<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:49519.wais]
49-519 cc
1998
S. Hrg. 105-697
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1998
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
20402
?
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire MAX BAUCUS, Montana
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 5
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 4
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 10
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 3
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 7
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 6
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 6
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 1
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 11
WITNESSES
Faber, Scott C., director of floodplain programs, American Rivers 35
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 98
Senator Chafee........................................... 94
Fugate, Grover, executive director, Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Committee Management Council......................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 103
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 105
Higgins, Stephen H., beach erosion administrator, Broward County
Department of Natural Resource Protection...................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 108
Koeper, John, executive director, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District....................................................... 120
Nagle, Kurt J., president, American Association of Port
Authorities.................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 85
Senator Reid............................................. 87
White paper, Federally-funded Maintenance Dredging........... 31
Pringle, Kenneth E., mayor, Borough of Belmar, NJ................ 37
Prepared statement........................................... 106
Strayhorn, Louisa M., city councilwoman, Virginia Beach, VA...... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 114
Westphal, Hon. Joseph W., Assistant Secretary for Civil Works,
Department of the Army......................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 71
Senator Boxer............................................ 75
Senator Chafee........................................... 69
Senator Graham........................................... 75
Senator Levin............................................ 73
Senator Reid............................................. 73
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Articles:
Vision Statement of the Third Upper Mississippi River Summit,
Mississippi Monitor........................................ 99
For A Flood-Weary Valley, A Vote to Let the River Run Wild... 101
Letters:
Executive Office of the President............................ 127
Henriksen, Terrance D., mayor, City of Grafton, ND, letter
and resolution............................................. 55
Lew, Jacob J., acting director, Office of Management and
Budget..................................................... 56
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District........................ 117
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission................. 141
Statements:
Beyke, John C., on behalf of the National Association of
Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies................... 143
Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from the State of North
Dakota..................................................... 53
Dean, Henry, chairman, Interstate Council on Water Policy.... 117
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 56
Dorgan, Hon. Byron, U.S. Senator from the State of North
Dakota..................................................... 52
Herger, Hon. Wally, U.S. Representative from the State of
California................................................. 59
McGuiness, Dan, director, Upper Mississippi River Campaign,
National Audubon Society................................... 137
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District........................ 13
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission................. 142
Murphy, Charles W., chairman, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe...... 139
National Audubon Society..................................... 137
Owens, Pat, mayor, Grand Forks, ND........................... 54
Red River Valley Association................................. 148
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency......................... 120
Stark, Fred M., mayor, City of Grafton, ND................... 52
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.................................... 139
(iv)
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 1998
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John W. Warner
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Warner, Kempthorne, Inhofe, Bond, Baucus,
Reid, Graham, Boxer, and Wyden.
Also present: Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. The hearing will come to order.
The Senate is anticipating votes, perhaps in as little time
as 45 minutes to an hour. So the chairman intends to forego the
opening statement. If other Senators can see fit to do that, I
think we can move right along.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, may we put a statement into
the record?
Senator Warner. Of course. Without objection, all
statements can be inserted into the record.
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize the civil works
activities of the Corps of Engineers. It's been the committee's
practice, since the landmark Water Resources Development Act of
1986, to enact the water resources legislation on a consistent
2-year cycle, and today this committee renews its commitment to
make every effort to do just that.
We're fortunate to have a brand new Secretary of the Army,
one who comes from the Senate family, who is highly respected
by members and staff alike throughout the Senate, the Honorable
Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, U.S.
Department of the Army. He's accompanied by Major General
Russell Fuhrman, Director of Civil Works, and Mr. Michael
Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Civil Works for Policy and
Legislation.
I first wish to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for working with
my staff as it relates to the Metropolitan Washington, DC.
water supply. It is critical that we modernize that system, as
you well understand. Parts of it were built in the 1850's, and
I think your technical people would be the first to tell you,
the time has come to face up to that responsibility. You were
instrumental in the last 48 hours in getting that matter worked
out as best we can in the Administration and Congress, in the
few hours that remained before hopefully confirming the
Secretary of the Army today. I thank you.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you one brief
question?
Senator Warner. Yes.
Senator Boxer. I've been contacted by a number of
environmental groups that are not going to be testifying today,
but would like to submit some testimony for the record.
Senator Warner. Senator, without objection.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Warner. Of course, they'll be reasonable in length,
but I'm glad that you brought that up, and we will do that.
We'll provide the opportunity.
Senator Boxer. They're interested in the Challenge 21
program, and they wanted to have their comments included.
Senator Warner. Understood.
[The prepared statements of Senators Warner, Chafee,
Inhofe, Bond, Baucus, Lautenberg, Reid, Graham, Boxer, and
Wyden follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John W. Warner, U.S. Senator from the
Commonwealth of Virginia
Good morning. I would like to welcome Secretary Westphal to the
committee this morning as the new Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works. We are pleased that you have been confirmed for this
challenging position and look forward to working with you. The
committee also welcomes our other witnesses--many of whom have traveled
far to join us this morning.
Today, the purpose of the hearing is to examine the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize the civil works activities for
the Corps of Engineers.
It has been the committee's practice since the landmark Water
Resources bill of 1986 to enact a Water Resources Development Act on a
consistent 2-year cycle. Today, I renew our commitment to this process.
A predictable reauthorization process ensures that our Nation's
water resource infrastructure is constructed and maintained in a timely
and efficient manner. This process allows the Army Corps of Engineers
to continue to ``cost share'' project costs with local sponsors.
In return, citizens have received significant protection from
flooding and coastal storms. We have maintained our competitive edge in
a ``one-world'' economic market through the construction and
maintenance at our Nation's ports and waterways.
While some may question the economic benefits to the taxpayer from
investments in these local activities, there is ample evidence to
confirm that these projects are in the national interest.
In 1997 alone, Corps flood control projects prevented approximately
$45.2 billion in damages. The Corps continues to support our Nation's
commercial navigation through deepening and maintaining our Nation's
waterways. The value of the commerce on these waterways totaled over
$600 billion in 1996, generating 15.9 million jobs.
The national interest in water resource development is clear. We
are concerned, however, about the Administration's declining budget
requests for the Corps civil works activities. There is a growing
disparity between the number of projects which have been fully analyzed
by the Corps, received Chiefs Reports and authorized by this committee
compared to the projects funded through the annual Appropriations
process.
For example, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
authorized approximately 250 projects for construction. However, less
than 50 percent--123 projects--have actually received any funding to
begin construction.
In addition, the President's fiscal year 1999 construction budget
request of $784 billion represents a significant reduction from the
current fiscal year construction funding of $1.47 billion. Certainly,
this budget request cannot support the work being recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and again the Congress will need to supplement the
Administration's request. The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations
bill, passed last week, contains $1.2 billion for construction
activities for next fiscal year.
I remain committed to the cost-sharing principles established in
the WRDA 1986 which call on local sponsors to be full partners in the
development of projects. It is my intent to proceed with project
authorizations that adhere to these principles. They have been
successful in leveraging non-Federal funds and have ensured that only
those projects with the strongest local support move forward.
The committee will hear from several witnesses today about the
Administration's proposal concerning shore protection projects. I will
carefully study this proposal and hope that--should the committee
concur with this approach--that the Administration will begin to budget
for these vitally needed projects.
It is disconcerting that the Administration has not implemented the
provisions of the 1996 Water Resources bill which directed the
Secretary to recommend shore protection authorizations to Congress and
to renew budgeting for construction of these authorized projects. While
I welcome the opportunity to resolve this longstanding issue with the
Administration regarding Federal support of on-going and new shore
protection projects, I am concerned that the Administration is not
firmly committed to maintaining a long term shore protection program.
Secretary Westphal, I hope that we can begin to make progress on
this serious issue.
In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for passage of a
Water Resources Development Act of 1998. This vital legislation would
ensure timely and efficient development and maintenance of our Nation's
water resource infrastructure. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on the committee to proceed with the development of
legislation to mark-up in the very near future.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John H. Chafee, U.S. Senator from the State
of Rhode Island
Thank you, Senator Warner, for calling today's hearing. We have a
very short amount of time this year, maybe 9 or 10 weeks, in which to
complete action on the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1998.
I am confident, however, that we will be able to get our work done.
Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that I am pleased to
see our new Assistant Secretary, Dr. Westphal, testifying before the
committee this morning. I want to congratulate him on his recent
confirmation and look forward to working with him on a variety of
important matters.
Today, I am eager to learn more from Dr. Westphal about the
Administration's 1998 WRDA proposal. I will be interested to hear what
the top priorities are, what the overall WRDA dollar level should be,
and finally, what advice they have to offer on some of the more thorny
issues.
In particular, I am wondering if the Administration believes that
we must fix the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund this year (as part of
WRDA). If so, I am eager to review any proposals they might have to
restore a harbor maintenance user fee that will meet the tests laid out
by the Supreme Court this past March.
Again, thank you, Senator Warner, for chairing this hearing. I feel
strongly about getting the WRDA bill done this year. We have a
responsibility to the non-Federal project sponsors who have been doing
their part by sharing feasibility study costs and construction costs,
likewise.
Finally, I want to thank Grover Fugate for coming down this morning
from Rhode Island. We have just come out of a very rough storm season
in which the South Coast of my State was really battered by
nor'easters. Grover and the Coastal Resources Management Council did a
great job responding to--and trying to diminish--the terrible damage
caused by the storm surges. I am delighted he could make the trip today
to discuss shoreline issues.
I look forward to his testimony and indeed that of our other expert
witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this important hearing today. I
would also like to thank the ranking member, Senator Baucus and the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Senator Warner, for their leadership on this issue.
I want to start by stating that I have always had a good working
relationship with the Corps of Engineers. As a member of the House
Committee on Public Works and Transportation Committee (now the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) and now as a member of
this committee. I have had many occasions to work with the Corps and
have been generally pleased with their actions.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1998 (WRDA)gives us an
important opportunity to assist our communities with flood control and
river and harbor protection projects. I have always supported the
prudent expenditure of funds on infrastructure projects and will
continue to do so in this bill.
There are, however, some areas of this language that cause me some
serious concern. After reading the bill, I noticed that a couple
sections deal with wetlands. Section 17 of this bill would authorize a
new tax on commercial permit applicants to help the Corps cover the
cost of preparing the Environmental Impact Statement required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the cost of delineation of
wetlands for major development affecting wetlands. This section changes
current policy by eliminating the fee charged to private individuals
and shifts the fee completely to commercial applications. I question
why anyone should pay a tax for the pleasure of going through the
wetlands permitting process.
Section 4, which the Corps also calls ``Challenge 21'', will
authorize a new Corps program that will seek non-structural approaches
to preventing or reducing flood damages, which will include wetland
restoration. To construct these projects, Congress will authorize $325
million over 6 years and establish a $75 million per-project cap. My
concern with section is that Congress waives its ability to approve of
the individual projects. We set two reporting requirements; that the
Secretary must notify the appropriate committees and he must wait for
21 calender days before proceeding with a project. In my opinion, we
are giving up too much of our oversight authority.
My concern all along has been that we have wetlands policy spread
out over too many jurisdictions covering too many functions. These
examples highlight a fractioned wetland policy in which we address
certain problems in one area with one approach and other problems in
other areas with a different approach. I would like to see all wetland
initiatives in a comprehensive bill so that we are very clear in our
policy regarding wetlands. As most of you know, I am planning to
introduce a comprehensive wetlands bill this summer. It is my sincere
desire that the Corps will work with me on that to create a meaningful
piece of legislation that all members on this committee can support.
On a final note, it is my understanding that the Corps will be
providing my staff with draft data regarding a request that I made a
year ago. I requested that the Corps calculate the average time from
the initial application for a wetlands permit until the Corps deems the
application packet complete. I will be anxiously awaiting the results
of that study.
Thank you for the time Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with
you to draft a meaningful WRDA bill.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senator from the
State of Missouri
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your holding this hearing
and look forward to working with you to enact a water resources bill.
Welcome Dr. Westphal. For years we have been receiving loyal and
dutiful public servants from the Corps who are sent up to defend
ridiculous budgets written by idealogues at the OMB that we reject on a
bipartisan basis year after year. The reason we reject them is that we
represent the millions of people who depend on your mission.
At no time since I have been in the Senate has the Army Corps of
Engineers been in greater need for an advocate to fight off those whose
proposals undermine the very mission that has saved countless lives,
prevented billions of dollars of flood damage, provided competitive
international trade advantages for U.S. products and provided economic
development opportunities in areas where unemployment and poverty is
historically prevalent. Millions of U.S. citizens are depending upon
you. I have heard many reports of your strength and knowledge and look
forward to working with you.
Dr. Westphal, I won't, but I am tempted to ask you this: if
Congress adopted anything resembling the President's budget for water
projects, would you recommend that he veto it? I won't ask you this
because you shouldn't have to choose between loyalty and responsible
common sense. I think the measure of your job performance will be your
independence from OMB. They know the cost of everything, maybe you can
explain to them the value of something.
We have a project in Kansas City which protects industries
employing 12,000 workers and the Administration sent up a budget which,
if adopted, would send the contractors home next May. It is not just
dangerous, it is inefficient and more costly.
They didn't just decimate structural flood control but
environmental programs as well and I am hearing from hundreds of
constituents about park closures at Corps-operated lakes. Constituents
report that rangers are blaming closures on congressional budget cuts,
which, as you know, is not true. I am sending you a letter on this
subject today and I hope you can respond. We have social-security-aged
locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River which must be modernized.
We can all discuss how best to do it but we must do it without delay.
I have a proposal worked out with American Rivers to improve the
health of Missouri waterways but under a $3.2 billion budget as
proposed by the Administration, it couldn't be funded. We can't operate
that way. If the Administration wants Congress to fund ``Challenge
21'', they shouldn't send up a $3.2 billion budget next year.
There are some in this body who oppose congressional earmarks
because they argue budgeting should be left to ``professionals'' who
exercise care and wisdom in the absence of politics to formulate
responsibly budget priorities.
As long as this budget is written by OMB, with the Corps gagged and
standing on the sidelines, that argument will remain, well, laughable.
What OMB calls ``savings'' would cost our nation and cost the
taxpayers immensely through cost-overruns, delays, contract
interruptions not to mention increased flooding, property damage,
transportation bottlenecks and environmental neglect.
The Senate, led by Senator Reid and Domenici has gone a long hard
way toward trying to resuscitate this cadaver but we have more to do
and I look forward to working with you as we move ahead and I
Congratulate you on your confirmation. Many are depending upon your
leadership.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the
State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to welcome Dr. Westphal
to what I believe is his first appearance before the Congress in his
recently confirmed position as Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works and his first appearance before this committee.
Congratulations and I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing on S. 2131, the Administration's
proposal for the Water Resources Development Act of 1998 (WRDA), gives
us the opportunity to listen to both the Administration and our other
witnesses discuss the policies and projects for the Corps of Engineers.
This year's WRDA bill proposes a number of new initiatives, including
the establishment of the Challenge 21 program, a Water Resources
Foundation and an aquatic restoration program for the Missouri River.
There are also proposals for changing the cost share for shoreline
protection and allocating additional recreational fees collected at
Corps facilities.
I applaud the Administration for recognizing recreation in the
Corps' mission and the need to keep our recreational facilities in
shape. With the recreational facilities managed by the Corps being
second only to our national forests as this country's most visited
Federal lands, and generating $10 for every $1 of investment, the
Corps' contribution to recreation is extremely important. In my State
of Montana, in eastern Montana, there is a Corps facility called Fort
Peck. For the residents of eastern Montana, Fort Peck is the only
recreational facility for hundreds of miles. It is estimated that 86
percent of the visits to Fort Peck are Montana residents. That can
partially be attributed to the quality of the facility, a beautiful
lake with world-class fishing combined with an opportunity to view the
largest earthen dam in this country. But is also attributable to the
vastness of my State and the limited recreational opportunities in
eastern Montana. I encourage you, Dr. Westphal, to come visit one of
the Corps' crowning achievements.
I also look forward to hearing the views of the Administration and
the representative from the American Association of Port Authorities on
the future of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Now that the Supreme
Court has ruled that the ad-valorem fee on exporters is
unconstitutional, we need to put our heads together to come up with a
solution to ensure the continued viability of our nation's ports.
I look forward to hearing from all of you this morning.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Jersey
Good morning Mr. Chairman. I want to speak briefly on two issues
important to the economic health of my State. The first is the
continued viability of our ports.
This committee recently completed work on the most comprehensive
infrastructure enhancement program in years--to fund the investments to
maintain our nation's highways and mass transit. This is what we would
call the ``above ground'' infrastructure. Now we must quickly turn our
attention to the infrastructure ``under water,'' which is an equally
vital component of the Nation's transportation network.
American ports are facing tremendous pressures in the competition
for international trade. I can think of no better example of how this
competition is being played out than in the New York-New Jersey Harbor,
our Nation's busiest port, which faces threats from the deeper Canadian
ports.
The Kill van Kull and Newark Bay channels which serve New Jersey
and Staten Island, Mr. Chairman, are not naturally deep. They range in
depth from 35 to 45 feet, even after dredging projects. I recognize the
urgent need to move ahead quickly with plans to deepen these channels
to accommodate the larger generation of ships.
But we need help from the Administration to solve this problem. We
need a long-term solution to the problem of underfunding for our
shipping channels.
As a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, I can
attest to the great difficulty we faced in funding some of these
projects without proper support from the Administration in its budget
submission. I plan to pay close attention to the Administration's
response to the Supreme Court's decision on the Harbor Maintenance Tax
and to overall funding for port projects.
American ports stand to lose billions of dollars in revenue and
jobs to foreign competition if we fail to maintain the infrastructure
they need to move goods throughout the United States. The ports and
shipping companies say that they need 50-foot channels to accommodate a
new breed of cargo ships that are expected to dominate the industry in
the future.
As an example of this problem, next month, a so-called ``K Class''
ship called the Regina Maersk will be sailing into New York Harbor with
only half of the cargo it is capable of holding.
One of the issues I hope to address in this year's WRDA bill is
what the Federal share of channel deepening projects greater than 45
feet should be.
Currently, the Federal share for channel deepening projects in
excess of 45 feet is 50 percent. This policy was established 12 years
ago in WRDA 1986, when Congress determined that the shipping industry
standard for container ships and other vessels was 45 feet. Now that
the industry standard is greater, and deeper drafts--up to 50 feet--are
now required, I believe that it is time to revisit this policy.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to appropriately
adjust this cost-sharing formula.
The second issue of concern to me is the Federal role in protecting
our coastal areas from the devastating effects of storms and erosion. I
am pleased to welcome Ken Pringle from the Borough of Belmar, New
Jersey, who will speak first-hand about this vital program.
The Federal shore protection program has worked extremely well in
my State. As demonstrated by the recent series of winter storms along
the coast, investments in shore protection projects have prevented
millions of dollars in Federal disaster assistance and have protected
lives and property.
I look forward to working with other coastal Senators on the
committee to maintaining the Federal role in shore protection. The
concept of shore protection is no different than flood control--it
focuses on prevention to avoid huge disaster relief bills in the
future.
Two years ago we enacted the Shore Protection Act, which is
contained in Section 227 of WRDA 1996. This provision stated that the
Federal Government has a role in shore protection, including the
placement of sand on beaches to guard against storms.
I hope that members of the committee will remember the work that
went into crafting this provision and to think carefully before making
any changes which would undermine the Federal commitment to shore
protection. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the
State of Nevada
I want to first express my appreciation to the Assistant Secretary
of the Army Joseph Westphal, Deputy Assistant Secretary Michael Davis
and General Russell Fuhrman for their testimony today, as well as the
second panel of many fine representatives of cities and counties. Their
contribution of experience, expertise and judgment is vital to the
business of this subcommittee.
The work of the Army Corps of Engineers is of vital interest to
sound development of the Nation's water resources, flood damage
reduction and the regulation of wetlands. Those of us from western
States understand that water management is essential for sustainable
growth and development. Proactive monitoring and control of water
resources is crucial to flood hazards mitigation which provides
security and peace of mind for residents throughout the State. In
Nevada, we currently have projects in work to provide for flood control
in Las Vegas, water quality improvement at Lake Tahoe, restoration of
the Truckee River and flood warning enhancement at Reno, among others.
I have no doubt that if we can maintain the Corps' program, we will
succeed in providing for the water demands of an increasing population,
while balancing the social needs with our stewardship obligation to the
environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with a total Fiscal Year 1999
level of $3.394 billion budget, has served the Nation well in the
development of water projects in flood control, water quality,
environmental restoration and other public infrastructure. The approach
the Administration took with the Corps' Fiscal Year 1999 budget is
deeply troubling. Almost $1.5 billion was cut from the water projects
from around the Nation. If the future of the Corps' programs are to be
determined by the Office of Management and Budget without regard for
the Corps' projects, much less congressional direction, then the many
needed projects throughout our States, basins, and communities will be
irreparably undermined. I hope that we can work with the Corps to get
this biennial Water Resources Development Act passed and that future
budget proposals from the Administration will be supportive of the
legislation that is produced.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the
State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and guests. I would like to
take this opportunity to highlight the critical importance of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1998 for the State of Florida.
As you know, water issues in Florida cover the gamut, including
everything from coastal protection to inland water quality management,
from statewide drought to statewide flooding. Our history dealing with
water resources has caused some of our own problems that we seek to
correct today.
In the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, there are many,
many critical items for the State of Florida. This morning, I would
like to highlight three of these items including shore protection
policy, alternative water source development, and the Everglades and
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.
In the area of shore protection: The Administration's policy the
last several years has been to discourage Federal involvement in new
shore protection projects. Section 227 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 specifically authorized Federal involvement in
the protection, restoration and enhancement of sandy beaches, including
beach restoration and periodic beach renourishment. Regardless of
congressional action in this critical area, the Administration has
continued to consider shore protection projects a low priority and has
declined to budget for new projects.
I am proposing legislation for inclusion in WRDA 98 that will
modify the current shore protection paradigm by increasing the State's
role while still providing for a Federal role in shore protection. I am
proposing that criteria be established for the concept of an eligible
State. An eligible State would be one which has been accepted by the
Secretary of the Army as meeting two statutory requirements.
The first requirement is organizational. A State must establish
regional shore protection entities which conform to the natural
shoreline of the State. Normally this would mean between major
shoreline cuts such as harbors. For instance, in South Florida, a
natural region might be that between the Port Everglades and the Port
of Miami. These regional entities would have the responsibility for
establishing priorities among coastal renourishment projects within
their region, and to be the local sponsor for those projects which were
recommended. The State must also establish a State entity to oversee
the regional entities for the specific purpose of establishing
statewide priorities among those projects that are recommended by the
regional agencies. The States will be allowed considerable latitude as
to how to structure both the regional and State organizations, the
method of selecting membership, the relationship with other State
agencies and the specific geography of the regional entities.
The second requirement is financial. To be eligible for Federal
assistance, each State would have to submit a financing plan for each
proposed shore protection project. The financing plan will be a part of
the project cooperation agreement and must assure that the non-Federal
share for initial construction and any future renourishments be
securely financed by the State. The non-Federal share of the initial
and future project costs will be computed in accordance with existing
law. However, the Secretary of the Army will be required to give
priority to projects for which a State increases the non-Federal
contribution beyond that required by law. The priority of the project
for funding will be determined by the size of the increase (by
percentage) of the non-Federal share.
Current law provides that one hundred percent of the cost of
preventing or mitigating shore erosion attributable to Federal
navigation projects or other Federal activities be borne by the Federal
Government. Current law also requires the Secretary of the Army to give
preference to these type of projects. Unfortunately, due to past
decisions by the Federal Government many local entities have lost
confidence in the Federal Government's ability to accurately assess the
non-Federal cost of a project. Many local communities do not see the
Federal Government serving as an honest broker that upholds the
interests of all parties concerned. Instead, many communities feel the
Federal interest is being held above the local interest to such an
extent that some have resorted to litigation against the Federal
Government. In an effort to restore confidence in the Federal
Government's role as an honest broker, I am proposing that an
independent board be established to determine the percentage of a shore
protection project attributable to Federal activities. This board shall
consist of one person appointed by the Secretary of the Army from the
Coastal Engineering Research Laboratory and two persons appointed by
the Governor of the State in which the project is located. One of the
individuals appointed by a State's Governor shall be from academia and
shall have outstanding credentials in shoreline and coastal systems.
The other individual appointed by a State's Governor shall be an
official within the State entity described earlier under the eligible
State concept. The independent board will be responsible for approving
or modifying the percentage of the project attributable to Federal
activities.
The legislation I have proposed for shore protection policy will
build upon the existing system by adding necessary policy changes that
will allow the Secretary of the Army to administer a more effective
program. The legislation will provide a framework and incentive for
greater State and less Federal participation. This will allow limited
Federal resources to stretch further and will ultimately allow more
shore protection projects to move forward.
In the area of alternative water supply: One of the unique aspects
of the Florida water system is that we frequently undergo periods of
drought and periods of flooding. This is the nature of a system that
has been modified by human manipulation of natural flowways. In the
State of Florida, our growing population coupled with the need to
protect our natural systems has created a water quality challenge. From
1995 to 1996 Florida added 260,000 new residents, or the equivalent of
four new Daytona Beaches. Between 1980 to 1995, Florida's public water
supply needs increased 43 percent, more than double the national
average of 16 percent. This shows no signs of slowing down. Today,
Florida continues to grow at the rate of more than 800 people per day.
Many other States on the eastern seaboard face similar challenges.
For example, a recent article in New Jersey Monthly stated that New
Jersey leads the Nation in the percentage of land mass that is
classified as having a high vulnerability for serious water quality
problems. According to the U.S. EPA, more that 66 percent of that State
falls into the most precarious category for water quality.
In addition, as early as 1983, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study
stated that deficits in water supply for the area south of the James
River are projected to be as much as 60 million gallons per day by the
year 2030. Groundwater withdrawals have caused water level declines of
as much as 200 feet in some areas.
In the State of New York, water levels in aquifers are predicted to
decline by as much as 18 feet and low flows in streams may be decreased
by 90 percent in parts of Long Island.
In each of these cases, water supply is inherently tied to water
quality. Problems such as groundwater overpumping, damage of existing
wetlands, and saltwater intrusion of aquifers can cause irreparable
damage to our water systems and surrounding ecosystems. For example,
since 1906 wetland acreage in the State of Florida has shrunk by 46
percent, resulting in a loss of critical habitats as well as a key link
in the replenishment of our aquifers. The development of alternative
water sources that will help to resolve these types of issues and allow
States to provide for future water supply needs without sacrificing
environmental protection is my goal. Using this scenario, I am
proposing to authorize a program in WRDA 1998 that would fund the
design and construction of water source projects to conserve, reclaim,
and reuse this most precious resource. The bill would authorize grants
to State agencies for the purposes of maximizing available water supply
while protecting the environment through the development of alternative
water sources. Provided on a 50 percent matching basis, these Federal
funds would augment existing State funds and make progress in this area
possible.
The State of Florida is taking this issue seriously, and in 1998
alone has budgeted $75 million in regional and State funds for
development of alternative water supplies. The approach to alternative
water supply development that I am proposing for inclusion into WRDA
1998 will insure water availability without compromising water quality.
Finally, in the area of the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration: The Everglades restoration project is the largest
restoration program in the world today. This vast region, which is home
to more than six million Americans, seven of the ten fastest growing
cities in the country, a huge tourism industry, and a large
agricultural economy, also encompasses one of the world's unique
environmental resources. Over the past 100 years, manmade changes to
the region's water flow have provided important economic benefits to
the region, but have also had devastating effects on the environment.
Biological indicators in the form of native flora and fauna have shown
severe damage throughout south Florida.
The work of the Army Corps of Engineers is essential to this
effort. The critical projects authorized in WRDA 1996 has demonstrated
substantial success. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force, the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, local
sponsors, and the Army Corps have completed a review of over 100
potential projects, narrowed the list to 35 and ranked them in order of
priority for accelerating the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem.
The Army Corps of Engineers began their work on these projects in
December 1997 when they received fiscal year 1998 funds. Between
December 1997 and June 1998, the Army Corps has issued 10 approvals for
project letter reports, initiated plans and specifications on 4 of
those 10 projects, initiated NEPA documentation on 5 of those 10
projects, and completed draft cooperative agreements with local
sponsors on all 10 projects.
Construction on one project, the Southern Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed/Imperial River Flow-way restoration project is
scheduled for groundbreaking in mid-July 1998. This project, a
partnership between the Corps, the South Florida Water Management
District, and Lee County, will restore historical sheet flow across a
4,600 acre tract of wetlands in southern Lee County. This will
establish more natural hydrology on wetland habitat for wildlife, it
will improve water quality of stormwater runoff into the Imperial River
and Estero Bay, it will recharge surficial aquifers and preclude salt
water intrusion, and it will augment flood control by improving natural
storage in wetlands.
One of the four projects for which plans and specifications have
been initiated is the construction of culverts along the Tamiami Trail,
the only major thoughway from the west coast of Florida to the east
coast of Florida in the southern part of the State. This project
involves the construction of multiple culverts that will allow
increased flows of water from the northern end of the Everglades to the
southern end without eliminating this transportation vehicle that is so
critical to the citizens of Florida. In the original project outline,
completion was estimated to cost approximately $6.6 million. During
their study of the hydrologic conditions in this area in preparation
for construction, the Corps has concluded that the number of culverts
required can be reduced from over 2 dozen to 12 or less, resulting in a
reduced total project cost. Due to the unique type of authorization,
these funds, originally allocated for Everglades restoration, can now
be re-allocated to other critical projects. In this way, the
authorization provided by this committee, has provided an incentive for
keeping project costs low by allowing funds to be allocated within the
Everglades restoration project.
The Army Corps has effectively streamlined its internal process to
effectively implement the critical projects. Current planning indicates
that these 10 projects will exhaust the $75 million available under the
1996 authority.
In light of the success of this program, the criticality of the
Everglades restoration program, and the fact that over 20 priority
critical projects will not be authorized under the 1996 authority, I
plan to recommend that Congress extend the program authority to the
year 2002 and raise the program limit to $150 million. This increase
will allow implementation of 20 additional projects according to
existing cost estimates. The extension of the authority to 2002 will
allow the existing Corps projects to continue as planned (the
initiation of this program was delayed for 1 year due to the fact that
no appropriations were provided in 1996.) The additional 2-year
authorization will provide adequate time for the Army Corps of
Engineers to begin work on additional critical projects that will be
funded by the additional authorization that I am recommending under
WRDA 1998.
Many of these 20 projects are critical to the restoration of the
Everglades. One such project, the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area
will create a more natural salinity range in the North Fork Aquatic
Preserve and the St. Lucie River Estuary through the creation of an
8000 acre-foot storm water retention reservoir. This project will help
protect the fragile estuary system of Indian River Lagoon which has
been severely impacted by increased flows.
Together, these three initiatives will help to insure the future of
the State of Florida by protecting our water resources that are so
critical to our environment and our economy.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
Thank you, Chairman Warner, for your leadership in moving us ahead
with consideration of WRDA 98.
The Water Resources Development Act has been an important mechanism
for California and the Nation to maintain our harbors and waterways and
to protect our citizens and businesses against the devastating effects
of floods. Since the Act was first passed in 1986, the Army Corps of
Engineers has built numerous flood control works, coastal harbor and
inland waterway improvements. These works have not only protected our
communities but have also been an important instrument to their further
economic development.
WRDA 98 will provide authorization for new projects that are sorely
needed in light of the devastating ``el Nino'' weather system
California has endured in the last year. Flood control has never been
so important as it has been with the enormous rainfall we have
received.
The legislation recommended by the President is welcome news for my
State of California. Not only has the Administration submitted a long-
term flood control protection plan for the Sacramento area but the
President has proposed a new initiative, known as Challenge 21, to
provide our communities a way to reduce flood costs in a more natural,
environmentally beneficial manner.
I look forward to the testimony on this Challenge 21 plan. I
believe many communities will be interested in this approach. In fact,
in my State the people of Napa County learned how to modify their flood
control plan and by working together produced a consensus plan that
incorporates natural elements of flood control.
I also want to thank my colleagues here for their help in providing
improved flood protection for the Sacramento area in the WRDA 1996
bill. Now the plan for the American River Watershed in the current
Administration bill builds on the authorization for flood control that
this committee approved in 1996.
Sacramento, our State capitol, is located at the confluence of both
the Sacramento River flowing from the north and the American River,
which cascades from the High Sierra mountains from the east. There are
400,000 residents, 130 schools and 5,000 businesses located in the
floodplain and $37 billion worth of property at risk. The most likely
cause of a flood would be a breach in the American River levees which
could inundate 55,000 acres.
The damages from even a 100-year flood would be comparable to the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake which caused 63 deaths, almost 4,000
injuries and $8 billion in direct property damage. Our awareness of
this risk has heightened since the Corps determined late last year the
100-year level of flood protection has dropped to 77-year level now.
Sacramento has one of the highest levels of risk and one of the lowest
levels of protection. Over the next 30 years, Sacramento has a 1-in-3
chance of flooding.
In 1996, this committee approved a so-called ``common elements''
plan to provide a minimum level of flood protection. These were
improvements that were common to all three flood control plans then
under study. This latest plan, builds on a growing community consensus
on the most cost-effective plan for flood protection. This plan is a
two-part approach which involves increasing the flood control capacity
of the Folsom Dam on the American River and raising and strengthening
the existing American River levees.
Mr. Chairman, the Sacramento area has gone through a wrenching
debate over the best approach to flood control with the specter of
disaster always hovering above them. There is still a minority pushing
for construction of a dam on the American River at costs ranging from
$1 to $2 billion. The Auburn Dam would destroy nearly 50 miles and
10,000 acres of the American River and the diverse habitats of its
canyons, where there are three species, including the bald eagle, on
the Federal list of endangered and threatened species. Congress now has
twice rejected the high-cost, 500-foot Auburn Dam alternative that
would have been built on an earthquake fault. Now, we have come
together and resolved to move ahead on a realistic plan. This plan was
approved by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency in March by a 10-
to-2 vote. The Sacramento City Council has unanimously approved the
plan and the National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, and
the Sierra Club and have endorsed it.
It's time for us to move forward with a plan for permanent
protection. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that testimony from
the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency be entered into the committee
record.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement by Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oregon
Columbia River ports are one of the Nation's largest hubs for
exports and international trade. But we need to accommodate the larger
cargo ships that are now the state-of-the-art to stay competitive.
We have to keep the Columbia open for business to protect jobs in
farms and factories from the Willamette Valley all the way to Montana
and the Dakotas. The Columbia is our region's main street for wheat
farmers and cattle ranchers throughout the West, and for the paper,
lumber and aluminum mills throughout our region.
But today, the larger ships that are carrying more and more of the
world's cargo exceed the current 40-foot channel depth. Already, one
shipping line has moved its business from Portland to Vancouver, B.C.
because of inadequate depth in the channel.
Deepening the Columbia Channel will improve the competitiveness of
our ports and our entire region. This project will determine whether we
will continue to have first-class ports in the 21st century.
I am absolutely committed to seeing this project move forward. I
want to work with the committee and the Corps to all explore options
for advancing this project in the Water Resources bill this year.
The Army Corps' hopper dredges stationed in the Pacific Northwest,
the Essayons and the Yaquina, are also critical to maintaining
navigation channels and to commerce in our region.
Dredges must be available on short notice to respond to emergency
situations, such as restoring the Columbia channel following flooding.
In addition, Corps dredges perform maintenance dredging work in the
Columbia River channel and in a number of coastal ports each year.
Northwest port officials are convinced that maintaining a strong
Corps dredging presence is essential for commerce in our region. These
are hard-nosed business people. If they felt they could get better
service for their money using private industry dredges, they would do
so in a heartbeat. But they're not going to take riverboat gamble and
go with unproven dredging contractors.
In the 1996 WRDA law, a compromise was negotiated to put another
Corps dredge based in the Gulf of Mexico, the Wheeler, in reserve
status as an experiment to see if private industry can do the work that
Corps dredges have done in the past. The 1996 law called for the Corps
to provide a report to Congress within 2 years on whether the Gulf
dredge should be reactivated or maintained in reserve status.
Mr. Chairman, the required report has not been provided to
Congress. This committee has no information to evaluate the impact of
laying up dredges on our nation's commerce.
Despite this, the Corps has floated various proposals that would
further cut back on the volume of dredging work performed by the Corps
dredges.
I find it troubling that the Corps is proceeding in this way
without having provided the report required by Congress. What is even
more troubling is the Corps also seems to be totaling ignoring evidence
uncovered by the U.S. Army Audit Agency indicating private contractors
may have conspired to limit competition by rigging bids on Corps
dredging projects.
Mr. Chairman, the Corps should not be rushing forward with reckless
proposals to eliminate the Federal dredge fleet. We need to proceed
cautiously in this area or we could end up with many of our ports left
high and dry while the taxpayers get ripped off by unscrupulous
contractors.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If you could
summarize what you have in mind. The bill is very extensive,
I've looked it over, and I don't know that you need to go
section by section. I think highlighting those portions that
might be somewhat different between the 1986 to 1996.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL L.
DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF CIVIL WORKS FOR POLICY AND
LEGISLATION; AND MAJOR GENERAL RUSSELL L. FUHRMAN, DIRECTOR OF
CIVIL WORKS
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a great honor
to be here today, and especially to have my first testimony
after being confirmed just a few days ago before this
distinguished subcommittee, and before you, Mr. Chairman, my
Senator and my friend and my mentor here in the Senate. So
thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I
am accompanied by the Director of Civil Works, Major General
Russell L. Fuhrman, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Michael Davis. I will rely a lot on them for
specific and technical information that may address some of the
questions the members have today that I may not be able to
address. But hopefully, I will be able to in the near future.
I think we share with the Congress and with this committee
a strong commitment for water resources development and
biennial authorization for this bill. A strong water resources
development program is a sound investment in our Nation's
economic future and in environmental stability for that future.
Communities across the country rely on water resources projects
to reduce flood damages, compete more efficiently in world
trade, provide needed water and power, provide recreational
opportunities and protect and enhance our aquatic resources.
We also have a responsibility to our project sponsors who
are doing their part by sharing feasibility study costs and
construction costs. Our goal is to match our sponsors'
commitment with realistic, cost-efficient schedules and timely
authorization for justified and environmental acceptable
projects.
A 2-year authorization cycle shows our support for orderly
water resources development. The Water Resources Development
Act is the principal vehicle for obtaining necessary
legislation to authorize projects that our studies have shown
to be good Federal investments. Legislation is often necessary
to realize the goal of making our programs more effective and
efficient by addressing policy issues.
Mr. Chairman and members, as you are well aware, there are
many pressing needs for water resource development in this
country. We must work together to address these problems in the
full light of our fiscal capabilities and constraints. And to
help us meet our mutual objectives, we suggest the following
principles be enforced in formulating our Water Resources
Development Act for 1998.
First, at the heart of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 were the beneficiary pay reforms, which included cost
sharing. Cost sharing serves as a market test of a project's
merits, ensures active participation by project sponsors and
beneficiaries, and ensures project cost effectiveness. We have
found it to be an eminently successful policy. Cost sharing
reforms enacted in WRDA 1996 should also be preserved.
Second, the Nation's water resources infrastructure must be
maintained and improved to meet future needs. But in consonance
with other national priorities and a balanced budget. We should
never create false hope by authorizing projects that we cannot
reasonably expect to fund or complete within a reasonable
timeframe.
In light of the $20 billion backlog of ongoing Corps
construction projects and other authorized projects awaiting
construction, the dollar magnitude for new projects and
programs in the Administration's proposal is constrained. It is
limited to authorizing vital new projects and programs, some of
which are expected to be phased in over a number of years to
give priority to completion of ongoing construction projects.
The total cost of the bill is $1.462 billion, with a
Federal cost of $829 million, and a non-Federal cost of $633
million. This will allow us to move forward with a more
sustainable long-term construction program and more timely
project delivery to non-Federal sponsors.
To justify the authorization of appropriations of
constrained Federal dollars, we must assure the public that
proposed projects have the full review and are in accord with
the Federal laws and policies established to protect the
environment and to set priorities for the use of those funds.
The Administration urges Congress to restrict new
authorizations, to justified projects likely to be funded over
the next several years.
Now, for the Army Civil Works legislative program in this
bill, Mr. Chairman, members, the Army Civil Works legislative
program consists of important legislative proposals for the
administration of the civil works program and authorization for
projects recommended by the Administration. Let me just
emphasize a few of these.
Senator Boxer mentioned Challenge 21. Challenge 21 is the
centerpiece of the Army Civil Works legislative program for
1998, an important initiative, because it will provide the
Nation with a comprehensive tool for reducing flood damage.
This initiative expands the use of non-structural options to
achieve the dual purposes of flood damage reduction and the
restoration of riverine ecosystems.
Challenge 21 responds to those communities who have
expressed a strong desire to reduce repeated losses and improve
the quality of their environment. This new program will give
the Nation additional tools for protection against flood
damages. Challenge 21 will focus on non-structural solutions to
reducing flood damages while maintaining the flexibility to use
more traditional structures, like levees or flood walls, etc.,
where appropriate, create a framework for more effective
Federal coordination of flood damage reduction programs, create
a partnership with the community to develop a comprehensive
solution to reducing damages and improving quality of life, and
focusing on watershed-based solutions that can include the
restoration of riparian wetlands and ecosystems.
Under this program, the projects will be coordinated fully
with Federal, State, tribal, and local communities. Because the
cost of projects will be cost shared, no project will be
implemented unless State, tribal, and local sponsor support it.
Thus, through coordination with other Federal agencies and
State and local communities, Challenge 21 addresses a lesson
we've learned from the past decades of floods, flood damage
reduction efforts must include partnering between the Federal
agencies and State, tribal, and local communities.
Watershed by watershed, Challenge 21 will build on existing
programs and initiatives and expand partnerships with other
Federal and non-Federal national and local entities. Among our
key Federal partners, would include, for example, FEMA and the
Department of Agriculture. Through Federal partnering, a
Challenge 21 project could include an urban structure
relocation piece led by FEMA and a rural wetlands restoration
piece led by the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource
Conservation Service.
Thus, Challenge 21 relies on the collective knowledge,
expertise, and authority of many Federal water resource
agencies.
Mr. Chairman, there is in my formal statement more
information about Challenge 21. But due to the committee's time
constraints and votes, let me just go on.
Senator Warner. We have a very good writeup prepared by our
staff before us. So I think most members have a good
understanding of this initiative.
Dr. Westphal. Right. Mr. Chairman, the other key issue in
this bill, of course, is shore protection policy. The
Administration is also proposing a new approach to shore
protection that will increase predictability and emphasize our
commitment to undertake shore protection work. With the
adoption of this approach, the Administration will consider,
consistent with overall funding constraints, shore protection
projects on an equal basis with other water resource
development projects.
As you know, the Administration and the Congress have not
given shore protection policy the same level of priority in
funding. The Administration has two concerns. First,
commitments on existing shore protection projects that involve
periodic nourishment require a significant amount of future
Federal funds. And we have found it difficult to initiate new
projects in face of the costs of these comments.
Second, the Administration's concern is that while these
shore protection projects produce storm damage prevention
benefits, they also provide local recreation benefits, and that
some of the revenue created in these areas and these projects
should be dedicated to shore protection projects that provide
such recreational opportunities.
To resolve both of these concerns, we have included in the
Army Civil Works legislative program a proposal to advance the
dialog on how to reconcile this important issue. And Mr.
Chairman, it's on the record there, the proposal made by the
Administration. I'll continue on with other WRDA initiatives in
1998.
We have in the bill another initiative concerning the
Everglades and the South Florida ecosystem restoration. This
provision extends the authorization for critical ecosystem
restoration projects in South Florida through fiscal year 2000
to take advantage of the synergy and collaborative approaches
that have evolved to implement a shared vision for ecosystem
restoration. We need this extension because funds were not
available to begin work on this important project in fiscal
year 1997 as anticipated.
This program has been very successful. Fourteen reports
have been received for critical projects, and 10 have been
approved for implementation. These projects will provide
immediate and substantial benefits to the ecosystem.
We are also proposing a lower Missouri River Aquatic
Restoration Program, building on the legislation introduced by
Senator Bond. This proposal will authorize a comprehensive
report to be completed at full Federal expense within 1 year
after funds are made available. The report will identify a
general implementation strategy and overall plan for
environmental restoration and protection along the lower
Missouri River between Gavins Point Dam and the confluence of
the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and recommend individual
environmental restoration projects that can be considered by
the Secretary for implementation under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996.
There are also several measures that will help us to better
manage our important natural resources, primarily at numerous
lakes and reservoirs. One of our more important measures will
allow resource managers to retain funds resulting from
increased collections of recreational user fees above the
baseline collection. Eighty percent of the increased
collections will go to the site from which the fees were
collected, and 20 percent would be used agency-wide. This will,
I think, serve as an incentive to improve collection and
recreation user fees.
Also, there are several measures that will allow us to
improve our program management. For example, we have included
proposals to allow public and non-profit organizations to serve
as project sponsors on aquatic ecosystem restoration and
beneficial uses of dredge material projects. Another example is
a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Army to
accept non-Federal funds from State and local governments to
expand our services in compiling and transmitting information
on floods and damages.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, included in the
Army Civil Works legislative program are projects recommended
for authorization that have been reviewed and approved by the
Administration and a conditional authorization for Grand Forks,
ND, and East Grand Forks, MN.
The Administration bill includes authorization of much-
needed additional flood protection to Sacramento, CA. The
proposal is supported by a non-Federal sponsor, the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency, and includes several phases. First,
the Corps will complete the common elements authorized in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Second, the Folsom Dam
will be modified so it could be operated in a way to better
provide flood protection. Third, downstream levees would be re-
engineered to safely pass the increased discharge from the
modified Folsom Dam.
We understand the natural concern that some have about
providing flood protection with levees. I should note that the
existing levees have functioned well, and that the Corps will
ensure that the new levees are engineered and constructed to
pass the design flood in a safe and reliable manner.
Other projects included in the Administration's bill are
the Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish watershed, the Guanajibo River in Puerto Rico, and the
Rio Niagua in Salinas, PR. There are additional projects under
review at this time that will be furnished to the committee as
soon as the Administration reviews are complete.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee,
again I thank you for the opportunity to come before the
subcommittee. I look forward to working with you and members of
the committee and your staffs in developing an absolutely great
WRDA bill this year, and support your efforts.
Senator Warner. Mr. Secretary, you've had a lot of
experience, and we look forward to working with you.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, sir.
Senator Warner. I think this initiative by the President,
which has been introduced by Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, and
myself, is a good foundation. And it's the intention of this
committee to build on it.
The challenge before this committee is, this is a most
unusual legislative cycle for a variety of reasons, my
colleagues understand that very clearly. We're going to have to
use the rough and tumble tactics we used in the highway bill, I
think, if we're to move this bill through. Fortunately, on my
right and on my left are able persons who've made possible that
highway bill, and I hope that we can join together in a
bipartisan way and get this legislation through.
So we'll start now on questions, and the chair will try and
very rigidly apply the 5-minute rule, so each of the members
present now can have that opportunity. We'll start off with the
shore protection. Will you begin the budget for these projects?
You know, there's not that history, and that's what concerns
us. The past Administration refused to budget to support the
authorization.
Dr. Westphal. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this new proposal
will put all shore protection, beach nourishment projects on
equal footing. I think there--I'm certainly going to work with
OMB to make sure that we do budget for these projects.
Senator Warner. That's the answer we want, you personally
will do everything you can to see that it is covered in budget.
Dr. Westphal. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. The Challenge 21, in the Administration
bill you propose new continuing authority. We've covered all
that. The program is drastically larger than any other. Why
shouldn't this program be consistent with the current
continuing authorities program?
Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, let me defer that question to
Mr. Davis. He has worked long and hard on this particular
proposal.
Senator Warner. We welcome Mr. Davis, and your thoughts on
that.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, we carefully looked at a variety
of different levels as we were designing the Challenge 21
program. We were looking at some examples of communities around
the country where we might be relocating structures. Typically,
it's a fairly expensive proposition to relocate houses and
businesses. So we believe that the $75 million Army Civil Works
limit in the legislation is the appropriate level to allow us
to work with small- and moderate-sized communities, that
anything much less than that probably would not provide us too
much utility in terms of meeting the objectives of Challenge
21.
Senator Warner. All right. Now to the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. On March 31, the Supreme Court issued a decision.
Since then, the Administration has informed Congress that it
intends to pose a replacement system with a new collection
method and a new way to distribute the funds called a Harbor
Services Fund. What's the status of the effort?
Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Management and
Budget and the Corps of Engineers staff have been working on
this proposal now for quite a while, certainly long before I
came on board. Since my arrival, I've asked an additional set
of questions about the fund and about the fees and what the
possible impact would be to competitiveness among ports, our
ports as well as our international competitive advantages.
And so they are continuing to work on this proposal and
continuing to try to come up with something that will meet the
legal tests and the economic tests that I think everybody wants
on this. I expect that the Administration will have a proposal
before the committee some time in the next few weeks. I
couldn't tell you exactly when. I think the idea is to try to
make sure that we give you a proposal that really is sound and
well-analyzed, and that you can then move forward.
As this legislative session is a short one, I'm not certain
that you're going to be able to finish it out this year, but we
at least like to get you something as soon as possible.
Senator Warner. Give it a shot to work with.
Last question: recreation user fees. Section 13.2131
authorizes the use of recreation fees to total more than $34
million for the use of parks
Dr. Westphal. Yes.
Senator Warner. Of the total collected over $34 million, 80
percent will remain in the park where the fee is collected, 20
percent will be used for other activities. Do you have any
estimates of how much funding will be allowed to remain at a
park--what percentage--are you going to stay to those
percentages?
Dr. Westphal. I believe all the money, correct me if I'm
wrong, but I believe all the money will remain in the place
that it is collected from. In other words, no funds will be
shifted from one park to another.
Senator Warner. So you might not split the fee now? Does
anyone have an answer as to what you're going to do?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, the $34 million baseline is what
we're collecting now. We believe that if the amounts above that
$34 million could be rolled back into the project site, and
under our proposal, 80 percent would go back to the project
site, and then 20 percent would be used across the Nation to go
back to various project sites.
Right now, there's no incentive for our resource managers,
who are really constrained by limited budgets, to aggressively
collect the fees. So we believe that while we're not raising
individual fees, that they will collect more fees and so this
will go above the $34 million baseline. That's where we would
generate this revenue.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
courtesy. I am here at your invitation, so I will defer to the
members of the subcommittee.
Senator Warner. All right, thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we
have a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting simultaneously
with this, so I'll be leaving in just a moment.
I'd like first of all to say how pleased I am that Dr.
Westphal is in the position he's in. I was very supportive of
his nomination, and I think it was an oversight of our chairman
to fail to mention that you had very deep roots in Oklahoma----
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe [continuing]. That he had been a professor
at the Oklahoma State University, and that we've worked
together in many capacities.
Let me mention something to start with that's parochial,
which I mentioned to you I would do. I attend a lot of town
hall meetings, probably more than most people do. I have
approximately 10 each weekend, even during session.
I was in town meetings in Durant and McAlister a couple of
weeks ago, and I've never seen such organized opposition to the
operation of the Corps. Normally there would be a few people
who aren't happy with some things, but this is very well
organized. It has to do--I'll mention them since I know you
have very competent staff that will be taking notes about this:
Sunset Park on Lake Texoma, the road has been ripped up by the
Corps and the park has been locked shut. And at Crowder Point,
at Lake Eufala, the park has not been maintained for about 5
years now.
I'd like to hear, since you're new on the block here, how
you plan to address some of these problems. I know it's not
going to be the policy of the Corps just to abandon some of
these facilities.
Dr. Westphal. I will address them, and the best way for me
to address them, of course, is to work alongside the Director
of Civil Works, Major General Fuhrman. And I might let him say
a few words about this. But I think the thing to do is to
simply look into your concerns immediately, through the
Director of Civil Works, talk to the District Engineer in Tulsa
and find out exactly what are the issues and why, and try to
get you a response as soon as possible.
Senator Inhofe. It wouldn't be necessary for General
Fuhrman to make any statement at this time. By the way, I have
worked very closely with the Corps of Engineers, not just in
the 8 years I spent in the House, but also a mayor of Tulsa.
They'll tell you we had a very close working relationship.
But around the State, there are problems like that, and I
would like to address these two specific ones, and then perhaps
talk about some others. As you were going through your summary,
Dr. Westphal, you talked about some of the user fees. In
looking over my summary, I saw the shoreline management program
fees and the regulatory program funding. These are the only two
that I would consider to be fee or tax increases. Were you
referring to one of these when you were talking about your user
fees?
Dr. Westphal. No. We were talking about the harbor services
maintenance.
Senator Inhofe. I see. But couldn't these be characterized
as fee increases, Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. All right. We do want to look at those,
because anything that affects a fee increase is something that
gets our attention, of course.
On Challenge 21, one of the problems I have with this, it's
my understanding from the staff summary that we received,
you're talking about a total, this bill over a 6-year period,
$325 million. A cap would be $75 million. Let's say that an
average project would be, I don't know, $30 million or
something like that, I wouldn't have any idea.
You're talking about a very limited number of projects,
which I like, because I see that I think we're giving up some
oversight by virtue of adopting this policy. I would ask you
first if you would agree with that statement. We in the
committee would be giving up some of the oversight to the Corps
by allowing the Challenge 21 program to go into effect.
Mr. Davis. Senator, that is part of the programmatic
authorization. It would create a somewhat more streamlined
approach to delivering projects to the community.
I think your assumptions are correct, that in the 6-year
period, there will be a very limited number of projects. We're
guessing anywhere from 10 to 20 projects probably over the 6-
year period. In fact, we're viewing this as somewhat of a
demonstration over a 6-year period.
Senator Inhofe. Would you anticipate 2 years from now
coming back to this committee wanting to expand that program?
Mr. Davis. I don't think in 2 years. We do anticipate at
about year four preparing a report back to this committee to
disclose to you fully what we've done, the successes we're
having, or the failures we're having, and work with you then to
make any adjustments, either in terms of extending the program
or changing the program.
Senator Inhofe. My time is up, but I do want to monitor
that program to see just what types of programs are out there
and what oversight we might be giving up. So I'll be working
with you to make that determination, and welcome aboard.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have three questions, and I'm going to be brief. Dr.
Westphal, No. 1, I note in your testimony that you want to
reduce the time it takes for harbor projects to actually get
on-line. As you know, in our part of the world, the Columbia
River project, the deepening of that channel, that's my No. 1
concern as a new member of the Senate. It's our region's
mainstream. It creates all the jobs all the way from the
Willammette Valley to Montana and the Dakotas, jobs for exports
and wheat and shipping.
On the recently passed ISTEA legislation, Senator Graham
has joined us and Senator Smith and Senator Chafee and I teamed
up in a bipartisan way to create a process in ISTEA to
streamline the administrative chores that are necessary to get
these infrastructure projects completed.
You haven't had time to review that, but my first question
is, would you look at that and be willing to work with us on a
bipartisan basis? Because I think what we did in ISTEA could
really be a road map to getting your objective of shortening
the time necessary to complete these projects.
Dr. Westphal. Yes, Senator, it would be ideal to look at
some models. If you have one in ISTEA, we will certainly look
at that and work with it.
Senator Wyden. You will have it this afternoon.
Second question, with respect to the Corps' new agenda, and
Mr. Davis was out there in Oregon working with us on it, have
you given some thought to trying to move up the priority list,
again, to shorten the timetable for projects, when a project
has addressed major environmental concerns?
For example, in our part of the world, on the Columbia
project, we are engaged in a major wetland restoration effort,
and an effort to improve a species habitat. Given the fact that
the Corps is going to make those values more important in the
years ahead, would you be willing to look at a kind of
expedited, fast-track kind of process, so that you could create
incentives for those areas that were willing to do heavy
lifting in terms of environmental protection?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, I think that would be an excellent
opportunity to move ahead on some things that have a really
huge national benefit.
Senator Wyden. All right. The third area that I wanted to
ask you about real briefly involves something that Senator
Kempthorne and I and a number of Senators have looked at, and
that's the question of the minimum dredge fleet in the Pacific
Northwest. We have written to you all twice now, in August 1997
and then in November 1997, offering our comments with respect
to the minimum dredge fleet study. In the November 1997 letter,
Senator Kempthorne and I and others said, ``We ask that the
study include certain analysis to allow Congress to evaluate
the Corps' recommendations regarding the future of the fleet.
We ask that the analysis include an examination of
responsiveness to routine and emergency dredging requirements,
industry competitiveness, comparison of dredging costs and
industry capacity.''
Now, the northwest delegation, again on a bipartisan basis,
has repeatedly been trying to get this information from the
Corps. Do you all anticipate responding to us at some point?
Dr. Westphal. Senator, I did not get a briefing on the
dredging fleet. It was one of the few things that we just
didn't have time in the last 2 days, since I've gotten
confirmed. But I did ask about responding in the form of a
study, and I understand a study is due this summer. Whether
that study will address your specific concerns, I personally
don't know. General Fuhrman may be able to address that.
If not, I certainly will see to it, I'll get a copy of that
letter and make sure that we're----
Senator Wyden. We would very much like to have the data and
analysis the Corps is using to develop these proposals. This is
a safety and security issue, particularly for small ports in
our part of the world. As you know, on the basis of some of
these past audits, getting rid of this system, which really
does meet our needs, and privatizing this completely, could
really cause chaos in our part of the world. We would like to
have a response, and have been waiting now many, many months
for it.
Having said that, Mr. Westphal, we wish you well, and have
heard, as Chairman Warner noted, many good things about your
experience. These issues are at the top of my agenda as a new
member of the U.S. Senate. I look forward to working with you
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Thanks, Senator. I suggest that you drop
the phrase ``new member.'' You've won your spurs in this
outfit.
Mr. Bond.
Senator Wyden. May I ask a unanimous consent request, Mr.
Chairman? I ask unanimous consent that my statement be made a
part of the record, the questions of Senator Levin be submitted
to the witnesses and they respond to them at a reasonable time,
along with my questions?
Senator Warner. Fine. You'll submit Senator Levin's
questions on his behalf. I'll accept that, done.
Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I too
ask that my full statement be made a part of the record.
I want to join with you in welcoming Dr. Westphal, and I
guess if Senator Inhofe has claimed him as an Okie, we would
like to say also that we're very proud of the relationship
we've had with him through the University of Missouri, and
we're very pleased to see a man of his leadership and capacity
in this position.
Dr. Westphal, I guess I would be tempted to ask, if
Congress adopted anything resembling the President's budget for
water projects, would you recommend that he veto it? And I'm
not going to ask that, because you shouldn't have to choose
between loyalty and responsible common sense.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. I think that the measure of your job
performance is going to be your independence from OMB. They
know the cost of everything, but perhaps you could explain to
them the value of some things.
We have a project in Kansas City which protects industries
employing 12,000 workers. And the Administration set up a
budget which, if adopted, would send the contractors home next
May, stop it right in the middle, cause tremendous cost
overruns, as well as danger. It's not just dangerous, it's
inefficient and more costly.
They didn't just decimate structural flood control, but
environmental programs as well. And I'm hearing about lots of
problems, as Senator Inhofe mentioned, from constituents near
Corps-operated lakes. They report that the rangers are blaming
closures on congressional budget cuts, which as we all know is
not true. That's not where the budget cuts are coming from.
Dr. Westphal, I'm sending you a letter on the subject
today, and I hope you can respond. We have social security aid,
locks, and dams on the upper Mississippi River which must be
modernized. We can all discuss how best to do it. But we all
know that we have to do it without delay. If neglect continues,
we will soon be in the unenviable position of trying to catch
up with the water infrastructure of developing nations, who are
really winning our markets.
I have, as you indicated in your statement, and I thank you
very much for the comment on it, a proposal that was worked out
in what some have described as detente. Our good friend, Scott
Faber, of American Rivers, the Corps of Engineers, the barge
industry and the Missouri Farm Bureau, to improve the health of
our waterways, the environmental well-being.
But frankly, under a $3.2 billion budget, that was proposed
by the Administration that couldn't be funded. We just can't
operate that way. If the Administration wants the Congress to
fund Challenge 21, they shouldn't send up a $3.2 billion budget
next year.
There are some in the body who oppose congressional
earmarks because they argue budgeting should be left to
professionals to exercise care and wisdom, in the absence of
politics, to formulate responsible budget priorities. As long
as this budget is written by OMB with the Corps gagged and
sitting on the sidelines, that argument remains at best
laughable.
So let me ask you a question that all of my colleagues at
agriculture are interested in, we think American agriculture
can be very competitive in the world market, we can do our
share and gain the revenues if we are competitive. But we can
only be competitive if we maintain our efficient,
environmentally friendly river transportation system.
Can you envision maintaining our export capacity without
modernizing locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River?
Dr. Westphal. Senator, I think we have to modernize and
improve and work and do the best we can to do the best job
possible to maintain our entire system operating, the upper
Mississippi and lower Missouri, lower Mississippi, everywhere.
And I certainly will work hard to assure that that
modernization takes place in a timely manner by working with
OMB to avert these types of budget crises in the future, and
come up, work with this committee, work with the Congress, the
House and the Senate, to produce a budget next year that I
think can get us on a stable road toward the proper management,
upkeep, modernization of our system nationwide.
Senator Warner. Senator Bond, I'm sorry to interrupt. I
have to go to the floor, I'm co-managing the annual
authorization bill on Defense. I will return. Can you take my
place for a while?
Senator Bond [assuming the chair]. Mr. Chairman, can I look
around and see who's left?
Senator Warner. It's interesting, this year's budget was
$1.3 billion, the request was $740 million and the
appropriations committee moved it up to $1.2 million. But
therein lines the challenge in the allocation of these funds.
Had the Senator from Missouri completed?
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman, I like the sound of Dr.
Westphal's last response, so I won't push him. We hope that you
do have the independence to fight for the kind of funding that
anybody who takes a responsible look at the condition of our
locks and dams knows that we must have.
And with that, let me turn to our distinguished Senator
from California, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Bond, and
welcome, everybody.
I want to just say that the Corps has come such a long way
in the way it views these projects, and I've had so much
experience, both as a local elected official and Member of
Congress and now of the Senate. When the Corps used to come in,
the community was always very nervous about these huge walls
and concrete ditches. Now we're working with you and NAPA to
create a wonderful way to control flooding.
Of course, after El Nino we have to move. Cordo Madera
Creek was stopped, the flood control project there, for 25
years, because the community wasn't going to go with a big
concrete ditch. So we're moving in the right direction.
I like Challenge 21, because it recognizes this, and it
officially recognizes this. The point is, what we can do is
more environmentally friendly projects that work very well,
that cost less. And as you point out, bring in the local
people, so that we're all making these decisions, not a top-
down kind of decisionmaking.
So with that as a preface, I want to thank my colleagues,
in addition to you, for helping us in 1996 in the WRDA bill to
plan for protection for the Sacramento area. And I want to just
take a moment until my time expires, perhaps, talking about
this important project.
Sacramento, our State capital, is located at the confluence
of both the Sacramento River, flowing from the north, and the
American River, which cascades from the High Sierra mountains
from the east. There are 400,000 residents, 130 schools, 5,000
businesses located in the flood plain, and $37 billion worth of
property at risk. The most likely cause of a flood would be a
breach in the American river levees, which could inundate
55,000 acres.
Now, given this situation, there's been a great deal of
concern from the community. Because the damages from even a
100-year flood will be comparable to the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, which caused 63 deaths, almost 4,000 injuries and
$8 billion in direct property damage.
Now, we know we have to do something, and therein was the
challenge for the community. And of course, it's California, a
big argument about exactly what to do.
I am pleased to tell you that the community has moved
toward an agreement here. And that agreement is reflected in
this budget, because although I am also not happy with the
amounts, I would concur with my distinguished friend from
Missouri. We are moving to fund the American River project,
which is called a step release plan, and we are saying no to an
enormous Auburn Dam project which would take place on an
earthquake fault, would cost between $1 billion and $2 billion,
compared to a $400 million project. And in terms of a 400-year
storm event, wouldn't do any better than the step release
project that we're putting forward.
We still have a few people, I say to my friends here, who
want to see the Auburn Dam built. I am not going to come to my
colleagues and ask you to fund this kind of a project. We can
do flood protection, very good flood protection, for less, and
we can do it in a way that doesn't destroy the environment. So
I am very pleased that the Administration's proposal reflects
this new consensus, the local electrics all agree with this.
As I say, there are some who believe the Auburn Dam is the
answer.
I lay this out here, because there could be some future
debate on the floor of the House on this. We have a divided
congressional delegation on it. But it's going to be an
interesting debate.
So what I would like to do is ask that my full statement be
placed in the record at this time, and as I have a couple of
minutes left----
Senator Bond. Without objection, your full statement will
be included, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Without going through all these questions, I'm going to
submit some for the record, I want to ask this question. The
American River Project in the Administration's bill calls for
raising and strengthening the downstream levees on the American
River. Based on the Corps of Engineering's experience, do you
believe the Corps can safely construct the step release plan to
provide the intended level of flood protection?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, I do. We're pretty confident about that.
Senator Boxer. General, do you agree with that?
General Fuhrman. Yes, we can safely construct those levees.
Senator Boxer. Excellent.
I have a question on the Maritime Infrastructure Bank, very
quickly. I know that the Corps and the OMB are working on ways
to prepare a proposal to finance navigation and other
improvements at our major ports dealing with international
trade.
Will this plan include assistance for medium-size ports and
small craft harbors which contribute to regional economic
development? If it does not, will you work with me in looking
at the California Maritime Infrastructure Bank? Because we do
have that in our State, and we really need to help some of
these smaller harbors. California is going to grow another 18
million people. We are the point of the Pacific Rim trade.
Would you respond to that?
Dr. Westphal. Senator, I'll be delighted to work with you
on that. I think that's a very important priority.
But I cannot tell you right now exactly what the plan will
do with respect to the small harbors.
Senator Boxer. When will you have the answer?
Dr. Westphal. We are under such, it's such a complex issue
and there's so much study going on in our analysis, I think it
will be several weeks before we get something to the committee.
But as soon as we do, I will be glad to work with you on it.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I have an opening statement that I would like to
submit for the record.
Senator Bond. Without objection.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are going to focus on two areas. First, is the
Florida Everglades, and second are shore protection issues. One
of the innovations in the WRDA bill of 1996 was the
establishment of a concept called the Everglades and South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Critical Projects, which was a
means of approaching projects which were urgent but which
required additional scientific exploration before they were
finalized. This committee agreed under certain conditions to
allow these projects to go forward without the type of formal
authorization project by project that is normally utilized.
In the 1996 bill, there were some 100 potential projects
that were submitted as possible critical projects in the
Everglades. Those were narrowed down to 35, which were actually
approved in the legislation. There were caps imposed on those
projects, including a global cap of $75 million.
That global cap has been largely exhausted with 12 of the
35 projects having been undertaken. There are now proposals to
provide additional funding, so that the balance of those 35
projects could be funded as well as, I believe there may be
recommendations for two to five additional projects to be added
to that original group of 35.
So I guess my question is, have you reviewed this matter,
and if so, do you have a recommendation as to what
authorization would be needed for the projects, those that were
not funded in the last 2 years, and those that might be added
to be implemented, and what would be an appropriate time
extension of the program authority in order to complete these
critical projects?
Dr. Westphal. Senator, I have not had time to fully review
this. And to give you a really complete answer, let me turn to
the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Michael Davis, who has worked
on the task force.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Senator, I think under the existing legislative
framework that you gave us in 1996, we have to have at least a
1-year extension of the authority to take advantage of this
whole $75 million Federal funding that would be available for
critical projects. As you said, we currently have about 14
projects under review, 10 of those have been approved and are
moving forward. Roughly the top 12 of those would exhaust that
$75 million.
So as you indicated, there is a list of 35. We would only
get through the first 12 under the current $75 million limit.
Senator Graham. So I guess the question is, do you have a
recommendation as to what additional authorization levels
should be provided for those critical projects that will be
initiated during the next 2-year period, and second, a
recommendation as to the time of extension for those additional
projects?
Mr. Davis. If the funding limit remains at $75 million, we
believe that 1 year would be an appropriate extension. If we go
beyond that, then that would be commensurated with the amount
of money, of course. If you recall, in 1996, the Administration
submitted a bill that asked for $150 million critical projects
program. So while we haven't gone through the formal clearance
process within OMB and the Administration, I suspect the
Administration would continue to support limits up to that
amount.
Senator Graham. I would like to ask if you would raise
those issues with the Administration, so that we could have
their current recommendation. I know the priority that the
Administration has placed on Everglades restoration. There is a
strong sense of urgency, of moving forward.
We've gone from a winter situation in which we were dealing
with a flood, and now we're into summer, dealing with a
drought, both of which indicate the fragility of that important
national treasure, and the need to restore the natural
conditions to the maximum extent possible at the earliest
possible date. And these critical projects have that as their
common objective.
The second area is related to shore protection. There have
been some indications that the Administration may be reviewing
its prior policy of ``no new starts'' for shore protection
projects. Could you comment as to whether the Administration
intends to reverse its previous ``no new starts'' policy and
include shore protection projects along with navigation, flood
control and environmental restoration as major program areas
for which the Administration will recommend budget authority?
Dr. Westphal. Yes, Senator. I think the language in the
legislation would essentially put shore protection on a par
with these other projects. And it's not intent on not
recommending new starts.
Senator Graham. What?
Dr. Westphal. It is not intent on saying, ``no new starts''
on shore protection.
Senator Graham. Well, that's very good news. I know it's
good news shared by all the members of the committee who
represent areas that are affected by this, and the constituents
of Senator Bond, who want to come and take advantage of good
restored coastal areas.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Graham.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, briefly a
couple of things.
No. 1, in reference to Senator Graham's inquiry, and
welcome, Secretary Westphal, we'll skip the Assistant and all
that kind of stuff. And that is, that to recognize shore
restoration projects for what they really are, when one talks
about flood control, it's fairly easy to see that it's
protection of life and property and economy and so forth.
But it's no different with shore protection. These are
virtually, in my view, the same thing. The coastal States have
the same concern about their coastline as those States more
inland have concerns about floods, etc. Therefore, as far as
I'm concerned, the priorities ought to be just about the same.
Because ultimately, the economy of these areas, the economies
are very seriously affected if there is virtually no sand
replenishment, no restructuring of the shoreline facilities.
So I hope, Dr. Westphal, that that will be kept in mind as
this legislation develops. And I want to ask one question, that
is, what is the differentiation between the difference in
Federal share for the 50-year renourishment programs and that
which is 65 percent non-Federal, as I understand it, and 35
percent local, as opposed to the 65 percent Federal, in one
case 65 non-Federal and another.
Who there can give me just a quick understanding of which
falls into place at what time?
Dr. Westphal. For the initial project, it's 65 Federal
share. For the periodic nourishment, it comes in the out years,
it would be a 65 non-Federal cost share.
Senator Lautenberg. So if it's a new project, one that
hasn't been treated before, it's 65 percent non-Federal?
Dr. Westphal. Sixty-five percent Federal.
Senator Lautenberg. Sixty-five percent Federal.
Dr. Westphal. Of the initial construction, the initial
construction project.
Senator Lautenberg. Right.
Dr. Westphal. New start, 65 percent Federal, 35 percent
non-Federal.
Senator Lautenberg. And thereafter, the updates are at a
different ratio?
Dr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Lautenberg. I'm interested in the non-structural
alternatives to flood control. That's a very, I think,
interesting approach to how we solve the problem longer term.
And the idea is gaining popularity in my State, New Jersey.
How do we move along these projects that are already
authorized by the committee, already in the planning stages,
and while supporting some of these new approaches, it presents
kind of a dilemma as to where the priorities fall?
Dr. Westphal. I think, Senator, the non-structural approach
is a growing approach, as we look at flood issues, not so much
in terms of flood control now as we look at them in terms of
preventing flood damages. So as we look at opportunities to
save billions of dollars in losses and to save lives and to
work out ways in which we can also protect and enhance
environment and security of people, we're turning more and more
to non-structural types of opportunities. Challenge 21 is a way
of beginning that process.
But that's not to say that in situations we must continue
to have the structural ability to protect the communities and
cities and towns and farms and people's livelihoods and lives
through structural methods. We will continue along both paths,
and where it's feasible to do one, we'll try to do it.
I don't believe that the Administration is following one
path over the other. I think we're trying to do it in an even
and balanced way.
I think the non-structural opportunities, I think also work
well with the whole set of priorities that the Administration
has placed on emergency response disaster relief with FEMA and
its programs. I think it allows us to work with them very well,
and in a very consistent and very deliberate fashion to bring
about some reduction in the amount of damage that our
communities can sustain.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Senator Lautenberg, I see that there is a
vote, it has already started. Senator Graham, do you want to
ask questions of this panel before we leave?
Senator Graham. If I could, Senator, it will be short, and
it will be more in the nature of a concern.
Senator Bond. I tell you what, Senator Graham, you will
have the gavel, stay as long as you want. Then you might excuse
and recess the hearing until the chairman can return and
introduce the next panel.
Senator Graham. We will take final action on the WRDA bill
before----
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. Yes, right. Thank you, Dr. Westphal.
Senator Graham [assuming the chair]. Dr. Westphal, I was
remissed in not expressing my pleasure that you are going to be
filling this position. I have had an opportunity to work with
the Corps of Engineers for a number of years, and have been
impressed with the quality and professionalism of the Corps,
and the Corps' growing recognition of the challenge of
preserving our environment while it meeds some of our
traditional protective needs, such as for flood control. I'm
certain that you and those who join you today will continue to
enhance that proud tradition.
One concern that I have is the President's proposal for
Challenge 21 initiatives. I think the program of hazard
mitigation has a great deal to recommend it. My concern is
fiscal, and that is, with the recommendation for an
authorization level of $325 million, will there be a
commensurate increase in the recommended budget authority for
the Corps of Engineers, or will this $325 million become a
competitor with existing Corps commitments for future funding?
Could you enlighten us as to how you see this relating to the
overall existing program and commitments of the Corps?
Dr. Westphal. I believe the program is seen essentially as
another way of addressing the issue of flood damage reduction,
much the same as you would look at building a levee or another
structural means of flood control or flood prevention. So in
that regard, I think it is treated as just another tool used by
local communities to address a very serious and dangerous
problem, where it's relevant to address it.
The Corps has asked each of the divisions to come up with
examples of projects that could work well with this type of
approach, and they have submitted a number of examples, so I
think we're ready to begin with that. But I don't think that it
unfairly competes with anything else that would be required in
another community that would be of a structural nature.
Senator Graham. So are you saying that if there has already
been a decision made that there will be some Federal role in a
particular geographic area for flood control that this will
fund one of the alternative means of achieving those
objectives?
Dr. Westphal. Well, Senator, remember, the Challenge 21,
the whole idea of this program is to assure that local
communities have a say in what types of approach is taken. It's
a cost-shared project just like any other project. So the
communities must decide whether they want this non-structural
means or whether they want something else. And they're going to
be footing part of the bill, they're brought into the picture
directly as a participant and a decisionmaker in what kind of
method they're going to use.
Senator Graham. Would one of the sanctioned tactics for
Challenge 21 be land acquisition?
Dr. Westphal. Yes. But again, as this is a community
decision, it would be cost-shared. Yes.
Senator Graham. I might say, I'm a strong believer in
riverine protection by acquisition, and am proud of the fact
that the State of Florida has had an aggressive program of
acquiring the flood plain of many of its major rivers. I doubt
that there is a major river in the United States which has as
much of its flood plain in public ownership as does the
Appalachicola River, for instance. And by doing that, the
circumstances which then lead to the necessity for public
intervention after the disaster, such as replacing structures
that were inappropriately located in that flood plain, has been
significantly mitigated.
So I support this principle, and look forward to learning
more about the details of how it's going to be implemented.
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to leave for the vote.
Therefore, I will take the great authority that has been vested
in me to temporarily adjourn the meeting until we return after
the vote is completed.
Thank you.
Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Senator.
[Recess.]
Senator Kempthorne [assuming the chair]. Please take your
seats so we can continue this hearing. And would the next panel
of very good witnesses come forward.
I'll explain to all of you, the reason you're seeing
musical chairs up here, we have the Defense bill, a number of
us are on the Armed Services Committee as well as on this
committee. So we're shuttling back and forth. Senator Warner
asked me if I would convene the second panel, so that we could
begin taking your testimony. And Senator Warner will be here
momentarily. So I appreciate this, and appreciate your
understanding of that.
Our second panel consists of Mr. Kurt Nagle, president,
American Association of Port Authorities; Mr. Scott E. Faber,
who is the director of Flood Plain Programs, American Rivers;
Honorable Louisa M. Strayhorn, councilwoman, Virginia Beach,
VA; Mr. Grover Fugate, executive director, Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council; Honorable Kenneth Pringle, Mayor,
Borough of Belmar, Belmar, NJ; and Mr. Stephen Higgins, Beach
Erosion Administrator, Broward County, FL.
With that, Mr. Nagle, would you like to begin.
STATEMENT OF KURT J. NAGLE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
PORT AUTHORITIES
Mr. Nagle. Thank you, Senator Kempthorne.
Good morning. I'm Kurt Nagle, president of the American
Association of Port Authorities. AAPA represents the public
port agencies throughout the western hemisphere. My remarks
today reflect the views of AAPA's U.S. delegation.
AAPA commends you and this committee for convening this
hearing on the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. Also,
I'd like to thank the members of this committee for their
strong leadership earlier this year on TEA 21. As you know, TEA
21 marks the next step in the development of a truly intermodal
transportation system as new policies are put in place to
address the growing need for efficient freight movement from
ports to highways and railways.
This Nation's public ports are partners in this effort to
develop a truly intermodal transportation system. If I leave
one message with you today, it is that ports and all who
benefit from the services we provide depend on biennial passage
of water resources legislation as well as continued adequate
annual appropriations levels.
Navigation projects are our Nation's highways to the
international marketplace. As you know, the Federal investment
in improvements to our Nation's infrastructure is matched by a
local share, as well as a very substantial local investment in
landside terminal facilities. These investments generate
significant economic returns at the local, regional, and
national levels.
All of the benefits that justify inclusion of navigation
projects in the water resources bill are national economic
development benefits. In my testimony today, in addition to
stressing the importance of passing a water resources bill this
year, I'd like to stress four points.
First, the need to continue to review and improve the
partnership between the Corps of Engineers and the ports forged
in WRDA 1986. Second, the port industry's alarm at the
President's fiscal year 1999 budget request as it relates to
investment in our Nation's deep draft harbors. Third, the need
to ensure continued funding for maintenance dredging in light
of the Supreme Court decision ruling the harbor maintenance tax
unconstitutional as it applies to exports. And fourth, the need
to continue to review and improve dredge material management
policies and practices to avoid costly delays in dredging
projects, ensure the protection of the environment, and gain
additional benefits to the Nation.
The enactment of the Water Resources Development Act and
Federal investment in navigation is of critical importance to
the Nation's economy. If projects are not authorized, the
national benefits, as well as regional economic diversification
and job creation opportunities, will be delayed.
I would like to address some of the policy changes that
U.S. ports would like to see included in this authorization
bill. First, AAPA believes that Congress should revise the
cost-sharing formula to adjust the upper cost-sharing threshold
to reflect the changes that have happened in the general cargo
fleet over the last 12 years.
The fact is that in the years since the cost-sharing
formula was established in 1986, the container ship fleet has
undergone a major evolution. The world's major ocean carriers
have greatly increased the size of vessels and the number of
large ships that they deploy. A recent Maritime Administration
report documents the trends in general cargo ship design and
their impact on transportation infrastructure. The report finds
that by the year 2010, one-third of containerized cargo will be
transported on vessels carrying more than 4,000 20-foot
equivalent units, or TEUs.
AAPA therefore believes that the norm for general cargo
navigation channels will be as great as 53 feet. And we ask
that the cost-sharing formulas in WRDA be amended so that the
60 percent cost share should be triggered at 53 feet, rather
than the current 45 feet, to reflect the changes in these
vessel types and sizes.
In our written testimony we identify additional
recommendations for policy changes that will simplify and
streamline the partnership between the Federal Government and
the Nation's public ports.
Let me turn to the Administration's proposed budget request
for the Corps of Engineers, which is nothing short of a
disaster for deep draft navigation projects. The proposed
budget seeks appropriations for investments of only $40 million
in fiscal year 1999 for new construction of deep draft
projects. This amount is only 12 percent of what is needed to
fund ongoing and authorized new projects.
We appreciate the Senate's leadership in passing an annual
appropriations bill for the Corps of Engineers that restores
more than $140 million in needed funding for harbor
improvements over that proposed by the President.
With regard to the harbor maintenance tax, AAPA is greatly
concerned that given the Supreme Court decision to strike down
the tax as it relates to exports, the Federal Government must
continue to ensure that maintenance dredging continues
uninterrupted. AAPA members believe that, as was the case prior
to 1986, maintenance dredging should be funded from general
revenues. There is no user fee system that can equitably raise
revenues from the users of navigation channels in any
reasonable relation to the distribution of benefits to the
entire Nation.
Many options were considered by the Congress in developing
the ad valorem harbor maintenance tax funding mechanism for
maintenance dredging back in the early to mid 1980's.
Unfortunately, the only option to survive the debates, the
harbor maintenance tax, the ad valorem fee, was found
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It does not appear that
there are significant new or old options that would work better
today.
I would also like to submit for the record, if I might, a
white paper on the maintenance dreding issue and why treasury
funding is appropriate.
Senator Kempthorne. Without objection.
[The white paper follows:]
Federally-Funded Maintenance Dredging: Sustaining America's Access to
the World
introduction
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a short, unanimous decision in March
1998 finding the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) unconstitutional as
applied to exports. The decision states that the HMT is a tax, not a
user fee, because the ad valorem tax is not a fair approximation of
services, facilities or benefits furnished to the exporter. The Court
said that in order to be a user fee, the connection between a service
the government renders and the compensation it receives for that
service must be closer than is present in the case.
The HMT was enacted by Congress in 1986 to recover 40 percent of
the cost of maintenance dredging in the Nation's deep-draft navigation
channels. Previously, such dredging expenses were paid for entirely out
of the General Treasury. In 1990, Congress more than tripled the HMT to
recover 100 percent of maintenance dredging expenses. This paper
describes why the maintenance and improvement of navigation channels
has historically been a Federal responsibility and suggests a number of
reasons why the Federal Government, through appropriations from the
General Treasury, should resume responsibility for funding maintenance
dredging.
why is there a federal interest in navigation?
Waterborne commerce has been key to the growth and security of the
Nation since colonial times. The Founding Fathers knew that only
through active commerce, an extensive navigation system, and a
flourishing maritime industry would the new nation survive against
foreign powers. Such systems were also viewed as essential to holding
the several States in union. Consequently, the Constitution vested with
the Federal Government sole jurisdiction to regulate interstate and
foreign commerce. The Supreme Court has held that Federal supremacy in
the regulation of commerce includes ``navigation within the limits of
every State in the union; so far as that navigation may be, in any
manner, connected with `commerce with foreign nations, or among the
several States . . .' '' (Gibbons v. Ogden, 53 U.S. at 457,13 L.Ed. at
1064).
Since the birth of our Nation, Congress has authorized and funded
activities to ensure free and open access of the Nation's waterways to
navigation. In 1789, Congress authorized the first navigation channel
improvement projects. The General Survey Act of 1824 established the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the agency responsible for the Nation's
navigation system. Since that time, the Federal Government has
consistently exercised its power to develop and maintain a navigation
system for the benefit of the whole nation.
Trade Benefits
Today, safe and efficient navigation is just as important as it was
in colonial times. The entire U.S. economy depends on an efficient and
reliable transportation system to remain competitive in domestic and
international markets. International trade's impact on the U.S. Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) is growing dramatically. In 1970, trade
represented only 13 percent of U.S. GDP. By 1996, trade had grown to
account for 30 percent of GDP, or about $2.3 trillion. More than 11
million U.S. jobs now depend on exports--1.5 million more than just 4
years ago. Significantly, jobs supported by goods exports wages are 13
to 17 percent higher than non trade-related jobs in the economy.
Navigable channels, railways, highways, and ports are links in the
transportation chain that allow manufacturers, buyers, and sellers to
send and receive goods quickly, safely, and efficiently. The resulting
benefits are ready access to a wide variety of products and services,
internationally competitive exports, and lower costs for consumers.
Maintenance of deep-draft navigation channels is a key component of an
efficient national transportation system, and increasingly so as larger
and larger vessels are built.
To maintain and improve our inland transportation system, the
Federal Government spends nearly $35 billion per year on projects
authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
Federal spending for maintenance dredging of navigation channels is
only about $500 million.
All ports and Federal channels serve multi-State needs. The foreign
trade activities of each State are supported by a variety of ports both
within and, more often, outside the State. On average, each State
relies on between 13 to 15 ports to handle 95 percent of its imports
and exports. The goods from 27 States leave the country through the
ports in Louisiana alone. Midwestern grain supplies the Pacific rim
market through ports in the Pacific Northwest. Imported crude oil
refined in New Jersey and Pennsylvania reaches consumers on the entire
East Coast--from Maine to Florida. Steel that travels to major
Midwestern industrial centers is delivered cheaply and efficiently
through Great Lakes ports. Ports on the West Coast handle goods such as
cars, computers, and clothing, which are destined for consumers
throughout the country.
Many of this country's export products are price-sensitive
commodities which require well developed and maintained navigation
channels to remain competitively priced in international markets. For
example, 95 percent of U.S. coal exports leave the country through U.S.
deep-draft ports. For each foot of draft not dredged, shippers carry
less product--making each voyage less efficient and more costly.
Maintaining a channel at 43 feet instead of 44 feet may mean the
difference of 750 fewer tons of coal loaded on a single ship, often 5
percent of a ship's total cargo potential.
Because shipping contracts can hinge on a few tenths of a cent per
bushel of grain or ton of coal, transportation costs can be the
deciding factor for foreign buyers choosing between American or foreign
bulk products. Without access to efficient waterborne transportation,
U.S. bulk commodities could not compete in international markets.
Safety and Environmental Benefits
In the same way that highways are plowed clear of snow and ice in
the winter, more than 90 percent of the Nation's top 50 ports in
foreign waterborne commerce require regular maintenance dredging.
Together these ports move nearly 93 percent of all U.S. waterborne
commerce (by weight) in a given year. Without dredging, many port
facilities and navigation channels would be rendered non-navigable in
less than a year. For example, it is not uncommon for a river to
accumulate sediment at a rate of 5 to 6 feet a year. Without routine
dredging, areas of the navigation channel could change from 40 to 35
feet in 1 year. Such a dramatic change would prohibit many ships from
entering the channel or force ships to carry only a fraction of their
intended load.
Making waterways safe for navigation is another important national
benefit of routine maintenance dredging. Channels that accumulate
sediment become dangerous because they increase the risk of ships
running aground. Groundings are expensive not only in cargo and time
lost, but groundings may also pollute the environment if ships' hulls
are breached and cargo is spilled. Well-maintained channels eliminate
any surprise shoalings or buildups that may cause mishaps harmful to
the environment.
When waterways are not regularly dredged, ships may have to be
lightered--that is, they have enough cargo transferred to or from
vessels of lesser draft so that the primary ship is light enough to
transit the harbor safety. Aside from the additional handling costs
associated with the practice, lightering bulk liquids increases the
chance of spillage and pollution. That environmental risk could be
avoided if the primary vessel could unload all of its material at the
port.
National Defense Benefits
In the late 18th century, the new Congress also recognized the
importance of Federal responsibility over navigation for the critical
role it plays in our Nation's defense. That role has never been more
apparent than during 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
commercial ports.
According to the U.S. Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC),
between August 1990 and march 1991, MTMC loaded 312 vessels and more
than 4.2 million measurement tons of cargo at 18 U.S. ports for
delivery to the Persian Gulf in support of Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
Approximately 50 ports have agreements with the Federal Government to
provide ready access for national emergency purposes.
developing ports and harbors is a shared reponsibility
U.S. port development and maintenance is a shared responsibility of
Federal, State, and local governments, with extensive private sector
participation. Under this relationship, rooted in the U.S.
Constitution, the Federal Government maintains harbor access channels,
while individual ports construct and maintain the landside terminal
facilities, dredge their own berths, and contribute to channel
improvement cost-sharing programs. Relying in good faith on this long-
standing partnership, local port authorities have spent over $16.8
billion since World War II and expect to spend an additional $1.3
billion annually to construct and maintain the landside facilities over
the next 5 years.
In addition, local ports fund a share of Federal navigation
improvement projects, either 35 percent or 60 percent depending on
depth. Investment decisions made by the Federal Government, local ports
and the private sector have been based on the expectation that the
Federal Government will continue to fund maintenance dredging. These
local investments have created the system of ports the Nation relies on
to meet its national defense needs and growing international trade.
Although the Federal Government traditionally funded maintenance
dredging of Federal navigation channels from General Treasury revenues,
in 1986, Congress created the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to pay for
a portion of channel maintenance dredging. Revenue for this trust fund
is generated by assessing a fee (the ``Harbor Maintenance Tax'' or HMT)
on the value of export, import and domestic cargo moving through the
nation's deep draft ports. At the same time, local cost-sharing was
instituted for funding new construction projects (widening and
deepening) projects. By contrast, on the inland waterways, operations
and maintenance costs are paid out of the General Treasury and new
construction costs are funded, in part, by an inland waterways fuel
tax.
The cost sharing enacted in 1986 passed Congress after a lengthy
impasse over water resources development policy. Although the benefits
are clearly national in scope, the HMT and cost-sharing reforms were
instituted in an effort to recover the cost of maintenance dredging
from navigation channel users. The Supreme Court ruled HMT is not a
true user fee and is, thus, a tax applied unconstitutionally against
exports. Exports are protected from taxation in the Constitution
because of their importance to the health of the Nation.
why the federal government should fund maintenance dredging from
general treasury
Maintenance dredging should be funded from the General Treasury, as
was the case before 1986. There is no user-fee system that can
equitably raise revenues from the users of navigation channels in
reasonable relation to the distribution of benefits to the Nation. Many
options were considered in developing the ad valorem HMT funding
mechanism for maintenance dredging. Unfortunately, the only option to
survive the debates from 1981 to 1986, the HMT, was found
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It does not appear that there
are significant new or old options that would work better today.
The assessment of a tonnage fee on cargo or vessels would severely
affect bulk commodities, such as grain or coal, which compete in
international markets where pennies a ton can make or break a sale.
These shipments, which are amongst our Nation's leading export
products, now use the most cost-effective route--typically moving by
barges down rivers to coastal harbors. Those harbors, in turn, tend to
require significant maintenance dredging because of the river sediment.
In general, dredging demands related to the shipping of these types of
export products are greater than those related to import products.
Another alternative considered would have required local ports to
raise their own funding for maintenance dredging. Such a change could
pit U.S. ports against each other, the result of which could impact
commerce and national security. The concept also alters the fundamental
Federal role in maintaining the national navigation system. Like a
tonnage tax, local funding, if passed on to port users, could increase
transportation costs, pricing bulk commodities out of international
markets either through increased charges at the currently utilized
port(s) or by increasing inland transportation costs due to diversion
from the inland waterway system.
Recognizing that these options could be injurious to the nation's
trading position, and to individual ports, Congress in 1986 chose to
enact a uniform ad valorem tax on cargo. By applying a uniform fee on
all cargo moving through any port in the country, the tax did not
affect the competitive position of any port. (This is true relative to
U.S. ports, but ignores the fact that cargo has been diverted to
Canadian ports to avoid paying the fee.) Congress intended to minimize
the potential negative effect on export competitiveness, and minimize
the diversion problem by setting the fee fairly low, at a level to
collect 40 percent of the dredging costs. However, in the 1990 budget
agreement, Congress tripled the fee, and a $1.2 billion surplus has
accumulated in the trust fund. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, the
surplus had been expected to reach nearly $2 billion by the end of
fiscal 1999.
The HMT ultimately added hundreds of dollars to the cost of
shipping a single container of high value cargo, and has caused traffic
to be diverted to non-U.S. ports to avoid payment. The imposition of
the HMT caused a rail-barge service on the Great Lakes to go out of
business.
Other options for raising revenue from direct users of the
navigation channels are not likely to produce sufficient funds. In
addition, direct navigation users are already significantly taxed. A
1993 General Accounting Office study found that 12 Federal agencies
levy 117 assessments on waterborne trade. In 1996, receipts from these
fees were 154 percent of the level raised only 10 years earlier, making
our exports more expensive and less competitive in international
markets.
Customs revenues in fiscal year 1996 totaled $22.3 billion, of
which roughly 70 percent (or $15.6 billion) is attributable to cargo
moving through seaports. These funds, currently collected from users of
navigation channels, are more than 31 times greater than the cost of
maintenance dredging (approximately $500 million). Expected increases
in customs collections due to increased trade would likely be enough to
pay for maintenance dredging.
As described above, benefits of safe and efficient trade provided
by a nation's system of navigation channels are spread throughout the
country. In addition, the benefits to the Nation resulting from
national defense, commercial fishing, and recreational users are
immeasurable; assessing fees on these users, however, was not part of
the 1986 HMT funding mechanism. The burden for raising funds to pay for
dredging should be spread across the whole nation because all our
citizens benefit.
conclusion
Since the first wooden vessels arrived on our shores, this nation
has relied on and prospered because of its access to water and thereon
to the rest of the world. Both economically and strategically, there
are no greater national assets than our ports and Federal navigation
channels--our water connections to the global marketplace and means of
national defense.
Until 1986, the Federal Government fully funded the maintenance of
our Nation's navigation channels, maintaining a partnership with State
and local port authorities. Local port agencies have invested billions
of dollars in landside terminals to develop the array of ports along
the sea coasts, Great Lakes, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
The HMT, instituted in 1986 to recover first 40 percent, then 100
percent (and more) of dredging maintenance costs, has been ruled
unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Based both on this decision
and the rancorous debate during the 1980's, any alternative trade tax/
user fee funding mechanism will have significant legal and political
challenges to overcome. In addition, enormous national economic and
national security benefits are threatened if the Federal Government
does not continue to make these navigation channel investments.
With the United States' future role in the global economy at stake,
it is critical that our Federal navigation channels be properly
maintained. General Treasury funding of this maintenance should be
resumed.
Mr. Nagle. Finally, with regard to dredge material
management, we have seen progress since the adoption of a
national dredging policy to facilitate the timely and cost-
effective dredging of our Nation's navigation channels.
However, we still have more work to do. We still need to work
toward consistent and expedited review of all dredging and
disposal alternatives, separate from the 404 wetlands provision
of the Clean Water Act, and for consideration of relative cost,
risk and benefits of each alternative.
Additional changes should be considered to emphasize
prevention of pollution that contaminate sediments, and to
require full consideration of the use and value of the waters
and channels to navigation in establishing appropriate criteria
and standards.
Finally, AAPA wants to maximize the opportunities for the
private sector, using Section 217 of WRDA 1996, to take a
greater role in using dredge material in innovative uses, such
as the creation of mitigation banks or the restoration of
brownfield sites.
AAPA appreciates the efforts by this subcommittee to
address some of these issues in the last Congress, and we look
forward to working with you as you consider changes to the
Clean Water Act and other environmental laws this Congress and
beyond.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to present
the views of the U.S. public ports, and would be happy to
answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Nagle, thank you very much. We
appreciate it.
Mr. Faber.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT C. FABER, DIRECTOR OF FLOODPLAIN PROGRAMS,
AMERICAN RIVERS
Mr. Faber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
American Rivers strongly supports the Corps' growing
environmental mission, including the environmental management
program on the upper Mississippi River, the Section 1135
program, Section 206 program, the Challenge 21 initiative now
proposed by the Corps. But this morning, I'd like to talk about
another Army corps, the Corps of Discovery led by Lewis and
Clark, and the opportunities to revitalize the Nation's longest
river, the Missouri River.
In 1804, Lewis and Clark bore witness to some of nature's
greatest scenes. Their journals are filled with descriptions of
the river valley and its inhabitants, ranging from herds of
10,000 buffalo to a flock of white pelicans more than 3 miles
long. The Corps of Discovery recorded scores of plants,
insects, fish, birds, and animals previously unknown to
science, ranging from the least terns and prairie dogs to
cutthroat trout.
The Missouri that Lewis and Clark saw featured thousands of
islands and sand bars separated by two constantly shifting
channels. Dense forests, shallow wetlands, and endless prairies
bordered the river. The water flowed through thousands of
smaller side channels that provided a wide variety of water
depths and speeds.
Most of what Lewis and Clark saw, we cannot. Nearly 200
years after their famous voyage of discovery, Lewis and Clark
would hardly recognize the Missouri River. Today, white
pelicans are rarely seen on the Missouri, and the least tern is
considered endangered by the Federal Government.
As we forced the rivers restless braided channels into a
single, deeper canal, we eliminated nearly all the islands and
sand bars and side channels that characterized the original
river, the places fish and wildlife need to feed, reproduce and
conserve energy. As these critical nurseries were destroyed,
more than 30 of the species native to the Missouri River have
been placed on Federal and State watch list. Many species have
fallen to less than 10 percent of their historic population
levels.
Fortunately, the Missouri River enhancement program
proposed by Senator Bond represents a rare opportunity to
repair the Missouri River. As we prepared to celebrate the
200th anniversary of Lewis and Clark's voyage of discovery, we
have a once in a lifetime opportunity to boost recreation and
tourism, revitalize riverfront communities, and restore natural
places for river wildlife.
While we cannot restore the river Lewis and Clark knew, we
can repair much of it. We can create a Missouri River that
Lewis and Clark would recognize.
Unlike the existing Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
mitigation program, which authorizes the Corps to reopen
historic side channels and sloughs, S. 1399 authorizes the
Corps to modify the rip-rap, wing dikes and other river
training structures which line the river's banks to create
shallow-water habitat in the river's main channel, places where
fish can feed and conserve energy without interfering with
commercial navigation or private property rights. That's why
the legislation has not only been endorsed by American Rivers,
but also by the Missouri Farm Bureau and by MARC 2000, a
navigation industry trade association.
I see these efforts to repair the Missouri as a central
piece of a growing trend, a national campaign to retrofit our
working rivers. In the past, we asked the Corps of Engineers to
make our rivers, like the Mississippi, the Missouri and the
Columbia, reliable arteries for commerce. And they have
succeeded.
But today we are asking the Corps to rise to a new
challenge, to retrofit our working rivers so that they continue
to be living rivers as well. As you know, the Corps is known as
the Nation's problem solvers. But this problem, managing our
rivers to meet the needs of nature and navigation, is perhaps
the greatest problem they'll ever face.
It's not a problem for which there are easy answers. We
need to look no further than the upper Mississippi River, where
despite the Corps' best efforts, habitat for river wildlife
continues to be lost faster than it can be replaced. Of course,
far more than fish and wildlife are at stake. More than 12
million people annually recreate on and along the Mississippi,
four times more than Yellowstone National Park, spending $1.2
billion and supporting 18,000 jobs.
I urge you to give the Corps the resources they need by
including S. 1399, the Missouri River Enhancement Program, in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, expanding programs
like the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management
Program, nd continuing to support programs like the Challenge
21 Initiative proposed by the Corps. Thank you.
Senator Warner [resuming the chair]. Thank you, Mr. Faber.
The chair wishes to apologize to the panel and to others,
we have this bill on the floor and I'm one of the co-managers.
But I'm back here now until we can complete the testimony of
the panel.
Our colleague from New Jersey has asked if we might take
Mayor Pringle next to accommodate the Senator from New Jersey.
We're happy to do that.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
for your kindness in permitting me to sit in on this
subcommittee, of which I am not a member, but I have an active
interest, as you know, in infrastructure, particularly as that
infrastructure affects the environment and vice versa.
I'm delighted to see a friend, a distinguished mayor from
New Jersey here, Mayor Ken Pringle. Each year I get to march in
the St. Patrick's Day parade there, early in March. Sometimes
the wind blows and the rain comes, but we stick it out, because
this parade is one of the most popular in the whole State of
New Jersey, and by no means is Belmar a major city in size. But
it's a major city in its effect on what happens in our shore
and resort industries.
So I'm pleased to welcome Mayor Pringle here. I look
forward to his comments, Mr. Chairman, and hope that it will
help us decide on the kind of legislation that we ought to be
passing here.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. PRINGLE, MAYOR, BOROUGH OF BELMAR, NJ
Mayor Pringle. Thank you, Senator.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I
want to thank you for having me here.
I've been the Mayor of the Borough of Belmar for 8 years,
and I'm pleased to be here to bring my perspective as a small
town mayor to the Federal shore protection program.
Belmar is only a one-square mile town. We have a year-round
population of 5,700 residents. But on a typical Sunday
afternoon in the summertime, up to 20,000 people will squeeze
onto our beaches, which are only about a mile long and 150
yards wide at high tide, a little bit wider at low tide.
Senator Warner. Councilwoman Strayhorn, just out of
comparison, how many in Virginia Beach on a Sunday afternoon,
same time period?
Ms. Strayhorn. About 200,00.
Senator Warner. About 200,000.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, it's easier to manage when you
get that large a number.
Ms. Strayhorn. We'll talk about that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Thank you. I just wanted to get a little
perspective.
Mayor Pringle. That's quite all right. We go by people per
square yard in Belmar, the most densely populated State and the
most densely populated beaches.
The Borough of Belmar has been an active partner with the
State of New Jersey and the Corps of Engineers in this largest
shore protection program in the United States. It now includes
11 municipalities and 21 miles of coastline in our area.
We're here today to urge continued support for that
program, and to thank the committee for recognizing its
importance and the need to invest in our shore communities.
I want to take a moment to note the longstanding
contributions of Senator Lautenberg toward maintaining this
investment. He's been a tireless champion of our coastal areas,
and to environmental protection in our area. All along the
shore are very thankful to him for that.
Belmar was an early convert to the cause of beach
nourishment. We had an infamous nor'easter in 1992, in which
the whole Jersey shore, Belmar and the towns around us, in
particular, were battered by a combination of high winds,
abnormally high tides and almost 3 days of pounding surf. Along
the southern half mile of Belmar's coast, which had eroded away
almost to nothing over the years preceding that storm, we had
seven blocks of boardwalk and two pavilions that were
completely destroyed, including three blocks of boardwalk that
had been protected by a stone sea wall that ran parallel to the
boardwalk.
Other towns on either side of us, like Spring Lake, Avalon
and Bradley Beach, were devastated by the same storm, and lost
their entire boardwalks and sustained enormous damage to upland
improvements. The cost to the Federal Emergency Management
Administration in terms of emergency funds following that storm
for cleanup and repair was several million dollars.
Senator Lautenberg actually toured that site with us in the
days immediately following the storm. And when we walked along
our boardwalk, we found that Belmar's northern end had fared
much better than our southern end. We realized that the only
difference between our northern end and our southern end is
that Belmar's northern beaches were much wider, due to the fact
that the Shark River inlet just to the north of Belmar traps
sand that drifts northward along the coast.
That wide beach had protected the northern end of Belmar
and kept our boardwalks from suffering the same fate as our
southern boardwalks. It became clear to us that the best
defense that day was not stone sea walls or jetties, but rather
long, sloping beaches that could sustain the fury of a storm.
As a result of what we learned then, the residents of
Belmar and other towns hailed the arrival of the Army Corps
project when it arrived last summer with two large, ocean-going
dredges that worked around the clock for the entire summer,
pumping tens of millions of cubic yards of sand on our beaches,
literally creating beaches right before our eyes.
Despite a series of nor'easters that hit us this past
winter and spring, our beaches have survived very well in
Belmar. We've had very little sand loss. More importantly, we
were able for the first time to leave in place this past winter
portable boardwalk sections that we installed after the
nor'easter of 1992. This has been a boon to runners and walkers
and bicyclists and mothers who push their children on our
boardwalk every day.
The wider beach has also significantly expanded our ability
to entertain tourists in our community. In fact, just this past
weekend, we had a very large amateur volleyball tournament at
the southern end of our beaches. That would have been entirely
impossible before this year.
As other communities will attest, the Corps of Engineers
projects have improved their resistance to these devastating
storms. Based on our experience in Belmar over the past winter
and what we seem to be experiencing in terms of greater
frequency and severity of storm activity off our coast each
winter, it's clear that projects like this will save millions
of dollars of damages to our county in the coming years.
The Clinton administration's proposal for a change in the
cost-sharing formula for periodic renourishment of beaches has
us concerned. Belmar will be due in the next few years for its
first periodic renourishment. Under the current proposal, non-
Federal sponsors would pay 65 percent, the Federal share would
drop to 35 percent.
There's no question that my community and communities like
us are willing to pay our fair share of the cost of financing
these types of projects. We certainly gain a benefit, and we
recognize that. Our concern, Mr. Chairman, is that whether for
initial construction or periodic renourishment, we need that
share to be a fair burden on our communities. The funding
levels should be based upon an assessment of projects around
the country, and also on the ability of the local government to
pay.
The Borough of Belmar does its part to maintain a stable,
reliable source of local funding for our program. We in New
Jersey, at least outside of Atlantic County, do not have
statutory authority to charge a hotel or local sales tax. We
rely instead upon a user fee, essentially, a beach badge to
gain admission for residents and non-residents alike. By law,
this is a fee that can be used only for the cost of operating
and improving our beaches.
Our main concern today is that we keep these fees
affordable to families who use our beaches. Belmar's 10 percent
share of the most recent beach nourishment project, this is the
original project, was $612,899. We've had a great summer the
last 2 years, and our revenues from those summers will enable
us to make a cash down payment of $300,000 toward that amount.
We're borrowing the balance and will pay that off over the next
few summers if weather permits.
But it is important that the future share that we have to
pay be reasonable so that we're not forced to raise our beach
badges to the point where they're beyond the reach of the types
of families who regularly come to Belmar from New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and of course, Virginia.
Shore communities around the country believe that beach
nourishment projects are in the national interest, not just the
State and local interest. They're our first vital defense to
storms, and every dollar of that investment reduces the cost of
emergency management funds that will have to be put forward in
the event a storm causes damage. And that's not counting the
untold losses in private investment, many of which are either
uninsured, or uninsurable.
I'd also like the committee to keep in mind right now that
the revenues from tourism in New Jersey don't go to local
governments. We rely primarily on property taxes in New Jersey
for our local revenues. Instead, tourism revenues go to State
and Federal treasuries.
The Jersey shore is an enormous economic engine. In 1996,
travel and tourism in New Jersey's five coastal counties
generated over $12 billion and was responsible for 161,000
tourism-related jobs. The total payroll is $3 billion. We think
this is an industry that is a worthwhile Federal investment.
I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to share
my views here today, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mayor Pringle.
We would like to welcome Mr. Grover Fugate, who is the
executive director of the State of Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council. Mr. Fugate, welcome to the
committee.
STATEMENT OF GROVER FUGATE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Fugate. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank the
committee for having me here this morning.
Rhode Island, although the smallest State in the Nation,
has a long coastline and is one of the second densely populated
States, after New Jersey, in the United States. Rhode Island's
tourism generates about a little over $2 billion, about $2.2
billion to the economy, and is the largest segment of our
economy in the State.
As a coastal manager, we're very concerned about managing
all aspects of beaches, including looking at beach nourishment
as one of the tools that we use to reduce damage, but also as a
management tool for other ends.
I'd just like to go through a few overheads here, and I
apologize in advance, because some of them are kind of light.
But I want to illustrate a few points here regarding the Rhode
Island case. What this slide shows, although it's outdated
somewhat, is the tracks of major hurricanes over the last, say,
70 years. As you can see, most of these hurricanes track in a
north-south fashion. In Rhode Island, we have the lucky
advantage of turning the corner, so as hurricanes track in that
north-south fashion, we turn the corner and we take the full
brunt of the storm.
Again, as you can see, most of the tracks showing on this
chart show that they've been tracking through the Hartford, CT
area. That is a particularly damaging path for us, because we
catch the brunt of the forward movement of the hurricanes, plus
the wind factors.
Our beaches, because of this and several other factors, are
extremely susceptible. Some of the other factors include the
fact that we are a sediment-starved system. We have no major
rivers pumping sediment into the coastal area in Rhode Island.
The only source of sediment are old glacial deposits usually in
headlands or beaches themselves and some small offshore
deposits.
In addition, our beaches along the south shore are
typically barrier spits. They are very low in profile compared
to other barriers in the United States, and very narrow. All
those factors make the coastline in Rhode Island extremely
susceptible to both hurricane and nor'easter damage.
This next slide is a chart showing transepts taken along
the shoreline of the State, and then projecting whether they're
either erosional or accretional. As you can see the scale off
to the side on the right hand side is in feet. Many of those
areas of shoreline are approaching 3 feet of erosion per year.
If you look at the line here as being zero, if you're on
this side of the line, it's accretional, if you're on this side
of the line, it's erosional. Overall, our shore is an erosional
or transgressive shoreline. It is moving back in response to
both storms and erosion.
Senator Baucus. How much of it is due to the global warming
or--the Atlantic coast is declining, isn't it, anyway, in
relation to the Pacific?
Mr. Fugate. The Atlantic coast there, particularly within
the New England area, there's a theory called isostatic rebound
theory, which means that after the last glaciation, after the
weight of the ice was lifted, a lot of the New England area was
still lifting relative to sea level rise. Unfortunately, in
Rhode Island, we're not lifting fast enough, erosion is
catching up with us and our beaches are rolling over. There's
no doubt that sea level rise is playing a factor.
Historically, within Rhode Island over the last 50 years,
we have had about six inches, just in historic sea level rise,
not even counting anticipated accelerated sea level rise.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Mr. Fugate. One other factor that I'd like to point out,
this is a picture just showing the sediment movement along the
south shore of Rhode Island. Back in the 1950's, the early
1950's, there were a series of hardened breachways that were
put in on the coastal ponds, which completely altered the
ecosystem. As you can see, they allow for a large influx of
sediment into the coastal ponds. They're acting like huge
vacuum cleaners, actually taking sediment out of the beach
systems.
A project that we're engaged with the Army Corps right now,
thanks to Senator Chafee, is a project to take a holistic
approach to looking at management of these ponds, and with a
thought to reverse some of the impacts that we have caused in
the 1950's. What we're hoping to do is dredge those flood tidal
deltas, put the material on the beach, restore coastal
habitats, restore grass, nourish the beaches for tourism,
restore navigation in these coastal ponds which have been lost
through the sedimentation and completely rehabilitate these
areas and try to maintain them on a sustainable system.
I guess my main remark today, in looking at beach
nourishment, is to remind, as you're all aware, that I think
we've interfered in the natural system through our past
activities, to the extent we can't walk away any more. We have
to actively manage these areas. And beach nourishment is going
to still continue to play a very important tool in trying to
manage these areas, so that we can sustain these benefits.
Thank you.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN H. HIGGINS, BEACH EROSION ADMINISTRATOR,
BROWARD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
testify on ways to strengthen and make more cost effective the
Nation's shore and beach protection program. It's my hope that
my testimony and that of the others which appear before you
will help to illustrate the overall importance of beaches to
local, State, and national economic development, and the need
to continue an active Federal presence in shore protection.
I wear several hats today in that I represent a local
government, Broward County, in southeast Florida. I also
represent the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association,
which is a statewide league of counties and cities with a
common interest in beach erosion. And the American Coastal
Coalition, which is the national coastal advocacy group.
The hats I'm wearing are made of a common material,
however, the effort to spread the word about the value of
America's beaches, and the need to continue what has been a
successful and beneficial partnership among local interests,
States and the Federal Government in protecting a vital
national asset.
Mr. Chairman, beaches are a fundamental and critical piece
of economic environmental infrastructure. They are economic
engines which rival major commercial ports in revenue and job
generation, and traditional flood control works in protection
of private and public property.
Having grown up in southeast Florida, I witnessed the
chronic and widespread economic decay which resulted from the
loss of sandy shoreline at Miami Beach in the 1960's, and
watched the rebirth of that area after the Corps of Engineers
assisted in the restoration and maintenance of that beach.
In Broward County, my home, federally-assisted shore
protection efforts have ensured the sustainability of
infrastructure which provides $800 million in annual regional
economic input, creates and sustains 26,000 jobs, protects over
$4 billion in upland property, and provides upwards of $100
million in annual local, State, and Federal taxes. This is in
just one moderate-size county with 24 miles of beach.
A recent study by the Travel Industry Association of
America concluded that almost 80 percent of the nearly $500
billion in annual tourism expenditures occurs in States with
coastal congressional districts, and that those coastal
districts alone generate over $185 billion per year in tourism
expenditures, while sustaining 3 million jobs with a payroll of
almost $50 billion annually.
Bearing in mind these figures, Broward County has in the
planning stages a major shore protection project which will
keep our beaches healthy well into the next century. The
project involves traditional beach nourishment using offshore
sand sources, and will restore and nourish more than half the
county shoreline. In order to increase the durability of the
project, to reduce the ambient erosion rate, the county also
proposes to construct some highly engineered sand holding
structures in the most erosive area, which happens to be just
downstream of the Federal navigation project at Port Everglades
and to introduce sand bypassing at Port Everglades.
The estimated cost of all this work, including the sand
bypassing, is about $30 million. The calculated Federal share
of the beach nourishment and structures components, based on
historical Federal participation and on Corps of Engineers
approved studies, is about $17 million, which Broward County
has requested several years running now in appropriations
bills.
For $17 million, the Federal Government helps to ensure the
existence of an item of infrastructure which produces the
better part of a billion dollars in annual economic activity,
protects from storm damage and subsequent Federal
rehabilitation assistance billions of dollars in public and
private property, and produces tens of millions of dollars in
annual Federal tax revenue. If a healthy local and regional
economy is at all contributive to the vitality of the national
economy, as intuition would suggest, Broward County's project
would appear to be a cost-effective investment for the Federal
Government.
Having made these comments, Mr. Chairman, we as coastal
interests also acknowledge and understand the tightening
budgetary constraints under which all levels of Government must
operate. A water resources development type, such as beach
erosion control, which requires expensive and sometimes
frequent maintenance, is a budgetary concern.
For this reason, it's incumbent on all of us to try to find
better, more efficient and more cost-effective ways to maintain
our beaches. A series of proposals has been put forth by the
American Coastal Coalition for inclusion in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1998, which will help accomplish these
objectives, and they are as follows.
We urge Congress to mandate that shore protection is one of
the Corps' primary missions. Currently, the Corps' shoreline
protection role is merely an outgrowth of its storm protection,
flood control and environmental restoration missions. It should
not be a Corps stepchild, and in view of the extraordinarily
positive cost-benefit ratios attributable to beach
replenishment projects, it's fiscally improvident to sacrifice
shore protection as a Federal mission based on short-term
budgetary savings.
We call on Congress to authorize a new national shoreline
study to assess the regional and national economic impact of
beaches and to take a complete inventory of the condition of
the Nation's sandy beaches. The last inventory was taken in the
late 1960's, and there has never been a national assessment of
the far-ranging economic impact of beaches. Without this data,
it is impossible for Congress to consider major changes in
national shoreline protection policy, or to budget for the
Federal share of beach repair and maintenance.
The Federal Government has a statutory and moral
responsibility to mitigate the damage that it's caused beaches
by dredging and stabilizing port and inlet channels. There are
too many examples of the Government's failure to recognize and
respond to that responsibility. Language should be included in
WRDA 1998 which ensures that this mitigation responsibility can
be used as the basis for Federal participation in a shore
protection project which is needed due to Federal actions.
One immediate change in policy that we strongly recommend
would direct the Corps to place beach quality sand dredged from
channels on adjacent beaches, regardless of whether it is the
so-called least cost option. On many occasions, dredge material
is deposited in the ocean, because placement on a nearby beach
is not deemed the least cost option. Subsequently, taxpayers
pay for pumping sand back onto the beach as part of a shore
protection project, thus the least cost option may ultimately
result in a higher cost to taxpayers.
We support statutory language in WRDA 1998 that directs
beach quality sand dredged from a navigation project to be
placed on nearby public beaches, unless such disposal is not
economically and environmentally sound.
In some areas of the country, near-shore sources of sand
for beach nourishment are becoming scarce. Recognizing this
fact, Congress adopted legislation making it possible for the
Minerals Management Service to enter into agreements with the
Federal Government as well as with non-Federal sponsors of
beach nourishment projects, to acquire sand from the outer
continental shelf.
While Congress gave MMS the discretion to determine if it
should charge non-Federal sponsors for this sand, the MMS has
determined that as a matter of policy, it will impose a charge.
This will increase the costs to States and local governments
unnecessarily. Therefore, we support statutory language which
removes from MMS the discretion to charge any fee for OCS sand
to a non-Federal sponsor of a federally authorized shore
protection project.
We realize that while this issue is not technically within
the jurisdiction of this committee, we believe the
jurisdictional issues can be overcome.
The WRDA bill introduced by the Administration included
language which altered the cost-sharing formula for periodic
beach nourishment, making the non-Federal interest responsible
for 65 percent of the cost. While this may be seen as a gesture
indicating a willingness to continue participating in shore
protection and beach protection, it appears not to be based on
any real analyses of who benefits from the projects, and was
not accompanied by new project authorizations.
It's likely that the current cost-sharing formula can be
restructured to reflect more accurately the true beneficiaries
of beach projects. However, to be useful, such a restructuring
must be based on engineering, science and economics, and must
be accompanied by an intelligent program of authorizations of
shore protection projects and studies.
We recommend the establishment of a national shoreline and
shore erosion data bank. Several Federal agencies currently
collect or have the ability to collect data that is vital to
the management of our coastlines. Data are also collected by
States, local governments, and academic institutions.
To facilitate the long-term management of our shorelines,
all interests should have access to all the useful data they
need to make responsible policy determinations. The
authorization of a national shoreline and shore erosion data
bank in WRDA 1998 and the funding of that bank in the Energy
and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999
would be a significant step for pulling together and augmenting
the available data, and establishing a mechanism for its
maintenance and dissemination.
The American Coastal Coalition calls on this subcommittee
to insist, as part of WRDA 1998, that the White House Office of
Management and Budget and the Army Corps of Engineers implement
the letter and the spirit of the Shore Protection Act, as
incorporated in section 227 of the 1996 WRDA, and the vast body
of other Federal laws which clearly establish a Federal role
and responsibility to participate in the repair and maintenance
of sandy beaches.
Finally, we urge this subcommittee to energetically support
the research efforts that have placed America at the forefront
of coastal engineering worldwide. Both the Corps of Engineers
and the academic community have, with the help of the Federal
Government, contributed to a dramatic improvement in the body
of knowledge about coastal dynamics and the coastal systems,
knowledge which has begun to result in lower project costs and
increased project effectiveness.
Since these are the very attributes that we all seek,
please provide the necessary authorization to sustain this
vital research.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that beaches are fundamental to
the economy at all levels, that there is an emerging body of
knowledge and literature that so indicates. We believe that it
is proper and appropriate that the Federal Government
participate in partnership to restore and maintain the Nation's
beaches.
We know there are ways to reduce the long-term cost of
beach erosion control projects, methods such as reimbursable
projects, combining beach erosion control with navigation
projects, regionalizing shore protection efforts, implementing
innovative erosion reduction features, and allowing the Corps
the flexibility to carry over allocated funds to subsequent
fiscal years. These measures would increase project
effectiveness and reduce long-term costs.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to
address the subcommittee today, and to lay before you some of
the most pressing shore protection policies.
Senator Warner. Mr. Higgins, we thank you for making the,
comparatively speaking, long journey from Florida, a State that
is very much in our hearts and thoughts these days. In my
lifetime, I cannot recall a single geographic area of this
country subject to so many ill fortunes and ill winds of mother
nature. I hope in due course this thing can be stopped, and you
all can return to your way of life. I wish you luck. Thank you
for making the trip.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Now, from my State, Ms. Strayhorn, we're
delighted, thank you for your patience. But I thought we'd wrap
up with you.
STATEMENT OF LOUISA M. STRAYHORN, CITY COUNCILWOMAN, VIRGINIA
BEACH, VA
Ms. Strayhorn. Well, I appreciate that. And it's very good
to see you again, Chairman Warner.
Senator Warner. Nice to see you.
Ms. Strayhorn. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before the committee about the city's past and ongoing work
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and that city, of
course, is Virginia Beach, about our numerous beach and
navigation projects, and to request serious reconsideration of
Federal beach replenishment cost-sharing.
As you well know, Chairman Warner, Virginia Beach is a
beautiful resort city located only a few hours' drive from this
Nation's capital, and it is the largest city in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. We're hoping you'll take your
vacation fairly soon.
Having served on the city council for the past 4 years, I
know first-hand how the well-being of our beaches is crucial to
the city's economy. The city has over 6 miles of commercial
beachfront, which is critical to the livelihood of many
Virginia Beach residents and the city's financial health, since
tourism is our largest employer.
Over 2 million out-of-town visitors arrived in Virginia
Beach last year. These visitors spent approximately $500
million in the city, and directly created about 11,000 jobs. In
addition to our visitors, the second biggest employer for
Virginia Beach is the U.S. Navy, at the U.S. Naval Air Station,
Oceana supports the largest naval complex in the free world.
After three rounds of base realignment and closure,
expansion of this megaport continues with an increase of as
many as 6,000 sailors and family members in the next year, with
the F/A 18 transfer from Cecil Field to Oceana. And again, my
city wants me to say thank you for your tenacious efforts,
because we know it would not have happened without it.
Our city's economic health directly impacts the quality of
life enjoyed by the thousands of naval personnel in Virginia
Beach. Therefore, because of these many varying factors which
constitute the city, the size of our population over 400,000,
our location on the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay, and our
dependence on tourism as the largest segment of our economy,
the Virginia Beach City Council has a particular interest and
directive to protect our beaches and navigable waterways.
As far as protection is concerned, sandy beaches are an
integral part of the city's coastal infrastructure and provide
the first line of defense against storm waves, and form the
basis for our continued economic vitality.
For the past 25 years, the city, in conjunction with the
Corps, has been working to finish the region's highest
priority, the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane
Protection Project. This project protects and enhances six
miles of commercial and residential beach front consisting of
over $1 billion in flood insured development against a direct
hit from a hurricane. The project protects hundreds of millions
of dollars of city infrastructure, our tourism industry, and
more than a thousand residential and commercial properties
along the shore.
Study on this program as a Federal project began in the
1960's, and after long anticipation, the project was authorized
by Congress for the construction in the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act. Actual construction began in fiscal year 1996,
which I know you are well aware of. And depending on
appropriations levels, construction will be completed in the
year 2001.
This will afford us a vast improvement in protection from
storm events. The area protected by the project will be saved
from average annual flooding damages estimated at over $13
million per year during the project's 50-year life.
An issue facing this committee, as you prepare the WRDA, is
the Administration's proposed revision in cost-sharing for
beach replenishment. Once construction of this beach erosion
control and hurricane protection project is complete, the
authorization includes the periodic renourishment of the
project beach for a 50-year period. The very basis for the
project's performance estimates is founded in the premise that
the beach and seawall will act together to provide the
protection benefits the beach must maintain.
Although not specifically addressed in the draft language
supplied by the Administration, the application of a revised
cost sharing must not affect ongoing or existing projects. We
have based our participation in this project and agreed to
maintain the constructed project with the belief that the cost-
sharing formulation in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act
would remain at the authorized level of 65 percent Federal and
35 percent local. The Administration has proposed to change the
beach replenishment portion of these projects to 35 percent
Federal and 65 percent local.
While the merits of revision could be argued, any
application of new cost sharing levels must be limited to new
authorities. And we urge you to specifically address this issue
as you move forward with the WRDA, because we feel that it
would be otherwise unfair. If the Administration's new cost-
sharing formula were applied to our existing project, the cost
to the city of Virginia Beach over and above the amount
specified in our project cooperation agreement would escalate
by more than $40 million.
As a member of the city council, when the council
authorized our city manager to enter into the agreement with
the Corps of Engineers, I can tell you, first-hand, that the
citizens of Virginia Beach and its council would feel betrayed
if the rules were changed in the middle of the project and a
cost-sharing increase, as a result, by over $40 million would
indeed be a hardship to our citizens.
We would urge you to reject the Administration's proposal.
We must consider both flood damage reduction benefits and the
vital economic contributions that the Nation's beach tourism
industry generates.
In conclusion, I would like to highlight the following
points and recommendations to the committee. First, we urge the
committee to clarify in its bill that any revisions to the
cost-sharing formulation for beach replenishment only apply to
projects not yet authorized or constructed. We would also urge
the committee to review all the merits and benefits of the
Federal beach replenishment program and prevent the
Administration's cost-sharing formula proposal from being
enacted.
Finally, in our view, the Department of the Interior has
overstepped its authority by assessing fees to local
governments for mining beach replenishment sand in the
furtherance of projects authorized by this committee. We have
detailed this problem in my written testimony, and I will not
go into it in detail here. However, we do urge you to consider
language for the WRDA that will prohibit the Interior
Department from applying its authority under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act for any project authorized by the
WRDA.
The city of Virginia Beach is the only locality in the
country to have ever been compelled to pay the mining fee.
Directive language for reimbursement of the $198,000 mining fee
that the city has been forced to pay would be greatly
appreciated.
Chairman Warner, I want to thank you again for the
opportunity to speak with you today on these issues of extreme
importance to the over 400,000 citizens of Virginia Beach. The
work of this committee has had a very positive effect on our
community through nearly 50 years of continuous beach
replenishment, and now with the construction of the new beach
erosion control and hurricane protection project at our resort
area.
To you, Chairman Warner, we especially appreciate all that
you have done for Virginia and the Nation, and hope that you
will be able to continue to support us with these requests.
Thank you.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
Listening to your excellent statement evokes some of the
happiest memories of a lifetime--visiting the beach. I will
definitely be back at the earliest opportunity.
I must say, we have been successful in our funding with the
projects to date.
Now, what I'd like to do is pose two brief questions and
we'll just go from Mr. Nagle straight down. And if you could
shorten your answers; they're simple questions. I would like to
get a record of your responses.
Would you be supportive of cost-sharing changes if the
Administration were to give assurance it would budget for and
submit for the shore protection projects? Well, that's right,
you wouldn't have a comment on that, so thank you. Mr. Faber.
Mr. Faber. Well, as much as I enjoy Virginia Beach, my
employer won't allow me to go that close. I'd have to leave
rivers to get to the ocean.
Senator Warner. Well, we can't do that. Ms. Strayhorn, what
do you believe? I'm just trying to get some sense of where I've
got some moving around.
Ms. Strayhorn. The 65 percent that we're talking about here
is a really important point to us. We feel that the Nation as a
whole benefits from the economy that is engendered by this, our
tourism industry, and the tourism industry all over the
country. We just feel that that is a fair distribution of that,
and that 65 percent needs to remain.
Senator Warner. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, speaking with my local hat on,
we've always liked the 1986 formula, because it was really a
good deal for the locals and the State.
Looking at the larger picture, perhaps, with the budgetary
constraints, it may be appropriate to alter those cost-sharing
proportions. I would urge you, though, to base them on some
factual representation of who the true beneficiaries of the
project are, rather than a random assignment of costs.
Hopefully, accompanied by new projects, that would allow a
smooth transition into a new formula, rather than be
retroactive.
Senator Warner. Sure. Mr. Pringle.
Mayor Pringle. Mr. Chairman, the 65 percent seems to be a
fair share for the Government. In our case, we draw people from
other States. To impose the lion's share on State and local
government seems to be unfair.
I might suggest that part of the allocation should be based
upon the extent to which an area benefits the public. If it's
an area of beach on which primarily private homes that are
being protected, then perhaps the local share should be greater
there. But where the locale opens up its beaches and makes them
available to the public, then I think, in fact, the public, in
this case the Federal Government, ought to pick up the greater
share of that.
Senator Warner. Mr. Fugate.
Mr. Fugate. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would have to agree, I
think, with the other panel members, in that we would like to
see the formula stay the way it is. We realize in tight
budgetary times there may have to be some adjustments. But I
think a phase-in period for those adjustments would be much
more rational than a quick shift in those, particularly given
the dollars that are involved, it is often very difficult for
State or local governments to make those types of shifts. They
very often have to abandon those projects.
The resultant damage that will come from storms will
probably dip into the Federal coffers anyhow in other areas.
Mr. Faber. Mr. Chairman, could I add just a couple of quick
thoughts on cost-sharing in general.
Senator Warner. Sure.
Mr. Faber. It's obviously an issue that's been before this
committee in the past few water resources development bills. I
think the reason the Administration and certain conservation
groups support cost-sharing in principle is two-fold. One is,
and certainly I think everyone can appreciate this, it helps us
to spread Corps resources further.
Right now, there is simply not enough money to go around,
satisfy all the demands that are being placed on the Corps of
Engineers, whether it's from beach communities or riverside
communities or navigation industry or flood control interests.
Cost-sharing simply allows the Corps to do its job better and
to meet more of the needs of the Nation.
There's also another important principle which was captured
in the flood plain review committee's report, ``Sharing the
Challenge,'' a few years ago, after the flood of 1993. That by
requiring local government to share the cost of these
disasters, we create the incentives necessary to discourage
unwise development, to discourage development in very flood-
prone areas.
The one mistake we have made as a Nation, really beginning
around the turn of the century is, by assuming too much
responsibility for these disasters, and in that way,
encouraging development in places, perhaps, where it should not
have occurred. So the right mix of cost-sharing is obviously a
decision that you should make. But the principle is important,
and that is that we need to give local governments the
incentives to discourage development in very flood-prone areas.
Senator Warner. Let me start with you on another issue, and
that is the current length of each renourishment contract is 50
years. Seems to be sort of a length of time to tie up Federal
resources, and seems to inhibit the construction of new
projects.
Would it not be more reasonable to limit contracts to 25
years, which would still do the beach protection, but in my
judgment it would free up some funds for other areas?
Mr. Faber. I think the requirement of the 50-year contract
reflects the Corps' general desire to make sure that these
projects have a long project life, and not to simply go in,
build something and have to return a few years later. So it may
make sense to have a 20-year or 25-year contract.
I think perhaps the bigger issue is how to prioritize the
problems facing flood-prone communities nationally. Every
community that's facing these sorts of problems sees its
problem as the Nation's No. 1 priority. And I can appreciate
that.
But fortunately, we do know where the Nation's most
repetitively flood-prone structures are. It seems to me it
makes sense to marshal our resources to attack those problems,
rather than doing it in something of a piecemeal fashion, which
is unfortunately what we've done to date.
Senator Warner. I'm going to stick to the 50 versus 25.
Ms. Strayhorn.
Ms. Strayhorn. On the local level, we realize we cannot
possibly have as long a term as we would like, but something
different could be considered. I don't think we would have a
problem with the issue being reconsidered.
However, of course, it would have to be for any projects
that were not under way at the present time.
Senator Warner. You want to grandfather them all in?
Ms. Strayhorn. Absolutely. Because when people plan, when
you have put in already 50 years for something, and we've
planned as a community and budgeted for it, we don't have much
choice when someone comes up and says, well, we're going to
change it. What do we do for that when we have other mandated
expenses we need to take care of?
Senator Warner. Well, I have to tell my good friends from
Virginia Beach, the little voice is telling me I won't be here
for 50 years. So somebody will have to pick up where I drop
off, then.
Ms. Strayhorn. I don't think you should make that
statement. You don't know.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Even 50-plus mine would beat Strom
Thurmond's 95.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I think the 50-year project life
is an artifact of the way all public projects are approached in
terms of an economic analysis. It may not be appropriate from
an engineering standpoint for beach erosion control projects,
if only because they vary in durability so much. Some projects
require maintenance every 15 years, some projects require much
more frequent maintenance, therefore increasing the long-term
costs.
I don't know how much money shortening the project life to
25 years would save, when you consider the discounting of the
dollar. I do know that for some projects, a 25-year life would
probably mean just as much of an investment, because of the
need to renourish frequently, as other projects would in 50
years. Therefore, it's difficult to apply a blanket economic
analysis for all these variability of projects, but I don't
know whether it's possible to look at each project and apply a
custom-made economic analysis.
I think in the interest of maintaining a balanced budget we
should look at all the options.
Senator Warner. We're trying to break the logjam and move
around. Mr. Pringle, do you have any views on it?
Mayor Pringle. Mr. Chairman, I think that's a reasonable
compromise.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
Mr. Fugate.
Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I'd have to say to
that is that whatever project life is chosen, whether it's 10,
20, 50 years, I would suggest that most of us are going to be
facing the problems that we have right now at the end of those
project lives, unless other programs are brought in place to
adjust patterns of development and give incentives for
structures to be relocated out of these areas, and other
management techniques put in place to manage these serious
problems.
Senator Warner. I have another question. You spoke earlier
about the feasibility study with the Army Corps on the Rhode
Island south coast. Do you know yet, after the feasibility is
done, what the overall cost will be for the projects there?
Mr. Fugate. We're estimating right now, looking at the
projects that are in stream, we anticipate we'll probably be
about $5 million per pond, the coastal lagoon system that we're
looking at, and we have three major coastal lagoon systems that
would be involved.
Senator Warner. Ladies and gentlemen, we've had, I think,
an excellent hearing. If necessary, we will try and accord some
opportunity for other perspectives on this very important piece
of legislation. But she's going to be a tough one. As we say in
the Navy, stand by for ram, we've got to move it.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
----------
Statement of Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, U.S. Senator from the
State of North Dakota
Just over a year ago Grand Forks, North Dakota; Grafton, North
Dakota; East Grand Forks, Minnesota; and other communities in the Red
River Valley were devastated by flooding of historic proportions.
Following a dozen blizzards which dumped 3 years of snow in 3 months
time, the Red River swelled to a height of 54 feet, 26 feet above flood
stage. Estimates are that the flooding, classified as a 500-year event,
caused damaged in excess of $1 billion. Thousands of homes and
businesses were lost. Tens of thousands of residents were displaced.
Simply put, it was a disaster bigger than anyone could imagine.
Grand Forks, ND, and East Grand Forks, MN
Just over a year ago, Grand Forks and East Grand Forks were virtual
ghost towns. Water was waist-deep in the streets. Eleven buildings in
downtown Grand Forks stood as burned-out hulks. But, with unprecedented
Federal disaster assistance, the recovery process was beginning even as
the flood waters were receding, and in the past year, incredible things
have happened. The downtown city areas have begun to be revitalized
through grants, loans and construction. The existing levee system has
been repaired and readied for short-term flood protection. Nearly 500
homes have been purchased in the flood plain. These areas will become
permanent greenways while new, permanent dikes will protect residential
areas beyond the floodway.
Until the cities are protected from future flooding, however, the
recovery process will not be complete. Working with the Army Corps of
Engineers, the two cities have designed a project to provide permanent
flood protection. In February, both city councils voted in favor of a
plan that would include levees, floodwalls, and road raises. The Corps
has determined that the $281.8 million plan has a benefit/cost ratio of
1.13 and is the Net Economic Development plan. Cost sharing between the
Federal and State/local governments is 50/50.
Support for the project is widespread. The project was included as
one of five in the Administration's Water Resources Development Act
1998 proposal. The project also has the support of State and local
governments in both North Dakota and Minnesota; from North Dakota
Governor Schafer, who has promised to provide $52 million in State
funds; and from the North Dakota congressional Delegation as well as
from Senators Wellstone and Grams, and Congressman Peterson in
Minnesota. This project is the key to rebuilding these communities. I
urge the committee's continued support for this vital effort.
Grafton, ND
The City of Grafton was similarly devastated by last year's
flooding. The realities of the disaster forced the city to reconsider a
past decision not to seek a flood control project along the Park River.
The proposed project was authorized initially in 1976, but deauthorized
in 1992. To prevent a reoccurrence of last year's disaster, the city
now seeks reauthorization of the project.
The proposed bypass channel and tieback levees would cost about
$27.3 million. About $9.6 million of the total cost would come from
non-Federal sources. The Administration has stated that it would not
object to reauthorization of the project as long as the environmental
and economic suitability evaluations are updated and reconfirmed. The
Corps is currently in the process of conducting this update. I
understand that the Corps' preliminary benefit/cost assessment is
positive because no new construction has occurred in the floodway,
while many more homes and businesses would be protected than in 1976.
I urge the committee to consider supporting this project that is so
critical to the future of the City of Grafton and, for the record, I
would like to submit a statement from the mayor of Grafton in support
of this vital project.
______
Statement of Fred M. Stark, Mayor, City of Grafton, ND
The City of Grafton is located in the Northeastern corner of North
Dakota; 40 miles from the Canadian border and 10 miles from the
Minnesota border. The City was established on the banks of the Park
River which flows to the Red River just 10 miles to the east. Recurrent
flooding along the South Branch and the main stem Park River causes
significant flood problems at Grafton. The largest flood of record,
which occurred in 1950, inundated almost the entire city. More recent
floods occurred in 1962, 1965, 1969, 1979 and 1997.
90-95 percent of the land within the City limits and area
surrounding the City is located in the flood plain. A diversion plan as
proposed by the Corps of Engineers would secure the community from the
annual impending spring flood, permitting flood preparation and
prevention efforts and finances to be refocused toward developing the
community. A diversion project would extend the life of infrastructure
in the community as frequent flooding is very wearing on sewers,
streets and other utilities.
A diversion project will make land available outside of the flood
plain which will be less costly to develop because buildings will not
need flood-proofing and less costly to the homeowner, as flood
insurance will not be required.
Thank you for your support.
______
Statement of Hon. Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator from the
State of North Dakota
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and members of the committee, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. I am here
today to urge you to authorize the flood control projects for Grand
Forks, ND--East Grand Forks, MN, and for Grafton, ND, in the 1998 Water
Resources Development Act this committee will develop in the coming
weeks. These projects are supported by the local communities and by the
bipartisan Members of Congress from North Dakota and Minnesota that
represent these cities.
As you recall, in April of last year, the Red River Valley in North
Dakota and Minnesota faced the most significant flooding in recorded
history. However, the flood of 1997 really began months before, in 1996
and early 1997, as blizzard after blizzard blanketed the region with
record snowfalls. Just as meteorologists name hurricanes throughout the
hurricane season, weather forecasters in the Northern Great Plains
began naming the blizzards that seemed to hit on almost a weekly basis.
The last was blizzard ``Hannah,'' on the weekend of April 5-6.
Hannah was the strongest winter storm in 50 years to hit the
Valley, bringing tremendous destruction. The blizzard hit just as the
residents of the Valley were preparing for what was already expected to
be significant flooding. In fact, people were sandbagging as the
blizzard began. Hannah dumped two feet of snow in areas, bringing the
total to 10 feet for the season more than three feet above the previous
record snowfall. Hannah began with a terrible ice storm that downed
power lines leaving more than 80,000 customers without power in sub-
zero weather. Some were without electricity for more than a week in
these conditions.
And then the snow began to melt.
The Red River of the North swelled to 54.11 feet at Grand Forks--26
feet above flood-stage. The cities up and down the Valley worked
feverishly day and night with the Army Corps of Engineers to prepare
for the flood, raising and raising the levees to try to protect their
cities. Many were successful. But the flooding in the northern end of
the Valley was beyond the best efforts of the cities of Grand Forks and
East Grand Forks. They were devastated by the historic flood as nearly
the entire community was evacuated. The impact the flood had on these
communities was unprecedented with tens of thousands of residents
displaced, thousands of homes and businesses lost, and billions of
dollars in damages. Simply put, it was a disaster of cataclysmic
proportions.
During this time of incredible need, the Federal Government
marshaled an extraordinary response to this disaster. President
Clinton, Vice President Gore, FEMA Director James Lee Witt, several
members of the Cabinet, and many Members of Congress personally visited
the area to see the destruction first-hand and to offer words of hope
to the communities. The Federal disaster aid provided by this Congress
has made an enormous difference in the lives and the future of the
residents of the area.
However, this recovery process will not be complete until Grand
Forks and East Grand Forks can be protected from a repeat of last
year's flooding. Throughout the last year, these two communities have
worked closely with the Army Corps of Engineers in an effort to design
a permanent flood protection project. The result of this partnership is
a project which will include construction of a series of setback levees
and floodwall. The levees and floodwall will provide a level of
protection equivalent that necessary to protect against the flood of
1997.
According to the Corps figures, the total cost of this flood
protection project is $300.6 million. The project's Benefit/Cost ratio
of 1.13 was determined by the Corps to be the plan that provides the
maximum net economic benefits. In accordance with the cost-sharing
requirements in the 1986 WRDA, the local communities will pay for 50
percent of the total cost of this project.
As you know, the Administration included this project in the
proposal forwarded to Congress earlier this year and introduced by
request as S. 2131. It is imperative that this project come to
fruition. Each and every citizen of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks
needs the peace of mind that a permanent flood protection project will
be constructed to protect the city. It is essential to the rebuilding
and long-term recovery effort of these two communities. I would ask the
consent of the committee to also include a statement by Grand Forks
Mayor Pat Owens in the official hearing record.
The flood on 1997 did not only affect Grand Forks. It also
significantly affected the community of Grafton, North Dakota, which is
near the confluence of the Park River and Red River, about 30 miles
north of Grand Forks. Grafton faced tremendous overland flooding in
addition to the waters high above the banks of the Park River. In 1997
the northern Red River Valley was literally transformed from a river to
the lake it was thousands of years ago after the glaciers retreated. At
some points, in 1997 the Red River reached more than 30 miles wide. It
was an awesome sight for anyone able to see it from the air.
To help protect Grafton from such future flooding, the city is
seeking to have a project along the Park River reauthorized in this
year's WRDA legislation. The project was initially authorized in 1976
after a Corps feasibility study found the project feasible, but the
project was deauthorized in 1991 at the city's request because of
financial considerations. The city of Grafton has now reconsidered the
need for the project and the city's ability to fund the local share of
the project, and has decided to seek its reauthorization this year.
The project involves a bypass channel north of the city and a
system of tieback levees west of the city. The current total cost of
the project is estimated to be $27.3 million, about $17.7 million of
which would be from Federal funds and $9.6 million would be non-
Federal. The project was clearly feasible when it was previously
authorized, and no change has been made or is envisioned for the plan.
To ensure the project remains feasible, the Corps has indicated
they would likely conduct a ``limited reevaluation report'' to review
the projects economic feasibility and environmental acceptability. The
Administration has indicated, in a letter from Acting OMB Director Jack
Lew to the North Dakota congressional delegation, that they would not
object to reauthorization of this project if these requirements are
met. A copy of this letter is attached to my testimony, and I ask that
it also be included in the official record. I would also ask that the
committee include in the hearing record a copy of the Grafton city
council's resolution and letter of transmittal in support of
reauthorizing this project.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus for this
opportunity to make the case for these critical flood control projects.
I urge you to authorize them, and I would be happy to help provide any
additional information the committee finds necessary as you prepare for
a mark-up session and flood consideration of this important piece of
legislation.
______
Statement of Pat Owens, Mayor, Grand Forks, ND
Mr. Chairman, ranking member Baucus and members of the committee, I
would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to
submit written testimony for inclusion in the hearing record for the
Water Resources Development Act of 1998. I urge you to authorize
permanent flood control for the cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota and
East Grand Forks, Minnesota a project which is vitally important to our
community
The winter of 1996-1997 brought record snowfall to our region. A
total of eight blizzards between November and April had hit our
community hard and by April 7, 1997, President Clinton had twice
declared the entire State of North Dakota a disaster area. In April
1997 spring flooding of the Red River at a crest of 54 feet--26 feet
above flood stage--inundated the levee system in the city of Grand
Forks, resulting in significant damage to the majority of residences,
businesses and infrastructure in the city. During the flood the
majority of the city was under mandatory evacuation and the remainder
of the residents were asked to voluntarily evacuate because the city
was unable to provide essential services. The city's water treatment
plant was overcome by floodwaters and the water supply was
contaminated. Fires in the flooded downtown area destroyed a
significant number of businesses city offices were overtaken by
floodwaters. The region's only full-service hospital was forced to shut
town because the floodwaters swept across town and backed up through
the storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. Three of the city's schools
were damaged beyond repair.
Today the city of Grand Forks is on the road to recovery. Downtown
businesses that were damaged or destroyed by the fire are either back
up and running or rebuilding. The Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper The
Grand Forks Herald rebuilt in the exact same location where their
building had burned down. Groundbreakings of a downtown Corporate
Center and County Office Building took place in May. There is a feeling
of community spirit and re-growth in Grand Forks that could never have
taken place without the assistance of Federal and State Governments
non-profit organizations, people and agencies across the United States,
and of course, the citizens and city employees of Grand Forks. I would
like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped us this
past year. Unfortunately, the city will not be safe or secure from a
repeat of this devastation unless permanent flood control is in place.
Both the Cities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks have worked
closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a permanent
flood control project. Without permanent flood control protection, the
city will be left in a state of uncertainty regarding future flooding.
The project involves several miles of levees, floodwalls, and road
raises to be constructed along both sides of the Red River, as well as
the Red Lake River, which joins the Red River in Grand Forks.
The project selected jointly by the cities of Grand Forks, ND and
East Grand Forks, MN is the National Economic Development (NED) plan.
This specific proposal provides the greatest net benefits for the price
at a benefit/cost ratio of 1.13. The project's total cost is $300.6
million with a 50-50 split between the Federal Government and State/
local government. The non-Federal costs have been divided between the
two cities in a 70-30 split, with the city of Grand Forks responsible
for $104 million. The State and local governments in North Dakota and
Minnesota support this project. Governor Edward Schafer said he would
provide $52 million in State funding, half of the North Dakota share
for the non-Federal costs of the project. The administration supports
the project and included it in the proposal they sent to Congress. The
project also has bipartisan support by Senators Dorgan, Conrad,
Wellstone, and Grams, and Representatives Pomeroy and Peterson.
Mr. Chairman, ranking member Baucus, and members of the committee,
I ask that you authorize the permanent flood project supported by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The safety and security of the citizens
to prevent this type of disaster from happening again can be achieved
with a permanent flood control project. Thank you.
______
City of Grafton,
Grafton, ND, February 5, 1998.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
Federal Building, Bismark, SD.
Dear Senator Conrad: The City of Grafton passed a resolution of
intent to pursue a Park River flood diversion project. We respectfully
request your support for the Federal funding of this project and also
your assistance in helping guide us through the appropriate procedures.
It is our understanding that local costs will be 35 percent of the
total of the project. We believe that this project is an important part
of insuring the future of our community as well as providing security
against overland flooding.
Thanking you I remain,
Very sincerely yours,
Terrance D. Henriksen, Mayor,
City of Grafton, ND.
______
Resolution No. 1395
City of Grafton--A Resolution of Intent--Park River Flood
Diversion Project
WHEREAS, residents of the City of Grafton, Walsh County, North
Dakota, have suffered severe damage and loss of property during past
floods on the Park River, and
WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, has previously prepared
a feasibility study which indicates that economic feasibility exists
for flood protection measures; and
WHEREAS, improvements for flood protection can be undertaken
subject to authorization and appropriation of funds by Congress,
provided that local interests agree that when requested they will give
assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will
share in the total cost of the non-Federal share which is estimated to
be approximately $9.55 million; and
WHEREAS, the City of Grafton, Walsh County, North Dakota,
recognizes that the construction of flood protection works is essential
to the residents of this city for their public health and general
welfare; and
WHEREAS, the said City of Grafton, North Dakota, has the legal
capacity and the financial ability to share in the required local
cooperation if and when requested,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, City of Grafton,
North Dakota, that it desires flood protection for its residents and
that it desires and hereby declares its willingness and intention to
undertake and carry out the items of local cooperation substantially as
set forth above, as and when requested.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this resolution be
furnished to and filed with the District Engineer at St. Paul,
Minnesota, as evidence of the City's approval of a project for flood
control in and near said City of Grafton, Walsh County, North Dakota,
and of its intent and willingness to cooperate with the United States
as specified.
ADOPTED: December 11, 1997.
______
Executive Office of the President,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC, June 4, 1998.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: Thank you for your letter regarding the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1998 and Grand Forks-East Grand
Forks project and the Grafton project in North Dakota. You will be
pleased to know that the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks project was
included as one of five project authorizations in the Administration's
WRDA 1998 proposal. This will allow for prompt construction of a
permanent flood protection project for these communities, and so
support rebuilding and recovery efforts. The authorization is
contingent on final approval of the Chief of Engineers report.
Concerning the Grafton project, thank you for informing us that the
City of Grafton recently decided that it would like the Corps project
to be reauthorized. Since many years have passed since the original
authorization, the economic and environmental acceptability of the
project would need to be updated and reconfirmed. The Administration
would not object to reauthorization of this project as long as these
requirements are met.
As you know, the President strongly supports the work of North
Dakota to resolve flooding problems in the State. Thank you for calling
these important projects to our attention.
Sincerely,
Jacob J. Lew,
Acting Director.
______
Statement of Hon. John T. Doolittle, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing
me the opportunity to testify today on an issue of great importance to
me, my constituents and the entire Sacramento region.
Two years ago, I sat before this very committee and told you about
the flood threat in Sacramento. At that time, Sacramento had just 100-
year level flood protection--giving it the dubious distinction of
having the lowest level of protection of any major river city in the
country.
I explained then how the Army Corps of Engineers had determined
that Sacramento could suffer a 250-year flood event at anytime, in any
given year. And I told you in as explicit terms as I knew that, if we
didn't do something right away, Sacramento would flood and people would
die.
On that day, along with a united congressional delegation, I asked
you to do the only thing that would prevent Sacramento from flooding
and, more importantly, the only thing that would protect the lives of
the 400,000 men, women and children living there. On that day, I asked
you to authorize the construction of the Auburn Dam.
In addition to my asking you to do the right thing that day, I also
pleaded with you to not do the wrong thing. I asked you to not
authorize a flood control plan that was so dangerous it was only
supported by a handful of extreme environmentalists who saw it as a way
to kill the Auburn Dam.
Their plan was called the Stepped Release Plan, and its solution
for Sacramento was to raise the existing levees that protect Sacramento
to such heights that they would be able to withstand almost 60 percent
greater flood flows.
The environmentalists supported the Stepped Release Plan because it
would have killed the Auburn Dam. I opposed that plan because it would
have killed people.
Thankfully for Sacramento, others agreed with me. In fact, the
opposition to the Stepped Release Plan was impressive and impactful:
<bullet> Butch Hodgkins, the Executive Director for the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency, testified before this committee that the
Stepped Release Plan would ``red-line'' the system leaving little room
for error.
<bullet> David Kennedy, the State's Director of Water Resources, in
a letter to Chairman Shuster argued that the ``deeper and faster river
flows'' of the Stepped Release Plan ``would increase the probability of
levee failure caused by erosion.''
<bullet> And in the most damning critique of the plan of all, Joe
Countryman, the very engineer who designed the proposal, wrote in a
strongly worded letter to the committee that, ``By putting more water
through the system instead of developing upstream storage, the Stepped
Release Plan pushes the existing system to its limits. Many experienced
flood operators are very concerned that the 100-year old flood system
would not be able to withstand the planned 56 percent increase in flood
flows that the Stepped Release Plan would require.''
<bullet> Even the Sacramento Bee--a newspaper not known for
agreeing with me on much--warned Washington about the potential dangers
of the Stepped Release Plan, saying, ``. . . [the Stepped Release Plan]
is the most dangerous of all the flood plans under review, posing major
risks both for public safety and the environment. It is also by far the
most expensive in terms of the local costs it would impose because it
fails nearly all the tests for justifying Federal investment.
Fortunately, it was never seriously considered by the local flood board
. . .''
Words like ``red-line,'' ``major risks,'' ``levee failure,'' and
``fails all the tests'' are not normally used to describe a project
that this committee authorizes, and thankfully for the 400,000
residents of Sacramento put in jeopardy by that plan, this committee
rejected the Stepped Release Plan.
I'm sure it won't surprise you that, in their ongoing effort to
kill the Auburn Dam, the extreme environmentalists are once again
asking you to support this dangerous plan in this year's Water
Resources Development Act.
But what will surprise you is that many of those who testified
against the Stepped Release Plan 2 years ago have now joined with the
environmentalists in supporting the very plan they once called the most
dangerous of all.
You will hear from them that the Stepped Release Plan is now a safe
plan, that the half-century old levees--as battered and unstable as
they might be--are now certain to withstand the 60 percent greater
flood flows, and that this plan will now adequately protect Sacramento
from flooding.
So you might be asking yourself, ``what's changed in the last 2
years?'' Have things changed so much in Sacramento that ``the most
dangerous plan of all'' can be transformed into the preferred flood
control alternative?
It is true that things have changed in Sacramento. But the change
is not what you might expect given the recent switch of position by
some, and it certainly isn't a change that would give you any more
reason to support the Stepped Release Plan.
The first change that occurred is that, on New Years Day of 1997,
Sacramento--and virtually the entire State--once again suffered severe
flooding.
In fact, the flood was so great that the State of California called
it ``probably the largest in the 90-year northern California measured
record . . .''
Over the course of the 3-day storm, 30,000 homes were ruined
throughout northern California, $2 billion in property was flooded,
2,000 businesses were destroyed, and 17 people were killed.
The devastation was largely caused when more than 50 levees
throughout northern California broke--the very same type of levees
which protect Sacramento from flooding today and which supporters of
the Stepped Release Plan are asking you to rely on to protect
Sacramento.
Fortunately for Sacramento, the American River levees held strong.
But had it not been for an already existing dam upstream and a
little luck from Mother Nature, Sacramento would have flooded. Indeed,
consider the following facts and you'll see how lucky Sacramento was:
<bullet> Inflow into Folsom Reservoir peaked at 252,500 cubic feet
per second--the greatest inflow ever measured in recorded history.
<bullet> In order to compensate for the massive inflow, for over 30
straight hours, the Bureau of Reclamation made releases of 115,000
cubic feet per second from Folsom Dam--the maximum amount the American
River levees are presently designed to withstand.
<bullet> The County of Sacramento River issued a voluntary
evacuation order.
<bullet> And most frightening of all, if the path of the storm had
been just slightly north--as originally predicted--the Bureau would
have most likely had to make releases of 160,000 cubic feet per
second--well beyond the design capacity of the levees. If that had
happened, hundreds of people would have been killed and the Federal
Government would have spent billions bailing out Sacramento.
The second change is that, as a result of the 1997 floods, the Army
Corps of Engineers conducted a study to re-evaluate the flood risk to
Sacramento. The Corps' conclusion: Sacramento's flood risk is much
higher than what was believed just 2 years ago.
In fact, in its recently released report, the Corps dropped
Sacramento's flood protection by over 20 years, leaving Sacramento with
only a dismal 77-year flood protection.
And, finally, the third change is that the Army Corps of Engineers
has determined that the Stepped Release Plan no longer protects against
a 200-year flood event.
In fact, in its recent report, the Corps dropped the level of
protection provided by the Stepped Release Plan down to a low of only
145-year protection, leaving the Auburn Dam as the only alternative
able to protect against a 200-year flood event.
This point is of critical importance, because in 1996 before this
very committee, everyone--including the environmental community-agreed
that Sacramento needs at least 200-year protection if it is to
adequately protect against a catastrophic flood event.
So, it's unquestionable that something has changed in Sacramento in
the last 2 years: things have gotten much worse.
And now it is clearer then ever that, without an Auburn Dam--
without a plan that provides at least 200-year protection--Sacramento
will flood and people will be killed.
So you may ask, given this fact, why would the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency and two members of Sacramento's congressional
delegation ask you to support a plan that is clearly inadequate and
just as dangerous for the 400,000 living in Sacramento's floodplain?
Why have they, at this crucial juncture, now decided to
conveniently forget the testimony they gave in 1996 and support the
very plan they argued 2 years ago would kill hundreds of people?
The answer is simple: They don't believe this committee will do the
right thing.
They don't believe this committee will tell the environmental
community that lives are more important than river canyons.
They don't believe this committee will vote for the only plan
which, for just $200 million more (in Federal dollars), will provide
Sacramento with almost three times the level of flood protection.
They don't believe that this committee is concerned that almost
every expert who has looked at the Stepped Release Plan has questioned
its reliability.
They don't believe that members of this committee care that, after
spending more than $.5 billion on the Stepped Release Plan, Sacramento
will still flood and people will still die. And when that event
happens, the $500 million ``investment'' in flood control will be
dwarfed by the $7 billion flood relief bailout Sacramento will seek.
To them, something is better than nothing--even if it's a dangerous
plan, even if it diminishes their hopes for the only flood control
solution that protects them against the flood the experts know will
come, even if it still keeps 400,000 men, women and children in
jeopardy.
Mr. Chairman, I have more faith in this committee than that.
I have faith that, when it comes right down to it, this committee
will resist doing the politically expedient thing and instead will
choose to do the right thing.
We have a moral obligation to do everything within our power,
expend every bit of energy, and risk every bit of political capital we
posses to make sure that people don't die before we give them the flood
protection they need.
I'm not afraid to do the right thing. I know that my standing in
the way of any flood protection is politically risky; I know that
supporters of the Stepped Release Plan think I'm obstructing progress.
But it's a risk I'm willing to take, because in the end my actions will
save lives.
Sacramento--and the people who speak for its residents--need to
become realistic about the grave threat which looms over every man,
woman and child in the floodplain.
They need to be realistic and brave enough to acknowledge that
regardless of the ``tinkering'' we do with its flood control system,
those 400,000 people remain in peril until Sacramento gets at least
200-year protection.
Unfortunately, Sacramento doesn't care to face reality. That's why
its coming to you today and asking you to spend $.5 billion for a plan
that experts acknowledge falls some 50 years short of even minimally
adequate flood protection.
This committee needs to tell Sacramento it needs to get serious
about protecting it's people. This committee needs to acknowledge, that
on its own, the city is not going to muster the political courage to
adequately address its flood control problems and that it needs
direction and incentive.
With that in mind, I will be sending to you shortly legislation
which will make Sacramento get serious about its flood control problems
and help the city protect its people.
Each of these proposals is far more responsible, far more cost-
effective and far less controversial than the inadequate flood plan you
have been asked to approve by some today. These initiatives include:
<bullet> Requiring FEMA to keep in effect flood insurance and
building regulations until Sacramento has flood control which protects
against a 200-year flood event
<bullet> Requiring that any ``stop-gap'' flood control measures
which do not offer 200-year protection (and which are not a part of a
larger, comprehensive, and congressionally authorized plan to protect
against such a flood) be eligible for a maximum 25 percent Federal cost
share
<bullet> Requiring a ``Chiefs Report'' from the Corps of Engineers
before any flood control project for Sacramento is authorized
<bullet> Prohibiting Congress from authorizing any modifications to
Folsom Dam until additional studies of other alternatives are completed
by the Corps
<bullet> Requiring that any modifications to Folsom Dam fully
mitigate for significant economic drawbacks caused by the disruption of
traffic on Folsom Dam road
<bullet> Transferring the current Auburn Dam site to the State of
California so that a flood control decision can be made closer to home.
Mr. Chairman, I will close with one last thought. If we had an
opportunity to help the people of Alabama by supporting a plan which
would guarantee them that not one more person would be killed by a
tornado, not one more house would be destroyed and not one more
family's life would be changed for the worse, we would do it in a
heartbeat--no matter how strong the environmental opposition.
We have a similar opportunity here today. The only difference is
that, if we act quickly enough, we can actually prevent the devastation
from ever occurring, instead of just providing the fix for it after
people have been killed.
Our first step toward that end is clear. I request of you today
that you reject the Stepped Release Plan in its entirety and join me in
working to implement the initiatives which I have outlined to you.
In all my years of holding elected office, I have never dealt with
an issue of this importance, with this urgency, and with this much at
stake. Working together, I am confident that we can work to make
Sacramento be realistic about its flooding peril and also give
Sacramento the protection it needs and deserves.
______
Statement Hon. Wally Herger, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, in the past 12 years,
California has suffered three 100-year level floods. In 1986 flooding
caused $400 million worth of damage, fortunately no lives were lost. In
1995, however, 28 people were killed and more than $1.8 billion worth
of damage was caused by early and late winter floods. In 1997, nine
people were killed and more than $2.6 billion in damage occurred when
warm winter rains melted an unusually high snow pack, forcing water
into California's overburdened flood control system.
Mr. Chairman, for quite some time, I have felt the most effective
flood control policy for California is to place the highest value on
human life and to allow preventative maintenance procedures as a
priority over post-disaster repairs. It is important to pursue all
possible solutions to ensure the best available flood policy for
California. These efforts should include an aggressive approach to
flood control that stresses improved levee systems and increased off-
stream water storage facilities. Without a combination of measures,
levees, by themselves, provide only limited protection and provide no
guarantee that they will not fail. In fact, it has been said that, over
time, there are only two types of levees, those that have failed, and
those that are going to fail. When we get warm rains on top of heavy
snow levels, as we did prior to the flood of 1997, nothing short of
increased water storage can prevent catastrophic flooding.
California has an absolute need to develop aggressive flood
prevention programs and to increase its off stream water storage. Our
flood control system has failed four times in the past 12 years. We
cannot, therefore, implement any program that would weaken California's
flood control system.
In particular, I have serious concerns about the flood control plan
advanced by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). This
plan, which calls for modifications to Folsom Dam and nearly $400
million in levee improvements along the American River, is seriously
flawed. My strong opposition to the plan centers largely on two issues:
(1) First, the plan fails to provide adequate flood protection. For
example during the 1996 congressional debate on this issue,
representatives of every aspect of northern California--including
environmentalists--testified that any flood control plan for Sacramento
must protect, at minimum, against a 200-year flood event. The proposal
currently provided by SAFCA is not only extremely expensive, costing
taxpayers $.5 billion, but it offers approximately only a 150-year
protection. (2) Second, the plan puts the lives of 400,000 floodplain
residents in serious danger. Again, during the 1996 debate Northern
California residents opposed a plan nearly identical to that which was
passed by SAFCA this year as dangerous and unworkable. At that time,
SAFCA's own testimony said the plan would quote ``red-line'' the
system, leaving little room for error. California's Water Resources
Director, David Kennedy, argued quote ``deeper and faster river flows''
would ``increase the probability of levee failure.'' End quote. And in
a stunning critique, the very engineer who designed the plan testified
that quote ``by putting more water through the system . . . [the plan]
pushes the existing system to its limits. Many experienced flood
operators are very concerned that the 100-year old flood system would
not be able to withstand the increased river flows called for under the
plan.'' End quote.
Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to providing flood protection to
Sacramento; however, the plan adopted by SAFCA is critically inadequate
and dangerous. As such, I strongly oppose the plan in Congress and ask
the members of this subcommittee to oppose the plan as well.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works)
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Joseph Westphal,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Accompanying me are
Major General Russell L. Fuhrman, Director of Civil Works for the Army
Corps of Engineers and Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works. We are here today to present the Department of
the Army proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 1998 and to
respond to your questions. We appreciate the opportunity to work with
the Congress on this important legislative initiative. Further, it is
an honor that my first testimony as Assistant Secretary is before this
distinguished subcommittee on such an important piece of legislation.
history and missions of the corps of engineers
We in the Department of the Army are proud of the long and
distinguished history of the Army Corps of Engineers and its service to
the country. Since its founding in 1775, the Corps of Engineers has
contributed to this Nation, through its engineering support to the
military, as the lead agency for the development of the Nation's water
resources, and through programs that restore and protect our
environment. Early on, our missions included such activities as
construction of coastal fortifications and lighthouses, surveying and
pathfinding on the frontier, construction of public buildings, snagging
and clearing of river channels, and construction and operation of early
national parks such as Yellowstone.
To enhance National defense and promote economic development, our
first general Civil Works mission was to help develop this country's
ports and harbors and an extensive inland navigation system. As areas
along our rivers and deltas were developed for agriculture and
commerce, flooding and associated flood damages also became a major
concern. The Mississippi River Commission was formed in 1879 in
acknowledgment of the need for comprehensive water resources
development. Major floods in the Mississippi River basin in the early
1900's resulted in a new role for the Corps of Engineers--flood
control. The Flood Control Act of 1936 recognized flood control as a
proper activity of the Federal Government and gave responsibility for
most projects to the Corps of Engineers. This led to numerous flood
control projects (dams, levees and channels) in the decades of the
forties, fifties, and the sixties. Many of these projects, particularly
the dams and their reservoirs, were multipurpose, providing flood
control, hydropower, water supply, navigation, recreation and fish and
wildlife enhancement. Although these projects served critical purposes,
the lack of good floodplain management in many instances resulted in
extensive development in the floodplains, often placing more people and
development at risk. In the decades of the seventies, eighties and the
nineties, as numerous floods exceeded the capacity of some flood
control projects and caused extensive damage, it became apparent that
better management of the floodplains and a comprehensive strategy for
flood damage reduction or mitigation was necessary. Today, we've
learned not to use the term ``flood control'' as it creates a false
sense of security that may be not only unrealistic, but also dangerous.
In the past decade, we've gained a more realistic sense of Mother
Nature's propensity to demonstrate that floodplains were designed to
receive flood waters. Instead we now focus our efforts on reducing
flood damages and, where appropriate, moving people out of harms way.
Army Corps of Engineers Main Mission Areas:
<bullet> Navigation
<bullet> Flood Damage Reduction
<bullet> Environmental Restoration
Our third major mission; environmental protection and restoration
is not a completely new mission area for the Corps. In fact, this
mission had its origin in the Refuse Act of March 3, 1899, which
granted the Secretary of the Army authority to control certain
discharges into and along the navigable waters of the Untied States. An
excerpt is quoted below:
``It shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit, or
cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or
deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other
floating craft of any kind, or from the shore, wharf,
manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse
matter of any kind or description whatever other than that
flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a
liquid state, into any navigable water of the United States, or
into any tributary of any navigable water from which the same
shall float or be washed into such navigable water; and it
shall not be lawful to deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to
be deposited material of any kind in any place on the bank of
any navigable water, or on the bank of any tributary of any
navigable water, where the same shall be liable to be washed in
such navigable water, either by ordinary or high tides, or by
storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may
be impeded or obstructed: . . .''
The Corps environmental mission has been expanding over time with
major changes in environmental law and policy, such as the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires each Federal agency to
assess fully its actions affecting the environment, and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly called the Clean Water
Act) in which the Corps was given a major responsibility for regulating
the discharge of dredged or fill material into all of our Nation's
waters, including wetlands. Subsequent Water Resources Development Acts
have expanded further the environmental protection and restoration
mission of the Corps of Engineers.
While the Corps has undertaken and continues to execute many Civil
Works missions, to include disaster response, hydropower production,
recreation, water supply, coastal shore protection, natural resources
management and development of environmental infrastructure, the three
primary missions of navigation, flood damage reduction, and
environmental protection and restoration are the priority outputs of
today's Civil Works program.
importance of a water resources development act
We share with the Congress a firm commitment to water resources
development and the biennial authorization cycle with the following
goals:
<bullet> A strong water resources development program is a sound
investment in our Nation's economic future and environmental stability.
Communities across the country rely on water resources projects to
reduce flood damages, compete more efficiently in world trade, provide
needed water and power, provide recreational opportunities, and protect
and enhance our rich environmental resources.
<bullet> We have a responsibility to our project sponsors who have
been doing their part by sharing feasibility study costs and
construction costs. Our goal is to match our sponsors' commitment with
realistic, cost efficient schedules, and timely authorization for
justified and environmentally acceptable projects.
<bullet> The 2-year authorization shows our support for orderly
water resources development. A water resources development act is the
principal vehicle for obtaining necessary legislation to authorize the
projects that our studies have shown to be good Federal investments.
Legislation is often necessary to realize the goal of making our
programs more effective and efficient by addressing policy issues.
As you are well aware, there are many pressing needs for water
resources development in this country. We must work together to address
these problems in the full light of our fiscal capabilities and
constraints. To help us meet our mutual objectives, we suggest the
following principles be utilized as we formulate a final Water
Resources Development Act for 1998:
<bullet> Preservation of the Concept of Cost Sharing. At the heart
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 were the beneficiary pay
reforms which included cost sharing. This allowed local sponsors the
opportunity to be active participants in the water resources
development process, thereby revitalizing the program. Cost sharing
serves as a market test of a project's merits, ensures active
participation by project sponsors and beneficiaries, and ensures
project cost effectiveness. We have found it to be an eminently
successful policy. The cost sharing reforms enacted in WRDA 1996 should
also be preserved.
<bullet> Fiscal Responsibility. The Nation's water resources
infrastructure must be maintained and improved to meet future needs,
but in consonance with other national priorities and a balanced budget.
We should never create false hope by authorizing projects that we
cannot reasonably expect to fund or complete within a reasonable
timeframe. In light of the $20 billion backlog of ongoing Corps
construction projects, and other authorized projects awaiting
construction, the dollar magnitude for new projects and programs in the
Administration's proposal is constrained. It is limited to authorizing
vital new projects and programs, some of which are expected to be
phased in over a number of years, to give priority to completion of
ongoing construction projects. The total cost of the bill is $1.462
billion, with a Federal cost of $829 million and a non-Federal cost of
$633 million. This will allow us to move toward a more sustainable
long-term construction program and more timely project delivery to non-
Federal sponsors. To authorize a significantly greater number of new
projects and programs than proposed by the Administration would be
untenable.
<bullet> Authorization of Justified Projects That Have Completed
Administration Review. To justify the authorization of appropriations
of constrained Federal dollars, we must assure the public that proposed
projects have passed a full review and are in accord with the Federal
laws and policies established to protect the environment and to set
priorities for the use of those funds. The Administration urges
Congress to restrict new authorizations to justified projects likely to
be funded over the next several years.
the army civil works legislative program for 1998
The Army Civil Works legislative program was forwarded to the
Congress on April 22, 1998. This program consists of important
legislative proposals for the administration of the Civil Works program
and authorizations for projects recommended by the Administration. I
would like to emphasize some of the more important provisions below:
Challenge 21--Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration
Challenge 21, the centerpiece of the Army Civil Works Legislative
Program for 1998, will provide the Nation with a comprehensive tool for
reducing flood damages. Part of a $25 million Fiscal Year 1999 budget
request, this initiative expands the use of non-structural options to
achieve the dual purposes of flood damage reduction and the restoration
of riverine ecosystems. Challenge 21 responds to those communities who
have expressed a strong desire to aggressively reduce or even eliminate
repeated losses and improve the quality of their environment by
creating partnerships with these State, tribal and local entities,
allowing their priorities to be realized.
The Mississippi River floods of 1993 and the floods of 1997
revealed both strengths and weaknesses in the way we manage floods and
have taught us important lessons about Federal floodplain management.
These record floods have submerged entire towns; destroying homes,
businesses, farms, wildlife and, in some cases, taking human lives. In
response we, as a Nation, are now spending over $4 billion a year for
disaster recovery due to floods. And while the dams and levees we've
built continue to prevent billions of dollars in flood damages, many
communities are still flooded--often on a frequent basis. We have
learned several lessons from these tragic events.
Challenge 21 will:
<bullet> Focus on non-structural solutions to reducing flood
damages while maintaining the flexibility to use more
traditional structures (e.g., levees, flood walls) where
appropriate;
<bullet> Create a framework for more effective Federal
coordination of flood programs;
<bullet> Create a partnership with the community to develop a
comprehensive solution to reducing damages and improving
quality of life; and
<bullet> Focus on watershed-based solutions that can include
the restoration of riparian and wetland ecosystems.
One very important lesson we've learned is that structural flood
control measures are not always successful in preventing the flooding
of our communities. In some cases, no matter what we do and no matter
how much money we spend, the waters still come. In those cases, we
should focus less on trying to control flood waters and more on
reducing the negative impacts of flood damages. This leads us to
another important point--paying billions of dollars annually for
repeated damages is not a fiscally sustainable course. We must break
this cycle and aggressively look to other solutions. Since flooding
cannot always be prevented, we can reduce our national disaster relief
bill by shifting our focus to include a greater use of non-structural
flood damage reduction measures.
In some cases, structural solutions have lulled us into a false
sense of security as we build closer and closer to the river. In fact,
in many cases, development and the resulting increase in stormwater
run-off have dramatically changed the hydrology of our floodplains by
significantly reducing their ability to store water. In addition,
development in the floodplain has often had devastating effects on the
natural ecosystems and habitat along our rivers. Thus, another lesson
we've learned is that over-development of our floodplains has, in some
cases, actually increased the risk of flooding. This committee has been
helpful in this area by passing a WRDA in 1996 that requires that
communities prepare floodplain management plans as a condition for
Federal flood projects. However, we need to do more.
Examples of Non-structural Approaches:
<bullet> Removal of floodplain structures
<bullet> Floodproofing
<bullet> Flood warning systems
<bullet> Wetlands restoration
Challenge 21 responds, through its focus on nonstructural
alternatives to flood protection, to the first lesson, that structural
flood control measures are not a panacea. Challenge 21 will work with
other Federal agencies to move families and businesses out of harm's
way, where appropriate, thereby returning the floodplains of rivers and
creeks to a condition where they can naturally moderate floods, while
maintaining the flexibility to use more traditional structures and
ultimately reducing our national natural disaster relief bill.
Potential solutions will include an array of cost-effective non-
structural and structural measures. Through these measures, Challenge
21 will also provide benefits to our environment. For example, a
project might include the relocation of threatened homes and businesses
and the restoration of wetlands and other natural floodwater storage
areas within the floodplain.
Quick Facts on Challenge 21:
<bullet> Six year programmatic authority for the Corps of
Engineers;
<bullet> $325 million total Corps program cost;
<bullet> $75 million Corps per project cap;
<bullet> Projects subject to specific criteria;
<bullet> Projects will be cost-shared 65 percent Federal/35
percent non-Federal;
<bullet> Project notification to Congress required;
<bullet> Report to Congress on program accomplishments
required by 2004.
Structural approaches to flood protection will continue to play an
important role in our efforts to reduce flood damages when such
solutions are economically and environmentally justified. Challenge 21
projects may, in fact, include structural components as part of an
overall flood damage reduction strategy. In short, with Challenge 21,
the Corps is expanding its flood damage reduction mission portfolio to
more effectively meet community needs.
Western Governors' Association
In their December 1997 Report, WGA recommended that ``Federal
and State priorities should encourage relocation and
restoration of the natural beneficial functions of flood plain
areas.''
Subsequently in a June 9, 1998 letter to congressional
committees, WGA wrote, ``The Western Governors find that the
concepts behind Challenge 21 to be consistent with many of the
priorities we identified. . . . in our December 1997 report. We
commend the Corps for putting forward this proposal.
Challenge 21 will also improve inter-agency and inter-governmental
coordination. The Western Governor's Association's January 1997 report,
``An Action Plan for Reducing Flood Risk in the West'', not only
recommended nonstructural floodplain management tools, but also
outlined State and Federal roles and responsibilities. These Governors
recognized that no one level of government will solve this problem. It
will take the combined, coordinated effort of Federal, State, tribal,
and local government, working in cooperation with communities, to be
successful. The Corps, along with Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), have signed a memorandum of agreement with the Western
Governor's Association (WGA) to implement specific actions of
coordination. Thus, another lesson we've learned is that Federal
floodplain management policy needs to be better coordinated and the
work needs to be shared not only throughout the Federal Government, but
also by creating partnerships with State, tribal, and local entities.
Challenge 21 projects will also be coordinated fully with Federal,
State, tribal and local communities. Because the cost of projects will
be shared, no project will be implemented unless State, tribal and
local sponsors support it. Thus, through coordination with other
Federal agencies and State and local communities, Challenge 21
addresses another lesson we've learned from the past decade of floods--
flood damage reduction efforts must include partnering between Federal
agencies and State, tribal and local communities.
Watershed by watershed, Challenge 21 builds on existing programs
and initiates and expands partnerships with other Federal and non-
Federal national and local entities. Key Federal partners include FEMA
and the Department of Agriculture. Through Federal partnering, a
Challenge 21 project could include an urban structure relocation piece
led by FEMA and a rural wetland restoration piece led by the Department
of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service. Thus,
Challenge 21 relies on the collective knowledge, expertise and
authorities of many Federal water resource agencies.
The Willamette River in Oregon is a good example of a potential
Challenge 21 project. The existing system of Corps projects in the
Willamette controls only about 27 percent of the basin runoff and is
capable of controlling up to a 2 to 5 year event. After a thirty year
absence, major flooding became a real and powerful presence in February
1996 for the Willamette River Basin. Flood frequencies ranged from a 2
to 200 year event, 23 counties were declared disaster areas, numerous
cities and communities suffered major damages and agricultural losses
were widespread. Due to continued population growth and corresponding
development in the Willamette floodplain, the Willamette River Basin
has lost much of its natural flood storage capacity and a significant
flood risk remains.
In 1996, the conservation group River Network completed a study of
the hydrologic feasibility and benefits of restoring floodplains for
natural flood management in the Willamette Valley. They concluded that
floodplain restoration opportunities exist to reduce flood hazards to
homes, public structures and farms while allowing for fish and wildlife
habitat restoration. In addition, the Willamette Basin Floodplain
Restoration Study is a new start General Investigation study for fiscal
year 1998. The proposed study and project focus on benefits of flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration. This provides an excellent
opportunity to provide additional flood protection for the Willamette
Basin through nonstructural floodplain restoration measures.
National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management
Agencies Support Challenge 21
In an April 14, 1998, letter, NAFSMA wrote, ``The NAFSMA
Board of Directors strongly supports Challenge 21 . . . and are
very encouraged by this important new initiative for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.''
Non-structural flood damage reduction measures are gaining momentum
across the country. We are very interested in pursuing such approaches
as we work with communities to reduce flood damages. It is important to
note that this is not just an Army initiative--many communities and
floodplain interest groups support Challenge 21 nonstructural
approaches. In a March 31 hearing before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, the National Association of Flood and
Stormwater Management Agencies, the National Wildlife Federation,
American Rivers and the Association of State Floodplain Managers all
expressed support for nonstructural solutions. And the National
Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies and the
National Association of Counties, recently joined the other groups in
endorsing Challenge 21.
``. . . Be it resolved that the National Association of
Counties supports the watershed based, multi-agency initiative
for Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation
(Challenge 21) . . .''--National Association of Counties March
1, 1998 Resolution
We have learned a great deal from the floods of the past and these
important lessons have prompted the Administration to find a more
sustainable approach to reducing flood damages and restoring our
riverine ecosystems now . . . an approach that plans for the future
before the flood occurs. We believe that Challenge 21 is that approach.
Challenge 21 will attempt to find permanent nonstructural solutions to
reduce flood damages that, in the long run, will reduce the natural
disaster bill to the American taxpayer.
The recent floods associated with El Nino have reinforced the key
lessons we've learned from the Mississippi River floods of 1993.
Despite our continued reliance on structural flood control measures,
the overall cost of flooding disasters has only increased. Challenge 21
attempts to break the cycle of repeated flooding by addressing the weak
links in our national floodplain management policy with a new
initiative that not only reduces the devastating effects of flooding
but also restores our riparian environment. Working together to enact
Challenge 21, the Congress and the Administration can exercise the
leadership that is needed to provide communities with an important new
tool in our flood damage reduction tool box.
Shore Protection Policy
The Administration is proposing a new approach to shore protection
that would allow a renewed commitment to shore protection in the Army
Corps of Engineers. With the adoption of this approach, the
Administration will consider, consistent with overall funding
constraints, shore protection projects on an equal basis with other
water resources development projects.
As you know the Administration and the Congress have not had a
common vision of the Nation's shore protection policy. The
Administration has had two concerns. First, commitments on existing
shore protection projects that involve periodic nourishment require a
significant amount of future Federal funds. We have found it difficult
to initiate new projects in the face of the cost of these commitments.
Figure 1 below shows the number of shore protection projects where
initial construction was completed by the Corps over the last 50 years.
Of these projects, the Corps has a responsibility to participate in the
periodic nourishment of about 46 projects. In addition, there are 11
authorized projects under construction, 14 authorized projects awaiting
construction, with another 17 in the design phase. In addition to
these, the Corps has almost 30 potential projects being evaluated in
feasibility studies. These all show an even greater demand for future
Federal funding of hurricane and storm damage reduction projects.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The second Administration concern is that while these shore
protection projects produce storm damage prevention benefits, they also
provide local recreation benefits, and that some of the revenue created
in the areas that these projects protect should be dedicated to shore
protection projects that provide such recreational opportunities. To
resolve both these concerns, we have included in the Army Civil Works
legislative program a proposal to advance the dialog on how to
reconcile this important issue.
Under our proposal, the cost sharing for the initial construction
of shore protection projects will remain the same (generally a 65
percent Federal share). However, the cost sharing for periodic
nourishment of shore protection projects would change. Our
recommendation is that when the project protects a developed area with
shores under public control, the cost sharing of periodic nourishment
would generally be 35 percent Federal and 65 percent non-Federal. When
the project protects undeveloped private property, the cost sharing of
periodic renourishment would remain at 100 percent non-Federal; and
when the project protects Federal property, the cost sharing of
periodic renourishment would remain at 100 percent Federal. We believe
this is a fair solution to the difficult problem and that it will free
up Federal funds and allow new shore protection projects to be
constructed.
other wrda 1998 initiatives
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
This provision extends the authorization of appropriations for
critical ecosystem restoration projects in South Florida through fiscal
year 2000 to take advantage of the synergy and collaborative approaches
that have evolved to implement a shared vision for ecosystem
restoration. Funds were not available to begin work on this important
project in FY97, as anticipated. Despite the lack of funding, the
Corps, in partnership with the Department of Interior, the State, and
many interested parties, compiled and prioritized a list of 38 Critical
Projects, whose implementation will provide immediate, substantial and
independent ecosystem restoration benefits. The Critical Projects
address a suite of environmental restoration and protection needs,
involving endangered species, water supply and quality, enhanced water
control, nuisance exotic species control, habitat protection and
restoration and non-point source pollution reduction. These projects
have been nominated and formulated by all levels of government,
interested parties, and Indian Tribes. Fourteen Letter Reports have
been received for Critical Projects, with ten approved for
implementation and the remaining four are under consideration for
approval.
While not part of this legislative proposal, I am pleased to report
that work on the Comprehensive Plan required by Section 528 of WRDA
1996 is on schedule, and work on six alternatives will be finished in
time for an initial draft alternative to be identified by July. A draft
Comprehensive Plan will be ready for public review in October 1998. The
results are encouraging in terms of achieving and balancing restoration
and water supply needs. Extending the authorization of appropriations
will enable the partners to achieve fully the environmental restoration
objectives set forth in Section 528 of WRDA 1996.
Lower Missouri River Aquatic Restoration Projects
The purpose of this provision is to recognize and build on the
existing efforts to restore and protect the Missouri River ecosystem
between Gavins Point Dam and the Missouri River's confluence with the
Mississippi River. This proposal recognizes the efforts of navigation,
agriculture, and environmental communities in developing a consensus
and balanced approach to ecosystem restoration in this reach of the
Missouri River. Specifically this proposal will authorize a
comprehensive report to be completed at full Federal expense within 1
year after funds are made available. The report will identify a general
implementation strategy and overall plan for environmental restoration
and protection along the Lower Missouri River between Gavins Point Dam
and the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and recommend
individual environmental restoration projects that can be considered by
the Secretary for implementation under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996.
Management of Natural Resources
There are several measures that will help us to better manage our
important natural resources, primarily at our numerous lakes and
reservoirs. One of our more important measures will allow our resource
managers to retain funds resulting from increased collections of
recreation user fees above the baseline collections. Eighty percent of
the increased collections would go to the site from which the fees were
collected and 20 percent would be used agency wide. This will serve as
an incentive to improve collection of recreation user fees. Another
important provision will allow the Department of the Army to enter into
cooperative agreements with such organizations as the Student
Conservation Service to allow students and faculty to participate in
recreation and natural resource management to enable us to better
utilize limited operations and maintenance funds.
Measures for Efficient Program Management
There are several measures that will allow us to improve our
program management. For example, we have included proposals to allow us
to use public or non-profit organizations as project sponsors on
aquatic ecosystem restoration and beneficial uses of dredged material
projects. Another example is a provision that would allow the Secretary
of the Army to accept non-Federal funds from State and local
governments to expand our services in compiling and transmitting
information on floods and flood damages.
project authorizations
Included in the Army Civil Works legislative program are projects
recommended for authorization that have been reviewed and approved by
the Administration and a conditional authorization for Grand Forks,
North Dakota and East Grand Forks, Minnesota. Additional projects are
under review at the current time, and these will be furnished to you as
soon as Administration review is complete. The projects included are
listed below:
<bullet> American River, Sacramento, California. The flood damage
reduction project described as the Folsom Stepped Release Plan in the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information Report for the
American River Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, at a
total cost of $464,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$302,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $162,600,000. This
project would both supplement the levee stabilization and strengthening
``common elements'' that were authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 and provide a much needed higher level of flood
protection to Sacramento, California. We envision that the ``common
elements'' would be completed first, and after a reevaluation to
account for changes that have taken place since the Corps study was
competed, the Corps would implement modifications to the Folsom Dam and
Reservoir. As the third phase of the plan, the Corps would, after
additional studies and a report back to Congress, implement the
downstream levee and associated works called for in the Stepped Release
Plan.
<bullet> Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish Watershed. The project for flood damage reduction and
recreation, Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish Watershed: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23,
1996, at a total cost of $110,045,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $71,343,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,702,000.
<bullet> Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico. The project for flood damage
reduction, Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated February 27, 1996, at a total cost of $27,441,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $17,837,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $9,604,000.
<bullet> Rio Nigua at Salinas, Puerto Rico. The project for flood
damage reduction, Rio Nigua at Salinas, Puerto Rico: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated April 15, 1997, at a total cost $13,565,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $7,079,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $6,486,000.
<bullet> Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks,
Minnesota. The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Grand
Forks, North Dakota and East Grand Forks, Minnesota consisting of
setback levees and floodwalls, subject to the issuance of a report by
the Chief of Engineers and approval of that report by the Secretary of
the Army at a total cost of $281,754,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $140,877,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $140,877,000.
The inclusion of the Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand
Forks, Minnesota project in the Army Civil Works Legislative Program
for 1998 as a contingent authorization is an unusual step for the
Administration. However, it is one that is justified as an essential
step to help those communities rebuild after the devastating floods of
May 1997.
harbor maintenance trust fund
As you are well aware, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
case United States, Petitioner, versus United States Shoe Corporation
on March 31, 1998. The Court determined that the harbor maintenance tax
is unconstitutional because it violates the Export Clause of the
Constitution. According to the Court, a user fee that is a `` . . .
charge designed as compensation for government-supplied services,
facilities, or benefits. . . . '' would be acceptable in lieu of the
harbor maintenance tax. On May 20, 1998, Franklin D. Raines, Director,
Office of Management and Budget forwarded the Administration's proposal
to establish a Harbor Services Fund (HSF) to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House, and to the
Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations of both the Senate and the House. Director Raines stated
the Administration's view that the users of the Nation's ports should
be responsible for the costs of ensuring a safe and competitive port
system. The HSF would be used to finance both operation and maintenance
and the new construction required to maintain a competitive port
system.
Following up on the May 20 letter, the Administration expects to
transmit, for Congress' consideration, a legislative proposal that
would impose a user fee on commercial vessels. The fees would be based
on benefits commercial vessels receive from Government harbor
development, operation, and maintenance services at ports. The intent
would be to recover fees, in the aggregate, that annually would
generate funds sufficient to pay the Army's harbor development,
operation and maintenance expenses.
civil works strategic plan
The Administration's Water Resources Development Act proposal
builds upon the goals set out in the Strategic Plan for the Civil Works
Program. In August 1997, a draft of the Strategic Plan for the Civil
Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers was distributed for
review. After receiving numerous, extensive comments from Congress,
other Federal agencies, and stake-holders, the Strategic Plan was
completely rewritten. We worked hard to address the comments provided
by all of the groups and believe that our final submission addressed
all of the concerns and that there were no contrary views. The
strategic plan identifies six goals, as follows:
1. Provide the water resources infrastructure to enhance the
Nation's economic well-being,
2. Lead in the management, protection, and restoration of the
Nation's land and water resources,
3. Provide timely, effective, and efficient disaster preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation,
4. Improve the delivery of program results for our current
customers, and maintain these capabilities in order to respond to the
engineering and technical challenges of the future,
5. Develop, motivate, and retain an empowered, world-class
workforce, and
6. Be a leading Army program in effectively and efficiently
applying its resources to achieve its mission.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) strategic plan
outlines performance measures for each of these goals. For example, we
have set our goal to reduce the time form the beginning of the
reconnaissance study to being eligible for construction funding
(project development time) from the current baseline of an average of
12 years. Our short-term performance goal is to reduce project
development time by 10 percent (to 10.8 years), and by 33 percent (to 8
years) in the long-term. To assure that new investments achieve
intended program results, we have set construction performance goals to
monitor and maintain the economic justification for project (benefit-
cost ratio) from beginning of construction through to completion. Our
plan also sets operational goals for completed projects, such as
maintaining existing commercial navigation and flood damage reduction
facilities so they will be fully operational at least 95 percent of the
time.
We believe these are important steps to help ensure better
performance and improved customer satisfaction for the Civil Works
program. We look forward to working with this subcommittee as we
implement this plan and continue to improve our performance.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I can assure you that
our top priority at Department of Army and the Corps of Engineers is to
work with your committee to ensure passage of a Water Resources
Development Act this year. We are working closely with your staff to
provide information and answer questions. We will continue to work and
cooperate with you to the fullest extent to complete work on this
important legislation.
______
Responses of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal to Additional Questions from
Senator Chafee
Question 1. You indicated in your testimony that the so-called
``Challenge 21'' proposal for non-structural approaches to flood plain
management is perhaps the top priority for the Administration in this
year's WRDA.
Question 1(A). Do you have candidate projects/locations in mind?
Response. We do not have any specific candidates or projects in
mind. All floodplains are eligible for the program. Typically, studies
and/or solutions will be undertaken in areas where frequent or severe
flooding has occurred, emergency assistance has been necessary, flood
hazards have increased due to changes in hydrologic and hydraulic
regimes, development is encroaching on floodplains, important
floodplain functions and values need maintenance or restoration, or
substantial differences exist between planned and actual development in
watersheds. Solutions must include both flood hazard mitigation and
riverine ecosystem restoration and have strong local support. Using
these criteria, an informal survey of potential candidates was
conducted. In response to an initial survey of potential projects,
Corps districts have identified more than 75 potential candidates.
However, this survey was conducted merely to gain a general sense of
the types of projects that might be eligible for the Challenge 21
program and was not intended to be exclusive. In addition to this
preliminary survey, we have received many submissions of potential
candidates from stakeholders around the country interested in the
program.
Question 1(B). Why is it so important to get a ``blanket
authorization'' for this program? In other words, why shouldn't the
Congress authorize these projects individually (after receiving the
requisite reports) as we do for other projects of this size?
Response. Programmatic authority is important for timely
implementation and flexibility. The Challenge 21 program is preventive
in nature; i.e., it addresses the threat of floods before the waters
come, rather than reacting to the loss of life and property. Timely
implementation of solutions is critical to the effectiveness and
success in preventing flood damages and restoring important ecosystem
functions before another flood.
Question 1(C). Why is it the case that non-structural flood control
projects (which typically involve: the removal of flood plain
structures; flood proofing; flood warning systems; and wetlands
restoration)--which as a general matter I support--have had such a
tough time getting off of the ground? Are there difficulties with the
economic justification of such projects?
Response. Over the years, the Corps has successfully implemented a
number of projects which included nonstructural flood damage reduction
measures. The Corps does have some difficulty in moving forward with
nonstructural solutions for a number of reasons, ranging from economic
justification to sponsor acceptance. The costs of a nonstructural
project are often higher than a structural project that could protect
the same area. Nonstructural measures normally require modification (or
removal) of each structure, whereas construction of a single structural
feature would protect the entire area under consideration. In addition,
the procedures in place for evaluating both structural and
nonstructural flood damage reduction measures limit the inclusion of
nonmonetary environmental outputs in the benefit/cost ratio. The
Challenge 21 authorization would eliminate this limiting factor,
thereby allowing the Corps to more easily justify and implement
nonstructural measures.
Question 2. What sort of dollar levels does the Administration
envision for WRDA 1998?
Response. In light of the $20 billion backlog of ongoing Corps
construction projects, and other authorized projects awaiting
construction, the dollar magnitude for new projects and programs should
be limited to vital new projects and programs to give priority to
completion of ongoing construction projects. The total cost of the
Administration's bill is $1.462 billion, with a Federal cost of $829
million on a non-Federal cost of $633 million. This will allow us to
move toward a more sustainable long-term construction program and more
timely project delivery to non-Federal sponsors.
Question 3. Tell me more about your shore protection proposal. As
you indicated in your testimony, the Administration suggests that we
increase the renourishment costshare for non-Federal sponsors from 35
percent to 65 percent.
Question 3(A). How much money will that save the Administration on
an annual basis?
Response. Information is not available to forecast this with any
certainty. The Administration proposal is for projects not yet
authorized and most of these potential new projects have not advanced
to a stage where the savings can be estimated with any degree of
confidence. However, to get some feel for the difference the
Administration's proposed cost sharing would make, the Corps evaluated
30 already authorized projects that would likely reflect the future mix
of shore protection projects. Based on this analysis, the proposed cost
sharing would result in an approximately $30 million cost reduction on
an annual basis.
Question 3(B). If the Congress were to approve this proposal, would
that mean that the Administration would resume budgeting for shoreline
projects?
Response. Yes. With the adoption of this proposal, the
Administration will consider, consistent with overall funding
constraints, shore protection projects on an equal basis with other
water resources development projects.
Question 3(C). What do the shoreline interests have to say about
this?
Response. Shoreline interests acknowledge that, in order to keep
abreast of the increased demand for new projects, they must allow for
changes in cost sharing. They are aware of the current Federal budget
situation and are willing to accept revisions in cost sharing if it
will allow projects to move forward quicker.
Question 3(D). Have you considered shortening the 50-year
renourishment period?
Response. Yes, but it was felt that the approach chosen by the
Administration was the most fair and equitable solution for shore
protection projects.
Question 4. The Director of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Management Council (Grover Fugate), who will testify as part of the
next panel, believes that sand replenishment on beaches should serve as
an interim protection measure while longer term hazard mitigation is
being implemented. Have you ever analyzed the notion of temporarily
increasing the Federal cost share of shore protection projects where a
locality or State is willing to relocate/elevate structures? It seems
to me that might be one way to provide an incentive to permanently
remove development/structures from harm's way. The increased Federal
cost share would only last for the period (maybe 1020 years) in which
the non-Federal sponsor is taking steps to conduct verified pre-
disaster hazard mitigation.
Response. I do not believe that the Corps has evaluated this type
of proposal, but we would be willing to work with the Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Council on such a proposal. However, I do
believe that 10-20 years is far too long a time period for pre-disaster
hazard mitigation. Such structures should be removed as soon as
possible.
Question 5(A). Do we need to address the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund in WRDA 1998?
Response. Technically, no. However, since the Supreme Court found
that the Harbor Maintenance Tax was unconstitutional as it applied to
exports and the import portion of the Harbor Maintenance Tax is under
attack as a possible violation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, we believe it is appropriate and timely to address a
replacement.
Question 5(B). When will the exporters begin to receive their
refunds? How far back will the payments go? What year?
Response. There are several issues that remain to be litigated in
the Court of International Trade, including applicable interest and the
time periods for which exporters may recover funds. The court has ruled
that the statute of limitations runs for 2 years from the date of
filing the claim, but a number of exporters are arguing that they are
entitled to be repaid for all amounts since the law was
unconstitutional and therefore void ab initio. These issues will likely
be decided by the end of this year.
Question 5(C). How much longer do we expect to receive fees from
the importers?
Response. Until the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is repealed, U.S.
Customs is compelled by law to continue collections.
Question 5(D). How big is the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
surplus? Will it cover refunds to exporters and the fiscal year 1999
O&M costs?
Response. As of September 30, 1997, the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund balance was approximately $1.1 billion. The Administration
estimates that there will be sufficient funds remaining to pay
operation and maintenance expenditures for Fiscal Year 1999 even if the
plaintiffs' refund claims are paid out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund.
Question 5(E). How do we replace the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?
Has the Administration considered paying the O&M out of the General
Treasury, as we did before WRDA 1986?
Response. Congress will need to enact legislation repealing the
existing harbor maintenance tax and establishing constitutional user
fees for the beneficiaries of Federal navigation projects. The
Administration believes that users of the network of U.S. ports served
by Federal channel and harbor projects should continue to be
responsible for the costs of ensuring a safe, reliable and efficient
port system and that all user contributions should be applied to
providing needed services. Consistent with this belief, the
Administration supports legislation establishing constitutional user
fees, rather than paying for operation and maintenance costs from the
General Fund of the Treasury. The Administration is currently seeking
views of other Federal agencies and of non-Federal public and private
stakeholders. We are hopeful that the Administration's proposed
legislation for a replacement fund and user fee will be introduced
within the next few weeks.
______
Responses of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal to Additional Questions from
Senator Max Baucus
Question 1(A). Dr. Westphal, the Administration has proposed an
environmental restoration and protection plan for the Lower Missouri
River. Is there any reason why this program would not be beneficial for
the entire Missouri River?
Response. The Administration chose to focus on the Lower Missouri
River area because this part of the river is open and conducive to
implementation of environmental restoration and protection measures.
Furthermore, the Corps and several interested organizations have
already begun thinking about types of projects and particular locations
in need of critical attention. The Lower Missouri River is very
different from the upstream portion of the river, which is
characterized by the Pick-Sloan Project. The Pick-Sloan Project,
originally authorized in 1944, is comprised of a series of six
reservoirs and intervening navigation channels. Once the reservoirs
were filled, very few suitable locations (soils, hydrology, shelter)
were left for environmental restoration and protection work. Many of
the best areas already have been improved through environmental
stewardship work done by the Corps and the States. For these reasons,
we believe that the proposed legislation can be most effective if it is
focused on the Lower Missouri River.
Question 1(B). Would the Administration support including the
entire river in this proposal?
Response. If the Congress decided to include the entire Missouri
River in the environmental restoration and protection program, the
Administration would continue to support the proposal.
Question 2. Dr. Westphal, the Administration's proposal includes a
provision for recreation fees to be directed for use at the facilities
where they are collected if more fees are collected in the future than
are being collected now. Could you explain for the committee how this
proposal would work? I understand that the baseline figure included in
your proposal is the amount of fees collected today. How do you intend
to get above that baseline so that this program will work?
Response. The Corps currently collects approximately $34 million
annually in recreation use fees. The Administration has proposed that
80 percent of any amount collected over the $34 million would be
returned to the Corps project where it was collected to be used for
betterments of the Corps recreation program. The remaining 20 percent
would be available for expenditure at other Corps projects nationwide.
While it will be very difficult for the Corps to significantly increase
the recreation use fee revenues, there are at least two Corps
initiatives which I believe will have a positive impact on total
recreation use fees collected.
The Corps and the U.S. Forest Service have embarked on the National
Recreation Reservation Service (NRRS) which will significantly increase
access to camping and other reservable recreation opportunities at
Corps projects. I expect this improved access will increase visitation
and generate increases in revenue. The Corps also has a Recreation
Partnerships Initiative (RPI), which is intended to attract private
developers to provide additional recreation facilities at Corps
projects. While the RPI will not directly increase the Corps user fees,
it will attract more people to Corps projects and we expect there will
be some spillover which will result in additional user fees collected
at nearby Corps facilities.
Question 3. Dr. Westphal, could you elaborate on any other plans
the Administration has for enhancing the Corps recreation mission and
the continued commitment to recreation at existing facilities?
Response. As I mentioned earlier, the Corps and the U.S. Forest
Service have embarked on the National Recreation Reservation Service,
which will significantly increase access to camping and other
recreation opportunities at Corps projects. Also, as part of the Corps
Recreational Fisheries Resources Conservation Action Plan, we are
placing an emphasis on providing access to our project tailwater and
navigational structures. In Fiscal year 1997, the Corps implemented 65
actions to make Corps tailwater and navigational structures more
accessible to the public for recreational fishing. Those actions
resulted in creating and improving recreational fishing access to
approximately 174,900 surface water acres. Typical examples of such
actions include the construction of fishing platforms and stairways,
the creation of roads and small parking lots to provide sportsman
access to remote tailwater areas, development of foot trails,
vegetative control and the construction of fishing piers for physically
challenged visitors.
Other innovative actions include: a cooperative effort between the
Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Massachusetts Department
of Fish and Wildlife to establish catch and release fishing areas along
the Westfield River and Knightsville Dam; the development of a
universal access pier at Blue Marsh lake in Pennsylvania; and, a lease
with the State of New Jersey at the Penns Grove Disposal area on the
Delaware River to create recreational fishing opportunities.
As part of the Corps compliance with Section 208a of WRDA 96, the
Corps will shortly conduct stakeholder meetings in an effort to obtain
ideas from our customers about the Corps recreation and natural
resources management programs. The Corps will then use some of these
ideas to refocus its efforts toward the needs of the stakeholders. I
expect that such input will help strengthen the Corps recreation
program and its continued commitment to recreation and natural
resources management. In addition, the Corps plans to continue to use
its Challenge cost-sharing authority to leverage its resources to
improve facilities and recreational opportunities at its lakes by
partnering with others to improve recreation areas and facilities.
During 1997, the Corps received assistance from 76,790 volunteers who
contributed a total of 1,080,452 volunteer hours which were valued at
$10,443,517. In addition, as a commissioner, appointed by the
President, on the National Recreational Lakes Commission, I will be
looking for opportunities to enhance our recreational mission and work
with States and other Federal partners in improving our services.
______
Responses of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal to Additional Questions from
Senator Harry Reid
Question 1. Wouldn't the Challenge 21 initiative, as proposed,
preempt the ability of congressional authorization of projects by
utilizing a continuing authority to keep the decisionmaking process
within the Corps?
Response. While the Challenge 21 program does provide for project
implementation without specific congressional authorization, it does
not remove the Congress from the process of implementing projects. The
program requires that the Secretary of the Army notify appropriate
congressional committees of a pending decision on a project.
Congressional views will be taken very seriously in any decision to
implement a project.
Question 2. Additionally, the Challenge 21 initiative would cost
$325 million over 6 years. As the Ranking member of the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I find that kind of
proposal to be disconcerting in light of the recent appropriations bill
in which the proposed budget had cut the U.S. Army Corps budget by
about $1 billion. Would Assistant Secretary Westphal commit to work
with this subcommittee and the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee in examining projected costs and benefits
of such proposals?
Response. It is important to remember that Challenge 21 is a multi-
function program with objectives to expand the use of non-structural
alternatives to prevent future flood damages, reduce flood hazards and
flood disaster recovery costs and to restore the natural functions and
values to our riverine ecosystems. Considering the fact that we are now
spending an average of $4.3 billion a year for flood disaster recovery,
the proposed funding represents a modest Federal investment to solve
problems that will only worsen and eventually cost more tax dollars. I
will certainly work with the committees, both authorizing and
appropriating, in the development and implementation of beneficial
projects.
Question 3. I also question the Challenge 21 initiative's purposes:
Question 3(A). Does the focus on watershed based planning instead
of project planning effectively undermine the community's support for
the Corps' efforts because of the lack of specificity in the planning
process?
Response. Rather than being watershed based, the program is perhaps
better characterized as involving a watershed approach to the
identification of problems and solutions. In the Challenge 21 program,
the watershed approach will provide a better understanding of how and
why flooding occurs and how effectively the natural system is
functioning. In addition, it will serve to identify a broader variety
of potential solutions, resulting in more flexibility, effectiveness
and efficiency in addressing floodplain issues and problems at the
community level. This approach will result in specific proposals to
solve flood damage and ecosystem restoration problems.
Question 3(B). And isn't this new watershed planning and non-
construction approach contrary to the historical approach of the Corps,
which is to plan and construct projects?
Response. The Corps has long recognized that the watershed is the
most effective framework for addressing water resources problems. This
watershed orientation has been effective in addressing problems and
needs related to navigation and flood damage reduction. This approach
is also critical for effectively restoring ecosystems and evaluating
the impact of regulated activities. With respect to non-structural
measures, the Corps has, over the years, successfully implemented a
number of projects which included nonstructural flood damage reduction
measures. Challenge 21 will provide the Corps with a much needed tool
to develop projects for situations in which ecosystem restoration is an
integral part of solving flooding problems.
______
Responses of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal to Additional Questions from
Senator Reid on behalf of Senator Levin
Question 1. Section 1109 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 prohibits new diversions of water from the Great Lakes or any
tributary of the Great Lakes basin unless the diversion has been
approved by the Governor of each of the Great Lakes States. That
section was enacted to ``protection the limited quantity of water
available from the Great Lakes system for use by the Great Lakes
States.'' In a June 16, 1997 letter from the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works to Senator Levin, the Corps took the position
that, ``the matter of groundwater diversions out of the basin is a
State issue, not a Federal issue, under either Section 1109 or the
Clean Water Act.'' To clarify, does the diversion of groundwater which
would otherwise discharge into Great Lakes surface waters out of the
basin reduce the amount of water available in the basin?
Response. Generally, yes. The diversion of groundwater, which would
otherwise discharge into Great Lakes surface waters, to a point out of
the Basin would reduce the amount of water available in the Basin.
Question 2. Does not much of the water that feeds the Great Lakes
and their tributaries travel through the ground on some part of its
journey to the surface waters of the lake?
Response. Generally speaking, groundwater is a relatively small
contributor of water to the Great Lakes. More that half of the water
entering the Great Lakes comes from precipitation falling directly on
the lakes. The remainder is from precipitation runoff from the land
area in the basin and from groundwater. The proportion of each of these
components varies with the local conditions and the intensity of the
precipitation. Heavy rains on wet ground produce more direct runoff.
Light rains and dry condition cause much of the precipitation to be
absorbed and become groundwater. Factors that can affect these include
the soil types and geology of the area, the slope of the terrain, the
gradient of the streams and watercourses that feed into the Lake, and
the direction of flow in the aquifers.
However, it should be noted that groundwater may actually remove
water from the surface water body, preventing that water from flowing
to the Great Lakes. For example, water may seep out of a river, stream
or small lake to recharge the groundwater which is subsequently lost to
evaporation and in so doing never reaching the Great Lakes. The
diversion of that particular groundwater may have no effect whatsoever
on the amount of water in the Great Lakes.
Question 3. Could one greatly affect the flow in Great Lakes
tributaries by diverting groundwater before it reaches springs or
otherwise feeds streams that flow into the Great Lakes?
Response. As a practical matter, because the sources of water for
tributaries are made up of so much more than groundwater inflow
(particularly in the Great Lakes region) it is unlikely that any
diversion of groundwater could ``greatly'' affect the flow in a
tributary. Whatever effect that a groundwater diversion would have on a
tributary would generally be localized in effect.
Question 4. Could one, by pumping water out of the Basin, actually
reverse the flow of water in tributaries to the Great Lakes?
Response. The practical answer is, no. However, this effect could
possibly be achieved on a very localized level under very special
conditions. For example, for the effect to be achievable, the tributary
flow must be very small, the elevation of the bottom of the tributary
must be lower than the water surface elevation of the lake and the rate
of pumped water must be much greater than the flow in the tributary
that is running toward the lake.
Question 5. If one chose to dig a well 100 feet from the shoreline
of a Great Lake and began pumping groundwater out at rates exceeding
five million gallons per day and transferring it to a watershed outside
the Great Lakes Basin, how would the Corps apply Section 1109 if a
wetland or other permit from the Corps were necessary?
Response. First, it is important to note that, generally, the Corps
has no jurisdiction over the pumping of groundwater (to a location
either into or out of the Great Lakes Basin). It is our view that the
regulation of groundwater is generally a matter entrusted to the
States.
However, if a pumping project were to require a Corps permit for
some other reason (such as wetland fill or construction work in a
navigable water), we would apply Section 1109 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986. As a general proposition, it is the Corps
position that the primary administration of Section 1109 is within the
jurisdiction of the Great Lakes States Governors. We would notify the
Great Lakes Governors of the project so that they could exercise any
authority that they may have under Section 1109.
Also, to the extent appropriate under our permit evaluation
procedures, we would consider the effects of the groundwater diversion
in determining whether issuing a permit would be in the public interest
and, if the permit were to be issued, what special conditions would be
appropriate to mitigate or alleviate the adverse effects of the
groundwater diversion. It is important to note that while Sec. 1109
does not bear directly on our permit decision, the effects of a
proposed project on the groundwater regime and on the Great Lakes could
well influence our decision to issue a permit. We would also take into
consideration the views of the Great Lakes Governors as to the
beneficial and adverse effects of the proposed project, including any
diversions of groundwater. The applicant would be responsible for
obtaining any other required license, permit or authorization,
including consent of the Great Lakes Governors under Section 1109 if
necessary.
Question 6. Finally, does the Corps believe that there is a
hydrologically definable and recognized unit commonly referred to as
the Great lakes Basin? Could the Corps please provide the committee
with its understanding of what constitutes the Great lakes Basin from a
hydrological perspective?
Response. Yes. The Great Lakes Basin is the closed area bounded by
the watershed that is the demarcation of where the surface water
generally flows toward or into one of the Great Lakes. The term Great
Lakes Basin, as used in its common and engineering senses, refers to
the drainage of surface water but not to groundwater and aquifers.
______
Responses of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal to Additional Questions from
Senator Bob Graham
Question 1. Please identify the entire authorization that would be
required to begin work on all 35 critical projects under the South
Florida ecosystem restoration program. Also, please provide an estimate
of the entire authorization that would be required to complete work on
all 35 critical projects.
Response. Based on preliminary cost information, the Corps
Jacksonville District reports that the estimated costs to complete the
identified 35 critical projects is $300,000,000 with the Federal cost
share estimated to be $150,000,000 and the non-Federal cost share
estimated to be $150,000,000. This would mean that the authorization in
Section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 would have
to be increased from $75,000,000 to $150,000,000 to fund the Federal
share of the 35 critical projects.
Question 2. Please explain how the ``Challenge 21 `` program will
be used in conjunction with the current civil works program. For
example, projects are now specifically authorized and funded by
Congress. If a flood control project is authorized by Congress, does
the Administration determine in the feasibility study if the
``Challenge 21 `` criteria should be applied or if a more standard
structural solution is required? Does the Administration limit projects
it would consider to projects that do not have specific congressional
authorizations or does it look at projects that have already been
authorized and then seek to apply ``Challenge 21'' criteria?
Speciflcally explain how the ``Challenge 21'' program will mesh with
the existing Corps program. Also, explain how the ``Challenge 21
program will be managed by the Corps.
Response. Challenge 21 will provide a much needed tool to develop
projects for situations in which ecosystem restoration is an integral
part of solving flood problems. Challenge 21 projects would not include
projects already specifically authorized by Congress. The program will
be a vital part of the Corps program by focusing on areas where
nonstructural solutions (primarily floodplain evacuation) are likely to
be an effective solution to flood problems and where the evacuated
floodplains can be restored to natural riverine conditions. These areas
have often been overlooked in traditional Corps studies.
With respect to program management, the Challenge 21 program will
be managed by my office in cooperation with Corps Headquarters.
Individual studies, designs and construction activities will be managed
by the responsible Corps District together with the non-Federal sponsor
and cooperating Federal and State agencies. Given the nonstructural/
environmental emphasis of this program, additional procedures and
guidance will have to be developed for project selections and
evaluation. Prior to implementation, the proposed projects would be
subject to the normal project review and approval process and
notification of appropriate congressional committees.
______
Responses of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal to Additional Questions from
Senator Boxer
american river watershed flood control project
Question 1. The American River project in the Administration's bill
calls for raising and strengthening the downstream levees on the
American River. Based on the Corps' engineering experience, do you
believe the Corps can safely construct the Stepped Release Plan to
provide the intended level of flood protection?
Response. Yes. The Corps has much experience in the design and
construction of flood control projects. The project would contain a
flood with a release rate of 180,000 cubic feet per second from Folsom
Dam with a very high degree of confidence.
Question 2. Can the Corps safely construct the Stepped Release Plan
with the same degree of certainty afforded other projects nationwide?
Response. Yes. There is no question that the Corps has much
experience in the design and construction of flood control projects,
and when completed the project would afford the same high degree of
certainty to contain the design flood as provided in other parts of the
country.
Question 3. What is the approximate probability of the levee works
of the Stepped Release Plan to withstand their designed flow capacity
of 180,000 cubic feet per second?
Response. The flow of 180,000 cubic feet per second would be the
maximum objective release from the Folsom Dam under the ``Stepped
Release Plan.'' The probability of the levees passing this flow is very
high. The Corps has much experience in levee design and would design
the levees to pass this amount of water in a safe and reliable fashion.
Question 4. What is the probability of the Auburn Dam alternative
passing the 400-year storm event for which it is designed? Is that the
same as the probability of the Stepped Release Plan? Is that the same
as the probability of Sacramento's current flood control system?
Response. The reliability of a plan, or the plan's performance if a
specific frequency flood occurs, can be evaluated by calculating the
range of possible discharges for the stated frequency flood and
accounts for engineering and operational uncertainties. If it could be
implemented, the alternative capable of providing the highest level of
flood protection to the flood prone areas along the American River is
the Auburn Dry Detention Dam. This is the plan identified by the
Sacramento District as the NED plan. Comparing the stated design
frequency of the SIR Stepped Release Plan (160-year level of
protection), SAFCA plan (150 to 155-year level of protection), and
Auburn Dam (400-year level of protection), they have a 60 percent, 57
percent, and 62 percent chance of containing that design event,
respectively. The current flood control system has about a 60 percent
chance of containing its 77-year design event.
Question 5. I understand that the Corps and the Office of
Management and Budget are preparing a proposal on a way to finance
navigation and other improvements at our major ports dealing with
international trade. Will this plan include assistance to medium-size
ports and small craft harbors which contribute to regional economic
development?
Response. The proposal is currently being formulated to address the
navigation needs of all these ports, including medium-sized and small
harbors. The Administration understands that a healthy port system
plays an important role in ensuring a strong national economy.
Moreover, the Administration believes that users of the network of U.S.
ports served by Federal channel and harbor projects should continue to
be responsible for the costs of ensuring a safe, reliable and efficient
port system and that all user contributions should be applied to
providing needed services.
In considering a legislative proposal to repeal and replace the
Harbor Maintenance Tax, the Administration established several
principles to ensure that the proposal is constitutional, equitable,
and will be sufficient to finance harbor activities. The proposal for a
new Harbor Services User Fee was structured so that the user fee:
<bullet> Satisfies the Supreme Court test for constitutionality.
<bullet> Establishes a close link between revenue collected and
services provided to vessels.
<bullet> Is consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) and other U.S. international obligations.
<bullet> Is formulated on a nationwide basis.
<bullet> Causes no significant alteration of the existing
competitive balance among U.S. ports.
<bullet> Supports U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operation and
maintenance activities funded through the current Harbor Maintenance
Tax, and harbor construction activities.
It is important that such a user fee be formulated on a nationwide
system basis so as to not significantly alter the existing competitive
balance among U.S. ports, nor measurably impact U.S. international and
domestic trade. The new user fee should not only support the operation
and maintenance (O&M) activities of the Corps of Engineers and the
other O&M costs currently recovered from the existing Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, but it should also fund the Federal share of
Corps port construction activities, such as port deepening projects.
Expanding the uses of fee revenues to include Federal port construction
projects recognizes that the services provided by the U.S. port system
require adequate and continual investment in new construction.
The Administration proposes to establish a user fee to be paid by
the primary users of Federal channel and harbor projects, namely the
commercial vessel owners/operators. The imposed fee will be based upon
the provided services of Federal channels and harbor projects. Ship
size, movement frequency, and the operational characteristics of
particular vessel categories were the principal factors used to measure
the provided services. Ship size is a key factor in measuring the
extent of use and service from channels.
The Army is currently reviewing this proposal with interested
parties to gain their input. The Army will soon transmit a formal
Administration proposal to Congress for its consideration. The
congressional legislative process will, of course, offer additional
opportunities for discussion and comment as the legislation moves
forward. I look forward to working with you and other members of the
subcommittee as we formulate this proposal.
Question 6. The California Maritime Infrastructure Bank holds
significant promise as providing the kind of financing boost that these
smaller ports need. Other States have similar financing mechanisms by
using revolving loan programs. Would you be willing to work with this
subcommittee on ways that we can also help our ports and small-craft
harbors that would be left out of the Administration's proposal?
Response. I would be happy to work with the subcommittee on
possible proposals for smaller ports and small craft harbors.
______
Prepared Statement of Kurt J. Nagle, President, American Association of
Port Authorities
introduction
Good morning. I am Kurt Nagle, President of the American
Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). 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 the AAPA's United States delegation.
Mr. Chairman, AAPA commends you for convening this hearing on the
Water Resources Development Act of 1998. We are very grateful to this
committee for its hard work that led to enactment of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. Passage of WRDA 1996 was a great
relief for public ports in gaining project authorizations and
significant policy improvements after the Senate was unable to join the
House in passing a WRDA bill in 1994. Again, we appreciate the strong
leadership this subcommittee has shown in supporting sound water
resources policy and investment.
If I leave one message with you today, it is that ports, and all
who benefit from the services we provide, depend on regular biennial
passage of the Water Resources Development Act, as well as continued
adequate annual appropriations levels. Navigation projects are our
Nation's highways to the international marketplace. Since WRDA 1986,
the Federal investment in improvements to our Nation's navigation
infrastructure is matched by a local share that varies depending on the
depth of the project.There is also a very substantial additional local
investment in landside terminal facilities. These investments generate
significant economic returns at the local, regional and national
levels. All of the benefits that justify inclusion of navigation
projects in the water resources bill are national economic development
benefits.
Our water highways are national assets that serve a broad range of
economic and strategic interests. 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
U.S. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Our Nation's commercial deep draft ports annually handle
in excess of $600 billion in international trade.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> The overall national economic impact of port activities in
1994 generated:
<bullet> 16 million jobs;
<bullet> $783.3 billion to the Gross Domestic Product; and
<bullet> $210.1 billion in taxes at all levels of government.
As I have indicated, these national economic benefits are generated
as the result of the local investment by ports in modern marine
terminal facilities and related infrastructure in combination with
Federal investments in the navigation channels. In 1996, the cumulative
local investment in port facilities was $1.3 billion; a similar level
of non-Federal investment is expected each year from 1997 to 2001.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United States Port Development Expenditure Report, U.S.
Maritime Administration, October 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 during 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 1990 and March 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.
In my testimony today, in addition to stressing the importance of
passing a water resources bill this year, I want to stress four points:
<bullet> The need to continue to review and improve the partnership
between the Corps of Engineers and the ports forged in WRDA 86;
<bullet> The port industry's alarm at the President's fiscal year
1999 budget request as it relates to investment in our Nation's deep-
draft harbors;
<bullet> The need to ensure continued funding for maintenance
dredging in light of the Supreme Court decision that the Harbor
Maintenance Tax is unconstitutional as it is applied to exports; and,
<bullet> The need to continue to review and improve dredged
material management policies and practices to avoid costly delays in
dredging projects, ensure protection of the environment, and gain
additional benefits to the Nation.
project partnership
There has been a Federal/port partnership in the development of our
Nation's port system virtually since our country's birth. U.S. public
ports are varied, but generally act as semi-autonomous authorities.
Local, state-wide or regional ports are responsible for investment,
development and operation of marine terminal facilities. Ports are also
responsible for dredging of berthing areas and access channels
connecting the port facilities to Federal navigation channels. While it
had historically funded 100 percent of navigation channel improvement
and maintenance, since 1986 the Federal role of the partnership has
been limited to cost-sharing capital improvements to Federal navigation
channels.
Ports have made substantial investments of local funds in landside
port facilities which will be jeopardized if the Federal Government
fails to live up to its part of the Federal/port partnership. Local
public ports have spent more than $16.8 billion since World War II to
develop landside facilities. Local ports make commitments to our
private sector customers to provide state-of-the-art facilities and
equipment to serve the demand of the marketplace. Public port and
private investment in marine terminal facilities will be wasted if
access to ports via navigation channels is constrained.
The task of meeting the present and expected future demands on our
navigation system has never been so complex, and never as much in the
public spotlight as it is today. I have outlined below some of the key
changes which, if implemented, will help us to meet those demands.
Need to Authorize Navigation Projects. The enactment of the Water
Resources Development Act and Federal investment in navigation is of
critical importance to the Nation's economy. There are fewer navigation
projects today, but they are equally important, if not more critical,
in today's rapidly changing world for ports big and small. If projects
are not authorized, the national benefits, as well as regional economic
diversification and job creation opportunities, will be delayed.
Important projects are finishing the planning process and will
require authorization for construction, including but not limited to
improvements at ports in Baltimore Harbor, MD; Brunswick and Savannah,
GA; Jacksonville and Tampa, FL; Oakland, CA; and, the Columbia River,
OR and WA. Other projects, including those in New York/New Jersey will
require modifications. This list is not intended to be exclusive, but
only illustrative of the importance of a water resources bill to a
broad cross-section of ports across the country.
Need to Accommodate Larger Vessels. A recent report prepared by the
U.S. Maritime Administration documents the status and trends of general
cargo ship design and its impact on transportation infrastructure.\3\
The report finds that the rate of growth in containerized cargo in the
U.S. is at 6 percent per year, and predicts that by 2010 nearly 90
percent of general cargo will be shipped in containers and that nearly
33 percent of those containers will be transported on vessels carrying
more than 4,000 twenty-foot equivalent container units (TEUs). Such
vessels, commonly referred to as ``megaships'' are a key element in the
strategies of the world's leading steamship carriers as they seek to
optimize operations through global alliances. These large vessels
obviously pose major challenges to ports because of their size and the
potentially large number of containers they could discharge or load
during any one port call. Key requirements obviously will include
suitable terminal facilities, as well as deeper channels, berths,
container yards, and rail and highway access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Impacts of Changes in Ship Design on Transportation
Infrastructure and Operations, U.S. Maritime Administration, February
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1986, a channel depth of 45 feet would accommodate almost
all of the container ships in the world's fleets. The Clarkson
Containership Register indicates that most of the container ships in
1986 had maximum capacities of less than 3,000 TEUs of containerized
cargo with average drafts of about 38 feet. There were only a few
larger container vessels with capacities over 3,000 TEUs which were
built to the maximum size that could be handled by the Panama Canal.
Most of these panamax vessels had drafts of 41.6 feet or greater.
Vessels with these drafts cannot use a 45 foot deep channel when fully
loaded.
In the years since 1986, the containership fleet has undergone a
major evolution. The world's major ocean carriers have greatly
increased the size of the ships and the number of large ships they use.
In 1988, a new class of post-panamax ships was introduced into the
world's container shipping fleet. Today there are about 60 of these
large ships with an equal number more on order. The post-panamax ships
have a capacity of 6,000 or more TEUs with even larger ships being
designed and built. These vessels are generally wider than can be
handled in the Panama Canal They also have deeper drafts. The average
draft of the current post-panamax ships is 42.9 feet. The largest ships
have drafts of about 45.5 feet, which require channels that are at
least 50 feet deep. An analysis contained in the Maritime
Administration report cited earlier suggests naval architecture
constraints on ships as large as 15,000 TEUs would not result in drafts
much greater than 46 feet. Thus, with allowances for under-keel
clearance, vertical ship movement (squat), and uncertainty in
predictions of future ship design, AAPA believes the norm for general
cargo navigation channels will be as great as 53 feet.
In WRDA 1986, Congress created a cost-sharing formula for
navigation improvement projects based on the needs of the general cargo
fleet at that time. Specifically, a cost-sharing transition was set at
45 feet, above which (i.e., shallower) local sponsors would pay a 35
percent (25 percent plus 10 percent over 30 years) cost-share and below
which (i.e., deeper) would be cost shared at 60 percent (50 percent
plus 10 percent over 30 years) local. According to the legislative
history for WRDA 1986, the rationale for setting 45 feet as the
transition to significantly greater local participation was that,
The committee has surveyed the manner of financing navigation
projects in most developed countries. Based upon this survey
the committee found that most of the national Governments in
those countries financed general navigation improvements,
including main and entrance channels to a depth of 45 feet to
accommodate general cargo vessels (emphasis added). This
assistance is normally justified on the basis of national and
regional economic development. At the same time, most of these
countries require local contribution to the cost of
construction and maintenance of navigation projects in excess
of that depth to accommodate larger, specialized vessels
increasingly operating in liquid and dry bulk trades.
The bill, as reported, applies this experience by reconciling
national investment policy toward future port development with
prevailing international practice. This is accomplished through
the establishment of 45 feet as the maximum standard depth for
ports not designed to accommodate deep draft vessels, and the
declaration of channel depths in excess of 45 feet as ``deep
draft ports.'' A graduated scale for the local contribution to
the cost of project construction depending upon depth
culminates in a 50:50 Federal/local cost-sharing formula for
deep-draft navigation projects.
AAPA believes the Congress should revise the cost-sharing formula
to adjust the upper cost-sharing threshold to reflect the changes that
have occurred in the general cargo fleet.
Cost Sharing for Maintenance Dredging. WRDA 1986 requires that
local sponsors cost-share the increased cost of maintenance dredging
for the increment over 45 feet. In practice, calculating the increased
cost is highly uncertain. As described below, when passed in 1986 the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) paid only 40 percent of
maintenance dredging costs; since 1990 the HMTF has paid 100 percent of
such costs.
AAPA recommends that Congress remove the requirement to cost-share
the cost of maintenance dredging in projects greater than 45 feet
because: (1) the increased cost is difficult to calculate; (2) it
generates very little money; and (3) the HMF currently covers 100
percent of maintenance dredging costs.
Port/Corps Partnership. Since the enactment of WRDA 1986, the ports
share the cost of construction of navigation projects and have embarked
on a ``partnership'' with the Corps in development of the Federal
navigation system. Although some significant progress has been made on
that partnership, there remain impediments to efficient execution of
project planning, design and construction.
While WRDA 1986 allows local sponsors to receive a credit for in-
kind services up to 50 percent of their share of feasibility study
costs, there is no such provision for crediting in-kind services during
preliminary engineering and design (PED) or during construction.
However, under current practice, and especially with more feasibility
studies being led by a local sponsor under Section 203 of WRDA 1986,
ports have certain expertise that can help projects move forward more
efficiently. This efficiency can only be realized if the port can
receive credit for such services against the contribution to project
construction. Thus, AAPA recommends that Congress amend the cost-
sharing provisions to allow local sponsors to credit in-kind PED and
construction services against their share of construction costs.
Cost Recovery. Another issue that deserves the attention of the
committee is the limits under Section 208 of WRDA 1986 that are placed
on the ability of local sponsors to recover their non-Federal share of
the project costs. This provision so narrowly defines the potential
eligible channel users that may be subject to cost recovery so as to
effectively make it impossible for local sponsors to use the authority.
Ports need a broad-based capacity to collect cost recovery for the non-
Federal share. AAPA recommends that Congress revise Section 208 to
provide ports greater flexibility in recovering the cost of navigation
improvement projects.
fiscal year 1999 appropriations
Although today the committee is focusing on water resource project
authorizations, it is equally important to ensure that adequate
appropriations are provided for improvement and maintenance of the
Nation's water transportation infrastructure. Ports and their customers
in the carrier, shipper, labor and commercial communities must be able
to rely on the continued involvement of the Federal Government in
building and maintaining a safe and efficient navigation system. AAPA
and its member ports around the country are deeply concerned that the
President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 did not provide for
sufficient investment in our commercial navigation system, and that
funds are being diverted from navigation projects to pay for other
Administration priorities, including new programs. We are pleased that
the Senate and the House have increased the funding levels from the
Administration proposal, but it is still not enough.
The Administration budget requested fiscal year 1999 appropriations
of $3.215 billion for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. This
level represents a 21 percent cut from fiscal year 1998 appropriated
levels, and only 70 percent of what is needed to maintain project
schedules and begin additional new projects. While we are also
concerned about the level of proposed funding for operation and
maintenance and for conducting studies, we are most concerned about the
proposed Corps budget for the Construction, General account, which
received the largest cuts. The Construction, General account, which
provides the funding for investment in our Nation's water resources,
was subject to a 47 percent cut compared to fiscal 1998 appropriated
levels ($784 million v. $1.47 billion). This level represents only 43
percent of the necessary funding requirement, which would be $1.82
billion, to maintain project schedules and begin additional new
construction. Only 2 of 50 congressionally added projects in the fiscal
year 1998 appropriation were picked up in the Administration's fiscal
year 1999 budget. The proposal seeks eight new starts, as opposed to
the 24 new starts recommended by the Corps, totaling $16.1 million,
none of which are navigation projects.
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 $40 million in fiscal year 1999. This amount is less
than half of what the Administration sought for deep-draft harbor
construction in fiscal year 1998 ($108 million); it's less than one-
third of what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1998 ($132 million);
and, it's only one-tenth of what is needed to fund ongoing and
authorized new projects ($328 million).
On June 4, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the Corps
of Engineers fiscal year 1999 budget. The total funding level of $3.8
billion is disappointing, considering the Senate Budget resolution
specifically indicated that Corps programs should be level-funded at
last year's levels ($4.1 billion). The Senate levels are 17 percent
greater than the President's fiscal year 1999 request, 17 percent less
than the fiscal year 1999 requirement, and 7 percent less than fiscal
year 1998 appropriated levels.
Under the Senate bill, deep-draft harbor projects would receive
$180.3 million compared to the $39 million requested by the President
and the $132 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately,
this level is still approximately half of what is needed in fiscal year
1999 to keep projects on schedule and to start necessary new projects.
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. In recent testimony at a Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, the Corps of Engineers estimated
that the Administration's proposed cuts in the Construction, General
account will result in an additional $400 million in increased costs
over the life of the projects and $3.6 billion in lost economic
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.
Since the enactment of WRDA 1986, our experience indicates that we
have made significant progress in advancing real partnerships between
the Corps and local sponsors on navigation projects. Existing
mechanisms in WRDA 1986 provided by Sections 203, 204, and 205 were
intended to expedite Federal navigation projects by permitting the
sponsor to formulate and construct the project and subsequently seek
reimbursement from Congress. While these provisions were not widely
used, recent progress in the dialog between the Corps and the port
community has clarified a number of concerns related to the roles and
responsibilities of the Corps and the local sponsor and, so, the number
of projects using these authorities is growing. Use of these
authorities has saved both money and time. Unfortunately, the Office of
Management and Budget has announced several policy changes that raise
great concern as to whether there is a commitment to seeking
reimbursement for work undertaken by the local sponsor. These policy
changes include prohibitions against multi-year contracting for all
fiscal year 1998 new starts and against Section 11 funding agreements.
There is also uncertainty about whether OMB will permit local sponsors
to provide more of their cost share earlier in the project to make up
for any Federal funding shortfall. These policies will have a chilling
effect on the further use of innovative partnership tools like Sections
11, 203, 204 and 205 which were created by Congress to facilitate the
program.
We understand the Congress is faced with difficult budget
decisions, but this country cannot 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. Clearly, the proposed Administration
budget for Federal involvement in the Nation's water transportation
system is seriously flawed and must be corrected by this Congress. We
ask this committee's support in making that happen.
harbor maintenance trust fund
Of all the issues facing most public port authorities, few are more
critical than funding for Federal navigation channels, whether for
maintenance of existing channel depths or funding new construction
dredging projects. That is why the follow-up to the Supreme Court
decision on the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) and the passage of the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1998 are so important to U.S.
ports.
Although the Federal Government traditionally funded both
maintenance dredging and improvements to Federal navigation channels
from General Treasury revenues, in 1986 Congress created the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to pay for a portion of channel maintenance
dredging. Congress instituted the HMT and cost-sharing reforms after a
lengthy impasse over water resources development policy. The HMT was
enacted in an effort to recover the cost of maintenance dredging from
navigation channel users.
The Supreme Court decision has set the stage for a new solution.
AAPA members believe that, as was the case before 1986, maintenance
dredging should be funded from general revenues There is no user-fee
system that can equitably raise revenues from the users of navigation
channels in reasonable relation to the distribution of benefits to the
Nation.
Many options were considered in developing the ad valorem HMT
funding mechanism for maintenance dredging. Unfortunately, the only
option to survive the debates from 1981 to 1986, the HMT, was found
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It does not appear that there
are significant new or old options that would work better today.
The assessment of a tonnage fee on cargo or vessels would severely
affect bulk commodities, such as grain or coal, which compete in
international markets where pennies a ton can make or break a sale.
These shipments, which are amongst our Nation's leading export
products, now use the most cost-effective route typically moving by
barges down rivers to coastal harbors. Those harbors, in turn, tend to
require significant maintenance dredging because of the river sediment.
In general, dredging demands related to the shipping of these types of
export products are greater than those related to import products.
Another alternative considered would have required local ports to
raise their own funding for maintenance dredging. Such a change could
pit U.S. ports against each other, the result of which could impact
commerce and national security. Like a tonnage tax, local funding, if
passed on to port users, could increase transportation costs, pricing
bulk commodities out of international markets either through increased
charges at the currently utilized port(s) or by increasing inland
transportation costs due to diversion from the inland waterway system.
The concept also alters the fundamental Federal role in maintaining
the national navigation system. As noted earlier, relying in good faith
on this long-standing partnership, local ports have invested, and
continue to invest, significant amounts to construct and maintain
landside facilities. These local investments have created the system of
ports the Nation depends on to meet the needs of its national defense
and growing international trade.
Recognizing that these options could be injurious to the Nation's
trading position, and to individual ports, Congress in 1986 chose to
enact a uniform ad valorem tax on cargo in an attempt not to affect the
competitive position of any port. Congress intended to minimize the
potential negative effect on export competitiveness, and minimize the
diversion problem by setting the fee fairly low, at a level to collect
40 percent of the dredging costs. However, in the 1990 budget
agreement, Congress tripled the fee, and a $1.2 billion surplus has
accumulated in the trust fund. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, the
surplus had been expected to reach nearly $2 billion by the end of
fiscal 1999.
The HMT ultimately added hundreds of dollars to the cost of
shipping a single container of high value cargo, and has caused traffic
to be diverted to non-U.S. ports to avoid payment.
Other options for raising revenue from direct users of the
navigation channels are not likely to produce sufficient funds. In
addition, direct navigation users are already significantly taxed. A
1993 General Accounting Office study found that 12 Federal agencies
levy 117 assessments on waterborne trade. In 1996, receipts from these
fees were 154 percent of the level raised only 10 years earlier, making
our exports more expensive and less competitive in international
markets.
Customs revenues in fiscal year 1996 totaled $22.3 billion, of
which roughly 70 percent (or $15.6 billion) is attributable to cargo
moving through seaports. These funds, currently collected from users of
navigation channels, are more than 31 times greater than the cost of
maintenance dredging (approximately $500 million). Expected increases
in customs collections due to increased trade would likely be enough to
pay for maintenance dredging.
The benefits of safe and efficient trade provided by our Nation's
system of navigation channels are spread throughout the country. In
addition, the benefits to the Nation resulting from national defense,
commercial fishing, and recreational users are immeasurable; assessing
fees on these users, however, was not part of the 1986 HMT funding
mechanism. Both economically and strategically, there are no greater
assets than our ports and Federal navigation channels our water
connections to the global marketplace and means of national defense.
The costs for dredging should be spread across the whole Nation because
all our citizens benefit.
AAPA members look forward to working with the Administration and
Congress to come up with equitable solutions to the funding challenges
which we face.
dredged material management
In 1993, the maritime, port, labor, and business communities called
for the adoption of a National Dredging Policy to facilitate the timely
and cost-effective dredging of our Nation's navigation channels.
Dredging the Nation's navigation channels to keep them open for trade
is too often frustrated by inconsistent, complex and duplicative laws
and regulations. In the time that we have been working with the
Congress and the Administration to establish a National Dredging
Policy, great strides have been made to clarify, streamline and
simplify the navigation dredging process.
Probably the most significant accomplishment in advancing the goals
of a National Dredging Policy occurred with the passage of provisions
in the WRDA 1996 to provide for Federal participation in the
establishment and operation of confined disposal facilities. AAPA and
the port community recognize the hard work provided by the subcommittee
in moving a WRDA bill last Congress, and especially the provision on
cost sharing for confined disposal. AAPA supported this provision
because previous policy tended to provide an economic incentive for
open water disposal over confined or upland disposal options. While
AAPA believes that open water disposal must continue to be a viable
option, this change allows the Corps to consider all alternatives on an
equal basis. However, AAPA is concerned that much work still needs to
be done to improve the dredging process. Impediments still exist with
the regulatory review process, contaminated sediment, and beneficial
uses of dredged material.
Regulatory Review Process. In December 1994, the Administration
released the Interagency Report on Improving the Dredging Process. The
agencies involved in preparing that report continue to work through the
National Dredging Team to improve coordination and cooperation in the
planning and regulation of dredging projects. AAPA fully supports this
effort and is working closely with the National Dredging Team to ensure
that port industry concerns are provided to the agencies for their
consideration.
AAPA is very concerned about regulations recently issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under 1996 amendments to the
Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act, regarding the protection of essential
fish habitat (EFH). Federal activities, including issuing permits, that
may impact essential fish habitat must be reviewed by NMFS. Under the
regulations, it is very likely that broad expanses of the aquatic
environment will be designated EFH. (The draft EFH for salmon would
designate the entire North Pacific coast of the U.S. from the shore out
46 miles.) Any proposed activity that may impact EFH would be required
to prepare an EFH assessment. We are very concerned that this new
requirement to prepare EFH assessments will increase project costs and
cause additional delays. We have urged the NMFS to work with the Corps
and the port industry to develop streamlined review procedures for
activities already regulated under the Clean Water Act or the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act such as dredging projects with
disposal at designated disposal sites.
One remaining legislative goal of the proposed National Dredging
Policy is to amend the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act to provide for consistent and expedited
review of all dredging and disposal alternatives, separate from the 404
wetlands provisions of the CWA, and for consideration of relative
costs, risks and benefits of each alternative. Additional changes
should be considered to emphasize prevention of pollution that
contaminates sediments, and to require full consideration of the use
and value of the waters and channels to navigation in establishing
appropriate criteria and standards. AAPA appreciates the efforts by the
subcommittee to address some of these issues in the last Congress, and
looks forward to working with this committee as it considers changes to
the CWA and other environmental laws.
Contaminated Sediments and Beneficial Uses. Contaminated sediments
are a problem that requires strong partnerships if we are to
effectively meet the needs of maintaining an efficient navigation
system and a healthy environment. Recently, the pendulum has moved
toward greater regulation of dredging projects. In 1991, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tightened its standards for the
ocean disposal of dredged material; the result was a significantly
greater amount of material being found unsuitable for disposal in the
ocean. Last summer, EPA closed the ocean disposal site outside of New
York Harbor for the disposal of most dredged material from the harbor.
In addition, States are more aggressively using their CWA water quality
certification and Coastal Zone Management consistency authorities to
make extensive demands for only marginal or speculative environmental
benefits. We agree it is important to ensure the protection of the
State prerogative, but we must ensure that the limited Federal and
local resources available for dredging projects achieve the greatest
benefits and minimize real environmental risk.
As part of the plan to close the NY Harbor ocean disposal site, the
Administration announced its intention to establish a process to review
the ocean dumping testing requirements in a manner that includes all
stakeholders. AAPA and its member ports have cooperated with the
contractor hired by the EPA to scope out this process. While AAPA
believes it is necessary to periodically review the adequacy of dredged
material regulation, we do not believe that this review should be an
opportunity to further restrict ocean disposal. AAPA is committed to
the development of a dredged material regulatory framework that equally
considers all disposal alternatives using decision tools that consider
risks, benefits and costs of each alternative. The public port industry
will participate in whatever process the EPA arrives at, with all
stakeholders, to ensure that the testing program is fair, efficient,
and scientifically sound.
However, we believe the focus of the Federal and State governments
should be first and foremost on pollution prevention, the control of
polluted runoff into our Nation's waterways, and the cleanup of
historically contaminated sediments. Contaminants in polluted runoff
and historically contaminated areas are often transported into our
ports and harbors. AAPA supports the efforts of this subcommittee in
trying to focus attention in the Clean Water Act on the control of
nonpoint polluted runoff and hotspots. We simply must control these
sources of pollution in order to ever have hope to be able to clean up
sediments in navigation channels.
We recognize that the subcommittee has sought to address the
problem of historically contaminated sediment by providing the Corps
with authority to dredge outside a navigation channel to remove and
remediate contaminated sediment that contributes to contamination of
the navigation project. However, this provision has not been used in
cleaning up historically contaminated areas. AAPA is working with its
member ports and the Corps and other Federal agencies to explore the
whole range of authorities and regulations that bear on cleaning up
historically contaminated sediment. It appears a combination of
administrative and legislative changes may be needed to achieve the
goal of cleaning up contaminated sediment sites in an economical and
equitable way. Under the right circumstances, ports have been partners
in the cleanup of contaminated sediment and brownfield sites while
spurring economic development. Such formulas for win-win situations
need to be found and replicated in the future. AAPA supports the work
of this subcommittee to move Superfund reform legislation that provides
greater flexibility in revitalizing brownfield sites.
A recent National Research Council report entitled ``Contaminated
Sediments in Ports and Waterways, Cleanup Strategies and Technologies''
may provide a road map for such administrative and legislative changes.
For example, the report recommends the increased use of risk-based
decisionmaking and full consideration of all sediment contamination
remediation options including containment. In addition, the report
suggests that cleanup dredging projects may not be occurring because of
concerns that future liability for contaminants in sediment may
transfer to the port or the Corps if contaminated sediment from a
cleanup project is placed in a confined disposal facility constructed
for navigational dredged material. AAPA encourages the subcommittee to
consider holding a hearing on the findings of the NRC report to
determine if there are any regulatory or institutional barriers to the
efficient identification and management of contaminated sediments.
The WRDA 1996 contained a provision, Section 217, that allows for
private interests to construct disposal facilities for dredged material
and to charge the Corps a tipping fee for placement of disposal in such
facilities. AAPA believes that this provision could provide the private
sector an incentive to develop innovative disposal strategies, such as
the creation of wetlands using dredged material for mitigation banks.
Another innovative strategy, which may be realized soon because of
research conducted by the Corps, is the processing of dredged material
into useful products such as manufactured soil, road-bed aggregate, or
even bricks. If a market were developed for these products, the private
sector could build processing facilities and take dredged material from
the Corps under Section 217. AAPA is reviewing this approach with the
Corps of Engineers to see if there are any regulatory or institutional
barriers inhibiting the private sector from acting in this area. AAPA
would like to work with the Administration and the Congress to refine
any policies that may be inhibiting economically viable beneficial uses
of dredged material. We must continue development of more efficient and
effective approaches to provide for our mutual goals of economic
development and environmental protection.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. To ensure our
Nation's continued international competitiveness, it is now more
important than ever to continue to invest in an improved and efficient
water transportation system. We are extremely grateful to the
subcommittee for the important work it did on WRDA 1986 and the
subsequent biennial authorization bills. Again, I cannot emphasize
strongly enough AAPA's support for action this year on a water
resources bill and a continued regular authorization cycle. We look
forward to working closely with the committee as you draft and enact
the Water Resources Development Act of 1998.
______
Responses by Kurt Nagle to Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. Tell me why you believe (as you said in your testimony)
that, ``. . . there is no user fee system that can equitably raise
revenues from the users of navigation channels in reasonable relation
to the distribution of benefits . . .''
Response. Both the direct users of navigation channels and the
beneficiaries of navigation channels are so diverse, truly national in
scope, that it is unlikely that an equitable user fee system can be
devised. For example, in addition to commercial shipping, navigation
channel users include vessels involved in national defense, commercial
fishing, research, and recreation; these users, however, have not been
part of the 1986 HMT funding mechanism. Furthermore, the economic and
environmental benefits of safe and efficient trade provided by the
Nation's system of navigation channels are spread throughout the
country. The foreign trade activities of each State are supported by a
variety of ports both within and, more often, outside the State. On
average, each State relies on between 13 to 15 ports to handle 95
percent of its imports and exports. The goods from 27 States leave the
country through the ports in Louisiana alone. Midwestern grain supplies
the Pacific rim market through ports in the Pacific Northwest. Imported
crude oil refined in New Jersey and Pennsylvania reaches consumers on
the entire East Coast--from Maine to Florida. Steel that travels to
major Midwestern industrial centers is delivered cheaply and
efficiently through Great Lakes ports. Ports on the West Coast handle
goods such as cars, computers, and clothing, which are destined for
consumers throughout the country.
AAPA considered four criteria is assessing possible Harbor
Maintenance Tax alternatives: (1) there should be equity among ports so
that each port gets a reasonable return for fees paid on cargo moving
through it; (2) the fee should not add to the price of the Nation's
bulk export products (e.g., grain, coal), making these commodities
uncompetitive in international markets; (3) the fee should not alter
the competitive position among U.S. ports or induce the diversion of
cargo from U.S. ports to Canadian or Mexican ports; and (4) the fee
should meet the constitutional test set out by the Supreme Court that
it should be reasonably related to the service provided. As is
explained below and in the attached white paper, AAPA considered a
number of alternatives to the existing HMT but determined that none met
the criteria.
Because of the enormous national economic and national security
benefits, and because the diverse navigation user community makes
assigning a fee based on use extremely difficult, the Federal
Government should reaffirm its long-standing responsibility for
maintaining navigation channels through funding from general treasury.
Question 2. Is there no way for us to install a program whereby the
users fund (at least partially) O&M activities along the waterways?
Response. As described above, designing a user fee system that is
equitable and does not harm the competitiveness of the Nation's exports
will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Certainly, however, a
user fee system that is designed to raise less than the full cost of
maintenance dredging would have less adverse effects than a system that
raises just enough or more than is needed. This was exactly the
reasoning Congress used in enacting the original Harbor Maintenance Tax
in 1986. At that time, the tax was set at 0.04 percent of the value of
cargo and it was intended to cover 40 percent of the cost of
maintenance dredging. In 1990, the tax was more than tripled to cover
100 percent of maintenance dredging costs. Since that time, the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund has accumulated a surplus of over $1 billion.
Question 3. Is the Administration just wasting its time by trying
to come up with an equitable program that meets the Supreme Court
criteria?
Response. For over 2 years, AAPA members reviewed alternatives in
case the existing tax was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court. The task group developed the criteria discussed above
and analyzed a variety of alternatives, but found none that met the
criteria noted earlier; only returning to pre-1986 General Treasury
funding appeared to be a viable solution. We recognize that the
Administration may believe it must work through a similar process of
analyzing alternatives, and we are prepared to assess any alternatives
they may propose against the criteria described above.
Question 4. What alternatives has your organization debated? None
of them viable?
Response. AAPA's task group reviewed several options before it
concluded that returning to general treasury funding for maintenance
dredging was the only equitable solution. Many of these options were
considered during debates from 1981 to 1986. Unfortunately, the only
option to survive the ad valorem HMT was found unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court. It does not appear that there are significant new or old
options that would work better today.
The assessment of a uniform tonnage fee on cargo or vessels would
severely affect bulk commodities, such as grain or coal, which compete
in international markets where pennies a ton can make or break a sale.
These shipments, which are amongst our Nation's leading export
products, now use the most cost-effective route--typically moving by
barges down rivers to coastal harbors. Those harbors, in turn, tend to
require significant maintenance dredging because of the river sediment.
In general, dredging demands related to the shipping of these types of
export products are greater than those related to import products.
Another alternative considered would have required local ports to
raise their own funding for maintenance dredging. Such a change could
pit U.S. ports against each other, the result of which could impact
commerce and national security. The concept also alters the fundamental
Federal role in maintaining the national navigation system. Like a
tonnage tax, local funding, if passed on to port users, could increase
transportation costs, pricing bulk commodities out of international
markets either through increased charges at the currently utilized
port(s) or by increasing inland transportation costs due to diversion
from the inland waterway system.
Other options for raising revenue from direct users of the
navigation channels are not likely to produce sufficient funds. In
addition, direct navigation users are already significantly taxed. A
1993 General Accounting Office study found that 12 Federal agencies
levy 117 assessments on waterborne trade. In 1996, receipts from these
fees were 152 percent of the level raised only 10 years earlier, making
our exports more expensive and less competitive in international
markets.
Customs revenues in fiscal year 1996 totaled $22.3 billion, of
which roughly 70 percent (or $15.6 billion) is attributable to cargo
moving through seaports. These funds, currently collected from users of
navigation channels, are more than 31 times greater than the cost of
maintenance dredging (approximately $500 million). Expected increases
in customs collections due to increased trade would likely be enough to
pay for maintenance dredging. The following table contains the custom
receipts for this 10-year period.
Based both on the recent Supreme Court decision and the rancorous
debate during the 1980's, any alternative trade tax/user fee funding
mechanism will have significant legal and political challenges to
overcome. In addition, enormous national economic and national security
benefits are threatened if the Federal Government does not continue to
make these navigation channel investments.
As described above, benefits of safe and efficient trade provided
by the Nation's system of navigation channels are spread throughout the
country. In addition, the benefits to the Nation resulting from
national defense, commercial fishing, research and recreational users
are immeasurable; assessing fees on these users, however, was not part
of the 1986 HMT funding mechanism. The burden for raising funds to pay
for dredging should be spread across the whole Nation because all our
citizens benefit. General Treasury funding of maintenance dredging
should be resumed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 percent of Total
Year Total Receipts (Assumed Attrib. Yr. to Yr. 1986-1996
to Seaport Ports) percent chg. percent chg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986...................................... 14,731,191,766 10,311,834,236
1987...................................... 16,445,193,364 11,511,635,355 11.64
1988...................................... 17,461,632,349 12,223,142,644 6.18
1989...................................... 18,649,411,310 13,054,587,917 6.80
1990...................................... 19,066,925,772 13,346,848,040 2.24
1991...................................... 17,995,115,674 12,596,580,972 -5.62
1992...................................... 19,983,701,909 13,988,591,336 11.05
1993...................................... 21,570,490,029 15,099,343,020 7.94
1994...................................... 22,980,653,342 16,086,457,339 6.54
1995...................................... 23,319,330,984 16,323,531,689 1.47
1996...................................... 22,342,702,434 15,639,891,704 -4.19 51.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Responses of Kurt Nagle to Additional Questions from Senator Reid
Question 1. I suspect, Mr. Nagle, that your principle concern is
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which I am told contains about $1
billion. In your statement you encourage the Congress and
Administration to ``develop equitable solutions to the funding
challenge.'' With the vast interests that your association has in the
solvency of the trust fund and the ability of the Corps to maintain the
harbors and ports, you should come to the Congress with options that
are practical and realistic in an era of shrinking budgets.
Response. For the over 200 years prior to 1986, the Federal
Government was responsible for funding the construction and maintenance
of navigation channels from the general treasury. The Federal
Government recognized the paramount importance of international and
domestic waterborne trade to the economic, and ultimately, social,
vitality of the country. Every State in the Nation benefits from the
system of ports that has developed, in partnership between the Federal
Government and local/State governments. As an example, attached is a
summary of ports used to handle international trade flowing into and
out of Nevada. Sixteen ports each handled more than 1 percent of
Nevada's total imports and exports (based on tonnage); 7 of the ports
are on the Pacific Coast; 4 are on the Gulf Coast; and, 5 are on the
Atlantic Coast.
While the Nation's public ports do have a vast interest in seeing
the Federal Government maintain its long-held responsibility to
construct and maintain navigation channels, we are also concerned that
the enormous investments ports have made in the land-side
infrastructure remain viable and competitive. Relying in good faith on
this long-standing partnership, local port authorities have spent over
$16.8 billion since World War II and expect to spend an additional $1.3
billion annually to construct and maintain landside facilities over the
next 5 years.
For over 2 years, a task group of AAPA members examined the issues
surrounding Federal channel maintenance funding, including possible
alternatives to the Harbor Maintenance Tax. AAPA considered four
criteria is assessing possible Harbor Maintenance Tax alternatives: (1)
there should be equity among ports so that each port gets a reasonable
return for fees paid on cargo moving through it; (2) the fee should not
add to the price of the Nation's bulk export products (e.g., grain,
coal), making these commodities uncompetitive in international markets;
(3) the fee should not alter the competitive position among U.S. ports
or induce the diversion of cargo from U.S. ports to Canadian or Mexican
ports; and, (4) the fee should meet the constitutional test set out by
the Supreme Court that it should be reasonably related to the service
provided. As is explained in the attached white paper, AAPA considered
a number of alternatives to the existing HMT but determined that none
satisfied all of the criteria.
Because of the enormous national economic and national security
benefits, and because the diverse navigation user community makes
assigning a fee based on use extremely difficult, Federal Government
should reaffirm its long-standing responsibility for maintaining
navigation channels through funding from general treasury.
Question 2. Nevada does not have a harbor, but I must raise the
problem that both Mr. Nagle and Mr. Higgins should address: How should
the extensive and complex problems of the harbors and beach erosion be
addressed in fiscally constraining years and be balanced with other
programs and activities of the Corps?
Response. As stated above, in my testimony, and in the attached
white paper, AAPA believes that adequately constructed and maintained
navigation channels are too important to the Nation to be compromised
in fiscally constraining years; these assets return much more money to
the Federal Government than they cost. Furthermore, the prospect of
increasing fees on the commercial shipping community appears contrary
to the Federal Government's objective of increasing international
trade; direct navigation users are already significantly taxed. A 1993
General Accounting Office study found that 12 Federal agencies levy 117
assessments on waterborne trade. In 1996, receipts from these fees were
152 percent of the level raised only 10 years earlier, making our
exports (e.g., coal) more expensive and less competitive in
international markets.
Customs revenues in fiscal year 1996 totaled $22.3 billion, of
which roughly 70 percent (or $15.6 billion) is attributable to cargo
moving through seaports. These funds, currently collected from users of
navigation channels, are more than 31 times greater than the cost of
maintenance dredging (approximately $500 million). Expected increases
in customs collections due to trade growth, which according to the
Custom Service will triple (import volume) by 2020, would likely be
enough to pay for maintenance dredging. The following table contains
the custom receipts for this 10-year period.
Based both on the recent Supreme Court decision and the rancorous
debate during the 1980's, any alternative trade tax/user fee funding
mechanism will have significant legal and political challenges to
overcome. In addition, enormous national economic and national security
benefits are threatened if the Federal Government does not continue to
make these navigation channel investments.
The benefits of safe and efficient trade provided by the Nation's
system of navigation channels are spread throughout the country. In
addition, the benefits to the Nation resulting from national defense,
commercial fishing, research and recreational users are immeasurable;
assessing fees on these users, however, was not part of the 1986 HMT
funding mechanism. The burden for raising funds to pay for dredging
should be spread across the whole Nation because all our citizens
benefit. General Treasury funding of maintenance dredging should be
resumed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 percent of Total
Year Total Receipts (Assumed Attrib. Yr. to Yr. 1986-1996
to Seaport Ports) percent chg. percent chg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986...................................... 14,731,191,766 10,311,834,236
1987...................................... 16,445,193,364 11,511,635,355 11.64
1988...................................... 17,461,632,349 12,223,142,644 6.18
1989...................................... 18,649,411,310 13,054,587,917 6.80
1990...................................... 19,066,925,772 13,346,848,040 2.24
1991...................................... 17,995,115,674 12,596,580,972 -5.62
1992...................................... 19,983,701,909 13,988,591,336 11.05
1993...................................... 21,570,490,029 15,099,343,020 7.94
1994...................................... 22,980,653,342 16,086,457,339 6.54
1995...................................... 23,319,330,984 16,323,531,689 1.47
1996...................................... 22,342,702,434 15,639,891,704 -4.19 51.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Nevada Trade by Port and World Region
This section presents Nevada import and export tons, value and TEUs
by port and world region. The principal observations are:
<bullet> 16 ports handled 95 percent of Nevada tons; 15 ports
handled 95 percent of Nevada; and 12 ports handled 95 percent of Nevada
TEUs.
<bullet> 16 ports handled more than 1 percent of Nevada total
import and export tons. 7 of the ports are on the Pacific Coast, 4 of
the ports are on the Gulf Coast and 5 of the ports are on the Atlantic
Coast.
<bullet> 13 ports handled more than 1 percent of Nevada total
import and export value. 6 of the ports are on the Pacific Coast, 4 of
the ports are on the Atlantic Coast and 3 of the ports are on the Gulf
Coast.
<bullet> 12 ports handled more than 1 percent of Nevada total
import and export TEUs. 6 of the ports are on the Pacific Coast, 4 of
the ports are on the Atlantic Coast and 2 of the ports are on the Gulf
Coast.
<bullet> 13 world regions traded more than 1 percent of Nevada
total import and export tons. 5 of the regions are in Asia, 2 of the
regions are in the Americas, 5 of the regions are in Europe/Africa and
one of the regions is Australia-NZ.
<bullet> 11 world regions traded more than 1 percent of Nevada
total import and export value. 5 of the regions are in Asia, 3 of the
regions are in Europe/Africa, 2 of the regions are in the Americas and
1 of the regions is Australia-NZ.
<bullet> 11 world regions traded more than 1 percent of Nevada
total import and export TEUs. 5 of the regions are in Asia, 3 of the
regions are in Europe/Africa, 2 of the regions are in the Americas and
1 of the regions is Australia-NZ.
Data Source: Journal of Commerce PIERS, Waterborne Statistics 1993-
1994, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, IWR.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Prepared Statement of Scott C. Faber, American Rivers
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Water
Resources Development Act of 1998. My name is Scott Faber and I am the
Director of Floodplain Programs for American Rivers, a national river
conservation group based in Washington, DC.
I would like to share our strong support for three nationally
important initiatives: S. 1399, the Missouri River Enhancement Program
proposed by Senator Bond; expansion of the Environmental Management
Program for the Upper Mississippi River; and the Challenge 21 Program
proposed by the Corps of Engineers.
missouri river enhancement program
As we near the 200th anniversary of Lewis & Clark's historic voyage
up the Missouri River, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
boost recreation and tourism, revitalize riverfront communities, and
restore habitat for river wildlife. In the same year that the Army
Corps was founded, Lewis & Clark's Corps of Discovery was undertaking
one of the greatest adventures in American History.
In 1804, Lewis and Clark bore witness to some of nature's greatest
scenes. Far more than explorers, Lewis and Clark were also pioneering
naturalists. Their journals are filled with descriptions of the river
valley and its wild inhabitants, ranging from herds of 10,000 buffalo
to a flock of white pelicans more than three miles long. The Corps of
Discovery recorded scores of plants, insects, fish, birds, and animals
previously unknown to science, ranging from least terns and prairie
dogs to cutthroat trout.
The Missouri River of Lewis and Clark featured thousands of islands
and sandbars separated by two constantly shifting channels. Dense
forests, shallow wetlands, and endless prairies bordered the river.
Water also flowed through thousands of smaller side channels that
provided a wide variety of water depths and speeds.
The river was in a constant state of change. As snow melted and
spring rains fell, floods inundated riverside land, replacing ancient
hickory and elm with cottonwood and willow. Eroding banks contributed
the basic building materials for sandbars, islands, and snags.
Floods also acted as a reproductive cue, and allowed fish to
migrate out of the river's main channels into slower, shallow water on
the floodplain to spawn. As flood waters receded, trees were washed
into the river and accumulated in side channels, fueling the production
of insects consumed by fish and waterfowl. As river levels fell,
sandbars emerged, allowing terns, plovers, and other shorebirds to nest
and forage. More than 500 different species of fish and wildlife relied
upon this dynamic template for their survival.
Mostly, what Lewis and Clark saw, we cannot. Nearly 200 years after
their voyage of discovery, Lewis and Clark would hardly recognize the
Missouri River. Today, white pelicans are rarely seen on the Missouri,
and the least tern and several other species are considered endangered
by the Federal Government.
Dams and channels created to support navigation, generate
hydropower and reduce flooding have dramatically altered the Nation's
longest river, eliminating the natural meanders and oxbows that once
supported one of the world's most diverse fisheries. Engineers forced
the river's restless, braided channels into a single, deep, stabilized
navigation canal. The river was narrowed by half and shortened by 127
miles. Nearly all of the river's islands and sandbars were lost. As
nurseries for wildlife were destroyed, one-fifth of the fish species
native to the Missouri have been placed on Federal and State watch
lists. Many species have fallen to less than 10 percent of their
historic population levels.
As the Corps of Engineers replaced hundreds of shallow, slow moving
channels with a swift, deeper canal, it eliminated the places fish used
to feed, reproduce, and conserve energy. As forests and prairies have
been replaced with corn and soybeans sequestered behind levees, trees
are no longer washed into the river during floods and fish can no
longer migrate onto the river's floodplain to spawn. The construction
of dams sharply reduced the amount of sand and silt transported by the
Big Muddy, eliminating the building materials for islands and sandbars
and encouraging the river to dig an ever-deeper channel. The amount of
sand and silt transported by the river fell by two-thirds, eliminating
the muddy shroud that once protected catfish and bigmouth buffalo from
sight-feeding predators. Dam operations interrupt the rising flows
which once triggered reproduction and migration.
Sturgeon, paddlefish, catfish, chubs, minnows, and other fish
species that evolved in the formerly shallow, muddy, and ever-changing
Missouri have rapidly declined. The pallid sturgeon, a species that
emerged over 150 million years ago, has been nearly eliminated in 50
years. Even catfish--the cornerstone of the river's commercial fishing
industry--are becoming rare. Consequently, the number of commercial
fishers has dropped from nearly 1,000 to less than 400.
The loss of sandbars has reduced nesting habitat for two federally
endangered birds, the least tern and the piping plover. Both birds nest
on barren sandbars and forage in shallow water. But today, sandbars are
frequently submerged during the summer nesting season. In addition,
poorly timed flows often destroy established nests, and the absence of
high flows allows sandbars to become overgrown with vegetation. Other
shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl have declined as places to
nest, forage, and rest have been eliminated, and the number of
thrushes, warblers, wrens, sparrows, and other small perching birds
which once used the river's floodplain during their annual migration
has also dropped.
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Lewis & Clark's voyage of
discovery, millions of Americans will re-trace their steps. Today, we
can only imagine what Lewis and Clark saw. We cannot restore the river
Lewis and Clark knew, but we can repair a river that will attract
recreation and tourism, reestablish riverfronts as community centers,
and restore habitat for river wildlife. We can create a Missouri River
Lewis and Clark would recognize.
The River Enhancement Program proposed by Senator Bond can be the
centerpiece of these efforts. Unlike the existing Missouri River Fish
and Wildlife Mitigation Program, which authorizes the Corps to re-open
historic side channels and sloughs, S. 1399 authorizes the Corps to
modify the rip-rap, wing dikes and other river training structures
which line the Missouri's bank to create river habitat--without
interfering with commercial navigation or private property rights. S.
1399 reflects the dramatic change that is occurring within the Corps of
Engineers. No longer merely dam builders, today's Corps of Engineers is
struggling to strike a balance between the needs of nature and
navigation. This program takes a decisive and aggressive step toward
rehabilitation of the Missouri River--the type of action which will
restore the river to a condition that even Lewis and Clark would
recognize.
We strongly urge you, Mr. Chairman, to advance the rehabilitation
of the Missouri River and the revitalization of its riverside
communities by including the River Enhancement Program in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1998.
upper mississippi river environmental management program
Like the Missouri, the long-term health of the Mississippi River
from Saint Paul to Saint Louis is threatened.
Dams, levees and river training structures have robbed the
Mississippi of its power to create new habitat during periods of high
flow. Sloughs, side channels and backwaters which fill with silt and
sediment are no longer replaced during floods but are instead replaced
by State and Federal restoration programs.
The Environmental Management Program on the Upper Mississippi River
has restored 28,000 acres of habitat for river wildlife in five States
and dramatically improved our understanding of the river's needs. With
little fanfare, the Saint Louis District of the Corps of Engineers
changed dam operations on the Mississippi River to quietly create more
than 3,000 acres of new habitat for river wildlife.
Unfortunately, habitat is being lost faster than it can be
replaced, and the Corps recently concluded that--absent action by the
Congress--the Upper Mississippi River will experience a shift to less
desirable fish species, poorer water quality and fewer areas which are
able to support migratory waterfowl. Far more than fish and wildlife
are at stake. More than 12 million people use the Upper Mississippi
River for recreational purposes each year, spending $1.2 billion and
supporting 18,000 jobs.
By increasing the authorized spending level for the Environmental
Management Program from $19.4 to $33.2 million, Congress can ensure
that the Upper Mississippi River continues to be both a working river
and a living river. The Upper Mississippi is the hardest working river
in the Nation, annually moving more than 90 million tons of cargo The
river is also a nationally significant natural resource, sheltering
more than 400 different species of wildlife, acting as the migration
corridor for 40 percent of North America's waterfowl, and harboring the
Nation's most ancient lineage of freshwater fish.
challenge 21 initiative
Finally, I would like to share our strong support for the Challenge
21 Initiative. The Corps of Engineers has developed the Challenge 21
Initiative to fill an important void in the Corps' flood loss reduction
arsenal--pre-disaster hazard mitigation. Despite our efforts, the
overall cost of disasters continues to grow. From 1989 to 1993, the
average annual losses from disasters were $3.3 billion. But, in the
last 4 years, average annual losses from disasters have quadrupled to
$13 billion. Whether we live in disaster-prone areas or not, all
Americans have felt the effect of these devastating natural disasters.
Since 1989, FEMA's disaster costs have topped $22 billion, a 550
percent increase over the previous 10 years.
While structural projects will continue to be needed, our Nation's
flood control experts have urged us to place greater reliance on
voluntary relocation, elevation and other solutions which permanently
reduce the threat of flood losses while simultaneously protecting
streamside habitat.
The land bordering our rivers and streams is critically important
to river health--acting as a buffer which filters polluted runoff;
providing shade which reduces water temperatures; contributing the
leaves, trees and other debris that make up the base of the aquatic
food chain; giving the river more room to spread out during periods of
high flow; and providing spawning habitat for a wide variety of
species.
Unlike structural flood control projects, the Challenge 21
Initiative is designed to satisfy all of the needs of riverside
communities--enhanced water quality, reduced flood losses, habitat for
river wildlife, and increased opportunities for recreation. Many
riverside communities are struggling to identify measures which reduce
flood losses while simultaneously re-establishing their riverfronts as
community centers. The Challenge 21 Initiative is designed to meet
their long-term economic and environmental needs.
We have already seen the benefits of voluntary relocation in places
like Arnold, Missouri, which was devastated by the Great Flood of 1993.
Disaster relief for Arnold's flood victims topped $2 million in 1993.
But, following a voluntary relocation program, Federal assistance was
less than $40,000 when floodwaters returned in 1995. Overall, more than
20,000 homes and businesses across the Nation have been voluntarily
relocated, elevated or acquired since 1993.
We strongly support the Challenge 21 Initiative and other efforts
to expand pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation efforts. And, we
urge you to meet the long-term needs of the Missouri River and the
Upper Mississippi River by authorizing the Missouri River Enhancement
Program proposed by Senator Bond, and by expanding the Environmental
Management Program for the Upper Mississippi River.
Thank you for opportunity to provide testimony this morning. I
would be happy to respond to your questions.
______
Responses of Scott E. Faber to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1a. I was very impressed with your testimony and am
interested in what led to the Missouri River restoration bill
introduced by Senator Bond. Who played a role in that effort? Was it
coordinated between the conservation community and the navigation
interests?
Response. The spirit of collaboration which ultimately led to S.
1399 began more than 3 years ago, when representatives of navigation,
agriculture and conservation groups created a collaborative process
designed to balance the needs of nature and navigation on the Upper
Mississippi River.
American Rivers and MARC 2000, a navigation industry trade
association, established the ``Upper Mississippi River Summit'' in 1995
to seek compatibility between economic and environmental uses of the
Upper Mississippi River. In February 1996, participants in the first
Summit set aside historic antagonisms and agreed to work
collaboratively in five teams of public and private interests. In
February 1997, approximately 50 navigation, agriculture, conservation
and government organizations adopted the recommendations of the teams,
including improved dam operations, floodplain restoration projects,
innovative river training structures, improved watershed management,
and the development of a science-based natural resources blueprint. In
March 1998, more than 80 organizations joined a revised vision
statement (Note: See resolution on page 103).
The spirit of collaboration and mutual respect which has taken hold
among interests concerned about the Upper Mississippi River has
recently developed among public and private interests concerned about
the Lower Missouri River as well. With the encouragement of Senator
Bond, public and private interests began to collaboratively address
threats to the river's natural resources. The result was S. 1399, which
authorizes the Corps to modify the dikes, rip-rap and other structures
which control the Missouri River to create the slow-flowing, shallow-
water habitat preferred by river wildlife. Senator Bond and his staff
led our discussions, ensuring that concerns regarding navigation, flood
control and property rights were addressed. Ultimately, representatives
of American Rivers, MARC 2000 and the Missouri Farm Bureau were able to
join Senator Bond under the Arch in Saint Louis to announce the bill's
introduction.
Question 1b. What sorts of Army Corps analysis or studies do we
have to justify the proposed effort?
Response. The Corps of Engineers and other public and private
agencies have conducted a wide variety of specific and general studies
which support the modification of bank stabilization structures to
restore aquatic habitat. Due to the length of the following documents,
copies were not provided but are available upon request.
(1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, 1998. Technical
Report on modifications to bank stabilization structures for the
Waverly Reach and Nebraska City Reach of the Missouri River. (predicts
the benefits of modifications to river training structures for selected
locations in Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri).
(2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, 1997. Technical
Report on modifications to bank stabilization structures for the Omaha
Reach of the Missouri River (predicts the benefits of modifications to
river training structures for selected locations in Nebraska and Iowa).
(3) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. July 1994. Missouri River Master
Water Control Manual Review and Update Study. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (describes the impact of river training structures on
wildlife habitat, geomorphology).
(4) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. July 1994. Missouri River Master
Water Control Manual Review and Update Study. Technical Reports. Vols.
7C-7E, 7F-7G, and 7H (describes the impact of river training structures
on fish, nesting waterfowl, wetlands and riparian habitat).
(5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinion (Draft),
1993. (describes the impact of channelization on river wildlife and
supports the modification of river training structures to recover
endangered species, including the pallid sturgeon.
(6) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993. Pallid Sturgeon Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND, 55 pas. (describes
the impact of channelization on the pallid sturgeon and recommends
modifications to bank stabilization structures to create shallow water
habitat).
(7) Hesse, L.W., Mestl, G.E., and Robinson, J.W. 1993. Status of
selected Missouri River fish species, in Hesse, L.W., Stalnaker, C.B.,
Benson, N.G., and Zuboy, J.R., eds, Restoration planning for the rivers
of the Mississippi River ecosystem: Washington, DC, National Biological
Survey Report 19, pp. 327-340. (assesses the status of Missouri River
fish species and the impacts of channelization, changes in hydrology).
(8) Galat, D.L., Robinson, J.W., and Hesse, L.W. 1996. Restoring
aquatic resources to the lower Missouri River: Issues and initiatives,
in Galat, D.L., and Frazier, A.G., eds., Overview of river-floodplain
ecology in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, V.3 of Kelmelis, J.A.
ea., Science for floodplain management into the 21st century:
Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 49-71. (describes
the impacts of channelization and support modifications to bank
stabilization projects to create habitat).
(9) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982. Technical Report on the
influence of channel regulating structures on fish and wildlife
habitat, 68 pas, Institute of River Studies at the Univ. of Missouri-
Rolla. (describes the impact of channel training structures on
geomorphology, and wildlife).
(10) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act Report, Missouri River Stabilization and Navigation
Project (Sioux City, Iowa, to mouth), Habitat Restoration. 77pp.
(documents the impact of bank stabilization projects on wildlife
habitat between Sioux City and Saint Louis).
(11) Funk, J.J., and Robinson, J.W. 1974. Changes in the channel of
the lower Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife: Jefferson
City, Missouri Department of Conservation, Aquatic Series 11, 52pp.
(describes the impact of channelization on wildlife habitat, and
accompanying declines in fish, forbearers, and waterfowl).
(12) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 1994. Draft Biological
Opinion on the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review and
Study and Operations of the Missouri River Main Stem System. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Region 6--Denver, CO, Region 3--Fort Snelling,
MN, 139 pas. (details the losses of fish and wildlife and their
habitats due to both dams on the Missouri and channelization of the
lower river, and discusses the need to create a diversity of habitat in
the Missouri's main channel by modifying river training structures).
(13) Missouri River Natural Resources Committee. 1997. Restoration
of Missouri River Ecosystem Functions and Habitats. (details lost fish
and wildlife habitat due to dams and channelization, and discusses
modifications to river training structures as a means to provide needed
habitat diversity).
Question 2. We tried hard to increase the funding levels for
environmental projects and programs in the 1996 WRDA. Is there a
particular project, program or policy from that bill that you think has
worked exceptionally well?
Response. Since 1986, the Corps of Engineers has become the
Nation's leading environmental restoration agency.
Through programs like the Section 1135 Program, the Upper
Mississippi River Environmental Management Program, and efforts to
restore Florida's Everglades, the Corps has successfully restored
hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. Under Section 1135
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, for example, the Corps
has restored nearly 400 acres of wetlands, woodland and grassland in
the Yolo Basin, transplanted seagrass in the Laguna Madre, and
reforested the floodplain of the Mississippi River. Public and private
interests increasingly rely on the Corps' expertise to protect and
restore floodplain, wetland and aquatic habitat.
The long-term health of the Nation's rivers and streams will
largely depend upon habitat restoration efforts by the Corps. Dams and
channelization have dramatically altered the Nation's rivers,
eliminating the habitat river wildlife need to feed, conserve energy
and reproduce, and altering the hydrologic cues that trigger spawning
migrations. No other Federal agency has the authority and expertise
needed to modify existing water resources infrastructure to enhance the
environment. In addition to Section 1135, the Corps has successfully
modified dam operations to increase aquatic habitat. For example, the
Saint Louis district recently lowered water levels during the summer
months to trigger the growth of marsh plants, creating more than 3,000
acres of new habitat for migratory waterfowl at no Federal expense.
Two provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 have
dramatically expanded the Corps's ability to protect our natural
resources. Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
provides the Corps greater flexibility to protect and restore aquatic
habitat than is now provided under the Section 1135. Section 207 allows
the Corps to cost-effectively maintain navigable waterways and dispose
of dredged material while simultaneously protecting and enhancing the
environment by permitting the Corps to adopt alternatives which are
more costly but which provide substantial environmental benefits.
Permitting the Corps to marginally increase maintenance costs to
protect and enhance the environment results in long-term savings in two
ways: by eliminating disputes which increase the administrative costs
of maintenance, and by ultimately reducing the costs of habitat
restoration.
Despite the enormous benefits of these environmental provisions,
two other sections of the Water Resources Development Act of 1998 will
ultimately have far greater effect on the Nation's rivers and streams:
flood control reforms and an increased focus on watershed management
and restoration.
By increasing the local share of flood control projects and
requiring sponsors to develop and implement floodplain management
plans, Congress gave communities greater incentive to direct new
development from flood-prone areas. Despite spending more than $30
billion on dams and levees, flood losses have more than tripled since
1951, when adjusted for inflation. Rather than limiting development on
flood-prone lands, New Deal policies inadvertently encouraged the
development of floodplains, placing thousands of homes and businesses
in harm's way. Heavy reliance on structural solutions created a false
sense of security which encouraged development in flood-prone areas,
multiplying the consequences of a structure's inevitable failure.
In recent years, many communities have rejected levees and dams in
favor of non- structural alternatives, including relocation, elevation
and land acquisition. For example, the city of Tulsa recently rejected
channelization in favor of using greenways, ball fields and permanent
lakes to provide temporary flood storage during high water. Following
floods on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers in 1993, more than 10,000
homes and businesses were voluntarily relocated from harm's way. Since
1993, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has relocated 15,000
additional structures in ten States.
The residents of Napa County recently approved a 20-year, $220
million effort to remove levees, restore floodplain wetlands and
relocate vulnerable homes and businesses (see attached).
Although the flood control reforms included in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 create new incentives for improved floodplain
management, Congress failed to give the Corps authority to successfully
participate in non-structural alternatives. Although a congressionally-
mandated report on impediments to non-structural alternatives is not
complete, flood control experts have identified five internal
obstacles: one, Corps planning guidance excludes the residual costs
associated with a structure's failure even though levees only provide a
limited amount of protection; two, Corps planning guidance fails to
include the benefits of a natural floodplain, including improved water
quality, wildlife habitat, enhanced recreation and tourism, improved
quality of life, and scenic benefits; three, Corps feasibility studies
rarely consider a range of non-structural alternatives, ignoring non-
structural alternatives which provide less than a 100-year level of
protection; four, the Corps systematically undervalues the benefits of
river recreation to riverside communities by adopting methodologies
which exclude recreational use at undeveloped sites.
In order to address these obstacles, we urge Congress to support
the Challenge 21 Initiative. This fills an important void in the Corps'
flood loss reduction arsenal--pre-disaster hazard mitigation. Unlike
structural flood control projects, the Challenge 21 Initiative is
designed to satisfy all of the needs of riverside communities--enhanced
water quality, reduced flood losses, habitat for river wildlife, and
increased opportunities for recreation. Many riverside communities are
struggling to identify measures which reduce flood losses while
simultaneously re-establishing their riverfronts as community centers.
In addition to the historic flood control reforms included in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Congress also authorized wider
use of watershed management in Section 503, which authorizes watershed
management studies, and Section 340, which expanded the Planning
Assistance to States program to include watershed management.
Exacerbating inappropriate development in the floodplain are thousands
of seemingly unrelated decisions throughout river basins which have
increased the rate at which water moves off the surface of the land and
into our rivers and streams. Rather than approaching the problem of
flood-loss reduction through a project-by-project approach, the Corps'
new focus on watershed management allows the agency to address the
major cause of increasing flood losses: hydrologic alteration of our
river basins. Corps planners have embraced this new philosophy, and are
working with State and local officials in hundreds of watersheds to
develop watershed management strategies.
Although the Corps has philosophically adopted a watershed approach
to flood loss reduction, they have been unable to use Section 503 in
practice. The Corps has interpreted Section 503 as limiting the
construction of projects to those river systems identified in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. The Water Resources Development Act
of 1998 provides a new opportunity to clarify the meaning of Section
503, and to instruct the Corps to adopt a watershed approach during the
development of all future flood control projects.
Question 3. Other than the Administration's ``Challenge 21'' and
reauthorization of the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management
Program, what do you think the Congress should do in WRDA 98 to improve
natural resource protection?
Response. American Rivers urges the committee to continue to reform
our Nation's flood control policies by giving communities the tools and
incentives they need to direct development away from flood-prone areas.
In particular, we urge you to consider the creation of a cost-sharing
system designed to reward communities that have taken affirmative steps
to reduce flood losses through non-structural means such as relocation,
elevation and land acquisition.
We envision a cost-sharing system that would require local sponsors
to pay 50 percent of the cost of flood-control projects. However,
communities that have actively preserved natural floodplain values, or
discouraged development in the floodplain, would continue to provide
just 35 percent of the cost of flood-control projects. The community
rating system now employed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
to reward communities which exceed the minimum requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program could be adapted to assess local
sponsors of Federal flood control projects.
American Rivers also urges the committee to authorize new
environmental restoration projects for our degraded rivers and streams.
Dozens of communities hope to take advantage of the new Section 206
program, which authorizes the Corps to restore degraded ecosystems, and
other Corps authorities to revitalize their hometown rivers. In
particular, we urge the committee to authorize projects which restore
degraded salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest, where past salmon
recovery efforts have largely failed.
In addition, several important projects will be under consideration
in the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, including a flood
control project proposed for the American River and a flood control
project proposed for the Red River of the North. We urge the committee
to reject proposals to construct a new dam on the American River and
instead support efforts to modify existing levees and Folsom Dam. We
strongly support proposals to set back levees and construct a floodway
along the Red River of the North. Both proposals will meet flood loss
reduction needs and protect the environment, a standard by which all
proposed flood control projects should be measured.
Finally, the committee may consider whether to authorize a
``comprehensive study'' for the Upper Mississippi River. As currently
conceived, the planning effort would attempt to integrate efforts
designed to assess navigation, flood control and environmental needs.
In particular, the study would consider a wide range of flood control
alternatives, including higher levees, setting back levees, removing
levees, acquiring land, and restoring wetlands. Long-term recreation,
navigation, habitat, water quality and bank erosion needs would also be
addressed. Although we recognize the need for integrated planning, we
urge the committee to ensure that such a study will fairly, accurately
and thoroughly consider all reasonable alternatives, including habitat
restoration, wetland restoration, and non-structural flood control
alternatives. In light of disputes regarding the Lower Mississippi
River mainline levee, we are concerned that the Mississippi River
Valley Division, formerly the Lower Mississippi River Valley Division,
is not as committed to habitat restoration and non-structural flood
loss reduction as the Congress and other Corps divisions. As always, we
are more than willing to work with the Mississippi River Valley
Division to balance economic and environmental needs.
______
Responses of Scott E. Faber to Additional Questions from Senator Baucus
Question 1. Mr. Faber, I know you are strongly supportive of the
Lower Missouri River Enhancement program included in the
Administration's proposal. Do you see any reason this program would not
be beneficial to the entire Missouri River?
Response. Senator, American Rivers strongly supports efforts by the
Corps of Engineers to restore wildlife habitat in Montana and the
Dakotas. Like the lower Missouri River, river managers have identified
dozens of opportunities to protect and restore wildlife habitat,
including historic side channels and floodplain forest and prairie. As
the agency with primary responsibility for the management of the
Missouri, the Corps is uniquely positioned to implement these
restoration projects.
In addition to habitat restoration, we urge you to direct the Corps
to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to consider dam operations in
western Montana which aid recreation and river wildlife. Currently,
both agencies collaboratively develop operating criteria for Canyon
Ferry and other Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs, dramatically
influencing the regeneration of the Missouri's characteristic
cottonwoods. The absence of periodic flushing flows eliminates the
deposition of fresh alluvium that cottonwoods need to germinate. As
mature cottonwoods die and are no longer replaced, river managers
predict that we will witness the near absence of cottonwoods between
Fort Benton and Fort Peck reservoir within 30 years. In addition to the
aesthetic benefits of cottonwoods, the trees serve as primary roosting
and nesting habitat for the federally threatened bald eagle. Congress
should direct the Corps to consider changes in dam operations which aid
the replacement of cottonwoods.
Finally, we urge you to support legislation proposed by the
Missouri River Basin Association to create additional opportunities for
recreation along the Upper Missouri River. Few rivers possess as much
economic potential as the Missouri River. Although recreation already
generates more than $114 million in annual benefits rivers which
feature healthy wildlife populations and adequate recreational
facilities frequently generate ten times as many economic benefits as
the Missouri. For example, recreation on the Upper Mississippi River
attracts 12 million people who annually spend $1.2 billion, supporting
18,000 jobs.
Question 2. The Missouri River Basin Association, which I know you
are familiar with, has recently released a planning report with many
recommendations for the management of the Missouri River. One of those
recommendations is that the Corps should include bank stabilization in
the Missouri River operation and maintenance budge. Do you support this
recommendation?
Response. Although we support efforts to create additional
recreational opportunities along the Missouri, American Rivers strongly
opposes additional bank stabilization by public or private interests
until the Corps of Engineers completes a cumulative impact statement
which predicts long-term environmental impacts. Although we are aware
of the concerns of floodplain landowners, we suspect that the
environmental costs of additional bank stabilization heavily outweigh
any economic benefits.
Historic efforts to stabilize the Missouri River have dramatically
reduced habitat for river wildlife and increased flood losses by
encouraging floodplain development. The original Missouri River was
characterized by continuous bank erosion, which created a wide variety
of channel depths and speeds. The channelization of the Missouri by the
Corps of Engineers replaced the meandering channels, islands and
floodplain wetlands of the historic river with a single, deeper and
faster canal that has diminishing ability to support life. Scientists
have linked bank stabilization with the decline of one-fifth of the
fish species native to the Missouri River. In particular, bank
stabilization eliminates the slow flowing shallow water habitat where
river wildlife can feed, conserve energy and reproduce. Additional bank
stabilization in the Dakotas and Montana will further imperil the least
tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon, species considered endangered
and threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Furthermore, additional bank stabilization has historically been
accompanied by floodplain development, which has in turn led to
steadily increasing flood losses in Missouri River communities. Many
homes, built in portions of the floodplain or floodway, have been
flooded three or more times and several homes have been flooded nine
times. Until riverside communities in Nebraska and the Dakotas take
affirmative steps to discourage development in flood prone areas,
Federal involvement in bank stabilization would be inappropriate.
An adequate study of bank stabilization impacts and needs would
consider a range of alternatives, including bank stabilization
practices which employ natural materials such as willow mats and
easements which permit some erosion and deposition within the
Missouri's meander zone.
Question 3. Mr. Faber, your organization has always been a strong
supporter of valuing recreation on our Nation's rivers. Could you
comment on the recreation proposals in the Administration's bill (the
recreation fees and the Water Foundation) and perhaps suggest to us
additional ways the Corps could enhance its recreation mission.
Response. American Rivers strongly supports efforts to boost Corps
spending on recreational facilities, including the recreation fee
program proposed by the Clinton Administration. We also support the
Water Foundation included the Administration's proposals for the Water
Resources Development Act of 1998 but urge Congress to increase the
Federal contribution.
According to Federal agencies, recreational use of the Missouri
River alone generates more than $114 million in annual economic
benefits, supporting thousands of jobs in riverside communities. More
than 10 million people annually recreate at developed recreationsites
along the Missouri, including sightseeing, hunting, fishing and
boating. Actual recreational use of the river, including sightseeing at
undeveloped sites, is thought to be considerably higher. Nebraska
estimates that use of the Missouri River in Nebraska generates more
than $300 million in annual economic benefits for riverside
communities. Visitors to natural resources like the Missouri spent
$29.2 billion in 1996 to watch wildlife, according to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Fishing and hunting produced even greater economic
returns.
Unfortunately, construction and maintenance of recreational
facilities, wildlife viewing and hunting areas, and habitat for
wildlife is a low priority for the Corps of Engineers. Although
recreation on the Missouri produces ten times the benefits of
commercial navigation, the Corps spends less than $1 million annually
to maintain recreationsites along the river. By contrast, the Corps
spends $3 million to $4 million annually to maintain the navigation
channel. And, recreation on and along the Missouri, unlike navigation,
is expected to grow as the Nation celebrates the 200th anniversary of
Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery.
The recreation fee program proposed by the Clinton Administration
will help end this disparity by allowing river managers to retain a
portion of the fees they collect at Corps facilities. In recent months,
many Corps facilities have been forced to reduce services or close due
to lack of funding. Allowing Corps officials to retain some of the fees
they collect will permit proper maintenance of these facilities, and
allow the Corps to construct new facilities to meet growing demand for
outdoor recreation. Corps facilities are the most heavily used Federal
recreational facilities in the Nation. But while no Corps function
provides as many direct benefits to Americans as the construction and
maintenance of recreational facilities, most Corps resources aid a
handful of special interests.
Although we support the fee program, we urge the Congress to
consider other measures which restructure the maintenance program of
the Corps of Engineers to meet growing recreation and environmental
needs. The Water Foundation proposed by the Clinton Administration will
effectively stretch existing Corps resources by matching Federal
dollars with funds acquired from foundations and other private sector
sources. However, we are concerned that funding levels are simply too
low to make an effective contribution. The National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) has successfully expanded the ability of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to protect and restore wildlife habitat, but
Federal funding for NFWF tops $5 million annually.
______
[From the Mississippi Monitor, April 1998]
Vision Statement of the Third Upper Mississippi River Summit
The following are excerpts from the vision statement from the third
Upper Mississippi River Summit:
<bullet> By September 1998, a task force shall review and seek to
identify gaps between existing and proposed studies to outline an
integrated planning effort. This planning effort will address the needs
and impacts of navigation, flood damage reduction, recreation,
floodplain and aquatic habitat, and watershed nutrient and sediment
inputs.
<bullet> Continue enhanced pool management in pool 8, 13, 24, 25, &
26, identify other opportunities for pool management such as the
Illinois River, and engage all stakeholders.
<bullet> Innovative river training structures which achieve
multiple-use values.
<bullet> Operations and maintenance activities which enable
increased environmental benefits while maintaining a safe and
dependable navigation system.
<bullet> Encourage voluntary adoption of economically viable and
ecologically sound land and water management practices which improve
biotic resources and water quality.
<bullet> Support and expedite the development of a habitat needs
assessment to guide restoration activities such as EMP projects and
monitoring. This habitat needs assessment will reflect a
collaboratively developed scope of work.
<bullet> Support the development of educational facilities,
programs, materials and web sites about all aspects of the Mississippi
River.
<bullet> A comprehensive profile of the region that describes the
total economic values (such as commercial, recreational, tourism, and
other natural resource-based values) derived from the river.
<bullet> Restore 60,000 acres of floodplain habitat by making the
Upper Mississippi River flood plain a high priority for Federal
conservation easements. In addition, coordinate Federal, State, local
and nonprofit programs to acquire fee title from willing sellers for
conservation purposes, and work with landowners to protect and restore
private lands within the floodplain by increasing funding for
conservation programs like Partners for Fish and Wildlife and the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
<bullet> Support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the
revision of refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans, in evaluating
expanded refuge boundaries to acquire land from willing sellers in the
Upper Mississippi River floodplain.
<bullet> Improved operation and maintenance for the Mark Twain
National Wildlife Refuge and the Upper Mississippi River National
Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
______
Vision Statement III--Upper Mississippi River Summit
Vision for the Upper Mississippi River--To seek long term
compatibility of the economic use and ecological integrity of the Upper
Mississippi River.
Objective of Summit Meeting--To seek commitment to develop a multi-
interest strategy for managing the Upper Mississippi River.
Whereas:
(1) The Upper Mississippi River is for purposes of this document
defined as the main stem of the Mississippi River from Minneapolis,
Minnesota, to Cairo, Illinois, recognizing main stem impacts from
measures taken throughout the entire 714,000-square mile watershed;
(2) The Upper Mississippi River is a multi-purpose resource
recognized by Congress as both a ``nationally significant ecosystem and
a nationally significant commercial navigation system'' (Section 1103
of 1986 Water Resources Development Act);
(3) The Upper Mississippi River is important for economic and non-
economic uses;
(4) The initial Summit Meetings focused on identifying natural
resource and economic issues of the Upper Mississippi River, we now
need to advance implementation of established objectives.
Therefore:
We are committed to:
(1) Collaboratively address Upper Mississippi River needs.
(2) Identify and prioritize issues and geographic areas in which
cooperative action is most likely.
(3) Seek ways to remove obstacles to cooperative action within
existing programs and authorities.
(4) Seek funds and/or new authorities, as appropriate for the
following:
<bullet> By September 1998, a task force shall review and seek to
identify gaps between existing and proposed studies to outline an
integrated planning effort. This planning effort will address the needs
and impacts of navigation, flood damage reduction, recreation, flood
plain and aquatic habitat, and watershed nutrient and sediment inputs.
<bullet> Continue enhanced pool management in pool 8, 13, 24, 25,
and 26, identify other opportunities for pool management such as the
Illinois River, and engage all stakeholders.
<bullet> Innovative river training structures which achieve
multiple-use values.
<bullet> Operations and maintenance activities which enable
increased environmental benefits while maintaining a safe and
dependable navigation system.
<bullet> Encourage voluntary adoption of economically viable and
ecologically sound land and water management practices which improve
biotic resources and water quality.
<bullet> An evaluation of the current and future physical structure
of the river flood plain under current management practices and the
development of models (e.g. GreatRiverSIM, LMS, and others) to achieve
a greater understanding of the economic and ecological
interrelationships of management alternatives;
<bullet> Support and expedite the development of a habitat needs
assessment to guide restoration activities such as EMP projects and
monitoring. This habitat needs assessment will reflect a
collaboratively developed scope of work.
<bullet> Support the development of educational facilities,
programs, materials and web sites about all aspects of the Mississippi
River.
<bullet> Encourage the development of brief vision statements
(maximum one page) including measurable objectives by each stakeholder
group that can be shared in preparation for the 1998 Interim Report.
<bullet> A comprehensive profile of the region that describes the
total economic values (such as commercial, recreational, tourism, and
other natural resource-based values) derived from the river.
<bullet> Restore 60,000 acres of floodplain habitat by making the
Upper Mississippi River flood plain a high priority for Federal
conservation easements. In addition, coordinate Federal, State, local
and nonprofit programs to acquire fee title from willing sellers for
conservation purposes, and work with landowners to protect and restore
private lands within the floodplain by increasing funding for
conservation programs like Partners for Fish and Wildlife and the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
<bullet> Support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the
revision of refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans, in evaluating
expanded refuge boundaries to acquire land from willing sellers in the
Upper Mississippi River floodplain.
<bullet> Improved operation and maintenance for the Mark Twain
National Wildlife Refuge and the Upper Mississippi River National
Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
(5) Convene again in approximately 1 year to review progress and
reevaluate strategies, with a progress report in 6 months.
______
For a Flood-Weary Napa Valley, A Vote to Let the River Run Wild
(By Timothy Egan)
Napa, CA--April 18.--A good 64 inches of rain has pelted this
valley of fine wine and pursuers of the sublime since last July. So
last month, in the middle of yet another El Nino-driven storm, Napa
Valley residents went to the polls and decided to do something about
it.
By a two-thirds majority, Napa County voted to raise taxes to pay
for ripping out its flood-control system, allowing the near-dead Napa
River to return to life and run wild for much of its 55 miles. After
suffering 27 floods in less than 150 years, with flood controls, the
Napa Valley now will take a chance with unfettered nature.
In a State where virtually every majority river is shackled by a
dam, pinched by levees or siphoned for use by distant cities, the vote
in Napa amounts to a call for revolution in the Nation's war against
high water.
By voting to let the river run free, reclaiming much of its own
meandering path, Napa residents have also steered the Army Corps of
Engineers, an agency that usually acts like the orthodontists of
nature, on a new path.
``What we will be doing in Napa is radically different from
anything we have ever done before,'' said Jason Fanselau, a Corps
spokesman in Sacramento. ``It's going to totally change the way we do
business.''
Under the Napa plan, some of the dikes and levees built to keep the
river in a straight channel--largely without success--would be lowered
or removed. Bridges that block the flow of high water would be raised
or torn down. People living in areas that regularly flood would be
bought out and asked to move. About 600 acres of low-lying land would
be given back to the river, as wetlands. The river's water will go
where it usually goes in floods, but in the future nobody will live
there.
In Napa, the change is coming from voters: three times in the last
22 years, the country has voted down Corps proposals for expanding its
traditional concrete-walled flood control system. But the engineers are
also undergoing a rethinking of their own.
Since the epic Mississippi River floods in 1993, the Corps has
taken a long second look at its century-old efforts to hold back
flooding rivers with dams, levees, diversions and drainage ditches. A
levee system unrivaled by anything but the Great Wall of China has not
only failed to keep the Mississippi between its banks, but also made
floods downriver more severe by blocking natural outlets for the rising
waters.
Rather than rebuilding old, flooded structures, Federal authorities
have been buying up property in the Mississippi floodplain. But the new
philosophy has yet to penetrate all of Congress--where the California
delegation has been trying to get money for at least one new billion
dollar dam--nor until the Napa vote had it been tested at the ballot
box.
The Napa plan is the most systematic effort in the country to try
what is known as the ``living rivers'' approach to improve flood
control. In South Florida, the Corps is similarly dismantling dikes and
dams, but in an effort to restore the Everglades.
The Napa Valley's existing network of braces, dikes and levees,
while protecting some people from flooding, sends so much water
downstream so quickly that it always manages to spill over somewhere.
The plan now is to combine ecology and engineering. Some dikes and
reservoirs will be strengthened to slow the river in crucial places.
But dredging and straightening the riverbed will be largely abandoned,
and in other sections, the river will be allowed to widen during
floods, filling the marshlands south of the city of Napa. These
restored wetlands will work as a sponge, the thinking goes.
The cost, over 20 years, will be $220 million, half paid by the
Federal Government, and half coming from a half-cent rise in the county
sales tax and from the State.
To many who live in Napa, the most famous wine-growing region in
the United States, the price is a bargain. Floods from the last 40
years have cost more than $500 million in property damage.
``For over a century, we have fought a losing battle against the
Napa River,'' city officials wrote in a voter's guide published before
last month's election. ``We have failed because we didn't respect the
river's natural tendencies.''
California requires a two-thirds majority to raise the local sales
tax. The vote in Napa just made that threshold, getting 68 percent, or
308 votes more than needed, out of more than 27,000 cast. Opponents of
the measure, who did not mount an organized campaign, worried that the
plan would not offer enough certainty for future years.
The plan seems radical because it calls on people to trust that a
raging, chocolate-colored river, if allowed to reclaim its old
floodplain, will ultimately provide more protections than the existing
network of levees, decades of dredging or a plan once backed by the
Corps to line the river with concrete.
``It will require us to go wider instead of deeper,'' said Paul
Bowers, the Corps of Engineers official who will co-manage the project
with the county. ``That was the biggest issue: Will people be able to
give up that much land to restore a river?''
Napa County officials say they will buy out several businesses, a
trailer park, some warehouses and about 16 houses. They will raise
bridges that have served as blockage points to high-charging rivers.
Most of the farmland, from high-quality vineyards on down, will stay
just that, subject to floods in the dormant season in winter, but dry
in California's typical eight rainless months.
But some farmland will be bought. Joe Ghisletta 3d, whose family
has owned farmland in Napa Valley for nearly a century, will sell 68 of
the family's 192-acre hay farm to the county; it will revert to a
marsh.
``I think over all the whole plan is going to be a blessing for
this valley,'' Mr. Ghisletta said.
Tourism is big business in the valley, which gets about five
million visitors a year. The constant television images in recent years
of couches floating down the Napa River, or people taking rowboats to
flooded homes, are not considered the best advertising.
``Image is everything in this valley,'' said Moira Johnston Block,
president of Friends of the Napa River, a citizens group that was
instrumental in bringing the living river plan to the table. ``The
floods have been the most ongoing, negative image. Some of the
winemakers saw this plan as image protection.''
During the campaign, most of the vineyards promoted the plan. But
despite the weekend traffic jams of limousines touring the wine
country, Napa is much more than the gilded valley that tourists
perceive, Ms. Johnston Block said. The city of Napa, where 70 percent
of the voters live, is largely blue collar, and the county is full of
fifth-generation farmers who live by the whims of weather.
David Prewitt, who lives in a trailer park that is to be moved,
said he had to abandon the park in January and February because of high
water. A 20-year resident of Napa, he said he generally favored the
plan.
``They had to do something,'' Mr. Prewitt said, sitting in the
bright sunshine of a day when Napa's hills were brilliant green from
the rains. ``They've dredged this river time and again, and put up
flood walls, and still it always seems to go over its banks.''
Whether other communities will adopt the Napa plan is uncertain. To
the east, the Sacramento River and its side creeks are lined by more
than 1,000 miles of levees, protecting much of the city of Sacramento.
But new housing developments are planned for areas that have seen
frequent floods over the last two decades, and business leaders are
promoting a large dam for the American River, saying it will allow the
Sacramento area to grow.
Nationally, reimbursing people for flood damage costs about $5
billion a year, from disaster aid and related help. The Army Corps of
Engineers, the agency charged with flood protection, seems committed to
the new direction.
``Napa will be the showcase, because there's nothing quite like it
anywhere in the country,'' said Homer Perkins, a spokesman for the
Corps in Washington.
The test for Napa will come 10 years or so down the road, when the
living river plan is complete. Ms. Johnston Block said she had an image
of a benign river: ``You will see a living river, a restored river
downtown, with marshes and wildlife on one side and latte and wine on
the other.''
the Corps is more prosaic. ``I think, 5 to 10 years from now, when
it starts to rain in the winter, people will be able to sleep at
night,'' Mr. Bowers said.
______
Prepared Statement of Grover Fugate, on behalf of the Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Council
introduction
Good morning. My name is Grover Fugate, I am the Executive Director
of the State of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council
(RICRMC). I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to
present RICRMC's concerns and interests in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1998 (WRDA). This testimony will focus upon Rhode
Island's need for replenishment projects and the national benefits
derived from them.
background
The south coast of Rhode Island is a southwest--northeast oriented,
micro-tidal (0.8-1.2 m mean and 1.6 m spring range), sediment-starved
and wave-dominated shoreline characterized by alternating headlands and
barriers. The coast is most susceptible to south and southeast waves
generated by storms that pass to the west of Rhode Island. Shoreline
erosion along the Rhode Island coast ranges from 0.1 feet per year (.02
m/yr) to 3.9 feet per year (1.2 m/yr).
The Rhode Island southern shoreline is in many ways typical of
other coastal areas along the east coast of the U.S., and the processes
that formed other east coast shorelines are at work in Rhode Island.
Yet the south shore of Rhode Island is unique due to the combination of
glacial depositional processes and subsequent post-glacial sea level
rise that have resulted in the current barrier/headland configuration
of the Rhode Island coast.
About 14,000 years ago the global climate warmed up very rapidly
and added much additional glacial meltwater to the ocean, causing the
sea to rise rapidly across Block Island and Rhode Island Sounds to
arrive in the vicinity of the present shoreline by 4,000 years ago.
Ocean waves eroded the glacial deposits, carrying sediment in wind-
driven currents alongshore and depositing it as barrier spits in the
adjacent low-lying areas between the topographically higher headlands.
As the spits developed and grew alongshore from the headlands, the low-
lying areas behind the spits were almost entirely sealed off from the
ocean, forming coastal lagoons (coastal ponds) connected to the sea
through narrow inlets. The inlets are the conduits for the exchange of
water and sediment in and out of the lagoons, and before they were
fixed in place by jetties, they were maintained by tidal forces and by
surges from storms. From the time of this early spit formation to the
present, the glacial river deposits and glacial till have continued to
erode, and the barrier spits and coastal lagoons have moved landward
and upward, all by the force of storm waves and storm surges controlled
by the level of the sea at the time of the storm. The present
arrangement of barriers and headlands is controlled by the topography
of the glacial till and glacial river sediment. The areas of glacial
deposits with higher relief are exposed at the surface and form the
present headlands, while those areas below mean low water are now
topped by barrier spits or submerged by coastal lagoons.
ricrmc
The State of Rhode Island has endeavored to restrict new coastal
development and limit repairs to existing development in order to
mitigate coastal hazards, provide and protect recreational beach areas
and reduce the expenses incurred by towns, the State of Rhode Island,
and the Nation due to storm damage and erosion.
It is the policy of the State of Rhode Island (through creation and
operation of RICRMC):
``to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible restore
the coastal resources of the State for this and succeeding
generations through comprehensive and coordinated long-range
planning and management designed to produce the maximum benefit
for society from such coastal resources . . .''
The process, which includes erosion-rate driven setbacks for new
construction or significant alterations, property acquisition and
public education, is a long-term policy. The benefits realized will
continue to increase through time, however, there are several immediate
concerns that need to be addressed. These include some measure of
frontal erosion protection for existing structures, the need for
recreational beaches and public access and environmental restoration.
existing property protection
In order to protect ecological systems, provide lateral public
access, prevent detrimental affects to adjacent properties and provide
recreation beaches, structural shoreline protection is prohibited in
most areas of Rhode Island. While this policy ensures for future use of
these areas, current erosion has placed many properties and municipal
infrastructure in immediate danger from small to moderate sized storms.
These property owners, town and State managers, need interim measures
to protect property and infrastructure while the long-term planning
continues and solutions are implemented (property acquisition and
relocation/elevation of structures). Beach replenishment is the interim
measure. Replenishment does protect property and infrastructure without
detrimental affects to access or recreational beaches. The expense of
replenishment has been criticized as wasteful spending. Without some
acceptable measure of protecting existing property while development is
moved landward away from the immediate coast, similar expenses will be
incurred (by the Nation) due to storm events and long-term erosion.
tourism/recreation/public access
The tourism economy in Rhode Island has recently exceeded the $2
billion mark. This revenue is generated primarily by water-adjacent
activities (beaches and boating). This source of revenue, which can
help to mitigate coastal issues, requires the presence of recreational
beaches for the persons visiting the beach for the day, renting a
cottage for a week or seasonal homeowners as well as regional, national
and foreign tourists. In addition to the tax revenues lost from the
tourism and recreation economy, numerous jobs will be lost and
lifestyles affected.
environmental restoration
The Army Corps of Engineers is currently conducting a feasibility
study to restore habitat and improve water quality in coastal lagoons
that have stabilized inlets. Part of this restoration includes dredging
of settling basins and flood tidal deltas. This type of project
benefits ecological systems, improves water quality. Additional
benefits include improved navigation (providing recreational
opportunities and supporting local economies) and puts sand on the
beach (protecting property, infrastructure and providing recreational
beaches).
corps project structure
In order to meet the cost to benefit ratios of a federally funded
project, the project area must be densely developed. Much of Rhode
Island's coastline, including the more developed sections, do not meet
the Federal ratios. This policy encourages development and maintenance
of overly developed areas constituting large hazard risks and future
expenses. The State of Rhode Island is actively trying to limit coastal
development which will reduce the Federal burdens of storm and erosion
damages to property and infrastructure.
Where environmental restoration opportunities exist, the funding
structure for these types of projects should reflect the benefits
realized. When there are environmental restoration opportunities and/or
an existing long-term commitment and plan to reduce development that
will be impacted by coastal processes, the required cost to benefit
ratio and non-Federal cost share should be adjusted accordingly.
Additionally, the existing reconnaissance/feasibility study/
implementation phase organization of Corps projects is cumbersome,
inefficient and discouraging. The organization of projects needs to be
reviewed to reduce the cost to both the Federal Government and the non-
Federal sponsor as well as result in more implemented projects and less
expensive studies.
conclusion
Rhode Island needs federally sponsored replenishment projects as
interim protection for existing development and recreational beaches.
Design and funding of these projects should reflect the State's
commitment to reducing coastal hazards and protecting and restoring the
environment. National benefits include a reduction in post-storm damage
expenses, improved environment as well as sustained and increase of
revenue from the recreation and tourism economy.
Rhode Island desires to continue discussion of these issues to the
mutual benefit of towns, States and the Nation. Thank you again for the
opportunity to express our interests and concerns.
______
Responses of Grover Fugate to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. What are the most important water resource needs in
Rhode Island?
Response. The most important water resource needs in Rhode Island
are water quality, frontal erosion and navigational dredging. All three
of these issues affect recreational activities (boating, fishing,
swimming), commercial fisheries (shell fishing, aquaculture) and the
quality of our ecological systems.
Improved water quality ensures the availability of swimming beaches
and improves the habitat of species important to recreational and
commercial users as well as providing the basis for a healthy
environment. A strong and healthy environment will, in turn, minimize
damage from oil spills, etc.
Frontal erosion is a constant problem along the majority of the
Rhode Island coast. Although the State of Rhode Island has adopted
regulations to limit current and future development along the immediate
coast, existing as well as the limited amount of new development
continues to be problematic. The process of moving development landward
away from the coast through setback regulations and property
acquisition is a slow process. In the interim, Rhode Island needs to
help protect existing public and private property as well as maintain
recreational beaches.
Question 2. Is there anything the Army Corps could improve or do
differently to improve the situation in our State?
Response. At present there are two main problems with the
management of Corps projects. The first is Benefit/Cost ratios that
reward less than desirable development along the coast and provide no
assistance to less developed areas that need interim aid as mentioned
in the response to question 1. Beaches along which there has been and
continues to be dense development receive the benefit of Corps
projects. Rhode Island's most developed beaches do not meet the
necessary benefit/cost ratios due to Rhode Island's efforts to limit
development in these areas. It is CRMC's belief that such communities
and States should benefit preferentially over areas that do not
exercise restraint on coastal development.
Second, the Corps some times narrow interpretation of a project
authorization can cause projects to be more complicated, than
necessary. Particularly projects that involve a habitat restoration
component are not necessarily conducive to hard and fast engineering
solutions. A more successful approach would allow the Corps to show
more flexibility to respond to local conditions and needs, so that
rigid stances aren't taken and more creative and cost effective
solutions can be pursued.
For example, local experts should be consulted at the earliest
possible stages of project design and continue to be part of the
process during the design phase. The localities are often aware of
specifics that are critical to project design, that standard approaches
do not take into account. Currently, it is apparent that the Corps
designs projects based on standard operating procedures that may have
been fine for erosion control projects that they have been doing for
years, but the newer ventures involving the management of sustainable
ecosystems, need a more flexible, less centralized paradigm to cope
with these projects. Otherwise, the Corps ends up designing projects
which draw critical comments from local scientists. The obvious result
is, the local experts then suggest significantly different project
methods, design and scope that would cause a complete redesign of the
project.
Projects would be more successful and efficient if the Corps had a
process where local expert scientists in specific fields could be
brought in as needed, to design the project and the Corps rely less on
internal standard approaches. This may be possible, if it is clear in
the authorization that the end goal of sustainable environments is more
important, than the Corps need to control the process. And that the
need to cut small costs, by the utilization of as much in house Corps
talent as possible, may result in larger total operation cost, if the
most direct and effective sources of information are not used.
Question 3. What is the status of the South County shoreline
protection and environmental restoration feasibility study?
Response. Currently, the project is behind schedule due to the
Corps limited expertise and knowledge of recent advances in
environmental restoration research and methods. As a result, local
scientists are now working (on their time) with the Corps to develop
more appropriate research methods. Although the final project will be
beneficial and provide necessary data, the first year field season
(now) is quickly passing. The feasibility study will only have 1 year
of monitoring instead of the originally designed 2 year monitoring.
Question 4. Do you have any estimates on the overall cost of
potential projects along the South Coast?
Response. At present, given the very limited nature of the current
information on this project CRMC can only offer the very tentative and
rough estimate of $10 million to solve several immediate problems (8 to
10 projects). However, CRMC has recognized the need of the State of
Rhode Island to have a dredge program independent of the Corps. This
dredge program would conduct small scale projects without major
assistance from the Corps and maintain Corps constructed projects such
as the Salt Pond project, when implemented. CRMC has endeavored to
acquire a dredge using State funds (as of yet unsuccessful). Federal
assistance either through the Corps or elsewhere would be most
expedient and in the long run, it is CRMC's opinion that a State owned
and operated dredge would be less expensive for both the State of Rhode
Island and the Federal Government.
The committee may wish to require this analysis of options for
future projects. It may be more cost efficient to engage in limited
equipment purchases, with up front local agreements, rather than
continued Federal maintenance.
Question 5. While we await the long-term feasibility study, what
should be done in the interim to protect the coastline of Rhode Island?
Do you have sufficient State resources to draw upon to conduct interim
and long-term solutions?
Response. As previously mentioned, Rhode Island needs interim beach
replenishment, navigational dredging, maintenance of breachway settling
basins and environmental restoration. In the respect that all of these
issues are inter-connected, a Rhode Island/South County dredge program
would provide the ability to manage these issues quickly and
efficiently. Although it is possible, through the pending Rhode Island
Oil Spill Accident Recovery Bill (OSPAR), that a small dredge could be
purchased for these purposes, CRMC attempts to date have been
unsuccessful.
The State of Rhode Island did provide assistance ($45,000; 50
percent of material costs) to the Town of South Kingstown for a small
replenishment project at their severely eroded Town Beach. The State
was unable or unwilling, however, to spend money along beaches abutting
private property.
While nourishment does and will continue to play a vital role in
beach management and flood damage reduction, we need a concerted
Federal, State and local research effort at understanding an integrated
approach to beach management, coastal erosion and flood damage
reduction.
______
Prepared Statement of Kenneth E. Pringle, Mayor, Borough of Belmar, NJ
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is
Ken Pringle, and I have been the Mayor of the Borough of Belmar, New
Jersey for 8 years. I am pleased to be here to bring my perspective as
a small town mayor to the Federal shore protection program.
Belmar is a one-square mile community, with a year round population
of 5,700 residents. Despite our small size, Belmar ranks each year as
the most popular tourist destination in Monmouth County, and one of the
most popular in New Jersey. On an typical Sunday afternoon in the
Summer, approximately 20,000 people will crowd onto Belmar's beautiful
beaches, which are a little more than a mile long, and about 150 yards
wide.
The Borough of Belmar has been an active partner with the State of
New Jersey and the Corps of Engineers in the largest shore protection
program in the United States. This project includes 11 municipalities
and covers 21 miles of New Jersey's shoreline.
I am here today to urge continued support for the Federal program
and to thank the committee for recognizing the importance of this
investment in our shore communities. I want to note the long-standing
contributions of Senator Lautenberg to maintaining this investment. He
has been a tireless champion of our coastal areas and to environmental
protection.
Belmar was an early convert to the cause of beach nourishment.
During the infamous Nor'easter of 1992, Belmar, like the rest of the
Jersey Shore, was battered by a horrific combination of high winds,
abnormally high tides, and relentlessly pounding surf. Along the
southern half-mile of Belmar's coast, which had eroded away to almost
nothing over the prior years, seven blocks of boardwalk and two
pavilions were completely destroyed, including three blocks of
boardwalk that were ``protected'' by a stone seawall. Other towns on
either side of us, like Spring Lake, Avon and Bradley Beach, were
devastated by the same storm, and lost their entire boardwalks and
sustained enormous damage to their beachfront pavilions, at a cost of
several million dollars in Federal Emergency Management Administration
funds.
At Belmar's northern end, however, we sustained very little damage
to our boardwalk and beachfront buildings. The reason our northern end
fared so much better than our southern end was that our northern
beaches were much wider because the Shark River Inlet traps eroding
sand carried northward by the littoral drift. It became clear to
everyone that the best defense against ocean storms is not seawalls,
jetties or other hard structures, but rather wide sloping beaches that
easily dissipate the incredible force of a storm's waves.
As a result of what we learned from the Nor'easter of 1992,
residents of Belmar and other towns from Manasquan to Deal hailed the
arrival of the Army Corps and two large ocean-going dredges in the
summer of 1997. That dredging operation, which proceeded around the
clock for several months, pumped tens of millions of cubic yards of
sand on our beaches, literally creating beaches before our eyes.
Despite a series of nor'easters on the New Jersey coast this past
winter and spring, Belmar's new beaches survived extremely wall, with
minimal sand loss. More importantly, as a result of the increased width
of our southern beaches, we were able for the first time to leave in
place this winter the portable boardwalk sections that we installed
after the Nor'easter of 1992,\1\ which was a boon to the hundreds of
runners, walkers and bicyclists who use that boardwalk every winter
day. The wider beaches have also significantly expanded Belmar's
capacity for beachgoing tourists. In fact, Belmar's new south end
beaches were able to be used this past weekend as the site for a large
amateur volleyball tournament, a prospect that would have been
unthinkable just a year ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the aftermath of the Nor'easter of 1992, and with the long-
planned Army Corps beach nourishment project still in the unfunded
distance, Belmar replaced its destroyed boardwalk area with portable
boardwalk sections, which are removed each winter. We also installed
restroom facilities that can be disconnected and towed inland after
each summer beach season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As other New Jersey shore communities will attest, the Corps of
Engineers' projects have time and again proved their resistance to
devastating storms. Based upon our experience in Belmar over the past
winter, and what seems to be the increasing frequency of storm activity
off our coast, it is clear that the Corps of Engineers' project in
Monmouth County will save millions of dollars in damages over the next
several years.
The Clinton Administration has proposed a change in the cost-
sharing formula for periodic nourishment of sandy beaches. Under this
proposal, non-Federal project sponsors would pay 65 percent, instead of
the current 35 percent, for periodic nourishment. Because the Borough
of Belmar will be due in the next few years for its first periodic
renourishment, I am extremely concerned about the additional financial
burden this plan will place on us. There is no question that we are
willing to pay our fair share of the cost of financing shore protection
projects. However, Mr. Chairman, this local share--whether for initial
construction or periodic renourishment--should be dependent upon the
Federal Government holding up its part of the bargain. That means that
we must be assured of a reliable funding level for these projects. This
funding level should be based upon a comprehensive assessment of the
projects around the country that are ready for construction, ready for
periodic renourishment, and currently in the construction pipeline.
The Borough of Belmar does its part to maintain a stable, reliable
source of local funding for the shore protection program. Because we
are unable to charge a hotel or local sales tax, my community and most
others along the New Jersey coast fund the cost of our beaches by
charging an admission fee to residents and non-residents alike. By law,
this fee can used solely for the cost of operating and improving our
beaches Obviously, we think it is important that these fees remain
affordable to families. Belmar's 10 percent share of the most recent
beach nourishment project is $612,899.79. Thanks to great weather over
the past two summers, and some forward financial planning, we will be
making a cash downpayment of $300,000 toward that bill when it comes
due later this summer, but will need to borrow the balance, and pay it
off over the next several summers. It is important that the local share
of future periodic renourishment projects be reasonable, so as not to
cause the price of beach admission to exceed the reach of the tens of
thousands of families from New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania who
regularly use our beaches.
Mr. Chairman, shore communities around the country believe that
beach nourishment projects are in the national interest, not just in
the State and local interest. Beaches provide a vital, first line of
defense against storms and flooding. Every dollar of Federal investment
in shore protection reduces the cost of emergency assistance that would
otherwise be paid through the Federal Emergency Management
Administration, and prevents untold losses in private investment, much
of which is either uninsured or uninsurable. Moreover, the revenues
from tourism in New Jersey don't go to local governments, which rely
primarily on property taxes for their revenue. Rather, they go to the
State and Federal treasuries. The New Jersey shore is a tremendous
economic engine. In 1996, travel and tourism in New Jersey's five
coastal counties generated over $12 billion and were responsible for
161,000 tourism-related jobs, with a payroll of over $3 billion.
Protection of this industry is a worthwhile Federal investment.
I want to thank you again for giving me the opportunity to share my
views with you today. I would be pleased to try to answer any questions
you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Stephen H. Higgins, Broward County Department of
Natural Resource Protection
Developing an Enhanced National Shoreline Protection Program
summary
1. Sandy beaches are a critical, integral part of the Nation's
coastal infrastructure, providing the first line of defense against
storm waves and forming the basis for the economic vitality of many
coastal communities, regions and States. We believe that Federal,
State, and local investments in beach erosion control and in the proper
management of beaches, inlets, and shorelines are returned many times
over in revenues generated by tourism and commerce, by tax increases
inspired by higher property values and incomes, by mitigation of storm
wave damage to property and infrastructure, and by the elevation of the
quality of life for coastal residents and visitors.
2. Sand replenishment has been shown time and time again to be an
effective method of shore protection based on both engineering and
fiscal criteria.
3. The Federal role in shore protection and beach erosion control
is clearly prescribed by current law, including the Shore Protection
Act of 1996 (section 227 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996).
4. The Administration's policy, announced in 1995, to terminate
Federal financial assistance for most new shoreline protection projects
is already harming America's sandy beaches. Congress has repeatedly
rejected that policy. However, the Administration has persisted in its
efforts to enforce its policy.
5. Contrary to Section 227 of WRDA 1996, the Corps of Engineers is
not on its own initiative conducting reconnaissance studies of new
shoreline protection projects. It is not on its own initiative
conducting feasibility studies of such projects, nor is it recommending
to Congress the authorization of new shoreline protection projects.
What work it is doing is either to complete its contractual
responsibilities with regard to a dwindling number of shoreline
protection projects or in response to congressional directives to
proceed with studies. As of this date, there is not one new shoreline
protection project which is under construction in the Nation using a
single dollar of Federal funds.
6. The American Coastal Coalition calls on this subcommittee to
insist, as part of WRDA 1998, that the White House Office of Management
and Budget and the Army Corps of Engineers implement the letter and
spirit of the Shoreline Protection Act of 1996 and the vast body of
other Federal laws which clearly establish a Federal role and
responsibility to participate in the repair and maintenance of sandy
beaches.
7. While we believe it is appropriate for OMB to initiate
discussions of enhancements to national shoreline protection policy,
its first responsibility is to implement existing law and policy as
established by Congress. If the Administration believes that changes in
the national shoreline protection program need to be made, it should
lay its proposals before Congress. Until that time, the bickering on
this subject between the Administration and Congress must end. It is
not serving the Administration's professed goal of achieving fiscal
restraint. And it is not promoting the responsible management of
America's coastal resources.
8. While we await any proposals that may be forthcoming from the
Administration, there are steps that can be taken in WRDA 1998 that
will make significant improvements in the national shoreline protection
program.
A. We urge Congress to direct by statute that shoreline protection
is one of the Corps' primary missions. Currently, the Corps' shoreline
protection role is an outgrowth of its storm protection, flood control,
and environmental restoration missions. Shoreline protection should not
be a Corps stepchild.
B. Congress should direct the Corps to conduct its benefit-cost
analysis of prospective shoreline protection projects by assessing the
regional and national economic impact of the proposed project.
Currently, the Corps limits its assessment primarily to an evaluation
of property that is immediately adjacent to the beach. In no way does
that limited analysis show (a) whether there is a national interest in
constructing the project, or (b) what benefits can be expected to flow
to businesses, jobs, or tax revenues at the regional or national levels
from constructing a shoreline protection project. This regional
economic benefit analysis was included in the language of the Shore
Protection Act as passed by the House in 1996, but it was dropped in
conference.
C. We recommend the establishment of a National Shoreline and Shore
Erosion Data Bank. Several Federal agencies currently collect or have
the ability to collect data that is vital to the management of our
coastlines. In addition, data is collected by States, academic
institutions, and private sector research facilities. To facilitate the
long-term management of our shorelines, all interests should have
access to all of the useful data they need to make responsible policy
determinations. The authorization of a National Shoreline and Shore
Erosion Data Bank in WRDA 1998 and the funding of that Bank in the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 1999 and
beyond would be a significant step toward pulling together and
augmenting the available data and establishing a mechanism for its
maintenance and dissemination.
D. We call on Congress to authorize a new National Shoreline Study
to assess the regional and national economic impacts of beaches and to
take a complete inventory of the condition of the Nation's sandy
beaches. The last inventory was taken in the late 1960's, and there has
never been a national assessment of the economic impacts of beaches.
Without this data, it is impossible for Congress to consider major
changes in national shoreline protection policy or to budget for the
Federal share of beach repair and maintenance.
E. The Federal Government has a statutory and moral responsibility
to mitigate the damage it has caused to beaches by constructing dams,
dredging channels, and other similar actions. Language should be
included in WRDA 1998 which assures that this mitigation responsibility
can be used as the basis for Federal participation in a shore
protection project.
F. One immediate change in policy that we strongly recommend would
direct the Corps to place beach quality sand dredged from channels on
adjacent beaches, regardless of whether it is the ``least cost
option.'' On many occasions, dredged material is disposed in the ocean
because placement on a nearby public beach is not deemed by the Corps
to be the ``least cost option.'' Subsequently, taxpayers pay for
pumping that sand back onto the beach as part of a shore protection
project. Thus, the ``least cost option'' too often may result in a
higher cost to taxpayers. We support statutory language in WRDA 1998
that directs the placement of beach quality sand dredged from a
navigation project on nearby public beaches unless such disposal is not
economically and environmentally sound.
G. In some areas of the country, near-shore sources of sand for
beach nourishment are becoming scarce. Recognizing this fact, Congress
adopted legislation making it possible for the Minerals Management
Service to enter into agreements with the Federal Government as well as
with non-Federal sponsors of beach nourishment projects to acquire sand
from the Outer Continental Shelf. While Congress gave MMS the
discretion to determine if it should charge non-Federal sponsors for
this sand, the MMS has determined that, as a matter of policy, it will
impose a charge. This will increase costs to State and local
governments unnecessarily. Therefore, the American Coastal Coalition
supports statutory language which removes from MMS the discretion to
charge any fee for OCS sand to a non-Federal sponsor of a federally
authorized shore protection project. While this issue is not
technically within the jurisdiction of this committee, we believe that
the jurisdictional issue can be overcome.
H. Among other changes that we recommend for your consideration is
a requirement that the Corps implement a systems approach to sediment
management using projects already in the pipeline as well as new
projects in different parts of the country, and to analyze and report
to Congress by a date certain on the effectiveness of this approach.
This can be done in WRDA 1998 with the actual funding of projects
provided in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bills for
fiscal year 1999 and beyond. The testing of the systems approach to
sediment management should in no way be used to defer any existing
shoreline protection projects. In addition, we urge that Congress
require the Corps to approach shoreline protection and navigation
projects on a programmatic basis, rather than a project-by-project
basis. Logic says that a programmatic approach to the planning of these
two types of projects will provide Congress with the information it
needs to make better decisions about project funding. That, however,
may not be the case in all parts of the country. Once again, WRDA 1998
can be used to direct the Corps to implement a programmatic approach
and report to Congress by a date certain. We urge this subcommittee to
make it clear that the implementation of this and any other new
shoreline protection mandates not be used in any way to defer action on
existing or new shoreline protection projects.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to lay before this
subcommittee some of the most pressing shore protection policy issues.
We hope that your efforts will bring a swift end to the impasse between
Congress and the Administration so that the Nation's coastal and fiscal
resources will be better managed. I ask your permission to include our
full statement in the hearing record.
introduction
The American Coastal Coalition is the rapidly growing voice of U.S.
coastal communities at the Federal level of government. Established
nearly 3 years ago, our membership consists of local governments, local
government officials, business people, property owners, and others who
live or work in America's coastal communities. We appreciate this
opportunity to appear today. While our organization focuses on several
key areas of Federal policy, my testimony today will focus on national
shoreline protection policy.
The American Coastal Coalition affirms that America's beaches are a
critical, integral part of the Nation's coastal infrastructure,
providing the first line of defense against storm waves and forming the
basis for the economic vitality of many coastal communities, regions
and States. We believe that Federal, State, and local investments in
beach erosion control and in the proper management of beaches, inlets,
and shorelines are returned many times over in revenues generated by
tourism and commerce, by tax increases inspired by higher property
values and incomes, by mitigation of storm wave damage to property and
infrastructure, and by the elevation of the quality of life for coastal
residents and visitors. Recent studies and surveys have documented the
economic value of beaches to specific local communities, regions, and
States, and while such studies are just beginning to be undertaken on a
national level, it is intuitively obvious that thriving local,
regional, and State coastal economies are necessary factors in a
healthy national economy.
We firmly believe that beach nourishment is an effective method of
shore protection based on engineering and fiscal criteria. By beach
nourishment, we refer to sand placement or sand replenishment. The
American Coastal Coalition believes that the Federal role in shore
protection and beach erosion control is clearly prescribed by current
law, including the Shore Protection Act of 1996 (section 227 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996). Efforts to substantially
reduce and eventually eliminate this role are clearly
counterproductive. We believe that while historical Federal activities
in this arena have been successful in terms of benefits and costs,
current fiscal constraints as well as coastal engineering advances over
the past quarter century mandate the development of an enhanced
shoreline protection program based on policy clarity,
comprehensiveness, economic efficiency, and technical effectiveness.
Furthermore, we believe the Federal Government must participate in
the management of the Nation's sandy shoreline. This includes a strong
fiscal commitment to sharing the costs of construction and periodic
maintenance of beach nourishment projects with States and/or local
governments. We believe this fiscal commitment can be fulfilled without
significantly increasing Federal expenditure levels beyond those of
recent years.
Recently, the White House Office of Management and Budget held a
meeting attended by coastal residents, government officials, engineers,
and economists to discuss shoreline protection policy. While we welcome
this discussion and hope that it will produce concrete proposals during
this session of Congress, we are deeply concerned that it comes after 3
years of efforts to eliminate Federal participation in beach
nourishment projects. Prior to the initiation of those efforts, the
Federal-State-local government partnership in beach nourishment had
functioned as an outstanding example of inter-governmental cooperation
to protect a vital part of the Nation's infrastructure. The past 3
years, however, have seen ever decreasing requests by the
Administration for the funding of this program. In fact, the agreement
to establish a Working Group to discuss shoreline protection policy
came only days after an Administration fiscal year 1999 budget request
of less than a fourth of the level appropriated by Congress for shore
protection in fiscal year 1998.
Based on the actions of the Administration over the past 3 years,
the American Coastal Coalition will continue to work with Congress to
enact changes in law during the current congressional session which
will improve the effectiveness and fiscal responsibility of the
national shore protection program. We seek the support of the
Administration for these changes, which are based on the fundamental
concept of strong Federal participation in the repair and maintenance
of those sandy beaches that meet the standards for Federal
participation established by law.
The American Coastal Coalition believes that the first
responsibility of national shore protection policy must be to mitigate
the harm to sandy beaches which has been caused by actions of the
Federal Government. We believe that, wherever such harm has been
caused, the Federal Government has a statutory responsibility to
undertake any and all reasonable actions necessary to repair the beach
erosion it has caused and to undertake additional steps to take
effective action that will mitigate future damages, as well.
Not every sandy beach is an appropriate candidate for beach
nourishment. For the large number which are, there must be an
understanding and acceptance of the fact that beach nourishment has as
its objective the reconstruction of a beach so that the net loss of
sand caused by wave action and storms--and in many cases exacerbated by
the existence of inlets and other forms of human intervention--is
slowed to a minimum.
So long as we look at each ``beach project'' in a microcosm, we
lose sight of the fact that it is part of a natural sand system that,
in many cases, has been altered by human intervention. The existence of
an inlet, for example, will naturally trap sand upward of the inlet,
causing an accretion of sand, while starving the downward beach of
sand. Beach nourishment can slow the net loss of sand on the downward
portion of the beach, but it is highly unlikely to make that downward
beach totally self-sustaining. Future periodic renourishment--meaning
placing sand from an accreting region on all or part of the sand-
starved portion of the beach--is an integral part of the beach
nourishment process. It is by no means a sign of the failure of beach
nourishment, but rather is a necessary and acceptable maintenance of
critical infrastructure.
The American Coastal Coalition is greatly concerned about the
potential for loss of lives and coastal property due to storms waves
and surge. We believe that as a matter of general policy, healthy
beaches with stable dunes afford the most effective and environmentally
sound approach to protecting life and property while at the same time
protecting and enhancing the economic and environmental interests of
the region and the Nation.
Withdrawing from our coastlines is an unacceptable alternative to
beach nourishment. The history of mankind is replete with evidence that
people are drawn to coastlines for both economic and recreational
reasons. Unless the coasts are cordoned off with barbed wire, that
attraction will continue. Hindsight shows that some areas of the
coastline are less conducive to the recreational and/or economic
presence of human beings than others. That is equally true of the
significant development which has taken place in riverine areas of the
Nation. Using the combined tools of effective shoreline protection and
hazard mitigation, the costs of maintaining these coastal regions and
reducing the losses resulting from natural disasters can be
substantially reduced. ``Retreat'' from highly developed coastlines,
busy recreational beaches, or urbanized shorefronts is not an option.
We are opposed to over-development of coastal areas, and we believe
that it is often appropriate for governmental policies to discourage or
prohibit the development of pristine, undeveloped regions of the
coastline. However, the only situations in which ``retreat'' is
appropriate are those where the local community has decided to take
that course. Federal policies should neither dictate retreat or make
retreat necessary by withholding appropriate assistance (i.e., beach
nourishment) from those regions which have been determined to meet
accepted engineering and economic criteria for erosion control, and
which are willing to share the costs and responsibilities of beach
management with the Federal Government.
To achieve the level of funding for the study and construction of
projects currently in the pipeline as well as to fund some or all of
the initiatives discussed below, the American Coastal Coalition
believes that the Congressional Budget Resolution must include an
adequate amount for ``Function 300'' (which includes, but is not
limited, to the Corps civil works program) and which includes report
language which states that the Budget Committees place a priority on
the full range of water projects that are included within this budget
function.
immediate initiatives to improve the management of the nation's
sandy beaches
Knowing that significant changes in the national shoreline
protection program must be implemented with caution over time, we
nevertheless believe that a limited number of policy changes should be
implemented during the current congressional session. Each of these
will assist in the planning, implementation, and management of an
enhanced Federal shoreline protection program, regardless of the
specific elements of that program.
These initiatives include:
1. Establishment of a National Shoreline and Shore Erosion Data
Bank. Several Federal agencies currently collect or have the ability to
collect data that is vital to the management of our coastlines. In
addition, data is collected by States, academic institutions, and
private sector research facilities. To facilitate the long-term
management of our shorelines, all interests should have access to all
of the useful data they need to make responsible policy determinations.
The authorization of a National Shoreline and Shore Erosion Data Bank
in WRDA 1998 and the funding of that Bank in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 1999 and beyond would be a
significant step toward pulling together and augmenting the available
data and establishing a mechanism for its maintenance and
dissemination.
2. Study of the Regional and National Economic Impacts of Beaches.
Numerous studies on the local, county and State levels have shown the
positive effect on regional economies and on the national economy, as
well. What is needed is a nationwide study using uniform economic
criteria that will reveal the magnitude and geographical dispersion of
that benefit. Such a study must be authorized in WRDA 1998 and funded
in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 1999
and beyond.
3. Strengthening National Policy to Mandate Shore Protection as a
Corps Responsibility. It is the intent of section 227 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (known as the Shore Protection Act)
to make shore protection one of the primary missions of the Corps of
Engineers. However, given the fact that the Corps has not interpreted
this statutory language as creating such a mission, language must be
included in WRDA 1998 which will accomplish this significant goal.
Shore protection must no longer be considered ancillary to any of the
Corps' other missions.
4. Strengthening National Policy on Mitigation as a Basis for
Undertaking Shore Protection Projects. As stated above, the Federal
Government has a responsibility to mitigate the damage it has caused to
beaches by constructing dams, dredging channels, and other similar
actions. Language must be included in WRDA 1998 which assures that this
mitigation responsibility can be used as the basis for Federal
participation in shore protection projects.
5. Examine the Feasibility of a Systems Approach to Sediment
Management. We must require the Corps to implement a systems approach
to sediment management using projects already in the pipeline as well
as new projects in different parts of the country, and to analyze and
report to Congress by a date certain on the effectiveness of this
approach. This can be done in WRDA 1998 with the actual funding of
projects provided in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bills for fiscal year 1999 and beyond. The testing of the systems
approach to sediment management should in no way be used to defer any
existing shoreline protection projects.
6. Examine the Feasibility of a Programmatic Approach to Funding
Shoreline Protection. This is the logical complement to a systems
approach to sediment management and the Data Bank, as well. If we
approach shoreline protection and navigation projects on a programmatic
basis--rather than a project-by-project basis--logic says that it will
provide Congress with the information it needs to make better decisions
about project funding. That, however, may not be the case in all parts
of the country. Once again, WRDA 1998 can be used to direct the Corps
to implement a programmatic approach and report to Congress by a date
certain. Here, too, this mandate should not be used in any way to defer
action on existing or new shoreline protection projects.
7. Increase Funding for Coastal Research and Development. Federal
financial support for R&D efforts must be increased so that we can
acquire the data needed to enable both the Federal Government and State
governments to more effectively plan for and manage shore protection
projects. Therefore, we support increased funding for the R&D efforts
under the Corps' Coastal Engineering Research Center.
8. Fund the Shoreline Demonstration Program. A demonstration
program to test alternative shoreline protection technologies in
different parts of the country was authorized by WRDA 1996 for a total
of $18 million over 3 years. So far, no money has been appropriated for
this program. We urge funding this program at a level of $6 million
annually for Fiscal 1999, 2000, and 2001. It has been several years
since the Federal Government funded such a demonstration program.
During that time, coastal engineers and scientists have learned a great
deal. That knowledge should be field-tested to see what works and under
what conditions, if any, does it work.
9. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material. One immediate change in
policy would direct the Corps to place beach quality sand dredged from
channels on adjacent beaches, regardless of whether it was the ``least-
cost option.'' On many occasions, dredged material is disposed in the
ocean because placement on a nearby public beach is not deemed by the
Corps to be the ``least-cost option.'' Subsequently, taxpayers pay for
pumping that sand back onto the beach as part of a shore protection
project. Thus, the ``least-cost option'' too often may result in a
higher cost to taxpayers. We support statutory language in WRDA 1998
that directs the placement of beach quality sand dredged from a
navigation project on nearby public beaches unless such disposal is not
economically and environmentally sound.
10. Non-Federal Sponsors Should Not be Charged for Using OCS Sand.
In some areas of the country, near-shore sources of sand for beach
nourishment are becoming scarce. Recognizing this fact, Congress
adopted legislation making it possible for the Minerals Management
Service to enter into agreements with the Federal Government as well as
with non-Federal sponsors of beach nourishment projects to acquire sand
from the Outer Continental Shelf. While Congress gave MMS the
discretion to determine if it should charge non-Federal sponsors for
this sand, the MMS has determined that, as a matter of policy, it will
impose a charge. This will increase costs to State and local
governments unnecessarily. Therefore, the American Coastal Coalition
supports statutory language which removes from MMS the discretion to
charge any fee for OCS sand to a non-Federal sponsor of a federally
authorized shore protection project.
longer-term initiatives
The American Coastal Coalition supports an enhanced national
shoreline protection policy which is based on a strong Federal
partnership with States and local governments in rebuilding and
maintaining public sandy beaches. We believe that the annual Federal
investment in this part of our coastal infrastructure can remain in the
very modest range of $100 million to $150 million well into the next
century.
We believe that the current balance of the Federal-State-local
partnership should be modified to give a stronger role to States and
local governments in the management and implementation of shoreline
protection policies, and that State and local interests should assume
an increased responsibility for sharing the monetary and non-monetary
costs of such management. Equally, we believe that the current Federal
process of selecting which beaches are suitable for Federal shore
protection assistance and of implementing that assistance must also be
enhanced in a manner which establishes clearer and more rational
participation criteria, increases the effectiveness of shoreline
protection projects, achieves regional goals, and reduces costs.
Toward these ends, we believe that the Federal Government should
share with State and local governments the costs of both constructing
and maintaining beach nourishment projects. The issues of (a) the
proportion of the cost-share borne by the Federal Government, (b) the
method used to determine the economic benefits of a proposed shore
protection project, and (c) the statutory life of a project should be
discussed in light of both the availability of Federal funds and the
need to increase the role and responsibilities of the non-Federal
sponsors of such projects. Furthermore, we believe that consideration
should be given to increasing the reliance placed on State and local
governments as well as the private sector in conducting studies and
construction of beach nourishment projects.
The American Coastal Coalition believes the discussion of these and
other aspects of national shoreline protection policy should take place
only in an environment where there is a clear commitment on the part of
the Administration to a strong Federal role in the repair and
maintenance of the Nation's sandy beaches.
We are hopeful that current discussions involving Congress, the
Administration, and the private sector will produce legislative
proposals that will address both the rebalancing of the partnership and
the project selection and management process. We ask those charged with
making government policy to make changes in the current Federal shore
protection program carefully and deliberately, relying on an analysis
of project-and process-related data to determine which changes are most
likely to be effective. This emphasis on prudence should not be
misinterpreted as providing a basis to slow, cease, or prevent action
on the study, authorization, funding, or construction of any shore
protection project.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views to this
subcommittee today.
______
Prepared Statement of Louisa Strayhorn, Council Member,
Virginia Beach, VA
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Senators. My name is Louisa
Strayhorn, and I am a City Councilwoman for the city of Virginia Beach,
representing the Kempsville Borough. I appreciate this opportunity to
testify before the committee about the City's past and ongoing work
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for our numerous beach and
navigation projects.
As you probably know, Virginia Beach is a beautiful resort city
located only a few hours drive from the Nation's capitol, and it is the
largest City in the Commonwealth. Having served on the City Council for
the past 4 years, I know first-hand how the well-being of our beaches
is crucial to the City's economy. The City has over 6 miles of
commercial beach front which is critical to the livelihood of many
Virginia Beach residents and the City's financial health since tourism
is our largest employer. Over two million out-of-town visitors arrived
in Virginia Beach last year. These visitors spent approximately $500
million in the City and directly created about 11,000 jobs.
In addition to our visitors, the second biggest employer for
Virginia Beach is the U.S. Navy as the Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana
supports the largest naval complex in the free world. After three
rounds of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), expansion of this
megaport continues with an increase of as many as 6,000 sailors and
family members in the next year with the F/A 18 transfer from Cecil
Field to Oceana. Our City's economic health directly impacts the
quality of life enjoyed by the thousands of Naval personnel in Virginia
Beach.
Therefore, because of these many varying factors which constitute
the City: the size of our population (nearly 400,000), our location on
the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay, and our dependence on tourism as
the largest segment of our economy, the Virginia Beach City Council has
a particular interest and directive to protect our beaches and
navigable waterways.
Sandy beaches are a integral part of the City coastal
infrastructure and provide the first line of defense against storm
waves and form the
basis for our continued economic vitality. For the past 25 years,
the City, in conjunction with the Corps, has been working to finish the
region's highest priority, the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and
Hurricane Protection Project. This project protects and enhances six
miles of commercial and residential beach front, consisting of over $1
billion in flood insured development, against a direct hit from a
hurricane. The project protects hundreds of millions of dollars of City
infrastructure, our tourism industry and more than a thousand of
commercial and residential properties along the shore.
Study on this program as a Federal project began in the 1960's, and
after long anticipation the project was authorized by Congress for
construction in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act. Actual
construction began in fiscal year 1996, and depending on appropriations
levels, initial construction will be completed in 2001. A vast
improvement in protection from storm events, the area protected by the
project will be saved from average annual flooding damages estimated at
over $13 million during the project's 50-year life.
The project scope required phasing of the work to match funding
levels and comply with procurement policies. The recent policy change
to prohibit ``continuing contracts,'' coupled with the reductions in
Civil Works appropriations, has slowed progress and complicated the
sequencing of the work. However, in May the rules changed again to re-
allow continuing contracts, and with continued support for this project
by the appropriators it appears that we are back on track for a 2001
completion of construction.
Most projects of this scope and size authorized by this Congress
require multi-year and phased contracting for construction to match and
track with appropriations levels. Last year's change and subsequent
reversal in the ``continuing contract'' policy severely impacted many
projects throughout the country. I believe it may be appropriate for
your committee to consider language in this year's WRDA to clarify and
resolve the issue.
Another issue facing this committee as you prepare the WRDA is the
Administration's proposed revision in cost-sharing for beach
replenishment. Once construction of this Beach Erosion Control and
Hurricane Protection project is complete, the authorization includes
the periodic renourishment of the project beach for a 50-year period.
The very basis for the project's performance estimates is founded in
the premise that the beach and seawall or dunes will act together to
provide the protection benefits--the beach must be maintained.
Though not specifically addressed in the draft language supplied by
the Administration, the application of revised cost-sharing must not
affect on-going or existing projects. We have based our participation
in this project, and agreed to maintain the constructed project, with
the belief that the cost-sharing formulation in the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act, and subsequently in our Project Cooperation
Agreement, would remain at the authorized level of 65 percent Federal
and 35 percent local. The Administration has proposed to change the
beach replenishment portion of these projects to 35 percent Federal and
65 percent local. While the merits of revision could be argued, any
application of new cost-sharing levels must be limited to new
authorities and I urge you to specifically address this issue as you
move forward with the WRDA.
If the Administration's new cost-sharing formula were applied to
our existing project, the cost to the City of Virginia Beach, over and
above the amount specified in our Project Cooperation Agreement, would
escalate by more than $40 million. As a member of City Council when the
Council authorized our City Manager to enter into the agreement with
the Corps of Engineers, I can tell you first hand that the City Council
would feel betrayed if the rules were changed in the middle of the
project and our cost share increased as a result by over $40 million.
Our discussions with Administration officials indicate that their
intention was to exclude existing projects and authorities from the
proposed revision. We are comforted by this response, but given the
seriousness of the issue, we feel it is necessary for you to consider
specific
language in this year's WRDA to clarify and resolve the issue that
existing projects would not be subject to any new cost-sharing
formulas.
As you consider this issue, please keep in mind the merits of these
types of projects and the methodology used to judge these merits--
strict interpretation of National Economic Development policies. Flood
damage reduction to the businesses and residences insured under the
National Flood Insurance Program is the primary benefit calculated in
the authorization documents. An annualized benefit of over $13 million
in these flood damage reductions justifies the $10 million annualized
costs for the project. Under the current authority and policy, the city
of Virginia Beach pays for 35 percent of these costs though the
benefits for this national program are entirely Federal.
Granted, the project provides benefits far beyond those calculated
in the National Economic Development methodology; chiefly, preservation
of our City's tax base and the underpinning of our $500 million portion
of one of the Nation's largest industries--tourism. The 11,000 jobs
supported by our tourism industry, and the spin-off economics of those
jobs, clearly enhance the merits of the project far beyond flood
protection benefits. These benefits and others should be included in
project formulation to allow full review of the merits of these
projects.
With this in mind, I would ask this committee to consider the
broader range of Federal benefits derived from Beach Erosion Control
and Hurricane Protection projects in its deliberations on any proposed
revisions to the 1986 Water Resources Development Act cost-sharing
formulation for beach replenishment. Prior to 1986, beach replenishment
was authorized at 50 percent Federal and 50 percent local. Owing to the
multitude of benefits derived from such projects, this committee
changed the cost-sharing formulation to 65 percent Federal and 35
percent local in 1986. If changes are deemed appropriate at this point,
I would urge you to reject the Administration's proposal and consider a
cost-share formulation that reverts to no less than the pre-1986 levels
in consideration of both flood damage reduction benefits and the vital
economic contributions that the Nations' beach tourism industry
generate.
Another Water Resource Development issue for our City relates to
the Sandbridge Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project
which was authorized in the 1992 Act. Sandbridge is our southernmost
beach community, the beach there has all but vanished through years of
erosion and storm activity and damage to public and private
infrastructure which occurs increasingly each year.
Three years after authorization, in 1995, the Administration,
without notice or warning, arbitrarily terminated new construction
starts for this class of projects. Our community relied on this
authorization to move ahead with a special tax district to raise funds
for the local cost-share and take other steps to protect public and
private property from storm damage while we awaited construction of the
project. The authority to construct this project was based on the same
National Economic Development criteria as the Virginia Beach project--
the benefits which outweigh the costs were tabulated solely on flood
damage reduction to the 1,500 or so insured properties in the
Sandbridge community.
Lacking a Federal appropriation and support from the Administration
to construct this project, and in response to the devastation of the
community from erosion, the city of Virginia Beach has fully funded the
initial construction of this project. The City Council appropriated
$8.1 million in fiscal 1998 for a 100 percent locally funded emergency
beach restoration project at Sandbridge. I am pleased to report that
construction is now underway of this vital project as authorized by
your Congress, though the continued authorized renourishment cannot be
programmed without Federal support, it is simply beyond our means as a
city to fully implement the authorized project.
While we anxiously await support from the Administration to
implement this project, an issue developed during the emergency beach
restoration phase which may be of interest as you consider the WRDA.
The amended Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act authorized the Department
of the Interior to assess fees for the extraction of minerals from the
continental shelf. The program is managed by the Mineral Management
Service, who in late 1997 finalized their policies regarding fee
assessment. In short, their policy would exempt federally funded beach
replenishment projects from fees for sand minerals mined from the shelf
for such projects. However, locally funded beach replenishment projects
are not exempt, regardless of Federal authorization.
As a result of this recent policy development, the City of Virginia
Beach was assessed a Federal fee for mining the sand used to construct
the Federal project at Sandbridge solely because the Federal Government
did not contribute to the cost of construction. This was the first such
assessment anywhere in the Nation, and we find it objectionable,
outrageous, and bad public policy. The purpose for establishing fees
for mineral extraction from the continental shelf was to assure that
the citizens were compensated for allowing the use of public resources
by profit seeking endeavors. Clearly Congress did not intend for the
Department of the Interior to assess fees to local governments who
would use the mineral for a purely public purpose--flood protection.
In our case, a fee of $0.18 per cubic yard was assessed, and we
were compelled to enter into a lease agreement with MMS before our
emergency beach erosion project could go forward. Including this fee in
our project finances limited us to contracting for only 1,100,000 cubic
yards of sand, paying the Department of Interior $198,000 in mineral
fees to construct the Federal project. In this time when the
Administration is proposing to rely more heavily on local sponsors for
the funding and execution of Federal flood protection projects, clearly
the counter productive nature of assessing these fees to local sponsors
should be eliminated. I urge you to consider language for the WRDA that
would prohibit the Interior Department from applying its authority
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for any project authorized
by the WRDA.
In that the City of Virginia Beach is the only locality in the
country to have ever been compelled to pay the mining fee, directive
language for reimbursement of the $198,000 would be greatly appreciated
if the committee agrees that the fees should not be assessed to
localities.
In conclusion, I would like to highlight the following points and
recommendations to the committee:
First, I urge the committee to clarify in its Bill that any
revisions to the cost-sharing formulation for beach replenishment only
apply to projects not yet authorized or constructed.
Second, I urge the committee to identify in its Bill the
contracting methods by which the Army Corps of Engineers will execute
authorized projects to facilitate good planning and avoid the pitfalls
of midstream policy changes.
I would also urge the committee to review all of the merits and
benefits of the Federal beach replenishment program and strive to reach
a compromise to the cost-sharing formula reversal proposed by the
Administration.
Finally, in our view the Department of the Interior has overstepped
its authority by assessing fees to local governments for mining beach
replenishment sand in the furtherance of projects authorized by this
committee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to
speak with you today on these issues of extreme importance to the
nearly 400,000 citizens of the City of Virginia Beach. The work of this
committee has had a very positive affect on our community through
nearly 50 years of continuous beach replenishment and now with the
construction of the new Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection
project at our resort area.
______
Statement of John Koeper, Executive Director, Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works in support of a demonstration
project proposed by Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (District)
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to study methods of
capturing and removing floatables released into our Nation's waterways
during combined sewer overflow (CSO) events. This valuable project will
provide cities situated on high-volume rivers throughout the Nation
with important information on how to best improve the water quality and
aesthetics of their rivers by removal of these objects. We ask that
authorization for this project be included in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1998.
As you know, combined sewers are pipes which carry wastewater
(sewage) as well as stormwater runoff during rain events or snow melts
in the same structure. The majority of these sewers were built prior to
1940. The flows in the combined sewers are generally discharged
directly into rivers, lakes, or oceans without any type of treatment
during wet weather events and sometimes during high river stages. Many
communities are exploring ways to contain these releases. However,
there is little full-scale data available to evaluate techniques
suitable for systems that discharge into major rivers with high flow
volumes and extreme variance in water levels. This project, conducted
at three different outflow locations in the city of St. Louis along the
Mississippi River and one of its tributaries, would allow equipment
manufacturers and suppliers to install their containment equipment and
demonstrate its effectiveness under large flows with heavy debris and
unreliable river levels. Such equipment could include simple water
baffles, screens, racks, brooms, skimmer vessels, mechanically cleaned
screens and swirl concentrators.
The demonstration and operating data derived from this project will
provide invaluable water pollution control information to agencies
throughout the country and especially to those communities located
along major rivers with CSOs. With communities facing the prospect of
spending millions of dollars on controlling floatables and solids from
CSOs, the information gained from the demonstration project can lead to
development of an effective solution at a reasonable cost.
The estimated cost of developing, implementing and analyzing the
data collected during the demonstration is approximately $2.5 million.
These funds will be expended during the 3 years it is expected to
complete the demonstration. The extended period of time is needed to
ensure that enough wet weather (rain) events occur so that significant
data can be gathered on the various combined sewer techniques being
used. We ask that you include an authorization of $1.7 million for this
project in the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, and have
enclosed proposed legislative language for your review. The remaining
$0.8 million of the project costs will be provided by the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this statement and
for your consideration of the funding that the District needs to
conduct this study. Our Nation's rivers are a precious environmental
resource, and we are committed to finding new ways to improve their
health and appearance. We thank you for your attention and ask for your
support of this worthy project.
______
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Combined Sewer Overflow Project
Add as a new section:
SEC. ____. STUDY OF REMOVAL OF FLOATABLES FROM COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
IN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
The Secretary, in consultation with the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District, shall construct a demonstration project to evaluate
various methods for capturing and removing floatables released during
combined sewer overflow events and shall provide an analysis of the
efficacy of the various removal methods. There is authorized to be
appropriated $1.7 million to carry out this paragraph.
______
Statement of Henry Dean, Chairman, Interstate Council on Water Policy
i. background
The Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) represents State,
interstate, intrastate, and regional water agencies; academic
institutions; professional and business firms; and individuals
committed to the conservation, use, development and wise management of
water. Established in 1959, ICWP is the national voice for water-
related interests both on quantity and quality issues.
ICWP's membership includes State and local agencies who are project
sponsors with the Corps of Engineers.
ICWP urges Congress to renew the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) this year, in keeping with the 2-year schedule followed
subsequent to WRDA 86. The Council feels that this is a critical piece
of legislation to its members and to the Nation's water resources as a
whole.
ii. cost sharing
ICWP continues to support the philosophy of cost-sharing as
expressed in the WRDA 1986 as a means of achieving a full and equitable
partnership in the planning and construction of water resources
development projects.
ICWP urges that the current cost-sharing proportions for federally
partnered projects remain at their current levels. Since the enactment
of WRDA 1986, flood control project sponsors and others have already
taken on substantially more of the costs of such projects due to the
last formula change from the initial 75/25 ratio enacted under WRDA 86
to the current 65/35 ratio. The Council's policy notes that some
projects should be funded at higher Federal proportions (up to 100
percent), such as environmental restoration which is still at a 75/25
cost share. Projects which are primarily of a Federal interest should
be funded at 100 percent. ICWP feels that if the formula is modified
again to shift more of the burden to the project sponsor, many critical
projects in this country will not be undertaken.
The Council supports the tacit recognition of in-kind services as
part of the non-Federal cost share. This should also extend into the
study area, including those mentioned under the new Flood Hazard
Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration program outlined under
Section 4.
ICWP is pleased to see that the Administration has not proposed any
further changes in the current cost sharing formula for flood control
projects, but urges Congress not to reduce the Federal cost-share for
shore protection projects. Although the Administration has indicated
that they are proposing to keep the current Federal cost-share for
construction of new shore protection projects, they are proposing to
reduce the Federal cost-share for long-term periodic nourishment of
beaches to make more funds available for construction of new shore
protection projects. ICWP feels that Congress and the Federal
Government should be committed to both of these efforts.
ICWP believes that cost-sharing policies should be consistent among
alternative means of achieving the same purpose. In this regard, ICWP
endorses uniformity in cost sharing for both structural and
nonstructural alternatives to a problem. It is ICWP's position that
cost-sharing policies should be consistent among Federal agencies for
like project purposes.
iii. master schedule of new projects
ICWP urges Congress to direct the Administration to work with
Congress to develop a master schedule of new projects to bring on line
in the future.
iv. storage cost recovery and repayment on reallocation
Federal reservoirs are a national asset, not a profit opportunity
for the Federal Government. Federal policy should be based on obtaining
repayment of those project costs where repayment is required by law.
Beyond this point, reservoirs should be managed to meet the Nation's
water priorities, rather than to maximize Federal revenues.
When storage is reallocated to water supply storage at a Federal
reservoir, non-Federal interests should pay the proportionate share of
the project's original cost plus interest as provided by the Water
Supply Act of 1958, as amended. In cases where where water storage
space is reallocated from a vendible purpose, the non-Federal
participant should also pay the cost of any project facilities no
longer usable as a result of the allocation, less the portion of these
costs already paid for by revenues received where the storage was used
by a Federal licensee or contract holder possessing a valid water right
under applicable State law. Payment shall included the value of any
compensation or credit which must be provided by the Federal Government
for such rights. When a reallocation for water supply requires
modification or rehabilitation of the project, the beneficiary should
pay this cost. Water supply users should also pay a proportionate share
of project operation and maintenance costs after reallocation. The
total of these payments should compensate the Federal Government for
the change in project purposes.
In considering reallocation of storage space at Federal reservoirs,
Federal agencies should strictly respect State water law and State
water management responsibilities and to consult all affected States,
as well as following applicable State laws on water rights and water
quality.
v. prepayment of storage cost
Many contracts for repayment of water supply costs at Federal
reservoirs constructed and managed by the Corps of Engineers provide
for comparatively low interest rates for outstanding payments, thereby
creating a negative cash-flow for the Federal Government when
considering higher Federal borrowing rates. Additionally, accumulating
interest on future use storage may increase the costs of that portion
of the storage beyond the financial capabilities of contracting
entities when use of such storage is needed, requiring those entities
to find alternative supplies and resulting in no cost recovery by the
Federal Government. Furthermore, ongoing operation and maintenance
costs attributable to future use storage in such Federal reservoirs
would continue to be borne by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government should require the Corps of Engineers to
accept prepayment of storage costs in amounts that consider not only
the present value of the outstanding balance of such costs, but also
the risk that future use storage and operation and maintenance costs
will not be recovered.
vi. one-year study of mitigation banking
ICWP urges that authorization be included in WRDA 1998 for for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out a 1-year study of mitigation
banking in States with experience in authorizing and using mitigation
banks. The goal of the study should be to determine the prospects and
problems associated with mitigation banking. The study should also
focus on whether any Federal legislation is needed and what provisions
need to be included as part of such legislation. ICWP wants to make it
clear that although the association considers this study essential,
authorization of the study should not be construed to preclude the
consideration of other Federal legislation on mitigation banking.
It is ICWP's position that use of a mitigation bank is appropriate
as compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts when the sequencing,
avoidance, and minimization requirements have been met and the bank
offsets the wetlands functions lost at the impact project site.
However, mitigation banking should be just one of the tools available
to provide compensatory mitigation, and should not become the sole
mitigation option.
vii. small flood control projects
ICWP supports the Administration's proposal to allow nonstructural
projects to be covered under Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948 as amended (33 U.S.C. 701s).
viii. cooperative agreements for natural resources, environmental
protection, conservation and recreation measures
ICWP supports the authorization for the Department of the Army to
enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal public bodies and
non-profit entities to facilitate collaborative efforts involving
environmental protection and restoration, natural resources,
conservation, and recreation in connection with the development,
operation and management of water resources projects under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. The Council supports
Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Administration's 1998 WRDA proposal.
ix. state contributions in environmental restoration projects
ICWP supports Section 12 of the Administration's proposal to allow
State contributions to be used in environmental restoration projects as
well as flood control projects.
x. establishment of water resources foundation
ICWP questions the need to create the Water Resources Foundation
proposed by the Administration under Section 16. The foundation seems
to be proposed in a top-down fashion and seems to lack the grass roots
orientation which makes endeavors such as those listed under subsection
b successful. The Council feels that these tasks could be coordinated
with existing organizations and delegated appropriately to local units.
xi. clean water action plan--corps of engineers issues
ICWP supports the Administration's efforts to implement the Clean
Water Action Plan and urges the Administration to continue to work with
the States, local governments and interstate river basin organizations
to implement the goals of this plan. We feel that these communities
play a vital role in protecting the Nation's valuable water resources.
Measurement of Wetlands Goal
ICWP recognizes that wetlands are a precious natural resource. ICWP
is committed to stemming the present rate of loss the Nation is
experiencing on a yearly basis. However, one issue the Council would
like to raise for consideration is the measurement of achievement of
the wetlands goal, which is a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands
per year. ICWP is concerned that because ``unavoidable'' losses are to
be offset by mitigation gains, basing the goal on acreage alone
obscures differences in type, function and quality. Wetland creation
does not always replace lost functions and values.
It is unclear how enhancement acreage will be counted. Preservation
as a form of mitigation may protect large connected systems but neglect
small isolated wetlands, possibly with detrimental effects to
particular species, and in any event does not add acreage to the total.
Separate data collection for acres preserved would be useful. Perhaps
these factors can be taken into account in establishing the interagency
tracking system proposed in the plan.
Challenge 21-Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Restoration Program
ICWP also supports the Administration's proposed Challenge 21, as
one of the tools for flood damage reduction and riverine ecosystem
restoration. ICWP understands and supports the goals to expand the use
of non-structural flood damage reduction measures and to provide for
more effective coordination of Federal programs on a watershed basis.
The Council also supports the proposed 65 Federal/35 local cost share
proposed for the program. ICWP understands that the non-Federal
interests shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating,
maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all projects
carried under this authority.
ICWP supports the project justifications as outlined in the
Administration's proposal, which state that a project authorized under
this program must be determined to significantly reduce potential flood
damage, improve the quality of the environment and is justified
considering all costs and beneficial outputs of the project. The
Council also urges the Corps to involve its members in the development
and review of the criteria for selecting and rating the projects to be
carried out as part of the flood damage reduction and riverine
restoration program.
xii. critical stream gaging issues
ICWP urges Congress to support and direct the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers to maintain streamgages nationwide, as part of their ongoing
responsibility for management along the waters of the Nation. The Corps
should be urged to partner or cost share with non-Federal agencies on
those gages having shared uses among Federal and non-Federal agencies.
These gages play a critical role in maintaining the Nation's water
resources and need to have Federal support.
The subcommittee needs to be aware that the Corps of Engineers has
helped to fund these gaging stations, but recent budgetary constraints
within the Corps are inducing certain District offices to withdraw
their support of gaging stations traditionally used by the Corps and
States in the management of water resources. Numerous members of ICWP
are facing circumstances of losing gages which they have historically
relied upon for certain needs because water control operations within
Corps Districts are cutting out support.
The Interstate Council on Water Policy appreciates the opportunity
to comment on WRDA 98.
______
Statement of Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Muriel P. Johnson,
Chair of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). We
appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee during its
hearings on the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. My statement
will cover four issues: (1) what is at stake in Sacramento for the
local community, the State of California, and the Federal Government in
the event of an uncontrolled flood along the American River; (2) what
have SAFCA and its member agencies done to reduce the risk of flooding
in Sacramento; (3) why is SAFCA advocating modifications to Folsom Dam
and improvements to American River and South Sacramento Streams Group
levees as the next steps in the ongoing process of upgrading
Sacramento's existing flood control system; and (4) why is this matter
ripe for resolution. My major contentions are as follows:
No river city in America faces a graver threat of flooding than
Sacramento where 400,000 residents, the State Capitol and 160,000 other
structures, with an estimated value of $37 billion, occupy a vast
floodplain at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers.
Economic losses from an uncontrolled flood are estimated to range from
$7 billion to $16 billion depending on the magnitude of the flood
event. At the lower level, the damages would be comparable to those
suffered in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Assuming a comparable
public/private sector response to such a disaster, costs for relief and
reconstruction would total almost $5 billion of which the Federal
Government would contribute approximately $2.6 billion, State and local
government $1 billion, private insurance $1 billion, and private
charities $125 million.
In response to the record floods of 1986 and 1997 and Congress'
decision not to authorize a comprehensive flood risk reduction program
for Sacramento involving construction of a flood control dam at Auburn,
SAFCA has determinedly pursued an incremental approach to upgrading the
existing flood control system. This approach has focused on repairing
and improving the levees which provide residents of the floodplain with
the first line of defense against flood damages and increasing the
space available for flood control in Folsom Reservoir. In pursuit of
these improvements, SAFCA has spent almost $100 million for planning,
administration and construction of flood control improvements since
1990.
The logical next steps in this process are to implement structural
modifications to Folsom Dam which would improve flood control
operations and make more effective use of the space available for flood
control in the reservoir, raise and strengthen the American River
levees to allow dam operators to step up the releases from Folsom Dam
in the event of very large flood events, and to improve the South
Sacramento Streams Group levees which guard the backdoor to the
American River floodplain. These improvements are described in the
Chief's Report dated June 27, 1996 for the American River Watershed
Project, California and in the Chiefs Report for the South Sacramento
Streams Group Project which will be available this June.
The matter of increased protection for Sacramento is ripe for
decision by Congress. A comprehensive analysis of available flood
control options for Sacramento was presented in the Army Corps of
Engineers Supplemental Information Report, American River Watershed,
which was prepared for your consideration in 1996. SAFCA heartily
agrees with the principal finding of the National Research Council's
Committee on Flood Control Alternatives in the American River basin
which was formed for the express purpose of reviewing the Corps of
Engineers' (Corps) analysis: ``It is time to select and implement flood
risk reduction strategies for the American River basin.''
an emerging consensus on safca's preferred next step has developed
The above described locally preferred American River flood control
project was selected by SAFCA by a 10 to 2 vote. The Sacramento City
Council unanimously endorsed SAFCA's selection. In March, the National
Wildlife Federation, in testimony before the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, urged authorization of this project.
On April 10, the Office of Management and Budget, in a letter to
Sacramento Congressman Robert Matsui, announced the Administration's
support for authorization of the project. SAFCA believes these actions
of support clearly demonstrate a consensus that Folsom Dam and levee
modifications is the right next step.
what's at stake
Like most of America's river cities (Plate 1), Sacramento's 19th
century economy revolved around river transport. As a result, the
city's early settlers preferred to live close to the water's edge--
opting to battle the large floods that periodically transformed
California's Central Valley into an inland sea rather than retreat to
high ground. As a result, over the past 150 years, the floodplain at
the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers has been widely
developed. An extensive system of flood works built almost entirely by
the Corps of Engineers during this century has prevented serious
flooding during the city's modern era (Plate 2). However, the record
flood of 1986 has reminded area residents of the perils of life in a
floodplain and caused flood control engineers to reassess the
likelihood of uncontrolled flooding along the American River.
It now appears that without substantial improvement of the existing
flood control system, there is approximately one chance in 80 that
Sacramento will be flooded from the American River in any year. This
annual risk translates into a cumulative risk, over the next thirty
years, of one chance in three. A home in the floodplain is thus more
likely to be damaged by a flood than a fire, and much more likely to be
damaged by a flood than an earthquake.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The flood will be the direct result of either a levee failure or
levee overtopping along the Lower American River. When the breach
occurs, water levels in the American River will be eight to 15 feet
higher than the ground outside the levees. Water will pour through the
gap and spill into the heavily urbanized areas along the Sacramento and
American Rivers, eventually inundating as much as 55,000 acres.
Because the American River watershed is steep, runoff increases
very rapidly after a major storm. State and Federal flood control
officials will, at best, be able to give Sacramento 8 to 12 hours of
warning prior to the breach. Approximately 400,000 people live in the
area which could be flooded. There are approximately 160,000
residential structures, 5,000 business and 1,200 government facilities,
including the State Capitol, in the potential floodplain. Seven of the
region's nine major hospitals will be flooded as will seven of the
area's nine police stations. 130 schools will be damaged or destroyed.
Flood depths will range from 5 to 20 feet, depending on ground
elevations in the flooded area and the duration of high river stages. A
list of the affected facilities is attached for the committee's
information as Appendix A.
Damages, without including costs for local and statewide business
disruption are estimated to range from a minimum of $7 billion for a
100-year flood to $16 billion for a 400-year flood. At the lower level,
the damages would be comparable to those suffered in the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake which caused 63 deaths, 3,757 injuries, and more than
$8 billion in direct property damage. Assuming a comparable public/
private sector response to such a disaster, costs for relief and
reconstruction would total approximately $4.75 billion of which the
Federal Government would contribute approximately $2.6 billion (Table
1), State Government $1 billion, private insurance $1 billion, and
private charities $ 125 million.
Table 1.--Allocation of Federal Costs for Loma Prieta Earthquake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA--Disaster Relief..................... $0.85 billion
Federal Highway Adm.--Emergency Bridge & $1.0 billion
Highway Repair.
Small Business Adm.--Disaster Loan Fund... $0.5 billion
Department of Commerce *.................. Unknown
President's Discretionary Funds........... $0.25 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To supplement existing SBA and FEMA business loan programs.
safca's long-term goal
Since its inception, SAFCA's long-term flood control planning goal
for the American River basin has been to provide Sacramento with a high
level of flood protection. This goal, variously defined over the years
as protection from a 200-year or larger flood, or protection from the
``standard project flood,'' inspired the design and construction of
Folsom Dam and Reservoir in the 1950's, gave impetus to the
multipurpose Auburn Dam project in the 1960's and 70's, when large
storms demonstrated Folsom's inadequacies (Plate 4), and guided the
governmental response to the record flood of 1986 along the American
River. According to the June 1994 report by the Interagency Floodplain
Management Review Committee, ``Blueprint for Change, Sharing the
Challenge--Floodplain Management in the 21st Century'' (Galloway
Report), the standard project flood (or ``SPF'') . . . represents the
flow that can be expected from the most severe combination of
meteorologic and hydrologic conditions reasonably characteristic of the
geographic region involved . . . The SPF discharge is generally used to
determine the level of protection for urban population centers where
there is great threat of loss of life and damage to critical
infrastructure.'' SAFCA believes its long-term flood protection goal of
minimum 200-year protection is also consistent with the level of flood
protection provided to other cities of comparable size throughout the
United States.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
what has been accomplished in reducing the risk of flooding in
sacramento
Based on the most current hydrology for the American River basin,
it appears that SAFCA's long-term planning goal of not less than 200-
year flood protection can only be achieved by creating a new flood
control storage facility along the American River upstream of Folsom
Dam. SAFCA and the surrounding communities sought congressional
authorization of such a facility at Auburn in 1992 and again in 1996.
In both instances, Congress rejected the proposal for a dam. In light
of those actions, SAFCA has opted to pursue a series of incremental
improvements to the existing flood control system with the aim of
achieving as much flood protection as possible without adding new
storage capacity to this system. This approach (Plate 3) has produced
the following results:
<bullet> SAFCA has cooperated with the State Reclamation Board and
the Corps of Engineers in carrying out $35 million of improvements to
strengthen approximately 33 miles of the east levee of the Sacramento
River which protects 40,000 residents of the Natomas basin and much of
the urbanized portion of the city of Sacramento south of the American
River. This work was conducted under the existing authorization for the
Sacramento River Flood Control Project.
<bullet> SAFCA, at its own expense, has completed $60 million worth
of levee and related improvements to protect Natomas and portions of
North Sacramento (collectively referred to as the North Area) from
flooding along the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal and lower Dry and
Arcade Creeks. This work was authorized as part of the 1993 Defense
Appropriations Act.
<bullet> SAFCA has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (Reclamation) to increase the space available for flood
control in Folsom Reservoir, provided that SAFCA fairly compensates the
Federal Government for any resulting loss of hydropower and replaces
any lost water that may be needed by Reclamation to meet contractual
obligations or environmental requirements. As part of the Common
Elements project authorized in the 1996 Water Resources Development
Act, Congress directed Reclamation to continue such operation until a
comprehensive flood control plan is initiated and authorized Federal
cost sharing through the year 2000.
<bullet> SAFCA has facilitated a consensus among flood control,
environmental, recreation and neighborhood interests to proceed under
the authority of the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project with a
series of uniquely designed erosion control measures at four sites
covering almost two miles of the south bank of the Lower American
River.
<bullet> SAFCA is cooperating with the State and the Corps on a
project involving $63 million in improvements to strengthen the levees
along both sides of the American River and to raise and strengthen
portions of the east levee of the Sacramento River. This work was also
authorized as part of the Common Elements project.
These incremental improvements provided Sacramento with an
important margin of safety in warding off the flood of 1997. The full
power of this storm was centered in the Feather River watershed north
of Sacramento, where levee failures resulted in devastating flooding.
Even with this fortunate act of nature, this storm nearly equaled the
record magnitude of the 1986 flood on the American River. Unlike 1986,
however, no significant seepage occurred along the east levee of the
Sacramento River; SAFCA's variable storage space operation at Folsom
helvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv