<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:29708.wais]
STRENGTHENING THE NATION'S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE: THE ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' PLANNING PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-172
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-708 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
David Marin, Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia DIANE E. WATSON, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York TOM LANTOS, California
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
Dave Solan, Professional Staff Member
Lori Gavaghan, Clerk
Richard Butcher, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 15, 2006................................... 1
Statement of:
Lamont, Douglas W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Project Planning, accompanied by Claudia Tornblom,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, and
Thomas Waters, Chief, Planning and Policy; Anu Mittal,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government
Accountability Office; Steve Ellis, vice president,
Taxpayers for Common Sense; and S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, vice
president for government affairs, American Rivers.......... 6
Birnbaum, S. Elizabeth................................... 43
Ellis, Steve............................................. 33
Lamont, Douglas W........................................ 6
Mittal, Anu.............................................. 16
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Birnbaum, S. Elizabeth, vice president for government
affairs, American Rivers, prepared statement of............ 46
Ellis, Steve, vice president, Taxpayers for Common Sense,
prepared statement of...................................... 36
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 4
Lamont, Douglas W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Project Planning, prepared statement of................ 10
Mittal, Anu, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of.... 18
Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 69
STRENGTHENING THE NATION'S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE: THE ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' PLANNING PRIORITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m. in
room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa and Watson.
Staff present: Larry Brady, staff director; Lori Gavaghan,
legislative clerk; Tom Alexander, counsel; Dave Solan, Ph.D.,
and Ray Robbins, professional staff members; Richard Butcher,
minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk.
Mr. Issa. A working quorum under our rules being present,
this meeting is called to order.
Mr. Lamont, I'll begin by also saying I understand you have
someone else from the Corps of Engineers who would like to be
able to testify if areas outside of your expertise arise. They
can come forward and just be here the whole time. That's fine.
Mr. Lamont. Is it appropriate now?
Mr. Issa. It's appropriate right now; that's fine.
Mr. Lamont. Claudia Tornblom is the Deputy for Management
and Budget in our Office of the Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Issa. Excellent. At these hearings, we try to have the
greatest amount of impact by having all of your staff
available. I will mention in advance before I get to it in the
script that we will swear in all who may testify and all who
may assist you answering questions so that either whether they
speak directly or they whisper in your ear and you reiterate,
it's covered. We do that as a matter of committee policy in
order to make it easier on you because the last thing we want
to have is you're speaking somebody else's words and then
you've been sworn and they haven't. So hopefully it works for
all of us.
The Army Corps of Engineers has a long and distinguished
history of building and maintaining critical water resources
and infrastructure in the United States. As we have witnessed
in Hurricane Katrina, the Corps' traditional missions of flood
control and navigation are as important as ever. And I would
like to take a moment to personally thank the many Corps
employees who have volunteered to work in the area devastated
by Katrina. As I understand, a fairly significant, of the total
transferrable work force is presently working in the Gulf.
Again I'd like to thank the Corps for their service and their
efforts.
The Nation's existing infrastructure is the result of
priority-setting, decisions and projects constructed in the
past. For decades to come, infrastructure priorities that we
set today and in the near future will impact commerce,
electricity generation, wetlands, and most importantly, the
safety of communities that depend on the Corps for flood
protection. It is imperative that we have the tools and
information to make the right choices.
But the Corps faces a number of significant challenges in
carrying out its mission. Funding for the Corps inevitably
involves tradeoffs between congressionally authorized projects.
And, unfortunately, critical maintenance of existing
infrastructure is sometimes deferred because of other competing
priorities.
Next, financial management is another area of concern. It
has become a common practice for the Corps to shift funds to
meet the needs of the moment, which suggests that priority-
setting within the Corps is either lacking or not sustainable.
And as the rest of the committee comes, I would like to take a
moment to set a context for that, for your statements to come.
I had the privilege of spending almost 2 years with the
Corps of Engineers on active duty and as an executive officer
of an engineering company. On more than a few occasions
somebody managed to have enough construction sites that I had
to have one bulldozer at two sites at one time. It is a fairly
low-level decision. It requires that you put the bulldozer on a
truck every day so that it is in both sites at some point
during the day. Four hours on both sites, no problem. The
problem is the 2-hours it takes to load the bulldozer, get it
over there and unload it was lost time.
Now that may be just a microcosm of what you are facing in
the Corps of Engineers but it is a perspective that I put on
it, that if we are asking you to have a bulldozer in two places
at one time, if that requires an inefficiency, it leads to a
greater total cost for those two projects and Congress needs to
know that and Congress needs to take action.
Third, the shortcomings in a cost/benefit analysis done by
the Corps have been well documented by the GAO, the National
Academy of Sciences and the Army Inspector General. To its
credit, the Corps has moved aggressively to address these flaws
and improve its planning processes. The Corps has also taken
steps to be more cooperative and reorganize so that stove-
piping no longer exists.
In conclusion, I must note that we are not here to revisit
the Water Resource Development Act, which passed the House by
more than 390 votes. We are not here to criticize the Corps or
any part of government for the purpose of making points in the
press. We are here today to find out primarily if the
relationship between Congress and the Corps has led to mixed
messages, excess projects and insufficient funds.
I certainly look forward to hearing from each of the
witnesses. I certainly want to hopefully set in motion in your
minds the fact that this Congressman recognizes that Congress
is clearly part of the problem in the Corps today and in the
quantity of backlog, some dating 25 years, that have never been
fully funded.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.002
Mr. Issa. Again I look forward to hearing from our esteemed
guests. Mr. Douglas Lamont, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Project Planning. I thank you for being here. Thank
the Corps for making you available on relatively short notice.
I realize there are several people juggling their schedules to
make this happen.
Ms. Anu Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and
Environmental Team of the Government Accountability Office.
Thank you for being here and again thank you for the work that
the GAO has already done.
Mr. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common
Sense. Thank you for being here. We live and die by our
watchdog organizations here and I do emphasize and die.
And Ms. Elizabeth Birnbaum, vice president and general
counsel, American Rivers.
Thank you all for being here. As I mentioned earlier, for
all of you and anyone who you are going to have assist you, I
would ask that you stand now and be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Issa. I indicate that all said affirmative and the one
gentleman in the back, if you would also give the recorder your
name and spelling, that will help. And please have a seat.
The ranking member is on her way back. As you probably
know, we have the president of Liberia speaking before a joint
session. I ducked out early but for appropriate reasons, some
of the Members will be coming in afterwards. So the good news
is you miss an opening statement, although she may want to give
it when she gets in.
But Mr. Lamont, if you would begin.
Oh, and I will ask and I will clearly get unanimous consent
that all of your written testimony be placed in the record,
which will allow you to go off of your testimony and add or
modify as you see fit. In fairness to so many speakers, try to
be about 5 minutes. If it runs over a little bit, we certainly
would be understanding. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF DOUGLAS W. LAMONT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR PROJECT PLANNING, ACCOMPANIED BY CLAUDIA TORNBLOM,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND
THOMAS WATERS, CHIEF, PLANNING AND POLICY; ANU MITTAL,
DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; STEVE ELLIS, VICE PRESIDENT, TAXPAYERS
FOR COMMON SENSE; AND S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN RIVERS
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS W. LAMONT
Mr. Lamont. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on strengthening the Nation's infrastructure, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers planning priorities.
The Corps of Engineers civil works program provides a
framework to develop reasoned environmental and engineering
solutions to support the water resources needs of our Nation.
Over the last few years the Corps has implemented several
initiatives to improve its planning processes and maintain and
strengthen its planning expertise.
Mr. Issa. Is the green light lit?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir, it is. Shall I move closer?
Mr. Issa. We may be able to adjust it but if you would move
as close as you can, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Lamont. These initiatives include revisions to the
planning guidance, the planning models improvement program,
peer review, the establishment of planning centers of
expertise, planner capability development, and project
priority-setting. I would like to briefly describe each of
these initiatives for you.
The Corps water resources planning is guided by the U.S.
Water Resources Council's 1983 Economic and Environmental
Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies. The analyses required for individual
project decisions go well beyond the calculation of benefit and
cost ratios. Systematic evaluation of projects of different
scales and scopes is required so that tradeoffs among different
mixes of project purposes and alternative solutions can be
identified.
Using the Principles and Guidelines as the basic analytical
framework, the Corps has developed its planning guidance in
response to evolving national priorities and congressional
direction, which include considerations such as greater
emphasis on environmental protection and restoration and
greater collaboration among project interests.
Recently the Corps has issued guidance to broaden the
planning considerations through collaborative watershed-based
planning and to more fully document alternative plans'
beneficial and adverse effects in the areas of national
economic development, environmental quality, regional economic
development, and other social effects. This approach would
provide a basis for more comprehensive solutions to complex
water resource challenges.
The use of technical models is part of the science and
engineering that form the foundation of our investment decision
documents. To ensure the quality and credibility of the Corps'
models, the Corps has implemented a Planning Models Improvement
Program. This program enhances the planning capability of the
Corps by requiring the use of certified and defensible
technical models in the development of its decision documents.
The use of the certified models will improve the Corps' ability
to provide theoretically and technically sound data for
decisionmaking. The guidance and emphasis of this program
should also, in the long term, result in significant
efficiencies in conducting planning studies.
Early last year the Corps adopted a peer review process as
called for in the Information Quality Act. Our peer review
process closely follows the Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review issued by the Office of Management and Budget
in 2004. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the
technical quality of Corps documents is evaluated by a group of
independent reviewers not involved with the report production.
Potential projects that are controversial, precedent-setting or
have significant national effects will also require external
peer review by experts outside the Corps of Engineers.
In addition, external peer review is added in most cases
where the risk and magnitude of a proposed project are such
that a critical examination by a qualified person or a team
outside the Corps is necessary.
Further, the Corps has established a Civil Works Review
Board composed of Corps Senior Executive Service personnel and
a deputy commanding general for the Corps of Engineers to
determine if the planning recommendations of the Corps
districts are ready for formal State and agency review and
circulation of a proposed Report of the Chief of Engineers.
In August 2003 the Director of Civil Works designated six
national Planning Centers of Expertise to enhance the Corps'
planning capability for inland navigation, deep draft
navigation, ecosystem restoration, hurricane storm damage
reduction, flood damage reduction, and water management and
reallocation. The centers have key roles in maintaining and
strengthening planner core competencies within the Corps,
providing technical assistance, providing independent review,
transferring the latest technology, and sharing lessons learned
and best practices throughout the Corps' Planning Community of
Practice.
With the increasing maturity and development of these
centers, the Corps can more widely leverage its resources
regionally and nationally. Fully functioning centers will
provide leadership for the Corps planning process nationwide,
support the regional technical specialists, provide for
independent technical reviews, ensure certified models are used
in decisionmaking documents, share lessons learned, develop
core training modules and oversee the implementation of new
guidance.
The ability of an organization to work with not only the
scientific and engineering aspects of water resources but also
the economic and environmental components depends upon a multi-
talented, experienced work force. One way the Corps is
addressing the need for experienced planners is through the
Planning Associates Program that is an advanced training
opportunity for Corps water resource planners at the journeyman
level. The goals of this program are to broaden the planners'
competencies in solving complex water resources problems, to
strengthen their leadership skills, and to retain critical
planner capability within the Corps of Engineers.
The Corps has also established an Advanced Degree Program
in Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management that has
been created in close partnership between the Universities
Council on Water Resources and the Corps of Engineers. It is
designed to provide the next generation of Corps water
resources professionals with a requisite skill set to address
multi-objective planning and management. Planners completing
the program earn a masters degree or doctorate from one of the
participating accredited universities.
The Corps has played and continues to play a large role in
the development and management of the Nation's water and
related land resources. The administration's 2007 budget
incorporates objective, performance-based metrics for the
construction program, funds the continued operation of
commercial navigation and other water resource infrastructure,
and supports the restoration of nationally and regionally
significant aquatic ecosystems, with emphasis on the Florida
Everglades, the Upper Mississippi River, and the coastal
wetlands of Louisiana.
Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers is committed to
staying on the leading edge of service to the Nation. I am
confident that the planning process improvements and
performance-based budgeting recently undertaken by the Corps
have strengthened our ability to be responsive to the Nation's
complex water resources needs. I will be happy to answer any
questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamont follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.008
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Ms. Mittal.
STATEMENT OF ANU MITTAL
Ms. Mittal. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be here today
to discuss the Corps of Engineers' civil works planning and
project management processes. My testimony today is based on
five reports issued by GAO over the last 4 years and focuses on
two specific aspects of the civil works program. First I will
cover shortcomings that we have identified and the economic
analyses used by the Corps to support its planning decisions on
specific civil works projects. And second, I will cover the
Corps' lack of an effective financial planning and priority-
setting process for managing its civil works appropriations.
As you know, before undertaking a civil works project, the
Corps generally completes a two-phased planning study. This
two-phased process helps inform congressional decisionmakers
about whether or not to authorize a civil works project and
helps determine if Federal investment is warranted. As part of
this process, the Corps analyzes and documents whether the
costs of constructing the project are outweighed by the
benefits provided by the project.
Consequently, the accuracy and reliability of the Corps'
cost/benefit analysis is critical to ensuring that only the
most beneficial projects are proposed to decisionmakers.
However, our reviews of individual civil works projects and
activities have found that the results of the Corps' analysis
are often questionable and are inadequate to support this kind
of strategic decisionmaking.
Specifically, when we reviewed the Corps' cost/benefit
analyses for four different projects and activities, we found
that they were fraught with errors, mistakes and
miscalculations. These analyses often used invalid assumptions
and outdated data to arrive at their conclusions. In each of
our reviews we found that the Corps' analyses typically
understated the cost of a project and overstated its benefits.
For example, when we have tried to recalculate the benefits of
some of these projects we have only been able to find credible
support for about a fraction of the benefits claimed by the
Corps.
More troubling is the fact that these analyses went through
a three-tiered Corps internal review process but none of these
reviews detected any of the problems that we uncovered. This
raises serious questions in our minds about the adequacy of the
Corps' internal reviews.
In response to our report, usually at the direction of the
Congress, the Corps has addressed or is in the process of
addressing the specific issues identified relating to these
individual projects. However, we remain concerned about the
extent to which these problems are systemic in nature and
therefore may be prevalent throughout the rest of the Corps'
civil works portfolio. Effectively addressing these issues may
require a more global and comprehensive revamping of the Corps'
project planning processes rather than a piecemeal approach.
We also undertook a review last year on how the Corps
manages its appropriations for the civil works program. We
found that the Corps did not have an effective financial
planning and management system for these accounts. As a result,
the Corps could not identify the highest priority projects
across hundreds of authorized projects and allocate
appropriated funds to them in an efficient manner. To manage
its appropriated funds, we found that the Corps relied on a
just-in-time reprogramming approach and moved funds among
projects as needed.
The benefit of this just-in-time approach was that it
provided funds rapidly to projects that had unexpected needs.
However, this approach also resulted in many unnecessary and
uncoordinated movements of funds among projects. We found that
over a 2-year period the Corps moved over $2.1 billion by
conducting over 7,000 reprogramming actions and many of these
actions were conducted for reasons that were inconsistent with
the Corps' own guidance.
In response to the findings in our report, the Congress has
directed the Corps to revise its procedures for managing its
civil works appropriations starting in fiscal year 2006. The
Corps has been directed to reduce its reliance on reprogramming
actions and institute a more rational financial discipline for
the civil works appropriations accounts.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the recurring themes in our
reviews of individual Corps projects indicate that the Corps'
track record for providing reliable information to assess the
merits of undertaking certain civil works projects and managing
its appropriations for this program is spotty, at best. This is
of particular concern in a time when decisionmakers have to
determine how to best provide increasingly scarce Federal
resources to hundreds of competing civil works needs across the
country.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mittal follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.023
Mr. Issa. Thank you. And I want to thank you for your
testimony and the other testimonies arriving in a timely
fashion.
Mr. Lamont, I want to thank the Corps for getting theirs in
to OMB on time. I will mention that as we are trying to put
together questions, OMB held it up until 6 p.m. last night. So
hopefully we will be thorough in our questions and the minority
counsel when they arrive I am sure are going to somewhat have
the same story of feeling that you did not blind-side them but
they did not have a lot of notice.
Mr. Lamont. Thank you for your understanding.
Mr. Issa. We certainly understand the Corps was timely in
its delivery to the administration.
Mr. Ellis.
STATEMENT OF STEVE ELLIS
Mr. Ellis. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am
Steve Ellis, vice president of programs at Taxpayers for Common
Sense, a national nonpartisan budget watchdog. Thank you for
holding this hearing on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
planning process and project priorities.
I want to be clear from the outset that I have a great deal
of respect for the Corps and for Congress. However, we have
been significantly concerned about the well-documented waste of
taxpayer dollars on our Nation's water resources program.
Over the last several years there have been numerous
studies into the Corps' shortcomings, some of which were just
mentioned. In a more direct way, Katrina exposed many of these
same weaknesses. It appears Congress's response has been to do
nothing because the lack of strong rules, easily manipulated
economics, and a priority-free environment lends itself to pork
barrel spending and political machinations.
Congress and the Corps have become, wittingly or
unwittingly, partners in wasting the U.S. taxpayers' money. The
agency's roughly $5 billion budget is almost entirely made up
of earmarks for projects. By courting Members of Congress, the
Corps helps ensure that their budget level is maintained. The
Corps takes care of Congress and Congress takes care of the
Corps.
The Army Inspector General pointed out that for the Corps,
``the budget process was deemed a first-half irrelevancy. The
measure of effectiveness of the divisions and districts was the
amount of funds actually appropriated by Congress.''
Then chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations
Committee, Sonny Callahan, indicated his interest in getting
the Dog River in Mobile, AL dredged because it had silted in
too much for even recreational traffic. Recreational dredging
is not a Corps mission, so the project was redefined as
environmental restoration because as noted in an internal Corps
memo, ``The project is Congressman Callahan's personal
initiative. The yellow dot on the photo below shows Mr.
Callahan's Mobile residence in relation to the Dog River.'' I
can tell you that it was right next door. The Dog River was his
back yard.
The Corps is incapable of correcting itself. For example,
dredging projects on the Delaware and the Columbia Rivers were
found by independent experts to not be economically justified,
returning pennies for every dollar invested. In response, the
Corps created review panels but then ignored serious economic
shortcomings in the projects, declared victory, and moved ahead
with them.
Part of the blame lays with the rules that govern project
selection, the Principles and Guidelines. More than 20 years
old, these rules need to be revised to consider new factors in
the benefit/cost analysis, updates to the economic methodology
and reorienting the civil works program toward fewer and less
structural projects.
For example, the Corps' current method of calculating
benefits has encouraged high-risk development by creating a
false sense of confidence in flood damage reduction projects.
To be sure, flood insurance and disaster relief payments have
also contributed but now a levee that is built to protect
soybeans can end up growing subdivisions.
Since the 1920's the Federal Government has spent more than
$123 billion on flood damage reduction projects. During that
same period, average annual flood damages have nearly trebled
to $6 billion.
As projects churn through the flawed development process,
they end up in a heap called a backlog. The Corps has a $58
billion backlog of authorized projects that have yet not been
constructed. There is no prioritization system for projects, so
the $2 billion in annual construction funding is spread thinly
across many projects.
Corps appropriations include irrigation systems, wastewater
treatment, and water supply facilities, none of which are
primary Corps missions. The Corp is involved in building
schools. Building and renovating schools is a laudable job but
should not be a priority of the Nation's premier water
resources agency.
The lack of priorities and the symbiotic Corps-Congress
relationship have significant costs. President Bush has
frequently criticized the pre-9/11 mindset. Well, those making
the much-ado-about-nothing argument on the Corps are suffering
from a pre-Katrina mindset. With more than 1,000 lives lost and
a total cost likely exceeding $100 billion, we need to
fundamentally alter our country's approach to water resources
if we are to avoid this devastation in the future.
After Katrina hit and the levees failed in New Orleans,
many said we did not spend enough money. No, we did not spend
enough money wisely. Louisiana took home $1.9 billion in Corps
funding in the 5 fiscal years preceding Katrina. That was more
than any other State. California came in a distant second at
less than $1.4 billion. We had the money. It went to the wrong
things, like a new lock on the Industrial Canal in New Orleans.
Levees on the very same Industrial Canal failed, inundating the
lower Ninth Ward. In retrospect, lock or levees? I hope our
priorities would be different today.
In closing, to reign in this culture of waste, strong new
measures must be enacted. This includes earmark and lobby
reform. It also means modernizing the Corps by establishing
independent review, developing a prioritization system, and
updating the Principles and Guidelines. The earmarked project-
by-project budgeting must be ended. It is up to Congress to
reign in the Corps and the excesses of their fellow lawmakers.
Thank you for holding this hearing and we hope that we can
work together to bring the Corps of Engineers into the 21st
century and to meet our country's pressing water resources
needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.030
Mr. Issa. Thank you. That was not only almost exactly on
the 5-minutes but you alternated very well between the failures
of the Corps and the failures of the Congress. I thought that
was pretty fair.
Ms. Birnbaum.
STATEMENT OF S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM
Ms. Birnbaum. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear today. My name is Liz Birnbaum and,
as you mentioned, I am the vice president for government
affairs at American Rivers, the Nation's leading river
conservation organization, with over 40,000 members and working
with thousands of local watershed and river groups across the
country. We also co-chair the Corps Reform Network, a growing
coalition of more than 135 organizations from across the
country.
To protect lives, communities, the economy, and the
environment, Congress must modernize Corps of Engineers project
planning. No stronger evidence is needed than the horrifying
flooding of New Orleans, which highlighted many critical
problems with the Corps' project planning and construction.
First, Corps projects repeatedly suffer from flawed project
planning and design. Hurricane Katrina was a Category 3 storm
when it reached New Orleans, a storm the flood walls were
supposed to protect against. The floodwall design did not meet
the Corps' own guidelines, and the Corps failed to act on
additional concerns about unstable soils and levee heights. A
panel of the American Society of Civil Engineers has concluded
that the system's failure demonstrates that ``fundamental flaws
were part of how the system was conceived and developed.''
Second, New Orleans exemplifies how many Corps projects
destroy natural systems that provide the first line of defense
against floods. Since the 1930's, Louisiana has lost about
1,900 square miles of coastal wetlands, which protect against
storm surges. The Corps contributed to these wetlands losses
with upstream projects that blocked the sediment necessary to
nourish coastal wetlands and downstream levees that pushed the
remaining sediment load out into the Gulf.
Another Corps project, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet,
or Mr. GO, also damaged 20,000 acres of coastal wetlands. But
more than that, community leaders, activists and scientists had
warned for years that Mr. GO would funnel storm surges directly
to the city, yet the Corps did not act. The initial flooding
that devastated St. Bernard Parish and the lower Ninth Ward
came from Mr. GO.
Third, the Corps does projects that encourage development
in high-risk areas, placing people in harm's way. After
Hurricane Betsy hit New Orleans in 1965, killing 75 people,
instead of reinforcing levees located at the city's edge, the
Corps planned a new system stretching miles into uninhabited
wetlands. The Corps then claimed the increased property values
of the newly drained wetlands as an economic benefit.
Tragically, many of these wetlands became the impoverished
eastern Orleans Parish neighborhoods that suffered the brunt of
Katrina's flooding.
Fourth, Corps projects and project funding do not
prioritize national needs. While Louisiana receives far more
money for Corps projects than any other State, as Steve
mentioned, the funding has not been directed to priority flood
protection projects. Over the past 5 years Congress sent $1.9
billion, again as Mr. Ellis mentioned, none of which went to
upgrade New Orleans' defenses. New Orleans' repeated requests
for increased flood protection garnered only a small
appropriation to study the problem.
The flooding of New Orleans is by no means the only
evidence of the need to modernize Corps projects. The flood of
studies listed in the attachment to my testimony, from the
National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability
Office, the Army Inspector General, and independent experts,
shows that the Corps' problems are pervasive, affecting
projects nationwide.
Although the problems are large, the solutions are
manageable. A bill recently introduced in the Senate, S. 2288,
would make necessary changes.
First, input from independent experts must be integrated
into Corps project planning. A transparent process should allow
independent outside experts to examine whether projects will
meet needs while minimizing costs and environmental harm. S.
2288 would subject all projects costing more than $25 million
or projects deemed controversial to review by an outside panel
of experts. This input would then receive weight in the Corps'
planning process.
Second, Congress should require the Corps to protect
natural systems. In addition to avoiding harm to rivers and
wetlands whenever possible, the Corps must mitigate any impacts
that cannot be avoided. S. 2288 would require the Corps to meet
the same mitigation requirements as everyone else does.
Wetlands mitigation offers a host of benefits, including
natural flood protection. One wetland acre, saturated one foot
deep, retains 330,000 gallons of water, enough to flood 13
average homes thigh deep.
Third, the Corps' planning guidelines must be modernized.
The Corps is operating under 20-year-old planning guidelines
that promote the destruction of the healthy natural ecosystems
that defend against storm surges and flooding but allow the
Corps to recommend projects in high-risk areas, luring people
into harm's way and that do not adequately address loss of
life. Indeed, under the current rules, the Corps can count
draining wetlands as an economic benefit of a project. S. 2288
would reinstate the Water Resources Council to address these
and other failings of the Corps' planning guidelines, in
consultation with the National Academy of Sciences.
And here I am going to accept the offer to step off my
written testimony and mention the Corps cannot do this itself.
The Water Resources Council established these guidelines in
1983 and then disbanded. It has not met since then. The Corps
cannot fix this problem itself.
Finally, Congress should ensure that the Corps gives
Congress necessary information to prioritize projects that will
provide vital flood protection for urban areas and critical
infrastructure, and avoid damage to natural flood protection
systems. S. 2288 would ask the Water Resources Council to
analyze how Corps projects can reflect national priorities for
flood damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration.
It would require the Corps to plan projects that avoid the
unwise use of floodplains and that restore and maintain natural
systems that defend against flooding.
We urge Congress to address these lessons so tragically
highlighted by Hurricane Katrina and we urge Congress not to
pass another Water Resources Development Act unless needed
reforms are included. We would be happy to work with the
committee to make these changes a reality.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Birnbaum follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.044
Mr. Issa. Thank you all. Thank you for very much staying
within, I think, a good timeframe. And for all of you went off
your prepared speeches, you are allowed to go off your prepared
speeches and I always appreciate that.
I will begin questioning. This hearing is not about
Katrina. I want to make that clear. But it is inevitable that
Katrina is a poster child for what the Corps should be in the
future and perhaps what it has not been, and what Congress's
role has not been in the past. So I hope you will all look at
this as anecdotal questions, because we are using Katrina, but
not that this committee is investigating Katrina.
Mr. Lamont, Ms. Birnbaum's testimony claims the Corps
knowingly used incomplete, outdated weather information in the
design of the levees that were to protect New Orleans. I am
astonished that the Corps may use obsolete data for projects
the primary purpose.
This is an allegation that I have heard before. Would you
like to address it, please, of how old the data was, why there
was not an update before the levees were produced and how it
may have impacted the levees?
Before you answer, I would ask that you primarily
concentrate on what this committee should look to doing in the
future. Again I do not want this to be about a specific event
but rather, is there a flaw that either has been corrected or
could be corrected and if so, what Congress would also
participate in doing. Please, Mr. Lamont.
Mr. Lamont. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am involved with the
forensic investigation of what happened in New Orleans. Let me
give you some quick background on that, to put this in proper
context.
The Chief of Engineers, General Strock, set up an
Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force composed of some
of the best and brightest people within the Corps, outside the
Corps, and in academia, to try to find out exactly what
happened. This is the first time that I have heard, for
example, that there may have been an allegation of parameters
that may have been looked aside.
As a professional engineer myself, and engineers in the
community and the Corps of Engineers, the first thing that you
are going to look at is the available information and the
existing design criteria and codes at the time. A lot of these
were designed back in the 1960's and I do not know this as a
fact but I suspect that the design criteria have changed over
time.
The Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force is also
having the results of their input reviewed separately by the
American Society of Civil Engineers. Mr. Woodley, who is the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, has also
established under Mr. Rumsfeld's direction a contract with the
National Academies of Science to independently review what the
ASCE is externally reviewing and what the Corps of Engineers
Interagency Task Force is looking at.
The heart of this is that the chief of engineers and Mr.
Woodley are looking for the answers in a transparent fashion.
We are trying to get to the bottom of exactly what happened, to
determine lessons learned, and then incorporate that in the
reconstitution of the levee system in New Orleans.
I have no personal knowledge, sir, of the allegations that
I just heard. I think this needs to be further examined as this
comes about. We are looking for a June 1st date to wrap up the
Interagency Performance Task Force information and provide that
information to the NRC panel and also to ASCE. That is the best
information I have at this time.
Mr. Issa. OK. And what I would like to do is give you a
copy. This is from a site Greenwire that specifically says that
the Corps of Engineers knew the threat to the levees as early
as 1972. It does quote that the knowledge, the research was
done in 1959 for a worst-case scenario, so you were very close
to accurate on it being the 1960's.
I would like to give this to you so that in answer after
the fact, if you could respond to the specifics of this as you
look at when the design was done and whether or not the weather
data of 1959 was, in fact, what was used, because this is
something that--like anything you pull down off the Internet,
as good as it might seem, you would certainly like to give an
opportunity for fair response. So if you will make sure they
get a copy of it.
I would like to go to something, and I make it a point not
to try to characterize--I characterize folksy things from my
own life, but I try not to make things about my own district.
And with 88 percent of your funds earmarked in fiscal year
2006, I think way too many of us have lived and died based on
how much we earmark for our own districts. And the only thing I
can say in defense is if we do not do it, the remaining amount
is not sufficient for you to do those jobs in our districts
that need to be done, either.
But I would like to talk briefly about one that I would
like your response on. The San Luis Rey River project, which is
over a decade old, was a project that was to be completed in
about 6 years, 5 to 6 years. It ran out of funding and
additionally, the maintenance that was to be done during that
time was not done. So what started off as a flood prevention
levee now is, in fact, habitat in which the Corps of Engineers
on an annual basis pays to exchange eggs from smart birds to
dumb birds so that the dumb bird will continue to be around as
an endangered species. The Corps of Engineers manually removes
arrondo and other invasive species so as to minimize the
flooding while, at the same time, not being able to disturb
habitat in general.
Isn't the best--and this comes to the real question--isn't
the best way for the Corps to do a project to start the
project, have full funding on the project until the project is
completed, regardless of whether there is a powerful
appropriator representing that district or not? And shouldn't
there be a process in which a project in its development says
if it is not done on this time schedule, there will be
secondary or potential secondary costs? Shouldn't that be part
of the whole way the Corps allocates its resources?
Mr. Lamont. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to ask
our Deputy for Management and Budget, who is emminently more
qualified than myself, to try to answer that.
Mr. Issa. Well, I hit a home run if I can get the big guns
in here. Thank you.
Ms. Tornblom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is easy to say
that the Corps budget is largely earmarked, but many of those
are the President's earmarks. Some of them are congressional
earmarks that are added to the budget.
The Corps budget is that way because each project is
individually authorized. We do not have underlying generic
authorization in most cases. So the program has evolved over
the decades as you see it now, individual project funding.
On occasion the administration has proposed fully funding
projects. That was never found acceptable by the Congress, for
I am sure a variety of reasons. We are, however, moving
steadily toward prioritizing the project based on performance
and how near they are to completion and being much more
efficient about the way we use the funds, reducing the number
of reprogrammings and the number of continuing contracts which
require further funding in the future.
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that but my real question was since
I have one in my district that I have been up close and
personal on, that has at least $18 million of mitigation
required because on an annual basis during construction it was
never cleared because funds were reprogrammed away.
Now that is a personal, anecdotal, granted, but a personal
observation where the Corps is now doing the work of Fish and
Wildlife, spending Corps money on an annual basis in order to
meet agreed-on requirements as a result of accidentally
creating habitat in a project that was supposed to have 200-
year flood benefits, now may have less than a 100-year flood
benefit. And just so you understand why this is so significant.
I have advised and the attorneys for the city that
contracted and should have already had full cost of maintaining
the thing, I have advised them not to accept the project
because there is no basis for them to take your problem, your
habitat you have created, and take it on. There is no reason
for them to spend the million dollars a year. So the $18
million, if not spent, will mean that in perpetuity $1 million
more a year will be spent by the Corps from your $5 billion
budget to continue basically producing habitat because the city
is not going to accept the output of the levees because it does
not meet the spec that you agreed to, all of this because on an
annual basis, the dredging was not done and the project was not
completed. It was defunded and stretched out over more than a
decade.
Ms. Tornblom. We are trying to avoid stretching the money
across as many projects, which has the effect that you just
described, by concentrating the resources we do have on fewer
projects that produce higher benefits for the Nation so that we
can get them finished.
Mr. Issa. Well, how do we do that as the Congress is really
the question, and I want others to pipe in. Particularly Miss
Mittal, you said, and I know all of you actually said the Corps
cannot do it itself. There is a belief by the other three
panelists that the Corps itself, which has 25-year-old projects
that have been substantially unfunded but left on the books for
all these years, is incapable of getting rid of a project and
narrowing the scope to where within a $5 billion level of
funding, you can do and realistically deal with.
I mean it would be more than a decade if you took on no new
projects to finish all the projects that you have in your
backlog today. Is that a fair assessment, if I just do $5
billion into $58 billion of known backlog? Is that a fair
assessment?
Ms. Tornblom. Your math is correct, sir.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Ellis. And I will get to the ranking member quickly
because I think we need to get her in, too.
Mr. Ellis. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I would just point out
that the $5 billion is the total Corps budget. They only have
$2 billion in construction funding, so your $58 billion is
actually going to take a lot longer to finish than just a
decade.
Mr. Issa. I am not that young. That is why I picked a
number I could deal with.
Mr. Ellis. I understand. But I do think that there are two
points that I would like to raise about this. One is that
absolutely Congress is part of the problem in giving a little
bit more money to the Corps and stretching it out further over
more projects. In just the fiscal year 2007 budget that the
president has proposed, there were 532 earmarks that he
defunded that were in the fiscal year 2006 appropriation, so
that was 532 projects that Congress essentially added to that
budget last year.
Also----
Mr. Issa. You mean the President took away and we put back?
Mr. Ellis. Well, you put in the fiscal year 2006 and then
he specifically delineated those projects were not getting
funding in fiscal year 2007. I imagine that a significant
number of those, if not all of those, will reappear in the
fiscal year 2007 budget for the Corps.
The other point I would like to make is that in the Corps'
planning, in their economic analyses of projects, they actually
assume optimal funding when they do the economic analysis, the
benefit/cost ratio. So there is some optimal timeline of
building a project. If it is a $50 million project you could
not spend all the $50 million in 1 year. It would take a couple
of years.
So let us say you take $10 million a year for 5 years to
build a project. The Corps assumes that in their economic
analysis. That has never happened. I do not think that has ever
happened probably for a Corps project, where it has gotten
every dime that it could have possibly spent in a particular
year. So what the Corps is effectively----
Mr. Issa. Hoover Dam would be the clear exception.
Mr. Ellis. What that actually ends up meaning, though, is
that it holds the cost down and it accelerates the delivery of
the benefits. So it essentially skews the benefit/cost analysis
to help justify projects when, in reality, it is going to cost
more and the benefits are going to take longer to be achieved.
So it actually ends up skewing it to justify more projects, as
well.
Mr. Issa. It is clear that we could have an infinite amount
of questions. As soon as Miss Birnbaum has made her comment, I
want to turn this over to the ranking member so she can get her
questions in. Please.
Ms. Birnbaum. I just want to comment that we are supporting
the idea that there needs to be some sort of legislative way to
prioritize Corps projects to meet the problems you are talking
about and the bill I was talking about, S. 2288, would have the
Water Resources Council do that every 2 years with a specific
requirement that they balance maintaining the rankings with any
new really important projects that might come along.
So somebody has to sit back and balance any new important
priorities, but also look at that consistency of funding that
you are talking about and maintaining consistent priorities at
the same time.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. First, I want to apologize, Mr. Chairman, for
being late and not hearing the presentations. So if I repeat
something that has already been addressed, just let me know.
I want to thank all the witnesses for coming down and I
wanted to side with you, Mr. Chairman, that we have some
problems in the State of California and I do not know how
priorities are being set now that FEMA is operating under
Homeland Security. From testimony I heard earlier today, the
kind of bureaucracy that has been set up under Homeland
Security automatically has an effect on FEMA where it cannot
move as quickly to respond.
Now we had one of the greatest disasters this country has
ever known, Katrina, Wilma, and all the rest of the ladies,
female names.
Mr. Issa. Guys are getting their turn now but they are
underproducing. It seems the big ones are still tending to be
women on these hurricanes. Did you notice that?
Ms. Watson. Well, you know, let us just take the names off
and have Hurricane A and B and C and get out of that debate.
Anyway, in all seriousness, I am really concerned about how
we set priorities. What I read in the paper is all that I know
because information, vital information is not always shared
with the Members of the House. Just understand that.
I want to commend my chair for going after some of these
issues and doing oversight because, as you know, many of our
committees do not do the oversight that we are responsible for.
The question is I hear the Corps of Engineers trying to
repair the 17th Street Bridge levee is using material that
cannot last the strength of a category 3 landfall. I would like
someone to respond to that.
The other thing I need a response to, I understand that
FEMA has people down there and they are not given work orders
but they are getting paid the big bucks. And when we talk about
the funding for FEMA to address the levees, why is it we have
contractors that are there sitting on ships and sitting in
mobile units waiting to work but they are getting paid?
Now if my information is inaccurate, please correct me
because all I know is what I read in the newspapers. Really, we
do not get informed. Regardless of what you hear, we do not get
informed.
So can someone respond?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, ma'am. To give you the best possible
information, if I could, I would like to turn to Mr. Tom
Waters, who could bring you up to speed on that.
Ms. Watson. Please do.
Mr. Issa. Please come up and sit in the hot seat.
Mr. Waters. Thank you. I am not going to be able to give a
good, definitive answer on the debris. I am sorry but I just do
not have that information available.
Ms. Watson. I am not talking about the debris. I am talking
about addressing the needs of the levees, the materials and the
cost of doing it and the time span in which it is supposed to
be done. I understand there are people down there and they are
not working, but they are getting paid.
Mr. Waters. Yes, ma'am. And I----
Ms. Watson. These are FEMA contracts.
Mr. Waters. Right. And I just cannot answer that part of
the question. I do not have enough information to provide you
an answer in terms of what you are asking about the acquisition
and how that is going with the debris. But we certainly can
find out the answer to that and get it to you.
Ms. Watson. I would like to give you something in writing
and have you respond to us in writing.
Mr. Waters. Yes, ma'am.
On the question of materials on the 17th Street Canal, Mr.
Lamont earlier gave a description of an effort that the Chief
of Engineers and Mr. Woodley have commissioned using the
National Academies, American Society of Civil Engineers and
Corps of Engineers, probably the best group of experts ever
convened in the country to examine what exactly has happened
there. This is called the Interagency Performance Evaluation
Task Force and they have made two public findings so far. The
last one was released on March 10th.
I am not going to be able to address the materials. That is
a matter of public record, but the----
Ms. Watson. Excuse me. Is that public record accurate?
Mr. Waters. Well, it is a public record that is being
reviewed by experts and yes, ma'am. We are bringing the best--
--
Ms. Watson. OK. Well, let me tell you what I read.
Mr. Waters. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Watson. That the materials that were in the levee, the
one that broke, were inferior materials and now the Corps is
using another material that will not withstand landfall at
category 3. That is what I am reading.
Mr. Waters. Yes, ma'am. And the final conclusions of what
happened and why the levees were breached will be available--
the schedule for that is the first of June of this year. And I
cannot address the materials. It is a work in progress, unless
something is covered in the report that was published on March
10th. That is about as good as I can do, I am afraid.
Ms. Watson. Thank you for nothing. You cannot address it.
Is there anyone that can address the work orders for the
people who were called down to work on the levees? I understand
they are not working and getting paid big dollars. Anyone? If
you cannot address it, then do not respond.
Mr. Lamont. We would be happy to take the question and
answer it for the record to the best of our ability, ma'am.
Ms. Watson. I will put it in writing.
Mr. Lamont. As Ms. Tornblom has just pointed out to me, the
issue relative to FEMA, we have no knowledge about.
Ms. Watson. All right.
Mr. Lamont. But we will investigate that and get back to
you on that.
Ms. Watson. Fair enough. I will send it to you in writing,
I will share with the chair and other members of our committee,
and I will share the response. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. And I am going to ask unanimous consent that all
Members, present or not present, be able to have followup
questions and submit them to each of you in writing.
Additionally, I would ask unanimous consent that the record be
left open for 2 weeks or extended further by the majority and
minority, if necessary, to allow for that.
I will tell you that the efficiency of this has been
excellent, but there is no question that we are going to have
additional followup questions. I would like to thank you for
beginning the process with us.
I would like to summarize, in closing, that it appears very
much at the end of this hearing, as it began, that the Congress
is a willing and active culprit in the poor performance of the
Corps' projects in that clearly if we have $58 billion of
backlog projects, $2 billion in funding, and a larger and
larger amount of funds that find themselves unintendedly going
to the studies, the mitigation, various activities under the
Endangered Species Act and others, as a result, those continue
on an every-year basis while, in fact, the project itself may
be at a virtual standstill.
So I think that will characterize a lot of the questions we
are going to have, not just for all of you but for the Members
themselves as we begin to find out how we can one, eliminate a
$58 billion backlog or two, fund it in a reasonable period of
time.
I will close, with the ranking member's permission, by
letting you all know that when I entered Congress and actually
when Ms. Watson entered Congress we had a similar backlog in
military housing. We had a policy of talking about how special
the troops were but not building them housing. Using public-
private partnerships and some other techniques, we have
substantially reduced that. Hopefully, with the great minds
that exist on both sides of this issue, we can begin to look at
how we could eliminate the backlog with Congress of those that
must be there.
Last and least, I would charge all of you to, whether asked
specifically or not, you are being asked now to give me as many
projects that are still on the books for as many years as you
can that, in fact, you believe should be eliminated and
reauthorized if and only if Congress is willing to put
substantial new dollars.
We will followup with the rest in writing. I want to thank
you for your time. I want to thank the audience, who came here
to participate and to listen, for their attentiveness.
And with that, I would yield to the ranking member.
Ms. Watson. Thank you so much.
My concern is this. I was not here when you discussed the
projects and the timing, and so on, but we know that there are
climate changes and we know that we are going to in a matter of
few months get back into another hurricane season and we are
going to have devastating hurricanes. And when we talk about
the backlog, what are we doing to take into consideration if we
are going to dump money into these projects, to do it in a more
timely fashion?
I take my own State of California. We are always prone to
earthquakes. We know the big one is coming. Every 19 years we
have a huge earthquake.
So I hear about the backlog. I hear about the funding, Mr.
Chairman. I hear that we are cutting funds. What are we doing
to be ready in case there is another hurricane? What are we
doing to address the fact that we are going to have another
earthquake? We have them every day. I just want to know what
kind of planning and thinking goes into it.
Some things cannot be put off, and let me give you an
example. In 1994 we had a huge earthquake in California. The
freeway that went down, went down in my district, right, in the
center of my district and affected the 405, affected the 10,
affected the 5, the I-5, and so on. And the Governor had a plan
and we were in the third segment. I said you cannot do that. I
said you have to fix all freeways and you have to be able to
see that they can withstand an earthquake that goes to 7. By
the way, there is no 10 on the Richter Scale. It only goes to
9. So you have to retrofit all of them at the same time because
we never know where the next--we are on a fault line, so
putting it off, you know, project one over several years and
project two, project three, this lays us bare.
So I am wondering can anyone respond to how we lay out what
priority fixing of levees receives? We are having tremendous
problems in the northern part of our State. I was just up there
Sunday around the Sacramento area and we have flooding because
the levees did not stand up.
So how do you think this through and how do you plan? How
do you set priorities? Can anyone respond?
Mr. Lamont. Ma'am, I will give it a try.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
Mr. Lamont. It is clearly a dynamic world that we are
living in right now. There is definitely a limitation of
resources that are available to fund projects.
This is myself personally speaking as an engineer. This
country is probably faced with looking at the infrastructure
that is out there, looking at it from a regional or national
basis, and then making some hard decisions by the
administration, working with the Congress, and that is about as
far as I would want to go right now.
Ms. Watson. Do you want to add anything?
Ms. Tornblom. I mentioned earlier what we are using to
prioritize the construction projects, the remaining benefit/
cost ratios, looking at the performance, trying to finish
projects that are under way.
In terms of the levees you are speaking of, we are just
right now taking another look at that since the Governor has
elevated the issue and I expect some movement on that soon to
raise the priority of that. We have been talking about it but
you are probably right; we have not done much about it yet.
Mr. Issa. OK. And with that, I am going to use the power of
the gavel to thank you all and to say that I have no doubt this
is not the last hearing on this subject.
Ms. Watson. And may I have my opening statement included in
the record?
Mr. Issa. We made that by unanimous consent when I sat here
alone.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.047
Mr. Issa. Thank you. With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.053
[The Army Corps of Engineers Response to Chairman's
Questions follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9708.063
<all>