STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
THE U.S. AMRY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JUNE 18, 2002
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
As Chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee during the 106th Congress, I am proud to
have had the opportunity to help develop the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 and to use that experience in drafting and sponsoring WRDA 2000.
Congressional authorization is an important
first step in the process to develop and carry out projects that will protect our
nation’s water resources infrastructure.
Equally important is having an adequate level of funding to build,
operate and maintain these projects.
As we on this Committee know, this nation
has an aging national water resources infrastructure. If we continue to ignore the upkeep, what will result is deterioration
of our locks and dams, flood control projects that are not started or not
sufficient to get the job done, and navigation channels that are inadequate to
meet the needs of modern waterway traffic. The risk of insufficient funding is clear: disruptions in
waterborne commerce, decreased protection against floods and damage to the
environment. Simply put, we desperately
need more money.
Mr. Chairman, since this committee did
not conduct a hearing on the Corps of Engineers’ fiscal year 2003 budget, I
would like to say a few words about it.
In the Administration’s FY 2003 budget, the Corps of Engineers faces overall
reductions of 4 percent over fiscal year 2002, and in addition, 30 percent cuts
for investigations and planning, and 16 percent cuts for construction – with
virtually no "new starts" in these two accounts.
We have asked the Corps to do the
impossible. The proposed 2003 funding
levels are hardly adequate to make a dent in the Corps’ construction backlog,
let alone to address our first priority, maintenance. The Administration budget for construction is $1.4 billion and
the backlog of construction projects totals $44 billion. That is a difference of $42.6 billion. In other words, the Administration’s budget
covers only 3 percent of the construction projects needed.
In Ohio, a number of important projects
are under-funded. For example, the West
Columbus Floodwall, which would provide flood protection to the downtown area
of Columbus, would receive only one-third
of the required $7.4 million needed to complete the project in fiscal year
2003. The Corps has been involved with
the construction of this project since 1989.
The project is a wise investment that will prevent lost of life and
property for approximately 17,000 residents and more than 6,000 homes and
businesses located in the current flood plain.
Most of these homes and businesses remain at risk until floodwall
construction is completed.
In addition, the Mill Creek Flood Damage
Reduction project in Hamilton and Butler Counties, Ohio needs $9.4 million this
year to protect a priority flood control area, but the President’s budget only
includes 11 percent of what is needed (only $1.1 million) to fund the Corps’
portion of next year’s scheduled activities.
Maintenance of our critical water
infrastructure should be our first priority, yet that is not reflected in the
funding. The Administration’s proposed maintenance
budget for the Corps is $1.9 billion and there is already a backlog of over
$700 million in maintenance projects nationwide. Under the Administrations’ budget, the projected backlog would
total $884 million. So instead of
reducing the maintenance backlog, we are adding to it.
The impact of insufficient maintenance
funding for Ohio, which is in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division of the
Corps, would exceed $100 million – or 11 percent of the total backlog. This is
a serious problem. The average lock
chambers on the Ohio River, for example, are well over 60 years old and require
regular maintenance.
In short, this Committee has authorized a
number of environmental restoration programs for the Great Lakes and the Ohio
River which have not been included in the Administration’s budget requests. Fortunately, Congress has appropriated small
amounts of funding for these worthy programs.
Still, I believe Congress and the Administration can do more to fund
these programs to protect and restore the ecosystems of the Great Lakes and
Ohio River and to protect our domestic infrastructure.
One of the most significant reasons that
the Corps has such wide funding gaps between what is needed and what is
budgeted is the decreasing federal investment in water resources infrastructure
over the last several decades. Nonetheless,
the Corps’ mission has continued to expand into new areas. While I do not, as a general rule, advocate
increased levels of federal spending, I do favor spending our limited federal
resources on the right things.
Moreover, I believe our infrastructure is
vitally important to our domestic security.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon to learn how
Corps projects fit in with homeland security and about their
financial
challenges.
But all we need to do is compare recent
funding levels. [CHART: Here is a familiar chart and one I’ve used
before.] Our capital investment in the Corps of Engineers has dropped
dramatically over the years. In 1966 at
its peak, the appropriation was $5 billion and by the 1990s it averaged only
$1.6 billion. For FY 2003, the
administration’s construction request is $1.4 billion. So we’re spending less – even less than we
were a few years ago, and we’re asking the Corps to do more
things. We’ve expanded the mission for the Corps of Engineers substantially and
given them less money. No wonder they
have serious problems.
Everybody’s talking about their new
homeland security issues and yet we’re already at a disadvantage in terms of
our infrastructure. What if our bridges
and dams go out? We don’t need Usama
bin Laden to destroy our assets and interstate commerce or travel – we’re doing
it to ourselves!
Today we are also going to hear about
legislative proposals to reform the Corps of Engineers and how they do
business. I believe that Congress and
the Administration need to develop a strategy to address the Corps’ backlog and
improve the effectiveness of investments in our nation’s water resources
infrastructure. This strategy should as
its priority address projects that are economically-justified,
environmentally-acceptable, and supported by willing and financially-capable
non-federal sponsors.
As the former Chairman of the
Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the civil works of the Corps, I know very
well how the Corps has been scrutinized and criticized over the last couple of
years. At the same time, the Army
Inspector General has substantiated allegations that officials of the Corps exerted
improper influence and manipulated a cost-benefit analysis in order to justify
lock extensions on the Upper Mississippi River – Illinois Waterway.
These findings raise doubts about the
integrity of the Corps’ project evaluation and development processes. Quite frankly, there are many in Congress
who have lost faith in the Corps. I
believe, however, that the Corps plays a vital role in navigation, storm-damage
mitigation, and environmental restoration throughout the United States and that
we should assess the situation thoroughly and fairly before we insist on
sweeping reform.
The Corps needs to ensure that its
planning process is open, objective, and inclusive, and that each project
evaluation meets the highest standards of professionalism and quality. Furthermore, we in Congress must be able to
rely on the Corps to recommend for authorization and funding only projects that
provide a high return on investment of taxpayers’ dollars for economic
development and environmental quality.
To that end, I supported a provision in
WRDA 2000 directing the National Academy of Sciences to conduct two critical
studies: 1) an independent peer review of Corps projects and 2) a study of
Corps methods for conducting economic and environmental analyses of
projects. These results are due this
summer and I look forward reviewing the reports.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon on all of the
challenges facing the Corps of Engineers and the reforms they believe are
necessary to restore confidence and integrity in the Corps’ ability to meet our
nation’s water resources needs. Once we
have all the facts, we will be able to determine whether it is advisable to
incorporate any reforms in the legislation for management of the Corps.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
###