects listed below, continued
construction to completion of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam Project
is essential to maintain viable navigation for commerce on the
McClellan-Kerr Navigation System. This inland waterway is vital to the
economic health of our multi-state area. Likewise, your support is
vital to maintain its future viability. Construction is well underway
and continued funding is needed. We state our unanimous support for the
$45 million needed by the Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2003 to
maintain the most economical and cost efficient construction schedule.
The critical water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the
Arkansas River Basin are identified below. The projects are safety,
environmental and conservation oriented and all have regional and/or
multi-state impact. We are grateful for your leadership and your past
commitment to our area.
We ask for your continued support for these important Bureau of
Reclamation projects on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas
area:
Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
This is the continuation of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly
endorsed by the City of Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2
and the State of Kansas. This model technology has proven the
feasibility of recharging a major groundwater aquifer supplying water
to nearly 600,000 irrigation, municipal and industrial users. The
demonstration project has successfully recharged more than one billion
gallons of water from the Little Arkansas River. The project is
essential to help protect the aquifer from on-going degradation caused
by the migration of saline water.
Governor Graves supports this much-needed project in order to
secure the quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent
of the state's population. All interested parties fully support the
project as the needed cornerstone for the area agricultural economy and
for the economy of the Wichita metropolitan area.
The demonstration project has confirmed earlier engineering models
that the full scale aquifer storage and recovery project is feasible
and capable of meeting the increasing water resource needs of the area
to the mid 21st century. Presently, the Equus Beds provide
approximately half of the Wichita regional municipal water supply. The
Equus Beds are also vital to the surrounding agricultural economy. Once
the aquifer storage and recovery project is on-line, south central
Kansas will rely to an even greater extent on the aquifer for water
resources. Environmental protection of the aquifer, which this
strategic project provides, will have increasing importance to ensure
quality water for the future.
The full scale design concept for the aquifer storage and recovery
project calls for a multi-year construction program. Phase One is
estimated to cost $17.1 million. Construction is planned to begin in
2003. The total project involving the capture and recharge of more than
100 million gallons of water per day is estimated to cost $110 million
over 10 years. This is substantially less costly, both environmentally
and financially, when compared with reservoir construction or other
alternatives. The aquifer storage and recovery project is a vital
component of Wichita's comprehensive and integrated water supply
strategy estimated to cost $350 million at completion.
We are grateful for your previous cost share funding during the
demonstration phase, as a compliment to funds provided by the City of
Wichita. As we enter the construction phase, we request continued
Congressional support:
--By authorizing as a Federal project, the Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Project and directing the Bureau of Reclamation to
participate in its final design and construction to completion
as funding is available.
--Through continued cost share funding for Phase One of the full-
scale Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project in the minimum
amount of $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Cheney Reservoir
The reservoir provides approximately half of Wichita's regional
water supply. Two continuing environmental problems threaten the water
quality and longevity of the reservoir. One is sedimentation from soil
erosion and the other is non-point source pollution, particularly the
amount of phosphates entering the reservoir resulting in offensive
taste and odor problems. A partnership between farmers, ranchers and
the City of Wichita has proven beneficial in implementing soil
conservation practices and to better manage and therefore reduce and/or
eliminate non-point source pollution. Lansat 7 imaging and digital
elevation modeling have been employed to identify high priority areas.
To date, over 2,000 environmental projects have been completed within
the 543,000-acre watershed. The next phase of concentration is buffer
strips for the control of pollution from intermittent streams and also
from livestock waste. This partnership must continue indefinitely to
protect the reservoir and to extend the life of the Wichita regional
water supply. The City of Wichita is providing funding for this
critical, nationally acclaimed model nonpoint source pollution project.
We request continued federal funding in the amount of $125,000 for
fiscal year 2003.
Many of our agricultural communities have historically experienced
major flood disasters, some of which have resulted in multi-state
hardships involving portions of the state of Oklahoma. The flood of
1998 emphasized again the need to rapidly move needed projects to
completion. Major losses also took place in the Wichita metropolitan
area. Projects in addition to local protection are also important. Our
small communities lack the necessary funds and engineering expertise
and federal assistance is needed. This Committee has given its previous
support to Kansas Corps of Engineers projects and we request your
continued support for the following:
--Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--Unfortunately, this
project was not completed prior to the flood of 1998. The flood
demonstrated again the critical need to protect the
environment, homes and businesses from catastrophic damages
from either Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding. When the
project is complete, damage in a multi-county area will be
eliminated and benefits to the state of Oklahoma just a few
miles south will also result. The Secretary of the Army was
authorized to construct the project in fiscal year 1997. The
project is slated for completion in fiscal year 2004. We
request your continued support in the amount of $5 million for
fiscal year 2003, the level needed by the Corps of Engineers.
--Walnut River Basin, Kansas Feasibility Study.--This basin including
the Whitewater and Little Walnut Rivers, is located in south
central Kansas. The feasibility study will identify ecosystem
resources, evaluate the system qualities, determine past losses
and current needs, and evaluate potential restoration and
preservation measures. The non-Federal sponsor is the Kansas
Water Office who believes that environmental restoration is a
primary need in the basin. Environmental restoration features
may also stabilize and protect streambanks from erosion and
improve the water quality in the basin. The request for fiscal
year 2003 is $200,000, which is the Corps' capability.
--Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--A need exists to complete evaluation
of water resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in
Kansas and Oklahoma to evaluate solutions to upstream flooding
problems associated with the adequacy of existing real estate
easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake,
Oklahoma. A study authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined
that if the project were constructed based on current criteria,
additional easements would be required. Section 449 of WRDA
2000 directed the Secretary to evaluate backwater effects
specifically due to flood control operations on land around
Grand Lake. That study indicated that Federal actions have been
a significant cause of the backwater effects and according to
WRDA 2000, the feasibility study should be 100 percent
Federally funded. A Feasibility study is necessary to determine
the most cost-effective solution to the real estate
inadequacies. Changes in the operations of the project or other
upstream changes could have a significant impact on flood
control, hydropower, and navigation operations in the Grand
(Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River basin system,
as well. We request funding in the amount of $3 million in
fiscal year 2003 to fully fund Feasibility studies evaluating
solutions to upstream flooding associated with existing
easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake.
--Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--A need exists
for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-
Neosho River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study would focus on the
evaluation of institutional measures needed to improve the
quality of the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the basin and
to assist communities, landowners, and other interests in
southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma in the
development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages.
We request funding in the amount of $100,000 in fiscal year
2003.
--Continuing Authorities Programs.--We support funding of needed
programs including the Small Flood Control Projects Program
(Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended) as well
as the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14
of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended). Smaller communities
in Kansas (Iola, Liberal, McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona,
Coffeyville and Medicine Lodge) have previously requested
assistance from the Corps of Engineers under these programs.
The City of Wichita has also addressed flooding problems
through this program. We urge you to support these programs to
the $50 million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control
Projects Program and $15 million for the Emergency Streambank
Stabilization Program.
The Planning Assistance to States Program under section 22 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides
federal funding to assist the states in water resource
planning. The state of Kansas is grateful for previous funding
under this program which has assisted small Kansas communities
in cost sharing needed resource planning as called for and
approved in the Kansas State Water Plan. We request continued
funding of this program at the level which will allow the state
of Kansas to receive the $500,000 limit.
Also, Ecosystem Restoration Programs are relatively new programs
which offer the Corps of Engineers a unique opportunity to work
to restore valuable habitat, wetlands, and other important
environmental features which previously could not be
considered. Preliminary Restoration Plan studies are underway
at Newton, Garden City and Neosho County. We urge you to
support section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 and Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 at their $25 million programmatic limits.
--National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP).--For more than 100
years, the USGS has operated a multipurpose streamgaging
network supported primarily by other Federal, State and Local
agencies. Streamflow data from those stations is used for
planning and decisions related to agriculture, industry, urban
water supplies, riverine and riparian habitat, navigation and
flood hazard verification. The loss of about 22 percent of the
streamgaging stations since 1971 has resulted in a commensurate
loss in valuable streamflow information. In 1998, the USGS
completed a study on the ability of the streamgaging network to
meet Federal needs. A NSIP program was recommended to produce
information for multiple current and future uses. We recommend
funding the NSIP program to cover the entire cost of a baseline
network of stream gages needed to meet national interests in
order to ensure the long-term stability of this vital network.
Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
the integrity and continuity these agencies provide on major public
projects. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including
funding, will be appreciated. Our infrastructure must be maintained and
where needed, enhanced for the future.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, we thank you for the
dedicated manner in which you and your colleagues have dealt with the
Water Resources Programs and for allowing us to present our needs and
funding requests.
Thank you very much.
oklahoma
statement of james m. hewgley, jr., chairman for oklahoma
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James M. Hewgley,
Jr., Oklahoma Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
Committee, from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the
Oklahoma Members of our committee in support of adequate funding for
water resource development projects in our area of the Arkansas River
Basin. Other members of the Committee are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr.
Edwin L. Gage, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew
Meibergen, Enid.
Together with representatives of the other Arkansas River Basin
states, we fully endorse the statement presented to you by the Chairman
of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciated the
opportunity to present our views of the special needs of our States
concerning several studies and projects.
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam--Montgomery Point, Arkansas
As we have testified for several years, we are once again
requesting adequate appropriations to continue construction of this
most important and much needed project. This project must be kept on
the current schedule to insure the shippers on the system will not be
impacted by a low water event after that date. Lower funding will only
stretch out the completion of the project and add to the final cost in
real dollars and subject the shippers to possible losses due to low
water and restrictions on, or halting, navigation.
We respectfully request the Congress to appropriate $45 million in
the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle to continue construction on the
current project schedule. With the needed funding for fiscal year 2003
(and significantly reduced funding in fiscal year 2004) the project can
be finished by July of fiscal year 2004. This request coincides with
the Presidents recommendation that ``funding go toward ongoing
projects, particularly those nearing completion.'' This will help
insure the project is completed and in operation in a timely manner at
the lowest possible cost.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to point out to this distinguished
Committee that this navigation system has brought low cost water
transportation to Oklahoma, Arkansas and the surrounding states. There
has been over $5.5 billion invested in the construction and development
of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system by the Federal
Government and the public and private sector, resulting in the creation
of over 50,000 jobs in this partnered project.
Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma
We also request funding of $2.5 million to initiate the
installation of tow haulage equipment on the locks located along the
Arkansas River Portion of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System. Total cost for these three locks is $4.5 million. This project
will involve installation of tow haulage equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock
and Dam#14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam#15, and Webbers Falls Lock and
Dam#16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage
equipment is needed to make transportation of barges more efficient and
economical by allowing less time for tows to pass through the various
locks.
Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study--Arkansas and
Oklahoma
We are especially pleased that the budget includes funds to
continue the Arkansas River Navigation Study, a feasibility study which
is examining opportunities to optimize the Arkansas River system. The
system of multipurpose lakes in Arkansas and Oklahoma on the Arkansas
River and its tributaries supports the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System, which was opened for navigation to the Port of
Catoosa near Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1970. The navigation system consists
of 445 miles of waterway that passes through the states of Oklahoma and
Arkansas. This study would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and
Arkansas that provide flows into the river with a view toward improving
the number of days per year that the navigation system would
accommodate tows. This study could have significant impact on the
economic development opportunities in the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas,
and the surrounding states. Due to the critical need for this study, we
request funding of $2.0 million, which is greater than shown in the
budget, to continue feasibility studies in fiscal year 2003.
Maintenance of the Navigation System
We request additional funding in the amount of $2 million, over and
above normal funding, for deferred channel maintenance. These funds
would be used for such things as repair of bank stabilization work,
needed advance maintenance dredging, and other repairs needed on the
systems components that have deteriorated over the past three decades.
In addition to the systemwide needed maintenance items mentioned
above, the budget for the Corps of Engineers for the past several years
has been insufficient to allow proper maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation System--Oklahoma portion. As a result, the
backlog of maintenance items has continued to increase. If these
important maintenance issues are not addressed soon the reliability of
the system will be jeopardized. The portion of the system in Oklahoma
alone is responsible for returning $2.6 Billion in annual benefits to
the regional economy. We therefore request that $3.02 million be added
to the budget to accomplish the critical infrastructure maintenance
items following: Repair weir at L&D 14; repair tainter gates at L&D 17;
stream bank stabilization at Marine terminal and down stream dike
repair; construct Navigation signs; replace bridge bearing pad at L&D
17 and repair support cells at L&D 15. These are the very worst of the
needed repairs of the many awaiting proper preventive maintenance and
repair.
Miami, Oklahoma and Vicinity Feasibility Study
We request funding of $700,000 for the continuation of a
feasibility study for the vicinity in Ottawa County including and
surrounding Miami, Oklahoma in the Grand (Neosho) Basin. Water resource
planning related concerns include chronic flooding, ecosystem
impairment, poor water quality, subsidence, chat piles, mine shafts,
health effects, and Native American issues. The State of Oklahoma's
desire is to address the watershed issues in a holistic fashion and
restore the watershed to acceptable levels. Study alternatives could
include structural and non-structural flood damage measures, creation
of riverine corridors for habitat and flood storage, development of
wetlands to improve aquatic habitat and other measures to enhance the
quality and availability of habitat and reduce flood damages.
We are pleased that the President's budget includes funds to
advance work for Flood Control and other water resource needs in
Oklahoma. Of special interest to our committee is funding for the
Skiatook and Tenkiller Ferry Lakes Dam Safety Assurance Projects in
Oklahoma and that construction funding has been provided for those
important projects. We would like to see Tenkiller funded at the $6.5
million level which is the Corps capability for fiscal year 2003. We
request that funding in the amount of $3 million be provided for the
Skiatook Dam Safety project. We are also pleased that funding is
included to continue reconnaissance studies and initiate feasibility
studies for the Oologah Watershed, the Wister Watershed and the Miami,
OK and Vicinity region. We are also pleased to see continued funding
for the SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study.
Oologah Lake Watershed Feasibility Study
We request funding of $450,000 for ongoing feasibility studies at
Oologah Lake and in the upstream watershed. The lake is an important
water supply source for the city of Tulsa and protection of the lake
and maintaining and enhancing the quality of the water is important for
the economic development of the city. Recent concerns have been
expressed by the city of Tulsa and others regarding potential water
quality issues that impact water users as well as important aquatic and
terrestrial habitat. Concerns are related to sediment loading and
turbidity, oilfield-related contaminants and nutrient loading.
Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study
We request funding in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a
reconnaissance study of the water resource problems of the Illinois
River Basin. The Illinois River watershed is experiencing continued
water resource development needs and is the focus of ongoing Corps and
other agency investigations. However, additional flows are sought
downstream of the Lake Tenkiller Dam and there are increasing watershed
influences upstream of Lake Tenkiller which impact on the quality of
water available for fish and wildlife, municipal and industrial water
supply users, and recreation users of the Lake Tenkiller and Illinois
River waters.
Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study
We request funding in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a
reconnaissance study of the water resource problems in the Grand
(Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas. There is a need for a basin-wide
water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River basin, apart
from the issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. The
reconnaissance study would focus on the evaluation of institutional
measures which could assist communities, landowners, and other
interests in northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in the
development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the
basin.
Grand Lake Feasibility Study
A need exists to evaluate water resource problems in the Grand-
Neosho River basin in Kansas and Oklahoma to evaluate solutions to
upstream flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing
real estate easements necessary for flood control operations of Grand
Lake, Oklahoma. A study authorized by the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined that if
the project were constructed based on current criteria, additional
easements would be required. Section 449 of WRDA 2000 directed the
Secretary to evaluate backwater effects specifically due to flood
control operations on land around Grand Lake. That study indicated that
Federal actions have been a significant cause of the backwater effects
and according to WRDA 2000, the feasibility study should be 100 percent
Federally funded. A Feasibility study is necessary to determine the
most cost-effective solution to the real estate inadequacies. Changes
in the operations of the project or other upstream changes could have a
significant impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation
operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River
basin system, as well. We urge you to provide $3 million to fully fund
Feasibility studies for this important project in fiscal year 2003 and
to direct the Corps of Engineers to execute the study at full Federal
expense.
Polecat Creek Reconnaissance Study
This watershed drains about 370 square miles and includes the
cities of Jenks, Glenpool and Sapulpa, Oklahoma. This area has
experienced significant growth within the last 10 years and flooding
occurs frequently. The most recent flood occurred in May 2000 with over
300 structures (including 200 homes) experiencing flood damage. We
request $100,000 in fiscal year 2003 to perform this very important
reconnaissance study.
Wister Lake Watershed Feasibility Study
We request funding of $450,000 to continue feasibility studies of
the Wister Lake watershed. Wister Lake is located on the Poteau River
near Wister, Oklahoma. The lake was completed in 1949 for flood
control, water supply, water conservation and sediment control. Wister
Lake is the primary water resource development project in the Poteau
River Basin. It provides substantial flood control, municipal and
industrial water supply, and recreation benefits for residents of
LeFlore County, Oklahoma, and the southeastern Oklahoma region.
Ecosystem degradation in the lake and in the basin, in general, is
occurring primarily as a result of non-point source pollution from
poultry operations, forestry practices, abandoned strip coal mines, and
natural gas exploration operations. The study will identify potential
measures to restore the ecosystem in the basin and will evaluate other
water resource problems and potential solutions.
We also support funding for the Continuing Authorities Program,
including the Small Flood Control Projects Program, (Section 205 of the
1948 Flood Control Act, as amended) and the Emergency Streambank
Stabilization Program, (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as
Amended). We want to express our appreciation for your continued
support of those programs.
Section 205
Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program addresses flood
problems which generally impact smaller communities and rural areas and
would appear to benefit only those communities, the impact of those
projects on economic development crosses county, regional, and
sometimes state boundaries. The communities served by the program
frequently do not have the funds or engineering expertise necessary to
provide adequate flood damage reduction measures for their citizens.
Continued flooding can have a devastating impact on community
development and regional economic stability. The program is extremely
beneficial and has been recognized nation-wide as a vital part of
community development, so much so, in fact, that there is currently a
backlog of requests from communities who have requested assistance
under this program. There is limited funding available for these
projects and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic
limit of $50 million.
Section 14
Likewise, the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program provides
quick response engineering design and construction to protect important
local utilities, roads, and other public facilities in smaller urban
and rural settings from damage due to streambank erosion. The
protection afforded by this program helps insure that important roads,
bridges, utilities, and other public structures remain safe and useful.
By providing small, affordable, and relatively quickly constructed
projects, these two programs enhance the lives of many by providing
safe and stable living environments. There is also a backlog of
requests under this program. Funding is also limited for these projects
and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of
$15 million.
Sections 1135 and 206
We also request your continued support of and funding for the
Ecosystem Restoration Programs (Section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 and Section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996). The Ecosystem Restoration Programs are
relatively new programs which offer the Corps of Engineers a unique
opportunity to work to restore valuable habitat, wetlands, and other
important environmental features which previously could not be
considered. The Section 1135 Program is already providing significant
benefits to the states of Kansas and Oklahoma. We urge that these
programs be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $25 million each.
We also request your continued support of the Flood Plain
Management Services Program (Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act)
which authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise
to provide guidance in flood plain management matters to all private,
local, state, and Federal entities. The objective of the program is to
support comprehensive flood plain management planning. The program is
one of the most beneficial programs available for reducing flood losses
and provides assistance to officials from cities, counties, states, and
Indian Tribes to ensure that new facilities are not built in areas
prone to floods. Assistance includes flood warning, flood proofing, and
other flood damage reduction measures, and critical flood plain
information is provided on a cost reimbursable basis to home owners,
mortgage companies, Realtors and others for use in flood plain
awareness and flood insurance requirements.
We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States
Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise in
water and related land resource management to help States and Indian
Tribes solve their water resource problems. The program is used by many
states to support their State Water Plans. As natural resources
diminish, the need to manage those resources becomes more urgent. We
urge your continued support of this program as it supports States and
Native American Tribes in developing resource management plans which
will benefit citizens for years to come. The program is very valuable
and effective, matching Federal and non-Federal funds to provide cost
effective engineering expertise and support to assist communities,
states and tribes in the development of plans for the management,
optimization, and preservation of basin, watershed, and ecosystem
resources. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 increased the
annual program limit from $6 million to $10 million and we urge this
program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $10 million.
On a related matter, we would share with you our concern that the
Administration has not requested sufficient funds to meet the
increasing infrastructure needs of the inland waterways of our nation.
The Administration's request will not keep projects moving at the
optimum level to complete them on a cost effective basis. Moving the
completion dates out is an unacceptable exercise since 50 percent of
the funds come from the Waterways Trust Fund. This will not only waste
federal funds but, those from the trust fund as well.
We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of
Engineers budget to $4.9 billion to help get delayed construction
projects back on schedule and to reduce the deferred maintenance
backlog which is out of control. This will help the Corps of Engineers
meet the obligations of the Federal Government to people of this great
country.
Concerning another related matter, we have deep concerns about the
attempt to re-authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant
beneficial reforms. If a bill is passed through without reforms, it
will be devastating to industry and the country as a whole. We strongly
urge you to take a hard look at any bill concerning this re-
authorization and insure that it contains reasonable and meaningful
reforms. We urge the re-authorization of the act with reforms at the
earliest possible time.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on
these subjects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District
On behalf of the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District and the
users of Freeport Harbor, we extend gratitude to Chairman Reid, and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in
support of the feasibility study for the proposed channel improvement
project for Freeport Harbor and Stauffer Channel, Texas.
We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2003
budget for:
--Initial phase of a Corps of Engineers feasibility study for
Freeport Harbor, Texas--$500,000
history and background
Port Freeport is an autonomous governmental entity authorized by an
act of the Texas Legislature in 1925. It is a deep-draft port, located
on Texas' central Gulf Coast, approximately 60 miles southwest of
Houston, and is an important Brazos River Navigation District
component. The port elevation is 3 to 12 feet above sea level. Port
Freeport is governed by a board of six commissioners elected by the
voters of the Navigation District of Brazoria County, which currently
encompasses 85 percent of the county. Port Freeport land and operations
currently include 186 acres of developed land and 7,723 acres of
undeveloped land, 5 operating berths, a 45" deep Freeport Harbor
Channel and a 70' deep sink hole. Future expansion includes building a
1,300-acre multi-modal facility, cruise terminal and container
terminal. Port Freeport is conveniently accessible by rail, waterway
and highway routes. There is direct access to the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Brazos River Diversion Channel, and, State Highways 36 and
288. Located just three miles from deep water, Port Freeport is one of
the most accessible ports on the Gulf Coast.
project description
The fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations signed into
law included a $100,000 appropriation to allow the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the federal interest in an improvement project for Freeport
Harbor, Texas. The USACE, in cooperation with the Brazos River Harbor
Navigation District as the local sponsor, has initiated that study. The
Corps anticipates a benefit to cost ratio of the project to be at an
impressive more than 20 to 1 benefit to cost.
The project will study the federal interest in widening and
deepening Freeport Harbor and Stauffer Channel. Port Freeport has the
opportunity to solidify significant new business for Texas with this
improvement project. In addition, the improvement to the environment by
taking a huge number of trucks off of the road, transporting goods more
economically and environmentally sensitive by waterborne commerce is
infinitely important to the community, the State, and the Nation.
Moreover, the enhanced safety of a wider channel cannot be overstated.
economic impact of port freeport
Port Freeport is 16th in foreign tonnage in the United States and
24th in total tonnage. The port handled over one million tons of cargo
in 2001 and an additional 70,000 T.E.U.'s of containerized cargo. It is
responsible for augmenting the Nation's economy by $7.06 billion
annually and generating 30,000 jobs. Its chief import commodities are
bananas, fresh fruit and aggregate while top export commodities are
rice and chemicals. The port's growth has been staggering in the past
decade, becoming one of the fastest growing ports on the Gulf Coast.
Port Freeport's economic impact and its future growth is justification
for its budding partnership with the federal government in this
critical improvement project.
community and industry support
This proposed improvement project has wide community and industry
support. The safer transit and volume increase capability is an
appealing and exciting prospect for the users of Freeport Harbor and
Stauffer Channel. The anticipated more than 20 to 1 benefit to cost
ratio that will arise from the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance study
will solidify the federal interest.
what we need from the subcommittee in fiscal year 2003
The Administration's budget included $200,000 for the first phase
of the feasibility study, which will be conducted at a 50/50 federal
government/local sponsor share. The Corps had indicated a capability
for fiscal year 2003 of $500,000 to institute this project on an
optimal and most cost-efficient time frame for the federal government
and the local sponsor. We respectfully request the additional $300,000
for fiscal year 2003.
______
Prepared Statement of Cameron County
On behalf of Cameron County and the users of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, (GIWW) Texas, we extend gratitude to Chairman Reid, and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in
support of an appropriation to direct the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to conduct a reconnaissance study to reroute the
GIWW.
We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2003
budget for:
--Reconnaissance study--$100,000
history and background
On September 15, 2001, a tugboat and several barges struck the
Queen Isabella Causeway on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at the mouth
of the Brownsville Ship Channel east of Port Isabel. The accident took
the lives of eight people.
A January 1997 Reconnaissance Report of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway-Corpus Christi Bay to Port Isabel, Texas (Section 216), was
conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The study was
initiated to determine the federal interest in rerouting the GIWW. The
information available at the time indicated a less than favorable
benefit to cost ratio for the proposed realignment. Since the September
15 incident, the Corps, Cameron County officials, and a number of local
entities and residents of the County have reopened discussion of the
rerouting of the GIWW. The Corps of Engineers agrees that new facts
regarding the safety of the current alignment warrants a revisiting of
the issue to determine the viability of rerouting the channel in a
direct line from the point where the waterway crosses underneath the
causeway to the point where it reaches the Brazos Santiago Pass and the
Brownsville Ship Channel. The route in question is the exact one
traveled by the tugboat and barges that struck the bridge on September
15, killing eight people. The tugboat captain failed to negotiate the
sharp turn after it passed through the Long Island Swing Bridge. This
particular turn is one of the most dangerous on the entire waterway.
project description
The reconnaissance study would allow the Corps to reopen the
examination of the rerouting of the GIWW on the basis of safety. The
measure would seek to eliminate safety hazards to Port Isabel and Long
Island residents created by barges that move large quantities of fuel
and other potentially dangerous explosive chemicals through the
existing route under the Queen Isabella Causeway. The overall goal of
the study would be to enhance safety and transportation efficiency on
this busy Texas waterway by removing the treacherous turn tug and barge
operators are forced to make as they navigate the passage through the
Long Island Swing Bridge. In addition to the hazardous curve, the
winding and congested course taken by the waterway through the City of
Port Isabel adds needless distance and time to the transportation of
goods to and from Cameron County ports. These costs are borne not only
by commercial operators using the waterway, but also by consumers and
businesses all across Texas and the Nation. The rerouting would also
seek to correct the adverse impact of waterway traffic on Cameron
County residents. Apart from the obvious potential for damage to the
Queen Isabella Causeway, adverse impacts are created by waterway
traffic in the form of traffic delays associated with the Long Island
Swing Bridge and the transportation of hazardous materials within
several hundred feet of densely populated areas in Port Isabel and Long
Island. Currently, a 1950's era swing bridge that floats in the
waterway channel connects Long Island and the City of Port Isabel. As
waterborne traffic approaches the bridge, cables are used to swing it
from the center of the channel and then swing it back into place. This
costly and time-consuming process, which frequently backs up traffic
into the downtown business district of Port Isabel, is estimated to
drain hundreds of dollars a year from the economy of this economically
distressed area. More serious problems are created when the heavily
used cables or winch motors on the swing bridge fail, leaving the
bridge stuck in an open or closed position. Equipment failures often
cause delays for several days and leave Long Island residents cut-off
from vehicle access or the ports of Port Isabel and Brownsville cut-off
from in-bound and out-bound barge traffic. During these times, supplies
of vital commodities are halted all across the Rio Grande Valley as
stocks dwindle and produce and finished goods begin to pile up.
impact of the gulf intracoastal waterway
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is an integral part of the inland
transportation system of the United States. Stretching across more than
1,300 coastal miles of the Gulf of Mexico, this man-made, shallow-draft
canal moves a large variety and great number of vessels and cargoes.
The 426 miles of the waterway running through Texas makes it possible
to supply both domestic and foreign markets with chemicals, petroleum
and other essential goods. Barge traffic is essential to many of the
port economies from Texas to Great Lakes ports, indeed, throughout the
entire GIWW. Some ports feel their future strategic plans are closely
linked to the efficient operation of the GIWW. This is true for ports
that rely almost entirely on barge traffic as well as ports that
function primarily as recreational facilities. Most of the cargo moved
along Texas waterways is petroleum and petroleum products. The GIWW is
well suited for the movement of such cargo, and, therefore, has allowed
many of the smaller, shallow-draft facilities to engage in both
interstate and international trade. Commercial fishing access via the
GIWW has had a significant impact on these port economies as well.
conclusion
A 1995 Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs report
entitled ``The Texas Seaport and Inland Waterway System'' warned of
concern with the safe operation of barges on the GIWW citing, ``a
serious accident perhaps involving a collision between two barges
carrying hazardous materials could force closure of the waterway''. No
one foresee the terrible accident that occurred on September 15. The
lives of eight people came to an end and the lives of their loved ones
was irrevocably changed forever. This important waterway must be
improved to prevent another tragedy. The $100,000 that must be added to
the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill will allow the Corps of
Engineers to begin to remedy this dangerous situation. Cameron County,
the users of the GIWW, and the residents of the area respectfully
requests the addition of this much-needed appropriation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation
District
On behalf of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation district
and the users of the Cedar Bayou Channel, Texas, we extend gratitude to
Chairman Reid, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
submit testimony in support of the improvement project for the Cedar
Bayou Channel, Texas.
We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2002
budget for:
--Pre-Construction Engineering and Design (O&M) For Cedar Bayou,
Texas--$310,000
history and background
The River and Harbor Act of 1890 originally authorized navigation
improvements to Cedar Bayou. The project was reauthorized in 1930 to
provide a 10 ft. deep and 100 ft. wide channel from the Houston Ship
Channel to a point on Cedar Bayou 11 miles above the mouth of the
bayou. In 1931, a portion of the channel was constructed from the
Houston Ship Channel to a point about 0.8 miles above the mouth of
Cedar Bayou, approximately 3.5 miles in length. A study of the project
in 1971 determined that an extension of the channel to project Mile 3
would have a favorable benefit to cost ratio. This portion of the
channel was realigned from mile 0.1 to mile 0.8 and extended from mile
0.8 to Mile 3 in 1975. In October 1985, the portion of the original
navigation project from project Mile 3 to 11 was deauthorized due to
the lack of a local sponsor. In 1989, the Corps of Engineers, Galveston
District completed a Reconnaissance Report dated June 1989, which
recommended a 12 ft. by 125 ft. channel from the Houston Ship Channel
Mile 3 to Cedar Bayou Mile 11 at the State Highway 146 Bridge. The
Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District was created by the
Texas Legislature in 1997 as an entity to improve the navigability of
Cedar Bayou. The district was created to accomplish the purpose of
Section 59, Article XVI, of the Texas Constitution and has all the
rights, powers, privileges and authority applicable to Districts
Created under Chapters 60, 62, and 63 of the Water Code--Public Entity.
The Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District then became the
local sponsor for the Cedar Bayou Channel.
project description and reauthorization
Cedar Bayou is a small coastal stream, which originates in Liberty
County, Texas, and meanders through the urban area near the eastern
portion of the City of Baytown, Texas, before entering Galveston Bay.
The bayou forms the boundary between Harris County on the west and
Chambers County on the east. The project was authorized in Section 349
of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, which authorized a
navigation improvement of 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide from mile 2.5
to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou.
justification and industry support
First and foremost, the channel must be improved for safety. The
channel is the home to a busy barge industry. The most cost-efficient
and safe method of conveyance is barge transportation. Water
transportation offers considerable cost savings compared to other
freight modes (rail is nearly twice as costly and truck nearly four
times higher). In addition, the movement of cargo by barge is
environmentally friendly. Barges have enormous carrying capacity while
consuming less energy, due to the fact that a large number of barges
can move together in a single tow, controlled by only one power unit.
The result takes a significant number of trucks off of Texas highways.
The reduction of air emissions by the movement of cargo on barges is a
significant factor as communities struggle with compliance with the
Clean Air Act.
Several navigation-dependent industries and commercial enterprises
have been established along the commercially navigable portions of
Cedar Bayou. Several industries have docks on at the mile markers that
would be affected by this much-needed improvement. These industries
include: Reliant Energy, Bayer Corporation, Koppel Steel, CEMEX, US
Filter Recovery Services and Dorsett Brothers Concrete, to name a few.
project costs and benefits
The Corps of Engineers has indicated a benefit to cost ratio of the
project of 2.8 to 1. The estimated total cost of the project is $16.8 M
with a federal share estimated at $11.9 M and the non-federal sponsor
share of approximately $4.9 M. Total annual benefits are estimated to
be $4.8 M, with a net benefit of $3 M. This project is environmentally
sound and economically justified. We would appreciate the
subcommittee's support of the required $310,000 appropriation included
in the Administration's budget to complete the plans and specifications
of the project so that it can move forward at an optimum construction
schedule. The users of the channel deserve to have the benefits of a
safer, most cost-effective federal waterway.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association for the Development of Inland
Navigation in America's Ohio Valley
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Barry Palmer,
Executive Director of DINAMO, The Association for the Development of
Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley. DINAMO is a multi-state,
membership based association of business and industry, labor, and state
government leaders from throughout the Ohio Valley, whose singular
purpose is to expedite the modernization of the lock and dam
infrastructure on the Ohio River Navigation System. Largely through the
leadership of this subcommittee and the professional efforts of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to
see the results of 20 years of continuous hard work in improving our
river infrastructure.
Lock and dam modernization at Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Grays
Landing Locks and Dam, Point Marion Lock, and Winfield Locks are
largely complete. These projects were authorized for construction in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The immediate problems
really are focused on completing in a timely manner lock and dam
modernization projects authorized by the Congress in subsequent water
resources development acts. Substantial problems remain for adequate
funding of improvements at the Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/
KY; Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA; McAlpine Locks
and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY; Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV; and for the
Kentucky Locks, Tennessee River, KY. The construction schedules for all
of these projects have been severely constrained, and we are requesting
increased funding for these construction projects at an ``efficient
construction rate.'' Following is a listing of the projects and an
efficient funding level determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to advance construction projects for completion by 2010 or earlier and
to advance other projects through the planning, design and engineering
and construction process:
Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2003
--For the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam modification project, formerly
the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/WV, about
$12,300,000 to complete rehabilitation of the dam. Fiscal year
2003 Budget Request $1,500,000.
--For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$3,600,000 for continued construction of the lock and
relocations related to environmental mitigation. Fiscal year
2003 Budget Request $200,000.
--For the Olmsted Locks and Dam, replacing Locks and Dams 52 and 53
on the Lower Ohio River, IL/KY, $89,000,000 for continued
construction of the approach lock walls related to the twin
110' 1,200' locks and design and initial construction
activities for the new gated dam. Fiscal year 2003 Budget
Request $77,000,000.
--For the Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA, $63,00,000,
the completion of construction on the Braddock Dam, prepare
Charleroi Locks site development, prepare work on the Charleroi
Locks demolition/dam stilling basin and to initiate
construction on the Charleroi Locks floating guard wall. Fiscal
year 2003 Budget Request $36,017,000.
--For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY, $30,000,000
to complete construction of the cofferdam related to the new
110' 1,200' lock addition. Fiscal year 2003 Budget
Request $6,192,000.
--For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
$58,000,000 for real estate acquisition and for initial systems
for mitigation of the construction project. Fiscal year 2003
Budget Request $10,978,000.
--For the Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY,
$45,000,000 to continue construction of the new highway and
bridge work and to begin construction of the upstream
cofferdam. Fiscal year 2003 Budget Request $27,400,000.
--For continuing major rehabilitation of London Locks and Dam,
Kanawha River, $11,934,000. Fiscal year 2003 Budget Request
$11,934,000.
--For the Ohio River Mainstem Study, including studies related to
completing Interim Feasibility Reports for Newburgh, Cannelton,
and Meldahl, and for Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery Locks
and Dams, approximately $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. This
level of funding is needed to continue the work leading to
construction authorization documents for additional capacity at
these six lock and dam locations. Fiscal year 2003 Budget
Request $3,000,000.
--For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the John T. Myers
Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY, $2,100,000. A new
construction start for this project will be required soon,
since this project was authorized for construction in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. Fiscal year 2003 Budget
Request $1,346,000.
--For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the Greenup Locks
and Dam, Ohio River, OH/KY, $2,100,000. A new construction
start for this project will be required soon, since this
project was authorized for construction in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000. Fiscal year 2003 Budget Request
$1,302,000.
All lock and dam modernization projects should be completed in a
timely and orderly manner. It is important to note that monies to pay
for lock and dam modernization are being generated by a 20 cents per
gallon diesel fuel tax by towboats operating on America's inland
navigation system. These tax revenues are gathering in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, in order to finance 50 percent of the costs of
these project costs. There is about $400 million in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. The real challenge is not the private sector
contribution to completing these lock and dam construction projects in
a timely manner, but rather it is the commitment of the federal
government to matching its share.
The construction schedules for Ohio River Navigation System
projects have slipped from one to six years, depending on the project.
Delaying the construction of these vitally needed infrastructure
investments is a terribly inefficient practice. Inefficient
construction schedules cost people a lot of money. A March 2000 study
by the Institute for Water Resources concluded that $1.34 billion of
cumulative benefits (transportation savings) for Olmsted, Lower
Monongahela River 2, 3 & 4, McAlpine, Marmet, and Kentucky lock and dam
modernization projects have been lost forever. The benefits foregone
represent the cumulative annual loss of transportation cost savings
associated with postponing the completion of these projects from their
``optimum,'' or ``efficient,'' schedule. In addition, this study
concludes that $534 million of future benefits are at risk but will be
foregone (based on fiscal year 2001 schedules) if funding is not
provided to accelerate design and construction activities in accordance
with ``efficient'' schedules.
Expenditures for lock and dam modernization are an investment in
the physical infrastructure of this nation. The President's $4.29
billion Corps of Engineers Civil Works Budget for fiscal year 2002 will
fall at least $700 million short of what will be needed to meet the
nation's water resources needs. Mr. Chairman, we have great confidence
in the Corps of Engineers and urge your support for a funding level
more in line with the real water resources development needs of the
nation. For lock and dam modernization on America's inland navigation
system, targeted construction funding ought to be at a level of about
$300 million annually, with half coming from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund and half coming from the General Treasury. Last year Congress
provided about $4.54 billion for the Corps of Engineers program and
more than $200 million for lock and dam modernization on America's
inland navigation system. It is reasonable that funding for the Corps
program should be increased to levels closer to $5 billion and about
$300 million for lock and dam modernization on our nation's river
system, in order to complete the major lock and dam modernization
projects by the end of the decade or earlier.
Following is our analysis of the partial consequences of inadequate
funding of Ohio River Navigation System infrastructure improvements:
Olmsted Locks and Dam
The project is cost-shared 50/50 with the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund. Total project cost of $1.06 billion. The benefit to cost ratio is
3.5 to 1 based on an interest rate of 8 7/8 percent. The average annual
navigation benefits for this project are $526,250,000. Construction
funds were first appropriated in fiscal year 1991. Approximately $514
million has been expended through fiscal year 2001 leaving a balance of
$538 million to complete the project. In fiscal year 2002 the Congress
provided $40,000,000. During the last three fiscal years the
President's budget averaged about $40 million annually for the Olmsted
construction project, while about $68 million has been reprogrammed
into the project during the same time ($58 million in fiscal year 2000
alone). The challenge is to put Olmsted on an Efficient Funding
schedule, which will require $89 million in fiscal year 2003 and about
$70 million annually throughout the balance of the decade.
Olmsted has already slipped its completion date by 4 years, and
hundreds of millions in transportation benefits have already been
washed down the river (non-recoverable) because of construction
schedule slippage. The President's fiscal year 2003 Civil Works Budget
has funded the project on an Efficient Funding Schedule, and the new
facility could be operational by 2010. This improved construction
scenario (when compared to fiscal year 2002 construction schedule
projections) could prevent the loss of more than $2.5 billion in
transportation benefits.
Many contracts are required to design and construct the project. Of
the sixteen major construction contracts, five are complete, five are
underway and six remain to be awarded. The construction contracts for
the Locks ($270 million) are nearly complete. The Locks Approach Walls
($99 million) and the Operating & Maintenance Bulkheads ($24 million)
construction contracts and the preparation of the Dam P&S will continue
in fiscal year 2002. The advertisement of the Dam construction contract
is scheduled for fiscal year 2002, with the award scheduled for the
first quarter of fiscal year 2003. The award of this contract assumes
that adequate funding will be available to support the estimated $300M
construction contract over the five-year contract duration.
Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4
A significant portion of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation will be
used to complete construction of the new gated Braddock Dam (NTP for
construction of Braddock Dam was issued in July 1999). When
operational, the new gated Braddock Dam can lessen system failure risks
by raising Pool 2 five feet to reduce the head at L/D 3 only if
adequate funding to complete the required Pool 2 relocations is
received. The decommissioning of L/D 3 is scheduled to begin with the
completion of one new lock chamber at Locks 4 (Charleroi). The
Pittsburgh District has a plan to maintain momentum on advancing
construction of the new Charleroi Locks that requires significant
funding in the near term. Without sufficient funds, this plan would be
forced into a very inefficient design and construction mode, causing
major delays to project completion and the realization of project
benefits. In summary, efficient funding levels for this project are
vital to maintain viable inland navigation on the Monongahela River and
avoid these negative impacts:
Navigation Project Funding Schedules presented to the Inland
Waterway Users Board on July 18, 2001, indicate that an additional $501
million will be required to complete the project (seven years) by 2010
(it has already slipped its completion date by 6 years). The Corps of
Engineers funding for the Lower Mon Project has only averaged $30
million annually From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2001. $40 million
was appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The President's Budget for fiscal
year 2003 allocates $36,017,000, while the Efficient Funding Level for
construction of this project is $63 million. Continued funding at a
rate of $36 million annually could delay completion an additional 5 or
more years, possibly by 2015 -17.
Construction delays fail to reduce risks associated with continued
reliance and use of existing Locks and Dam 3 and Locks 4. A structural
failure would cause a loss in transportation savings of hundreds of
millions of dollars per year. Delays in construction completion
increase the cost of work by about 2.7 percent per year for inflation.
Delays in construction completion result in continued transportation
inefficiencies of about $30 million per year. Each year the project is
delayed, $1.5 million of scare Operations and Maintenance funds must be
allocated to continue L/D 3 in service. The relocation of utilities in
pool 2, to accommodate a five-foot pool raise upon completion of the
Braddock Dam, would be delayed. Raising Pool 2 is critical to
decreasing loads on the structurally deficient L/D 3.
McAlpine Locks and Dam
The McAlpine Locks and Dam project is cost-shared 50/50 with the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The total cost of the project is $278
million. The benefit to cost ratio is 1.8 to 1 based on an interest
rate of 8 percent. The average annual benefits for this project are
$41.6 million. Approximately $60 million has been expended through
fiscal year 2001 leaving a balance of approximately $218 million to
complete the project. During the last five fiscal years the Congress
appropriated slightly more than $12 million annually ($18.6 million in
fiscal year 2002) for the McAlpine project. In fiscal year 2001 an
additional $9M was reprogrammed into McAlpine to meet construction
expenditures and fiscal year 2002 will require $9M to be reprogrammed
to meet scheduled expenditures. In fiscal year 2003, $30 million is
needed to fund the project on an Efficient Funding Level, and an
average of $47.5 million annually through fiscal year 2007 will be
needed to complete the project.
McAlpine has already slipped its completion date by 5 years, and
over $173 million in transportation benefits have been washed down the
river (non-recoverable) because of construction schedule slippage.
Failure to fund the project on an Efficient Funding Schedule in fiscal
year 2003 (at $30 million) and each future year could delay completion
by as much as an additional ten years, possibly to 2017. That scenario
would wash another $416 million in benefits down the river.
The cofferdam/lock demolition construction contract was awarded in
May 2000 and is approximately 60 percent complete. The Corps of
Engineers can advertise a contract for construction of the new lock in
February 2002. Award of the lock contract is scheduled for September
2002 and will have a four-year performance period. If funded at an
efficient level, the lock can be completed in 2007. A total of $208
million will be needed over the next five years (fiscal year 2003-
fiscal year 2007) to complete the project.
Marmet Lock and Dam
The majority of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation will be used to
continue construction of the replacement lock. When operational, the
new Marmet Lock will reduce the average transit time of 4.7 hours to
0.8 hours, and at current traffic levels, would yield over 16.4
thousand hours of trip time savings for the 4,210 tows which utilized
the project in 2001.
Navigation Project Funding Schedules presented to the Inland
Waterway Users Board in July 2001 indicate that an additional $248
million will be required to complete the project by 2009 (seven years).
The Corps of Engineers funding for the Marmet Project has only averaged
$12 million annually from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2001. $27.1
million was appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2003
budget allocates nearly $11 million, when the efficient funding level
for the new Marmet Lock is $58 million. With remaining costs to
complete the new lock estimated at $236 million, a $6 million annual
investment would delay completion of the project more than 22 years.
Average annual benefits of this new project are about $56 million a
year.
Kentucky Locks and Dam
The project is cost-shared 50/50 with the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund. The total project cost is estimated to be $533 million. Average
annual benefits are $52.5 million, and the project has a benefit to
cost ratio of 2.4 to 1. Construction on the project commenced in July
1998 and could be completed by 2008 if sufficient and timely funds are
received. Approximately $69 million has been expended through fiscal
year 2001, leaving a balance of $464 million to complete the project.
During the last three fiscal years the Kentucky Lock Addition project
has received an average funding level of approximately $21 million. To
complete the project on an Efficient Funding Schedule (in the 2008
timeframe) will require $45 million in fiscal year 2003 and annual
funding levels of $55 to $60 million from fiscal year 2004 to project
completion. Annual budget allocations/appropriations at the fiscal year
2003 level identified in the President's fiscal year 2003 Civil Works
Budget ($27.4 million) will delay completion of the project by as much
as 17 years. And $hundreds of millions will be washed down the river.
Due to the continuing deterioration of the existing 60 year-old
Kentucky Lock, two 130-day outages are expected to be needed beginning
in 2009 to make necessary repairs. The economic ramifications to these
outages will be extreme. Completion of the new lock prior to these
outages will not only prevent these economic disruptions but will also
expedite the economic benefits of eliminating the long delays currently
and projected by traffic using the existing lock.
Many contracts are required to design and construct the project. Of
the eight major construction contracts, one is complete, one is 85
percent complete, two are just underway, and four remain to be awarded.
The largest of these construction contracts is for the new 110'
1,200' lock, which will be ready for award in 2004 if
sufficient funds are appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and allocated in
fiscal year 2004.
We thank you for the opportunity to present this request and our
thoughts on these matters.
______
Prepared Statement of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
My name is Richard Fugleberg, Chairman of the Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District Board of Directors. I am privileged to represent
the largest water district this side of the Rocky Mountains. I am
submitting this for your consideration as you look at the
appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for the Bureau of Reclamation and,
in particular, the Garrison Diversion project. I would also like to
discuss the impact that the current budget request has for Garrison and
for the Bureau of Reclamation on the effort to fight recession and
provide reliable, affordable, quality water supplies to the citizens of
North Dakota.
I must start by recognizing that this nation is currently in the
unenviable position of fighting two wars at the same time. We cannot
look our children or grandchildren in the face and consider any
alternative but to fight the war against the horrific potential of
terrorism. We must be able to tell those children and grandchildren
that we are fully committed to not only fighting this war, but winning
it. As bad as terrorism is, the eventual result of a prolonged
recession or depression is as bad, if not worse. If we do not win the
war on recession, we will eventually be unable to wage the war on
terrorism effectively, and we will suffer a slow, but certain and
agonizing, demise. We have no choice but to fight to win both wars at
the same time.
A strong economy is needed in order to support the defense program.
This means we must continue our programs to maintain our
infrastructure. The economy/business sectors depend not only on
infrastructure in the form of transportation networks, communication
systems and energy supplies, but most importantly, water supplies.
discussion of overall bureau of reclamation budget
It is important to recognize that the fiscal year 2003 budget
submission of $726 million for the Bureau of Reclamation's Water and
Related Resources program is $80 million better than their request for
fiscal year 2002. It is still, however, $36 million less than the
amount that Congress provided last year, and $115 million less than has
been called for by the ``Invest in the West'' Coalition, a coalition of
nine western water organizations that are involved in the full array of
western water issues.
The ``Invest in the West'' goal, one with which I agree, is to
raise the Bureau's Water and Related Resources Budget to $1 billion by
the end of fiscal year 2005. This is simply a goal to restore the
budget to previous levels. The erosion of the Bureau's budget during
the 90s has created problems across the west for virtually all of its
constituents.
The Bureau of Reclamation reports that they have a $5 billion
backlog of projects. The 106th Congress authorized $2 billion worth of
water programs, of which the Dakota Water Resources Act was a major
piece. I would also like to submit, for the record as Attachment 1, a
report by the National Urban Agriculture Council, entitled ``Withering
in the Desert'', which shows the Bureau of Reclamation's budget
declining 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 2000.
The Invest in the West Coalition believes this modest ramping up of the
present budget is necessary and appropriate in order to restore the
program effectiveness of the Bureau and to meet the critical water
needs in the west. In addition to the construction backlog, there is
also a need to deal with future operation and maintenance funding needs
in the program. This is particularly true in the operation and
maintenance budgets for Native American projects. This element of the
budget is already in serious competition for construction dollars, as I
will briefly illustrate during my discussion of the Garrison program.
As you look forward to funding for western water needs and the
needs in our own state, I would like you to consider one other need
that I believe could be addressed in the Bureau budget. There is a
serious need for the Bureau of Reclamation, working with the states and
the tribes, to conduct a water development needs assessment for the
western states. We can't just look at today when we have a
responsibility for tomorrow. We suggest you consider providing some
modest funding to the 17 western states to update their state water
plans so a comprehensive view on future development funding needs would
be available to your Committee, as well as the respective authorizing
and appropriations committees. It is a need that hasn't been addressed.
The Western Water Policy Review Commission examined the issues, but not
the funding necessary to address the current and future issues. I
believe this is a vital missing link as Congress, the Administration
and water users provide a vision and opportunities for future
generations.
budget impacts on garrison project
At this point, I would like to shift to the particulars of the
budget as it impacts the Garrison program and some specific projects
within the State of North Dakota. Let me begin by reviewing the various
elements within the current budget request and then discuss the impacts
that the current level of funding will have on the current program.
Attachment 2 shows the funding history over the last six years for
the Garrison Diversion Unit. The average is approximately $26 million.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 is for $25.239
million. A continuation of that trend is a formula for disaster. The
President's budget request maintains the historic funding level but
ignores the needs of the current programs and does not keep up with the
price increases expected in the major programs as delays occur.
Fortunately, Congress saw fit to provide that the unexpended
authorization ceilings would be indexed annually to adjust for
inflation. The proposed allocations to the indexed programs in the
President's budget totals $6.7 million. If a modest 2 percent inflation
factor is assumed, the increase will be $8 million for MR&I and $2
million for the Red River Valley phase. Simply put, with the current
request, we will lose ground on the completion of these projects.
This year, the District is asking the Congress to appropriate a
total of $45 million for the Project. Attachment 3 is a breakdown of
the elements in the District's request. To discuss this in more detail,
I must first explain that the Garrison budget consists of several
different program items. For ease of discussion, I would like to
simplify the breakdown into three major categories. The first I would
call the base operations portion of the budget request. Attachment 4
contains a breakdown of the elements in that portion of the budget.
This amount is nominally $20 million annually. However, as more Indian
MR&I projects are completed, the operation and maintenance costs for
these projects will grow and create a conflict with a growing request
for actual construction funding.
The second element of the budget is the MR&I portion. This consists
of both Indian and non-Indian funding. The Dakota Water Resources Act
contains an additional $200 million authorization for each of these
programs. For discussion purposes, I have lumped them together and
acknowledged that however each program proceeds, it is our intent that
each reach the conclusion of the funding authorization at approximately
the same time. We believe this is only fair.
The MR&I program consists of a number of medium-sized projects that
are independent of one another. They generally run in the $20 million
category. Some are, of course, smaller and others somewhat larger, but
one that is considerably larger is the Northwest Area Water Supply
Project (NAWS). The first phase of that project is underway. The
optimum construction schedule for completion of the first phase has
been determined to be five years. The total cost of the first phase is
$66 million. At a 65 percent cost share, the federal funding needed to
support that program is $43 million. On the average, the annual funding
for that project alone is over $8 million. Four other projects have
been approved for future funding and numerous projects on the
reservations are in the final stages of planning. These requests will
all compete with one another. It will be a delicate challenge to
balance these projects with one another. Nevertheless, we believe that
once a project is started, it needs to be pursued vigorously to
completion. If it is not, we simply run the cost up and increase the
risk of incompatibility among the working parts.
An example of the former would be the certain impact of increased
cost of construction over time through inflation but also by
protracting the engineering and administration costs and ``interest-
during-construction'' costs.
Another costly example might be that a part used in an early phase
may no longer be available from manufacturers during the last phases.
The risk of the two dissimilar parts not quite meshing in actual
operation is, of course, increased when the project is stretched out
over a longer period of time.
The third element of the budget is the Red River Valley (RRV)
construction phase. The Dakota Water Resources Act authorized $200
million for the construction of facilities to meet the water quality
and quantity needs of the Red River Valley communities. It is my belief
that the final plans and authorizations, if necessary, should be
expected in approximately five years. This will create an immediate
need for greater construction funding.
This major project, once started, should be pursued vigorously to
completion. The reasons are the same as for the NAWS project and relate
to good engineering construction management. Although difficult to
predict at this time, it is reasonable to plan that the RRV project
features, once started, should be completed in approximately seven
years. This creates a need for an additional $30 million as soon as
authorized and a repayment contract is signed. Fortunately, the RRV
project start will probably follow the completion of the NAWS first
phase and possible later phases.
Using these two projects as examples sets up the argument for a
steadily increasing budget. First, to accelerate the MR&I program in
early years to assure the timely completion of the NAWS project and
then to ready the budget for a smaller MR&I allocation when the RRV
project construction begins.
Attachment 5 illustrates the level of funding for the two major
items, MR&I and RRV. It is quickly apparent that if a straight-line
appropriation is used for each, that a jolt or funding disaster will
occur in the sixth year. That is when an additional $30 million will
suddenly be needed for the RRV program. It is simply good management to
blend these needs to avoid drastic hills and valleys in the budget
requests. By accelerating the construction of NAWS and other projects
which are ready for construction during the early years, some of the
pressure will be off when the RRV project construction funding is
needed. A smoother, more efficient construction program over time will
be the result.
Attachment 6 shows such a program. It begins with a $45 million
budget this year and gradually builds over time to nearly $80 million
when the RRV construction could be in full swing (fiscal year 2008).
Mr. Chairman, this is why we believe it is important that the budget
resolution recognize that a robust increase in the budget allocation is
needed for the Bureau of Reclamation. We hope this testimony will serve
as at least one example of why we fully support the efforts of the
``Invest in the West'' campaign to increase the overall allocation by
another $115 million in fiscal year 2003 and over time an increase to a
total of $1 billion.
Once again, the District acknowledges the difficulty of increasing
the numbers in a time of deficit spending, but can only conclude that
these two wars must be fought vigorously and simultaneously. We cannot
afford to fail at either.
Attachment 1.--National Urban Agriculture Council
Withering in the Desert: The Need to Increase the Bureau of
Reclamation's Budget
Western water interests have been concerned for several years about
the downward trend of the Water and Related Resources Budget of the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior. The Bureau's
Budget has decreased more than 36 percent in ten years going from
$899,378,000 in fiscal year 1991 to $573,612,000 in fiscal year 2000.
During the five-year period covered by the tables attached to this
report, it was reduced by $106 million.
In order to address the backlog in the Bureau of Reclamation that
is discussed later in this report, we suggest a $1 billion a year
budget be provided for the Water and Related Resources account in their
budget so that important needs in the West are adequately addressed.
During the time frame of fiscal year 1991-fiscal year 2000,
Congress has passed new project and program authorizing legislation for
the Bureau such as the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992 and projects in the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 2001.
Freestanding authorization bills in the 106th Congress totaled $2
billion, giving the Bureau of Reclamation a $5 billion backlog of
authorizations to be incorporated into their Budget. This backlog
includes the Title 16 Water Reclamation and Reuse Program and the
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program.
In 1997 the Bureau published its five-year Strategic Plan pursuant
to the Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA) of 1993. Western
water organizations participated in discussions and development of the
plan and on the subsequent Annual Plans for the Bureau. The Strategic
Plan had three primary objectives coupled with eighteen strategies and
five-year goals for each of the strategies. Their mission, in its
simplest terms, is broken down as follows:
--Manage, develop, and protect associated water related resources;
--Protect the Environment in the West;
--Improve business practices and increase employee productivity.
We do not believe the Bureau should unilaterally redefine its
mission. First, its original mission isn't finished. Second, defining
the mission of a Federal agency is the prerogative of Congress, not the
agency itself. In June of 1998, Congress was presented with a report
from the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission: ``Water in
the West: Challenge for the Next Century''. Western water interests
concerns with the decline of the Bureau's Budget are matched by their
concern of how to address the growth-related issues in the West. As the
report notes: ``For the past 15 years, the West has been experiencing
the most dramatic demographic changes for any region or period in the
country's history. Should present trends continue, by 2020 population
in the West may increase by more than 30 percent.''
With that growth is a little recognized fact: The Bureau of
Reclamation is about to celebrate its 100th birthday. The Bureau of
Reclamation is responsible for the largest portion of water storage in
Federal reservoirs in the West; an ever-increasing aging
infrastructure. Reclamation has sole responsibility for the operation
of reservoirs with a total capacity of more than 119 MAF and shares
responsibility for the operation of reservoirs with an additional 16
MAF. There are about 133 water projects in the western United States
constructed by Reclamation. As a result, the Bureau of Reclamation's
operation and maintenance budget, just like that of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is increasing at a substantial rate. Just as the backlog
of projects needs to be accommodated, there is a need to recognize the
operations and maintenance budget with future Budget increases.
Attached is a table for fiscal year's 1996-2000 budgets for each of
the major agencies in the Department of the Interior. All of these
agencies are funded by the Interior Appropriations Bill. The Bureau of
Reclamation is funded by the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill,
which also funds the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of
Energy. However, when viewed by the Administration and the Department
of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation is included in the
Department's framework for decisions on increases or reductions to the
overall Department's Budget even though it is funded by a different
appropriations account.
There is great concern among Western water interests about the
downward trend of the Bureau's Budget. There is a general consensus
that a minimum of $1 billion a year is needed to address ongoing
programs and the growing backlog of the Bureau. This is necessary for
the West to address its growth related issues. Given the information
presented in the attached tables, every agency except the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Minerals Management Service received a Budget
increase, ranging from $30 million to $500 million during these five
fiscal years. The Bureau of Reclamation has suffered a $106 million
decrease. We feel a change needs to occur, especially since there was a
combined increase of $1.3 billion for these agencies during the fiscal
year 1996-2000 time frame. This time frame incidentally coincides with
the 5-year Balanced Budget Agreement where a vast majority of other
agencies programs were being reduced. In addition, Congress has
provided money through Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)-type
programs in the fiscal year 2001 budget that, just for the Interior
related budget non-Reclamation program, amounted to $678 million. This
funding is only expected to increase in the future once the actual
authorizing legislation passes Congress.
There is also a growing recognition that in the 107th Congress,
there is a strong likelihood of an additional $3 to $7 billion of
authorizations being proposed for the State of California. These
include new authorizations for CAL-FED, a comprehensive water
management program for the Santa Ana Watershed, the Salton Sea, and a
water reuse/recycling program for various parts of California. There
are also growing program needs in the Pacific Northwest with respect to
addressing salmon related issues.
A careful note needs to be made about the $3 billion backlog for
the Bureau that existed prior to the action in the 106th Congress. A
small portion of that backlog may be reduced as a result of the
legislation that passed in the 106th Congress. For example, the old
cost ceiling for the Animas LaPlata (ALP) is in the $3 billion backlog.
The legislation that passed the 106th Congress for ALP reduced the cost
of the project substantially. There are further examples of features of
projects in that backlog that will likely never get built, but Congress
has taken no action to suggest that they should be modified or deleted.
In addition, a report last year by the firm of Will & Carlson,
Inc.--``The Greening of the Bureau of Reclamation: From Bird Seed to
Pistachio Farms to Life on the Edge'' reviewed the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget from fiscal year 1991-99 regarding loans, grants
and cooperative agreements for less than $2 million. That report
indicated during that period, approximately $750 million had been
provided for a variety of activities. The vast majority of these
activities were legitimately related to specific project or program
authorizations of the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as activities
directly related to other Federal requirements and activities, such as
the Endangered Species Act and Indian Water Rights Settlements. Without
making a value judgment call, there was funding provided for maybe as
much as 20 percent of this total that might be questionable.
Regardless, the information is now available so that Congress, if they
so choose, can decide on whether such activities should continue in the
future. It is important to recognize the dollar amount that is
necessary for the environmental challenge for water development to
occur to meet the future water needs in the West.
In conclusion, with the growth related issues in the West, the
backlog of projects, the downturn in the Bureau's Budget, the overall
increase in almost all of the other Interior Agencies, and with the
country now in a budget surplus period, it is time to increase the
Bureau's Budget to a level that meets this challenge. It is time to
turn the corner on the funding for the Bureau and put it on a course so
the West is not left withering in the desert.
106th congress--bureau of reclamation bills/provisions that became law
Reclamation-Wide
Reclamation Reform Act Refunds, Public Law 106-377
Dam Safety amendments, Public Law 106-377
Hawaii Reclamation and Reuse Study, Public Law 106-566
Great Plains Region
Perkins County Rural Water Supply Project, Public Law 106-136
Rocky Boys Indian Water Rights Settlement, Public Law 106-163
Lewis and Clark Rural Water Supply, Public Law 106-246
Middle Loup Title Transfer, Public Law 106-366
Northern Colorado Title Transfer, Public Law 106-376
Glendo Contract Extension, Public Law 106-377
Canyon Ferry Technical Corrections, Public Law 106-377
Loveland Warren Act amendment, Public Law 106-377
Fort Peck Rural Water Supply, Public Law 106-382
Park County land conveyance, Public Law 106-494
Palmetto Bend Title Transfer, Public Law 106-512
City of Dickinson, North Dakota Bascule Gates Settlement Act,
Public Law 106-566
Dakota Water Resources Act, Public Law 106-554
Lower Rio Grande, Public Law 106-576
Upper Colorado Region
Central Utah Project Completion Act, Public Law 106-140
Carlsbad Title Transfer, Public Law 106-220
Jicarilla Apache Feasibility Study, Public Law 106-243
Weber Basin Warren Act Amendment, Public Law 106-368
Upper Colorado Fish Recovery, Public Law 106-392
Colorado River salinity, Public Law 106-459
Mancos (Warren Act Amendment), Public Law 106-549
Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments, Public Law 106-554
Lower Colorado Region
Griffith Title Transfer, Public Law 106-249
Ak-Chin Indian Water Rights Settlement, Public Law 106-285
Hoover Dam Miscellaneous Sales, Public Law 106-461
Yuma Port Authority Transfer Act, Public Law 106-566
Wellton Mohawk Title Transfer, Public Law 106-221
Pacific Northwest Region
Deschutes, Public Law 106-270
Minidoka Authorization Ceiling Increase, Public Law 106-371
Chandler study, Public Law 106-372
Nampa and Meridian Title Transfer, Public Law 106-466
Cascade Reservoir Land Exchange, Public Law 106-493
Bend Feed Canal, Public Law 106-496
Salmon Creek Studies, Public Law 106-499
Fish Screen, Public Law 106-502
Mid-Pacific Region
Sly Park Title Transfer, Public Law 106-377
Solano Project Warren Act amendment, Public Law 106-467
Sugar Pine Title Transfer, Public Law 106-566
Clear Creek Title Transfer, California, Public Law 106-566
Colusa Basin, California, signed 12/23/00, signed 12/23/00, Public
Law 106-566
City of Roseville, CA, signed 12/23/00, Public Law 106-554
Truckee Water Reuse Project, Public Law 106-554
Sacramento River study, Public Law 106-554
Klamath studies, Public Law 106-498
Attachment 2
Attachment 3.--Justification for $45 Million GDU Appropriation, Fiscal
Year 2003
Northwest Area Water Supply is cleared for construction after 15
years of study and diplomatic delay. Construction of first phase is
estimated to be $66 million.
Designs are based on a five-year construction period, thus, $12
million is needed for NAWS alone. Indian MR&I programs should be
approximately the same.
McKenzie County, Ramsey County expansion, Tri-County and the
Langdon-Munich phase will be ready but may be funded from carryover of
existing appropriations.
Red River Valley special studies are behind schedule and need to be
accelerated.
[In millions of dollars]
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF INDIAN MR&I SYSTEMS PLUS JAMESTOWN
DAM........................................................... 4
BREAKDOWN OF $45 MILLION CONSTRUCTION REQUEST:
Operation and Maintenance of existing Supply system........... 5
Wildlife Mitigation & Natural Resources Trust................. 4
Red River Valley Special Studies and Env. Analysis............ 4
Indian and non-Indian MR&I.................................... 20
Indian Irrigation............................................. 3
Recreation.................................................... 1
Underfinancing 9.5 percent.................................... 4
______
Total for Construction...................................... 41
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Grand Total................................................. 45
Attachment 4.--Elements of the Base Operations Portion of the Garrison
Diversion Unit Budget, Fiscal Year 2003
[In millions of dollars]
Operation and Maintenance of Indian MR&I systems and Jamestown
Dam........................................................... 4.5
Operation and Maintenance of Existing GDU facilities.............. 5.0
Funding of Natural Resources Trust and remaining Wildlife
Mitigation Programs........................................... 4.0
Indian Irrigation................................................. 2.5
Recreation........................................................ 1.0
Underfinancing at 9.5 percent..................................... 4.0
______
Total....................................................... 21.0
Attachment 6
______
Prepared Statement of the Tumalo Irrigation District
The Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) in Bend, Oregon respectfully
requests your support for inclusion of $1,300,000 in the fiscal year
2003 Energy and Water appropriations bill for the District's Bend Feed
Canal Project. The 106th Congress authorized the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation to participate in the further construction associated with
the project in the amount of $2.5 million.
The TID is proposing to continue and complete in the next fiscal
year construction to pipe a critical portion of our open canals,
essentially eliminating water loss and enhancing public safety along
the project's approximate 14,500 foot length. The conserved water would
be used to deliver enhanced water to the TID irrigators even in drought
years, as they currently receive inadequate water in 8 of 10 years. It
will also increase stream flows in Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes
River.
The TID Board of Directors has expressed its willingness to pay
their share of the estimated $5 million project cost of this important
project and have provided all but $80,000 of their share. We are
concerned that no funding for the project was requested by the
Administration in their fiscal year 2003 Budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation. Our request for $1.3 million for fiscal year 2003 would
allow us to complete the project in the next fiscal year which would
benefit both the District and the general public. We appreciate the
previous funding that we have received for work in this area and look
forward to your favorable consideration of our request.
______
Joint Prepared Statement of New Jersey Maritime Resources, State of New
Jersey, Department of Transportation; New York City Economic
Development Corporation; Transportation and Infrastructure, State of
New York, Empire State Development Corporation; and Port Commerce
Department, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
On behalf of the Port of New York and New Jersey, we wish to thank
you for the support this Subcommittee has shown for navigation programs
and the civil works program. This Subcommittee and Congress understand
the critical relationships between the navigation programs and the
nation's commercial shipping and defense. We are especially
appreciative of the funding that projects in our port have received to
enable it to continue to serve our country's security, economic and
international commerce objectives.
We offer our comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal
year 2003 budget request. We enthusiastically support the
Administration's budget request to continue the New York and New Jersey
Harbor Navigation project at a strong level of funding. We also
appreciate the support of Governor McGreevey and Governor Pataki for
their leadership in securing federal funding for critical projects in
the Port of New York and New Jersey. These funds will ensure that
essential navigation infrastructure will be in place to accommodate
post-Panamax ships currently deployed in international commerce. Clear
trends in steamship design and construction will result in a larger
percentage of the worldwide fleet of container ships that require
channel depths up to 50 feet. It is critical, therefore, that major US
gateways have the required depth to accommodate these deeper draft
vessels. The Port of New York and New Jersey directly serves states of
the Northeast and Midwest and with these channel improvements can
continue to provide greater transportation efficiencies to those
markets and as warranted provide for better military deployment.
In general, we support the Administration's budget request for
studies and channel maintenance within the Port of New York and New
Jersey. We respectfully request that the Subcommittee appropriate funds
at levels outlined in this statement to ensure that these important
projects continue. Listed below are select projects, discussed later in
this statement, and appropriation amounts that we seek for fiscal year
2003. Those projects displayed in bold are our requests beyond the
fiscal year 2003 budget levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Port Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction: New York & New Jersey $120,000,000 $120,000,000
Harbor.................................
Studies:
NY Harbor Anchorage Areas........... 364,000 364,000
Flushing Bay & Creek, NY Restoration 258,000 258,000
Hudson--Raritan Estuary (NY/NJ)..... 676,000 2,800,000
Hudson--Raritan Estuary (Lower 206,000 700,000
Passaic)...........................
Hudson--Raritan Estuary (Gowanus)... 360,000 1,000,000
Operation and Maintenance:
Buttermilk, NY...................... 300,000 300,000
East River, NY...................... 80,000 80,000
East Rockaway Inlet, NY............. 2,100,000 2,100,000
Flushing Bay & Creek, NY............ 80,000 80,000
Jamaica Bay, NY..................... 1,420,000 1,420,000
New York Harbor (Drift Removal)..... 5,300,000 5,300,000
New York Harbor (Prevention of 750,000 750,000
Obstructive Deposits)..............
New York Harbor, NY (Sandy Hook 3,720,000 3,720,000
Channel)...........................
New York & New Jersey Channels...... 3,835,000 3,835,000
Newark Bay, Hackensack & Passaic 75,000 825,000
Rivers.............................
Project Condition Surveys, NY 1,650,000 1,650,000
District...........................
Raritan River, NJ................... 80,000 80,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A brief description of each of these activities follows.
construction
New York and New Jersey Harbor
This project was authorized by Section 101 (a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-541). The recommended
project includes deepening the Ambrose Channel from deep water to the
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to 53 feet below mean low water (mlw), and
deepening the Anchorage Channel (from the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to
its confluence with the Port Jersey Channel), the Kill van Kull
Channel, portion of the Newark Bay Channels, the Arthur Kill Channel
(from the Kill van Kull to Howland Hook Marine Terminal), the Port
Jersey Channel and the Bay Ridge Channel to 50 feet mlw (52 feet mlw in
rock or otherwise hard material). The Pre-construction Engineering and
Design phase began March 6, 2001. While the local sponsor and Corps of
Engineers prepare the project cooperation agreement with the Corps of
Engineers the ongoing Kill van Kull-Newark Bay channel project (45 feet
mlw) continues to make great progress and remains under budget. The
next contract is about to be let and we are working with the Corps of
Engineers to maintain the 2004 completion date. In the spirit of the
consolidated funding approved by this Committee in conference last
year, the local sponsor has applied for a permit and would fund a
parallel contract to have the contractor continue the dredging beyond
45 feet to 50 feet. We are very grateful that the Committee approved in
the fiscal year 2002 conference report the combined funding of the New
York & New Jersey Harbor, the Kill van Kull, Arthur Kill and Port
Jersey channel projects. It will prove to be a very effective way to
advance the project and maximize efficiencies. We are likewise honored
that the Administration considers this project a national priority and,
accordingly, we strongly support the $120 million budget request.
studies
NY Harbor Anchorage Areas (NY & NJ)
This study was authorized by a Senate Committee Resolution on
December 5, 1980. Red Hook Flats anchorage area, consisting of three
anchorage areas, is located west of Red Hook and Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.
It comprises part of the Port of New York and New Jersey anchorage area
system that also includes the Gravesend, Liberty Island and Stapleton
Anchorage areas. The reconnaissance report, completed in December 1993,
identified a favorable improvement alternative for the Red Hook Flats
consisting of deepening specific areas. The feasibility study has been
started, and will examine this and other alternatives and recommend one
that is technically feasible, economically justified and
environmentally sound. We support the Administration's request for
$364,000 in order to continue this feasibility study.
Flushing Bay & Creek, NY Restoration
A reconnaissance study for Flushing Bay and Creek was authorized by
resolution of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
U.S. House of Representatives adopted September 28, 1994. The study was
authorized to address the problems and needs of the area with a view
toward improving water quality problems in the Bay through ecosystem
restoration. The primary concern is the southwest corner of the Bay
next to LaGuardia Airport where water quality is degraded. The
feasibility study began in October 1999 and will be finished in January
2003. Reconnaissance work indicates that ecosystem restoration can be
effected, with benefits measurable as improvements in fish and wildlife
habitat values. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey supports
this initiative and is willing to continue to be an active co-sponsor
of the study. To that end, we support the Administration's request for
$258,000 in order to continue this much needed feasibility study.
Hudson--Raritan Estuary Studies
These studies were authorized by a House of Representatives
Committee Resolution dated April 15, 1999, Docket Number 2596.
Increases are being requested for the Hudson River Estuary studies in
order to achieve the completion schedules of 2005 for the New York &
New Jersey and Lower Passaic studies and 2004 for the Gowanus study.
--New York & New Jersey.--The purpose of the study is to identify a
project that will comprehensively restore estuarine, wetland
and adjacent upland buffer habitat throughout the port region
to the extent practicable, in keeping with existing port and
regional management plans. The NY District and the Port
Authority signed the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement July
12, 2001. The Feasibility Study began July 16, 2001. We are
eager to keep the momentum of this study going and respectfully
request that the fiscal year 2003 budget be augmented to
$2,800,000 particularly since identification and implementation
of beneficial use of dredged material for habitat enhancement
and restoration from large-scale port channel deepening
projects is included in this study.
--Lower Passaic.--Local communities throughout the Passaic River
Basin requested a program of improvements that would restore
the Passaic River. The Passaic River, including adjacent river
shorelines, has been subject to degradation as a result of
historic industrial and commercial activities, along with the
associated impacts of urban development. The NY District
initiated the Reconnaissance Phase in January 2000 that
recommended a separate feasibility study for the tidal
influence of the Lower Passaic River. The NY District is now
working to develop a Project Study Plan (PSP) for the
feasibility study. The PSP is being developed in coordination
with the Environmental Protection Agency. The District expects
to execute the Feasibility Cost-Sharing agreement by August
2002. The non-Federal partner is the New Jersey Maritime
Resources. We respectfully request that the fiscal year 2003
budget be augmented to $700,000.
--Gowanus.--The feasibility study will assess the environmental
problems and potential solutions in the Gowanus Canal.
Restoration measures will assess hot spot clean-up of off
channel contaminated sediments, contaminant reduction measures,
creation of wetlands, water-quality improvements, and
alteration of hydrology/hydraulics to improve water movement
and quality. The potential non-Federal partner is the NYC
Department of Environmental Protection. We request that the
fiscal year 2003 budget be augmented to $1,000,000 for this
study intended to benefit human health.
operation and maintenance
Operation and maintenance projects are critical to the continued
commerce, navigation and security of the Port of New York and New
Jersey. This, in turn, is of paramount importance to the nation's
security. If channels are not maintained to the depth recorded on
nautical charts they become inaccurate and increase the risk of
groundings to vessels. Portions of the channels in Newark Bay that lead
to the Port Newark Marine Facility were deepened from 35 feet to 40
feet in 1995 as part of a more comprehensive deepening project. The
current federal fiscal year provided funds to dredge a portion of these
channels, unfortunately there were insufficient funds to do the needed
maintenance dredging. Consequently, we respectfully request that the
fiscal year 2003 budget be augmented by $750,000 to $20,140,000 for the
New York District's operation and maintenance work.
conclusion
The Port of New York & New Jersey has a long and productive history
with Congress and the Corps of Engineers in the development and
evolution of one of America's first seaports. Much of the Federal
government's early revenues were collected in New York Harbor as
tariffs, long before the advent of the income tax. In our port the
civil works program, coupled with public and private sector
investments, has served the Nation's economic and security interest for
the better part of two centuries. The same is true in other ports of
the United States. We are proud of that history and commit to
continuing this partnership with the federal government so that our
region will continue to serve the nation for centuries to come.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota
Chairman Reid and Members of the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony
requesting the $1.5 million needed to complete Stage 3 of the
Stillwater, Minnesota flood control project. In 2001, the City
experienced its seventeenth flood since 1941, immediately after the
Corps completed construction work on Lock and Dam #3 20 miles South of
the convergence of the Mississippi River and the St. Croix River.
The first two stages of the project have been completed, and
Congress appropriated $2.3 million in the fiscal year 2002
Appropriations Bill to begin construction the critical Stage 3 of the
project. The $1.5 million in Federal funds requested this year, plus
State appropriated, and local funds should be sufficient to complete
the $13.2 million project
The project is divided into three stages. Stage 1 included the
repair and reconstruction of the existing retaining wall which extends
1,000 feet from Nelson Street on the South to the gazebo on the North
end of the levee wall system. Stage 2 consists of the extension of the
levee wall about 900 feet from the gazebo North around Mulberry Point.
The completion of Stage 2 was delayed by floods of 1997, costing
the City and the Federal government nearly a half million dollars.
After the waters subsided, it was discovered that the soil beneath the
planned levee extension was very unstable, requiring a revision of
plans, and the addition of another stage in the construction process.
The flood waters of the St. Croix River did not recede until August
of 1997. The construction area remained under water preventing
construction work to proceed as scheduled. Lowell Park, which extends
the full length of the levee wall system, several structures, and the
emergency roadway which is used to provide emergency medical assistance
for those using the recreational St. Croix River, and as a water source
for local fire departments, were all either under water or
inaccessible.
Phase I, the repair and reconstruction of the original levee wall,
was completed in the Summer of 1998. Work on Stage 1 was completed in
late Summer of 1997, and additional soil borings were taken for Stage
2. The soil was found to be very unstable, and unable to support the
levee system designed for Stage 2 of the project. The construction of
Stage 2 required remedial action, and was been designated as Stage 2S.
A contract was awarded for Phase 2S in November, 1998, and was
completed in 1999. Phase 2 was begun in the late Fall of 1999, and the
major construction work was completed at the end of the year 2000. Only
some landscaping, and finishing work on the levee wall system remains
to be done. The Design Memorandum schedule calls for the construction
of Stage 3 in fiscal year 2002, and to be completed in fiscal year
2003, according to the Corps schedule.
Stage 3 expands the flood protection system by constructing a 3
foot flood wall, and driving sheet piling below the surface to reduce
seepage and to provide a base for the wall. The flood wall will be
constructed about 125 feet inland from the riverbank. Stages 1 and 2
were critical to the protection of the fragile waterfront, and also, to
prevent minor flooding on the North end of the riverfront.
Stage 3 is the component that provides the flood protection for the
City. The rising elevation of the terrain, the flood wall, and minimal
emergency measures are designed to provide the City with up to 100 year
flood protection.
The Mayor, City Council Members, and Engineering staff all
understand that Stage 3 of the flood control project is essential for
the protection of life and property of the citizens, that the Stage 3
flood wall is a critical phase of the project, and that the project
must be completed at the earliest possible date. The Corps acknowledged
the necessity for all three stages of the project when the Design
Memorandum included plans for all three stages.
This fact is born out by the support of the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, the Governor of Minnesota, and the State
Legislature. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources made funds
available based on this premise. The State has appropriated half of the
Non-Federal matching funds needed to complete Stage 3 of the project,
as well as for Stages 1 and 2. The City has provided the remainder of
the required matching funds, consequently, only the Federal share is
missing to complete the project.
stillwater--a national historic site
The City of Stillwater is recognized for the 66 historic sites on
the National Register of the U.S. Department of Interior, as well as
other historic structures. Many of these sites are located in the flood
plain of the St. Croix River. Designated the ``Birthplace of
Minnesota,'' the City of Stillwater was founded in 1843.
When Wisconsin became a state in 1848, a portion of land West of
the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers, including much of what is now the
Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, was excluded. The prominent
citizens of the excluded area convened in Stillwater on August 26,
1848, passed a resolution to be presented to Congress asking that a
``new territory be formed,'' and that the territory be named
``Minnesota.'' Henry Sibley carried the petition to Washington, D.C.,
and in March, 1849, Minnesota Territory was established. Stillwater
then became the only city in the nation to become the county seat of
two different territories, St. Croix County in Wisconsin, and
Washington County, Minnesota. The Stillwater Convention firmly
established Stillwater as the ``Birthplace of Minnesota.''
Stillwater grew and prospered as the Lumber Capitol of the Midwest.
Billions of feet of timber was cut, and floated down the St. Croix to
the nine sawmills that were located on the riverbank of the St. Croix
at Stillwater between 1848 and 1914. More logs were carried through the
boom site North of Stillwater than any other place in the United
States. Three billion feet of lumber was produced by the nine lumber
mills in the 1880's alone. All nine lumber mills wee located on the
riverfront The lumber from the Stillwater mills were the primary source
of wood- constructed buildings throughout the Midwest.
Much of the lumber was carried down the St. Croix to the
Mississippi River, and on to St. Louis, the ``jumping off'' point for
the Westward movement. Sawdust and wood debris from these mills helped
created the fragile riverbank that the levee wall system protects
today.
Later in the 19th Century, five railroads carried lumber from
Stillwater Westward to Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and points
West, as the Nation expanded beyond the Mississippi River into the
plains states. Many of the Midwest's oldest buildings still carry the
mark of the Stillwater mills.
As a result of Stillwater's place in the history of the Midwest,
the lumber industry, the unique homes built by Minnesota's first
millionaires, and the birthplace of both Minnesota Territory and the
State of Minnesota, sixty-six sites are included on the National
Register of Historic Places. All of the downtown area, which is located
in the 100-year flood plain, is included in this recognition.
the impact of lock and dam #3 on floods stillwater
The Lock and Dam #3 was constructed in 1937-38 on the Mississippi
River at Red Wing, Minnesota. The Lock and Dam construction raised the
level of the St. Croix at Stillwater by 8 to 10 feet. It has made the
City of Stillwater vulnerable during periods of high water and flooding
of the St. Croix since that time. Records prove that the lock and dam
construction, raising the water levels of both the Mississippi and the
St. Croix River, has markedly increased the incidence of flooding at
Stillwater. The culpability of the Corps is clearly evident.
The Mississippi and the St. Croix Rivers merge about 14 miles South
of Stillwater. When constructing the Lock and Dam at Red Wing in 1938,
the Federal officials recognized that detaining the flow of the
Mississippi would back up the water in the St. Croix at Stillwater. A
1,000 foot levee wall system was constructed at Stillwater by the WPA
under the supervision of the Corps to protect the fragile waterfront.
From 1850 to 1938, the 88 years prior to the construction of Lock
and Dam #3, only four floods were reported by historians. None were the
result of Spring snow melts. The 1852 flood was the result of a
cloudburst, the destruction of a dam built on McKusick Lake above the
City, and was not the result of the flooding of the St. Croix River.
The floods of June 14, 1885, and May 9, 1894, as well as the 1852
flood, were all the result of cloudbursts in or above Stillwater. These
floods resulted in both loss of life and significant property losses in
the City.
Since the completion of the Lock and Dam 60 years ago, the St.
Croix has flooded on 17 occasions, and only four times in the 90 years
preceding the construction of the Lock and Dam. None of the four were
the result of high water on the St. Croix River. Four floods were
recorded in the 1940's, immediately after the completion of the lock
and dam at Red Wing. The 1952, 1965, and 1969 floods were record-
breaking floods, the result of a heavy snow fall, and early Springs
rainfall, coupled with warm weather. Record flooding was avoided in
1997, by the early planning of City officials, the construction of a
huge emergency levee requiring thousands of truck loads of clay and
sand, the work of hundreds of volunteers, and luck in the avoidance of
a severe rainstorm in or around the flood event.
The 2001 flood was second worst flood in the 160 year history of
the City. It was only topped only by the flood of 1965. The careful
planning and preparation by the City, hundreds of volunteer workers
included high school students and younger, local citizens from
Minnesota and Wisconsin, and dozens of inmates from the near-by State
prison were given credit for preventing a major catastrophe for the
City. The water pump rental, thousands of yards of sand and fill, and a
``round the clock'' line up of trucks, cost the Federal, State, and
local governments nearly $1.3 million.
The planning and preparation of City officials, and adequate lead
time have allowed the construction of levees high enough to avoid
massive flooding in the historic section of the City during most of the
floods, and to prevent further loss of life. However, a 4-5 inch
rainfall during high water levels would be devastating to the City.
Such rainfalls are not infrequent in the St. Croix Valley, and can not
be anticipated. A major concern is the safety of the volunteers.
Working around heavy equipment and massive trucks, day and night, and
on top of 20 foot emergency levees over swirling flood waters, it is
only a matter time until we have serious injuries or loss of life.
A wet Fall that saturates the soil, heavy snows during the Winter,
extended warm spells in the Spring, coupled with persistent Spring
rains, and cloudbursts as experienced in the past, will all come
together in the same year at some point in time. At that point, the
City's emergency responses to flood control will not be sufficient to
cope with the flood waters.
History bears out the City's contention that the raising of the
river levels by ten feet in 1938, when Lock and Dam #3 was constructed,
greatly increases the flooding potential faced by the City during the
past 60 years. On this basis alone, the Federal Government must share
in the responsibility for providing a remedy. The construction of the
Stage 3 flood wall at Stillwater will provide this safety.
environment threatened during flood events
The St. Croix River was designated as one of the first Wild and
Scenic Rivers by Congress and is protected under both Federal and State
laws, as well as by local ordinances. The St. Croix River is carefully
monitored by the Federal government, an Interstate Commission, and the
DNR's by both the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
The City's concern is the trunk sanitary sewer line and pumping
stations for the City of Stillwater. The sewer line runs adjacent to
the riverfront and is frequently under water during major flood events.
More than 2 million gallons of raw sewage is handled daily by the sewer
line and pumping stations that follow the riverfront. Engineers have
advised the City that extended flooding of the flood plain could result
in the rupturing of the trunk line or the surcharging of the pumping
stations.
Either of these events would result in the direct flow of raw
sewage into the St. Croix River. It would be impossible to repair the
system during the high water of a flood event. During the 1997 floods,
one pumping station and a portion of the trunk sewer line remained
under water for 95 days, and required careful monitoring by the City
workers.
The protection of the river is not only the dominant theme of the
State and Federal governments, but also by the counties and
municipalities that line the riverbanks of the St. Croix. However, the
greatest protectors of the river are the citizens themselves who take
advantage of the crystal blue waters of the St. Croix for fishing,
boating, and other recreational and scenic purposes.
The topography of the City of Stillwater requires the location of
the trunk sanitary sewer line and pumping stations at the base of the
City's hub, adjacent to the riverfront. The City is built on two hills
that slope toward the river, abruptly interrupted by sandstone bluffs
extending 50-75 feet high above the river level. The sanitary sewer
system serving the 16,000 Stillwater residents flows into the trunk
sewer line that runs parallel to the riverfront. It can not be moved.
The 2 million gallons of raw sewage handled by the system each day, is
gathered in the trunk sewer line and pumped Southward to the water
treatment plant.
According to engineering studies, the trunk line and the pumping
stations are both susceptible to rupture or surcharging during periods
of flooding. Little could be done to stop the flow of raw sewage into
the St. Croix until the water receded. During recent floods, it is not
unusual for high water levels to persist for as much as 2-5 months.
Such an event could release 120 million gallons of raw sewage into one
of America's most pristine rivers over that period of time. If for no
other reason than the protection of the river, the City believes the
Stage 3 flood wall must be constructed with no delay.
legislative background
The Stillwater Flood Control and Retaining Wall project first was
authorized in section 363 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 1992. An allocation of $2.4 million was made in the the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act of 1994.
A Committee Report described the project in three parts--to repair,
extend, and expand the levee wall system on the St. Croix River at
Stillwater, Minnesota.
--``To repair'' (Stage 1) the original existing levee wall system
constructed in 1936.
--``To extend'' (Stage 2) the original wall by approximately 900 feet
to prevent the annual flooding that occurs at that location,
and
--``To expand'' (Stage 3) the system by constructing the flood wall
about 125 feet inland from the levee wall system to protect the
downtown and residential section in the flood plain.
In 1995, the Design Memorandum confirmed the cost estimate for the
project was much too low, and the project was reauthorized for $11.6
million by Congress in the 1996 WRDA legislation. In 2001, the Corps
estimated the Federal cost at $9.86 million, the non-Federal cost at
$3.29 million, and the total cost of the project to be $13.15 million.
Since the reauthorization of the project five years ago, and the
completion of the feasibility study, both Stage 1 and 2 have
essentially been completed. Only the completion of Stage 3 will provide
the City with the flood protection that is critically needed. The
reconstruction of the existing levee wall system, the extension of the
levee wall, and the construction of the flood wall are all critical to
the safety of the citizens, the protection of property, and the
preservation of historic sites that contributed to the growth and
expansion of the Midwest in the last half of the 19th Century.
summary
The Mayor and Council for the City of Stillwater, Washington County
Officials, the Governor and Minnesota State Legislature, and bipartisan
support of Minnesota Representatives and Senators in Congress, all
recognize the significant importance of completing this project by
constructing the Stage 3 flood wall on the St. Croix River at
Stillwater. They are committed to the completion of the Flood Wall
Project at Stillwater. It is critical to the protection of property,
the preservation of our history, the respect of historic Indian sites,
and the safety of our citizens and their homes and business.
We respectfully urge the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
for Appropriations to allocate the $1.5 million needed to complete the
Stage 3 flood wall in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill. If you
have questions or would like additional information regarding this
project, please call on us.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Crookston, Minnesota
Chairman Reid and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
City Council and the citizens of Crookston, Minnesota. We are
requesting $3.702 million in Federal funds for the completion of Stage
2 of the flood control project authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999. This funding level includes the $3.2 million
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined is necessary to
complete the work on Stage 2 of the Crookston Flood Control Project,
and $500,000 for the development of the plans and specifications for
Stage 3. As a result of the history of flooding experienced by the
citizens of Crookston, and the continuing threat of flood events we
face, it is critical that the funds needed for the Crookston project is
made available in the Energy and Water Appropriation Bill for fiscal
year 2003.
We would like to thank you and the Members of this Committee for
the $2 million appropriation awarded the Crookston Flood Control
Project in the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Bill. These funds have
made it possible to complete nearly all the construction scheduled in
Stage 1 of the project. Plans and specifications for Stage 2 have been
completed. Bids for construction of Stage 2 are now in the process of
being advertised. Construction is scheduled to begin immediately after
the Winter thaw this Spring.
The $2 million provided in the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Bill
has allowed us to move ahead on the construction of Stage 2. We are
requesting $3.702 million in the fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill. This will provide funds to complete the
construction of Stage 2, and provide $500,000 for the development of
the plans and specifications for Stage 3.
Stage 2 calls for the construction of a second diversion channel,
levees, and other features. The Section 22 study completed by the Corps
has identified two additional communities that remain unprotected under
the existing project. An amendment to the project authorization is
being requested in WRDA 2002 which will include the Chase/Loring and
Sampson Additions. The inclusion of the two additional communities in
the project will result in a cost/benefit ratio of 1:1.03 as determined
by the E and R Index. The inclusion of funds for the plans and
specifications in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill will permit
the project construction to move forward in fiscal year 2004 without
any delay between Stage 2 and Stage 3.
The original project was authorized incrementally, rather than
including all four of the neighborhoods susceptible to flooding. All
the homeowners have been paying flood project fees for 10 years to
provide the non-Federal match required. It would be unfair to the
citizens living in unprotected areas to halt the project when half
completed.
The Sampson and Chase/Loring Additions include some 250 structures,
primarily single family dwellings. There are two rather large apartment
complexes, one of which is designed as assisted living housing for
senior citizens. It is located adjacent to the river, directly in the
flood plain.
Two sanitary sewer pump stations are housed in the Sampson
addition. Both are a concern to the City during flood conditions. As
major trunk sewer lines, they carry more than a third of the City's raw
sewage daily. It is important that Stage 3 plans and specifications be
included in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill. Delaying the work
till 2003 will result in increased costs, and continuing an unsafe
environment for many of our citizens.
background and logistics
The City of Crookston is located in the Red River Valley of Western
Minnesota, in Polk County, 25 miles East of Grand Forks, North Dakota.
The Red Lake River winds its way through the City from its source at
the Upper and Lower Red Lakes, and flows into the Red River at Grand
Forks. The population of the City has remained constant over the past
decade at about 8,200 citizens.
The community was settled in 1872, when the first railroad route
was announced crossing the Red Lake River where Crookston now stands,
and later, extending to Canada. The economy of Crookston is based
primarily on agriculture. It is the home of the University of Minnesota
Crookston, a technology oriented school with a full academic program
enrolling approximately 2,500 students.
flooding events and their causes
Floods occurring over the past forty years have created significant
damage to homes and businesses, and have resulted in the loss of lives
as well. They include the flood events of 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1978,
1979, 1996, and 1997. Floods have been documented at Crookston as early
as 1887. The 1950 flood, though not the maximum flood of record,
created the most damage to the City and resulted in the deaths of two
citizens from the community.
Between 1950 and 1965, clay levees were constructed through local
efforts in an attempt to ameliorate the damages from the flooding of
the Red Lake River. The floods of 1965, however, demonstrated these
efforts were not adequate to hold back the torrents of water during
significant flood events. While certain areas of the City received some
flood protection, severe damages occurred in the South Main Street
area. This section of the City has since been totally cleared.
The 1969 flood established new high water marks, and again, it was
necessary to carry out extreme emergency measures. These efforts were
successful in protecting the community from severe damages. Recognizing
the need for more protection, another locally financed project was
initiated, extending, enlarging, and raising the height of the levee
wall system.
The flood of 1997, was the ``grandaddy'' of all floods. It
established the highest water mark in recorded history when the Red
Lake River crested at 28.6 feet above flood stage, the equivalent of a
three story building. It is described as a 500-year flood event.
Only the careful planning and preparation by City officials in
cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, the State of Minnesota, FEMA,
the National Guard, and many private citizens, were damages reduced,
and fortunately, no lives were lost. Prior to the crest of the flood,
the City of Crookston completed the work of adding two feet of clay and
sandbags to the entire levee system throughout the town. The Corps of
Engineers constructed clay dikes as a second line of defense,
sacrificing a few homes for the good of many others. As a precautionary
measure, 400 residents evacuated from their homes during the height of
the flood.
These efforts spared Crookston from the devastation experienced by
neighboring towns, allowing the City to provide for 8,000 persons
evacuated from their homes in nearby communities, But this disaster and
the potential devastation that such floods can bring, emphasized the
critical importance of replacing the temporary earthen and clay dikes
with a well-planned, permanent flood control system.
There are several causative factors that have created flood
conditions for the Red River Valley and the City of Crookston. The Red
River of the North did not carve out the valley, it merely meanders
back and forth through the lowest parts of the floor of the ancient
Glacial Lake Agassiz.
With no definitive flood plain to channel flood torrents, the slow-
moving flood waters quickly overrun the shallow river banks and spread
out over the flat floor of the former glacial lake bed. The small
river's gradient is on one-half foot per mile, as opposed to areas in
Southwestern Minnesota where in one instance, the gradient establishes
a 19 foot drop in one mile. Both extremes have created problems.
The Red Lake River flows into Crookston from the Northeast, winds
it way through the City, and flows out of the City, turning in a
Northwesterly direction toward its confluence with the Red River at
Grand Forks, North Dakota. The merged rivers then flow due North into
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. As the snow melts in the Southern portion
of the valley, ice often remains in the channel to the North. Ice and
other debris flowing North pile up against the river ice creating ice
dams. These barriers back up the water and increase the flood crest
upstream.
The extremely level terrain also creates a phenomenon during the
Spring thaw which is called ``overland flooding.'' As the snow melts,
the huge volume of water can overwhelm the network of shallow ditches
and creeks. Unable to enter the choked stream channels, the water
travels overland until it meets small terrain barriers such as railroad
beds and road grades, creating huge bodies of water.
In addition to the topography of the area, a combination of factors
such as agricultural drainage, the loss of wetlands, the Federal
governments work in the Red River Basin, and the construction of the
county ditch systems, all these factors have contributed to the
vulnerability of the area.
City officials and the Corps of Engineers are evaluating the
potential for flooding even this year, While the weather is permitting
a more gradual snow melt with less water content, a substantial
rainfall of several inches on the soil that is already saturated from
the snow melt can greatly increase the predicted flood levels.
project description and status
A Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the Corps of Engineers
and the City was signed on October 19, 1992, and a feasibility study
and environmental assessment was completed in 1997. Both partners
shared costs equally in the $1.2 million study. The Red Lake Watershed
District and the State of Minnesota provided part of the non-Federal
funding required, and both join the City with their strong support.
The Feasibility Report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
recommended that a local flood control project be constructed
consisting of two down-stream cut off channels and levees built to the
100-year level of protection for Thorndale, Woods, and the downtown/
Riverside neighborhoods. While the two down-stream cut channels are
planned to reduce the flooding somewhat for the entire City, and the
levees protect the fore mentioned neighborhoods, other areas of the
City remain at risk. The Corps of Engineers has completed a Section 22
study of the City in which further recommendations will be made.
The National Economic Development (NED) optimization analysis
indicated that the 100-year and the 50-year levels of protection would
have the approximately the same net benefits. The policy is that if two
alternatives have the same benefits the lower cost plan is accepted.
The District, after consultation, requested a waiver to recommend
the 100-year protection. Their rationale included the high potential
for property damages, the increased risk of loss of life, and the
benefits of providing a consistent level of protection throughout the
City. Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) H. Martin Lancaster approved
the waiver on January 15, 1997.
--1992--Feasibility Cost Share Agreement signed.
--1997--Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment completed.
--1997--National Economic Development optimizational analysis waived
to provide the entire project with 100-year flood protection.
--1998--Preconstruction engineering and design efforts begun.
--1999--Project authorized for construction in the Water Resource
Development Act of 1999.
--2000--Plans, specifications, and design work for Stage 1 completed.
--2000--Congress appropriates $1 million for Stage 1 construction.
--2000--Plans and Specifications for Stage 2 commenced.
--2001--Corps of Engineers total cost estimates for the project to be
$10.8 million
--2001--City requests $5.31 million from Congress for the
construction of Stage 2 of the Crookston Flood Control Project.
--2001--Congress appropriates $2 million to complete work of Stage 1.
--2002--Bids are advertised for construction of Stage 2.
fiscal data
The recommended plan has a fully funded baseline cost estimate of
$9.5 million and a benefit to cost ratio of 1.6. The total cost of the
project, as projected by the Army Corps of Engineers, is $10.8 million.
The increase is due to newly refined design requirements.
The following ``Cost-Sharing Schedule'' was information developed
by the Corps of Engineers, and was made available to us on January 30,
2001. Our request for $5.31 million for Stage 2 of the project is based
on this information. Nearly all of Stage 2 expenditures will occur in
2002 and 2003. The schedule provided by the Corps is as follows:
CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT--COST-SHARING SCHEDULE
(Costs in $000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Fiscal Year Project LERRDs Non-Fed Fed Percent Total Fed Total Non-
Costs Ped Const. Costs Fed Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 and Prior..................... $1,168 $0 $298 $870 29.7 $870 $298
2001............................... 2,490 1,650 0 840 0.0 840 1,650
2002............................... 4,086 1,000 0 3,086 32.4 2,760 1,326
2003............................... 2,814 125 0 2,689 34.8 2,339 475
2004............................... 242 0 0 242 3.1 211 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs.................... 10,800 2,775 298 7,727 100 7,020 3,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor 35 percent Share = $3,780.
LERRDs = $2,775.
Cash Requirement = $1,005.
Five Percent Cash = $540.
non-federal contributions to the project
The citizens of Crookston have demonstrated their commitment to the
project each year since 1997. Every year for since 1997, they have
voted to assess themselves a flood control project fee, over and above
their property taxes. This action by the community has resulted in
raising about $1.4 million up to the present time. One third of these
local funds were used to meet part of the 50 percent match for the $1.2
million feasibility study, and the remainder will be used as a part of
the non-Federal match for the construction Stages of the flood control
project.
The State of Minnesota has also made a significant contribution to
the project. They have appropriated $3.3 million for the dual purpose
of providing funds to match the Federal contribution, and to buy out
homes that have been lost in the construction of the flood control
measures. Nineteen families were required to lose their homes to the
project, including one farm. The State funds were used both for the
purchase of the homesteads, and the relocation of the affected
families.
For these reasons, we respectfully request this Subcommittee to
appropriate $5.31 million of Federal funds in the fiscal year 2002
Appropriations Act to complete the Stage 2 work on the Crookston Flood
Control Project. The Committee's favorable response to this request
will prevent any delays affecting the completion of the project, and
avoid cost overruns that inevitably occur when construction is delayed.
In closing, I would like to say there is nothing more important to
me as Mayor, and to each Member of the Crookston City Council, than the
safety of our citizens, and the protection of their homes and property.
We can not give them this assurance until we have completed this flood
control project.
May I also say that our association with the St. Paul District of
the Army Corps of Engineers throughout this process has been
outstanding. They are an extraordinary organization, working on the
scene during flood conditions, and assisting us as we attempt to
resolve this problem that threatens our citizens. We could not ask for
a better partner in this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this important matter to
your attention through this statement. I will be delighted to respond
to any questions you may have about the project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oglala Sioux Tribe Rural Water Supply System
fiscal year 2003 construction budget request
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully
request appropriations for construction in fiscal year 2003 in the
amount of $46,077,000 as follows:
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core Facilities (Pipelines and Pumping Stations).... $17,164,000
Distribution System on Pine Ridge................... 7,349,000
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System............... 7,748,000
Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System........................ 10,725,000
Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System.................... 3,091,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Mni Wiconi Project.......................... 46,077,000
The project sponsors have been provided with the Administration's
budget for this project in fiscal year 2003 ($23.292 million for
construction) and are extremely concerned with the inadequacy of the
budget. The following is the average federal funding need to complete
the project in fiscal year 2008.
Total Federal Funding Required.......................... $391,091,000
Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2002.................. $213,384,726
Percent Spent........................................... 54.56
Amount Remaining........................................ $177,706,274
Average Required for Fiscal Year 2008 Finish............ $29,617,712
The funding request presented above is urgently needed to complete
this project in a timely manner. An extension of time beyond fiscal
year 2007 will require an increase in the project budget beyond
indexing due to added years of administration. The funding request is
within the capability of the sponsors to utilize in fiscal year 2003
based on the status of designs.
The principle elements in the budget for fiscal year 2003 are
$17.164 million for the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS)
core to reach Kadoka and funds for Rosebud, Lower Brule and West River/
Lyman-Jones to build distribution systems that will interconnect with
the OSRWSS core facilities.
The sponsors are extremely pleased to report that the OSRWSS water
treatment plant on the Missouri River near Fort Pierre, South Dakota,
is fully operational and will deliver treated water on a sustained and
dependable basis during fiscal year 2002 and thereafter. Large diameter
OSRWSS core pipelines (24 inch) will have been constructed by the end
calendar year 2002 to Vivian and Murdo, over a distance of 100 miles.
The completion of these critical segments of the core pipeline permits
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe to interconnect at Vivian and deliver water
immediately to large areas of West River/Lyman-Jones. Over a period of
several years, Lower Brule will complete its core system into the
Reservation. The completion of the core pipeline to Murdo permits the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe and other parts of West River/Lyman-Jones to
interconnect at that location. Over 50 percent of the design population
will have access to Missouri River water from the OSRWSS core
pipelines, but only if the requested level of appropriations is made
available to provide for construction of the interconnecting pipelines.
The project now has the most significant project components completed
and can conclude the project in a timely manner given adequate
appropriations in fiscal years 2003 through 2008. The subcommittee is
respectfully petitioned by the sponsors to give priority to the
completion of this project before committing significant funds to new
projects. The degree of poverty and need for improvement of drinking
water are set forth in greater detail in section 3 of our testimony and
underscore the importance of this project.
osrwss core pipeline to reach kadoka in fiscal year 2003
Only the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of West River/
Lyman-Jones will be without points of interconnection to the OSRWSS
core. The requested funding level for the OSRWSS core of $17.164
million will complete the project from Murdo to Kadoka and leave a
relatively small distance in fiscal year 2004 for connection to the
northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation where, in
combination with the western part of West River/Lyman-Jones, the
remaining 50 percent of the design population resides. The 2000 census
confirms that this remaining population is growing at a rate of 24
percent per decade or 1\1/2\ times greater than projected from the 1990
census. Delivery of Missouri River water to this area is urgently
needed.
All proposed OSRWSS construction activity will build pipelines that
will provide Missouri River water immediately to beneficiaries. In many
cases, construction of interconnecting pipelines by other sponsors is
ongoing, and fiscal year 2003 funds are required to complete projects
that will connect with the OSRWSS core.
Funding for OSRWSS core and distribution facilities is necessary to
bring the benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation, one of five rural designations across the
Nation. There is great anticipation on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. The federal projection that as much as $.5 to $1.0 billion
in economic activity can be generated, however, is largely dependent on
the timely completion of a water system, which depends on
appropriations for this project.
Finally, the Subcommittee is respectfully requested to take notice
of the fact that fiscal year 2003 will significantly advance
construction of facilities that will bring the end of the project into
focus. While amendment of the legislation is required to extend the
completion date beyond fiscal year 2003 to as distant as fiscal year
2008, the Subcommittee's past support has brought the project to the
point that the end can be seen. Key to the conclusion of the project in
fiscal year 2008 is the completion of the OSRWSS core to the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation. Toward this end, funds are included in the fiscal
year 2003 budget to build the connecting pipelines between the
northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and the central
portion of the Reservation near Kyle. Rosebud is similarly engaged in
the construction of a major connecting pipeline that will join the
OSRWSS core near Murdo and deliver water southerly to the central
portions of the Rosebud Indian Reservation and to service areas for
West River/Lyman-Jones.
unique needs of this project
This project covers much of the area of western South Dakota that
was formerly the Great Sioux Reservation established by the Treaty of
1868. Since the separation of the Reservation in 1889 into smaller more
isolated reservations, including Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule,
tensions between the Indian population and the non-Indian settlers on
former Great Sioux lands has been high with little easing by successive
generations. The Mni Wiconi Project is perhaps the most significant
opportunity in more than a century to bring the sharply diverse
cultures of the two societies together for a common good. Much progress
has been made due to the good faith and genuine efforts of both the
Indian and non-Indian sponsors. The project is an historic basis for
renewed hope and dignity among the Indian people. It is a basis for
substantive improvement in relationships.
Each year our testimony addresses the fact that the project
beneficiaries, particularly the three Indian Reservations, have the
lowest income levels in the Nation. The health risks to our people from
drinking unsafe water are compounded by reductions in health programs.
We respectfully submit that our project is unique and that no other
project in the Nation has greater human needs. Poverty in our service
areas is consistently deeper than elsewhere in the Nation. Health
effects of water borne diseases are consistently more prevalent than
elsewhere in the Nation, due in part to (1) lack of adequate water in
the home and (2) poor water quality where water is available. Higher
incidences of impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies and
hepatitis-A are well documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni
Wiconi Project area. At the beginning of the third millennium one
cannot find a region in our Nation in which social and economic
conditions are as deplorable. These circumstances are summarized in
Table 1. Mni Wiconi builds the dignity of many, not only through
improvement of drinking water, but also through direct employment and
increased earnings during planning, construction, operation and
maintenance and from economic enterprises supplied with project water.
We urge the subcommittee to address the need for creating jobs and
improving the quality of life on the Pine Ridge and other Indian
reservations of the project area.
Employment and earnings among the Indian people of the project area
is expected to positively impact the high costs of health-care borne by
the United States and the Tribes. Our data suggest clear relationships
between income levels and federal costs for heart disease, cancer and
diabetes. During the life of the Mni Wiconi Project, mortality rates
among the Indian people in the project area for the three diseases
mentioned will cost the United States and the Tribes more than $1
billion beyond the level incurred for these diseases among comparable
populations in the non-Indian community within the project area. While
this project alone will not raise income levels to a point where the
excessive rates of heart disease, cancer and diabetes are significantly
diminished, the employment and earnings stemming from the project will,
nevertheless, reduce mortality rates and costs of these diseases.
TABLE 1.--1990 BUREAU OF CENSUS ECONOMIC STATISTICS \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Capita Families Below
---------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Reservation/Site Income ($) Poverty Level Unemployment (%)
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Ridge (Shannon County)..................... $3,029 59.6 32.7
Rosebud (Todd County)........................... 4,005 54.4 27.3
Lower Brule (Lyman County)...................... 4,679 45.0 15.7
State of South Dakota........................... 10,661 11.6 4.2
National........................................ 14,420 10.0 6.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2000 census data are not yet available for income and poverty. Preliminary estimates based on 1997 census
information indicate that conditions have not changed significantly.
Financial support for the Indian membership has already been
subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. This project is a source of strong hope that helps off-
set the loss of employment and income in other programs and provide for
an improvement in health and welfare. Tribal leaders have seen that
Welfare Reform legislation and other budget cuts nation-wide have
created a crisis for tribal government because tribal members have
moved back to the reservations in order to survive. Recent Census
Bureau data indicate that the population of Shannon County (Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation) increased over 24 percent between 1990 and 2000.
The populations of the Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian Reservations have
also continued to grow. Economic conditions have resulted in
accelerated population growth on the reservations. The Mni Wiconi
Project Act declares that the United States will work with us under the
circumstances:
. . . the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure
that adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the
economic, environmental, water supply and public health needs
of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian Reservations
. . .
Indian support for this project has not come easily because the
historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the
Federal Government is difficult to overcome. The argument was that
there is no reason to trust and that the Sioux Tribes are being used to
build the non-Indian segments of the project and the Indian segments
would linger to completion. These arguments have been overcome by
better planning, an amended authorization and hard fought agreements
among the parties. The Subcommittee is respectfully requested to take
the steps necessary the complete the critical elements of the project
proposed for fiscal year 2003.
The following sections describe the construction activity in each
of the rural water systems.
oglala sioux rural water supply system--distribution
Pine Ridge and parts of West River will be the last project
sponsors to interconnect with the OSRWSS core to receive Missouri River
water. With the conclusion of projects under construction in fiscal
year 2002, the Oglala Sioux Tribe will have completed all facilities
that can be supported from local groundwater and will rely on the
OSRWSS core to convey Missouri River water throughout the Reservation.
Much pipeline has been constructed, primarily between Kyle, Wounded
Knee and Red Shirt and between Pine Ridge Village and the communities
of Oglala and Slim Buttes.
Of particular importance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the start of
the main transmission system from the northeast corner of the
Reservation to Kyle in the central part of the Reservation. The
transmission line is needed to interconnect the OSRWSS core system with
the distribution system within the Reservation in order to deliver
Missouri River water to the populous portions of the Reservation. With
adequate funds, this critical segment of the project can be initiated
in fiscal year 2003 and concluded to coincide with the westward
construction of the OSRWSS core to the northeast corner of the
Reservation. This component of the Oglala system has been deferred for
several years due to inadequate funding although the design and
easements have been completed on large portions of the project. This
system is urgently needed so that the OSRWSS core system can be
utilized.
west river/lyman-jones rural water system--distribution
WR/LJ is now delivering quality water to more of its membership
with each Federal appropriation. With fiscal year 2002 funds and
completion of the OSRWSS water treatment plant we were able to provide
service to Ft. Pierre, Vivian, Presho, Kennebec and rural members in
those areas. Service was also extended to new housing facilities now
able to be build adjacent to the Federally developed Oahe reservoir
North of Ft. Pierre. The City of Murdo will be served very early in
fiscal year 2003.
Each year of Tribal core pipeline construction provides WR/LJ with
the opportunity to construct distribution pipeline that have been long
awaited by its membership. The area now being reached by core pipeline
is an area where the only alternative to project water is a $50,000
deep well that is beyond the financial means of most members and the
water still does not meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
The area in Eastern Mellette County will extend pipelines from the
Rosebud core that is making its connection to the core pipeline at
Murdo. These lines will serve WR/LJ members and Rosebud tribal members
through shared and jointly financed distribution facilities.
WR/LJ will construct distribution facilities in the Murdo, Draper
and Okaton service areas as the Oglala core extends westward. This area
includes service to communities and commercial facilities that serve
the traveling public along the US Interstate 90 corridor.
rosebud rural water system (sicangu mni wiconi)
The foresight of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in planning the Sicangu
Mni Wiconi will become apparent in fiscal year 2003. Existing sources
of supply for some reservation communities are unable to meet the
revised arsenic standard planned for implementation in 2006. In other
areas the level of nitrates are rising and the current primary standard
has been exceeded. The high quality water from the OSRWSS core is now
needed to provide a safe and adequate drinking water supply.
While the existing Sicangu Mni Wiconi well field near Rosebud
continues to be a reliable source for portions of the project area, it
was not originally intended to extend service to northern Todd County
and Mellette County from that source. The connection to the OSRWSS core
at Murdo will eliminate the need to provide tribal members and WR/LJ
members with ground water from the Rosebud well field. The core
connection will not only provide a reliable source of high quality
water for the residents in the rural areas near Corn Creek and the WR/
LJ Mellette East Project, it will also ``free-up'' groundwater from the
Rosebud well field to be used in eastern Todd County where nitrate
levels are rising.
The Tribe's highest priority for funding in 2003 is completion of
the core pipeline project. However, without funds to construct
distribution lines and service connections the water will not reach the
areas that need it most. Funds are also being sought for a distribution
and service lines in the Spring Creek/Grass Mountain area (high arsenic
concentrations) and Hidden Timber/Okreek area (high nitrate
concentrations).
lower brule rural water system--distribution
The Lower Brule Rural Water System has made a tremendous amount of
progress over the last few years. A state of the art microfiltration
water treatment plant was constructed and placed into operation in
December 1999. The completion of this plant has not only benefited the
users of the LBRWS but also allowed the provision of high quality water
to a significant number of users of the West River/Lyman Jones Rural
Water System from Oacoma to Vivian.
The provision of water to WR/LJ RWS and its users has been a very
rewarding experience. The cooperation and communication between the two
systems, especially the operation and maintenance personnel, has been
exceptional and has thus led to the successful delivery of high quality
water to users on both systems. As a result, much of the apprehension
that was felt prior to this supply of water has turned to praise.
The Fort George Butte-County Line Road and the Vivian to Presho
core pipelines are installed. Both segments will be tested and placed
into operation as soon as water is available from the Oglala Sioux
Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core pipeline. Construction of the
Presho to Kennebec and Kennebec North pipelines began during the 2001
construction season with all of the piping being installed. The mild
winter has allowed the Contractor to continue work on the
appurtenances. As a result, these lines should be flushed, tested and
placed into service by early spring 2002. All of these pipelines will
initially serve only WR/LJ users until the on-Reservation distribution
system can be constructed.
LBRWS has committed current funding for the construction of the
last segment of LBRWS core pipeline between Kennebec and Reliance
during the 2002 construction season. This will result in the core
pipeline from Vivian to Reliance serving WR/LJ service areas along the
pipeline and the cities of Vivian, Presho and Kennebec.
After the Project received funding and construction began, the
LBRWS quickly realized that the original estimated cost was severely
underestimated. The Bureau of Reclamation confirmed the error in the
original estimate in their Cost Containment Report dated October 1999.
Primarily, as a result of the severely underestimated cost in the
Final Engineering Report, the LBRWS has received the extent of the
funding designated for its portion of the project with the receipt of
the 2001 funds. An amendment to increase the ceiling for overall
project costs, including that needed by Lower Brule, has been
requested. The LBRWS with the support of the other sponsors is
proceeding with the optimism that the amendment will be approved in a
time frame that will not impact the progress currently being made. To
that extent, LBRWS will receive $1,450,000 in fiscal year 2002 funds
for the Kennebec to Reliance segment of core pipeline and is requesting
$3,091,000 in fiscal year 2003 funds for the Fort Hale, Medicine Butte
North and Kennebec North-Medicine Creek distribution systems. This will
be the initiation of the on-Reservation distribution system and thereby
provide service to on-Reservation users.
operation, maintenance and replacement budget
In fiscal year 2002, the approved budget for operation, maintenance
and replacement (OMR) was $7.5 million. The sponsors will work with
Reclamation and among themselves to budget more closely in this and
future years to insure that OMR costs are adequate and that they do not
reduce the amount available from total project funds to complete
construction by fiscal year 2008.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
mississippi river and tributaries project
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am James E. Wanamaker,
Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners,
Greenville, Mississippi, and I have the privilege of presenting this
statement on behalf of this Board and the citizens of the Levee
District. The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is comprised of
7 elected commissioners representing the counties of Bolivar,
Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren
counties in the Lower Yazoo Basin in Mississippi. The Board of
Mississippi Levee Commissioners is charged with the responsibility of
providing protection to the Mississippi Delta from flooding of the
Mississippi River and maintaining major drainage outlets for removing
the flood waters from the area. These responsibilities are carried out
by providing the local sponsor requirements for the Congressionally
authorized projects in the levee district.
The region encompassed by the Mississippi River & Tributaries
Project over lays the heart of the recently authorized Delta Regional
Authority. The employment of the local work force and purchases from
local vendors by the contractors on these projects are vital to
maintaining the economies of some of the most impoverished counties
included in the boundary of the Delta Regional Authority. Adequate or
increased funding of existing authorities is one of the most efficient
ways to boost the economy and to improve our nation's infrastructure.
The foresight used by the Congress in their authorization of the
many features of the Mississippi River & Tributaries Projects is
exemplary. This project has proven to be one of the most cost effective
projects ever undertaken by the United States. The Board remains aware
that the President's budget is again extremely low shifting the burden
again to the Congress of funding projects at levels deemed necessary to
maintain timely construction to provide the much needed flood
protection to the Mississippi Delta. Without the Congressional adds to
the budget over the last several years, construction would be lagging
far behind throughout the entire Lower Mississippi Valley. The
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association will be submitting a
general statement to support an appropriation of $391M for fiscal year
2003 for surveys, advanced engineering, construction, and the operation
and maintenance of the Mississippi River & Tributaries Project. We must
always remember that the Lower Mississippi River receives flood waters
from 41 percent of the Continental United States and inadequate funding
delays benefits and increases the cost of our projects to the nation.
The Mainline Mississippi River Levee throughout the Valley is the
backbone for providing flood protection to the Delta areas. Following
the 1973 flood, it was determined that 69.1 miles of Mainline
Mississippi River Levees in Mississippi were deficient in grade and
section. The Corps of Engineers currently has 18 miles of our levee
under construction with another award scheduled for June of this year.
The administration budget for Mississippi River Levees of $42.36M will
not allow any new construction starts on this vital project. We are
asking that the Congress appropriate $50M for construction of Mainline
Mississippi River Levees to allow construction to proceed in an orderly
manner. Until such time all of our levees are completed to grade and
section, the Mississippi Delta will remain exposed to severe flooding
from the Project Design Flood on the Mississippi River. It is estimated
that the State of Mississippi alone would suffer damage in excess of
$1.8 billion with over 20,000 homes flooded, displacing more than
56,000 people by an overtopping of the levee system in Mississippi.
As the Corps prepares to release the Final Reformulation Report for
the Yazoo Backwater Project, I need to remind you that the Board of
Mississippi Levee Commissioners initiated a consensus process involving
State and Federal resource agencies and major private environmental
groups. After the initial meeting the National Wildlife Federation, the
Mississippi Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, the Gulf
Restoration Network, and the Sierra Club elected to withdraw from this
consensus building process. The only private environmental group to
remain in the process was Ducks Unlimited. The consensus process
involved over 50 hours of meetings of these agencies, organizations,
and local citizens over an 18 month period. We remain very disappointed
in the attitude taken by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
Environmental Protection Agency during this process. These agencies did
not participate as resource agencies as anticipated, but as advocates
of their own plan for the area. The consensus process resulted in a
modification of alternatives being considered by the Corps of Engineers
for this project. The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners and the
Corps of Engineers have each hosted public meetings in the project area
and found the vast majority of individuals living in the project area
support the recommended plan. This support is given by these local
individuals living in the project area even though water levels will be
7 feet deeper with the recommended plan than the 1982 plan before the
pumps are operated, and 62,500 acres of developed land will be taken
out of production and reforested as part of this project. The
Recommended Plan is supported officially by the Board of Mississippi
Levee Commissioners, and all six County Boards of Supervisors in the
project area, Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, Warren, Humphreys, and
Yazoo. We are currently requesting an appropriation of $14.25M for this
project, which will allow the Vicksburg District to initiate right-of-
way acquisition and initiate the pump supply contract for this project.
As with all infrastructure, the need for maintenance is required to
keep the projects functioning as designed. Many areas experienced heavy
flooding on two occasions last fall that would have been prevented with
the completion of this maintenance project. The Big Sunflower River
Maintenance Project is a case where the local sponsors have provided
the necessary minor maintenance for over 50 years. It has been
identified that major maintenance is required to restore the capacity
of this project to move flood waters through the Mississippi Delta. We
are requesting an appropriation of $4.115M to allow work to continue on
this project. Construction on Item 3 has been completed and right-of-
way for Item 2 is being acquired. This appropriation will allow the
work on Item 2 to continue and to purchase rights-of-way for future
items.
Work on the Upper Yazoo Project is continuing with the completion
of Items 4-A and 4-B bringing protection in the Delta to the City of
Greenwood. We are requesting an appropriation of $18M for the Upper
Yazoo Project which will allow work to continue upstream. The
communities of Marks, Tutwiler, and Glendora all had extensive flooding
following heavy rains in November and December of last year. It is
imperative that work on this project be continued to provide an
adequate outlet for the flood control reservoirs that hold back flood
waters from the Mississippi Delta. Without an adequate outlet for these
reservoirs, stages inside the reservoirs will continue to rise
threatening an overtopping of the emergency spillway, whereby, we lose
all control of flood waters in the basin.
Work on the Upper Steele Bayou Project has been completed through
Greenville and as we pointed out on other projects, the completed works
provided enormous protection to the heavy rains received in November
and December of last year. Our request of $1.2M for this project will
allow work to continue in the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge and
continue acquisition of mitigation lands.
The construction of the Demonstration Erosion Control Project
greatly reduces erosion in the upland tributaries and holds back the
movement sediment into our Delta streams. Continued work on this
project will reduce future maintenance requirements along the Yazoo
Tallahatchie Coldwater System in years to come. Our request for $21.6M
will allow construction to continue further reducing erosion and
sediment to the Delta streams.
Maintenance of our Mainline Mississippi River Levee System
continues as a major feature carried out by the basins' Levee Boards.
The Flood Control Act of 1928 clearly delineates Federal and local
responsibilities in the maintenance activities required for this
project. We are requesting $8.13M for the maintenance of Mississippi
River Levees to allow the Corps of Engineers to carry out the Federal
responsibilities for major maintenance along the Mainline Mississippi
River Levee System.
As we pointed out earlier, all projects need to be maintained to
keep them functioning as designed. Work on our 4 flood control
reservoirs are no exception to this need. We are asking for an
appropriation for maintenance of Arkabutla Lake of $18.33M; Enid Lake
$7.436M; Grenada Lake $8.186M; and Sardis Lake of $19.505M. The
increased funds requested for this project will be utilized to complete
the bank protection along these dams, repair water wells, treatment
storage facilities and other maintenance needs. We are also requesting
an appropriation of $1.265M for the tributaries features of the Yazoo
Basin which will allow for continued bank stabilization and shore line
protection work.
In closing, I must take a minute to reflect on the criticism being
focused on the Corps of Engineers' study process utilized in reviewing
projects. I must point out that the focus of the criticism primarily on
the Upper Mississippi Navigation Study relies on activities taking
place prior to the publication of a draft report. No one knows what
that draft report would have contained had the process been allowed to
continue. Even after a draft report is published, the current process
allows thorough review of the report and the recommended plan by
government agencies, private organizations and individuals throughout
the project area and the Nation. All of the comments received by the
Corps through that draft report must be addressed prior to a final
report being made before construction of any project proceeds. Far more
studies performed by the Corps of Engineers throughout the Nation fall
by the wayside than results in actual construction taking place. We
feel that the current process provides a thorough review and an
adequate opportunity for proponents and opponents to review and express
their thoughts.
We are grateful to the Committee for providing us the opportunity
each year to present our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Red River Valley Association
introduction
The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens
bonded together to advance the economic development and future well
being of the citizens of the four state Red River Basin area in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
For the past 77 years, the Association has done notable work in the
support and advancement of programs to develop the land and water
resources of the Valley to the beneficial use of all the people. To
this end, the Red River Valley Association offers its full support and
assistance to the various Port Authorities, Chambers of Commerce,
Economic Development Districts, Municipalities and other local
governmental entities in developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 77th Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana on February 21,
2002, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the Red
River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
specifically:
--Economic and Community Development
--Environmental Restoration
--Flood Control
--Bank Stabilization
--A Clean Water Supply for Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural
Uses
--Hydroelectric Power Generation
--Recreation
--Navigation
The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
federal budget, and has kept those restraints in mind as these
Resolutions were adopted. Therefore, and because of the far-reaching
regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects
covered in the Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review
the materials contained herein and give serious consideration to
funding the projects at the levels requested.
rrva testimony
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Wayne Dowd, and
pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association as its President.
Our organization was founded in 1925 with the express purpose of
uniting the Citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to
develop the land and water resources of the Red River Basin.
Even though the President's budget included $4.175 billion for
civil works programs this is $450 million (9.73 percent) less than
appropriated in fiscal year 2002. Again, the Corps took the biggest
reduction than any of the other major Federal agencies. This does not
come close to the real needs of our nation. A more realistic funding
level to meet the requirements for continuing the existing needs of the
civil works programs is $6.4 billion. The traditional programs, inland
waterways and flood protection remain at the low, unacceptable level as
in past years. These projects are the backbone to our nation's
infrastructure for waterways, flood control and water supply. We remind
you that civil works projects are a true ``jobs program'' in that 100
percent of project construction is contracted to the private sector, as
is much of the architect and engineer work. Not only do these funds
provide jobs, but provide economic development opportunities for our
communities to grow and prosper.
The tragedy of the 11 September terrorist attack has shown how
fragile our economy can be. The civil works program is a catalyst that
is responsible for creating jobs and stimulating growth. It would be
irresponsible to allow our nation's infrastructure to deteriorate, or
worse, stop its growth in a time when America must be the leader in
world trade. Our inland waterways are the key to our dominance of world
markets. This is a pivotal budget year where critical decisions must be
made which will determine our future economic strength.
The Corps of Engineers has served our nation for over 225 years and
has been instrumental in developing the infrastructure that makes us
the economic power we are in the world today. In 1996 our ports
generated over $146 billion in federal taxes, moving 2.3 billion tons
of commerce annually providing $3 increase in GDP for every $1 spent.
Corps flood control projects have prevented damages of $21 billion
annually saving $6 for every $1 spent. Corps projects and lakes provide
more recreation opportunities for Americans, in visitor days, than the
National Park Service.
It is difficult to understand why the environmental extremists are
so strong in their objection to the inland waterways. The facts are
that one barge, 1,500 tons of commodities, is equivalent to 15 jumbo
rail hoppers or 58 tractor-trailer trucks. According to EPA, towboats
emit 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks. So
why would anyone want to take cargo off our waterways and increase
highway congestion and air pollution? We do not believe opponents to
civil work programs have the scientific justification to back their
claims.
We do not support proposed actions for radical reform to the Corps
process or additional independent review of Corps projects. Civil Works
projects already go through the strictest ``benefit to cost''
justification then any other federal agency.
I would now like to comment on our specific requests for the future
economic well being of the citizens residing in the four state Red
River Basin region.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. The tonnage moved in CY 2000
was 3.8 million tons with the projected tonnage, to justify the
project, at 3.9 million tons. We are extremely proud of our public
ports, municipalities and state agencies that have created this
success. New opportunities were announced in CY 2001 including a
ConAgra facility at the Natchitoches Parish Port. Liquid petroleum
shipments are expected to double in CY 2002 and commercial stone
operations are expected to increase. You are reminded that the Waterway
is not complete, twelve percent (12 percent) remains to be constructed,
$244 million. We appreciate Congress's appropriation level in fiscal
year 2002; however, in order to keep the Waterway safe and reliable we
must continue at a funding level closer to $25 million. The RRVA formed
a Navigation Committee for industry, the Corps and Coast Guard to
partner in making our Waterway a success. This effort has reaped many
benefits. We cannot sacrifice what has been accomplished by inadequate
funding levels each year.
An issue we need to address is the current 9-foot draft authorized
for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. Our Waterway feeds into the
Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River and Gulf Coastal Canal, which all
accommodate 12-foot draft barges. This additional cargo capacity will
greatly increase the efficiency of our Waterway and make us compatible
with the systems we feed into. We request that the Corps conduct a
study to evaluate this proposal requiring $300,000 for fiscal year
2003. This change would greatly increase the economic success of our
Waterway.
The feasibility study to continue navigation from Shreveport-
Bossier City, Louisiana into the State of Arkansas is on going. It is
imperative that you continue funding this important study and
appropriate the $583,000 required for fiscal year 2003 to complete the
study. This region of SW Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer
major unemployment and the navigation project, although not the total
solution, will help revitalize the economy. The President's budget
included no funding for this study. We remind you that this is a $6
million study cost shared 50 percent with the Arkansas Red River
Commission. It would not do justice to come this far and not complete
the study after the local sponsor has provided $3 million in good
faith, that the study would be completed.
This will be a multipurpose project addressing navigation,
hydropower, bank stabilization, recreation and environmental
restoration. As we experience serious shortages of electric power in
parts of our nation this project will offer the potential for
hydropower generation at each of the proposed lock and dams. This is
the most efficient, safest and environmental friendly source of power
generation.
Additionally, we believe this continuation of navigation into
Arkansas should be analyzed and justified under the same parameters as
was used in Louisiana and request language in the Appropriation Bill to
direct this change.
Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important, continuing
programs, on the Red River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North
Louisiana. We must stop the loss of valuable farmland that erodes down
the river and interferes with the navigation channel. In addition to
the loss of farmland is the threat to public utilities such as roads,
electric power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in
the navigable waterway. These bank stabilization projects are
compatible with subsequent navigation and we urge that they be
continued in those locations designated by the Corps of Engineers to be
the areas of highest priority. We appreciated the Congressional funding
in fiscal year 2002 and request you fund this project at a level of $11
million.
It is essential to protect the banks from caving and erosion along
the Red River from Denison Dam, Texas to Index, Arkansas along the
Texas/Oklahoma border. You supported a Reconnaissance Study to
investigate the restoration of wetlands, bottomland hardwoods and
riparian habitat in fiscal year 2002. We request that you provide
$60,000 in fiscal year 2003 to complete this study.
There is a new technique for bank stabilization, which should be
tested as a demonstration project, under the existing authority ``Red
River Waterway, Index, AR to Denison Dam''. This new technique,
underwater Bendway Weirs, has proven to be more efficient in
controlling the energy of the river as well as providing environmental
benefits. Over 1,000 acres of prime farmland in Oklahoma and Texas is
lost each year to river erosion and we must investigate all avenues to
correct this problem. You funded the initiation of construction for
this project in fiscal year 2002 and we want to express appreciation
for this funding. Adequate carryover funds exist for fiscal year 2003.
Flood Control.--You will recall that in 1990 major areas of
northeast Texas, Southwest Arkansas and the entire length of the Red
River in Louisiana were ravaged by the worst flooding to hit the region
since 1945 and 1957. More than 700,000 acres were flooded with total
damages estimated at $20.4 million. However, it could have been much
worse. The Corps of Engineers estimates that without the flood control
measure authorized by Congress over the past several decades an
additional 1.3 million acres would have been flooded with an estimated
$330 million in additional flood damage to agriculture and urban
developments.
We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request
you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in
Arkansas. Four of eleven levee sections have been completed and brought
to federal standards. Appropriations of $8.0 million will construct two
more levee sections; completing Miller County, AR and starting on
levees in Lafayette County, AR.
In addition, Bowie County levee, in Texas, is crucial to the
integrity of the Arkansas levee system. Should the Bowie County levee
fail floodwaters will inundate behind the just completed Miller County
levees in Arkansas. It is important to continue funding this project
for the ``locally preferred'' option, according to cost sharing under
the Flood Control Act of 1946, not withstanding economic justification.
$9,400,000 is requested to complete construct this levee system.
The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated into the Federal
system; however, do not meet current construction standards due to
their age. These levees do not have a gravel surface roadway,
threatening their integrity during times of flooding. It is essential
for personnel to traverse the levees during a flood to inspect them for
problems. Without the gravel surface the vehicles used cause rutting
and themselves can create conditions for the levees to fail. Gravel
surfaces will insure inspection personnel can check the levees during
the saturated conditions of a flood. We propose a four phase, four-year
project to correct this Valley wide problem in Louisiana. Funding was
appropriated in fiscal year 2002 and approximately 50 miles of levees
in the Natchitoches Levee District will be completed this year. $2
million will continue this important project in other parishes.
Clean Water.--Nearly 3,500 tons of natural salts, primarily sodium
chloride, enter the upper reaches of the Red River each day, rendering
downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The Truscott Brine Lake
project, which is located on the South Fork of the Wichita River in
King and Knox Counties, Texas became operational in 1987. An
independent panel of experts found that the project not only continues
to perform beyond design expectations in providing cleaner water, but
also has an exceptionally favorable cost benefit ratio. In fiscal year
1995 $16 million dollars was appropriated by the Administration, to
accelerate engineering design, real estate acquisition and initiate
construction of the Crowell Brine Dam, Area VII and Area IX. Due to a
conflict over environmental issues, raised by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, completion of the SFEIS was delayed pending further
study to determine the extent of possible impacts to fish and wildlife,
their habitats and biological communities along the Red River and Lake
Texoma. In an effort to resolve these issues and insure that no harmful
impact to the environment or ecosystems would result, a comprehensive
environmental and ecological monitoring program was implemented. It
evaluates the actual impacts of reducing chloride concentrations within
the Red River watershed.
This base line data is crucial to understanding the ecosystem of
the Red River basin west of Lake Texoma and funding for this must
continue.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in October 1998
agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River Basin tributary
of the project. Completion of this project will reclaim Lake Kemp as a
usable water source for the City of Wichita Falls and the region. We
request appropriations of $2,000,000 to continue this important
environmental monitoring. The drought experienced in the Red River
Valley, in past years, has highlighted the critical need for new usable
water sources.
Operation & Maintenance.--We appreciate the support of your
subcommittee to support navigation to Shreveport/Bossier City, which is
now providing a catalyst to our industrial base, creating jobs and
providing economic growth. We request that O&M funding levels remain at
the expressed Corps capability to maintain a safe, reliable and
efficient transportation system. It was very disturbing to see the
President's budget eliminate maintenance dredging for the Red River.
This would in affect ``shut down'' the river and commerce would cease
on the Waterway and shift to highways and rail, at a more expensive
rate and increasing air pollution.
It is our understanding that the criteria used to fund dredging was
1 billion ``average ton-miles'', which is .3 billion ton-miles for the
Red River. This is the wrong criteria and methodology to use.
Navigation projects are justified using ``system ton-miles'', which is
2.1 billion ton-miles for the Red River and exceeds the 1 billion ton-
mile standard. ``Average ton-miles'' is measured from point of origin
to the mouth of the river, while ``system ton-miles'' is measured from
point of origin to destination of cargo, which makes sense. It is not
right to change the criteria for maintenance funding than what was used
to justify the project. Not only do we request our maintenance funding
be added ($3,519,000), but that the criteria used in the future be 1
billion ``system ton-miles''.
Full O&M capability levels are not only important for our Waterway
project but for all our Corps projects and flood control lakes. The
backlog of critical maintenance only becomes worse and more expensive
with time. We urge you to appropriate funding to address this serious
issue at the expressed full Corps capability. Presently there is a $400
million backlog of critical maintenance at Corps projects throughout
the nation.
The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) has never been fully
funded to its authorized amount. This has been an outstanding program
providing small, cost shared projects within our communities. We
believe this program should be funded at its full authorized amount.
We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have
provided our various projects. We hope that we can count on you again
to fund our needs and complete the projects started that will help us
diversify our economy and create the jobs so badly needed by our
citizens. We have included a summary of our requests for easy
reference.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project
details of the Red River Valley Association on behalf of the
industries, organizations, municipalities and citizens we represent
throughout the four state Red River Valley region. We believe that any
federal monies spent on civil work projects are truly investments in
our future and will return several times the original investment in
benefits that will accrue back to the federal government.
grant disclosure
The Red River Valley Association has not received any federal
grant, sub grant or contract during the current fiscal year or either
of the two previous fiscal years.
summary of fiscal year 2003 requests
(note: projects are not in any order of priority.)
General Investigation Studies (GI)
Red River Navigation, SW Arkansas.--This is a feasibility study
initiated on March 24, 1999 to investigate the potential to extend
navigation from Shreveport/Bossier, LA to Index, AR. To date $2,372,000
has been appropriated for this study and matched by the State of
Arkansas. An additional $583,000 is required to complete the study in
fiscal year 2003. The study is cost shared 50 percent with the Arkansas
Red River Commission, the local sponsor, who has their share on hand.
Total fiscal year 2003 request--$583,000.
Southeast Oklahoma Water Resource Study.--Conduct a reconnaissance
study to evaluate the water resources in the study area. The study area
includes the Kiamichi River basin and other tributaries of the Red
River. A comprehensive plan will be developed to determine how best to
conserve and utilize this water. In fiscal year 2002 $182,000 was
received for this study. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$250,000.
Bois D'Arc Creek, Bonham, TX.--This is a reconnaissance study to
address the flooding on 16,100 acres on the lower two-thirds of the
basin. The towns of Whitewright and Bonham are within the basin. A dam
was determined feasible in the 1960's; however, there was no local
sponsor. Currently there are local sponsors interested in this project.
In fiscal year 2002 $126,000 was received to initiate this study. The
total study cost will be $1,270,000, federal funds and $1,170,000 local
sponsor costs. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$270,000.
Red River Waterway, Index Arkansas to Denison Dam, TX.--Investigate
the restoration of natural resources, such as wetlands, bottomland
hardwoods and riparian habitat along approximately 245 river miles.
Various types of bank stabilization would be considered to protect
environmental zones and corridors. $63,000 was allocated in fiscal year
2002. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$60,000.
Southwest Arkansas Study.--Conduct a reconnaissance report in the
four county areas of the Red River/Little River basins. Included would
be the four Corps lakes; DeQueen, Dierks, Gillham and Millwood. The
watershed study would evaluate; flooding, irrigation, fish and wildlife
habitat, water quality, recreation and water releases for navigation.
The State of Arkansas has expressed an interest in cost sharing the
feasibility study. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$200,000.
Washita River Basin, OK.--Under Public Law 534 NRCS, Department of
Agriculture, constructed approximately 1,100 small Flood control
structures in the Washita River basin above Lake Texoma. These
structures have significantly reduced the sediment flow into Lake
Texoma; however, they are reaching their 50-year life expectancy. This
study will assist NRCS in determining how to extend the life of the
structures which have had a great positive impact to the water quality,
flood storage capacity and ecosystem of Lake Texoma. Total fiscal year
2003 request--$100,000.
Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK & AR, Reconnaissance Study.--The
study area includes 754 square miles above Broken Bow Lake, OK. Broken
Bow Lake was justified for flood control, hydropower, water supply,
recreation and fish and wildlife purposes. In recent years the water
quality of Broken Bow Lake have deteriorated. This study will
investigate the impact of the up stream watershed nutrient and sediment
loading to the lake. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$100,000.
Construction General (CG)
Red River Waterway Project.--a. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.--
Seven projects will be awarded in fiscal year 2002 as well as three
recreation facilities, two visitor centers and continued mitigation.
These ongoing projects need to be completed as well as the initiation
of eight new projects, which include: Coushatta Port ($715,000), Pump
Bayou Reinforcement ($976,000), Fausse/Natchitoches/Clarence
Reinforcement ($1,308,000), Nichols/Bull Reinforcement ($4,552,000),
ACM Pool #1 ($3,115,000), Lindy C. Boggs Barrier Upgrade ($4,908,000),
continued mitigation ($1,302,000) and Shell Point Structure
($1,108,000). Total fiscal year 2003 request--$29,000,000.
b. Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX; Bendway Weir Demonstration
Project.--This stretch of the Red River experiences tremendous bank
caving. A demonstration project using this bendway weir technique is
needed to determine if this method will work in the Red River. The U.S.
Highway 271 Bridge was selected due to the river threatening this
infrastructure and accessibility for evaluation. The project will
include underwater weirs 6 miles upstream and 5.5 miles downstream of
the bridge. There is great environmental enhancement potential with
this project. $3,265,000 has been appropriated to date and there are
adequate carryover funds available for fiscal year 2003. Total fiscal
year 2003 request--0.
Red River Basin Chloride Control Project.--A reevaluation for the
Wichita River Basin features had been ongoing using reprogrammed funds.
The office of the ASA (CW) has supported this project and funds were
appropriated in fiscal year 2002. In addition to the re-evaluation and
NEPA process, environmental monitoring activities will continue. Total
fiscal year 2003 request--$2,000,000.
Red River Below Denison Dam Levees & Bank Stabilization.--a. Levee
Rehabilitation, AR.--Funds are required to complete construction of
Levee Item #5 initiated in fiscal year 2001, initiate construction of
the next Levee Item and initiate design for the follow on Levee Item.
Funds would also be used to design and initiate construction of Dillard
Revetment downstream extension to protect an existing levee from bank
erosion. An Incorporation Report must be accomplished for Twelve Mile
Bayou Levee, Caddo Parish, LA as directed by WRDA 99. Total fiscal year
2003 request--$8,000,000.
b. Bowie County Levee, TX.--The local sponsor wants the locally
preferred option' authorized for construction. In fiscal year 2002
$500,000 was appropriated to initiate this project. The local sponsor
is willing to execute a PCA and initiate real estate activities in
fiscal year 2002. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$9,400,000.
c. Upgrade Levees, LA.--Approximately 220 miles of levees in
Louisiana do not have gravel surfaces on top of the levee, therefore do
not meet federal standard. These levees are in the federal system and
must be upgraded. This surface is required for safe inspections of the
levees during times of floods and to maintain the integrity of the
levee. The total project can be completed in four phases over four
years. $2,000,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2002 and
approximately 50 miles of levee will be upgraded in the Natchitoches
Levee District, LA. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$2,000,000.
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas.--Funds are required
to complete construction of Pleasant Valley Revetment ($4,500,000)
initiated in fiscal year 2002; award contracts for Bois D'Arc
Revetments ($4,000,000) and Dickson Revetment ($2,500,000); and
complete the design on Finn Revetment Phase II. These are important
projects for protection of valuable farmlands and to maintain the
existing alignment of the river in advance of navigation. Total fiscal
year 2003 request--$11,000,000.
Little River County (Ogden Levee), AR.--A Reconnaissance report in
1991 determined that flood control levees were justified along Little
River. The project sponsor, Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation
Commission requests that the project proceed directly to PED, without a
cost shared feasibility study. We request language and funding to
accomplish this. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$200,000.
McKinney Bayou.--The Reconnaissance Report showed a favorable
project to clear and reshape this drainage canal. Presently, the local
sponsor is unable to cost share continuation of this project due to the
extremely high cost of mitigation. Total fiscal year 2003 request--
$200,000.
Big Cypress Valley Watershed (Section 1135).--The main focus of
this study is within the City of Jefferson, Texas. Informal
coordination with Jefferson has showed their continued support and
intent to participate. Their total share is estimated to be $601,600
with annual O&M costs of approximately $21,000. In fiscal year 2001
$120,000 was appropriated to initiate this project. Total fiscal year
2003 request--$400,000.
Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR (Section 1135).--An environmental
restoration project of 15,000 acres of wetlands located downstream from
Millwood Dam. The Dam interrupted the flow to these wetlands and this
project would be a water delivery system to include restoring flow to a
400-acre pristine wetland area. It is private land; however, there is a
national interest for migratory birds. A potential sponsor is the
Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission. Total fiscal year 2003
request--$200,000.
East/West Burns Run Public Use Area, Park Modernization, Lake
Texoma, OK.--Modernization of these facilities will bring them up to
standards to serve the high volume of users experienced each year. The
Lake Texoma region economy depends mostly on recreation. This facility
will ensure continued success, but also increase the economic potential
for the area. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$4,600,000.
operation & maintenance (o&m)
Red River Waterway.--The President's budget is usually only
sufficient to operate and perform preventive maintenance. There are
major, unfunded backlog maintenance items that must be done. These
items include inspection and certification of lock & dam stop logs,
repairs to tainter gate diagonal bracing and revetment repairs. The
President's budget included no funding for maintenance dredging which
would be detrimental to navigation itself. $3,519,000 is required for
annual maintenance dredging and must be added. Total fiscal year 2003
request--$16,764,000.
Lake Texoma (Denison Dam), TX and OK Reallocation Study and NEPA
Documentation.--The severe drought experienced these past years has
increased the need for additional water supply. Public Law 99-662,
Section 838, granted authority to reallocate up to an additional
300,000 acre-feet of hydropower storage to water supply, 150,000 acre-
feet for Texas and 150,000 acre-feet for Oklahoma. This reallocation is
needed and we request the impact study be funded. The total study cost
is $750,000 of which $150,000 was received in fiscal year 2002 to
initiate the study. Total fiscal year 2003 request--$600,000.
We support that O&M at all projects be funded at the full Corps
capability.
support of mr&t projects
MR&T Projects.--There are several MR&T projects in the southern
reaches of the Red River in Louisiana that have a great impact to our
citizens and the Red River. We want to express our support for the
following projects:
a. Lower Red River, Bayou Rapides Pump Station, CG.--Fiscal year
2003 request--$2,375,000.
b. Spring Bayou, LA, Feasibility Study, GI.--Fiscal year 2003
request--$1,200,000.
c. Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, O&M.--Fiscal year 2003
request--$3,595,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Urban Agriculture Council
Chairman Reid and Members of the Subcommittee: Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Subcommittee, I am Roger Waters, President of the
National Urban Agriculture Council (NUAC). NUAC is a national nonprofit
organization established as a center for the promotion and
implementation of effective water management in the urban landscape.
NUAC's objective is to enhance the environment by increasing
education, training, and research on the use of recycled water and
water conservation techniques that produce healthier and more vigorous
landscapes while conserving potable water supplies. NUAC is
headquartered in Washington, D.C. NUAC is a service and product
oriented council that is involved with quality research, technology
development, training, community outreach, and program and policy
development. Additionally, NUAC partners with our members and state and
federal agencies to address the related issues of water availability,
drought preparedness and water management policy.
I would like to offer testimony on six Bureau of Reclamation
programs: Drought Emergency Assistance, Efficiency Incentives, Water
Management and Conservation, Technical Assistance to States, Soil and
Moisture Conservation, and the Title XVI--Water Reclamation and Reuse.
I would like to request that the Subcommittee support efforts to
increase the overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. NUAC is part
of the Western Water Industry's ``Invest In the West'' campaign that
aims to substantially increase the Bureau's Water and Related Resources
Budget to $1 billion by fiscal year 2005 to meet critical water supply
improvements throughout the western United States. NUAC is proud to be
a part of the important campaign on this issue that includes the
Western Coalition of Arid States, the WateReuse Association, the Family
Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the
Association of California Water Agencies, the Oregon Water Resources
Congress, the Upper Missouri Water Association and the Idaho Water
Users Association.
drought emergency assistance
NUAC was an active participant in the Interim National Drought
Policy Commission's efforts that produced a report and plan for moving
forward on recommendations for a national drought policy for our
country. Part of NUAC's core mission is to serve as a center for the
acceptance, promotion, and implementation of practical, science-based
water resource management and conservation measures. An important
element of our mission is making sure water users are prepared for the
eventuality of drought. We have been supportive of the efforts of the
Commission to produce such a vision as part of their recommendations in
the final report.
Federal response to drought planning has great impact on the
economic strength of our nation. The USDA in the Global Climate Change
Prevention Act of 1990 underscored the need to address drought related
information and to ``coordinate research and share expertise with other
federal agencies working on issues related to global change''. NUAC
believes that other federal agencies require similar funding to meet
research objectives and prepare for the challenges of drought planning.
Droughts drastically impact the availability of water resources for all
purposes. The Agricultural Research Service has identified the drought
of 1988 as the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history with
economic losses estimated at more than $39 billion.
The Bureau of Reclamation requested $899,000 for fiscal year 2003.
NUAC believes and would ask that Congress consider, that given the
ongoing and likely future potential for droughts throughout our
country, a budget of $5 million be included in this program for fiscal
year 2003. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture
appear to be the agencies best suited to working with state and local
governments, tribes and local water users on the issue of drought.
Through active planning these agencies future will save the Federal
Government from the more costly future expense of emergency bailouts to
recuperate from the devastation of drought. Funding commensurate with
the responsibilities of drought planning needs to be provided to the
Bureau in order for the agency to meet its objectives.
efficiency incentives program
NUAC is supportive of this program that provides a partnership
among the Bureau of Reclamation, water users and states to implement
water use efficiency and conservation solutions that are tailored to
local conditions. The Bureau of Reclamation requested only $3,087,000
for the program for fiscal year 2003. We would like to see the program
increased up to $5,000,000 so that a greater amount of work can take
place among water districts throughout the west for the necessary
planning, assistance, training and development of water conservation
plans and water efficient landscapes. The need for this training was a
key impetus upon which NUAC was founded. Water resource managers and
policy makers are increasingly challenged by management issues.
Paramount to making good management decisions is the availability of
sound scientifically based information. This information is the
keystone to the development of practical and environmentally sound
programs that are cost effective and socially responsible.
water management and conservation program
On the surface this program appears to be a duplication of other
Bureau of Reclamation assistance programs. The Bureau of Reclamation
requested $6,581,000 for this program for fiscal year 2003. A question
that has arisen is whether the Bureau of Reclamation has construction
authority for funds provided to districts under the program. This is an
issue we would like the Committee to clear up so projects could go
forward. We believe the funding requested is less than adequate and
would suggest it be increased to $10 million. However, if construction
is going to occur under this program, we would suggest a cap on the
size of the project receiving such funding, so it does not become a
program for the few and not the many.
technical assistance to the states
NUAC is concerned with how this program has been cut by Congress
over the past several years. We believe the data collection and
analyses for management of water and related land resources that occurs
with this funding is extremely important in the absence of a national
water policy. We would ask that the request of $1,942,000 not be cut.
We would further request that funding be increased to $3 million to
help make up the shortfall that has occurred from previous cuts.
soil moisture and conservation
The modest amount of the Bureau of Reclamation's request, $326,000
makes this program appear unimportant. NUAC would like to see this
increased by a modest amount to $500,000 with the caveat that this
increase be tied to assisting in implementing the recommendations of
the final National Drought Policy Commission Report. We believe this
program should be examined to see if it can assist in the proper site
management of Federally funded structures that require water for urban
landscapes and horticultural purposes.
title xvi--water reclamation and reuse
NUAC is supportive of the funding that has been provided for the
ongoing projects authorized by the Title XVI Program. The $17,750,000
budget request is substantially below the $36 million provided by
Congress for fiscal year 2002 and we would request that you consider
increasing the funding at least up to that level this year. The funding
provided for research, new starts, and feasibility studies needs to be
examined from the standpoint of how long it is going to take to fund
the existing projects, instead of looking to increase the number of
projects. We believe there is a need for a serious discussion among
water policy leaders on the methods to fund the future of this program
in a timely manner. With regard to research, we see this as an area for
the private and public sector to move forward on their own. It is
important that discussions continue on how and for what type of
research needs to take place and the role Reclamation should play in
that agenda. We believe the results of those discussions would be
beneficial in terms of laying the groundwork for any future legislative
changes to the program and NUAC looks forward to continuing to be a
part of that effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record
on these programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Antonio Water System
applewhite property environmental mitigation--$2 million
We request a targeted appropriation of $2 million in funding for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be used for environmental
mitigation of the Applewhite property on the Medina River, which is
owned by the San Antonio Water System (SAWS).
Background.--The Corps has completed a Section 905(b) analysis of
the property and has concluded that a restoration project would improve
the habitat quality of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species around
the former reservoir site. Additionally, the proposed project would
benefit water quality, air pollution, and aesthetics. SAWS would like
to divest itself of this property, but there must first be specific
environmental clean-up, including the removal of two large railcar-like
structures that were placed in the river to facilitate crossing, the
stabilization of river walls created by the excavation of the cancelled
dam site, and the maintenance of a sedimentation pond created to
prevent sediment-laden runoff from entering the river. SAWS is
currently working with several community groups who are interested in
developing projects on the property. One is the Land Heritage Institute
of the Americas (LHIA). The LHIA concept calls for a land-based
educational, research, and recreational facility located on the
Applewhite property. However, before any development, such as the LHIA,
may move forward, the issues outlined above must be resolved.
saws/lower colorado river authority (lcra) environmental impact study--
$1 million
We request a targeted appropriation of $1 million for the U.S.
Corps of Engineers for environmental study and assessment of the
potential impact of the proposed SAWS/LCRA water purchase agreement.
Background.--SAWS and LCRA have entered into a contract whereby
SAWS would purchase up to 150,000 acre feet of surface water from the
Colorado River. This is a key element of SAWS' 50 year plan to meet the
growing need for water in the San Antonio area. The study would be to
determine the potential impact of this project on water levels in the
Colorado River Basin, specifically including a determination of the
freshwater inflow needs of the Matagora Bay and its fish, shellfish,
and other animal and plant species.
leon creek quarry/mitchell lake water reuse projects--$2 million
We request a targeted appropriation of $2 million for the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation for final feasibility assessments and
construction costs for the San Antonio Water Recycling Program water
reuse projects at Leon Creek Quarry and Mitchell Lake.
Background.--When completed, these two projects of the San Antonio
Water Recycling Program of SAWS will be able to deliver over 35,000
acre feet of recycled water per year for irrigation and various
industrial (non-drinking) uses. The Leon Creek Quarry and Mitchell Lake
would be used to store the water until it is used. The Bureau of
Reclamation has conducted a review of SAWS' environmental assessment
and appraisal level study, which is expected to lead soon to full
feasibility analysis and then construction. The $2 million would be
used for both the feasibility analysis and construction activities,
including treatment capability upgrades, increased storage capacity at
the two sites, branch and source interconnection, and required dam
modifications at Mitchell Lake.
______
Prepared Statement of the Green Brook Flood Control Commission
the green brook flood control project (new jersey--raritan river
basin--green brook sub-basin project)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Vernon A.
Noble, and I am the Chairman of the Green Brook Flood Control
Commission. I submit this testimony in support of the Raritan River
Basin--Green Brook Sub-Basin project, which we request be budgeted in
fiscal year 2003 for $10,000,000 in Construction General funds.
As you know from our testimony last year, a tremendous flood took
place in September of 1999. Extremely heavy rainfall occurred,
concentrated in the upper part of Raritan River Basin. As a result, the
Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey, located at the confluence of the
Green Brook with the Raritan River, suffered catastrophic flooding.
Water levels in the Raritan River and the lower Green Brook reached
record levels.
There were tremendous monetary damages, and extensive and tragic
human suffering.
As we reported to you in our testimony last year, a thorough study
of the water levels throughout the Bound Brook Borough area in the
terrible flood of September, 1999 showed that although the flood water
reached record levels, it would have been contained by the extra margin
of safety, the ``free board'', which the Corps of Engineers has
incorporated in the design of this Project.
The flooding of September 1999 is not the first bad flood to have
struck this area. Records show that major floods have occurred here as
far back as 1903.
Disastrous flooding took place in the Green Brook Basin in the late
summer of 1971. That flood caused $304,000,000 in damages (April 1996
price level) and disrupted the lives of thousands of persons.
In the late summer of 1973, another very severe storm struck the
area, and again, thousands of persons were displaced from their homes.
$482,000.000 damages was done (April 1996 price level) and six persons
lost their lives.
As you no doubt know, actual construction of the Project began in
late fiscal year 2001. This first construction involves the replacement
of an old bridge over the Green Brook which connects East Main Street
in the Borough of Bound Brook, Somerset County, New Jersey, with
Lincoln Boulevard in the Borough of Middlesex, in Middlesex County, New
Jersey. That work is progressing rapidly, and it is expected that this
first construction contract will be completed in the fall of this year.
In February of this year, the New York District of the Corps of
Engineers awarded the second construction contract, know as Segment T.
This Segment T contract will complete the construction of
protection for the eastern section of the Borough of Bound Brook, New
Jersey. The protection consists of levees and associated elements which
will connect with the new and higher bridge which is now well along in
construction. This new Segment T also includes a large pumping station
to be built into the levee, for the purpose of gathering up the
internal rain water, and pumping it safely over the levee and in to the
Green Brook stream on the other side of the levee.
Because of the continued support of the Congress, this second
Segment T of the Project will be under construction as the first
segment (the new and higher bridge), approaches completion.
Final plans and specifications for the balance of the work to
protect the Borough of Bound Brook are in progress. It is the
Commission's hope that protection for all of the Borough of Bound Brook
will proceed seamlessly during the next several years.
Since the devastating Floyd flood of 1999, the Borough of Bound
Brook has been in desperate financial condition. That flood destroyed
extensive tax rateables, and the Borough is in a critical situation.
The only hope for stabilizing the municipal tax situation is
redevelopment projects in Bound Brook. Because of its strategic
location, there appear to be significant redevelopment opportunities
available for Bound Brook Borough.
However, realization of redevelopment depends upon completion of
flood protection on schedule.
Slowing down this Project by the provision of only $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003 as proposed in the Administration's budget would be a
cruel blow to the efforts of the long suffering people of Bound Brook.
Bound Brook Borough needs flood protection sooner, not later.
To accomplish that, the Project requires $10,000,000 in Federal
appropriation for fiscal year 2003.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission was established in 1971,
pursuant to an Act of the New Jersey Legislature shortly after the very
bad flood of 1971.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is made up of appointed
representatives from Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties in New
Jersey, and from the 13 municipalities within the Basin. This
represents a combined population of about one-quarter of a million
people.
The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 31 years
have served, without pay, to advance the cause of flood protection for
the Basin. Throughout this time, the Corps of Engineers, New York
District, has kept us informed of the progress of their work, and a
representative from the Corps has been a regular part of our monthly
meetings.
We believe that it is clearly essential that the Green Brook Flood
Control Project be carried forward, and pursued vigorously, to achieve
protection at the earliest possible date. This Project is needed to
prevent loss of life and property, as well as the trauma caused every
time there is a heavy rain.
New Jersey has programmed budget money for its share of the Project
in fiscal year 2003.
We urgently request an appropriation for the Project in fiscal year
2003 of $10,000,000.
The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is dedicated to the
proposition that Bound Brook Borough, and the other municipalities, and
their thousands of residents, who would otherwise suffer in the next
major flood, must be protected. We move forward with renewed
determination to achieve the protection which the people of the flood
area need and deserve.
With your continued support, we are determined to see this Project
through to completion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for your
vitally important past support for the Green Brook Flood Control
Project; and we thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
GREEN BROOK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Money
Federal Congressional Effective Net Transfer by Corps Net Money Received by Corps
Federal Fiscal Year Administration Appropriation Savings and Appropriation to to (-) from (+) Available for Work Since
Budget Request (Nominal) Slippages Corps of Engineers Other Projects on Project (Work Authorization in
Allowance) 1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986................................................ $445,000 $445,000 -$19,000 $426,000 .................. $426,000 $426,000
1987................................................ 1,370,000 1,370,000 .................. 1,370,000 .................. 1,370,000 1,796,000
1988................................................ 1,400,000 1,400,000 .................. 1,400,000 .................. 1,400,000 3,196,000
1989................................................ 1,500,000 1,500,000 -68,000 1,432,000 .................. 1,432,000 4,628,000
1990................................................ 1,200,000 1,200,000 -116,000 1,084,000 +$23,000 1,107,000 5,735,000
1991................................................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 -496,000 1,504,000 -98,000 1,406,000 7,141,000
1992................................................ 2,600,000 3,169,000 -364,000 2,805,000 .................. 2,805,000 9,946,000
1993................................................ .................. 3,500,000 .................. 3,500,000 .................. 3,500,000 13,446,000
1994................................................ .................. 2,800,000 -594,000 2,206,000 +571,000 2,777,000 16,223,000
1995................................................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 .................. 2,000,000 +135,000 2,135,000 18,358,000
1996................................................ 3,600,000 3,600,000 -932,000 2,668,000 +193,000 2,861,000 21,219,000
1997................................................ 2,781,000 2,781,000 -300,000 2,481,000 .................. 2,781,000 24,000,000
1998................................................ .................. 3,100,000 -189,000 2,911,000 .................. 2,911,000 26,911,000
1999................................................ .................. 9,900,000 -694,000 9,206,000 -6,500,000 2,706,000 29,617,000
2000................................................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 -142,000 858,000 .................. 858,000 30,475,000
2001................................................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 -640,000 3,360,000 +89,000 3,449,000 33,924,000
2002................................................ 10,000,000 10,000,000 -1,598,000 8,402,000 -1,000,000 7,402,000 41,326,000
2003................................................ 5,000,000 \1\ 10,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recommendation of the Green Brook Flood Control Commission for fiscal year 2003 to continue construction.
Reference: This summary of funding for the Green Brook Flood Control Project has been assembled based upon publicly available information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Houston Authority
I would like to thank you for allowing the Port of Houston
Authority (PHA) to add comments to the record regarding the Houston-
Galveston Navigation Channels Texas Project's appropriations in the
Energy and Water Appropriations Act. The PHA is supporting a request
for $67 million in Federal funds for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--
Galveston District in the fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill for this major Port project.
The Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels Texas Project deepens the
Houston Ship Channel (HSC) to 45 feet from 40 feet and widens it to 530
feet from 400 feet. Additionally, twelve-foot deep barge lanes will be
added to both sides of the project crossing Galveston Bay to increase
safety and efficiency for channel users. While the dredging effort to
make the HSC usable at the improved depth will be nearing completion in
December 2003, the construction phase for the widening and deepening
project will continue in future years. Following the completion of the
initial dredging, oyster reefs will continue to be constructed to
mitigate for the oyster beds destroyed during the construction of the
barge lanes. The construction of saltwater marshes--an award winning
interagency effort that will benefit the environment--will also
continue. In order to maintain the optimal construction schedule and
provide the greatest benefits to the PHA and the economy, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers--Galveston District (the Corps) requires a total of
$67 million in Federal funds for fiscal year 2003.
If the project is not fully funded, project cost to the taxpayers
will increase by $1.6 million, the project will be delayed at least
another year, and a consequent reduction in revenue to local
governments and a delay in the realization of the project's economic
benefits to the public will ensue. The project, at completion, is
expected to provide an average annual economic benefit of over $87
million according to the Corps' limited reevaluation report. This
sizable economic benefit will not be realized for each year the
completion of the project is delayed. Additionally, the project has a
remaining cost-benefit ratio of $3.60 for every $1 spent. The initial
cost-benefit ratio (in 1996) was a substantial $1.80 to every $1 spent.
The President's budget only includes $19.487 million for the
continuation of the project in fiscal year 2003. This amount will not
allow the Corps to let any new construction contracts in fiscal year
2003 and will delay the project by at least one year. With the
significant economic benefits from the deepened channel, the safety
benefits from a widened channel, favorable remaining cost-benefit
ratio, and the Carps so close to making the HSC operational at its
authorized depth, I would urge the Committee to increase the
appropriation for the project to fully fund it at $67 million.
The PHA also appreciates and supports the Corps' request for
operation and maintenance of the HSC ($8.254 million), the Barbours Cut
Channel ($606,000) and the Bayport Channel ($2.389 million) in the
President's budget. We request that the Committee support these funding
levels.
Among U.S. ports, the Port of Houston is first in foreign tonnage,
second in overall tonnage and is the eighth largest port in the world.
The Port also has an annual economic impact of over $7.7 billion and is
responsible for nearly 205,000 jobs related to port activity. The Port
of Houston generates just under $500 million in U.S. Customs receipts
per year and over $525 million in state and local taxes per year. The
Port is of vital importance not only to the Houston region, but also to
Texas and the United States as it is home to one of the largest
petrochemical complexes in the world and provides the U.S. military
with excellent facilities to move cargo and equipment around the globe.
With the Committee's help and support, the Port of Houston can maintain
and increase its stature as a leading hub for international commerce.
The Commissioners of the PHA thank you for all of the hard work you
do for the Port and for Texas. With your leadership, the PHA will
maintain its position as a major economic engine for Texas.
______
Prepared Statement of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association
The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association is pleased to
thank you for the opportunity to present this 2003 budget request and a
brief statement of the reasons underlying the request.
This statement relates to the Missouri National Recreational River
project which was authorized by the Congress in 1978 per Section 707 of
Public Law 95-625. That law authorized the expenditure of some
$21,000,000.00. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, some
$4,000,000.00 has thus far been expended. The Association's budget
request for fiscal year 2003 is $260,000.00. The money requested is to
be used for the following purposes:
--The operation, maintenance and repair of streambank protection
structures constructed prior to 1978 under the authority of
Section 32 of the Streambank Erosion Control and Demonstration
Act.
--Rebuild or replace structures which were damaged or destroyed by
the record high flows (70,000 cubic feet per second as
contrasted with the normal 34,000-35,000 cubic feet per second)
of 1997.
--Acquire shoreline easements from riparian owners to protect
existing habitat (some of which is rapidly eroding away), and
to restore habitat to shorelines where it has already eroded
away.
--The improvement of access to the river in areas where access is
limited or nonexistent.
--The acquisition or protection of the river's scenic qualities which
in large part prompted the legislation.
--Such other work as may be needed to achieve the congressional
purposes in designating this reach of the Missouri a part of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers system.
This budget request relates to a reach of the Missouri River lying
between Ponca State Park, near Ponca, Nebraska and Gavins Point Dam,
near Yankton, South Dakota. The river mileage at Ponca State park is
753; at Gavins Point Dam it is 811.
This reach of river was designated part of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers system in 1978. Still in a relatively wild state, it is the only
such reach of the Missouri lying downstream of the Corps of Engineers'
``main stem'' dams. While there is a sprinkling of bank protection
structures on this reach, the river still displays many of its storied
characteristics. It erodes its banks, builds and removes islands,
changes its channel at will, harbors endless snags, ranges from inches
to fathoms in depth and bedecks itself with a myriad of sandbars. Stand
of willow, cottonwood, ash and an array of underbrush flank the stream,
providing habitat for a diverse population of wildlife. Deer, coyotes,
raccoons, beaver, mink, opossums and muskrat abound. Bald eagles are
year-round residents, and a profusion of birds call this reach of river
home. Located on the Central Flyway, the river hosts a truly massive
number of migrating waterfowl, spring and fall.
Though retaining many of its traditional characteristics, this
reach of river is not truly natural. Construction of the ``main stem''
dams eliminated a principle feature of the truly wild Missouri: the
annual ``June Rise''. This deluge of the mountain snowmelt often caused
over-bank flooding. A significant consequence of such flooding was the
build-up of accretion land. As often as not, land lost to erosion was
thus restored; accretion offset erosions. While the riparian owner once
had a good chance of restoration of lost land, today he has only a 100
percent chance of losing the land. As a result the Missouri today is
over 60 percent wider than it was in pre-dam days. Today's erosion is
exacerbated by the fact that the relatively clear water discharged from
Gavins Point Dam has a greater erosive power than did the silt-laden
waters of the wild Missouri: Thus, increased erosion, coupled with the
absence of off-setting accretion, wreaks havoc on unprotected
shorelines.
The proposed ``spring rise'' (being touted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service) can only further exacerbate the problem. While said
Service does not phrase it in clear, precise language, a principle aim
of the ``spring rise'' is to increase erosion so as to increase
nutrients in the water. The Service is in fact proposing the
intentional destruction of the riparian owners' land. This is not only
intentional, it is criminal.
The erosion is not only depriving riparian owners of their
property, it is also causing grave and irreversible losses to some of
the very attributes which led the Congress to include this reach of the
Missouri in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Stands of cottonwoods
along the river are being devoured by the river, along with a variety
of other shoreline-enhancing trees and shrubs. Bottom degradation
continues to lower the water table and the lost cottonwoods will not be
replaced by young cottonwoods as these need to stand ``with their feet
in the water'' to grow and thrive. Absent bank protection, the existing
treelined shores will disappear and corn and bean fields will supplant
them. Very severe erosion of a large and fine stand of cottonwoods is
currently occurring at the North Alabama Point, circa Mile 779.8R,
north of Maskell, Nebraska.
The Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition is at hand, and
public interest in the Missouri has grown noticeably. This has
demonstrated a need for improved access, signage and some additional
viewing points (``overlooks''). The new overlook at the Newcastle-
Vermillion Bridge has already been discovered by those seeking a
glimpse of the river, and a number of tour operators have already
incorporated this site into their itineraries.
This project has enjoyed Congressional support from its inception.
The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association is appreciative of
that support and thanks the Congress for it. So, too, do a variety of
others--fishermen, boaters, hunters, and those who simply enjoy viewing
this reach of the historic Missouri.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
bureau of reclamation (bor)
The budget request by the Bureau of Reclamation for Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development is $89.4 million, an increase of
$3.8 million over the fiscal year 2002 request of $85.5 million, but a
$17.3 million decrease from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level of
$106.7 million. The Association appreciates the increase in the
Agency's budget request for fish and wildlife management in fiscal year
2003 and recommends additional budget increases for the BOR that allows
them to meet their statutory water delivery requirements and, that
allows them to mitigate for their project impacts to sport fish,
threatened and endangered species and, provide for water based
recreation. We urge the adoption of a budget that will pay for water
needed for T&E species and, to re-supply sport fish that are lost to
reservoirs, tailwaters and rivers due to the operation of their water
delivery systems.
Throughout its history, the BOR has played a vital role in
harnessing and managing water resources for a young and growing Western
United States. The fulfillment of those high national priorities has
not always been accomplished with a long-term vision for the health of
fish and wildlife resources within BOR project design, construction and
operational practices. Thus, the development of high priority public
services has sometimes proven highly detrimental to other public
values, including certain fish and wildlife resources. The agency's
publicly stated policy is to sustain the health and integrity of
ecosystems and protect the environment as it goes about the important
work of providing dependable sources of water. The Association is
encouraged that the agency is continuing its recent efforts to better
balance these sometimes competing uses of limited natural resources.
The Association appreciates and strongly supports BOR's efforts to
refocus considerable financial resources on ameliorating historical
water development-related impacts to fish and wildlife and their
habitats in cooperation with other federal state and tribal partners.
Endangered Species Recovery Program.--The BOR is requesting $12.7
million for endangered species conservation and recovery work spread
among 17 western states. This is a reduction of over $700,000 from the
$13.5 million enacted for fiscal year 2002. When viewed in the context
of the geographical areas affected by prior BOR activities and the
complex of imperiled fish, wildlife and essential habitats that need
attention as a consequence of these earlier actions, these funds are
very necessary and appropriate. The Association supports funding levels
at least consistent with the level enacted for fiscal year 2002.
The funding for efforts associated with carrying out the Adaptive
Management Program required by the Grand Canyon Protection Act comes
from power revenues--and hence these needs are rarely addressed by
Congress. These cooperative efforts, led by the Department of Interior
and staffed by the BOR and the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and
Research Center, are often left wanting in the federal budget process.
The Federal Advisory Committee charged with oversight of Adaptive
Management has consistently recommended appropriations in the range of
$750,000 to $1,000,000 per year to support necessary work. As evidence
now mounts about the decline of listed fishes in Grand Canyon, we urge
Congress to consider the financing necessary to assure these programs
progress with regard to conservation of Threatened and Endangered
fishes and conservation of sport fishing opportunity associated with
the tailwater below Glen Canyon Dam.
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration.--Authorization bills
for California Bay-Delta Restoration have been introduced and are under
consideration in the House and Senate. Absent authorizing legislation
prior to fiscal year 2002, no funding was recommended by the
Congressional Conference Committee for the California Bay-Delta
Restoration Project. However, Congress did appropriate $30 million in
fiscal year 2002 for previously authorized activities that support and
further the goals of the overall California Bay-Delta restoration. The
fiscal year 2003 budget requests $15 million for the California Bay-
Delta Ecosystem Restoration account. The Association is concerned that
this funding level is less than the $20 million requested last year,
and only half of the $30 million Congress provided for Bay/Delta-
related activities last year. The Association believes the requested
funding level is insufficient to address the needs identified by
federal and state officials in the August 2000 Record of Decision
finalizing a long-term plan for restoring the San Francisco Bay-San
Joaquin River Delta. In order to make progress on improving water
supply reliability and quality for urban and agricultural water users
concurrent with improvements to the Bay-Delta ecosystem and ensure that
sound science is used to guide management and policy decisions in the
Bay-Delta, a significant increase in appropriations is needed. The
Association supports Congressional reauthorization of the California
Bay-Delta Program and appropriation of funds necessary to implement the
Record of Decision for the California Bay-Delta Program.
Central Valley Project.--The BOR is seeking a Congressional
appropriation of $48.9 million in fiscal year 2003 to manage and
improve California's Central Valley Project (CVP) through the CVP
Restoration Fund. With the addition of $6.3 million in state cost-share
funds, the total amount of federal and non-federal funds supporting CVP
restoration equals the $55 million enacted last year. The
appropriations request is offset by discretionary receipts of
approximately $39.6 million in the CVP Restoration Fund. The funds will
be used to undertake important anadromous fisheries habitat work, water
acquisition, fish screening and other works that are necessary to
continue efforts to restore the fish and wildlife-related damages
created by this federal project. The Association encourages the
Congress to fully fund this work at the requested level of $48.9
million, and to make the CVP Restoration Fund a permanent
appropriation. Making the account permanent would help ensure that this
important source of beneficiary funded restoration work is available.
Upper Colorado River.--The Association fully supports the BOR
budget request of $6.3 million for Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation Programs for the Bureau's Upper Colorado Region. This
budget request mirrors the needs identified by the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program. These cooperative programs involving the states
of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies
and water, power and environmental interests are ongoing in the Upper
Colorado River and San Juan Basins and have as their objective
recovering endangered fish species while water development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act, state water law and
interstate compacts. Substantive non-federal cost-sharing funds are
provided by the four states, power users and water users in support of
these recovery programs.
Lower Colorado River.--The BOR is requesting $12.4 million for work
in the Lower Colorado River Operations Program, which is focused on
endangered species recovery and includes $4.4 million for the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. The MSCP is a 50-50
cost-shared program with non-federal partners to develop a long-term
plan to conserve over 70 state and federal special status species along
the Lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to Mexico. The $12.4 million
for the Lower Colorado River Operations Program, proposed by the BOR
for fiscal year 2003, is deemed essential by the Association and is
strongly supported.
u.s. army corps of engineers
The fiscal year 2003 budget proposal for Civil Works Appropriations
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is $4.3 billion. In addition, the
program will include $464 million in new resources and trust fund
receipts. The budget proposal reflects continued commitment to proper
management of our natural resources, through dedication of $863 million
to environmental programs. The environmental portion of the Corps
budget represents approximately 20 percent of the overall request. The
fiscal year 2003 proposed budget is the third year of significantly
enhanced funding of environmental programs within the Corps of
Engineers budget. The Association applauds the fact that many of our
recommendations from recent fiscal years have been maintained by the
Corps in their budget requests.
The Corps has conducted listening sessions across the United States
and is in the process of developing programs to improve the Nation's
water supplies through implementation of a holistic approach to water
resources management. We commend the Corps' efforts and look forward to
working with them on this significant commitment.
The Association encourages the Corps to cooperate coordinate and
develop civil works and restoration activities with State fish and
wildlife agencies. The State fish and wildlife agencies are generally
aware of where Corps projects could most effectively enhance the status
of fish and wildlife resources through improvements to habitat. We are
pleased there continues to be funding which will result in development
of partnerships to restore riverine ecosystems to address flood
prevention through non-structural alternatives.
The Association particularly appreciates the leadership of Congress
in providing funding for mitigation projects. We are especially pleased
that the Corps is requesting, and the Association supports,
continuation of funding for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation in
Washington State. The Association also strongly encourages Congress to
appropriate necessary funding within the Corps budget to facilitate the
mitigation feature and river restoration opportunities associated with
the West Tennessee Tributaries Project. It is in the best interest of
the country to restore the habitat and hydrologic components of our
river systems that have been significantly altered.
We recommend that the Congress explore the need for generic
legislative direction to the Corps to ensure that the older projects
include the authority for fish, wildlife, water quality, and sustained
minimum flow mitigation and enhancement, and if legislation is
necessary, to act on that need. Further, the Association recommends
that mitigation funding for ongoing projects be listed as a separate
line item within the Civil Works Appropriations. Further, the Corps has
made commitments to fish and wildlife mitigation and on numerous
occasions has received Congressional authorization for mitigation
activities that have not been initiated or completed. The Association
encourages Congress to direct the Corps to complete all mitigation
activities simultaneous with project development (as opposed to
subsequent to project development). Also, the Association suggests that
the Corps continue to look at actually transferring some project
mitigation lands to the individual states as efficiently and
expeditiously as possible, without unnecessary staff time and financial
costs. The Corps is currently in the process of transferring mitigation
lands associated with the Richard B. Russell Project to the State of
South Carolina, along with a trust account to manage these lands. The
transfer process associated with this project is ongoing and has taken
over three years, requiring specific language in two separate Water
Resources Development Acts. The Association encourages Congress to
support the transfer of mitigation lands to those States interested in
receiving title to such lands, as well as direct and/or encourage the
Corps to implement policies to complete the transfers in a timely and
efficient manner.
We support the request of $151 million, an increase of $24 million,
for funding for the regulatory program to reduce the average review
time of individual wetland permit applications. Furthermore, the
Association supports enhanced review and enforcement of permit and
mitigation violations.
The Association recommends that the Corps continue to initiate
applicable restoration, mitigation and conservation projects in
partnership with State fish and wildlife agencies. For example, we
request the Corps continue to participate with State agencies and non-
Federal interests in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
through wetlands conservation and wetlands identification. Further, the
Association encourages the Corps to become a significant partner in the
North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI).
The Association is excited by the potential for significant
environmental accomplishments in restoration, conservation, and
sustainable management of water, fish, and wildlife resources. The
Association is especially pleased with Federal plans to partner with
local, state and tribal agencies and with the watershed management
emphasis. The States are interested in forging a true partnership
through sharing ideas, plans, design, implementation structure and
enforcement in establishing a unified, cooperative approach to
improving water quality.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Illinois
As you begin to formulate your appropriations and funding
priorities for fiscal year 2003, I respectfully urge you to consider
the following items for inclusion in the upcoming Energy and Water
Appropriations bill. In addition, I am grateful for all of the
assistance that you have been able to provide to the State of
Illinois--your efforts are greatly appreciated and provide many
benefits throughout the state. All of these funding requests are
important to the State of Illinois and reflect the state's long-
standing commitment to providing sound energy and water policies.
illinois river basin restoration program (illinois rivers 2020)
Request: Federal appropriation of $6.5 million in the federal
fiscal year 2003 Corps of Engineers Civil Works budget; and increase
the 3-year, $100 million authorization in the Water Resources
Development Act 2000 (WRDA) to a 10-year authorization.
This multi-level, multi-billion dollar State plan for the
restoration of the Illinois River Basin is a voluntary, incentive-based
program that will develop new technologies and innovative approaches to
transportation, water quality, economic development and land and
habitat conservation issues. Funding will provide for the development
of new sediment removal, transport, characterization, and beneficial
use of technology along with other action for the restoration of
Illinois River hydrology and water quality.
chicago harbor lock major rehabilitation
Request: Illinois supports full funding of Construction General new
funds for the Chicago Harbor Lock Major Rehabilitation.
Chicago Lock is located at the mouth of Chicago River in downtown
Chicago adjacent to Navy Pier. Chicago Lock was constructed by
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC)
between 1936 and 1938. The Corps began operating the Lock in 1984 under
the authority of Section 107 of Public Law 97-88, and by a memorandum
of agreement between the Chicago District Corps of Engineers and the
MWRDGC. This is a high use lock with low commodity tonnage, but most of
the traffic is commercial cruise and passenger vessels. The Lock is
currently operating at 15 years beyond its design life, resulting in
the lack of reliability in the gate operating machinery and structural
members. Gate seals are not providing the expected level of water
tightness. Leakages through the gates is again becoming a problem and
impacting the Illinois' Lake Michigan diversion accounting. Corps of
Engineers approved the major rehabilitation project in 1999. Delayed
rehabilitation of the lock threatens the safety of millions of
passengers yearly and result in total lake diversion in excess of the
limitations of the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court Decree by the State of
Illinois.
carlyle lake conveyance analysis
Request: Illinois supports an appropriation of $200,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to conduct a conveyance analysis of the Kaskaskia
River from Vandalia, Illinois to Carlyle Lake, and the surrounding
vicinity.
The State of Illinois is concerned about the surface drainage flow
levels, channel depths, and sedimentation trends and their performance
effects in the Kaskaskia River from Vandalia, Illinois to Carlyle Lake,
and the surrounding vicinity in addition to environmental
opportunities. Therefore, the State is requesting $475,000 be provided
to the Corps of Engineers for conveyance analysis which will include
detail mapping necessary to conduct hydrology analysis to establish
frequency discharges and profiles for the 2 to 10 year flood events.
rare isotope accelerator facility (ria)
Request: Seek additional $32.82 million in the Department of
Energy, Office of Science, Nuclear Physics Budget to create the world's
leading facility for research in nuclear structure and nuclear
astrophysics.
Currently, two sites are under consideration for the Rare Isotope
Accelerator Facility: Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, and
Michigan State University, Michigan. With the additional $32.82
million, the Department of Energy will begin the environmental impact
statements on the interested sites.
Argonne has experience in operating large scientific user
facilities and the technical staff. It is estimated that the cost of
the project would be much less expensive in Illinois versus Michigan.
The estimate of reduced cost ranges between $100 million and $200
million. Argonne is a research facility and has the necessary safe
guards in place.
chicago underflow plan (tarp)
Request: Illinois supports full funding of McCook and Thornton
Reservoirs. McCook will require $131 million in non-federal funds and
$393 million in federal. Thornton will require $36 million in non-
federal funds and $108 million in federal funds.
The completion of these projects with their related improvements to
water quality will have a significant impact on reducing the amount
Lake Michigan diversion water required for dilution purposes. The
reduction in dilution water will improve Illinois' ability to meet the
limits of Lake Michigan diversion and provide for future water supply
needs. These projects must not be delayed and design and construction
should be accelerated. The Corps must budget for the design and
construction of these reservoirs to their full capability. The 1988
Water Resources Development Act authorized the Corps to proceed with
construction of the McCook and Thornton reservoirs as components of the
Chicago Underflow Plan (also called TARP). The McCook Reservoir will
reduce flooding and significantly improve water quality in the
mainstream and Des Plaines systems of TARP. The Thornton Reservoir will
reduce flooding and improve water quality in the Calumet system of
TARP.
I appreciate your consideration of these priorities as you
formulate the Energy and Water Appropriations bill and urge their
inclusion.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Port Authorities
As you know, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers performs critical
services that provide this Nation with the ability to trade
internationally and deploy our national defense. Ports throughout the
Nation rely on the Corps to both maintain and improve federal
navigation channels, through which 95 percent of our overseas trade (by
volume) flows. Grain exports from the Mid-West and oil imported to fuel
our economy all rely on modern navigation channels. On behalf of U.S.
public port agencies, we urge your Committee to support a strong fiscal
2003 budget for the Corps in order to properly address the water
resources needs of our country.
We are gravely concerned that the Administration's budget request
for fiscal year 2003 would not provide enough funding to keep needed
navigation projects on schedule or allow for the start of new projects.
In terms of deep-draft harbor construction, the budget request seeks
only $267 million in fiscal year 2003, which is only half of what is
needed to fund ongoing and new projects ($539 million). The attached
testimony contains additional details of deep-draft harbor construction
requirements.
In addition, we are extremely concerned about the critical backlog
that exists for maintenance of the Corps' existing navigation projects.
In his February 27, 2002, testimony before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Chief of Engineers
Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers stated that funds provided for
fiscal year 2002 left a critical maintenance backlog of $702 million,
of which $587 million is in the navigation mission. General Flowers
defined critical maintenance as maintenance that should be performed in
the budget year in order to continue operation at a justified level of
service and to attain project performance goals. The critical
maintenance backlog for navigation consists largely of dredging and
repairs to structures such as locks, dams, breakwaters, and jetties. We
respectfully request your support for substantially increasing the O&M
budget to address this critical maintenance backlog.
The impact of inadequately funding the Corps navigation mission
would be severe. Trade is projected to double by 2020, with container
trade projected to triple. In order to meet these needs, we must make
significant investments now. The fiscal year 2003 proposed budget,
however, falls far short of meeting these needs. Port infrastructure is
a local/federal partnership and port authorities are investing to
update and modernize their facilities. Between 2002 and 2006, public
ports estimate that they will spend $9.4 billion.
The United States has always been a great maritime and trading
nation. Foreign trade as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) has risen consistently, and currently accounts for over
one-fourth of the GDP. Public ports also generate significant local and
regional economic growth, including job creation. Commercial port
activities annually provide employment for 1.4 million Americans, and
account for Federal taxes of $14.7 billion and state and local tax
revenues amounting to $5.5 billion. Such statistics show that Federal
investments in navigation channels through the Corps of Engineers
budget are an excellent choice for the Nation. We urge you to provide
the funds necessary to allow the marine transportation system to be
ready for the challenges of both today and tomorrow.
______
Prepared Statement of the North Carolina State Ports Authority
Introduction
Good morning. I am Erik Stromberg, Executive Director of the North
Carolina State Ports Authority. I am testifying today on behalf of the
American Association of Port Authorities. Founded in 1912, AAPA
represents virtually every U.S. public port agency, as well as the
major port agencies in Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean. Our
Association members are public entities mandated by law to serve public
purposes--primarily the facilitation of waterborne commerce and the
generation of local and regional economic growth. My testimony today
reflects the views of AAPA's United States delegation.
Mr. Chairman, AAPA commends you for convening this hearing on the
Corps of Engineers budget for fiscal year 2003. We are gravely
concerned that the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2003
would not provide enough funding to keep critical navigation projects
on schedule or allow for the stare of new projects. In addition, we are
extremely concerned about the critical backlog that exists for
maintenance of the Corps' existing navigation projects. We appreciate
the strong leadership this Subcommittee has shown in supporting sound
water resources policy and investment. We urge your continued support
and assistance in assuring a sufficient level of funding is
appropriated for the Corps of Engineers.
If I leave one message with you today, it is that our entire
nation--our ports and all who benefit from the services we provide--
depend on adequate funding of Corps of Engineers studies, construction,
operations and maintenance, research and regulatory functions. The
relationship between our ports and the Federal government is far from
one sided. Besides the non-federal cost share and the substantial
economic, national defense and environmental benefits the activities at
our nation's ports generate, there are significant levels of investment
in shoreside infrastructure by non-federal public and private interests
as well. In the year 2000, the local investment in landside terminal
facilities totaled over $1 billion. These investments of local funds in
landside facilities fundamentally depend on the continued partnership
with the Federal government to maintain and improve the nation's deep-
draft navigation system.
Administration Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request for the Army Corps of
Engineers
The Administration budget requested fiscal year 2003 appropriations
of $4.175 billion for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. This
level represents a 10 percent cut from fiscal year 2002 appropriated
levels (including fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations). (We
note that the Administration has proposed a new initiative to allocate
the cost of Federal retirees to agency programs. In order to fairly
compare project funding levels to previous years, we have subtracted
these retiree costs where appropriate.) AAPA and its member ports
around the country are deeply concerned that the President's proposed
budget for fiscal year 2003 does not provide for sufficient investment
in or maintenance of the nation's commercial navigation system.
Construction-General Account.--The Construction-General account,
which provides the funding for investment in our nation's water
resources, was subject to an 18 percent cut in the Administration's
budget proposal compared to fiscal 2002 appropriated levels ($1.42
million v. $1.72 billion). The Administration did not propose to
initiate any new construction starts in fiscal year 2003 or to continue
any new construction starts that Congress approved in fiscal year 2002.
In terms of deep-draft harbors, which provide the gateways for more
than 95 percent of our nation's growing import and export trade, this
budget seeks only $267 million in fiscal year 2003. This amount is only
half of what is needed to fund ongoing and new projects ($539 million).
The attached table lists the fiscal year 2003 funding requirements and
the Administration's budget request for construction projects of
interest to the nation's deep-draft port industry.
Without additional funding, next year a number of ongoing projects
will not be able to maintain contractual obligations. This will force
work to come to a halt and increase project costs by having contractors
demobilize their equipment and add unnecessary inflation costs. Failure
to maintain optimal schedules will increase project costs and delay the
realization of project benefits. In addition, delays in starting
projects or continuing projects on an optimal schedule could result in
the loss of local sponsor funding.
Operations and Maintenance Account.--The Administration requested
$1.914 billion for the Operations and Maintenance (0&M) account, which
is slightly less than fiscal year 2002. In his February 27, 2002,
testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development, Chief of Engineers Lieutenant General Robert B.
Flowers stated that funds provided for fiscal year 2002 left a critical
maintenance backlog of $702 million, of which $587 million is in the
navigation mission. General Flowers defined critical maintenance as
maintenance that should be performed in the budget year in order to
continue operation at a justified level of service and to attain
project performance goals. The critical maintenance backlog for
navigation consists largely of dredging and repairs to structures such
as locks, dams, breakwaters, and jetties. The Congress must
substantially increase funding in the O&M Account to lower the
maintenance backlog and ensure that project benefits are sustained.
AAPA supports continued funding for two Research and Development
programs funded from the O&M account: The Dredging Operations and
Environmental Research (DOER) Program and the Dredging Operations
Technical Support (DOTS) Program. DOER is essential to develop answers
to a variety of complex technical questions that confound dredging
projects such as assessing contaminated sediments, identifying
innovative dredging technologies, and minimising impacts of threatened
and endangered species. AAPA urges Congress to fund the DOER program at
the level recommended by the Administration, $6.755 million.
The DOTS program provides an efficient and cost effective means for
Corps district personnel to consult with Corps researchers on complex
dredging. This program helps keep important projects on schedule when
new issues are raised. While the Administration's request for $1.545
million will keep this important program operating, this level of
funding is unlikely to meet the growing demand for consultations. We
urge the Congress to provide $3 million for the DOTS program.
General Investigation Account.--The Administration's proposed
budget for the General Investigations account, which funds
reconnaissance and feasibility studies for new water resources
projects, was one-third lower than Congress appropriated in fiscal year
2002 ($104 million v. $154 million). The stated Administration purpose
for this drastic cut in study funding is to ``slow the rate at which
studies and preconstruction engineering and design effort are carried
out and completed and the rate at which projects with completed studies
are added to the existing construction backlog.'' (See testimony of
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Mike Parker before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, February
27, 2002, page 6-7.) To this end, the Administration has included no
new studies in its fiscal year 2003 budget request.
This blanket policy of suspending all new studies would severely
limit the Congress' ability to make informed decisions about Federal
investments by stifling critical assessments of the nation's water
resources development needs. AAPA urges Congress to reverse this policy
of strangling the study process.
Regulatory Program.--AAPA supports the proposed increase of $19
million in the regulatory program. As project reviews have become more
complex and controversial, the Corps resources for permit evaluation,
enforcement, and administrative appeals have not kept pace. This
increased funding will help reduce the amount of time needed to obtain
permits from the Corps.
Importance of the Corps Deep-Draft Navigation Mission
Our water highways are national assets that serve a broad range of
economic and strategic interests. The United States has the most
extensive, complex and decentralized marine transportation system in
the world; it is an appropriate asset for the world's largest trading
country and sole superpower. A large measure of this country's
unprecedented economic growth and the minimization of the impact of
economic downturns are due to the increased productivity of the
American economy and foreign trade. To remain competitive in the global
marketplace, U.S. businesses must have an efficient and reliable
transportation system.
The nation's system of ports and harbors provides the nation's
shippers--importers and exporters--with a range of choices that show
them to minimize transportation costs, and, thus, deliver goods to the
consumer more cheaply and compete more effectively in international
markets. For example, in 1997, problems with rail service in the
Southwest United States caused cargo diversions to ports in the
Northwest. A westward shift in manufacturing patterns in Asia has
resulted in more consumer goods from that region being delivered to the
United States through East Coast ports, via the Suez Canal. The
diversity of transportation options also serves the country well during
times of crisis when the military needs to quickly move troops and
materiel.
Economic Benefits.--Ports' activities link every community in our
nation to the world marketplace--enabling us to create export
opportunities and to deliver imported goods more inexpensively to
consumers across the nation. The deep-draft commercial ports of the
United States handle over 95 percent of the volume and 75 percent of
the value of cargo moving in and out of the Nation. Port activities
create substantial economic and trade benefits for the nation, as well
as for the local port community and regional economies. The following
statistics highlight how critical ports are in facilitating national
economic activity \1\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: U.S. Maritime Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--U.S. Customs duty revenues totaling approximately $15.6 billion
were paid into the general treasury in fiscal year 1996 on
cargo moved through ports.
--Our nation's commercial deep draft ports annually handle in excess
of $600 billion in international trade.
--Foreign trade is an increasingly important part of the U.S.
economy, currently accounting for over 30 percent of our Gross
Domestic Product. U.S. exports and imports are projected to
increase in value from $454 billion in 1990 to $1.6 trillion in
2010. The volume of cargo is projected to increase from 875
million to 1.5 billion metric tons in 2010.
--The overall national economic impact of port activities in 1996
generated: 13 million jobs; $743 billion to the Gross Domestic
Product; and $200 billion in taxes at all levels of government.
National Defense Benefits.--We should also not lose sight of the
fact that the ports continue to play a very critical role in our
nation's defense. That role has never been more apparent than dining
the loadouts of military cargo and personnel during Operation Desert
Shield/Desert Storm. The huge buildup of U.S. forces in and around the
Persian Gulf would have been impossible without the modern facilities
and strong support provided by America's ports. According to the U.S.
Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), between August of 1990 and
March of 1991, MTMC loaded 312 vessels and more than 4.2 million
measurement tons of cargo in 18 U.S. ports for delivery to the Persian
Gulf in support of Desert Shield/Desert Storm. More than 50 ports have
agreements with the Federal Government to provide ready access for
national emergency purposes.
Environmental Benefits.--Several navigation projects that have
substantial environmental features, including the creation of thousands
of acres of wildlife habitat using dredged material, would not proceed
under the proposed funding levels. For example, the Port of Oakland is
currently building a project to expand its container handling
capability that will redevelop a former military facility, create 120
acres of shallow-water habitat, restore 3200 acres of wetlands, provide
30 acres of new public parkland, and reduce vehicle emissions by 40
tons per year. In addition, the larger, more efficient ships that will
be able to call at the port will result in reduced discharge of ballast
water, which will reduce the risk of introducing aquatic nuisance
species. Similar multi-objective projects are the hallmark of local
public port development activities.
Importance to the Corps of Engineers Navigation Mission to North
Carolina
I come to you today from a port that is far more typical of the
100-plus public port agencies in the United States than usually
testifies before the Congress. The North Carolina State Ports Authority
owns deepwater port facilities at Wilmington and Morehead City. Cargoes
moving through our ports include steel, forest products, rubber,
fertilizers, salt, liquid chemicals, petroleum products, and
containers. Our two ports are also classified as ``national strategic
ports.'' We primarily serve a regional market that encompasses some
half dozen states. The Authority views its role to enhance the economy
of North Carolina through businesslike operations and administration.
Our $30 million budget is generated by over five million tons of cargo
moving annually across our docks.
The importance of our two ports is only partially revealed by our
statistics and economic impact. Statewide, over 80,000 jobs and nearly
$300 million in state and local tax revenues are dependent on
operations at North Carolina's ports. In the Wilmington area alone,
this translates to over 6,500 jobs and more than $23 million in tax
revenues. When, not if, global economic growth resumes--and in the
South Atlantic, it is projected at six percent annually over the next
several years--the capacity of the ports in our region will be severely
taxed. Already there is serious congestion in all components of the
international transportation system--roads, rail and terminals--in key
ports in the South Atlantic region. Given the uncertainties in
international cargo flows, both in the short term and in the longer
run, as well as the unpredictable national strategic considerations,
adequate port capacity cannot be precisely defined. Port directors and
their governing boards can at best watch carefully the marketplace,
listen to their customers and invest in new and expanded marine
terminal facilities and equipment with an eye to the future. Moreover,
additional capacity lowers transportation costs and facilitates access
to international markets.
Finally, experts citing current vessel draft requirements and ``new
build'' characteristics, have stated that ports of the future must have
at least 45 feet preferably 50 feet of draft. Consequently, we believe
the ports of Wilmington and Morehead City will maintain their national
significance economically and strategically into the foreseeable
future. The reality is that while much attention has been focused on
the building of new huge new ships, some 6,000 plus TEUS and beyond,
industry analysts acknowledge that through for the next two decades at
least, the vast majority of oceangoing commerce will be handled by
ships that can easily be accommodated with a 42-foot channel now under
construction at the Port of Wilmington. The notion that our nation's
international commerce requires only two or three ports per coast
flies, therefore, in the face of economic and transportation reality.
In North Carolina alone, exports have been forecast to double over
the decade. This cargo growth cannot be accommodated by two or three
mega ports--which means that ports like Wilmington will become
increasingly important to handle both anticipated growth, and growth
which may not have been foreseen in some trade lanes. In 1999,
Wilmington handled over $3 billion in cargo--or $8.2 million a day.
Our ports in North Carolina play a critical role in our national
security. Materials needed to keep our military forces safe and well
supplied during peacekeeping efforts or military conflicts move through
our ports, in particular serving Camp Lejeune, Fort Bragg and the
Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point (MOTSU). Most recently, during
Phase I and Phase II of DESERT STORM/DESERT SHIELD, the two ports on
the Cape Fear River--the Port of Wilmington and MOTSU--loaded out
approximately 25 percent of the vessels required for these operations.
At the time, Major General John R. Piatak, Commander Military
Traffic Management Command, Falls Church, VA, said, ``During this time
of national need, you moved 768,148 square feet of DESERT SHIELD
equipment safely and quickly through the Port of Wilmington. The
contribution of the Port of Wilmington was significant to the
successful deployment of DESERT SHIELD forces.''
As is evident, I am very proud of the role that North Carolina's
ports have planed in our nation's vital security interests throughout
history. We remain committed to serving our nations strategic security
interests even in these very moments of national concern.
As a highlight to the Corps' deepening projects, I would like to
talk about the Wilmington Harbor Deepening Project. We are sensitive to
multiple benefits from this project. For example, environmental
enhancements are significant. This project front loaded environmental
mitigation and enhancement components such that they were designed and
underway before the first bucket of dredge material was removed from
the Cape Fear River navigation channel. When former Governor James B.
Hunt, Jr., inaugurated the deepening project in March 2000,
construction was already underway for creation of a fish nursery,
estuarine creek and marsh habitat on Island 13 in the Cape Fear River.
The Wilmington Harbor Project also incorporates an important
shoreline protection project with some six million cubic yards of sand
being placed on the nearby beaches of Brunswick and New Hanover
Counties. This is the coastline that was thrashed by six hurricanes in
four years and which desperately needed sand to restore sea life
habitats as well as to protect property investments--an economic
benefit to the tourism industry that feeds North Carolina's economy.
With our fundamental mission to grow North Carolina's economy, the
future increasingly will depend on international trade. As the 13th
largest exporting state in the country, nearly 286,000 North Carolina
jobs depend on export of manufactured goods. However, there is much
more to this than just the numbers. Many companies, much of them small-
sized operations, could not reach overseas markets if there were not
ports with good access close by. Without the additional opportunities
of international markets, many of these smaller companies could not
grow as fast, or withstand the periodic downturns in our domestic
economy. These include good small-to-medium-sized companies in North
Carolina like Meridien Marketing, moving fine North Carolina furniture
around the world, and American Crane, selling its equipment to global
buyers. Their business success would not be possible without our ports.
Our North Carolina ports are also essential to the agribusiness
community, whether it's importing fertilizer or exporting farm
products, all of which account for over two-thirds of the tonnage
moving across our state port docks.
Given the importance of our ports and international trade to North
Carolina, the NC General Assembly and the state's elected and appointed
leaders continue to support the Wilmington Harbor Deepening project
with full funding of the required State match--even during these
extremely tough fiscal times.
The Wilmington Harbor Deepening Project also is absolutely vital to
meet the needs of continued operations with existing customers and any
future expansion of their business--let alone attract new business. Our
major container shipping lines and forest product carriers have been
forced to call on our Port of Wilmington carrying less cargo, and
leaving North Carolina export cargo at the docks because of the lack of
adequate draft. Three years ago, a container shipping company which
provided service between North Carolina and Northern Europe was forced
to discontinue its service due to the lack of draft at the Port of
Wilmington. North Carolina companies now are absorbing hundreds of
thousands of additional costs in getting their products to other, more
distant ports. Our remaining container carriers continue to call at
Wilmington, however, because of the strong regional marketplace and our
highly efficient terminal operations. These contracts are threatened if
the channel is not deepened to 42 feet by 2003.
The Corps' deepening projects, like the Wilmington Harbor Deepening
project, are important as a key component of our nation's basic
transportation, economic and defense infrastructures. The investments
to this point cannot begin to be returned unless the project is
completed to the Port of Wilmington, and delays past 2003 would
increase total project costs, seriously jeopardize the customer base of
the Port of Wilmington, and negatively impact the economy of the State
of North Carolina--already struggling through this latest recession.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We understand the
Congress is faced with difficult budget decisions, but this country can
not afford to make the mistake of shortchanging our nation's economic
competitiveness and opportunity by failing to provide for continued
improvement and maintenance of our federal navigation system. Ports and
navigation channels are critical links in the intermodal transportation
chain. Failure to continue to invest in all aspects of this
transportation system will have serious long-term economic
consequences. We ask this Committee's support in ensuring adequate
funding for the Corps of Engineers Fiscal Year 2003 budget.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 DEEP-DRAFT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
(Dollars in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Project 2003 2003 Budget Shortfall
Capability Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York & NJ Harbor, NY & NJ................................... 120.00 120.00 0.00
Delaware River, NJ.............................................. 12.00 12.00 0.00
Baltimore Harbor, MD............................................ 10.59 10.59 0.00
Polar Island, MD................................................ 10.60 10.60 0.00
Norfolk Harbor, VA.............................................. 12.00 0.48 -11.52
James River, VA................................................. 0.10 0.10 0.00
Wilmington Harbor, NC........................................... 76.20 24.65 -51.55
Charleston Harbor, SC........................................... 7.40 4.54 -2.86
Savannah Harbor, GA............................................. 0.69 0.43 -0.26
Brunswick Harbor, GA............................................ 16.00 11.12 -4.88
Jacksonville, FL................................................ 4.03 4.03 0.00
Canaveral Harbor, FL............................................ 3.60 3.60 0.00
Miami Harbor Channel, FL........................................ 31.00 13.10 -17.90
Manatee Harbor, FL.............................................. 11.60 0.00 -11.60
Tampa Harbor Big Bend, FL....................................... 1.00 0.00 -1.00
Tampa Harbor, FL................................................ 0.80 0.00 -0.80
Panama City Harbor, FL.......................................... 4.10 1.65 -2.46
Mobile Harbor, AL............................................... 0.20 0.20 0.00
Gulfport Harbor, MS............................................. 1.00 0.00 -1.00
Pascagoula Harbor, MS........................................... 2.48 2.48 0.00
Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA......... 0.20 0.20 0.00
Inner Harbor Nav. Canal Lock, LA................................ 30.00 9.00 -21.00
Houston-Galveston Nav. Channels, TX............................. 67.00 19.49 -47.51
Corpus Christi, TX.............................................. 21.00 0.00 -21.00
Los Angeles Harbor, CA, Main Channel Deepening.................. 20.00 0.00 -20.00
Oakland Harbor, CA.............................................. 50.00 5.00 -45.00
Hamilton Air Field Env. Restoration............................. 3.90 3.90 0.00
San Francisco Bay to Stockton, CA............................... 0.30 0.00 -0.30
Sacramento River Ship Channel, CA............................... 0.30 0.25 -0.05
Columbia River Deepening, WA.................................... 11.50 0.00 -11.50
Grays Harbor, WA................................................ 0.50 0.50 0.00
Dredged Material Disposal Facility Program...................... 9.00 9.00 0.00
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 539.09 266.89 -272.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
summary
This Statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the
Colorado River Basin salinity control program of the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. Congress designated the Bureau of
Reclamation to be the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado
River Basin by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.
Public Law 104-20 reconfirmed the Bureau of Reclamation's role. A total
of $17.5 million is requested for fiscal year 2003 to implement the
authorized salinity control program of the Bureau of Reclamation. The
President's appropriation request of $10.1 million is inadequate
because studies have shown that the implementation of the salinity
control program has fallen behind the pace needed to control salinity.
An appropriation of $17.5 million for Reclamation's salinity control
program is necessary to protect water quality standards for salinity
and to prevent unnecessary levels of economic damage from increased
salinity levels in water delivered to the Lower Basin states and
Mexico.
statement
The water quality standards for salinity of the Colorado River must
be protected while the Basin States continue to develop their compact
apportioned waters of the river. Studies have shown that the
implementation of the salinity control program has fallen below the
threshold necessary to prevent future exceedence of the numeric
criteria of the water quality standards for salinity in the Lower Basin
of the Colorado River. The salinity standards for the Colorado River
have been adopted by the seven Basin States and approved by EPA. While
currently the standards have not been exceeded, salinity control
projects must be brought on-line in a timely and cost-effective manner
to prevent future effects that would cause the numeric criteria to be
exceeded.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was authorized by
Congress and signed into law in 1974. The seven Colorado River Basin
States, in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, had formed the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, a body comprised of
gubernatorial representatives from the seven states. The Forum was
created to provide for interstate cooperation in response to the Clean
Water Act, and to provide the states with information necessary to
comply with Sections 303(a) and (b) of the Act. I am New Mexico's
representative to the Forum. The Forum has become the primary means for
the Basin States to coordinate with federal agencies and Congress to
support the implementation of the salinity control program for the
Colorado River Basin.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado
River to United States water users are about $300,000,000 per year.
Damages are estimated at $75,000,000 per year for every additional
increase of 30 milligrams per liter in salinity of the Colorado River.
Control of salinity is necessary for the Colorado River Basin states,
including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned
waters of the Colorado River.
It is essential that appropriations for the funding of the salinity
control program be timely in order to comply with the water quality
standards for salinity to prevent unnecessary economic damages in the
United States, and to protect the quality of the water that the United
States is obligated to deliver to Mexico. The appropriation of $10.1
million in the past President's budget request is inadequate to protect
the quality of water in the Colorado River and prevent unnecessary
salinity damages in the states of the Lower Colorado River Basin.
Studies have shown that the implementation of the salinity control
program has fallen behind the pace needed to control salinity. Although
the United States has always met the water quality standard for
salinity of water delivered to Mexico under Minute No. 242 of the
International Boundary and Water Commission, the United States through
the U.S. Section of IBWC is currently addressing a request by Mexico
for better quality water.
Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
July 1995 (Public Law 104-20). The salinity control program authorized
by Congress by the amendment has proven to be very cost-effective, and
the Basin States are standing ready with up-front cost sharing.
Proposals from public and private sector entities in response to the
Bureau of Reclamation's advertisement have far exceeded available
funding. Basin States cost sharing funds are available for the $17.5
million appropriation request for fiscal year 2003. The Basin States
cost sharing adds 43 cents for each federal dollar appropriated.
Public Law 106-459 gave the Bureau of Reclamation additional
spending authority for the salinity control program. With the
additional authority in place and significant cost sharing by the Basin
States, it is essential that the salinity control program be funded at
the level requested by the Forum and Basin States to protect the water
quality of the Colorado River.
Maintenance and operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's salinity
control projects and investigations to identify new cost-effective
salinity control projects are necessary for the success of the salinity
control program. Investigation of new opportunities for salinity
control are critical as the Basin states continue to develop and use
their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The water
quality standards for salinity and the United States water quality
requirements pursuant to treaty obligations with Mexico are dependent
on timely implementation of salinity control projects, adequate funding
to maintain and operate existing projects, and investigations to
determine new cost-effective projects.
I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program,
adequate funding for operation and maintenance of existing projects and
adequate funding for general investigations to identify new salinity
control opportunities. Also, I fully support testimony by the Forum's
Executive Director, Jack Barnett, in request of this appropriation, and
the recommendation of an appropriation of the same amount by the
federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council.
______
Letter From the Stockton East Water District
Stockton, California, March 12, 2002.
The Honorable Harry Reid,
Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, S-128, The Capitol,
Washington, DC 20510-6025.
We are writing to request your assistance with our Farmington
Groundwater Recharge & Seasonal Habitat Project as authorized by the
1999 WRDA. Specifically, we request the funding of our project's line
item in fiscal year 2003 in the amount of $3,000,000, and ``report
language'' directing the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that our
project is funded annually until complete.
Thanks to you and your staff, the Stockton East Water District
(SEWD) received the 1999 WRDA authorization of $25,000,000 to construct
groundwater recharge and conjunctive use projects, and the `new start'
funding of this project in fiscal year 2002.
SEWD, together with its neighboring districts, needs your continued
help to implement the remedy for our critically over drafted
groundwater basin and saline intrusion problem. The Farmington
Groundwater Recharge & Seasonal Habitat Study was completed in August
2001. This Study recommends a base project which is expected to provide
an average of 35,000 acre feet of recharge water to our critically over
drafted groundwater basin each year.
Last year we sent you a copy of a petition signed by over 10,000
San Joaquin County residents who joined us in supporting our project.
We again need your continued help in securing this $3,000,000 request
and the report language which will ensure the recovery of our
critically over drafted groundwater basin.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Andrew Watkins,
President.
Alfred Bonner,
Director.
Melvin Panizza,
Director.
Thomas McGurk,
Vice President.
Westford Latimer,
Director.
Paul Polk,
Director.
Paul Sanguinetti,
Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Apalachicola Bay & River Keeper, Inc.
The Apalachicola River Restoration Coalition is a working group of
representatives from twelve Florida organizations seeking to persuade
Congress to modify the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Waterway
Project authorization by eliminating all dredging activity by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on the Apalachicola River between Jim Woodruff
Dam and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. A list of member groups of the
coalition is attached.
As part of an effort to eliminate or reduce spending on wasteful
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects and concentrate on inland
waterways operations and maintenance projects with high traffic
volumes, President George W. Bush in his fiscal year 2003 Budget
provides only $1,444,000 for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
Waterway.
We appreciate and applaud the President's sensible budget
recommendation, and we urge that you and your committee adopt it as
proposed.
The ACF Waterway is the most highly subsidized active waterway in
the United States. Notwithstanding the Corps' dredging activities over
the past 50 years, commercial navigational use of the river is so low
and dredging costs are so high that the unit cost of maintaining this
waterway (per ton-mile of goods shipped) is 50 times the national
average (according to the Congressional Budget office).
It is estimated that in recent years the channel maintenance
project has cost the U.S. taxpayers about $30,000 for every barge tow
that has used the river. We receive only 40 cents in benefits for every
dollar spent.
This fiscal insult is reason enough to support the President's
recommendation that dredging on the Apalachicola be halted. But when we
also consider the damage being done to the river by the Corps' dredging
and ``within bank'' spoiling, the decision becomes imperative. In
effect, inbanks deposit of dredged material and sedimentation from the
slurry of sand created during dredging operations clogs the creeks and
sloughs of the invaluable floodplain, blocking its natural filtration
capability and destroying the flowing water habitat, critical to
spawning and foraging of many riverine species, some endangered and
threatened.
The Apalachicola River is the largest of Florida's waterways in
terms of volume, carrying 16 billion gallons of water per day to the
Gulf. It provides some of the most important natural habitat in the
southeast, and its bay supplies 90 percent of Florida's and 15 percent
of the nation's harvest of oysters. The estuary ``nursery'' it feeds
has been recognized by the state as an ``Outstanding Florida Water'',
by the Federal government as a ``National Estuarine Reserve'', and by
UNESO as a ``Man in the Bio-sphere Reserve''.
The River is one of our nation's most precious treasures. Federal,
State and local governments have spent tens of millions of dollars to
purchase land in the River's flood plain to protect the River's water
quality. The Nature Conservancy has identified the River and the lands
on each side of it as one of six places in the United States which has
particular important and threatened biological diversity.
The American Rivers, a national river conservation organization,
has previously listed the ACF Basin as among the ten most endangered
river systems in America. The Corps' dredging and spoiling activities
contribute mightily to the system's ills.
It seems to us that continued wasteful spending that causes great
harm to one of the great rivers of our country, is illogical, and that
President Bush's recommendation is reasonable.
We hope you agree with us and we urge you to support the
President's budget recommendation.
participating organizations
Apalachee Audubon
Apalachee Ecological Conservancy, Inc.
Apalachicola Bay and River Keeper, Inc.
Audubon of Florida
Chipola River Economic and Environmental Council
Florida Fishermen's Federation
Florida Public Interest Research Group
Florida Wildlife Federation
Help Save the Apalachicola River
League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
The Nature Conservancy
1000 Friends of Florida
Southeastern Clean Water Network
______
Letter From the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee
Vicksburg, Mississippi, April 8, 2002.
Majority Clerk,
Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, 156 Dirksen Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Majority Clerk: We are writing to express our organizations'
support for actions to restore the natural resources of the Lower
Mississippi River system. The Lower Mississippi River Conservation
Committee is a multi-state (AR, KY, LA, MO, MS, and TN), cooperative,
nonprofit organization of state and federal interests, private
contributors, and corporate sponsors formed in 1994 to address the
challenges of restoring and managing the natural resources of the Lower
Mississippi River. The Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee
promotes the wise use of the Lower Mississippi River's nationally
significant resources by providing a permanent forum for cooperative
efforts involving planning, management, information sharing, public
education, advocacy, and research.
With wise use of the Lower Mississippi Rivers natural resources,
sustainable increases to the economy of the Lower Mississippi River
States can occur without impacting existing navigation or flood control
uses of the river. Annually, nearly 11 million people in the Lower
Mississippi Alluvial Valley participate in fishing and other wildlife-
oriented outdoor recreation (excluding hunting). They spend
approximately $6 billion on such things as food, fuel, lodging and
equipment. Revenues from these natural resource related activities are
important to the economy of our region and the well-being of our
state's citizens.
One important way you can assist the Lower River States in
restoring the natural resources of the Lower Mississippi River system
and their associated economic revenues is to appropriate funds to
conduct the ``Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment'' authorized
by Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (copy
enclosed). As you will note, the Assessment was authorized at $1.75
million. We ask that you support funding of $500,000 for fiscal year
2003 and $1.25 million for fiscal year 2004 in the Civil Works budget
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete the 2-year Assessment
and required report to Congress.
It was the state-led Lower Mississippi River Conservation
Committee, working with numerous hunting and fishing, conservation,
tourism, recreational, economic development, other groups, and the
general public which was largely responsible for securing this language
in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
The Assessment could aid greatly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Congressionally mandated environmental mission in the Lower Mississippi
River Alluvial Valley by consolidating individual project specific
information, habitat restoration, and recreational needs into one
regional assessment and report. Likewise, the Department of Interior's
mission related to management of national wildlife refuges and parks,
fisheries, migratory birds and endangered species could be enhanced.
The Governors of each of our States have already expressed by
letter to the Commander, Mississippi Valley Division of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, their strong support for immediately completing the
Assessment and their willingness to participate (copies enclosed). The
States, in fact, are already working together through the Lower
Mississippi River Conservation Committee to identify and collect
essential information needed for completion of the Assessment.
We welcome this opportunity to work together with you on this
important regional assessment of the resources of the Lower Mississippi
River system. Again, we ask that you support funding specifically for
the Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment in the fiscal years
2003 and 2004 Civil Works budgets for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Respectfully,
Dugan Sabins,
Chair, Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association
summary
Mr. Chairman & distinguished Committee members: This statement
includes a request to recognize and maintain the U.S. inland waterways
system as a vital part of the national transportation infrastructure by
providing sufficient funding (See chart) to:
--Maintain and improve our nation's inland waterway system;
--Reinstate necessary O&M funding for navigation projects in the
Coosa-Alabama Basin;
--Complete a study to improve the navigation channel on the Alabama
River;
--Renovate and upgrade a recreation site on the Alabama River;
--Complete backlogged maintenance items designed to keep the Alabama
River navigation channel a viable economic asset to the State
of Alabama.
expanded statement
Thank you for the opportunity to present my perspective on several
topics relating to our Nation's waterways system in general, and to the
Coosa-Alabama River Basin in particular. As President of the Coosa-
Alabama River Improvement Association, I speak for a large and diverse
group of private citizens and political and industrial organizations
that sees the continued development of the Coosa-Alabama Waterway as an
opportunity for economic growth in our region as well as the Nation.
Our association is concerned about the deteriorating waterway
infrastructure throughout the nation. The waterways are vital to our
export and import capability, linking our producers with consumers
around the world. Barges annually transport 15 percent of the nation's
commodities, one out of every eight tons. It is incumbent upon the
Federal Government to maintain and improve this valuable national
asset. Therefore, we ask Congress to appropriate enough funds for
required maintenance and construction to keep the waterways the
economic multiplier it is. To maintain the inland waterways facilities
and to accommodate vitally needed growth will require approximately $6
billion. The Federal government must commit to improve the waterways
infrastructure or risk serious economic consequences and jeopardizing
large public benefits.
We are concerned that any budget strategy that reduces funding for
the operations and maintenance of inland and intracoastal waterways
will have a detrimental effect on the economic growth and development
of the river system. We are especially concerned about the President's
direction to direct funding away from those waterways suffering
temporary downturns in barge transportation. We cannot allow that to
happen. In the Alabama-Coosa River Basin, we must be able to maintain
the existing river projects and facilities that support the commercial
navigation, hydropower, and recreational activities so critical to our
region's economy. The first priority must be the O&M funding
appropriated to the Corps of Engineers to maintain those projects.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2003 does not provide enough
funding to keep the Alabama River navigation channel open. Most
conspicuous is the absence of money for dredging, a vital element of
keeping the channel operational. We ask Congress to reinstate the
dredging capability on the Alabama River by adding $2 million on the
Alabama-Coosa River project. In addition, $250,000 is needed to fund a
lock closure at Millers Ferry to inspect for deterioration and
structural integrity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association
Fiscal Year President Fiscal Year
Project 2002 Budget Fiscal 2003 Budget
Appropriation Year 2003 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama-Coosa River, AL \1\ (AL River incl Claiborne L&D)....... $6,180,000 $2,974,000 $5,974,000
Miller's Ferry L&D.............................................. 7,200,000 7,094,000 8,394,000
Robert F. Henry L&D............................................. 5,600,000 5,558,000 8,108,000
Lake Allatoona, GA.............................................. 6,333,000 6,642,000 6,642,000
Carters Lake, GA................................................ 8,800,000 9,958,000 9,958,000
Lower Alabama River Study (South of Claiborne) feasibility study 300,000 300,000 300,000
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 34,413,000 32,526,000 39,376,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes dredging from the mouth of the Alabama River through Claiborne L&D to Miller's Ferry. Coosa River
not included.
Also included in the Alabama-Coosa project request is a need to
repair rock jetties below Claiborne Dam. Many of these jetties have
deteriorated to the point where they are a hazard to boating in some of
the most treacherous parts of the river. We ask that $500,000 be added
to repair these jetties. We also request an additional $200,000 be
added to upgrade the Geographic Information System so Mobile District
can provide accurate navigation charts for all boating.
We must improve the infrastructure of the river itself,
specifically the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam.
Increased reliability is the only way prospective investors will
entertain establishing an industry that uses river transportation. The
most affordable and most environmentally friendly solution to
increasing navigation reliability on the Lower Alabama River is to
improve the training dikes. Mobile District is in the middle of a
feasibility study to determine the interest of the Federal Government
in such a project. Without this improvement in navigation reliability,
we cannot hope to attract new river-related industry into the Basin. We
ask Congress to appropriate $300,000 to complete the feasibility study
already underway.
Recreation has become a major economic factor on our waterways.
Boating, fishing, swimming, and camping have become an indispensable
economic tool for many of our lake and river communities, and, in that
respect, the Alabama River has extraordinary potential. One of the most
promising sites for development is the Corps-owned Swift Creek
campground. Now a minimally developed site, Swift Creek needs to be
upgraded and renovated to serve an ever-increasing demand for
recreational facilities on the waterway. We ask that $2 million be
added to the RF Henry project to renovate and upgrade Swift Creek.
Another need to keep the Alabama River operational is to clean out
the slough and creek entrances to allow the Corps access to off-channel
areas. Clearing these entrances would provide for movement of water,
aquatic life, and small recreational boats between the commercial
navigation channel and backwater coves. Maintenance would enhance
fishery habitat and reduce mosquito-breeding habitat. To meet this
objective, $300,000 needs to be added to each of the Alabama-Coosa, RF
Henry, and Millers Ferry projects, for a total of $900,000 designated
to clean out slough and creek openings.
We also need to catch up on some backlog maintenance work
($500,000) at the Millers Ferry recreational site to prevent
deterioration of equipment and facilities. Safety signs need to be
installed at both RF Henry and Millers Ferry Dams to warn boaters of
the hazards associated with operation of the locks, dams, and
powerhouses ($250,000 at each project).
In summary, we request your support in the following areas:
--Sufficient O&M funding of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works budget to maintain and enhance the U.S. inland waterways
system, including dredging, removing rock jetties below
Claiborne Dam, and closing the lock for inspection at Millers
Ferry;
--Funding to renovate and upgrade Swift Creek campground on the
Alabama River;
--Funding for completing the feasibility study to improve the
reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on
the Lower Alabama River;
--Funding to remove several backlogged maintenance items, including
an improved Geographic Information System and safety signs at
the RF Henry and Millers Ferry generating plants, to ensure the
Alabama River navigation channel remains a viable economic
asset to the State of Alabama.
Thank you for allowing us to submit this testimony and for your
strong support of the Nation's waterways.
______
The Anniston Star,
Anniston, Alabama, February 27, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: I am writing to seek your support of the Coosa-
Alabama River Improvement Association's funding request for fiscal year
2003, which should include funding for dredging on the Alabama River,
keeping the Alabama River navigation channel open and making certain
the shippers that transport will continue to have a safe and adequate
route on Alabama River.
As a member of the Board of Directors for the Association, I
strongly endorse its mission of promoting the development of the Coosa
and Alabama Rivers for the benefit of the state. CARIA is the only
organization in our State that annually works for funding of federal
projects on those rivers.
In the water allocation negotiations between Alabama and Georgia,
CARIA has been the primary advisor to Alabama's negotiators on
navigation issues in the Alabama-Coosa Tallapoosa basin.
I support the Association's request for $$38,876,000 for the
project's budget.
We'd also like to see support of the regional effort to improve and
extend the waterway. We need continuous study on three points: How to
increase the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam, ways to
consolidate and renovate the Swift Creek Park recreation site and how
we can reduce deferred maintenance on projects that are even more
costly in the long run.
The Alabama River navigation channel should continue to be valued,
and the waterways should stay competitive with rail and road rates to
provide shippers alternatives. The Alabama River has public and private
recreation potential that should be realized and developed.
Thank you for considering these suggestions.
Very truly yours,
Phillip A. Sanguinetti.
______
City of Monroeville,
Monroeville, Alabama, February 27, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: It has come to my attention that the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water will be considering
budget requests for operations and maintenance funding for the Alabama
River projects. The Alabama River travels through to most economically
depressed counties in the state, most averaging double digits in
unemployment. So it is imperative that funding be appropriated to keep
the Alabama River navigation channel operational. Monroeville struggles
to entice industry to our area, because we do not have the advantage of
a four-lane highway travelling through our county. We cannot afford to
loose barge shipping as an alternative means of transportation for
industries considering Monroe County.
Thank you for supporting this request.
Sincerely,
Anne H. Farish,
Mayor.
______
City of Prattville,
Prattville, Alabama, February 22, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: I am writing to ask for your favorable
consideration regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's request for
funding to operate and maintain (O&M) water projects in the Alabama-
Coosa River Basin during the fiscal year 2003 budget year. As you know,
this request is also supported by the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement
Association.
This request includes funding for dredging on the Alabama River
keeping the river's navigation channel operational. This aspect affects
my community first hand as both power generation plants now under
construction in Autauga County use the river to transport construction
materials to their respective sites.
This funding request also supports the regional effort fo improve
and extend the Coosa-Alabama waterway. Again, this has a direct impact
on my community with the renovation of Swift Creek Park on the Alabama
River. This renovation project will enhance the quality of river
recreation for all of Central Alabama.
Senator Reid, I appreciate your past support of the Coosa-Alabama
River Improvement Association and the Corps of Engineers. I also want
to thank you for all that you do for our Country.
With warmest personal regards,
Sincerely,
Jim Byard, Jr.,
Mayor.
______
City of Rainbow City,
Rainbow City, Alabama, February 27, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: I am writing to you as a member of the Board of
Directors of Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association. I have been
active with this association for many years and believe it is vital to
this area to keep these projects alive. I am asking for your support on
the following items:
--You support the Association's funding for fiscal year 2003.
--Includes funding for dredging on the Alabama River.
--Keeps the Alabama River navigation channel operational.
--Assures prospective shippers that barge transportation will
continue to be an attractive and safe alternative to road
and rail on the Alabama River.
--You support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-
Alabama waterway.
--Continue study on how to increase the navigational reliability
below Claiborne Dam.
--Consolidate and renovate the Swift Creek Park recreation site on
the Alabama River to meet an increasing demand for quality
river facilities.
--Reduce deferred maintenance on projects that are more costly in
the long run.
--Other Points:
--The Alabama River navigation channel is a valuable economic asset
for Alabama.
--Waterways keep competitive rail and road rates down, provide
shippers a viable shipping alternative, and save an
estimated average of $10.69 per ton over alternative modes.
--Annual economic impact of the Corps' Alabama River rec facilities
is over $40 million.
--The Alabama River has strong potential for additional public and
private recreation sites.
Your support and consideration concerning this matter will be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sue L. Glidewell,
Mayor.
______
City of Wetumpka,
Wetumpka, Alabama, February 27, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: The significance of the Coosa-Alabama River
system predates the City of Wetumpka. We believe the earliest
inhabitants of Alabama established a large hunting base camp along the
river banks of the Tallapoosa/Coosa/Alabama Rivers where they converge
just south of town. William Bartram, the famed naturalist and friend of
Benjamin Franklin, traveled the area in 1776. He wrote: ``This is
perhaps one of the most eligible situations for a city in the world, a
level plain between the conflux of majestic rivers . . . ''
The economic impact river transportation provided in early days
continues to present day. The availability of navigable waterways to
connect Wetumpka to the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore points worldwide,
is an excellent commercial and industrial recruitment tool. Wetumpka's
waterways provide excellent recreational opportunities which attract
tourist dollars and further benefit the local economy.
As the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water in both
houses of Congress consider the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funding
for operations and maintenance of water projects along the Alabama-
Coosa River basin, we endorse and support the projects which are vital
to local, regional, and state progress and development.
Very Truly Yours,
R. Scott Golden,
Mayor.
______
Dallas County Commission,
Selma, Alabama.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Reid: The Dallas County Commission unanimously supports
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers request for funding to operate and
maintain (O&M) water projects in the Alabama-Coosa River Basin.
The CARIA funding request for fiscal year 2003 that includes
dredging on the Alabama River to keep the channel navigable not only
assures prospective shippers that barge transportation will continue to
be an attractive, viable and safe alternative to road and rail on the
Alabama River, but is also imperative for continued economic
development within Dallas County and the Black Belt area of the state.
Within the last eight months Dallas County has lost at least one
industrial prospect as a result of the river level not being at a
navigable level.
The Dallas County Commission supports the regional effort to extend
the Coosa-Alabama Waterway. We encourage continued studies on how to
increase the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam (water levels
have been below six feet during certain periods). Consolidation and
renovation of the Swift Creek Park recreation site on the Alabama River
is needed to meet an increasing demand for quality river facilities for
Central Alabama citizens.
The Alabama River navigation channel is a valuable economic asset
to Dallas County as well as to the State of Alabama. As you well know
waterways keep competitive rail and road rates down providing shippers
a viable shipping alternative and saves an average of $10.69 per ton
over alternative modes of transportation.
The annual economic impact of the Corps' Alabama River recreation
facilities is over $40 million and the Dallas County Commission
suggests that the Alabama River has strong potential for additional
public and private recreational sites.
Your support of CARIA and for funding for the U.S. Corps of
Engineers O&M water projects is appreciated.
Sincerely,
John W. Jones, Jr.,
Chairman.
______
Monroe County Commission,
Monroeville, Alabama, February 14, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: The Monroe County Commission respectfully
request your approval of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement
Association Inc's funding request for fiscal year 2003, based on the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers estimate for funding, to operate and
maintain water projects in the Alabama-Coosa River Basin.
In order for the entire region to reach its economic potential it
is necessary that funding be provided to keep the Alabama River
Navigation Channel open, particularly South of the Claiborne Lock & Dam
in Monroe County Alabama to the Port of Mobile. We must retain the
funding to demonstrate to potential shippers that the channel will be a
viable alternative to rail and road transportation. We have information
that several prospective shippers, one with potential movement of 3
million tons per year have made serious inquiry about the Alabama
River.
We appreciate your support in the past in the development and
maintenance of this very important Waterway System and we appreciate
your favorable consideration in making this Waterway System attractive
to potential industries and recreation.
Thanking you for your support and with kindest personal regards, we
are
Yours truly,
Otha Lee Biggs,
Judge of Probate & President, Monroe County Commission.
______
Montgomery County Commission,
Montgomery, Alabama, February 27, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: The Montgomery County Commission has a vital
interest in the development of the Coosa-Alabama River project which
was originally authorized by Congress in 1945. The benefits which
accrue to the citizens of this region, and to the nation, fully justify
the operation of this economical waterway.
In order to attract new river-using industries into Alabama,
dredging on the Alabama River is greatly needed so that barges can be
operational for prospective shippers in moving cargo, thus providing a
safe alternative to road and rail transportation. Also, use of the
waterways keeps competitive rail and road rates down and saves an
estimated average of $10.59 per ton over other modes of shipping.
Improvements are needed to enhance the navigational reliability
below Claiborne Dam. Swift Creek Park recreation site on the Alabama
River needs to be consolidated and renovated to meet an increasing
demand for quality recreational facilities in Central Alabama. There is
a strong potential for additional public and private recreational sites
along the Alabama River. The annual economic impact of the Corps'
Alabama River recreational facilities is over $40 million.
Adequate funding in Mobile District's fiscal year 2003, operating
and maintenance budget is necessary to ensure that the navigation
channel be kept open and progress is made for further development and
extension of the Coosa-Alabama waterway and to properly operate and
maintain the existing portion, thereby making this navigation channel a
valuable economic asset for Alabama.
On behalf of the Montgomery County Commission, I fully support the
testimony provided by the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association
and urge your favorable consideration of the recommended appropriations
for fiscal year 2003.
Sincerely,
W. F. Joseph, Jr.,
Chairman.
______
Prattville,
Prattville, Alabama, February 27, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: I am writing to gain your support of the Coosa-
Alabama River Improvement Association's funding request for fiscal year
2003. It should include funding for dredging on the Alabama River,
keeping the Alabama River navigation channel operational and assuring
the shippers that transportation will continue to be a safe, alternate
route over road and rail on the Alabama River.
The Alabama River is extremely important to the economic growth of
our area. In the last several months, Tenaska and Southern Company used
barges to deliver construction materials to plant sites in our area. In
October of this year the City of Prattville will be host to the Alabama
Bass Federation Championship Tournament featuring four hundred of
Alabama's best fishermen. Our leadership would very much like to
continue to have the river navigable for commercial traffic, as well
as, sportsman traffic.
I strongly support the Association's mission of promoting the
development of the Coosa and Alabama Rivers for the benefit of the
state. CARIA is the only organization in our State that annually works
for funding of federal projects on those rivers.
The Autauga County leadership would also like to see support of the
regional effort to improve and extend the waterway. Waterways help keep
competitive rail and road rates down by providing alternatives for the
shippers. The Alabama River navigation channel is a valuable economic
asset for Alabama. The Alabama River has public and private recreation
potential that should be realized and developed.
Yours truly,
Connie Bainbridge,
President, Director of Economic Development.
______
St. Clair County Commission,
Ashville, Alabama, February 27, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: This is to acknowledge support of continued
funding for the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. and
their efforts to maintain the navigation channel in order to attract
new river-using industry into the Alabama River basin.
Your support of their efforts will be greatly appreciated.
Yours truly,
Stanley D. Batemon,
Chairman.
______
Selma City Council Liaison,
Selma, Alabama, February 15, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: Selma and Dallas County elected officials, as
well as the Selma Chamber of Commerce membership and the Selma/Dallas
County Economic Development Authority, wish to convey our full support
of the funding request of the Coosa Alabama River Improvement
Association for fiscal year 2003. It is most important to the economy
of Alabama that every effort is continued to improve and extend the
Coosa Alabama Waterway. The navigation reliability of the waterway
below the Claiborne Dam and maintenance of the trawling works and
dredging is very vital to the economic development of the river basin
between Mobile and Montgomery.
With the improvements and facility expansion underway at the Port
of Mobile Docks, requests from prospective shippers regarding channel
maintenance, particularly during dry periods, have dramatically
increased. Most recently a business which could supply several hundred
jobs to the Selma/Dallas County area and which would utilize the river
as a means of receiving certain raw materials, as well as a channel to
ship their end products to the Mobile Port, visited our area. Use of
the river in such a manner keeps competitive rail and road rates down,
providing an alternate shipping means that can save many dollars per
ton.
Our area is known as a sportsman's paradise, and there's a growing
demand for additional other types recreational facilities. The further
development of the Swift Creek Park in neighboring Autauga County would
answer this growing demand for quality facilities on the Alabama River.
This request for the proposed funding is vitally necessary to
support our efforts for economic expansion and survival in this river
basin. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Carl Morgan, Jr.,
Selma City Council Liaison.
______
Selma & Dallas County Chamber of Commerce,
Selma, Alabama, February 11, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: My organization represents a region of the
United States which encompasses some of the poorest areas in this
nation with current unemployment over 12 percent and the poverty rate
extremely high. Thus it is encumbent on us to strive to do everything
within our power to lift the region economically.
One way we have sought to do this is to provide a navigable Coosa-
Alabama River Waterway. In our section of Alabama this would make it
possible for us to continue to seek out industries which would benefit
from the waterway and at the same time market our area as a sportsman's
paradise.
We understand the demand on federal dollars at this time, but would
ask consideration that funding be provided so as to keep us from moving
backwards. Uppermost would be enough funds to insure the river is kept
open to traffic. Without those funds we would lose the portion of the
waterway that is open to traffic.
Thank you and your committee for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Jamie D. Wallace,
President.
______
Warrier & Gulf Navigation Company,
Chickasaw, Alabama, February 27, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development, U.S.
Senate, Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Reid: I am J. Craig Stepan, General Manager of Warrior &
Gulf Navigation Company. Our company is an active member of the Coosa-
Alabama River Improvement Association. I wish to take this opportunity
to solicit your support on behalf of the Association and the river
system and enterprises it serves.
Primarily, please support the Coosa-Alabama Association's funding
request for fiscal year 2003. This funding is imperative to protect the
Alabama River as a safe and efficient transportation waterway. Further,
your additional continued support of a regional initiative to improve
the waterway below Claiborne Dam and to consolidate and renovate the
Swift Creek Park recreation site on the Alabama River will also be
appreciated.
As you know, the Alabama River is an important economic asset for
our State, helping to provide a competitive transportation rate
structure and a recreational alternative with a $40 million annual
impact.
Our company and its 200+ employees respectfully request your
support for these important projects, and we pledge our best efforts to
provide reliable cost efficient transportation services to the Alabama
business community.
Very truly yours,
J. Craig Stepan,
General Manager, Southern Operations.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Illinois
The State of Illinois supports the following projects in the
Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal:
Surveys:
Alexander and Pulaski Counties...................... $147,000
Des Plaines River (Phase II)........................ 335,000
Illinois River Basin Restoration.................... 1,051,000
Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration................ 365,000
Rock River.......................................... 182,000
Upper Mississippi & Illinois Navigation Study....... 1,000,000
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan.......... 1,814,000
Upper Mississippi System Flow Frequency Study....... 463,000
Preconstruction Engineering & Design:
Peoria Riverfront Development....................... 237,000
St. Louis Harbor.................................... 73,000
Waukegan Harbor..................................... 200,000
Wood River Levee.................................... 130,000
Construction:
Chain of Rocks Canal................................ 2,037,000
Chicago Shoreline................................... 19,000,000
East St. Louis Rehabilitation....................... 800,000
Loves Park.......................................... 2,973,000
McCook & Thornton Reservoirs........................ 10,000,000
Melvin Price Lock & Dam............................. 1,200,000
Mississippi River Major Rehab:
Lock & Dam 12................................... 5,404,000
Lock & Dam 24................................... 10,000,000
Olmsted Lock & Dam.................................. 77,000,000
Upper Mississippi River EMP......................... 12,200,000
Operation and maintenance.--Illinois supports the Corps' budget for
continued satisfactory maintenance and operation of navigation, flood
control and multipurpose projects, as well as adequate manpower for
public service activities related to the water resources in and
bordering the state. Although, the administration's budget request
contains nearly $110 million for operation and maintenance for the
Corps Districts in Illinois, the Districts anticipate a flat level of
funding over the next 5 years. With inflation, their operations and
maintenance activities will be reduced by 15 percent or more. There are
concerns that significant cuts to operations and maintenance can
severely impact the Corps' future viability and commitment to maintain
the inland waterway system, water supply and recreational reservoirs,
and to perform harbor maintenance. As an example, there is a need for
an additional $2.7 million to satisfy dredging needs and the backlog of
maintenance for the Illinois River Waterway. Backlog of maintenance
items for the Mississippi River in Rock Island and St. Louis Corps
Districts is an additional $16.8 million.
Additional funding priorities.--The State of Illinois recommends
that additional funding be provided for the following projects in the
fiscal year 2003 Corps of Engineers' budget:
illinois river basin restoration
Section 519 of Water Resources Development Act 2000 authorized the
Illinois River Basin Restoration. The current fiscal year 2003 budget
proposes $1,051,000 in general investigation funds for the completion
of a comprehensive plan. However, the State requests that this be
increased to $5,000,000 of construction general funds. Much of the
comprehensive plan has been developed under another WRDA authorization
and with the work funded in fiscal year 2002, it will be almost
complete. Projects that were pre-authorized in Section 519 as providing
substantial restoration and environmental benefits have been identified
through the in-progress study and will be ready to go to construction
in fiscal year 2003.
illinois river ecosystem restoration
Current fiscal year 2003 budget proposes $365,000 in general
investigation funds. The State requests that this amount be increased
to $900,000 in general investigation funds. This project has been on-
going since 1997 and is providing additional information and
documentation for Section 519 efforts. This increase is needed to
complete the feasibility portion of this project on scedule.
peoria riverfront development
Currently, the fiscal year 2003 budget contains $237,000 for this
project. The State requests that this amount be increased to $600,000
in general investigation funds. The project will begin construction in
fiscal year 2003 and the increase is needed to complete the feasibility
phase and to meet the design and construction schedule.
chicagoland underflow plan
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs.--The 1988 Water Resources
Development Act authorized the construction of McCook and Thornton
reservoirs as components of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan for flood
control. The completion of these projects, with their related
improvements to water quality, will have a significant impact on
reducing the amount of Lake Michigan diversion water required for
dilution purposes. The reduction in dilution water will improve
Illinois' ability to meet the limits of Lake Michigan diversions and
provide for future water supply needs. While $10.0 million is in this
year's budget request, we are requesting an additional $20.0 million in
the fiscal year 2003 budget to continue this work at its optimum level
of funding.
carlyle lake conveyance analysis
The State of Illinois is concerned about the surface drainage flow
levels, channel depths, and sedimentation trends and their performance
effects in the Kaskaskia River from Vandalia, Illinois to Carlyle Lake,
and the surrounding vicinity. Therefore, for fiscal year 2003, Illinois
requests an appropriation of $475,000 be provided in the Corps of
Engineers general investigation funding to initiate the conveyance
analyses with the total cost as a Federal responsibility. Currently,
the fiscal year 2003 budget contains no funding for this purpose.
the chicago river lock rehabilitation
There is a need for $4,400,000 to rapidly rehabilitate the Chicago
Lock. Excessive leakage through this lock interferes with lake
diversion measurements and accounting, giving the appearance that
Illinois is over-diverting in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court
Decree. This project is also needed to ensure the safe operation of the
lock itself.
chicago sanitary & ship canal dispersal barrier
Section 1202 of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996
authorized the Corps to study, design and construct a barrier in the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the exchange of nuisance
species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi/Illinois River
systems. Previous appropriations provided for the construction of the
project, but the Chicago District needs $500,000 to cover the operation
and monitoring the Invasive Species in fiscal year 2003.
chicago shoreline
Currently, the fiscal year 2003 budget contains $19 million for
this project. There is a need for an additional $13,000,000 of
construction general funds to avoid a slow down or stoppage of the
ongoing work and a delay in this crucial erosion control project.
chain of rocks canal levee
The levee lying along the east bank of the Chain of Rocks Canal has
documented design deficiencies, which must be corrected in order to
adequately protect the thousands of residents living behind it.
Currently, the fiscal year 2003 budget includes $2,037,000 for this
purpose. We are requesting additional funding of $2.8 million of
construction general funds to advance the construction of the remedial
work.
des plaines river--phase one
Section 101(b-10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized Phase I of the Upper Des Plaines River Flood Control Project
at a total cost of $49 million for the implementation of the six
recommended projects. The Federal share is approximately $31.8 million
(65 percent) and the estimated non-Federal cost is $17.1 million. The
fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill provided $450,000 to continue with
preconstruction engineering and design of Phase I of the project.
Illinois requests $4.5 million for a Phase I construction start in
fiscal year 2003. Currently, the fiscal year 2003 budget contains no
funding for this purpose.
des plaines river feasibility study--phase two
An expansion of the Phase I Upper Des Plaines River study was
authorized in Section 419 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999. The projected $18,000,000 average annual damages, which will
remain in the tributary floodplains of the Des Plaines River after the
completion of Phase I project construction, is the basis for the
expanded study of Phase II. State, Lake County, Cook County, and
Kenosha County all have appropriated funds under contract for cost
sharing in the Phase II study effort. Currently, the fiscal year 2003
budget contains $335,000 to continue the Phase II study effort.
However, Illinois requests an additional $850,000 of general
investigation funds to match the contracted study in fiscal year 2003.
east st. louis & vicinity (ecosystem restoration & flood damage
protection)
The Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, has completed a re-
evaluation study of the project for flood protection at East St. Louis
and Vicinity, Illinois (East Side Levee and Sanitary District),
authorized by Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 27 October 1965
(Public Law 89-298) The project is focusing on the continued problem of
flooding within the American Bottoms area. The Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 modified Section 204 of the Flood Control Act
of 1965, to make ecosystem restoration a project purpose. Accordingly,
ecosystem restoration will be included with the flood control project.
Illinois requests an appropriation of $800,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to initiate the Pre-Engineering and Design of the East St.
Louis and Vicinity Project. Currently, the fiscal year 2003 budget
contains no funding for this purpose.
loves park
An additional $1,600,000 funding is required to finish the last
stage of the Loves Park flood control project. Construction is being
acomplished in an area that is subject to rapid urbanization through
five major stages, four of which are complete.
melvin price lock and dam
Illinois also urges that the Corps support the continuation of the
recreational features of the Melvin Price Lock and Dam with an
additional $2.0 million appropriation in fiscal year 2003. The
additional funding is needed to initiate the contract award for the
recreational facilities and to continue with the visitor center
exhibits. Currently, the fiscal year 2003 budget contains $1,200,000
for this purpose.
upper mississippi river environmental management plan
Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 re-
authorized the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management
Program (EMP) in response to the need for restoring habitats and
improving the scientific understanding of the river system. While $12.2
million is in this year's budget request, we believe this level of
funding is below the point that Corps can efficiently continue with the
program. To pursue this program efficiently, we believe this program
should be pursued at the re-authorized level of $33.17 million as
described in Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999.
upper mississippi, lower missouri, and illinois river flow frequency
study
Flow frequencies for the Upper Mississippi lower Missouri, and
Illinois River System were first developed in 1966. The flood profiles
currently in use were developed in 1979 by an interagency task force
and replaced profilesdeveloped in 1966. However, the accuracy of the
1979 profiles has come into question now that there are 20 plus years
of new data, including flow records from several high water events like
the Great Flood of 1993 have occured. The Corps of Engineers initiated
the efforts to reassess the methodology, update the data, and develop
more sophisticated and accurate models in fiscal year 1997. The study
could be finished in fiscal year 2003 if an additional $532,000 funding
becomes available. Flow frequencies have a variety of important uses
including determination of flood insurance; floodplain management; and
the study, design, and construction of flood control projects. For this
reason, Illinois requests the additional funding to finish this
important study in fiscal year 2003.
illinois river dredged disposal sites
Section 102 (g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
directed the Secretary to acquire dredged material disposal areas for
the inland navigation project on the Illinois River, at a total Federal
cost not to exceed $7,000,000. For fiscal year 2003, we request
$1,100,000 of construction general funds to continue acquisition and/or
construction of these sites.
upper mississippi and illinois rivers levees and streambanks protection
study
Section 458 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and
streambanks protection study in response to erosion damages to levees
and other flood control structures on these rivers. The State of
Illinois urges full funding of this initiative in fiscal year 2003. The
funding will expedite impact studies of navigation traffic on
deterioration of the levees and other flood control structures.
Currently, the fiscal year 2003 budget contains no funding for this
purpose.
______
Prepared Statement of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
fiscal year 2003 budget request
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe respectfully requests fiscal year 2003
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation from your subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development. Funds will be used to conduct value
engineering on the Reservation-wide project and to design the urgently
needed system from Fort Thompson to Stephan. All other planning stages
of this project (Special Study, environmental assessment and FONSI, and
water conservation plan) will be completed in fiscal year 2002 due to
support by the subcommittee since fiscal year 1995.
The amount requested for fiscal year 2003 is $476,000 as set out
below:
Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request
Tribal Administration and Coordination........................ $54,000
Project-Wide Value Engineering and Accountability Report...... 61,000
Design Fort Thompson to Stephan............................... 301,000
Reclamation Oversight......................................... 60,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total..................................................... 476,000
proposed activities
With fiscal year 2002 funds, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, in
cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, has concluded draft
documents: ``Special Study, Crow Creek Sioux Municipal Rural and
Industrial Water Project'' and the environmental assessment for the
referenced project. The Tribe is finalizing the documents based on
review and comment by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Tribe is also
preparing a water conservation plan as a separate document. This set of
planning documents is the prerequisite for an authorization for
construction of the project. Draft bills will be present to the South
Dakota delegation by the Tribe for consideration of a project
authorization in the second session of this Congress.
The request for funds in fiscal year 2003 is primarily for design
of the urgently needed system between Fort Thompson and Stephan on the
Crow Creek Indian Reservation. For Thompson is on the Missouri River
near Big Bend Dam and has an intake and water treatment plant capable
of serving the entire Crow Creek Indian Reservation with high-quality
water. Stephan is a community 30 miles north of Fort Thompson and the
home of a regional Indian high school within inadequate and extremely
poor water quality. The pipeline system between Fort Thompson and
Stephan will be designed to serve the rural households that are part of
the planning for the comprehensive system on the Reservation. Moreover,
the pipeline system will be designed with sufficient capacity to
continue the project in future years to the West to serve the Big Bend
community. This is not a new project concept but one that has been in
development for more than 7 years with the support of the Bureau of
Reclamation and periodic line-item appropriations by Congress. The
request for this year will finalize the planning phase of the project
and permit the Tribe to advance to the construction phase given an
authority through enabling legislation.
exigent conditions
There is an immediate need to construct facilities to distribute
Missouri River water and improve water quality throughout the Crow
Creek Indian Reservation. This action will reduce health risks to the
membership of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and other residents of the
Reservation. With the exception of the community of Fort Thompson,
water supplies and water quality are deplorable throughout the
Reservation. There is an immediate need to extend pipelines from Fort
Thompson to the community and day school at Stephan where water quality
is extremely poor, and existing wells are limited in capacity.
Inspired by efforts of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, including the
planning for the Reservation municipal, rural and industrial water
system, the water treatment facilities at Fort Thompson have been
improved with microfilters that produce a high quality water for
residents of the community. The new water treatment facilities are
incorporated as a part of the Reservation-wide project and, with
construction of necessary pipelines, will permit delivery of high-
quality water north to Stephan.
The need for the Reservation-wide project is underscored by the
recent population releases from the 2000 census. Our planning had
projected population increases on the Reservation from 1990 to 2000 at
a rate of 14.3 percent. The actual rate of growth experienced in the
last decade was 26.7 percent, significantly greater than the seemingly
liberal projection made from the 1990 census.
The subcommittee is respectfully requested to carefully consider
our needs and provide the necessary funding to complete the planning
stage of our project.
project construction costs and recommended project alternative
Costs of alternatives, including construction contracts and non-
contract costs, range from $15,403,000 (Alternatives b, d and e) to
$17,853,000 (Alternative a). After accounting for funding already
authorized by Congress for the Mid-Dakota project that could be
transferred to the reservation project by amended legislation
(Alternatives a and b) or used within the reservation in general
conformity to plans by Mid-Dakota, additional funding authorization
from Congress ranging from $10,634,000 (Alternatives b, d and e) to
$12,946,000 (Alternative a) is required.
Based on the least cost scenario and self-determination, the Crow
Creek Sioux Tribe's preferred project alternative is Alternative a
($12,946,000 in new funding authority; see description below): source
of water on Lake Sharpe near Fort Thompson constructed, operated,
maintained and replaced by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Environmental
factors, such as cultural and historic resources, and identifiable
impacts on physical and biological resources are not significantly
different between alternatives and had least influence on the
recommended alternative.
Five alternatives for developing the project were:
a. A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and meeting all needs through year 2030 within
the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Source of water would be the
Missouri River with modifications to the existing intake and water
treatment plant at Fort Thompson.
b. A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and meeting all needs through year 2030 within
the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Source water would be the Missouri
River from the intake and water treatment plant constructed by Mid-
Dakota on Lake Oahe. The reservation system would be connected to the
Mid-Dakota system along the northern and eastern borders of the
reservation. Mid-Dakota would sell water to the Tribe as a bulk user.
c. A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe to service the Fort Thompson and Crow Creek
community areas, and rural areas in between, from intake and water
treatment plant at Fort Thompson. The balance of the project would be
constructed, operated and maintained by Mid-Dakota with water supply
from the Mid-Dakota intake and water treatment plant.
d. A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced
exclusively by Mid-Dakota to service the entire reservation with water
supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water treatment plant.
e. A project constructed by Mid-Dakota throughout the reservation
and operated, maintained and replaced by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water treatment plant.
future operation, maintenance and replacement (omr) costs
Future operation, maintenance and replacement costs, including
staff, equipment, electricity, chemicals and all other materials
necessary for repair and replacement, have an estimated range in cost
from $597,195 (Alternative a) to $826,185 (Alternatives b, d and e).
present value of net costs
Net costs were estimated as the present value of the costs of
construction and OMR less the off-setting value of construction and OMR
earnings by members of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, an under-employed
labor force. Present value of net costs ranges from $15,348,180
(Alternative a) to $22,673,000 (Alternatives d and e).
construction schedule
A construction schedule beginning in fiscal year 2003 and ending in
fiscal year 2006 is proposed. Construction and non-contract employment
would provide 131 full-time equivalent man years of employment. Annual
levels of funding needs would range from $2,135,000 in fiscal year 2003
to $6,736,000 in fiscal year 2005.
environmental factors
Pipelines proposed for the project range from 1.5 to 12 inches in
diameter and have lengths ranging from 269.8 miles (Alternative c) to
276.4 miles (Alternative a). From five to seven pump stations with
horsepower ranging from 103.0 to 164.5 are representative of the
alternatives. From six to eight reservoirs with up to 495,000 gallons
of capacity are proposed. Future population growth will require
approximately five acres of new wastewater lagoons by year 2030.
Approximately 70 wetlands will be crossed by the project on the
basis of the current layout, which will be modified in later designs to
avoid wetlands. As many as 31 perennial stream crossings will be made.
Nearly 43 miles of prime farmlands will be crossed by pipelines where
most of the farmlands are defined as ``prime'' if irrigated in the
future. Approximately 23 miles of unstable soils will be crossed. Up to
134 miles of trust lands (slightly less than 50 percent of the total)
will be crossed by pipelines.
An Environmental Assessment and a class I cultural resource
inventory and descriptive report have been prepared.
population
The statistical summary below shows that population of the Crow
Creek Indian Reservation in 1990 was 1,756 persons: 1,532 Indian
persons and 224 non-Indian persons. Based on the rate of growth in the
Indian and non-Indian population over the past several decades, year
2030 population estimates were made resulting in a future population of
3,417. These estimates recognize a relatively high growth rate within
the Indian population and out- migration of non-Indians.
income and employment
Median household income in 1990 on the Crow Creek Indian
Reservation averaged $12,763 as contrasted with averages for the state
of South Dakota of $22,503. The Indian labor force on the reservation
represented 55.7 percent of the population and 29 percent were
unemployed. Across the state of South Dakota, 74.3 percent of the
population was in the labor force, and 4.1 percent were unemployed.
Income levels on the reservation are extremely low, and unemployment is
extremely high.
ability to pay
Consistent with the income levels described above, annual residual
household income on the reservation is $8,924 after deducting the costs
of housing and electricity from median household income. Results from
the American Housing Survey of 1993, showed that 80 percent of those
surveyed were paying $13.59 per month for water and sewer for
comparable levels of residual income. Sewer costs on the reservation
are $13 per month leaving $0.59 per month for water bill payments if
residents of the reservation are expected to pay as much as 80 percent
of the population with comparable income in the American Housing
Survey.
existing public water systems and water quality of sources
Existing public water systems in the communities of Fort Thompson,
Stephan, Big Bend and Crow Creek serve a population of 1,520. The
maximum flow capacity of the systems is 530 gallons per minute, and
reservoirs with 241,000 gallons of capacity are available.
Fort Thompson receives water from the Missouri River, which has
good-quality water (479 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids as
contrasted with the suggested level for secondary contaminants of 500
milligrams per liter). Crow Creek community receives its water from
wells with total dissolved solids of 706 milligrams per liter. Stephan
and Big Bend also receive water from wells with total dissolve solids
ranging from 1,500 to 1,928 milligrams per liter. Wells serving the
households in the rural areas have water quality ranging from an
average 702 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids to a maximum of
4,440.
future water sources
The best available source of future water for the reservation is
the Missouri River with water quality reflective of Fort Thompson. The
annual flow of the Missouri River at Pierre is 15,873,000 acre-feet
annually as contrasted with the largest stream on the reservation (Crow
Creek) with an average annual flow of 13,749 acre feet. The Missouri
River is dependable with minimum monthly flow of 192,000 acre-feet.
Periods of no flow are experienced on all reservation streams.
Groundwater sources are generally (but not universally) adequate for
single households in the rural areas and water quality ranges from good
to poor. Nitrates may be increasing in groundwater sources, and there
is evidence of copper exceeding maximum contaminant levels in rural
water, but the source of copper is unknown and can be naturally
occurring or introduced through the plumbing. (Note: the reporting is
from the draft Special Study, which will change in detail, but not
substance, in the final report to be concluded.)
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
Mr. Chairman: The Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD) is pleased to offer the following testimony regarding the
fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.
The Central Arizona Project or ``CAP'' was authorized by the 90th
Congress of the United States under the Colorado River Basin Project
Act of 1968. The CAP is a multi-purpose water resource development
project consisting of a series of canals, tunnels, dams, and pumping
plants that lift water nearly 3,000 feet over a distance of 336 miles
from Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to the Tucson area. The project
was designed to deliver the remainder of Arizona's entitlement of
Colorado River water into the central and southern portions of the
state for municipal and industrial, agricultural, and Indian uses. The
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initiated project construction in
1973, and the first water was delivered into the Phoenix metropolitan
area in 1985. In 2000, CAP delivered its full normal year entitlement
of 1.5 million acre-feet for the first time, allowing Arizona to
utilize its full Colorado River apportionment of 2.8 million acre-feet.
CAWCD was created in 1971 for the specific purpose of contracting
with the United States to repay the reimbursable construction costs of
the CAP that are properly allocable to CAWCD, primarily non-Indian
water supply and commercial power costs. In 1983, CAWCD was also given
authority to operate and maintain completed project features. Its
service area is comprised of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. CAWCD
is a tax-levying public improvement district, a political subdivision,
and a municipal corporation, and represents roughly 80 percent of the
water users and taxpayers of the state of Arizona. CAWCD is governed by
a 15-member Board of Directors elected from the three counties it
serves. CAWCD's Board members are public officers who serve without
pay.
Project repayment is provided for through a 1988 Master Repayment
Contract between CAWCD and the United States. Reclamation declared the
CAP water supply system (Stage 1) substantially complete in 1993, and
declared the regulatory storage stage, or Plan 6 (Stage 2), complete in
1996. No other stages are currently under construction. Project
repayment began in 1994 for Stage 1 and in 1997 for Stage 2. To date,
CAWCD has repaid $628 million of CAP construction costs to the United
States.
In 2000, CAWCD and Reclamation successfully negotiated a settlement
of the dispute regarding the amount of CAWCD's repayment obligation for
CAP construction costs. This dispute has been the subject of ongoing
litigation in United States District Court in Arizona since 1995. The
settlement provides a 3-year timeframe, ending in May 2003, in which to
complete several other activities that are necessary for the settlement
to become final, including a final Indian water rights settlement for
the Gila River Indian Community.
In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, Reclamation seeks
$34,783,000 for the CAP. Of this amount, $23,093,000 is requested for
the construction of Indian distribution systems. CAWCD continues to
support appropriations necessary to ensure timely completion of all CAP
Indian distribution systems. The CAP non-Indian distribution systems
were completed nearly 10 years ago; however, most of the Indian systems
remain incomplete. CAWCD supports full funding for this important
program.
Of the total $34,783,000 requested, $6,700,000 is earmarked to fund
activities associated with implementation of a 1994 biological opinion
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pertaining to delivery of
CAP water to the Gila River Basin and for native fish activities on the
Santa Cruz River. Historically, CAWCD has objected to Reclamation's
continued spending in these areas. Both environmental groups and CAWCD
challenged the 1994 biological opinion in court. However, given its
settlement with the United States over CAP costs, and a final judgment
in the litigation concerning the 1994 biological opinion, CAWCD
supports Reclamation's budget request to allow it to complete
Endangered Species Act compliance for CAP deliveries in the Gila River
basin.
In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, Reclamation is requesting
$10,971,000 under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project--
Title I. This program supports the operation of the Yuma Desalting
Plant (YDP), maintaining the U.S. Bypass Drain and the Mexico Bypass
Drain, and ensuring that Mexican Treaty salinity requirements are met.
Currently, Reclamation is not operating the YDP. Instead, Reclamation
is allowing all Wellton-Mohawk drainage water (about 100,000 acre-feet
per year) to bypass the YDP and flow to the Santa Clara Slough in
Mexico. These flows are in excess of Mexican Treaty requirements and
represent a significant depletion of the Colorado River water currently
in storage. Continuing this practice will eventually reduce the amount
of water available to the Central Arizona Project, the lowest priority
water user in the Colorado River basin, and increase the risk of future
shortages. The Colorado River is now in its third consecutive year of
below normal runoff, and water levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead are
projected to be at their lowest levels in 30 years. At the same time,
under interim surplus guidelines adopted for the benefit of California,
the use of Colorado River water by the Lower Basin States exceeds their
7.5 million acre-foot entitlement. Reclamation's operation of the YDP
would conserve an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado
River water for use by the Basin States. This amount is roughly equal
to the City of Phoenix's full annual entitlement to CAP water.
The Senate Report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill directed the Department of the
Interior to provide a report to the Appropriations Committee on
alternatives to meeting the Mexican Treaty obligation without operating
the YDP. We understand that this report will be completed in the next
few months and will identify alternatives that involve water supplies
that would otherwise be available for use in the lower Colorado River
basin. In our view, such options are not legitimate alternatives to
operating the YDP because they reduce the amount of water available to
the Basin States.
The YDP has been available for use since 1992. The House of
Representatives Report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill directed Reclamation to maintain
the YDP so as to be capable of operating at one-third capacity with a
1-year notice of funding. Reclamation has requested $9,739,000 (nearly
90 percent of its entire Title 1 salinity control budget) to maintain
the YDP in a non-operational status, which provides no present benefit
to the Basin States. By comparison, Reclamation states that it could
operate the YDP at full capacity--thereby preserving 100,000 acre-feet
of water each year for use within the United States--at a cost of only
$22 million. We believe that operating the YPD is the only viable way
to meet the water quantity and quality requirements of the Mexican
Treaty, while at the same time preserving Colorado River water for use
in the United States. Therefore, CAWCD requests that Congress direct
Reclamation to initiate operation of the YDP in 2003 at one-third
capacity or greater. In addition, CAWCD requests that $8 million be
added to Reclamation's budget under the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Project--Title I starting in fiscal year 2003 for this purpose.
In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, Reclamation also seeks
$12,421,00 for its Lower Colorado River Operations Program. This
program is necessary for Reclamation to continue its activities as the
``water master'' on the lower Colorado River. In addition, this program
provides Reclamation's share of funding to complete the lower Colorado
River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Of the $12,421,000
sought, $3,257,000 is for administration of the Colorado River,
$2,271,000 is for water contract administration and decree accounting,
and $6,893,000 is for fish and wildlife management and development. The
fish and wildlife management and development program includes
$4,357,000 for the MSCP.
CAWCD supports Reclamation's budget request for the Lower Colorado
River Operations Program. The increased funding level is necessary to
support the MSCP effort as well as environmental measures necessary to
fully implement the interim surplus criteria for the lower Colorado
River. The interim surplus criteria allow the Secretary of the Interior
to declare limited Colorado River surpluses for the next 15 years to
assist California in gradually reducing its use of Colorado River to
its annual apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet. These are both
critical programs upon which lower Colorado River water and power users
depend.
The MSCP is a cost-shared program among Federal and non-federal
interests to develop a long-term plan to conserve endangered species
and their habitat along the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to
Mexico. CAWCD is one of the cost-sharing partners. Development of this
program will conserve hundreds of threatened and endangered species
and, at the same time, allow current water and power operation to
continue.
Finally, CAWCD is concerned about the increase in cost of security
at Federal dams and hydropower plants, specifically Hoover Dam and
Powerplant. CAWCD relies upon Hoover power as one of its power
resources for pumping water. The Bureau of Reclamation received $30
million in the fiscal year 2002 Defense budget to cover increased costs
to protect Reclamation dams and other facilities in the aftermath of
the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. However,
Reclamation estimates it will run a deficit of $9.5 million at Hoover
Dam alone this fiscal year. The fiscal year 2003 budget request
includes $28 million. Of that amount, approximately $4 million would be
allocated to the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) and
approximately $3 million would be allocated to the Hoover, Parker and
Davis facilities. The Hoover Dam shortfall for fiscal year 2003 could
total nearly $6 million.
Legislative history from 1941 and 1942 indicates that the Congress
treated increased security costs before and after Pearl Harbor as non-
reimbursable because of the obvious national security interest at
stake. We believe that the increased costs of ensuring security of
Reclamation dams and other facilities in the aftermath of the events of
September 11, 2001, should be treated as non-reimbursable and payment
of such costs should be funded through Federal appropriations.
Additional relief for fiscal year 2002 should be considered as well as
increased amounts for fiscal year 2003.
CAWCD welcomes this opportunity to share its views with the
Committee, and would be pleased to respond to any questions or
observations occasioned by this written testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Flagstaff
Chairman Reid, Ranking Member Domenici, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of
the City of Flagstaff in support of $1.2 million in the Army Corps of
Engineers budget for the Rio de Flag flood control project in fiscal
year 2003. I believe this project is critically important to the City,
to northern Arizona, and, ultimately, to the nation.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, with this subcommittee's help last
year, Rio de Flag received $750,000. We are extremely grateful that the
Subcommittee added $600,000 in the conference report for the project,
and we would appreciate your continued support for this project in
fiscal year 2003.
Like many other projects under the Army Corps's jurisdiction, Rio
de Flag received insufficient funding of $150,000 in the president's
budget for fiscal year 2003, although the Corps has expressed
capability of $1.2 million; $880,000 to complete the design, and
$320,000 to commence construction. We are hopeful that the Subcommittee
will fund the Rio de Flag project at $1.2 million when drafting its
bill in order to keep the project on an optimal schedule.
Flooding along the Rio de Flag dates back as far as 1888. The Army
Corps has identified a Federal interest in solving this long-standing
flooding problem through the Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The
recommended plan contained in this feasibility report was developed
based on the following opportunities: (1) flood control and flood
damage reduction; (2) environmental mitigation and enhancement; (3)
water resource management; (4) public recreation; and (5) redevelopment
opportunities. This plan will result in benefits to not only the local
community, but to the region and the nation.
The feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers has revealed that a
500-year flood could cause serious economic hardship to the City. In
fact, a devastating 500-year flood could damage or destroy
approximately 1,500 structures valued at more than $395 million.
Similarly, a 100-year flood would cause an estimated $95 million in
damages. In the event of a catastrophic flood, over half of Flagstaff's
population of 57,000 would be directly impacted or affected.
In addition, a wide range of residential, commercial, downtown
business and tourism, and industrial properties are at risk. Damages
could also occur to numerous historic structures and historic Route 66.
The Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), one of the primary
east-west corridors for rail freight, could be destroyed, as well as
U.S. Highway 40, one of the country's most important east-west highway
links. Additionally, a significant portion of Northern Arizona
University (NAU) could incur catastrophic physical damages,
disruptions, and closings. Public infrastructure (e.g., streets,
bridges, water, and sewer facilities), and franchised utilities (e.g.,
power and telecommunications) could be affected or destroyed.
Transportation disruptions could make large areas of the City
inaccessible for days.
In short, a large flood could cripple Flagstaff for years and even
decades. That is why the City believes it is so important to ensure
that this project remains on schedule and that the Corps is able to
maximize its capability of $1.2 million in fiscal year 2003 for Rio de
Flag.
In the City's discussions with the Corps, both the central office
in Washington and its Los Angeles District Office also believe that the
Rio de Flag project is of the utmost importance and both offices
believe the project should be placed high on the Subcommittee's
priority list. We are hopeful that the Subcommittee will heed this
advice and also place the project high on its priority list and fully
fund the project at $1.2 million for fiscal year 2003.
As you may know, project construction and implementation of Rio de
Flag was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
2000. The total project is estimated to cost $24,072,000 (October 1999
price levels). The non-Federal share is currently $8,496,000 and the
Federal share is currently $15,576,000. Final project costs must be
adjusted based on Value Engineering and final design features. It is
important to note that the City of Flagstaff has already committed more
than $10 million to this project, which is well in excess of its cost
share agreement and shows the City's commitment to completing this
important project. Through this investment in the project, the City is
prepared to enter into the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the
Department of the Army.
The City of Flagstaff, as the non-Federal sponsor, is responsible
for all costs related to required Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way,
Relocations, and Disposals (LERRD's). The City has already secured the
necessary property rights to begin construction in 2003. Implementation
of the City's Downtown and Southside Redevelopment Initiatives
($100,000,000 in private funds) are entirely dependent on the success
of the Rio de Flag project. The Rio de Flag project will also provide a
critical missing bike/pedestrian connection under Route 66 and the BNSF
Railroad to replace the existing hazardous at grade crossings.
Both design and construction are divided into two phases. Phase I
is currently scheduled to commence construction in July of 2003. Phase
II of the project is scheduled to commence in April of 2004.
Mr. Chairman, the Rio de Flag project is exactly the kind of
project that was envisioned when the Corps was created because it will
avert catastrophic floods, it will save lives and property, and it will
promote economic growth. In short, this project is a win-win for the
Federal Government, the City, and the surrounding communities.
Furthermore, the amount of money invested in this project by the
Federal Government approximately $15 million will be saved
exponentially in costs to the Federal Government in the case of a large
and catastrophic flood, which could be more than $395 million. It will
also promote economic growth and redevelopment along areas that are
currently uninhabitable because of the flood potential.
In conclusion, the Rio de Flag project should be considered a high
priority for this Subcommittee, and I encourage you to support full
funding of $1.2 million for this project in the fiscal year 2003 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill. Thank you in advance for
your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of South Carolina
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, on behalf
of the citizens of the Palmetto State, thank you for this opportunity
to submit for the record comments regarding the fiscal year 2003 Water
and Energy Appropriations Bill.
I can not emphasize too strongly the social and economic benefits
of the capital investments of the Federal Government in a wide variety
of projects throughout South Carolina. Whether making our ports more
accessible for global trade or enhancing the interior waterways and
beaches of South Carolina, your interest and commitment to my state has
had a long lasting and positive impact. It is my hope that proven
cooperation and collaboration between state and Federal agencies
regarding ongoing and future projects will continue to enhance the
quality of life for all South Carolinians. Thank you for your
committee's interest and investments in the Palmetto State.
My comments reflect input from my staff and also from principal
state agencies that work most closely with the USACE Charleston and
Savannah District Offices. These agencies include the State Ports
Authority, the S.C. Department of Natural Resources, the S.C.
Department of Health and Environmental Control, S.C. Energy Office and
the S.C. Department of Commerce. Attached to my testimony, as
``Supporting Documents'' are all letters received from state agency
directors as well as individual descriptions of the on-going and
planned, USACE projects throughout South Carolina (Attachments to
Committee Staff). All of the projects listed and described in the
``Supporting Documents'' are critical for South Carolina. All of the
projects recommended for full financing in the President's budget have
my full support. I also request, however, that your committee finance
as many additional projects not recommended in the President's budget
as possible. My comments below are not intended to emphasize one
project more than another but to highlight comments made by state
agency directors regarding the importance of several of these projects
to the state. Please review the letters from S.C. agency directors for
their input on projects of importance to them.
South Carolina has made great strides in expanding economic
opportunities for its citizens both in terms of expansion of the
capital base and creation of jobs. We are, however, a small state and
our relative prosperity is reliant to a significant degree upon
financing such as that available through your Appropriations Committee.
I want to emphasize to you and your colleagues the importance I place
on the value of the partnership between the State and Federal
Governments in making life more fulfilling for all of my fellow
citizens.
Again, thank you for this opportunity for input into the
challenging decision making process you face in apportioning limited
funds among many needs across the United Stated. I do want to re-
emphasize that all of the projects listed in the ``Supporting
Documents'' are of importance to South Carolina.
general investigations
A total of $625,000 is needed for fiscal year 2003 to keep the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Feasibility Analysis proceeding in a
phased approach. This study will investigate existing and future
commercial shallow draft navigation needs and will review ways to
improve safety and navigation efficiency and reduce operations and
maintenance costs. Additional financing of $150,000 is needed for this
critical analysis. I request that your committee add this amount so the
study can proceed.
The Port of Charleston is rapidly expanding and continues to
fulfill its role as a major port for the eastern United States. The
S.C. Ports Authority is believes that to keep the port fully
competitive in global movement of goods it may be necessary to deepen
the ship channel more than its current 45 feet. The Authority requests
an additional $320,000 for the Charleston Harbor (Reconnaissance
Deepening Analysis) to be undertaken. I concur that it is necessary
before any further investment is made to deepen the channel and enlarge
the Wando River Turning Basin.
Also of concern to the State is the Savannah River Basin
Comprehensive Study. This study being conducted in cooperation with the
State of Georgia examines reallocation of water storage among Corps of
Engineer Projects and to develop a better management structure to
address basin water resource needs. This project has considerable
economic and social benefits to South Carolina as it addresses flood
control, water supply, power generation and wildlife habitat
restoration. An additional $280,000 is needed for this general
investigation.
construction
The President's recommended funding level for the Charleston Harbor
(Deepening & Widening) of $4,539,000 is appreciated as this national
economic asset can continue to function competitively for world
markets. However, given the growing concerns of terrorism and military
readiness to meet this threat, an additional $2.841 million is
requested. The military's transportation and logistics assets in
Charleston are key elements in the war on terrorism. The need to
accommodate military traffic is essential to our ability in
successfully overcoming this threat. Continued funding for this project
has considerable benefits not only for the state but also for the
nation's overall defense.
The Aquatic Plant Control project is strongly recommended for
funding in the amount of $250,000. This program has been operating for
a number of years and provides important economic and environmental
benefits. Noxious plants aquatic plants severely threaten the integrity
of the State's waterways and has a direct impact on public drinking
water, electric power generation, navigation, flood control and
industrial water usage. I strongly support continued funding for this
program.
The President's recommended budget indicates no funding for the
Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, Wildlife Mitigation Lands project. We
support the inclusion of additional funds for this effort in the amount
of $4,850,000. These lands are an important wildlife resource area to
the State. The provision for the transfer of these lands and funds from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the State is a significant element
of the State's strategy to protect critical areas and promote
conservation of fragile lands. Similarly, South Carolina also supports
Federal financial assistance for the Continued Authorities Program at
current levels.
The J. Strom Thurmond Dam & Lake Construction shows potential for
increased efficiency and a reduction in operation and maintenance
costs. The President has recommended $3.5 million in his budget but a
further $4.5 million is needed. Moreover, the project will increase
dissolved oxygen in tail water and improve water quality in the
Savannah River downstream to Augusta, Georgia and beyond. The need for
heightened hydroelectric output at this station as well as the projects
at the Hartwell Dam and Lake are critical in this time of high
electricity demand.
operation & maintenance (o&m)
The Operations and Maintenance Program as it relates to Harbor
Maintenance at Charleston, Georgetown, and Port Royal is critical for
the continued full functioning of these facilities. Charleston Harbor
needs an additional $2.444 million for dredging the lower end of the
channel and harbor entrance. A further $1.540 million is needed for
dredging of the Lower Winyah Bay at Georgetown. At Port Royal a further
$2.222 million is required for dredging of the length of the channel.
These additional funds are necessary for optimal operations of
important S.C. ports.
The Cooper River, Charleston Harbor project is also an important
element to the State's water transportation and natural resource needs.
While the President's budget recommends partial funding, I support an
additional $4.10 million in funding for the operational needs of the
harbor and related powerhouse structures.
Dredging of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from Charleston to
Port Royal, Dike Maintenance, and Bank Stabilization will require a
further $3.334 million for this important project to be completed.
Funding in the President's budget is for only condition surveys and
vector control. This project should be fully funded for the AIWW to
operate at peak design capacity.
Operation and Maintenance of Facilities at Dams along the Savannah
River North of Augusta, Georgia. Specifically, at the Hartwell Dam and
Lake, an additional $2.114 million is needed to repair and modernize
the powerhouse and equipment. Moreover, full Federal financing relating
to all three facilities along the Savannah River ensures their
continuing vital participation in the economic life of the two affected
states, guarantee that water quality is at highest levels, and offer
improved recreational opportunities for the citizens of S.C. and
Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, we in South Carolina are mindful of the
impact that the economic downturn is having on the ability of the
Federal Government to continue sizable budget surpluses. Moreover, we
are aware that resources are not unlimited and priorities must be
established. However, South Carolina contributes uniquely to the
national welfare. Healthy military installations, coastal geography,
interstate trade routes and key ports are all contributors to a growing
economy and individual prosperity within South Carolina and the
Southeast. We have made giant strides forward in South Carolina in part
because of your investment of Federal dollars in a wide variety of
projects. I look forward to continuing cooperation with you and your
committee.
Please let me know if you need further information and, again,
thank you for this opportunity to give input into your decision making
process.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of Volusia, Florida
On behalf of our citizens and fishermen, Volusia County, Florida
requests that the Energy & Water Development Subcommittee appropriate:
--$1,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) Construction account to fund an 1000 foot oceanward
extension of the South Jetty of the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. The
total authorized cost of this project is $5,454,000; the
Federal share is $2,988,000 and the local share is $2,466,000.
This requested $1 million of the $2.988 million Federal share
of the construction funds for the South Jetty oceanward
extension is essential to protect the Inlet, along with the
existing North Jetty and its landward extension funded in
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2002.
--$100,000 in fiscal year 2003 to the COE's General Investigations
account to fund the reconnaissance study authorized by a
resolution adopted by the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on February 16, 2000. The reconnaissance study would
address the critical erosion along the County's 49.5 miles of
ocean shoreline, which was heavily damaged during the 1999
hurricane season and continues to suffer from continuous storm-
induced erosion.
A more detailed case history and description of the situation and
projects follow below.
The Ponce DeLeon Inlet is located on the east coast of Florida,
about 10 miles south of the City of Daytona Beach in Volusia County.
The Inlet is a natural harbor connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the
Halifax River and the Indian River North. The Ponce DeLeon Inlet
provides the sole ocean access to all of Volusia County. Fishing
parties and shrimp and commercial fisherman bound for New Smyrna Beach
or Daytona Beach use the Inlet, as well as others entering for
anchorage. Nearby fisheries enhanced by the County's artificial reef
program attract both commercial and sport fisherman. Head boat
operators also provide trips to view marine life and space shuttle
launches from Cape Canaveral. In addition, there is a U.S. Coast Guard
Lifeboat Station on the east shore of the Indian River less than a mile
south of the Inlet.
Unfortunately, the Inlet is highly unstable and, despite numerous
navigation projects, continues to threaten safe passage for the charter
boat operators and commercial fisherman who rely on the access it
provides for their livelihood. Recreational boaters and Coast Guard
operators are also at risk passing through this unstable inlet. The
shoaling of the channels in the Inlet so restricts dependable
navigation that the Coast Guard no longer marks the north channel in
order to discourage its use. The Coast Guard continues to move the
south and entrance channel markers and provides warnings that local
knowledge and extreme caution must be used in navigating the inlet.
More seriously, the Coast Guard search and rescue data for fiscal years
1981-1995 show that 20 deaths have resulted from vessels capsizing in
the Inlet, the direct result of the Inlet's instability. 147 vessels
capsized and 496 vessels ran aground in the Inlet during the same
period.
The Federal interest in navigation through the Ponce DeLeon Inlet
dates back to 1884 and continues to the present. The existing
navigation project was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1965. The construction authorized by that Act, including ocean jetties
on the north and south sides of the Inlet, was completed in July 1972.
It became evident soon after completion of the authorized project that
the project did not bring stability to the Inlet. A strong northeaster
in February 1973 created a breach between the western end of the North
Jetty and the sand spit the Jetty was connected to inside the Inlet.
The breach allowed schoaling to occur that was serious enough to close
boat yards and require almost $2 million worth of repairs, including
extending the western end of the North Jetty.
Under the existing maintenance agreement entered into upon
completion of the construction, the COE periodically performs
maintenance on the Inlet. Maintenance projects have included several
dredging efforts, adding stone sections to the south side of the north
jetty, extending the westward end of the North Jetty for the second
time, and closing the North Jetty weir. Prior to the North Jetty
project discussed below, the COE's last maintenance was dredging,
completed on the entrance channel in January 1990.
In fiscal year 1998, the COE received a $3,500,000 appropriation
for emergency maintenance on the North Jetty. Migration of the entrance
channel undermined the North Jetty, seriously threatening its
structural integrity. The fiscal year 1998 funds were used to construct
a granite rock scour apron for the 500 to 600 feet of where the Jetty
was undermined.
In fiscal year 1999, the COE received $4,034,000 from the
Operations and Maintenance account to extend the North Jetty of the
Inlet landward by 800 feet. This maintenance project is underway and
intended to be completed as soon as possible to prevent the erosion
that will cause outflanking of the North Jetty. Continued outflanking
of the west end of the North Jetty could create a new inlet for the
Halifax and Indian Rivers resulting in major changes to the Ponce
DeLeon Inlet. The resultant shoaling of both the north and south
channels, as well as changes to the entrance channel, would make
passage through the inlet extremely dangerous and unpredictable.
In fiscal year 2000, the COE received $7,696,000 in their
Operations and Maintenance account for use in the Ponce DeLeon Inlet.
This appropriation provided funding to continue the North Jetty
project, funding for surveys designed to determine the scope of a new
maintenance contract for the Ponce De Leon Inlet, and funding for a
dredging project to address a minor maintenance issue under the
existing maintenance contract.
In fiscal year 2001, the COE received $46,000 in their Operations
and Maintenance account for standard maintenance of the Ponce DeLeon
Inlet.
For the next fiscal year, Volusia County requests that the COE
receive $1 million of the $2.988 million Federal share of the
construction funds for the South Jetty oceanward extension. The COE
anticipates that the construction of the jetty extensions will help
stabilize the Inlet and reduce future maintenance costs. In addition to
creating a safer navigation environment, completion of the North and
South Jetty will save future federal maintenance costs.
The Ponce DeLeon Inlet presents a serious engineering challenge,
the success of which is measured in terms of human life and vessel
damage. The existing project has failed to stabilize the Inlet.
Extending the North Jetty was the first step toward correcting the
failure and meeting the challenge. Funding the beginning phase of the
1,000 foot oceanward extension of the South Jetty in fiscal year 2003
is the next critical step toward providing safe passage for the
commercial and recreational boaters in Volusia County. State entities,
including the Florida Inland Navigation District and the Florida Bureau
of Beaches and Coastal Systems, agree and have committed to assisting
the County in meeting the local cost share. In addition, providing
these funds at this time is likely to prevent the need for a much more
substantial maintenance project in the near future.
In addition to the jetty projects to protect the Ponce DeLeon
Inlet, the County also requests funding for the COE to complete in
fiscal year 2003, a reconnaissance study to address the critical
erosion along the County's 49.5 miles of ocean shoreline. In August
1991, the COE completed a favorable reconnaissance report for the shore
protection study authorized by the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in September 1988. The County declined to act
as the non-federal sponsor for the feasibility study at that time. The
COE modified the 1991 reconnaissance study in 1994. As a result of
heavy damage to the County's shoreline sustained during the 1999
hurricane season, the County recognizes the critical need to address
the growing impact of the storm-induced erosion. The COE will need to
modify the earlier studies. The COE advises the County that the shore
protection reconnaissance study can be completed in fiscal year 2003
for $100,000.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE). The Tribe asks that Congress provide $19,526,000 in the COE's
construction budget for critical projects in the South Florida
Ecosystem, as authorized in section 208 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1999. On January 7, 2000, the Tribe and the
COE signed a Project Coordination Agreement for the Big Cypress
Reservation's critical project. The Tribe's critical project includes a
complex water conservation plan and a canal that transverses the
Reservation. In signing this Agreement, the Tribe, as the local
sponsor, committed to funding half of the cost of this approximately
$50 million project. Design and planning efforts continue, and the
first phase of construction is about to commence.
The Tribe's critical project is a part of the Tribe's Everglades
Restoration Initiative, which includes the design and construction of a
comprehensive water conservation system. This project is designed to
improve the water quality and natural hydropatterns in the Big Cypress
Basin. This project will contribute to the overall success of both the
Federal and the State Governments' multi-agency effort to preserve and
restore the delicate ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. In
recognition of this contribution, the Seminole Tribe's Restoration
Initiative has been endorsed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force.
the seminole tribe of florida
The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
members with their livelihood. Our traditional Seminole cultural,
religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found
protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, we learned how to use
the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the
sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
National Park.
The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
degradation wrought by decades of Federal flood control construction
and polluted urban and other agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet
flow and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the
spread of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid
spread of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and
sawgrass necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports
the wildlife of the Everglades.
The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration project to
allow the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing or eliminating
impacts on the Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving
the water quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have
already committed significant resources to the design of this project
and to our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are
willing to continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our
cultural survival is at stake.
seminole tribe's big cypress critical project
The Tribe has developed a water conservation plan that will enable
us to meet new water quality standards essential to the cleanup of our
part of the Everglades ecosystem and to plan for the storage and
conveyance of our water rights. The Tribe's Everglades Restoration
Initiative is designed to mitigate the degradation the ecosystem has
suffered through decades of flood control projects and urban and
agricultural use and ultimately to restore the nation's largest
wetlands to a healthy state.
The Seminole Tribe's critical project, a part of the water
conservation plan, provides for the design and construction of flood
control, storage, and treatment facilities on the western half of the
Big Cypress reservation with other conveyance facilities on the eastern
side. The project elements include canal and pump conveyance systems,
including major canal bypass structures, irrigation storage cells, and
water qualilty polishing areas. This project will enable the Tribe to
meet proposed numeric target for low phosphorus concentrations that is
being used for design purposes by State and Federal authorities, as
well as to convey and store irrigation water and improve flood control.
It will also provide an important public benefit: a new system to
convey excess water from the western basins to the Big Cypress National
Preserve, where water is vitally needed for rehydration and restoration
of natural systems within the Preserve.
conclusion
Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big
Cypress National Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to
restoring the Everglades for future generations. Congress has
acknowledged this need through the passage of the last three Water
Resource Development Acts. This Committee has consistently shown its
support through appropriating requested amounts over the last 5 fiscal
years. By continuing to grant this appropriation request for critical
project funding, the Federal Government will take another substantive
step towards improving the quality of the surface water that flows over
the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate Everglades
ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big Cypress
Reservation, which is Federal land held in trust for the Tribe, will
send a clear message that the Federal Government is committed to
Everglades restoration and the Tribe's stewardship of its land.
Completion of the critical project requires a substantial
commitment from the Tribe, including the dedication of over 2,400 acres
of land for water management improvements and meeting a 50/50 cost
share. The Tribe has initiated the first phase of construction with the
main conveyance canal. As the Tribe moves forward with its contribution
to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, increasing Federal
financial assistance will be needed as well.
The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the Federal
Government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
just the Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
information upon request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association
The National Mining Association (NMA) membership includes companies
engaged in the production of coal, metallic ores, nonmetallic minerals,
and in manufacturing mining machinery and equipment. The transportation
of coal and minerals to domestic and international markets utilizes our
nation's inland waterways system, Great Lakes, coastal shipping lanes
and harbors and shipping channels at deep draft inland and coastal
ports.
NMA believes that a strong transportation network comprised of our
highways, rails, inland waterways and ports is critical to the economic
growth, security and competitiveness of the United States. NMA supports
appropriations needed for timely operation and maintenance activities
as well as, investments in system improvements to meet current and
projected demand for marine transportation services.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce
Statistics of 1999, approximately 2.3 billion tons of commerce moved in
the U.S. marine system (inland waterways, Great Lakes, coastal and
deep-draft ports). Of that total, approximately 1.1 billion tons were
domestic movements with coal comprising approximately 219 million tons
or 20 percent of all commodities. Of the 219 million tons of coal,
166.6 million tons were carried on the inland and intracoastal
waterways, 20.5 million tons on the Great Lakes and the remainder moved
in coastwise and intraport shipments. On the Ohio River system and its
tributaries, coal movements totaled 151 million tons or 54 percent of
all the traffic. Coal moved to power plants along the system and to
power plants in 8 States outside of the basin. In addition, 58.5
million tons of coal was exported to more than 40 countries in 1999.
Iron ore, phosphate rock, and other minerals also utilize the
inland waterways system. In 1999, slightly more than 58 million tons of
iron ore moved on the system. Of that 54.2 million tons moved on the
Great Lakes and 3.5 million tons on the inland system. More than 5.4
million tons of phosphate rock moved on the waterways system through
coastwise movements.
NMA is very concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2003 Budget for
the Corps of Engineers does not provide sufficient funding to keep
critical navigation projects on schedule, allow for the start of new
projects, nor address the maintenance backlog for existing navigation
projects. The unique partnership for sharing construction and
rehabilitation costs between the public and private sectors has built a
marine transportation system that is world class and considered by many
to be the best system in the world. As the system is asked to do more,
it is critical that all parties are committed and a critical
demonstration of the commitment is through appropriations levels that
address the current challenges facing the system and plan for future
demands.
General Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriations for the
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program
NMA reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2003 Appropriations for the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Civil Works Program and has the
following general recommendations.
A minimum of $5 billion should be appropriated in fiscal year 2003
for the Civil Works Program. This level balances the need to address
the significant $44 billion project backlog and the capability of the
Corps with our nation's need at this time for homeland security and
national defense.
A level of $150 million should be withdrawn from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund to be matched by an equal appropriations from the
general fund for the construction and major rehabilitation of locks and
dams on the inland waterway system. By maintaining this level of
appropriations for the next 10 years, the surplus in the Trust Fund can
be reduced to more appropriate levels. Timely completion of these
required navigation projects are critical to a viable and reliable
national waterways system.
The fiscal year 2003 appropriation for the Corps' General
Investigations account should be increased to $154.4 million, the same
level as appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The $51 million proposed
reduction will not permit the Corps to undertake any new studies. These
studies are critical to ascertaining and developing future projects
that will be needed to maintain and improve our system.
The fiscal year 2003 proposed funding in the amount of $1.979
billion for the Corps' Operations and Maintenance functions should be
increased. The Corps' testimony on February 27 before the Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development stated that the critical maintenance
backlog is estimated to be $884 million. This is $182 million, or a 26
percent increase, above the fiscal year 2002 critical maintenance
backlog of $702 million. The critical maintenance backlog for
navigation is $587 million. While the fiscal year 2003 budget request
is $40 million more than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002,
sufficient funds should be appropriated to reduce the backlog to the
fiscal year 2002 level. By not properly maintaining the system, one in
which approximately 45 percent of the locks and dams are more than 50
years old, the need for major rehabilitation work and replacement
projects is accelerated and possibly at higher costs than were
necessary. Additional funds should be appropriated in the coming years
to reduce the large maintenance backlog.
Inland Waterways System B Surplus in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
For many years, the funding level for the Corps' Civil Works budget
has been inadequate and led to additional costs and delays for projects
underway. One-half of the of lock and dam construction and major
rehabilitation funds comes from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF),
which receives 20 cents from a 24.3 cents per gallon tax on the fuel
used for inland waterways barge operations. The General Treasury
receives the remaining 4.3 cents. Commercial users are the only
beneficiaries of the inland waterways system who pay a fuel tax.
Beneficiaries who receive flood control, water supply, recreational and
other benefits do not contribute to the construction or maintenance of
the system providing these benefits.
For the last 10 years, the Federal Government has not allocated
sufficient funds to these projects to keep up with the revenues flowing
into the IWTF. The result as of September 30, 2001 is a Fund surplus of
$411 million according to The Bureau of Public Debt, U.S. Department of
the Treasury. The constraint on the construction and rehabilitation
projects has not been the revenue collected from the fuel tax but the
limited level of funding appropriated from the IWTF. It is time to
address the backlog and to appropriate funds to finish the projects
underway and for the country to begin to receive the economic, safety
and security benefits from a modernized system.
The Inland Waterways Users Board in its 15th Annual Report to the
Secretary of the Army and the United States Congress (August 2001)
stated its concerns. ``The Board firmly believes the future balanced
budgets and our future economic competitiveness will be built upon a
solid national infrastructure, of which the inland waterways are a
significant, key component. Thus, the Board strongly endorses an
appropriations and allocation process that will allow optimum use of
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and allow construction projects to
proceed at full capability funding levels.''
The fiscal year 2003 budget proposes that the IWTF contribute $85
million to the Construction General program funds. While this is an
increase compared to the comparable fiscal year 2002 budget request of
$61 million, it is still far below the level that is necessary to
reduce the surplus in the IWFT, which would address the delayed
completion dates and the resulting delays in transportation savings.
Beginning in fiscal year 1993 and continuing through fiscal year 2001,
the balance in the IWTR grew from approximately $187 million to $411
million. NMA hopes the proposed increase in funds allocated from the
IWTF in the fiscal year 2003 indicates that the Administration
understands the importance of these projects and will pursue a policy
of reducing the surplus in the Fund.
Budget Proposals Supported by NMA
NMA strongly supports the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal to increase funding for two priority projects: the
construction of the new Olmsted Locks and Dam on the Ohio River
(between Illinois and Kentucky) and the major rehabilitation of the
London Locks and Dam on the Kanawha River in West Virginia. The
proposed fiscal year 2003 funding level of $77 million for the Olmsted
project and $11.9 million for the London project illustrate the
approach that should be taken for other priority projects as well. Both
of the proposed funding levels put the projects on efficient funding
schedules. In the case of the Olmsted project, maintaining this level
will ensure that the project is operational by 2010 rather than further
aggravating a 4-year delay in the project.
Attached to the testimony is a list of projects that NMA supports
for additional appropriations to permit efficient funding schedules. By
appropriating funds at the level to permit efficient funding schedules,
the backlogs will end and the nation will be able to realize the
economic benefits that were projected when these projects were
authorized.
Regarding studies, NMA also supports the Administration's proposal
to fund the Ohio Mainstem Study, a navigation system analysis, at a $3
million level. The feasibility phase will address the economic, social
and environmental impacts of large-scale investments and small-scale
improvements for additional lock capacity on the system. Navigation
facilities under review are Newburgh and Cannelton Locks and Dams on
the lower Ohio and Elmsworth, Dashields and Montgomery Locks and Dams
on the Upper Ohio River.
Ports
Our nation's ports and harbors provide the critical link in our
marine transportation system that provide U.S. shippers, both importers
and exporters, with options that maximize their ability to compete and
remain competitive in a global marketplace. U.S. deep-draft commercial
ports handle over 95 percent of the volume and 75 percent of the value
of cargo moving in and out of the United States. For the U.S. mining
industry, coal, iron ore, phosphate, and other minerals move to export
out of U.S. ports. In addition, minerals critical to the United States
are imported through our ports. Unfortunately, many of these minerals
could be produced in the United States but current policies are making
it increasingly difficult for U.S. mineral companies to remain in the
country. By providing the United States with much needed minerals from
domestic sources, our reliance on imports would be reduced and equally
important new jobs would be created contributing to the country's
economic strength.
The proposed fiscal year 2003 budget proposes only $267 million,
which represents half of the $534 million necessary to fund ongoing and
new projects for deep-draft harbors. As with inland waterways projects,
failure to maintain optimal schedules increase costs and delay project
benefits. NMA was pleased to see funding requested for the Baltimore
Harbor and Norfolk Harbor projects.
Conclusion
NMA understands that our country is faced with difficult budget
decisions. However, as a country we cannot afford to neglect the
continued improvement and maintenance of our Federal navigation system.
Failure to continue our investment and commitment to all aspects of our
marine system will have serious long-term consequences for our nation's
economic health, safety and security.
NMA's Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriations Request for Inland Waterways
Projects
FISCAL YEAR 2003--APPROPRIATIONS LEVELS SUPPORTED BY NMA
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Efficient
2003 Request Funding Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olmsted Lock and Dam.................. $77 $77
London Lock and Dam................... 11.9 11.9
Ohio River Mainstem Study............. 3 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2003--Project Appropriation Levels Needing Additional Funds
CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Efficient
2003 Request Funding Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McAlpine Locks Replacement Project...... $6.2 $30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Located in downtown Louisville, Kentucky and near Jefferson,
Indiana, the project provides for a new 1200-foot lock that will
replace an inactive 56-foot by 360-foot lock and a 110-foot by 600-foot
auxiliary lock. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterborne Commerce Statistics for 1999, almost 55 million tons of
commodities valued at $11.9 billion were shipped through the locks.
Coal, the leading commodity comprised 38 percent of the shipments.
Louisiana shipped the most tonnage with 16 million tons worth $4.3
billion. Ohio received the most tonnage with 10.3 million tons valued
at 2.3 billion. Iron and steel was the number one commodity shipped for
both States. The total project cost is $278 million with $218 needed to
complete the project. The project is 5 years behind schedule with a
current loss of $173 million in benefits. Since April 2001, one
remaining 1200-foot lock remains operational. If something happens to
that lock, severe disruption of commerce would occur while repairs are
made (45-60 days).
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Efficient
2003 Request Funding Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4.............. $36 $63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Located on the Monongahela River near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania this
project replaces some of the oldest structures (some parts are more
than 100 years old) operating in the inland system. The extreme
structural deterioration of Dam 2 and Locks 3 and Dam 3 are of major
concern. The Corps has determined that major repairs and rehabilitation
will not prevent structural failure, which would cost the economy
hundreds of millions of dollars. According to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics for 1999, 24.5 billion tons of
commodities valued at $1.7 billion where shipped through any or all of
the locks. Coal comprised 88 percent of the tonnage moving through the
locks. Pennsylvania received and shipped the most tonnage through the
locks with coal the number one commodity. Construction began on the
$705 million project in 1995 with a benefit-to-cost-ratio of 3.5 and
average annual benefits estimated at $30 million. Approximately $500
million is needed to finish the project. The project is 6 years behind
schedule.
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Efficient
2003 Request Funding Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marmet Locks and Dams................... $10.97 $58
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Located on the Kanawha River near Belle, West Virginia this project
includes the construction of an additional 110-foot by 800-foot lock
landward of the existing smaller dams, which would be converted to
auxiliary status. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterborne Commerce Statistic for 1999, 15 million tons of commodities
valued at $711 million were shipped through the locks. West Virginia
shipped the most tonnage with 14.4 million tons valued at $595 million.
Ohio received the most tonnage with 5.7 million tons valued at $231
million. For both States, coal was the number one commodity shipped.
The project cost is $313 million with a remaining benefit-to-cost ratio
of 4 and average annual benefits estimated at $236 million.
Approximately $236 million is needed to finish the project.
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Efficient
2003 Request Funding Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky Lock........................... $27.4 $45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Located on the Tennessee River near Grand Rivers, Tennessee this
project includes the addition of a 110-foot by 1,200-foot lock and the
relocation of an existing railroad, highway and powerhouse access road.
Construction began on this project in 1998 and the total cost of $533
million and average annual benefits estimated at $55 million.
Approximately, $464 million is needed to finish the project. If the
project is funded at the efficient funding level of $45 million, it
will be completed in the 2008 timeframe. If the project is annually
funded at the fiscal year 2003 request of $27.4 million, the completion
time could increase by up to 17 years.
preconstruction engineering and design
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Efficient
2003 Request Funding Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. T. Myers Locks and Dam............... $1.3 $2.1
Greenup and Locks and Dam............... 1.3 2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The John T. Myers and Greenup Locks Improvements Interim
Feasibility Report, which was a product of the Ohio River Mainstem
Study, recommends a 600-foot extension of the auxiliary chambers at
both locations along the Ohio River. Both projects were authorized in
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The Greenup project is
expected to cost $175 with a benefit/cost ratio of 2.6 to 1. John T.
Myers is expected to cost $182 million with a benefit/cost ratio of 2
to 1.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Santa Barbara, California
operations and maintenance dredging
As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2003
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Bill, I would like to bring a
very important Corps of Engineers project to your attention.
Every winter, approximately 400,000 cubic yards of sand piles up at
Santa Barbara Harbor, and in years of severe storms, the accumulated
sand can close the channel, bringing local fishing and other businesses
in the Harbor to a standstill.
There is an important Federal interest in maintaining dredging at
the Harbor. It provides slips and moorings for over 1,150 commercial,
emergency and recreational boats. It is also an important part of Coast
Guard operations on California's central coast. The Harbor is homeport
to the USCG cutter Blackfin, an 82 ft. emergency response vessel.
The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget recommendation includes
$1,800,000 for operations and maintenance dredging for Santa Barbara
Harbor. I respectfully request that the U.S. Senate, through your
Subcommittee, maintain that level of funding included in the
President's Budget Request.
new construction project--dredge acquisition
The President's fiscal year 2003 Budget recommendation also
includes project funding for a potential new construction project in
Santa Barbara. The City of Santa Barbara and the Corps of Engineers
have pursued a proposal to design and construct a dredge for annual
operation and maintenance dredging of our harbor.
Federal funding for this project has been previously appropriated.
However, the City of Santa Barbara at this time is unable to contribute
the required 20 percent of local sponsor funding. The City remains
interested in the dredge acquisition project and, together with the
Corps of Engineers, requests an additional $100,000 in order to prepare
the necessary plans and specifications for the project. The President's
fiscal year 2003 Budget Request includes $100,000 for the dredge
acquisition project for the Santa Barbara Harbor. I respectfully
request that the U.S. Senate, through your Subcommittee, maintain that
level of funding included in the President's Budget Request. Thank you
for the opportunity to submit this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Arizona
Dear Chairman Reid: As the representative of the people of Arizona,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to enter testimony into
the record concerning our support of items in the fiscal year 2003
budget for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
I also would like to thank the committee, the Senate and the
Congress for its continuing support for our issues, since the Bureau's
activities assist us in providing the essential lifeline in the arid
Southwest.
We would like to present testimony in two sections: the statement
of the Central Arizona Project and the statement of the City of
Phoenix.
central arizona project
Background
The Central Arizona Project or ``CAP'' was authorized by the 90th
Congress of the United States under the Colorado River Basin Project
Act of 1968. The CAP is a multi-purpose water resource development
project consisting of a series of canals, tunnels, dams, and pumping
plants that lift water nearly 3,000 feet over a distance of 336 miles
from Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to the Tucson area. The project
was designed to deliver the remainder of Arizona's entitlement of
Colorado River water into the central and southern portions of the
state for municipal and industrial, agricultural, and Indian uses.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initiated project
construction in 1973, and the first water was delivered into the
Phoenix metropolitan area in 1985. In 2000, CAP delivered its full
normal year entitlement of 1.5 million acre-feet for the first time,
allowing Arizona to utilize its full Colorado River apportionment of
2.8 million acre-feet.
The Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) was created
in 1971 for the specific purpose of contracting with the United States
to repay the reimbursable construction costs of the CAP that are
properly allocable to CAWCD, primarily non-Indian water supply and
commercial power costs. In 1983, CAWCD also was given authority to
operate and maintain completed project features. Its service area is
comprised of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. CAWCD is a tax-levying
public improvement district, a political subdivision, and a municipal
corporation, and represents roughly 80 percent of the water users and
taxpayers of the state of Arizona. CAWCD is governed by a 15-member
Board of Directors elected from the three counties it serves. CAWCD's
Board members are public officers who serve without pay. Project
repayment is provided for through a 1988 Master Repayment Contract
between CAWCD and the United States. Reclamation declared the CAP water
supply system (Stage 1) substantially complete in 1993, and declared
the regulatory storage stage, or Plan 6 (Stage 2), complete in 1996. No
other stages currently are under construction. Project repayment began
in 1994 for Stage 1 and in 1997 for Stage 2. To date, CAWCD has repaid
$628 million of CAP construction costs to the United States.
In 2000, CAWCD and Reclamation successfully negotiated a settlement
of the dispute regarding the amount of CAWCD's repayment obligation for
CAP construction costs. This dispute has been the subject of ongoing
litigation in United States District Court in Arizona since 1995. The
settlement provides a 3-year timeframe, ending in May 2003, in which to
complete several other activities that are necessary for the settlement
to become final, including a final Indian water rights settlement for
the Gila River Indian Community.
CAP Budget Request/Indian Distribution Systems
In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, Reclamation seeks
$34,783,000 for the CAP. Of this amount, $23,093,000 is requested for
the construction of Indian distribution systems.
We continue to support appropriations necessary to ensure timely
completion of all CAP Indian distribution systems. The CAP non-Indian
distribution systems were completed nearly 10 years ago; however, most
of the Indian systems remain incomplete. CAWCD supports full funding
for this important program.
Of the total $34,783,000 requested, $6,700,000 is earmarked to fund
activities associated with implementation of a 1994 biological opinion
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pertaining to delivery of
CAP water to the Gila River Basin and for native fish activities on the
Santa Cruz River.
Historically, CAWCD has objected to Reclamation's continued
spending in these areas. Both environmental groups and CAWCD challenged
the 1994 biological opinion in court. However, given CAWCD's settlement
with the United States over CAP costs, and a final judgment in the
litigation concerning the 1994 biological opinion, we support
Reclamation's budget request to allow it to complete Endangered Species
Act compliance for CAP deliveries in the Gila River basin.
We also support the continuation of funding for the Tucson
Reliability Division. The requested $754,000 will allow planning work
to continue and will assist Tucson in developing and implementing a
plan to ensure adequate reliability for delivery of its CAP water
allocation.
Yuma Desalting Plant
In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, Reclamation is requesting
$10,971,000 under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project--
Title I. This program supports the operation of the Yuma Desalting
Plant (YDP), maintaining the U.S. Bypass Drain and the Mexico Bypass
Drain, and ensuring that Mexican Treaty salinity requirements are met.
Currently, Reclamation is not operating the YDP. Instead,
Reclamation is allowing all Wellton-Mohawk drainage water (about
100,000 acre-feet per year) to bypass the YDP and flow to the Santa
Clara Slough in Mexico. These flows are in excess of Mexican Treaty
requirements and represent a significant depletion of the Colorado
River water currently in storage. Continuing this practice eventually
will reduce the amount of water available to the Central Arizona
Project, the lowest priority water user in the Colorado River basin,
and increase the risk of future shortages.
The Colorado River is now in its third consecutive year of below
normal runoff, and water levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead are
projected to be at their lowest levels in 30 years. At the same time,
under interim surplus guidelines adopted for the benefit of California,
the use of Colorado River water by the Lower Basin States exceeds their
7.5 million acre foot entitlement. Reclamation's operation of the YDP
would conserve an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado
River water for use by the Basin States. This amount is roughly equal
to the City of Phoenix's full annual entitlement to CAP water.
The Senate Report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill directed the Department of the
Interior to provide a report to the Appropriations Committee on
alternatives to meeting the Mexican Treaty obligation without operating
the YDP. We understand that this report will be completed in the next
few months and will identify alternatives that involve water supplies
that would otherwise be available for use in the lower Colorado River
basin. In our view, such options are not legitimate alternatives to
operating the YDP because they reduce the amount of water available to
the Basin States.
The YDP has been available for use since 1992. The House of
Representatives Report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill directed Reclamation to maintain
the YDP so as to be capable of operating at one-third capacity with a
1-year notice of funding. Reclamation has requested $9,739,000 (nearly
90 percent of its entire Title I salinity control budget) to maintain
the YDP in a non-operational status, which provides no present benefit
to the Basin States.
By comparison, Reclamation states that it could operate the YDP at
full capacity-thereby preserving 100,000 acre-feet of water each year
for use within the United States-at a cost of only $22 million. We
believe that operating the YPD is the only viable way to meet the water
quantity and quality requirements of the Mexican Treaty, while at the
same time preserving Colorado River water for use in the United States.
Therefore, CAWCD requests that Congress direct Reclamation to
initiate operation of the YDP in 2003 at one-third capacity or greater.
In addition, CAWCD requests that $8 million be added to Reclamation's
budget under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project--Title I
starting in fiscal year 2003 for this purpose.
Lower Colorado Operations Program
In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, Reclamation also seeks
$12,421,00 for its Lower Colorado River Operations Program. This
program is necessary for Reclamation to continue its activities as the
``water master'' on the lower Colorado River. In addition, this program
provides Reclamation's share of funding to complete the lower Colorado
River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Of the $12,421,000
sought, $3,257,000 is for administration of the Colorado River,
$2,271,000 is for water contract administration and decree accounting,
and $6,893,000 is for fish and wildlife management and development. The
fish and wildlife management and development program includes
$4,357,000 for the MSCP. The State supports Reclamation's budget
request for the Lower Colorado River Operations Program.
Interim Surplus Criteria
The increased funding level is necessary to support the MSCP effort
as well as environmental measures necessary to fully implement the
interim surplus criteria for the lower Colorado River. The interim
surplus criteria allow the Secretary of the Interior to declare limited
Colorado River surpluses for the next 15 years to assist California in
gradually reducing its use of Colorado River to its annual
apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet. These are both critical
programs upon which lower Colorado River water and power users depend.
The MSCP is a cost-shared program among Federal and non-Federal
interests to develop a long-term plan to conserve endangered species
and their habitat along the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to
Mexico. CAWCD is one of the cost-sharing partners. Development of this
program will conserve hundreds of threatened and endangered species
and, at the same time, allow current water and power operation to
continue.
Security at Hoover Dam and Powerplant
Finally, the State of Arizona is concerned about the increase in
cost of security at Federal dams and hydropower plants, specifically
Hoover Dam and Powerplant. CAWCD relies upon Hoover power as one of its
power resources for pumping water. The Bureau of Reclamation received
$30 million in the fiscal year 2002 Defense budget to cover increased
costs to protect Reclamation dams and other facilities in the aftermath
of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
However, Reclamation estimates it will run a deficit of $9.5
million at Hoover Dam alone this fiscal year. The fiscal year 2003
budget request includes $28 million. Of that amount, approximately $4
million would be allocated to the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
and approximately $3 million would be allocated to the Hoover, Parker
and Davis facilities. The Hoover Dam shortfall for fiscal year 2003
could total nearly $6 million.
Legislative history from 1941 and 1942 indicates that the Congress
treated increased security costs before and after Pearl Harbor as non-
reimbursable because of the obvious national security interest at
stake. We believe that the increased costs of ensuring security of
Reclamation dams and other facilities in the aftermath of the events of
September 11, 2001, should be treated as non-reimbursable and payment
of such costs should be funded through Federal appropriations.
Additional relief for fiscal year 2002 should be considered as well as
increased amounts for fiscal year 2003.
I welcome this opportunity to share our views with the Committee,
and would be pleased to respond to any questions or observations
occasioned by this written testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Phoenix
I am pleased to offer testimony on behalf of the City of Phoenix
and I respectfully request continued support of its programs.
Rio Salado
Request
Funding of $22 million in the 2003 Energy and Water Appropriations
Act to keep the project on schedule, an increase of $7.7 million above
the President's request for fiscal year 2003.
Background
The Salt River is the major watercourse through the Phoenix
metropolitan area but has been dry since the diversion of its waters in
the early 1900s. While the upstream dams provided a reliable water
supply for the Valley, they created a dry, barren river filled with
sand and cobbles. The land along the riverbed has become lined with
landfills, dump sites, and vacant and underutilized lots.
In 1993, the Army Corps of Engineers prepared a reconnaissance-
level report recommending a Federal interest in the river.
The project was authorized in the 1999 Water Resources Development
Act.
The project received a $2 million ``new start'' designation in the
2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill and $18 million
in fiscal year 2002.
Opportunity
The project enjoys widespread support among state and local
governments, the business community and local residents. The local
community already has committed the 35 percent in local funding needed
for the project.
This is an opportunity for the Federal Government to honor its 65
percent cost-sharing agreement and keep the project on a 3-year
construction period.
The project is an important step toward correcting years of
ecosystem damage to the riverbed, and it will encourage private
investment to revitalize the economically depressed communities
adjacent to the river.
Rio Salado Oeste (Salt River West)
Request
Funding of $1.2 million to the Army Corps of Engineers for the
Feasibility Study for Rio Salado Oeste to keep the study on schedule,
an increase of $1.05 million above the President's request for fiscal
year 2003.
Background
The Rio Salado Oeste portion of the Salt River was included in the
Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance Study in 1996.
The city of Phoenix and the Corps of Engineers have an agreement to
pursue the Feasibility Phase Study.
To date, the city of Phoenix has matched the $542,000 the Corps of
Engineers has received for this study.
Opportunity
This is an opportunity to continue the Feasibility Study for the
Rio Salado Oeste portion of the project, which eventually will connect
the Rio Salado Project that is under construction with the most western
Salt River Project near the 91st Avenue Treatment Plant at Tres Rios.
The project will provide environmental benefits of ecosystem
restoration and stimulate private sector investments in the surrounding
area.
Tres Rios Project
Request
$2.7 million in new start construction funding in the Water and
Energy Appropriation Bill. This will allow the Army Corps of Engineers
to complete the plans and specifications for the 100-year protection
Flood Control Levee and start the design of the 300 million-gallon per
day pump station. This request matches the Corps of Engineers'
capability for fiscal year 2003 and is $2.35 million over the
President's budget.
If Congress prohibits new start construction funding in fiscal year
2003, we request $2.2 million to complete the Pre-Construction
Engineering and Design Phase of the project. This will allow the Corps
of Engineers to complete the plans and specifications for the Flood
Control Levee and position Tres Rios to obtain new start construction
funding in fiscal year 2004.
Background
Tres Rios River Restoration Project is an environmental habitat
restoration project with incidental flood control and recreation
opportunities along the Salt, Gila and Agua Fria rivers west of
Phoenix. It is located along the Salt and Gila Rivers between 83rd
Avenue and the confluence of the Agua Fria River, is approximately 8
river miles long and encompasses approximately 1,500 acres of land. The
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant supplies water.
Project Components
300-million-gallon per day effluent pump station.
184 acres of regulating wetlands to equalize discharges from the
wastewater treatment plant and provide improved habitat.
128 acres of overbank wetlands to provide improved habitat.
100-year protection flood control levee.
Open water marshes and riparian corridors to improve habitat.
Tres Rios Demonstration Constructed Wetlands
Request
$500,000 in the Water and Energy Appropriation Bill for fiscal year
2003 to be used by the Bureau of Reclamation. This is $300,000 over the
President's budget but is needed to sustain the program.
Background
The Bureau of Reclamation and the Subregional Operating Group (made
up of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe) have been jointly
operating the Demonstration Wetlands since 1994. The research performed
at the Demonstration Wetlands furthers the study of nitrate and metal
removal, vector (mosquito) control and habitat restoration.
Key Points
Further expands knowledge in the field of constructed wetlands.
Studies vegetation sustainability in an arid environment.
Studies non-lethal control measure of beavers to protect habitat
proposed for the full-scale project.
Provides funding for the operation and maintenance of the project.
Agua Fria Linear Recharge Project
Request
$250,000 in the Water and Energy Appropriation Bill for fiscal year
2003 to be used by the Bureau of Reclamation under their Title 16
authorization. This is in the President's budget for fiscal year 2003.
Background
The Bureau of Reclamation and the Subregional Operating Group is
cooperatively investigating the feasibility of linear recharge of
reclaimed water in the Agua Fria River. This funding will allow the
public involvement phase of the project to continue.
Water Salinity Research
Request
$3 million per year for 5 years to be used to fund research
programs through the Bureau of Reclamation Desalination Program in
salinity management with an emphasis on brine concentration. The Bureau
will work with water industry research organizations, such as the
American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Water Environment
Research Foundation and Water Reuse Foundation to perform the work.
Background
Water availability and quality is one of the world's most important
environmental issues. Demand for water is increasing at an alarming
rate and so are people's water quality expectations. Increasing
salinity concentrations in rivers, lakes, groundwater and soil have
created a problem with the removal of total dissolved solids from water
systems and the disposal of the unwanted salt. Brine concentration and
disposal is especially important to arid states like Arizona, which
needs to use every bit of its water resources effectively.
The Tri-State Salinity Coalition is made up of water utilities in
Arizona, California, and Nevada and plans to add members in Texas and
New Mexico. The mission of the Coalition is, with the assistance of
their congressional delegations, to obtain funding to further research
efforts in salinity management with an emphasis on brine concentration.
Objectives
Develop brine concentration technologies that minimize water loss.
Develop technologies that minimize brine production, especially
membrane systems which are used to meet many Safe Drinking Water Act
regulations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Cruz Port District Commission
For continuation of the Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance study of the
1986 memorandum of agreement on dredging between Santa Cruz
Port District and Corps of Engineers as authorized by 1998
Water Resources Development Act, Section 526--$100,000
The fiscal year 2002 federal budget funded $100,000 for the study
of the Arana Gulch watershed. That study is underway. The Santa Cruz
Port District requests an additional $100,000 in the fiscal year 2003
budget to continue this study. Background data on the Arana Gulch
project is included in this package.
For continuation of the Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance study of the
Arana Gulch Watershed which adversely affects the navigation of
Santa Cruz Harbor--$100,000
This study will reconstitute the very successful 1986 joint-venture
between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port District. Over
the course of a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Port
District, the federal government will save well over $20 million in
dredging costs for maintenance of the Santa Cruz Harbor federal
channel.
The MOA study has federal funding in fiscal year 2002. There is
$50,000 in the President's proposed fiscal year 2003 budget. We ask the
committee to support the President's budget.
Background information on the MOA is attached.
background information
For Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance study of the Arana Gulch
Watershed which adversely affects the navigation of Santa Cruz
Harbor
Santa Cruz Harbor is an active small craft harbor at the north
section of Monterey Bay, California. It was authorized as a federal
navigation project in 1958, constructed in 1964, and expanded in 1972.
A 1986 joint-venture between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Santa Cruz Port District provided for a permanent sand bypass system to
solve the ocean-driven shoaling problem at its entrance. The Port
District has successfully operated that system for the past fifteen
winters. However, the Port District has been unable to solve the
siltation problem emanating from the three-square mile watershed which
terminates at the north end of Santa Cruz Harbor.
Silt from Arana Gulch fills berths, fairways, and channels in the
harbor, making them hazardous and unusable. At this time, the siltation
is not solvable by the existing sand bypass system. The soil
characteristics of the watershed make beach disposal impractical at
this time. Arana Gulch sediment must either be taken upland or
delivered by barge offshore--both of these disposal options are quite
wasteful. They are also extremely expensive and cost the Port District
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Additionally, the 1998 El
Nino storms brought 15,000 cubic yards of material into the north
harbor alone from Arana Gulch. The event was declared a federal
disaster, and FEMA and the State of California are spending in excess
of $500,000 to return the harbor to charted depths.
On June 25, 1998, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure passed Resolution Docket 2565 authorizing the Secretary
of the Army to review the Arana Gulch watershed siltation problem
For Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance study of memorandum of agreement
on dredging between Santa Cruz Port District and Corps of
engineers as authorized by 1998 Water Resources Development
Act, Section 526
In 1986, the United States Congress and the Santa Cruz Port
District signed a Memorandum of Agreement (joint-venture L.C.A.) on the
acquisition of a sand bypass system for Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor.
This $2.7 million agreement, authorized under WRDA 1984, provided that,
once in place, the system would be operated and maintained by the Port
District.
The bypass project has been extraordinarily successful. The harbor,
once the scene of long closures and countless accidents because of
shoals and breaking surf, is now 100 percent open to navigation all
year round. The federal government no longer has to appropriate yearly
O&M funds as it did from 1964 to 1986. The savings over the past 10
years is estimated at $9+ million. The savings over the life of the
project (2014) is estimated to be well in excess of $28 million in 1986
dollars.
The Port District is quite satisfied with the operational project
and will carry out its responsibilities through 2014. However, an
inequity exists in the original cost-share formula, which the Port
District asked Congress to redress. Congress responded by including
Section 526 in the Water Resources Development Act of 1998:
``SECTION 526. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary may--
--modify the cooperative agreement with the Santa Cruz Port
District, California, to reflect unanticipated additional
dredging effort; and
--extend the agreement for 10 years.''
The San Francisco District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
advised that in order to study the equities the 1986 Memorandum of
Agreement. A reconnaissance study should be performed.
The benefit to the federal government in this redress of past
inequities is that the Port District is willing to extend the
successful joint-venture from its current termination date of 2014, to
2024.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, Inc.
fiscal year 2003 funding request
First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
in support of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota
Rural Water Project and for the Subcommittee's support both past and
present.
The Mid-Dakota Project is requesting $29.360 million in Federal
appropriations for fiscal year 2003. As with our past submissions to
this subcommittee, Mid-Dakota's fiscal year 2003 request is based on a
detailed analysis of our ability to proceed with construction during
the fiscal year. In all previous years, Mid-Dakota has fully obligated
its appropriated funds, including Federal, State, and local, and could
have obligated significantly more were they available.
history of project funding
The Project was authorized by Congress and signed into law by President
George H.W. Bush in October 1992. The Federal authorization for the
project totaled $100 million (1989s) in a combination of Federal grant
and loan funds (grant funds may not exceed 85 percent of Federal
contribution). The State authorization was for $8.4 million (1989 $s).
A breakdown of Project cost ceilings are as follows:
Project Cost Ceilings
[In dollars]
Federal Ceiling......................................... 139,769,000
State Ceiling........................................... 9,670,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Rural Water System....................... 149,439,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Wetland Enhancement Component........................... 2,756,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Project Cost Ceiling........................ 152,195,000
The total authorized indexed cost of the project is approximately
$152.195 million (fiscal year 2003). All Federal funding considered,
the Government has provided 67 percent of its commitment ($95.410
million of $142.530 million) to provide construction funding for the
Project. When considering the Federal and State combined awards, the
project is approximately 69 percent complete, in terms of financial
commitments.
Mid-Dakota wishes to thank this committee for its support over the
past 9 years. Within the limited monetary parameters of current Federal
awards and funds appropriated by the State of South Dakota, we have
been able to put those scarce resources to good work, making
exceptional progress on project construction.
SUMMARIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Dakota Conf. Enacted Bureau Award Additional Total Fed.
Fed. Fiscal Year Request Pres. Budget House Senate Levels Levels Funds Funds Provided
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994............................................................ 7.991 0 0 2.000 2.000 1.500 0 1.500
1995............................................................ 22.367 0 0 8.000 4.000 3.600 0 3.600
1996............................................................ 23.394 2.500 12.500 10.500 11.500 10.902 2.323 13.225
1997............................................................ 29.686 2.500 11.500 12.500 10.000 9.400 1.500 10.900
1998............................................................ 29.836 10.000 12.000 13.000 13.000 12.221 1.000 13.221
1999............................................................ 32.150 10.000 10.000 20.000 15.000 14.100 2.000 16.100
2000............................................................ 28.800 5.000 15.000 7.000 14.000 12.859 1.000 13.859
2001............................................................ 24.000 6.040 11.040 6.040 10.040 9.398 0 9.398
2002............................................................ 30.684 10.040 15.040 15.540 15.040 13.611 0 13.611
2003............................................................ 29.360 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... .............. 46.080 87.080 94.580 94.580 87.590 7.823 95.410
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the State of South Dakota has contributed $9.67
million in grants to the Mid-Dakota Project, in previous years. The
State of South Dakota completed its initial authorized financial
obligation to the Mid-Dakota Project in the 1998 Legislative Session.
The $15.040 million funding provided by the Subcommittee in fiscal
year 2002 provided Mid-Dakota with the opportunity to achieve
significant accomplishments for the fiscal year. These are later
summarized in the section titled ``Construction in Progress.'' Mid-
Dakota will continue to deliver quality drinking water to 16 community
systems and approximately 2,400 rural customers (farms and ranches).
Mid-Dakota estimates that an additional 300 rural farm and ranch
accounts along with three more community systems will be receiving
project water at the close of contracts awarded in fiscal year 2001/
2002. The generosity of the subcommittee has already had a deep and
favorable effect on the lives of over 15,000 South Dakotans.
impacts of fiscal year 2003 award
The most obvious impact of any significant reduction from Mid-
Dakota's request will be the delay of construction of one or more
Project components. The $29.360 million request will allow the Project
to proceed with construction of multiple contracts summarized later in
this testimony. An award of less than our request will result in the
deletion or reconfiguration of one or more of these contracts from the
fiscal year 2003 construction schedule. Further, reduced appropriations
have the effect of adding more cost to the amount needed for completion
of the Project.
Mid-Dakota has consistently informed members of Congress and
appropriate Federal agencies, about the detrimental effects
insufficient funding has on the Project and ultimately the people whom
are to receive the water. In previous years Mid-Dakota and the public,
which we will serve, have been able to make the most of the resources
provided the Project. However, failure to provide full funding has had
profound consequences.
construction in progress
Mid-Dakota began construction in September of 1994, with the
construction of its Water Intake and Pump Station. Since that eventful
day of first construction start, we have bid, awarded, and completed 22
project components and are into construction on six other major Project
components. The following table provides a synopsis of each major
construction contract:
SUMMARIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Cont. Cont. Final Over Over
Cont. No. Description Budget \1\ Bid Cont. (Under) (Under)
Award Price Budget Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1 Oahe Water Intake and Pump Station 4.662 3.959 3.945 (0.717) (15)
2-1 Oahe Water Treatment Plant 13.361 9.920 10.278 (3.083) (23)
3-1A Raw Water Pipeline 1.352 1.738 1.719 0.367 27
3-1B Main Pipeline--Blunt 7.823 6.916 7.024 (0.799) (10)
3-1C Main Pipeline--Highmore 5.439 4.791 4.798 (0.641) (12)
3-1D Main Pipeline--CP 1st Phase .220 .215 .215 0.010 (0.5)
3-2A Main Pipeline--Ree Hights 3.261 3.155 3.149 (0.112) (3)
3-2B Main Pipeline--St. Lawrence, SD 3.691 3.349 3.352 (0.339) (9)
3-3A Main Pipeline--Wessington, SD 2.700 2.406 ( \3\ ) n/a n/a
4-1A/B (1-5) Distribution System--West 9.345 9.983 10.731 \2\ 1.386 15
4-1A/B (6) Distribution System--North West 8.333 8.329 9.028 \2\ 0.695 8
4-2 (1) Distribution System--Central 4.727 4.717 4.700 (0.027) (.5)
4-2 (2) Distribution System--South Central 2.763 2.835 3.000 \2\ 0.237 9
4-2 (4-5) Distribution System--Central 5.753 4.952 5.135 (0.620) (11)
4-2A (4) Distribution System--Central 1.042 .991 1.186 \2\ 0.140 13
4-2AP (2-3) Distribution System--Central 10.340 9.824 ( \3\ ) n/a n/a
4-2 AV (2-3) Distribution System Vaults--Central .668 .557 ( \3\ ) n/a n/a
5-1 Water Storage Tank--Highmore 1.545 1.434 1.433 (0.108) (7)
5-1A (1) Water Storage Tank--Onida 0.471 0.395 0.400 (0.075) (16)
5-1A (2) Water Storage Tank--Okobojo 0.381 0.338 0.333 (0.048) (13)
5-1A (3) Water Storage Tank--Agar 0.422 0.391 0.385 (0.037) (9)
5-1A (4) Water Storage Tank--Gettysburg 0.952 0.814 0.808 (0.144) (15)
5-2 (1) Water Storage Tank--Mac's Corner .460 .573 .561 0.101 22
5-2 (2) Water Storage Tank--Rezac Lake .438 .493 .499 0.060 14
5-2 (3) Water Storage Tank--Collin's Slough .254 .393 .410 0.160 63
5-2A (1) Water Storage Tank--Ames .300 .378 ( \3\ ) n/a n/a
5-2A (2) Water Storage Tank--Cottonwood Lake .800 .696 ( \3\ ) n/a n/a
5-2A (3) Water Storage Tank--Wessington Springs .515 .491 ( \3\ ) n/a n/a
-------------------------------------------------------
Totals 92.020 85.030 73.090 (3.610) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contract budget is determined by Mid-Dakota's estimate for the contract at the time of bidding.
\2\ A significant portion of cost increases are attributable to the placement of additional users
as construction proceeds.
\3\ In Prog.
As is evident by the foregoing table, Mid-Dakota has been very
successful in containing Project costs. Currently the construction of
major Project components are approximately 4 percent under budget,
providing an estimated saving of over $3.61 million. The savings are an
example of sound engineering, good management and advantageous bid
lettings. While we can't guarantee future contract bid lettings will
continue to provide the level of savings currently experienced, we do
think it speaks well of the Mid-Dakota Project and how we've managed
Project funding to date.
response to related crisis situations
Mid-Dakota also provided the solution to a number of crisis
situations in the past. The following are some of the most notable
examples:
--Mid-Dakota was the catalyst in the ``rescue'' effort to the City of
Gettysburg, SD to provide the town with a dependable, quality
water supply (Mid-Dakota) just as they were about to lose their
existing water intake, due to sluffing of the hillside at that
location.
--Mid-Dakota constructed an advance project feature in Virgil, South
Dakota. The town of Virgil, SD now has a new distribution
system, replacing the old one that was in disrepair and
draining the town coffers to keep it running and supply
drinking water to Virgil residents.
--Mid-Dakota has agreed to take-over the operations of the Southern
Spink and Northern Beadle Rural Water System (SSNB). SSNB is a
small community water supply system that lacks the necessary
capacity to properly operate a potable water supply system.
--Mid-Dakota replaced approximately eight miles of pipeline along
U.S. Highway 212. An existing water pipeline located in the
Highway right-of-way would have to be relocated increasing the
cost of the Highway improvement. Mid-Dakota instead placed its
pipeline (that would have been constructed in the future) out
of the way of the Highway improvement. This lessened the cost
of the Highway project and provided for an uninterrupted supply
of water to people along the pipeline route.
--Mid-Dakota recently (January 2001) took over operational
responsibility for the City of St. Lawrence South Dakota's
water system. The community (pop. <300) was having trouble
maintaining a qualified operator to maintain their systems as
is mandated by EPA. An Administrative agreement between Mid-
Dakota and the City provided a viable solution to their
dilemma.
Additionally, Mid-Dakota is keeping in close contact with the City
of Huron, SD (population 12,400) regarding potentially serious EPA
water quality violations anticipated with the implementation of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) enhanced surface water rules due in
2003. Engineers who have analyzed the current drinking water source for
Huron (James River) have concluded that the City will not be able to
treat the current James River source without very significant and
costly upgrades to their existing treatment facilities. Further the
engineers have concluded that without these upgrades or switching to a
new source i.e., Mid-Dakota, the City will be out of compliance with
the Disinfection and Disinfection by-products rule D/DBP to be
implemented in 2003. Huron is located at the East end of the Mid-Dakota
Project (Mid-Dakota is being built in a general West to East manner)
and is currently Mid-Dakota's largest contracted user. It is
anticipated that with sufficient funding, Mid-Dakota can be in a
position to connect to Huron in time to remedy the potential EPA non-
compliance issue faced by Huron.
tentative fiscal year 2003 construction schedule \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projects features listed in table are subject to rescheduling
based upon funding provided and readiness to proceed and other factors.
Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide exactly
with schedule presented here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Dakota has developed an aggressive construction schedule for
fiscal year 2003, with plans to install over 800 miles of rural
pipeline and 30 miles of main transmission pipeline. The proposed
construction would provide service to an estimated 17,000 more people
than are currently receiving or scheduled to receive Project drinking
water (estimate includes the City of Huron, SD). Our construction
schedule will also provide the necessary main pipeline infrastructure
to move forward with many more rural and community connections in the
future. Federal funding allocated in any given fiscal year is always
the limiting factor that drives Mid-Dakota's construction schedule.
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEM--STATEMENT OF CAPABILITIES--FISCAL YEAR 2003 (OCTOBER 2002 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection
Construction Percent of Engineering Subtotals
Construction and Legal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100--Source and Intake (12.00 percent):
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. .............. .............. .............. ..............
===============================================================
200--Water Treatment (12.00 percent):
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. .............. .............. .............. ..............
===============================================================
300--Main Transmission Pipeline (7.00 percent):
Pipeline Wess. To Wolsey.................... $2,000,000.00 $140,000.00 .............. $2,140,000.00
Pipeline Wolsey to Huron.................... 4,960,000.00 347,200.00 .............. 5,307,200.00
Stations and Vaults......................... 950,000.00 66,500.00 $100,000.00 1,116,500.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. 7,910,000.00 553,700.00 100,000.00 8,563,700.00
===============================================================
400--Distribution Pipeline (5.00 percent):
Cottonwood Lake (Phase II).................. 2,300,000.00 115,000.00 .............. 2,415,000.00
Wessington Springs.......................... 2,850,000.00 142,500.00 .............. 2,992,500.00
Highmore East............................... 1,500,000.00 75,000.00 200,000.00 1,775,000.00
Wolsey...................................... 5,500,000.00 275,000.00 550,000.00 6,325,000.00
Staum Dam................................... .............. .............. 100,000.00 100,000.00
Bancroft.................................... .............. .............. 110,000.00 110,000.00
Stations and Vaults......................... 300,000.00 15,000.00 25,000.00 340,000.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. 12,450,000.00 622,500.00 985,000.00 14,057,500.00
===============================================================
500--Water Storage (12.00 percent):
Wessington Springs.......................... 325,000.00 39,000.00 .............. 364,000.00
Wolsey...................................... 2,000,000.00 240,000.00 25,000.00 2,265,000.00
Staum Dam................................... .............. .............. 10,000.00 10,000.00
Bancroft.................................... .............. .............. 10,000.00 10,000.00
Redfield.................................... 300,000.00 36,000.00 10,000.00 346,000.00
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. 2,625,000.00 315,000.00 55,000.00 2,995,000.00
===============================================================
600--SCADA and Controls (12.00 percent):
Main Pipeline Controls..................... 200,000.00 24,000.00 10,000.00 234,000.00
Distribution Controls....................... 150,000.00 18,000.00 7,500.00 175,500.00
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
None........................................ .............. .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotals................................. 350,000.00 42,000.00 17,500.00 409,500.00
===============================================================
Total..................................... 23,335,000.00 1,533,200.00 1,157,500.00 26,025,700.00
===============================================================
Administration and General as a percent of .............. 2.00 .............. 466,700.00
Construction (percent).........................
Bureau of Reclamation Oversight as a percent of .............. 3.00 .............. 700,050.00
Construction (percent).........................
Contingencies as a percent of Construction (per- .............. 5.00 .............. 1,166,750.00
cent).........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Rural Water System capabilities .............. .............. .............. 28,359,200.00
fiscal year 2003.........................
Wetland Enhancement Component request fiscal .............. .............. .............. 1,000,000.00
year 2003......................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Rural Water and Wetland capabilities .............. .............. .............. 29,359,200.00
fiscal year 2003.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
closing
Mid-Dakota is intensely aware of the difficult funding decisions
that face the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and we do
not envy the difficult job that lies ahead. We strongly urge, the
Subcommittee to look closely at the Mid-Dakota Project and recognize
the dire need that exists. Consider the exceptionally high level of
local and State support. And lastly our readiness, our credibility and
our ability, to proceed.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its strong support, both past
and present.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and
Conservation District, Eureka, California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you once again
for the opportunity for me, Charles Ollivier, as president, on behalf
of the board of commissioners of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation,
and Conservation District in Eureka, California to submit prepared
remarks to you for the record in support of the Fiscal Year 2003 Energy
and Water regular appropriations measure to fund the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Water Resources Development Program.
We appreciate these are trying times for the fiscal budget of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through no fault of their own. Those of us
across the length and breadth of this nation who are dependent upon a
strong, qualified and diversified water resources program must stand
shoulder to shoulder with the Corps and their supporters in Congress to
ensure adequate funding of Corps projects and a revitalized Corps
program.
Through the efforts of this Subcommittee and our own Representative
Mike Thompson of the First Congressional District of California and
Senators Boxer and Feinstein, the long-awaited Humboldt Harbor and Bay
Deepening Project was completed in April 2000. We have already seen
improvements in navigation safety and increased commerce since
completion of construction.
This project is of critical importance to the future development of
Humboldt Bay and County, and the entire northcoast region of the state
of California. With the increased volume of imports and exports--still
principally forest products--we remain California's fifth ranked
commercial port in tonnage. The prospect of year round predictable
navigable port access is the premise upon which we intend to attract a
new diversified mix of commercial enterprise attracted to the area as a
northwest distribution hub for imported goods. So supportive of these
efforts are the local populace, we are the only major commercial port
in the United States in which our local shippers contribute through a
local harbor maintenance fee to share in the cost of construction of
the Federal project over the life of the project.
However, independent of construction project completion, we remain
an annual maintenance port year in and year out using both Corps and
contractor dredge assets to maintain project depths and safe navigation
for both large commercial vessels and the largest commercial fishing
fleet between San Francisco Bay and the Columbia River. Shoaling in our
channel is not a mere inconvenience and commercially costly in lost
time but often historically results in loss of life and property
damage. Our geographic location, hydrodynamic, and adverse winter
weather conditions in the North Pacific combine to require annual
maintenance of our Federal channel or lives are put in jeopardy for
those unfamiliar with the geography, Humboldt Bay is the only deep-
draft natural harbor strategically situated along four hundred miles of
Pacific coastline between San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon.
Prevailing winter wave conditions at the Humboldt bar and entrance have
posed extreme navigation safety hazards, resulting in loss of life and
significant property damage over the years. In 2000, 1.4 million tons
of forest products, fuel and other commodities crossed the Humboldt
bar. It has been projected that, with the deepening project complete, 5
million tons per year is possible. this growth can only be realized
with continued annual maintenance dredging.
We are grateful to the subcommittee--and the committee conferees--
for including $3.516 million in the operations and maintenance general
account for fiscal year 2002. We support the President's budget request
for $3.426 in the operations and maintenance general account for fiscal
year 2003 even though this represents only 56 percent of the funds
needed to adequately maintain the Federal channels through maintenance
and advanced maintenance dredging. Therefore, we request the
Subcommittee increase this amount to $6.219 million.
With 2 years of post construction maintenance experience, it is
apparent that the source of continual shoaling at the channel entrance
requiring continual and occasional emergency maintenance dredging is
traceable to sources contiguous but outside project boundaries.
The increased budget request from fiscal year 2003 is necessary to
perform advanced maintenance work on the channel boundaries in the
paramount interests of navigation safety and environmental protection.
In addition, expanded survey work to monitor the new hydrodynamics of
the channel after completion of project construction is essential for
safety and future maintenance planning. Our additional request above
the President's budget is based upon a recent Corps survey south of the
navigation channel of how the sand accumulation is impacting the main
channel and requires advanced maintenance dredging of this area with
the intended result of saving additional money, lives, property, and
the bay environment over the long term.
Should the problem persist an alternative remedy may be a necessary
project boundary adjustment or modification. For these reasons we may
be the appropriate subject of a 20 year dredged material management
plan not so much to deal with issues associated with dredged material
disposal--our material is largely clean sand--but rather to determine
ways in which Corps minimum fleet assets drawn largely from the North
Pacific Division and private contract dredging capacity may be most
efficiently utilized over the long term as the paramount need for
maintenance dredging will always remain. We are extremely grateful for
the commendable efforts by the San Francisco District to modify the
annual maintenance dredging schedule to optimize dredging efficiency
and protect year-round navigation. In particular, we recognize the
efforts of the Corps of Engineers in scheduling the Essayance and
Yaquina from the Corps fleet for emergency dredging when no commercial
dredge vessels are available.
The completion of the deepening project coupled with effective
annual maintenance dredging, will provide unique economic development
opportunities for the North Coast region. These capitalize upon our
natural resources base enabling us to ship our commodities to world
markets at competitive freight rates, and ship more of our imports and
exports by water rather than transship them long distances by road or
rail to market. At the same time it will permit us to diversify our
economic base by improving our transportation infrastructure and
attracting new industrial activity to an area historically dependent
upon the economic well-being of the cyclical forest products industry.
We are currently suffering from closure of major facilities and
continuing uncertainty surrounding the forest products industry's
future as a major contributor to our long term economic base.
Our navigation project has a unique history. With the support of
then Congressman Riggs, Congress authorized the Humboldt Harbor and Bay
38 Foot Deep Draft Navigation Project in Section 101 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 1996) (Public Law 104-303) at
an estimated total construction cost of $15,178,000 with a required
local contribution of $5,180,000, and a first Federal cost of
$10,000,000. The project has a 1.9 to 1 favorable benefit cost ratio.
It has no significant environmental impacts and enjoys the consensus
support of Federal, State, regional, and local agencies.
In June 1998, with the support of the California Maritime
Infrastructure Authority in the first of its kind issuance of revenue
bonds to finance a Federal navigation project, we were able to raise
$3.9 million matched by an additional $1.0 million in local
redevelopment agency funds from the City of Eureka to meet our required
local contribution to project construction cost.
In order to provide an additional revenue stream from which to
service the debt incurred in meeting its financial obligations, the
district has implemented the first of its kind harbor user fee under
section 208 of WRDA 1986 so that vessels and cargo benefitting from the
navigation improvements will share in the cost of providing them. Our
experience will now assist Congress in revising provisions of WRDA 1986
that have prevented the U.S. Customs Service from assisting us in the
efficient collection of those local fees and ports across the country
from recovering additional costs of port safety and security following
the events of 9/11 of last year.
On behalf of the members of the commission and harbor district, we
appreciate those prior occasions in which we have had the opportunity
to appear before the Subcommittee. We look forward to appearing before
this Subcommittee on future occasions to provide updated reports on the
economic benefits and progress we expect will follow the successful
completion of this project. We are prepared to supplement our prepared
remarks for the record in response to any questons that the Chair,
Subcommittee Members, or staff may wish to have us answer.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Moss Landing Harbor District, Monterey Bay,
California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
Chairman and Members of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, thank you
for the opportunity for me, Jack Compton, as President of the Board of
Harbor Commissioners of Moss Landing Harbor District in California to
submit prepared remarks to you for the record in support of the fiscal
year 2003 energy and water regular appropriations measure.
The Commission recognizes and expresses its gratitude to our two
Senators, the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, a valuable member of this
Committee, and the Honorable Barbara Boxer for their continued
assistance and support on our behalf.
We express our profound appreciation to the Subcommittee and full
Committee for its inclusion of $2,500,000 in Operations and Maintenance
funds in the fiscal year 2002 budget for badly needed maintenance
dredging of the Federal entrance channel and the initiation of a first
ever dredged material management plan for the Harbor District in order
to plan for orderly maintenance dredging of the Federal channel and
local berths over the next twenty or more years.
The coming year fiscal year marks the first time in a decade that
we have returned to a normal three year maintenance cycle of the
Federal channel. To this end we request the Subcommittee's approval of
a $2.750 million in appropriations from the Operations and Maintenance
general account in order to complete the dredged material management
plan and dredge the Inner Harbor segment of the Federal channel
including disposal of sediments at a recommended disposal site under
the long term plan.
At long last as part of our planning effort, we have initiated a
ground breaking marine Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) under Corps of
Engineers and EPA guidance with the assistance of USACE Waterways
Experiment Station (WES) personnel and USACESFD staff. This effort is
supported by a working group organized under national dredging team
local planning guidance, including representatives of the Federal,
state and local agencies, and other stakeholder and public interest
groups with an interest in dredging activites.
We hope this effort will: (1) produce both a useful and practical
multidisciplinary decision document for those agencies exercising
regulatory or oversight jurisdiction over dredging; and (2) serve as a
model for collaborative effort in dredged material disposal consensus
decision making in unique situations such as for other Corps districts
and local sponsors seeking to balance required maintenance dredging to
support navigation with the corresponding need to protect
environmentally sensitive areas, in this instance the unique Monterey
Submarine Canyon located at the heart of the Monterey Bay Marine
Sanctuary.
As part of the effort we are compelled to benchmark suitable upland
disposal sites for both ecological risk assessment and maintenance
dredging purposes. We are bounded by the Elkhorn Slough National
Estuarine Sanctuary and the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary severely
limiting available disposal options. The Harbor District lies within
the watershed of two rivers draining some of the richest agricultural
land in the nation but which also serves as the upstream source of
agricultural pesticides posing a permanent dilemma as to alternative
disposal options. Compounding this is the high cost of acquisition of
available upland disposal sites, approximately $35 million for the one
remaining suitable long term disposal site.
We plan to document this process and our experience for
incorporation in Corps planning guidance for national use and
Congressional oversight as a valuable tool for environmental regulatory
process streamlining.
The working group in support of this effort is comprised of every
state, Federal and local agency with responsibility for the conduct and
statutory oversight of dredging activities act the site located within
the boundaries of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS),
including the Sanctuary, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District (USACESFD), USEPA region IX, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish
and Game, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, along
with representatives of related local agencies, the commercial fishing
industry, public interest groups and marine research community,
including the Moss Landing Marine Laboratory of California State
University and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI)
home ported in the Harbor District.
For those of you who are more familiar with the world renowned
Monterey Peninsula and Bay and our acclaimed aquarium, our harbor is
home to the largest commercial fishing fleet on the Central Coast of
California and the largest concentration of Federal, state and private
marine research and millions of dollars in capital investment in
vessels and facilities on the West Coast. Both nationally significant
research and commercial fishing activities would be threatened without
ongoing maintenance dredging.
As part of voluntary local cost sharing contribution to our dredged
material management plan, as local sponsor we have expended over
$120,000 to date for sedimentary transport studies of both mud and sand
and associated contaminants from various sources in the SF-12 area
including the unique Monterey Bay Marine Canyon, $16,000 for the
collection of sediment samples (some of which need critical testing and
evaluation before their expiration), $12,000 for an extensive
literature search, and $25,000 in coordinating with, and sponsoring
meetings of the working group. USEPA Region IX has also contributed
financially to this important endeavor providing funds for the peer
review process.
The first stage ecological risk assessment (``ERA'') underway
consists of three main phases: (1) problem formulation; (2) analysis;
and (3) risk characterization, including comparative risk assessment as
data permits.
The first phase consists of a screening ERA to identify those
chemicals, ecological receptors, and exposure pathways requiring
further evaluation in subsequent phases and to identify additional data
needs. This phase will address elements of problem formulation, and
utilizes mostly existing data.
The problem formulation phase includes the following components:
(1) data evaluation and chemical of potential concern selection--an
evaluation of dredged material characteristics to select chemicals of
potential concern for further evaluation; (2) ecosystem
characterization--identification of the habitats and aquatic, wildlife,
and human receptors of potential concern; (3) conceptual ecological
quantitative model development--an evaluation of complete and
potentially complete exposure pathways (disposal characteristics),
selection of indicator species (sensitive species representative of
different levels of the food chain), and identification of assessment
and measurement endpoints; and (4) data gap analysis--identification of
data needs and studies required to complete the assessment.
Because of the nature of the Moss Landing dredged material disposal
(hydraulic dredging to a highly dispersive site) and the similarities
of the disposal process to the ongoing sediment deposition to Monterey
Bay from the local watershed, the initial evaluation will focus on
these ongoing processes. The ongoing sediment deposition and its
effects on the Monterey Bay ecosystem can provide a real-time
indication of the stressor-response relationship. Existing data will be
reviewed and additional data collected as deemed necessary in the data
gap analysis described above.
The second phase analysis will include the following elements: (1)
watershed characterization--an evaluation of the sediment and chemical
loading to Monterey Bay from the surrounding watershed; (2)
hydrodynamic evaluation--an evaluation of the dispersional/depositional
patterns/zones; (3) sediment characterization--an evaluation of
sediment chemical concentrations in depositional zones); (4) biota
characterization--an evaluation of resulting biota concentrations
(benthos and fish)--some benthic community analysis may be conducted as
well; (5) toxicity identification evaluation (TIE)--an evaluation of
toxic effects and identification of toxicants; (6) exposure and effects
assessments--an evaluation of food chain effects and an evaluation of
human health effects; (7) risk characterization--integration of the
above elements to estimate risks; (8) uncertainty analysis.
The first phase of this evaluation will include a screening level
assessment using conservative assumptions. As necessary, additional
data will be collected to refine these assumptions and provide more
realistic estimates of exposure and effects.
The third phase of risk evaluation will determine if no significant
risks are predicted in the above evaluation. Subsequent phases of the
ERA will estimate the level of additional deposition (i.e., dredged
material disposal) that could occur before resulting in unacceptable
risks. If significant risks are predicted in the ambient level
assessment, the subsequent phases will include predicting the
incremental risk from disposal of dredged material.
The working group will convene to review and comment upon the
detailed work plan and then once again to comment upon the draft report
and to assist in planning the second stage effort for the next fiscal
year.
Project deliverables will include: (1) a detailed work plan,
quantitative model, sampling and analysis plan, and quality assurance
program plan; (2) draft, draft final, and final reports; and (3) a
monitoring plan.
The draft report is anticipated to be released before the end of
this fiscal year and subject to working group and peer review upon
release.
The second stage of the risk assessment will be funded out of
fiscal year 2003 appropriations and will commence immediately following
the release of the first stage report. This effort will include a field
evaluation involving a test disposal of sediments at the SF-12 site and
monitoring efforts with the assistance of laboratory personnel and
fixed assets to coincide with the completion of the Inner Harbor
dredging episode by USACESFD.
The final second stage report will complete DMMP/ERA and serve as
the basis for long term dredged material management planning and
regulatory decision making by the USACE and other Federal, state and
local agencies exercising good judgment replacing a high level of
uncertainty with a confidence level based upon sound risk management
methodology and supported by site specific data.
This effort is intended to save current and future expenditures by
providing a proven analytical and scientific framework with which to
balance the costs and risks of upland and unconfined aquatic disposal
of dredged material, a problem affecting ports and harbors across the
Nation and threatening to have an adverse impact on future Corps
maintenance budgets.
I am prepared to supplement my prepared remarks for the record in
response to any questions that the Chair, Subcommittee members, or
staff may wish to have me answer. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. This concludes my prepared remarks.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Morro Bay
During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) designed and
constructed a new harbor entrance at Morro Bay with two rock
breakwaters. Since the initial construction, over 50 years ago, the
Federal government has maintained the harbor entrance, breakwaters and
navigational channels.
In fiscal year 1995 the ACOE completed the Morro Bay Harbor
entrance improvement project to improve safety for commercial fishing
and coastal navigation. The City of Morro Bay was the local sponsor and
contributed over $900,000 in cash and in-kind services. Morro Bay is a
small city of 10,000 with very limited resources but made this project
one of its highest priorities for almost 10 years because of the
regional importance of the harbor. Without continued Federal
maintenance, all of the past local and Federal investment will be lost.
Morro Bay Harbor is the only all-weather harbor of refuge between
Santa Barbara and Monterey on the West Coast. Our Harbor directly
supports almost 250 home-ported fishing vessels and marine dependent
businesses. We provide irreplaceable maritime facilities for both
recreational and commercial interests. Businesses that depend on the
harbor generate $53,500,000 annually and employ over 700 people. The
United States Coast Guard (USCG) maintains a 27 person search and
rescue station at Morro Bay Harbor to provide the Coast Guard services
for the entire Central California Coast. In 2000 the California
legislature designated Morro Bay and several other small ports along
the California coast as ``Harbors of Safe Refuge''. This legislation
recognizes the critical role many small harbors play in affording a
safety zone for commercial and recreational vessels transiting the
California coast.
Exposure to the open ocean and strong winter currents carrying
sediment into the harbor create the need for a routine maintenance
schedule to insure that the harbor entrance and federally designated
navigation channels remain safe and navigable. It is imperative that
the federally constructed navigation channels and protective jetties be
maintained to insure safe commerce and navigation on a 300 mile stretch
of the California Coast.
Last year the budget included $3.8 million for dredging of the
navigational channels including the Entrance Channel, the Navy Channel
and the Morro Channel. This year the President recommends $1.28 million
for maintenance dredging of the Federal navigation improvements in the
fiscal year 2003 budget focusing on the Entrance Improvement Area. This
area fills in the most rapidly and creates the most hazardous
conditions. We respectfully request that your distinguished
subcommittee include $1.28 million in dredging funds for Morro Bay
Harbor to keep our harbor open and safe in all conditions.
In addition to being home port to over 250 commercial fishing
vessels, Morro Bay Harbor is part of the federally designated National
Estuary Program. The Morro Bay Estuary was the subject of an ACOE
reconnaissance study (funded by Congress in 1998) of potential projects
to restore sensitive habitat through improving tidal circulation and
decreasing sedimentation. The County of San Luis Obispo and the Bay
Foundation are acting as local sponsors for the Feasibility Phase. We
support the President's recommendation for $200,000 to continue work on
the feasibility study for the Morro Bay Habitat Restoration project in
fiscal year 2003. We feel an additional appropriation of $100,000 would
help expedite the Feasibility Study.
Our thanks again for your actions and continued support. I am
grateful for the opportunity to present these requests to your
subcommittee on behalf of the citizens of the City of Morro Bay.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President UMRBA
Request Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction General:
Upper Miss. River System 12.200 33.520
Environmental Mgt. Program.........
Major Rehabilitation of Locks and 19.770 31.084
Dams...............................
Operation and Maintenance: O&M of the 143.383 167.192
UMR Navigation System..................
General Investigations:
Upper Mississippi and Illinois 1.000 3.685
Waterway Navigation Study..........
Upper Mississippi River System Flow .463 .995
Frequency Study....................
Upper Mississippi River 1.814 1.814
Comprehensive Plan.................
Stream Gaging (U.S. Geological .500 .500
Survey)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
introduction
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
river-related state programs and policies and for collaborating with
Federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the UMRBA works closely
with the Corps of Engineers on a variety of programs for which the
Corps has responsibility. Of particular interest to the basin states
are the following:
Environmental Management Program
For the past 15 years, the Upper Mississippi River System
Environmental Management Program (EMP) has been the premier program for
restoring the river's habitat and monitoring the river's ecological
health. As such, the EMP is key to achieving Congress' vision of the
Upper Mississippi as a ``nationally significant ecosystem and a
nationally significant commercial navigation system.'' Congress
reaffirmed its support for this program in the 1999 Water Resources
Development Act by reauthorizing the EMP as a continuing authority and
increasing the annual authorized appropriation to $33.520 million.
Despite this clear indication that the EMP is an important program,
despite its track record of success, and despite the fact that there is
capability to expend the full authorized appropriation, the President's
fiscal year 2003 budget includes only $12.2 million for the EMP. This
funding level reflects an extraordinary reduction of 40 percent from
fiscal year 2002. Furthermore, it represents a mere one-third of the
authorized annual funding level. Such a dramatic cut will have
devastating effects on the program and must be reversed.
Roughly two-thirds of EMP funding is devoted to habitat restoration
activities such as island creation, side channel closures and openings,
water level control, and selective backwater dredging. The severely
reduced fiscal year 2003 budget will dramatically affect these on-going
habitat restoration efforts. In particular, planning work will be
reduced on at least 8 projects. Design work will be cut back on another
6 projects and abandoned entirely on 6 projects. In addition,
construction work on 7 projects will be entirely dropped and
significantly reduced on another 2 projects. In short, there will be
sufficient funds to proceed with construction of only 5 projects.
The EMP long-term resource monitoring program (LTRMP) faces equally
devastating cuts. The LTRMP currently supports six field stations
throughout the river system that routinely collect standardized data on
water quality, sediment, fish, invertebrates, and vegetation at over
150 sites. In addition, the LTRMP conducts focused studies to evaluate
restoration options and develops computerized data analysis and
integration tools. This monitoring and research is critically
important, not only in support of the EMP habitat projects, but also to
a vast array of other Federal and State river management
responsibilities. If EMP funding is cut back to $12.2 million in fiscal
year 2003, the LTRMP will need to be significantly restructured. Either
the spatial extent of the program will need to be reduced, by
eliminating field stations, or sampling intensity and rigor will need
to be reduced. Neither alternative is sustainable and ultimately the
ability of the program to fulfill its Congressionally mandated mission
will be jeopardized.
Funding cutbacks for the EMP could not have come at a worse time.
The Corps of Engineers has recently restarted its Navigation Study on
the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System with the
expectation that the study will set the future course for improving
both the river navigation infrastructure and ecosystem. Yet without a
strong EMP program as one of the tools to meet river environmental
needs, that future is indeed bleak. The UMRBA thus strongly urges that
EMP funding be increased from $12.2 million to the full authorized
annual appropriation of $33.17 million in fiscal year 2003.
Major Rehabilitation of Locks and Dams
Given that most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi
River System are over 60 years old, they are in serious need of repair
and rehabilitation. For the past 16 years, the Corps has been
undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout
the navigation system in an effort to extend their useful life. This
work is critical to ensuring the system's reliability and safety.
The UMRBA supports the Corps' fiscal year 2003 budget request of
$19.77 million for major rehabilitation work at four locks and dams on
the Upper Mississippi River. Half of this amount is to be provided by
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Funding for Lock and Dam 12 ($5.404
million) and Lock and Dam 24 ($10.0 million) will support continuing
work, including rehabilitation of lock machinery and concrete
resurfacing. Funding for Lock and Dam 3 ($3.0 million) will support
corrections to hazardous outdraft conditions and reconstruction of the
embankments, which are structurally unsound. Funding for Lock and Dam
11 ($1.366 million) will support excavation and placement of rock fill
and derrick stone upstream and downstream of the dam. The funds that
the Corps has requested are expected to be sufficient to accomplish the
work scheduled at these four sites. However, an additional $11.314
million could be used to accelerate work on Lock and Dam 11 ($3.134
million), including completion of the scour protection work and award
of the Stage II lock rehabilitation contract; complete plans and
specifications and award contract for Stage I of the lock
rehabilitation work at Lock and Dam 19 ($3.680 million); and advance
completion of the lock wall contract by six months for Lock and Dam 24
($4.500 million).
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the Upper Mississippi River
Navigation System
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for operating and maintaining
the Upper Mississippi River System for navigation. This includes
channel maintenance dredging, placement and repair of channel training
structures, water level regulation, and the routine operation of 29
locks and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks and dams on the
Illinois River. The fiscal year 2003 budget includes approximately $143
million for O&M of this river system, including $102.668 million for
the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the Missouri River,
$13.878 million for the Mississippi River between the Missouri River
and Ohio River, and $26.837 million for the Illinois Waterway.
These funds are critical to the Corps' ability to maintain a safe
and reliable commercial navigation system. In addition, these funds
support a variety of activities that ensure the navigation system is
maintained while protecting and enhancing the river's environmental
values. For example, O&M funds support innovative environmental
engineering techniques in the open river reaches such as bendway weirs,
chevrons, and notched dikes that maintain the navigation channel in an
environmentally sensitive manner. In addition, water level management
options for a number of pools in the impounded portion of the river are
being evaluated under the O&M program. Pool level management, such as
that being tested in Pool 8, is a promising new approach for enhancing
aquatic plant growth and overwintering conditions for fish without
adversely affecting navigation.
While the funds that the Corps has requested for fiscal year 2003
are expected to be adequate to meet basic O&M requirements, the UMRBA
supports additional funding of $23.809 million, which could be
effectively utilized in fiscal year 2003 for critical needs such as
electrical repairs, bulkhead repairs, repairs to cracks and spalls on
lockwalls, concrete repairs, repairs to liftgates, revetment and dike
repairs, and replacement of roller gate chains at various lock
locations on the upper river. Additional funds are also needed to
support work related to fish passage at dams.
Navigation Study
In August 2001, Director of Civil Works Major General Robert
Griffin, issued guidance for restructuring the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois Waterway Navigation Study. This study was initiated in
1993 and later ``put on hold'' in 2001 to allow mid-course adjustments
in response to recommendations from the National Research Council and a
new National Federal Senior Principals Task Force.
The study is now on a new course that has the potential for
developing a collaborative integrated strategy to meet both the
navigation and environmental needs of this great river. The UMRBA
welcomes this new approach to the study and its committed to working
with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that it is brought to a
successful and timely conclusion. However, to do so will require more
funding than that originally anticipated for fiscal year 2003. UMRBA
thus supports funding of $3.685 million for the UMR-ILWW Navigation
Study in fiscal year 2003.
Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study
Flow frequencies for the Upper Mississippi River System badly need
revision. The flood profiles currently in use were developed in 1979 by
an interagency task force and replaced profiles previously adopted in
1966. However, the accuracy of the 1979 profiles has come into question
now that there are over 20 years of new data, including flow records
from several high water events such as the Great Flood of 1993.
Flood elevation profiles have a variety of important uses including
flood insurance; floodplain management; and the study, design, and
construction of flood control projects. Thus, the five states of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin have been strong supporters of the Corps'
efforts to reassess the methodology, update the data, and develop more
sophisticated and accurate models. The Administration's fiscal year
2003 budget includes $463,000 for the Upper Mississippi River Flow
Frequency Study. However, an additional $532,000 is needed in fiscal
year 2003 to prevent a 2-year delay in completion of this important
cutting edge study. In fiscal year 2002, the study received only
$630,000 of the $1.2 million appropriated by Congress. It is imperative
that the Flow Frequency Study be completed in a timely fashion because
the results of the study will provide the foundation for development of
a systemic flood damage reduction plan, authorized in the 1999 Water
Resources Development Act as the ``Upper Mississippi River
Comprehensive Plan.'' The UMRBA thus supports $995,000 for the Flow
Frequency Study in fiscal year 2003 to help bring this critical study
to a successful conclusion.
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan (Flood Damage Reduction)
Section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
authorized the Corps to develop what is termed an ``Upper Mississippi
River Comprehensive Plan,'' the primary focus of which is systemic
flood damage reduction and flood protection. Such a study is an
important complement to the on-going, newly restructured Navigation
Study for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. It is
imperative that the flood damage reduction comprehensive plan proceed
immediately, in tandem with the Navigation Study, to ensure that all
major needs of the river system are addressed in an integrated fashion.
In fiscal year 2002, $1 million was appropriated to initiate the
Comprehensive Plan for flood damage reduction. However, only $630,000
has been allocated to date. In light of this, the UMRBA supports the
fiscal year 2003 funding request of $1.814 million to advance the UMR
Comprehensive Plan. In particular, funds are needed to complete the
Project Management Plan (PMP) and the inventory of existing floodplain
data, and to initiate development of systemic floodplain digital data
coverage.
Stream Gaging
The Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the USGS operates
approximately 150 stream gages in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. In
fiscal year 2002, the estimated Corps share of the cost of these gages
is $1.805 million. Most stream gages are funded as part of the cost of
the project to which they are related. However, there are a number of
gages that are not associated with a particular project. Thus, UMRBA
supports the $500,000 requested under General Investigations to support
the Corps' share of non-project USGS stream gages, many of which are
located in the five states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
______
Prepared Statement of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District
Presented herewith is testimony in support of $40,000,000 for the
construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to continue the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes flood control
project in Clark County, Nevada. Also, testimony in support of
$5,000,000 appropriation to reimburse the non-Federal sponsors, Clark
County and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District, for work
performed in advance of the Federal project pursuant to Section 211 of
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. This project is
located in the rapidly growing Las Vegas Valley in Southern Nevada.
The Las Vegas Valley continues to experience unprecedented growth
in the past 20 plus years. People have moved into the area from all
parts of the nation to seek employment, provide necessary services,
retire in the Sunbelt, and become part of this dynamic community. It is
estimated that 6,000 people relocate to the Las Vegas Valley every
month of the year. Currently the population exceeds 1.4 million. The
latest statistics show that more than 30,000 residential units are
built annually. Once all of these factors are combined, the result is
that the Las Vegas Valley continues to be one of the fastest-growing
areas in the nation.
The Federal project being constructed by the Corps of Engineers
(Corps) is designed to collect flood flows from a 160-square mile
contributing drainage area. The Corps' project includes three debris
basins, five detention basins, 28 miles of primary channels, and a
network of lateral collector channels. The debris basins are designed
to collect flood flows from undeveloped Federal lands at the headwaters
of the alluvial fans and trap large bedload debris before it enters the
channels and causes erosion damage. The detention basins function to
greatly reduce the magnitude of the flood flows so that the flows can
be safely released and conveyed through the developed urbanized area at
non-damaging rates. The outflow from the debris basins and the reduced
flows from the detention basins will be contained in the primary
channel system that will also serve as outfalls for the lateral
collector channels. While this latter element (lateral collector
channels) is considered a non-Federal element of the entire plan, it is
being funded locally because it is a necessary element for the system
to function properly and afford flood protection for the community.
Since flood flow over the alluvial fans, which ring the Las Vegas
Valley, is so unpredictable in terms of the direction it will take
during any given flood, all of the components of the Corps' plan are
critical.
Torrential rains deluged the Las Vegas Valley the morning of July
8, 1999, causing widespread drainage problems and major damages to
public and private properties. Some of the largest rainfall depths
occurred over the southwest portions of the Las Vegas Valley resulting
in significant flows in the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes. The runoff
that resulted from this intense rainfall caused widespread street
flooding and record high flows in normally dry washes and flood control
facilities. The news media reported two deaths resulting from this
flood event, one of which was a drowning in the Flamingo Wash. Damages
to public property resulting from this storm are estimated at
$20,500,000. The President declared Clark County a Federal disaster
area on July 19, 1999, recognizing the severity of damages to public
and private properties. Significant damages could have been avoided if
the Corps' Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project had been fully
implemented. However, those features of the Corps' project that were
completed did help to mitigate damages. The storm of July 8, 1999,
further reemphasizes the need to expeditiously implement all flood
control projects in the Las Vegas Valley.
The Feasibility Report for this project was completed in October
1991, and Congressional authorization was included in the WRDA of 1992.
The first Federal appropriation to initiate construction of the project
became available through the Energy and Water Resources Development
Appropriations Bill signed into law by the President in October 1993.
The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was fully executed in February
1995. Federal appropriations to date have totaled $159,545,000,
allowing the project to continue to be implemented. The total cost of
the project is currently estimated at $291,000,000, higher than
originally anticipated primarily due to the delay in Federal
appropriations.
The local community had already constructed certain elements of the
Corps' plan prior to the execution of the PCA. These project elements
required modifications in order to fit into the Corps' plan and fulfill
the need for a ``total fan approach'' to the flooding problems of the
Las Vegas Valley. The work performed by the non-Federal sponsors,
construction of Red Rock Detention Basin and Flamingo Detention Basin,
has been accounted for in Section 104 credits and total $9,906,000.
Some of the benefits already realized from construction of flood
control features on the federal project include the removal of 12.3
square miles of flood zones from Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. This was accomplished through the
completion of the Red Rock Detention Basin Modifications and the Blue
Diamond Detention Basin. Additional benefits are forthcoming when
revised flood zone maps will be submitted to FEMA to show the effects
of flood zones removed along the Tropicana Wash and its tributaries due
to the completion of the Tropicana Detention Basin, Las Vegas Beltway
Channels (7A, 7B, 8 & 9), Tropicana Outlet Channel, Lower Blue Diamond
Channel, and Lower Flamingo Diversion Channel.
As non-Federal sponsors for this important flood control project,
both the Clark County Regional Flood Control District and Clark County
are looking forward to the construction start of each feature of this
project and the project's ultimate completion.
The non-Federal sponsors are requesting $40,000,000 for the
continued construction of this project. Funding at this level will
allow the Corps of Engineers to:
Complete/continue construction on the following.--R-4 Debris Basin
and Channel; Upper Flamingo Diversion Channel; F-1 Debris Basin and
Channel; F-2 Debris Basin and Channel.
Start construction of the following.--Upper Blue Diamond Channel;
F-4 Debris Basin and Channel; Flamingo Detention Basin Expansion.
In 1996, the local sponsors were notified that Federal funding
would be reduced for the Corps' flood control project in Las Vegas due
to reductions in the Corps' overall Federal budget. Our community has
already suffered a 5-year delay in project completion due to past
reductions in Federal funding. Any further delays in Federal funding,
in the fastest growing community in the nation, will mean increased
project costs due to lost opportunities compounded by inflation. It
might also mean further loss of life.
In order to provide the required flood protection in a timely
fashion, the non-Federal sponsors are implementing certain features in
advance of the Federal Government pursuant to Section 211 of WRDA 1996.
An amendment to the PCA was fully executed on December 17, 1999, that
formalizes the provisions of Section 211 of WRDA 1996. Section 211(f)
of WRDA 1996 identifies the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project as
one of eight projects in the nation to demonstrate the potential
advantages and effectiveness of non-Federal implementation of Federal
flood control projects. The work funded by the non-Federal sponsors and
completed to date pursuant to Section 211 of WRDA 1996 totals
approximately $24,742,125 and includes features that were designed by
the non-Federal sponsors and constructed by either the Federal
Government or the non-Federal sponsors. These features are summarized
in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor's
Project Element Nature of Work Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tropicana Detention Basin Outfall--Russell Design, Construction & Construction Management... $239,777
Road Box Culvert.
Tropicana Detention Basin Outfall--Valley Design, Construction & Construction Management... 170,659
View Boulevard Box Culvert.
Blue Diamond Channel--Las Vegas Beltway Design (Project element constructed by Corps).... 419,531
(Segment 7A).
Blue Diamond & Red Rock Channels--Las Vegas Design, Construction & Construction Management... 23,552,950
Beltway (Segment 7B, 8 & 9).
Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas Beltway (Segment Design (Project element constructed by Corps).... 359,157
10A).
Total Sponsors' Costs........................ ................................................. 24,742,125
Estimated Federal Share...................... ................................................. 18,556,594
Appropriations to Date....................... ................................................. 9,600,000
Remaining Federal Share...................... ................................................. 8,956,594
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The local community appreciates the $9,600,000 in the last two
Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bills to reimburse the local
community for work done in advance. For fiscal year 2003, we are asking
the committee to appropriate funding of $5,000,000 of the remaining
$8,956,594 to reimburse the non-Federal sponsors the Federal
proportionate share (75 percent) of the completed work pursuant to
Section 211 of WRDA of 1996 and the PCA amendment. This amount is
requested in light of the language contained in the fiscal year 2000
Energy and Water Development Bill, Senate Report 106-58, which states
in part, ``The Committee expects a every effort to even out
reimbursement payments to lessen future budgetary impacts.'' The non-
Federal sponsors' contributions to the project are for the primary
purpose of providing flood protection as quickly as possible.
In summary, the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes project is an
important public safety project designed to provide flood protection
for one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation. We ask that
the committee provide the Secretary of the Army with $40,000,000, in
fiscal year 2003, in order to facilitate continued design and
construction of additional phases of this critical flood control
project. We are also asking that the committee provide the Secretary of
the Army with $5,000,000 to reimburse the non-Federal sponsors the
Federal proportionate share of the work completed by the sponsors in
advance of the Federal Government.
The committee is aware that flood control measures are a necessary
investment required to prevent loss of life and damages to people's
homes and businesses. Flood control is a wise investment that will pay
for itself by preserving life and property and reducing the probability
of repeatedly asking the Federal Government for disaster assistance.
Therefore, when balancing the Federal budget, a thorough analysis would
prove that there is substantial future Federal savings in disaster
assistance that supports sufficient appropriations through the Civil
Works Budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Garibaldi
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Carol
Brown. I am one of three elected Commissioners of the Port of
Garibaldi, Oregon, located on Tillamook Bay on the Oregon Coast. We
appreciate the opportunity to present our views on appropriations
issues to the Committee.
appropriations request
The Port of Garibaldi requests a $315,000 appropriation for
operations and maintenance (O & M) of Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
The budget request is $15,000. The increased funding will allow the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Portland District to prepare
Plans and Specifications for the Tillamook Bay North and South Jetties.
report on the tillamook bay jetty system
There are serious problems with both jetties. The U.S. Coast Guard
has determined that deterioration of the South Jetty has created a
dangerous threat to navigation safety. The Corps' recent engineering
analysis demonstrates that erosion on the north side of the North Jetty
continues at a highly accelerated rate. Should the North Jetty breach,
shellfish beds, a county park and a state highway would sustain severe
damage.
Restoration and repair of the Tillamook Bay Jetty System is key to
maintaining navigation safety, protecting both public and private
property and the environment, and preserving the economic vitality of
the Oregon Coast.
In December 2000, The Board of Commissioners of the Port of
Garibaldi and Tillamook County prepared a report on the Tillamook Bay
jetty system and bar to inform legislators and other concerned parties
of the need to restore the jetties and their bar to safe, acceptable
engineering standards. Excerpts of that report are included below.
There are three major issues currently associated with the
deterioration of the system.
--There is a clearly documented increasing hazard to navigation from
erosion around the ocean ends of both jetties and resultant
damage to the bar which is causing an escalating loss of life
in boating accidents every year.
--There is a potentially significant loss of land mass containing
recreational facilities and permanent structures in one area
where the north jetty has already breached near its root.
--There is data currently being collected (but incomplete at this
time) which suggests a possible relationship between the
deteriorated condition of the jetties and bar and the degree of
flooding in some land areas surrounding Tillamook Bay.
The report contains a history of construction and repair of the
jetties by the Corps, an overview of construction and repair results, a
summary of an independent engineering report solicited by the Port and
the Corps' own evaluations of the jetties' present condition, reasons
for restoration of the jetties and bar, and the Commissioners'
endorsement of repair of the jetty system and bar as both an urgent
public safety measure and possible contribution to mitigation of
flooding in the estuary. We will provide a copy of the report to the
Committee upon request.
background
Since settlement in the 1800s, Tillamook County's primary
industries have been dairy, water and timber oriented. Tillamook Bay
and the five rivers which feed it have historically furnished an
abundance of shellfish, salmon and other species of fresh-water and
ocean food fish. Over the past century the area has become renowned as
one of the West's premier sport fishing locations.
Tillamook County's economy has always depended on prime conditions
in Tillamook Bay, its estuary and watershed for cultivation and use of
these natural resources. However, human activities including forestry,
agriculture and urban development have adversely impacted the entire
Bay area by increasing erosion rates and landslide potential in the
forest slopes and significantly reducing wetland and riparian habitat.
All five rivers entering Tillamook Bay now exceed temperature and/or
bacteria standards established by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. The installation of a north jetty on Tillamook
Bay begun in 1912 caused increased erosion of the Bay's westerly land
border, Bayocean Spit, on the ocean side. The Spit breached in 1950.
This allowed the Bay to fill with ocean sands on its southern and
western perimeters and caused a major reduction in shellfish habitat,
sport-fishing area, and an increase in the cross-section of the bar. A
south jetty begun in 1969 helped stabilize the Spit and created the
navigation channel presently in use.
Increasingly poor water quality in the Bay's feeder rivers and a
substantial loss of marine life over the past 25 years enabled
Tillamook Bay to become part of the National Estuary Program in 1992.
The Project's scope of study included the estuary and watershed. One of
the stated goals in the Project's final Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan is ``the reduction of magnitude, frequency and impact
of flood events.'' This goal was found to be consistent with the scope
of study of the Corps' Feasibility Study for Water Resources in
Tillamook County now being conducted, and was incorporated into this
new project.
Previous Corps' evaluations of jetty systems clearly state the
adverse effects of jetty deterioration and infilling of channels and
bars on tidal prism (the rate at which water flows into and out of the
Bay) and indicate that they may influence flooding in a bay's estuary.
During the past thirty-six months measurements have been taken of
differential water levels in Tillamook Bay and its estuary and speeds
of tidal flows during normal and high water events. This data suggests
an increase in the cross-section of the Tillamook Bay bar and some
channel infilling which may be affecting esturine flooding. These
measurements are of stated interest to the Corps. The Port of
Garibaldi, many Tillamook County businesses which have been victims of
flooding, and some governmental agencies concerned with various aspects
of the flooding issue are supporting continuing gathering of these
measurements of water levels and tidal flow speeds.
While the conditions of jetties and their resultant bars invariably
and continually affect the bay on which they are constructed, their
basic function is the creation of a safe channel between ocean and
harbor for the transit of maritime traffic. As originally designed and
constructed, the Tillamook Bay jetties accomplished this. Due to their
present state of deterioration, that initial effectiveness has been
substantially reduced.
results in brief
Tillamook County has suffered a series of devastating floods since
the winter of 1996. The storms caused by El Nino/La Nina events have
increased the rate of deterioration of Tillamook Bay's jetties and bar.
Their present condition is raising increasing navigational safety
issues. The north jetty is now breached in an especially sensitive
location near its root where the wall protects inhabited land, and the
eroded area is increasing in size. A significant quantity of water
flowing through this area would result in loss of the existing land
mass adjacent to it and the structures on it. A second area of
deterioration on the north jetty at the beach line is threatening to
breach. But in either location, an infill of the channel with sands
would reduce the navigability of the channel, further slow the rate of
tidal flow and impact the cross-section of the bar. An even greater
degree of danger to boaters than that which presently exists would
surely be created.
The Bayocean Spit breach in 1950 buried one-third the Bay's
shellfish habitat under ocean sands and did extensive damage to
esturine lands. The lost shellfish habitat has never been recovered.
The direction of tidal flow in the Bay is such that a breach in the
north jetty would cause additional buildup of ocean sands to the inside
edge of the Spit. This infill would eventually deposit toward the south
end of the Bay and demolish even more shellfish habitat and sport
fishing area, adversely impacting Tillamook County's already reduced
economy. The harbor area would certainly suffer some degree of damage,
resulting in increased commercial hardship.
But the most serious impact of jetty and bar deterioration has been
on navigational safety. The United States Coast Guard Tillamook Bay
Station has publicly commented on the transit danger to sport,
commercial and their own vessels due to erosion effects which now
constitute a maritime hazard. Many local sport and most commercial
fishermen have abandoned Garibaldi as a permanent berth and sought
harbor facilities where channel navigation is easier and transit of the
bar less treacherous. The Coast Guard has formally requested that the
Corps ``restore the north and south jetties to their original
dimensions, and remove materials from the original construction that
may now pose a maritime hazard.''
principal findings
Since the last repair to the south jetty, approximately 302 feet
have been lost to erosion, 215 feet of that amount since 1998. The
north jetty was designed and authorized by the USACOE to be 5,700 feet
in length. As of December, 2000, approximately 275 feet of the ocean
end of the north jetty is eroded and remains below mean lower low water
level--submerged, in other words. In 1990 the USACOE capped the head of
the north jetty from its above-water point going landward for a
distance of 161 feet in an unsuccessful attempt at erosion control. The
north jetty remains at least 300 feet short of its engineering-approved
and authorized length.
Because of the increased magnitude of storms since 1996, both
jetties have suffered far more damage than that normally expected to
occur to such structures. Erosion and displacement of large support
stones at the ocean ends of both jetties is particularly severe, and
the submerged ends of both structures are being pushed southward. These
two areas, adjacent to popular sport fishing locations, are now
identified by the Coast Guard as extremely dangerous locations. Water
swirls around the displaced boulders causing eddies sometimes strong
enough to suck small boats into them. Even in calm, flat seas, water
breaks over these boulders into waves powerful enough to throw smaller
vessels onto the jetties. (This was the case on September 22, 2000,
when a sport fishing boat inadvertently drifted inside the 200 foot
exclusion zone and was dashed onto the end of the south jetty. Two
people were killed and a third injured, this incident being the most
recent loss of life this year in the accident record of the Tillamook
Bay jetties and bar.)
conclusion
On behalf of the Port of Garibaldi and Tillamook County, I thank
the Committee for giving me this opportunity to provide testimony on
the Tillamook Bay Jetty System.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal 2003 appropriations. We understand and appreciate that the
Subcommittee's ability to fund programs within its jurisdiction is
limited by our current national emergency.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1,000,000 individual
members and 1,900 corporate associates. We have programs in all 50
states and in 27 foreign countries. We have protected more than 12.6
million acres in the United States and more than 80 million acres with
local partner organization worldwide. The Conservancy owns and manages
1,400 preserves throughout the United States--the largest private
system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Sound science and strong
partnerships with public and private landowners to achieve tangible and
lasting results characterize our conservation programs.
The Nature Conservancy urges the Committee to support the following
appropriation levels in the fiscal 2003 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation bill:
--White River Basin Comprehensive Study in Arkansas.--The White River
Basin Comprehensive Study will enable the Corps to pull
together the needs of myriad issues in the White River basin
and permit a sensible long term plan for the region. The Nature
Conservancy strongly supports $1.1 million in fiscal 2003 for
the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to begin a Comprehensive
Study in the White River basin, an increase over the
Administration's $400,000 request.
--Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study.--The
Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study is
examining how to reduce the risk of flood while restoring the
watersheds diverse ecosystem. The Nature Conservancy supports
$6.0 million in fiscal 2003, an increase over the
Administration's $3.0 million.
--San Joaquin River Basin Feasibility Study, Consumnes and Mokelumne
Rivers.--The San Joaquin River Basin Feasibility Study is
studying several alternatives to rehabilitate and restore
riparian floodplain habitat. The Nature Conservancy supports
$500,000 in fiscal 2003, an increase over the Administration's
$100,000 request.
--Section 1135: Project Modification for the Improvement of the
Environment.--The Section 1135 Program authorizes the Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) to restore areas damaged by existing
Corps projects. This program permits modification of existing
dams and flood control projects to increase habitat for fish
and wildlife without interrupting a project's original purpose.
The Nature Conservancy is the non-Federal cost share partner on
a project at Spunky Bottoms on the Illinois River that needs
$388,000 in fiscal 2003. The Conservancy supports full funding
of $25.0 million for the Section 1135 program in fiscal 2003.
--Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--Section 206 is a newer
Corps program that authorizes the Corps to restore aquatic
habitat regardless of past activities. The Conservancy has
several projects that put Section 206 to work restoring
important habitat, including a $5 million project at Kankakee
Sands in Indiana, and a restoration project at the headwaters
of the Big Darby River in Ohio that will need $1.0 million for
the construction phase in fiscal 2003. The Conservancy supports
full funding of $25.0 million for this valuable program in
fiscal 2003.
--Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation.--Created in WRDA 1986,
the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is
designed to reverse the negative environmental impacts of lower
river channelization and bank stabilization through land
acquisition from willing sellers. The Mitigation Project allows
the Corps to restore chutes, side channels, and other off-
channel floodplain habitat for river wildlife. The Conservancy
supports a funding level of $20.0 million for fiscal 2003, an
increase over the Administration's $17.5 million request.
--Recovery Implementation Program for Colorado Endangered Fish
Species.--The Recovery Program is in its 13 year of working for
the recovery of endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River Basin. The Recovery Program serves as a model of
successful cooperation between three states (Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming), Federal agencies, water development interests,
power users and the environmental community in the recovery of
four endangered fish species. The Conservancy supports $6.3
million in fiscal 2003 for the Bureau of Reclamation.
--Challenge 21: Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
Mitigation Program.--The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
1999 authorized the Challenge 21 program as a 5-year, $200
million effort to enhance riverine ecosystems and encourage
non-structural flood control projects. Challenge 21 directs
non-structural flood control, in part through relocation of
frequently flooded homes and businesses in smaller communities;
and habitat restoration, including floodplain wetland
restoration. The Nature Conservancy supports a $25.0 million
initial appropriation in fiscal 2003.
--Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program.--
The Environmental Management Program (EMP) is an important
Corps program that constructs habitat restoration projects as
well as conducts long-term resource monitoring of the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP operates as a unique
Federal-State partnership affecting five states (Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin). The EMP was
reauthorized in WRDA 1999 with an increased authorization in
the amount of $33.1 million. The Conservancy supports a funding
level of $33.1 million for fiscal 2003 and will permit a
controlled increase into the newly authorized funding levels.
--Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project.--The Yakima River Basin
Enhancement Project is a Bureau of Reclamation project that
funds water conservation through improvements to Bureau of
Reclamation and on-farm irrigation works, water rights and land
acquisition. The Nature Conservancy supports $20.0 million in
fiscal 2003.
--Estuary Habitat Restoration Program.--The Estuary Habitat
Restoration Program was established with the intent to restore
one million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. This multi-agency
program will promote projects that result in healthy ecosystems
that support wildlife, fish and shellfish, improve surface and
groundwater quality, quantity, and flood control; and provide
outdoor recreation. The Nature Conservancy supports $10 million
in fiscal 2003.
--Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.--The Everglades
and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program is designed to
save and restore a critical natural treasure by acquiring high
priority natural lands for protection, capturing runoff lost to
tide, restoring natural hydropatterns essential for the overall
heath of the system and for protecting water supplies for human
use. The Nature Conservancy supports the President's budget
request for $19.5 million in fiscal 2003.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
comments on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. We recognize that
you receive many worthy requests for funding each year and appreciate
your consideration of these requests and the generous support you have
shown for these and other conservation programs in the past.
______
Prepared Statement of the Los Osos Community Services District
The Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD) respectfully
submits this testimony in support of Representative Lois Capps' Energy
and Water Development Act request to appropriate $7.8 million in
federal fiscal year 2002-03 to pay for design of the Los Osos
Wastewater Project, Los Osos, California. WRDA Design funding for the
Los Osos Wastewater Project was authorized in Section 219(a)27 of H.R.
4577 of 2000.
The Los Osos Community Services District serves a population of
14,600 people within a 3,500 acre territory adjacent to the Morro Bay
National Estuary in San Luis Obispo County. The regulatory agency
responsible for protecting the groundwater quality for Los Osos, the
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), has
determined that discharge from private septic systems is the principle
source of nitrate contamination of the shallow portion of the Los Osos
Groundwater Basin. The RWQCB has issued twenty-four separate Cease and
Desist Orders and a Time Schedule Order requiring LOCSD to replace the
septic systems in a 2,500 acre ``Zone of Prohibition'' with a community
sewer. The RWQCB has also ordered a moratorium on new construction and
intensification of existing uses within the Zone of Prohibition.
In addition to the outstanding RWQCB orders, The Morro Bay National
Estuary Program (MBNEP) has determined that construction of a Los Osos
Community Sewer is a high priority for protecting the Morro Bay
National Estuary. In EPA's approved plan for protecting Morro Bay,
``Turning the Tide for Morro Bay'', the MBNEP states that, ``Another
important source of nutrients to Morro Bay is generated from leaking
and failing septic tanks in Los Osos. The Community of Los Osos/Baywood
Park, with a population of 14,600 is located directly on the edge of
Morro Bay and is still served by onsite septic systems. It is possible
that some of the degraded groundwater is entering the bay . . . A
wastewater system needs to be developed, funds need to be obtained,
incentives need to be developed, and education activities need to be
undertaken to resolve this long term problem.''
The Health Officer for the County of San Luis Obispo has issued
health warnings regarding the high level of bacteria and pathogens in
surface water. According to Dr. Richard Lichtenfels of County Health,
``the Department agrees that the standing pools do represent a health
threat.'' Until a public sewer and comprehensive surface water drainage
system is built, this office will continue to monitor the standing
pools and appraise the community of the potential for disease
transmission.
Finally, nitrate contamination of the shallow groundwater basin
from septic discharge has forced three Los Osos water purveyors to
abandon production from the unconfined layer and to substitute
groundwater from the lower confined aquifer. As a result the community
has started to experience salt-water intrusion in portions of the deep
groundwater layer.
To address these problems, LOCSD has selected a community
wastewater system that the RWQCB has described as viable and
technically sound. Following is a summary of the collection, treatment,
and disposal components of the proposed system:
Collection System.--A gravity collection system would be designed
to transport raw wastewater from approximately 4,750 sites to the
treatment facility in 204,000 linear feet of PVC pipe with ten lift
stations in low spots around the perimeter of the collected area.
Treatment Facility.--A treatment facility at the TriW site would be
designed to produce tertiary treated wastewater with a quality suitable
for public contact (Ca. Health Code Title 22) using the extended
aeration process followed by filtration and ultra violet light
disinfection. Since the proposed site is downtown, the proposed
treatment facility would be covered and odor-scrubbed to avoid use
conflicts. As a side benefit, the surface of the covered portion of the
facility would be used for an off-leash dig park, sports fields and
trails.
Disposal System.--The disposal system would be designed to recharge
the groundwater basin with the low nitrate tertiary treated wastewater
using subsurface leach fields in areas with adequate separation to
groundwater on both sides of the Los Osos fault trace. This disposed
tertiary water is recharged into the groundwater table so that the
District can harvest additional well water down gradient to augment the
community's sustainable water supply.
LOCSD has performed the environmental review required by the State
of California and has certified a Final Environmental Impact Report on
this proposed project. In the environmental review process, LOCSD has
coordinated with both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USF&WS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USPEA).
LOCSD has submitted formal consultation requests with USF&WS and USEPA
for mitigation of Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Mitigation and
for preparation of a watershed wide all species Habitat Conservation
Plan. LOCSD expects the USF&WS to issue a positive biological opinion
on LOCSD's proposed project this fall.
LOCSD has also prepared a preliminary design engineering report to
evaluate alternative solutions and to provide cost estimates for the
proposed solution. LOCSD adopted the Los Osos Wastewater Facilities
Project Report on March 15, 2001. The Project Report estimates that the
proposed project will cost $84.6 Million for the project described
above including all design, construction, land acquisition and habitat
mitigation. Without grant funding, the project would cost the average
single family property owner approximately $107 per month including
approximately $80 per month in debt service charges and $27 per month
in operating user fees. This monthly cost is over five times the cost
paid by the average wastewater customer in California according to the
State Water Resources Control Board.
According to the 1990 U.S. Census, over a third of Los Osos
residents are classified as low to very low income. LOCSD is concerned
that construction of the project without significant grant funding
would displace these residents and dramatically change the social
fabric of our community. If federal funding is available to pay 75
percent of the project capital cost ($64,000,000), the average monthly
cost per residence drops from $107 per month to approximately $45 per
month per residence. Although $45 per month is still twice the average
cost paid by residences in other parts of California, it would likely
displace fewer residents and cause less hardship.
LOCSD believes that its proposed project warrants federal
participation because it addresses a federal problem in regards to
preservation of the Morro Bay National Estuary. As documented earlier,
the EPA approved recovery plan for Morro Bay identifies LOCSD's project
as a ``priority action'' for preserving the National Estuary. In
addition, the District believes that this project should be viewed as a
federal demonstration project for how other communities can address
water supply concerns at the same time they respond to federal water
quality mandates and how communities can locate a treatment facility in
a downtown area by taking advantage of innovative technology such as
odor-scrubbing. Additionally, the downtown location results in energy
savings as compared to pumping the raw waste to and from a site at the
perimeter of town.
LOCSD respectfully requests that the Subcommittee approves the
funding request submitted by Representative Lois Capps for this
project.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
This year, American Rivers was joined by over 600 local, regional
and national conservation organizations \1\ from all 50 states in
calling for significantly increased funding for several programs in the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, including programs
run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, and
Department of Interior agencies. I urge that these requests be
incorporated in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These groups have endorsed ``The River Budget 2003'', a report
of national funding priorities for local river conservation. A list of
groups endorsing the River Budget can be viewed at http://
www.americanrivers.org/riverbudget/default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
u.s. army corps of engineers programs
Although projects planned and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers have produced benefits, including flood protection and cost-
effective transportation, Corps projects have also altered natural
hydrologic regimes, disturbed river ecosystems, destroyed wetlands, and
encouraged development in high hazard floodplains. These activities
have had severe and adverse impacts on the nation's environmental and
economic health.
Increasingly, the Corps is being called upon to undo some of the
damage of the past, and environmental restoration has joined navigation
and flood control as a new, but equally important, Corps mission. To
this end, American Rivers encourages funding of the following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers programs:
Section 1135.--The Section 1135 program, Project Modification for
Improvement of the Environment, allows the Corps to restore river
systems degraded by existing Corps projects. Under Section 1135, the
Corps can modify existing dams and flood control projects to increase
habitat for fish and wildlife, and restore areas affected by Corps
projects. Non-federal interests must provide for 35 percent of project
costs, and modifications must not interfere with a project's original
purpose.
Despite the significant adverse impacts of Corps projects
throughout the nation, the Section 1135 program has never been fully
funded. As a consequence, even though this program has been authorized
since 1986, only 45 Section 1135 projects had been completed or were
under construction as of 1999. It is clear that the interest in this
program is greater than these project numbers indicate. In fiscal year
2001, 355 Section 1135 projects had to compete for funding totaling
only $21 million.
Congress should fully fund Section 1135 with a $25 million
appropriation.
Section 206.--A more recent addition to the Corps environmental
restoration arsenal is Section 206, the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
program. Section 206 allows the Corps to undertake small-scale projects
to restore aquatic habitat, even in areas not directly harmed by past
Corps projects. Projects carried out under this program must improve
the quality of the environment, be in the public interest, and be cost-
effective. Individual projects may not exceed $5 million, and as with
section 1135 programs, non-federal interests must contribute 35 percent
of project costs.
Unfortunately, many communities are unable to participate in this
program due to inadequate funding. In fiscal year 2001, 185 different
Section 206 projects had to compete for funding totaling $19 million.
Congress should fully fund Section 206 with a $25 million
appropriation.
Challenge 21.--Escalating flood losses are a national concern. Over
the past 25 years, the federal government has spent more than $140
billion for traditional structural flood control projects and flood
damage recovery. Yet despite these expenditures, billions of public and
private dollars are spent each year on costly repairs and
reconstruction of floodplain property and associated infrastructure
damaged by floods.
Flooded communities are increasingly seeking and implementing non-
structural solutions to reduce flooding. These solutions include moving
frequently flooded homes and business out of floodplains and working to
return the floodplains of rivers and creeks to a condition where they
can naturally moderate floods. In addition to reducing flood losses,
non-structural projects help meet many other goals of riverside
communities, including improving water quality, increasing
opportunities for recreation, and improving and restoring wildlife
habitat. Unfortunately, however, most federal spending does little to
support non-structural solutions to flood damage reduction.
Challenge 21, a flood damage reduction program authorized in 1999,
is designed to help support non-structural flood control solutions.
Also known as the Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Restoration
Program, Challenge 21 allows the Corps to relocate vulnerable homes and
businesses in smaller communities, restore floodplain wetlands,
increase opportunities for riverside recreation, and improve quality of
life in riverside communities. Challenge 21 also authorizes the Corps
to work with other federal agencies to help local governments both
reduce flood damages and conserve, restore, and manage riverine and
floodplain resources. Individual Challenge 21 projects cannot exceed
$25 million, and local communities must provide 35 percent of project
costs.
Challenge 21 is currently authorized for only five years. In April
2003, the Corps must report to Congress on the efficacy of the program
in achieving the dual goals of flood hazard mitigation and riverine
restoration, and make recommendations concerning continuing the
program. But before the Corps can make a meaningful assessment, it must
have the funding to implement the program. Unfortunately, although $50
million was authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2001 and
2002, Challenge 21 has received no funding to date.
Congress should appropriate $50 million for the Flood Hazard
Mitigation and Riverine Restoration Program for fiscal year 2003
through fiscal year 2005.
Environmental Management Program.--More than half of the fish and
wildlife habitat created by the Mississippi River's backwaters and side
channels could be lost by 2035. This would lead to a catastrophic
collapse of the nation's most productive and diverse inland fishery.
Loss of river habitat also threatens a $1.2 billion river-recreation
industry, which supports 18,000 jobs. One way Congress can help reverse
this degradation and restore the Upper Mississippi River is to increase
funding for the Environmental Management Program (EMP).
EMP, the primary habitat restoration and monitoring program on the
Upper Mississippi, has restored or created 28,000 acres of habitat to
date. When the projects currently under construction are completed, it
will have protected more than 97,000 acres of habitat.
Congress should appropriate $33.17 million for the Environmental
Management Program.
Lower Columbia River Estuary Program.--In its 2000 Biological
Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System, the National
Marine Fisheries Service identified improvements in the estuary as a
key piece of a larger plan to recover the twelve threatened and
endangered Columbia Basin salmon stocks. The decline of salmon in the
Columbia and Snake River basin is an indicator of declining health in
the basin generally, and salmon declines also have had negative
economic effects. An Oregon State University Extension Service report
concludes that the commercial salmon fishing industry provided $41
million in personal income annually from 1976-1980; in 1998, it
provided just $4 million.
Section 536 of the 2000 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
authorizes $30 million for the Corps to implement the Lower Columbia
River Estuary Partnership and Tillamook Estuary Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans. So far these programs have received
no appropriations. This year we are requesting an initial $2 million
appropriation under this authorization. This initial request also would
help federal agencies begin to meet the estuary restoration
requirements called for in the Biological Opinion for the Columbia and
Snake rivers.
The WRDA authorization enjoyed strong regional support from a
bipartisan group of elected officials including 12 House members from
Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. The initial appropriation we are
requesting is supported by the Bush administration and a diverse
regional group including ports, river industry groups, recreational
groups, regional Native American tribes and conservationists.
Congress should appropriate at least $2 million for restoration of
habitat in the lower Columbia River under section 536 of the 2000 Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA).
Individual River Restoration Projects.--Over the past 100 years,
the United States has led the world in dam building for a variety of
uses, including hydropower, irrigation, flood control and water
storage. While they can provide benefits to society, numerous dams have
outlived their intended purpose and no longer make sense. Many are old,
unsafe, and represent a threat to their river ecosystems. Several
individual dam removal projects initiated by the Corps need federal
appropriations to move forward. These projects will all restore natural
river functions and restore access to migratory fish habitat, and are
likely to provide economic benefits to neighboring communities. Each of
these projects has been endorsed by a wide range of stakeholders and
approved for federal action. Congress should appropriate to the Corps
the following for individual river restoration projects: (i) $1.6
million to continue a feasibility study to assess how best to remove
the Matilija Dam and restore the Ventura River in southern California;
(ii) $500,000 to continue a feasibility study to determine how to
remove Rindge Dam and restore Malibu Creek in southern California;
(iii) $7 million to notch Elk Creek Dam on Elk Creek in Oregon for the
purpose of providing fish passage to species on the Endangered Species
list; and (iv) $6.9 million to restore the Rappahannock River in
Virginia through the removal of Embrey Dam.
department of energy programs
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Hydropower Licensing.--The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is responsible for issuing
licenses and permits that govern the operation and construction of non-
federal hydropower dams. Solid funding levels for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's hydropower program help ensure that the agency
can make timely decisions about environmental requirements that protect
river health. Congress authorizes the amount of money FERC may spend in
a given year, but that money is collected entirely from licensees
through annual fees and not from tax dollars. Thus, an increase in
FERC's authorized hydropower budget will be passed onto the dam owners
and will not impact taxpayers or the deficit.
Congress should appropriate $46 million for FERC hydropower
relicensing.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs.--Many different
types of energy production, including fossil fuel development, affect
our rivers, which are a public resource. As we advance in energy
efficient technology and the use of renewable energy sources, we can
reduce demand and soften the impacts of energy production on rivers.
However, the Department of Energy (DOE) presently spends twice as much
money on research and development for fossil fuels as for renewable
energy programs. Congress should take steps to eliminate our dependency
on fossil fuels by supporting enhanced appropriations for the DOE's
energy supply and energy conservation programs. Renewable energy
options and energy efficiency are a win-win option for consumers and
the environment.
Congress should boost appropriations for DOE energy conservation
(efficiency) and energy supply (renewable energy) programs to $1
billion and $700 million, respectively.
department of interior programs
Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project.--The Yakima River Basin is
the largest river basin wholly within the state of Washington. It is
home to Washington's largest Native American tribe and contains one of
the largest Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) projects in the West. The
Yakima once produced between a half million and 800,000 salmon and
steelhead per year. Today these species exist at only one percent of
their historic abundance. The BOR project has depleted and polluted
river flows, and water rights conflicts in this basin are legendary.
Partly as a result, Yakima River bull trout and steelhead are now
listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Phase II of The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project,
authorized by Congress in 1994, was designed to ameliorate these
conditions for both fish and farmers. It aims to restore the river and
make better use of the existing water supplies. This legislation was a
compromise formed by the basin's disparate stakeholders, and the
program it created is a model for water conservation and acquisition.
Congress should appropriate $20,000,000 for the Yakima River
Enhancement Project.
Water Conservation Field Services Program.--This program, begun in
1997 as a response to the Bureau of Reclamation's obligation to fulfill
the water conservation mandate of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982,
has been vastly underfunded. The types of projects carried out by WCFSP
are critical to sound water management at BOR projects because they
address basic infrastructure needs, including: the technology needed to
create water budgets; innovative conservation demonstration projects;
and education programs on the proper use of these technologies and
techniques by irrigators to simultaneously improve crop production and
water efficiency. The grant funding mechanisms for this program are the
Efficiency Incentives Program (EIP) and the Water Management and
Conservation Program (WMC).
Congress should appropriate at least $3.7 million for the Water
Conservation Field Services program.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming
support for fiscal year 2003 upper colorado region endangered fish
recovery programs funding
I request your support for an appropriation in fiscal year 2003 of
$6,297,000, to the Bureau of Reclamation within the line item labeled
``Endangered Species Recovery Programs and Activities for the Upper
Colorado River Region.'' Of that line-item amount, it is requested that
$4,464,000 be designated for expenditure on construction activities
associated with the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish
Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Upper Basin Program),
$1,328,000 be designated for construction activities associated with
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (San Juan
Program), $455,000 be designated for fish and wildlife management
development, and $50,000 be designated for water and energy management
and development. The President has requested these amounts in his
recommended budget for fiscal year 2003.
These ongoing, highly successful, cooperative programs involving
the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes,
federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests reflect
the proper approach to providing endangered species conservation and
recovery within the framework of the existing federal Endangered
Species Act, while concurrently resolving critical conflicts between
endangered species recovery and the development and use of Compact-
apportioned water resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin region of
the Intermountain West. As you know from letters sent in prior years,
these Programs have as their objective recovering four species of
endangered fish while water development proceeds in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Substantial non-federal cost sharing funds are provided by the four
states, power users, and water users in support of these recovery
programs. During the 106th Congress, Public Law 106-392 was enacted
authorizing the federal government to provide these funds. That law
recognized the significant non-federal cost share that is being
contributed by the non-federal participants and was passed in both the
House and the Senate with strong bipartisan support.
The support of your Subcommittee in past years is gratefully
acknowledged and genuinely appreciated, and has been a major factor in
the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs in progressing
towards endangered fish species recovery in the Upper Colorado and San
Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
are occurring. I again request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure
that the Bureau of Reclamation is provided with adequate funding for
these vitally important programs.
support for $17,500,000 of fiscal year 2003 funding for the bureau of
reclamation's colorado river basin salinity control program
This statement is sent in support of fiscal year 2003 funding for
the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin salinity control
program. I request and thank you in advance for inclusion of this
statement in the formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2003
appropriations.
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for 27
million people and irrigation water to nearly four million acres of
land in the United States. The River also serves about 2.3 million
people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. The threat of salinity is a major
concern in both the United States and Mexico. Salinity affects
agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users. Damages in Mexico
are unquantified, but damages in the United States are presently
estimated to amount to about $330 million per year. The salinity of the
River is high, in almost equal part because of naturally occurring
geologic features including underlying salt formations and saline
springs; and effects associated with man's storage, use and reuse of
the waters of the River system. Over-application of irrigation water by
agriculture is a large contributor of salt to the river, as irrigation
water seeps through saline soils and returns to the River.
The 1944 Mexico Treaty obligates the United States to provide 1.5
million acre-feet of water to Mexico, but does not address quality.
Mexico filed a formal protest in the 1960's when the salinity levels of
water being delivered pursuant to the Treaty increased sharply. Several
minutes to the Treaty were negotiated, including Minute 242, to address
the water quality concerns voiced by Mexico. That minute requires that
the average annual salinity of the Colorado delivered upstream from
Morelos Dam (Mexico's principal diversion dam) does not exceed the
average salinity of the water arriving at Imperial Dam by 115 parts per
million (PPM), plus or minus 30 PPM.
The Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the 1972
amendments to the Clean Water Act required the seven Basin states to
adopt water quality standards for salinity levels in the Colorado
River. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum was created as
an interstate coordination mechanism in 1973. Its members are
gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
To address salinity problems in this country, and ensure the United
States could meet its obligation to Mexico, the Congress passed the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Title I addressed
the United States' obligations to Mexico to control the River's
salinity so that our water deliveries to Mexico are within the
specified salinity concentration range. Title II of the Act authorized
measures upstream of Imperial Dam and directed the Secretary of the
Interior to construct several salinity control projects, most of which
are located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Title II of the Act was
again amended in 1995 and 2000 to direct the Bureau of Reclamation to
conduct a basin-wide salinity control program. This program's approach
involves awarding grants to non-federal entities, on a competitive-bid
basis, which initiate and carry out salinity control projects. The
basin-wide program has demonstrated significantly improved cost-
effectiveness, computed on a dollars per ton of salt loading reduction
basis, as compared to Reclamation-initiated projects specifically
authorized in the 1974 Act and its 1984 amendment. The Forum was
heavily involved in the development of the 1974 Act and its subsequent
amendments, and has continued to actively oversee the federal agencies'
salinity control program efforts.
For the past 29 years, the seven-state Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum has actively assisted the federal agencies,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, in implementing this unique,
collaborative and important program. At its October 2001 meeting, the
Forum recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation should expend
$17,500,000 in fiscal year 2003. We strongly believe these efforts
constitute one of the most successful Federal/State cooperative non-
point source pollution control programs in the United States.
The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the Subcommittee's support
of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
respectfully suggest this important basin-wide water quality program
merits continued funding and support by your Subcommittee.
______
Letter From the Perkins County Rural Water Systems, Inc.
March 8, 2002.
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, SD-127, Washington,
DC 20510.
Subcommittee of Energy and Water Development: The Perkins County
Rural Water System, respectfully requests, an opportunity to testify as
outside witnesses at the fiscal year 2003 appropriation hearings being
held by this Subcommittee and that said testimony be placed in the
official record of the Subcommittee. Perkins County Rural Water
System's written testimony will be in favor of a $4.3 million fiscal
year write-in appropriation.
The Perkins County Rural Water System was authorized pursuant to
Public Law 106-136. The Perkins County Rural Water project is in the
process of completing all preconstruction requisites and desires to
begin work on the construction elements of the Project. Perkins County
Rural Water System was the recipient of a $3.4 million appropriation
for fiscal year 2002. That money is being used to finish pre-
construction requisites and construction.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Respectfully yours,
Terry Haggart,
President, Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.
perkins county rural water system, inc. in northwestern south dakota--
project overview
Project Location and Description
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. (PCRWS) would provide
potable water to approximately 200 farms and ranches and two towns,
Lemmon and Bison, in Perkins County, South Dakota. The system would
serve rural users and provide bulk water to Lemmon and Bison. Currently
the only two existing water systems in the project area are the
municipal supply systems for the towns of Lemmon and Bison.
When constructed, PCRWS would be the first rural water system in
Perkins County.
The purpose of PCRWS is to create a water distribution network to
deliver treated water to rural subscribers, who currently rely upon
well water of variable quality and quantity. Both Bison's and Lemmon's
water currently has high concentrations of sodium and sulfates of which
recommended limits are consistently exceeded. The implementation of
this project would ensure a reliable supply of water to rural residents
that meet the water quality standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The proposed primary water source will be buying bulk water from
Southwest Water Authority of southwestern North Dakota. They obtain
their water from an intake on the Missouri River and move it to a
treatment plant at Dickinson, North Dakota. It is then piped to the
border for PCRWS. The proposed system will include approximately 520
miles of distribution pipe, 4-5 booster pumps, and 2-4 supply tanks.
Sponsors
The Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a non-profit
corporation consisting of nine (9) directors from three districts,
sponsors the project. The money for the project is available at a 75
percent federal grant, 10 percent state grant, and 15 percent local
match. The 75 percent federal grant will be from the Bureau of
Reclamation, the lead federal agency for the project. The state funds
will be administrated through the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. The consumers of PCRWS plus a loan
from either the State of South Dakota or U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Rural Development, will provide the 15 percent local
money. KBM, Inc. of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and The Alliance of
Rapid City, South Dakota is under contract to perform the engineering
services for the project.
Water Source Alternatives
The proposed water source is a bulk supply of water treated and
delivered by Southwest Water Authority. Line capacity for delivery has
been or will be paid by PCRWS to deliver 400 gallons per minute to the
border of South Dakota.
Other alternatives that were considered are water from deep-water
wells and water from Shadehill Reservoir, a Bureau of Reclamation
project. Since both of these sources were very high in sodium and total
dissolved solids (TDS), treatment would be accomplished by reverse
osmosis. Raw water would have been blended with treated water to obtain
the quantity needed. A third alternative would have been a combination
of Southwest water and a treatment plant. All alternatives were
rejected because of the added expense to operation and maintenance of
the system.
Water Treatment Facilities
Water will be treated at the Dickinson water treatment plant in
Dickinson, ND. The water treatment plant has expanded from six (6)
million gallons per day to twelve (12) million gallons per day and has
also turned management over to Southwest Water Authority within the
last two years. The current plant uses a conventional lime softening
process to treat the water. Chloramines are added at the Dodge pumping
station and the rest of the treatment takes place in the Dickinson
treatment plant.
Benefits of the Project
PCRWS will provide a clean, safe domestic water supply to users in
Perkins County. Currently, rural residents obtain water from shallow
water wells whereas the towns obtain their water from deep-water wells
in the Fox Hills aquifer. Water quality in the shallow wells is high in
sodium and TDS. Water from the deep-water wells is high in sodium,
fluoride, and sulfates. These chemicals are either at or above
recommended levels set by the EPA.
Permits and Environmental Requirements
Final report of Class I Cultural Resources Research and Survey
Design Plan has been completed and has been sent to the Bureau of
Reclamation for their consideration. Scoping letters have been mailed
and comments returned to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau is also
working with KBM, Inc. on Environmental Assessments and Tribal issues.
Utility permits to occupy state and county rights of way are being
worked on by the local sponsor. Permits and easements from private
landowners are also being obtained. Special use permits will be
required for any part of the line that crossed U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
Proposed Construction Schedule
Construction of the PCRWS will begin late summer of 2002 after
reports and assessments have been approved by the Bureau of
Reclamation. Work on the Lodgepole project is ongoing and construction
hopefully will be started and finished this year. Construction of the
entire project is dependent on federal funding levels per year, but the
project could be completed in 4-5 years.
Tables
The following tables show the construction budget, the O&M budget
and the budget request for fiscal year 2003:
TABLE 1.--PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION--SOUTHWEST PIPELINE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. UNITS UNITS UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobilization............................... 1 LS.................. $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Water Main:
1.5" PVC Class 200..................... 615,261 If.................. $1.80 $1,107,469.80
2.0" PVC Class 200..................... 33,977 If.................. $1.91 $64,896.07
2.0" PVC Class 160..................... 812,852 If.................. $1.87 $1,520,033.24
3.0" PVC Class 200..................... 35,037 If.................. $2.12 $74,278.44
3.0" PVC Class 160..................... 344,871 If.................. $2.10 $724,229.10
4.0" PVC Class 200..................... 32,228 If.................. $3.02 $97,328.56
4.0" PVC Class 160..................... 400,231 If.................. $2.86 $1,144,660.66
6.0" PVC Class 200..................... 44,792 If.................. $6.07 $271,887.44
6.0" PVC Class 160..................... 237,145 If.................. $5.70 $1,351,726.50
8.0" PVC Class 200..................... 43,595 If.................. $7.92 $345,272.40
8.0" PVC Class 160..................... 121,835 If.................. $7.30 $889,395.50
1.0" Poly.............................. 300 If.................. $4.50 $1,350.00
4.0" Poly.............................. 4,500 If.................. $12.25 $55,125.00
1.0" Curb Stop............................. 6 ea.................. $175.00 $1,050.00
1.5" Curb Stop............................. 50 ea.................. $275.00 $13,750.00
Water Meters:
Residential Meters..................... 320 ea.................. $1,000.00 $320,000.00
1.5" Water Meters...................... 14 ea.................. $2,000.00 $28,000.00
4" Meter Station........................... 1 ea.................. $30,000.00 $30,000.00
8" Meter Station........................... 1 ea.................. $40,000.00 $40,000.00
Frost Proof Water Meter.................... 27 ea.................. $950.00 $25,650.00
Water Service Installation................. 184 ea.................. $100.00 $18,400.00
River Crossings............................ 13 ea.................. $5,000.00 $65,000.00
Non-cased Bore............................. 94 ea.................. $600.00 $56,400.00
Cased Bore................................. 8,600 If.................. $50.00 $430,000.00
Gate Valves:
2"..................................... 85 ea.................. $300.00 $25,500.00
3"..................................... 15 ea.................. $375.00 $5,625.00
4"..................................... 30 ea.................. $400.00 $12,000.00
6"..................................... 25 ea.................. $475.00 $11,875.00
8"..................................... 6 ea.................. $620.00 $3,720.00
Pressure Reducing Valves................... 33 ea.................. $8,000.00 $264,000.00
ARV Station................................ 2,056 ea.................. $1,500.00 $3,084,000.00
Reservoir Pumping Station.................. 4 ea.................. $175,000.00 $700,000.00
Booster Stations........................... 8 ea.................. $140,000.00 $1,120,000.00
Signs...................................... 418 ea.................. $21.00 $8,778.00
Seeding.................................... 1,000 Ac.................. $300.00 $300,000.00
Gravel..................................... 18,000 Ton................. $10.00 $180,000.00
Municipal Improvements..................... 1 LS.................. $1,750,000.00 $1,750,000.00
Reservoir (2,000,000 Gal).................. 1 LS.................. $800,000.00 $800,000.00
Reservoir (100,000 Gal).................... 3 LS.................. $100,000.00 $300,000.00
Connection to SW Pipeline.................. 1 LS.................. $5,500,000.00 $5,500,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Construction............... ......... .................... ................ $22,791,400.71
====================================================================
U.S. Bureau of Rec. Admin.................. 3% .................... $22,791,400.71 $683,742.02
Engineering:
Initial consultation, FER, EA.......... ......... .................... ................ $255,000.00
Basic Services......................... ......... .................... ................ $935,000.00
Construction Observation............... ......... .................... ................ $685,000.00
Miscellaneous.......................... ......... .................... ................ $165,000
Legal & Administration..................... ......... .................... ................ $100,000.00
Contingencies & Construction Int........... ......... .................... ................ $750,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS.................. ......... .................... ................ $26,365,142.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1993 Feasibility Report indicated a total project cost of $20,000,000 and the above total project cost of
$26,365,142 approaches the allowable BOR Cost indices.
TABLE 2.--REVENUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$/1,000 Gal Gal/1,000 Income Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER SALES:
Rural Water................................. $3.50 123,000 $430,500.00 ..............
Lemmon...................................... $3.00 71,000 $213,000.00 ..............
Bison....................................... $3.00 16,000 $48.000.00 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Water Sold.......................... .............. \1\ 210,000 $691,500.00 $691,500.00
===============================================================
# of Taps
$/Tap/yr
---------------------------------------------------------------
MINIMUMS:
Headquarters................................ 202 $480.00 $96,960.00 ..............
Potential HQ................................ 20 $480.00 $9,600.00 ..............
Livestock................................... 69 $175.00 $12,075.00 ..............
Potential Livestock......................... 20 $175.00 $3,500.00 ..............
Seasonal HQ/Cabins.......................... 10 $175.00 $1,750.00 ..............
Grazing Association......................... 14 $175.00 $2,450.00 ..............
Potential Grazing Assc...................... 3 $175.00 $525.00 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Minimums............................ 338 .............. $126,860.00 $126,860.00
===============================================================
TOTAL..................................... .............. .............. .............. $818,360.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$/1,000 Gal Gal/1,000 Income Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPENSES: ---------------------------------------------------------------
Water Purchase.............................. $2.10 210,000.00 .............. $441,000.00
O&M:
Electricity (Remote Reservoir and .............. .............. $30,000.00 ..............
Boosters)..............................
Telephone............................... .............. .............. $3,000.00 ..............
Office (supplies)....................... .............. .............. $3,000.00 ..............
Field Supplies, Inventory............... .............. .............. $5,000.00 ..............
Legal & Audit........................... .............. .............. $4,000.00 ..............
Dues & Subs............................. .............. .............. $4,000.00 ..............
Advertising............................. .............. .............. $1,000.00 ..............
Maintenance............................. .............. .............. $10,000.00 ..............
Director's Fees......................... .............. .............. $6,000.00 ..............
Mileage................................. .............. .............. $4,000.00 ..............
Wages and Taxes......................... .............. .............. $80,000.00 ..............
Vehicle Expense......................... .............. .............. $5,000.00 ..............
Outside Services........................ .............. .............. $5,000.00 ..............
Miscellaneous........................... .............. .............. $2,000.00 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................. .............. .............. $162,000.00 $162,000.00
===============================================================
DEBT RETIREMENT:
Principal \2\........................... .............. .............. .............. $3,954,771.30
Percent Interest........................ .............. .............. .035 ..............
No. of Years............................ .............. .............. .............. 30
Cap. Rec. Factor........................ .............. .............. .............. .05437
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. .............. .............. .............. $215,360.00
===============================================================
TOTAL EXPENSE......................... .............. .............. .............. $818,360.00
\1\ 400 gal/min.
\2\ Principal = 15 percent of the total project cost ($26,365,142.00, $20,000,000 of total project cost times
BOR cost indices).
Table 3.--Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. Budget--Fiscal Year
2003
Item Request
Finish mainline to Lemmon............................... $550,000
Finish mainline to Bison................................ 1,000,000
Finish Lemmon infrastructure............................ 720,000
North Dakota State Water Commission partial payment
(based on 145 GPM).................................. 1,620,000
Bureau of Reclamation (5 percent)....................... 210,000
PCRWS Admin............................................. 100,000
Contingency............................................. 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,300,000
It will take this amount of money every year to finish the project in
five to six years. Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. will be able
to complete construction in that timeframe with this amount
appropriated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development
Authority
We are pleased to once again submit our recommendations to you and
your subcommittee concerning next year's appropriations for the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and the Kentucky and Chickamauga Locks on
the Tennessee River. This is the 42nd consecutive year the Authority
has had the opportunity to provide its recommendations to the Congress.
As you know, the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority
is a federal interstate compact ratified by the Congress in 1958 to
promote the development of the Tenn-Tom Waterway and its economic and
trade potential. It is comprised of the States of Alabama, Kentucky,
Mississippi, and Tennessee. Governor Ronnie Musgrove of Mississippi
currently serves as the compact's chairman.
An adequately funded and well-maintained water transportation
system is critical to our national security and economic well being.
The Administration's proposed budget for next fiscal year falls far
short of these critical needs. Its requests for the Tennessee-Tombigbee
and other waterway projects are woefully inadequate.
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2002 2003 Budget 2003
Appropriation Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Maintenance...................................... 24.5 23.1 24.8
Wildlife Mitigation Payments.................................... 2.0 ( \1\ ) 2.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 26.5 23.1 26.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $1.5 million included in O&M request.
We greatly appreciate the $28.5 million the Congress provided for
the Tenn-Tom during this fiscal year. This is the first year that
adequate funds were appropriated since the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Restricted funding in prior years has resulted in a backlog of deferred
repairs that had exceeded $10 million. This year's appropriation begins
to address this maintenance backlog for the first time.
We are also grateful that the Congress provided $2 million to
reimburse the conservation agencies of Alabama and Mississippi for
their costs in managing over 135,000 acres of federal lands that are
part of the Tenn-Tom Wildlife Mitigation Project. The states agreed to
assume the federal responsibilities for managing these lands if
properly reimbursed which until this year had not been the case. The
Authority strongly recommends that you again provide $2 million as a
separate line item for payments to the two states for administering
this federal project.
The $24.8 million requested for the operation and maintenance of
the Tenn-Tom will ensure the waterway is adequately maintained. The
Administration's request, if approved, will further increase the
maintenance backlog and will harm commercial navigation. The
recommended increase of $1.7 million above the President's budget will
ensure a reliable water transportation system for those commercial
shippers and producers that depend upon the waterway.
The Tenn-Tom could efficiently use more than the $3.7 million of
additional funds requested for wildlife mitigation and commercial
navigation. If available, more funds are needed to address a backlog of
$9.8 million of indefinitely deferred repairs that have accumulated
since 1997. Some examples of this serious maintenance backlog that
unless corrected will affect the structural integrity of the waterway
and its ability to generate expected benefits are:
Million
Re-pave access roads.............................................. $1.2
Correct nav. conditions at Bevill L/D............................. 3.0
Additional dredging needs......................................... 1.8
Upgrade elect. systems project wide............................... 1.6
Replace roof at Whitten Center.................................... 0.2
KENTUCKY LOCK
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2002 2003 Budget 2003
Appropriation Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock Construction............................................... 22.0 27.4 45.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early completion of a 1,200-foot lock at Kentucky Dam is imperative
to eliminate one of the worst bottlenecks on the entire 16,000 miles of
waterways that serve the nation. Unless the new lock is completed and
placed in service in a timely manner, shippers will sustain over $250
million in additional transportation costs when the nearly 60-year old
existing facility is closed for extensive repairs later this decade.
Over 35,000 barges, transporting nearly 29 million tons of commerce,
now transit this antiquated lock each year after waiting an average of
8 hours or more to negotiate this choke point. The $45 million
recommended by the Authority will enable the Corps of Engineers to
maintain an optimal and efficient construction for this very important
project.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2002 2003 Budget 2003
Appropriation Request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock O&M........................................................ 2.2 1.025 1.025
Preconstruction Eng. & Design................................... 0.5 0.250 4.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Authority strongly recommends the Congress continue to provide
funds to the Corps of Engineers to aggressively maintain the old,
structurally deteriorating lock at Chickamauga Dam until a newer one
can be built. The $1,025,000 requested by the President will meet these
needs.
The Nashville District of the Corps has recently completed a
feasibility study of a new lock to replace the existing one. That study
found that a 75 by 400-foot lock and one with an 110 by 600 foot
chamber are both economically feasible and environmentally sound. The
Authority strongly recommends the 110 by 600-foot lock be authorized
and constructed since it will be compatible with other locks on the
Tennessee, the Tenn-Tom and adjoining waterways. The larger lock also
generates more environmental benefits. The proposed new lock will be
eligible for consideration by the Congress for authorization in this
year's Water Resources Development Act. We, therefore, recommend that
$4 Million be appropriated to continue preconstruction engineering and
design work on this important project.
The funds we have requested for these three projects as well other
investments your subcommittee will make in water resources development
will return monetary benefits of many fold and improve quality of life
for this and future generations. We know you recognize the importance
of keeping our waterway infrastructure functioning to meet current and
future needs and trust that your subcommittee will be able to provide
these funds.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
American:
Association of Port Authorities, prepared statement.......... 355
Chemical Society, prepared statement......................... 221
Ohio Valley, prepared statement.............................. 309
Rivers, prepared statement................................... 419
Society for Microbiology, prepared statement................. 229
Wind Energy Association, prepared statement.................. 226
Apalachicola Bay & River Keeper, Inc., prepared statement........ 362
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement.... 296
Associated Branch Pilots, prepared statement..................... 264
Association for the Development of Inland Navigation in Audubon,
prepared statement............................................. 268
Barrett, Lake, Acting Director, Office of Civilian, Radioactive
Waste Management, Department of Energy......................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Statement of................................................. 76
Beckner, Dr. Everet, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs,
Department of Energy........................................... 103
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Statement of................................................. 124
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah:
Questions submitted by....................................... 48
Statement of................................................. 177
Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta,
prepared statements..........................................290, 335
Bowman, Admiral Frank L., U.S. Navy, Director, Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program and Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors,
Department of Energy........................................... 103
Prepared statement........................................... 118
Statement of................................................. 116
Brazos River Harbor Navigation District, prepared statement...... 305
Brooks, Linton, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, Department of Energy......................... 103
Statement of................................................. 129
Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana, statement of... 17
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement...... 231
Cameron County, prepared statement............................... 306
Carnahan, Senator Jean, U.S. Senator from Missouri, questions
submitted by................................................... 200
Central Arizona Water Conservation District, prepared statement.. 378
Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District, prepared
statement...................................................... 308
City of:
Crookston, Minnesota, prepared statement..................... 327
Flagstaff, prepared statement................................ 380
Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners, Port of Los
Angeles, prepared statement................................ 276
Morro Bay, prepared statement................................ 407
Phoenix, prepared statement.................................. 394
Santa Barbara, California, prepared statement................ 391
Stillwater, Minnesota, prepared statement.................... 323
Clark County Regional Flood Control District, prepared statement. 411
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi:
Questions submitted by....................................... 207
Statement of................................................. 173
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.. 271
Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, prepared statement.. 364
County of Volusia, Florida, prepared statement................... 384
Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho:
Questions submitted by....................................... 99
Statement of................................................. 154
Crescent River Port Pilots' Association, prepared statement...... 265
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, prepared statement....................... 375
Department of the Army, prepared statement....................... 27
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
Prepared statements.......................................... 1, 52
Questions submitted by......................................91, 137
Statements of............................................1, 51, 173
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota,
questions submitted by........................................46, 195
Dry Prairie Rural Water, prepared statement...................... 273
Eastern Municipal Water District, prepared statement............. 256
Fifth Louisiana Levee District, prepared statement............... 287
Flowers, Lieutenant General Robert B., prepared statement........ 32
Fort Peck Assiniboine Tribe, prepared statement.................. 273
Garman, David, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy..................... 153
Prepared statement........................................... 167
Statement of................................................. 165
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, prepared statement...... 313
Gordon, John A., Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 103
Prepared statement........................................... 108
Statement of................................................. 104
Green Brook Flood Control Commission, prepared statement......... 345
Haze, Pam, Deputy Director of Budget, Department of the Interior. 1
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District,
Eureka, California, prepared statement......................... 403
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, questions
submitted by................................................... 204
International:
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statement 351
Society for Optical Engineering, prepared statement.......... 214
Johnston, J. Ronald, Program Director, Central Utah Project
Completion Act, Department of the Interior..................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Statement of................................................. 15
Keys, John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Statement of................................................. 8
Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, prepared statement...... 265
Little River Drainage District, prepared statement............... 292
Los Osos Community Services District, prepared statement......... 417
Louisiana:
Department of Transportation and Development, prepared
statement.................................................. 281
Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry, prepared
statement.................................................. 257
Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee, letter from...... 363
Maywood, William D., IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, Department of Energy................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Statement of................................................. 69
Metropolitan Water:
District of Southern California, prepared statement.......... 266
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, prepared statement.. 252
Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, Inc., prepared statement.......... 398
Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, prepared statement 349
Moss Landing Harbor District, Monterey Bay, California, prepared
state- ment.................................................... 405
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Questions submitted by....................................... 190
Opening statement............................................ 153
NAPA County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
prepared statement............................................. 244
National:
Congress of American Indians, prepared statement............. 278
Mining Association, prepared statement....................... 387
Urban Agriculture Council, prepared statement................ 343
New Jersey Maritime Resources, State of New Jersey, Department of
Transportation, prepared statement............................. 321
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement...... 360
New York City Economic Development Corporation Transportation and
Infrastructure, State of New York, Empire State Development
Corporation, prepared statement................................ 321
North Carolina State Ports Authority, prepared statement......... 355
Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, prepared statement............. 211
Oglala Sioux Tribe Rural Water Supply System, prepared statement. 330
Orbach, Dr. Raymond L., Ph.D., Acting Director, Office of
Science, Department of Energy.................................. 49
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Statement of................................................. 53
Perkins County Rural Water Systems, Inc., letter from............ 423
Plug Power, Inc., prepared statement............................. 219
Pontchartrain Levee District, prepared statement................. 295
Port Commerce Department, the Port Authority of New York & New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 321
Port of:
Garibaldi, prepared statement................................ 413
Greater Baton Rouge, prepared statement...................... 263
Houston Authority, prepared statement........................ 349
New Orleans, prepared statement.............................. 260
South Louisiana, prepared statement.......................... 262
Raley, Bennett W., Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of the Interior..................................... 1
Opening remarks.............................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Red River Valley Association, prepared statement................. 337
Reid, Senator Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Questions submitted by.......................................45, 89
Statements of...........................................26, 49, 103
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
prepared statement............................................. 250
Roberson, Hon. Jessie Hill, Assistant Secretary, Office of
Environmental Management, Department of Energy................. 153
Prepared statement........................................... 157
Statement of................................................. 156
San Antonio Water System, prepared statement..................... 345
Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 237
Santa Cruz Port District Commission, prepared statement.......... 396
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 385
Sioux Tribe, prepared statement.................................. 273
Solar Energy Industries Association, prepared statement.......... 212
Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc., prepared statement... 223
Southern States Energy Board, prepared statement................. 215
St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas, prepared statement....... 288
State of:
Arizona, prepared statements...............................267, 392
Illinois, prepared statements..............................353, 372
South Carolina, prepared statement........................... 382
Wyoming, prepared statement.................................. 421
Steamship Association of Louisiana, prepared statement........... 260
Stockton East Water District, letter from........................ 362
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, prepared
state- ment.................................................... 427
The Nature Conservancy, prepared statement....................... 415
Tumalo Irrigation District, prepared statement................... 320
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared
statement...................................................... 234
University of Rochester, prepared statement...................... 224
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 408
Ventura Port District, prepared statement........................ 280
West Tennessee Tributaries Association, prepared statement....... 254
Wolf, Robert, Director, Program and Budget, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior........................ 1
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Accelerated:
Cleanup efforts.............................................. 177
Schedule progress reporting.................................. 180
Additional committee questions.............................89, 137, 190
Administrator, Office of the..................................... 114
Advanced:
Accelerator applications program (AAA)....................... 97
Hydrodynamic test facilities................................. 142
Nuclear medicine initiative (ANMI)........................... 96
Scientific computing research................................ 65
Vitrification system (AVS).................................207, 209
Deployment of the........................................ 179
Base budget request.............................................. 162
Biological and environmental research............................ 63
Biomass.......................................................... 199
Biotechnology.................................................... 89
Budget:
Plan, five year.............................................. 138
Request, the fiscal year 2003................................ 161
Summary...................................................... 109
Carlsbad community concern....................................... 182
CERCLA closeout document matrix.................................. 202
Challenge before us.............................................. 158
Cleanup reform:
Appropriation................................................ 161
Initiative................................................... 185
Closure date documents, predicted 2002........................... 204
Colorado River pollution......................................... 178
Compete mound contract, decision to.............................. 195
Contract:
Competition.................................................. 196
Termination for convenience.................................. 196
Core science..................................................... 81
Cost savings from expedited filling of WIPP repository........... 182
Department of Energy budget request, fiscal year 2003............ 120
Design and engineering........................................... 81
Dismantled weapons stockpile, storage of......................... 131
Disposition of 2 tons of our plutonium........................... 147
DOE:
And USACE, March 1999 FUSRAP MOU between..................... 204
Commitment to Office of River Protection..................... 184
Goals for our Nation's energy future......................... 196
EERE:
International efforts, expanding............................. 197
Reorganization............................................... 197
Electric energy systems and storage.............................. 171
Electrometallurgical treatment................................... 100
EM science and technology program elements....................... 100
Energy:
And assurance................................................ 206
And water development budget request, fiscal year 2003....... 168
Biosciences.................................................. 90
Research analyses............................................ 67
Sciences, basic.............................................. 64
Security..................................................... 59
Supply R&D programs technical information management......... 68
Enhanced test readiness.......................................... 128
Environment...................................................... 59
Environmental:
Management accelerated cleanup reform account....182, 179, 184, 185
Managements fiscal year 2003 budget request.................. 156
Science...................................................... 99
Equitable contractor requirements................................ 175
Facilities and infrastructure:
Initiative................................................... 141
Recapitalization............................................. 114
Fast track, making changes on a.................................. 160
Federal use of renewable energy, development of.................. 200
Fiscal year:
2002, objectives and accomplishments for..................... 79
2003:
Appropriation request, summary of the.................... 78
Budget request, detailed discussion of the............... 80
Performance measures for................................. 79
FreedomCAR University research programs.......................... 205
Fuel cell testing standards...................................... 205
Fundamental:
Change, laying the groundwork for............................ 158
Knowledge, advances in....................................... 60
Funding:
Allocation, $800 million..................................... 209
For environmental science, allocation criteria for........... 100
Fusion........................................................... 84
Energy sciences.............................................. 66
Future funding challenges........................................ 83
General reduction from the current year.......................... 138
Generation IV initiative......................................... 70
Genome identification............................................ 84
Geothermal....................................................... 169
Global climate change research...................................88, 93
Grand Junction site.............................................. 201
Green tag program................................................ 199
Hammer training facility reduction............................... 188
Hanford community dissent........................................ 175
High:
Energy physics............................................... 61
Level waste.................................................. 176
Temperature superconductivity................................ 187
Hydrogen......................................................... 169
And fuel cell demonstration activities....................... 204
As an alternate energy source, priority of................... 205
Hydropower....................................................... 170
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
accelerated cleanup............................................ 176
Innovative technologies.......................................... 192
Integrated biomass R&D........................................... 168
International partnerships in nuclear development................ 73
Licensing and performance assessment............................. 80
Life extensions.................................................. 127
Life-cycle costs of disposal..................................... 192
Litigation....................................................... 83
Long-term safety and security, committed to...................... 73
Los Alamos:
Administration building (A/k/a ``Sm-43'').................... 143
Construction items........................................... 143
Fuel cell research at........................................ 187
Land transfers............................................... 186
National Laboratory foundation............................... 143
Low dose radiation research...................................... 92
Low-level waste.................................................. 191
Major scientific awards.......................................... 61
Manufacturing/certification, W-88 pit............................ 128
Materials protection:
Control and accounting program issues around the world....... 145
In Russia..................................................144, 145
Medical isotopes for research and health care.................... 75
MOAB tailings, moving............................................ 178
Modernizing cleanup contracts.................................... 180
Mound closure savings and costs.................................. 195
Nanotechnology initiative........................................ 84
NASA's nuclear system initiative................................. 95
National Center for Combating Terrorism.......................... 129
National:
Ignition facility............................................ 128
Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC)......149, 150
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)........................... 173
Security strategy, transforming the.......................... 108
Naval reactors................................................... 114
Fiscal year 2003 Department of Energy budget detail.......... 122
Funding and technology....................................... 136
Near-term progress, emphasis on.................................. 72
Nevada:
Test site, other national security activities at............. 128
Transportation............................................... 81
New Mexico delegation, secretarial meeting with.................. 183
NNSA:
Labs in counter-terrorism/homeland security, role on..147, 148, 149
Organization standup......................................... 115
Nuclear systems initiative................................... 150
Nonproliferation:
Activities................................................... 112
Budget--general.............................................. 144
Nuclear energy:
Key to energy security, climate strategy..................... 71
Plant optimization (NEPO).................................... 98
Research initiative..........................................70, 98
Nuclear:
Fleet issue.................................................. 119
Physics...................................................... 62
Posture review.............................................139, 140
Power 2010...............................................69, 87, 94
Science and technology infrastructure........................ 74
Weapons, legislation to modify............................... 132
Office of Science role in national security Mission.............. 83
Operations and construction...................................... 81
Pension plan, Sandia national laboratory......................... 134
Performance measurements, goals, and accomplishments............. 123
Pit:
Facility...................................................131, 135
Modern................................................... 128
Production................................................... 141
Program:
Budget requirements.......................................... 121
Direction.................................................... 173
Infrastructure and administrative requirements............... 123
Management and integration................................... 82
Organization................................................. 79
Radiological dispersal devices................................... 132
Refocusing science and technology................................ 164
Renewable:
Energy production incentive (REPI).........................193, 194
Support and implementation................................... 172
River:
Corridor closure project..................................... 190
Protection Management, Office of............................. 174
Russian:
Plutonium disposition program................................ 146
Program funding.............................................. 134
Transition initiatives....................................... 147
Safeguards and security.......................................... 67
Science:
Accomplishments.............................................. 59
At national labs, problems attracting........................ 85
At the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.................... 99
Funding...................................................... 91
Laboratories infrastructure.................................. 68
Priorities, fiscal year 2003................................. 55
Program direction............................................61, 67
Security:
And combating terrorism...................................... 113
Costs........................................................ 150
Site:
Closure dates................................................ 204
Managers, listing of......................................... 190
Solar............................................................ 170
Space power systems.............................................. 88
Spent fuel:
Fuel treatment............................................... 86
Pyroprocessing and transmutation............................. 71
Stockpile, stewardship........................................... 111
Overall budget for.........................................137, 138
Tailings at the Atlas MOAB site.................................. 177
Tank waste at Hanford............................................ 189
Top-to-bottom review, conclusions of the......................... 159
Transmission..................................................... 198
Transportation................................................... 82
Security..................................................... 99
Tribal energy programs........................................... 200
Tritium........................................................129, 139
U.S. technological competitiveness............................... 60
Customs assistance on export control......................... 133
Underground laboratory, science in an............................ 92
University reactor fuel assistance and support................... 93
Uranium-233...................................................... 94
Washington State concerns about accelerated cleanup.............. 183
Waste:
Acceptance................................................... 82
Isolation pilot plant........................................ 181
Storage & transportation.....................................79, 82
Weldon Spring site.............................................200, 201
Wind............................................................. 171
Resource data and mapping.................................... 199
Workforce reductions at the Office of River Protection........... 183
Yucca Mountain...............................................76, 79, 80
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Accomplishments highlights, fiscal year 2001-2002................ 14
Additional committee questions................................... 45
Animas-Laplata................................................... 23
Appropriation accounts, discussion of............................ 29
Army civil works:
Planning and review process.................................. 31
Program for fiscal year 2003................................. 27
Army Corps of Engineers--Civil Works Program..................... 2
Budget:
Overview..................................................... 5
Request, fiscal year 2003.................................... 4, 11
Bureau of Reclamation............................................ 2, 7
California Bay-Delta restoration.................................13, 37
Carlsbad project................................................. 25
Central Utah project............................................. 15
Central Utah Project Completion Act.............................. 8
Central Valley project restoration fund.......................... 13
Civil Works program:
Budget, highlights of the.................................... 33
Provides support to the Nation's economic security, how the.. 34
Cobell v. Norton litigation...................................... 4
Construction, general............................................29, 34
Corps post-attack actions, summary of............................ 32
Critical infrastructure.......................................... 39
CUP and Diamond Fork............................................. 42
Cyber and physical security challenge............................ 42
Desalinization...................................................23, 38
Funding for Title XVI program, amount needed to complete......... 21
Garrison diversion unit.......................................... 46
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 31
Homeland security................................................ 6
Middle Rio Grande:
Conservation District........................................ 26
Payment...................................................... 26
Project...................................................... 21
Mission.......................................................... 10
Montana, State of................................................ 19
National drought summary......................................... 17
Native Americans, water rights settlements for................... 20
Natural resources, harnessing our................................ 7
Offstream storage................................................ 18
Operation:
And maintenance, general backlog............................. 34
Eligible receiver............................................ 41
Pecos River basin................................................ 25
Program highlights............................................... 27
Reclamation's fiscal year 2003 request........................... 8
Recreational opportunities at Corps constructed lakes............ 35
Regulatory program............................................... 30
Rio Grande....................................................... 22
Significance of navigation to the Nation's economic activity..... 35
Silvery minnow................................................... 22
Title XVI........................................................ 21
Trust programs................................................... 6
Water:
And related resources........................................ 11
In the West.................................................. 36
-