43-400 PDF
2d Session
110-416
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009
| JULY 14, 2008- Ordered to be printed | |
| Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following | |
| REPORT | |
| [To accompany S. 3258] |
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3258) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
| Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2009 | |
| Total of bill as reported to the Senate | $33,767,000,000 |
| Amount of 2008 appropriations | 31,508,398,000 |
| Amount of 2009 budget estimate | 31,695,700,000 |
| Bill as recommended to Senate compared to-- | |
| 2008 appropriations | +2,258,602,000 |
| 2009 budget estimate | +2,071,300,000 |
| CONTENTS | Page | ||
| Purpose | 4 | ||
| Summary of Estimates and Recommendations | 4 | ||
| Title I: | |||
| Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: | |||
| Corps of Engineers--Civil: | |||
| General Investigations | 21 | ||
| Construction, General | 33 | ||
| Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries | 53 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, General | 56 | ||
| Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies | 79 | ||
| Regulatory Program | 79 | ||
| Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program | 80 | ||
| General Expenses | 81 | ||
| General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil | 83 | ||
| Title II: | |||
| Department of the Interior: | Central Utah Project Completion Account | ||
| 85 | |||
| Bureau of Reclamation: | |||
| Water and Related Resources | 85 | ||
| Central Valley Project Restoration Fund | 93 | ||
| California Bay-Delta Restoration | 94 | ||
| Policy and Administration | 94 | ||
| General Provisions--Department of the Interior | |||
| 94 | |||
| Title III: | |||
| Department of Energy: | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy | ||
| 97 | |||
| Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability | 104 | ||
| Nuclear Energy | 105 | ||
| Fossil Energy Research and Development | 107 | ||
| Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves | 110 | ||
| Strategic Petroleum Reserve | 110 | ||
| Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve | 110 | ||
| Energy Information Administration | 110 | ||
| Non-defense Environmental Cleanup | |||
| 111 | |||
| Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund | |||
| 113 | |||
| Science | |||
| 113 | |||
| High Energy Physics | 113 | ||
| Nuclear Physics | 114 | ||
| Biological and Environmental Research | 114 | ||
| Basic Energy Sciences | 116 | ||
| Nuclear Waste Disposal | |||
| 118 | |||
| Departmental Administration | |||
| 119 | |||
| Office of Inspector General | |||
| 120 | |||
| Atomic Energy Defense Activities: | |||
| National Nuclear Security Administration: | |||
| Weapons Activities | 120 | ||
| Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation | 127 | ||
| Naval Reactors | 129 | ||
| Office of the Administrator | 129 | ||
| Environmental and Other Defense Activities: | |||
| Defense Environmental Cleanup | 129 | ||
| Other Defense Activities | 133 | ||
| Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal | 133 | ||
| Power Marketing Administrations: | |||
| Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration | 134 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration | 134 | ||
| Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration | 134 | ||
| Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses | 135 | ||
| General Provisions--Department of Energy | |||
| 157 | |||
| Title IV: | |||
| Independent Agencies: | Appalachian Regional Commission | ||
| 158 | |||
| Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board | |||
| 159 | |||
| Delta Regional Authority | |||
| 159 | |||
| Denali Commission | |||
| 159 | |||
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission | |||
| 159 | |||
| Office of Inspector General | 160 | ||
| Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board | |||
| 160 | |||
| Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General | |||
| 161 | |||
| Title V: General Provisions | 162 | ||
| Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate | 163 | ||
| Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate | 163 | ||
| Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate | 164 | ||
| Budgetary Impact Statement | 173 | ||
| Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items | 173 |
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for the fiscal year 2009 beginning October 1, 2008, and ending September 30, 2009, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs and related activities of the Department of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the Department of Energy's energy research activities, including environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for related independent agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The fiscal year 2009 budget estimates for the bill total $31,695,700,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $33,767,000,000. This is $2,071,300,000 above the budget estimates and $2,258,602,000 above the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS
The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held six sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2009 appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The recommendations for fiscal year 2009 therefore, have been developed after careful consideration of available data.
VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE
By a vote of 28 to 10 the Committee on July 10, 2008, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
INTRODUCTION
The Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 35,000 civilian and 650 military members that perform both military and civil works functions. The military and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders in engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers and other professionals meets the demands of changing times and requirements as a vital part of America's Army.
The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to the Nation including:
--Planning, designing, building and operating water resources and other civil works projects. (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, et cetera)
--Designing and managing the construction of military facilities for the Army and Air Force. (Military Construction)
--Providing design and construction management support for other Defense and Federal agencies. (Interagency and International Services)
The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000 civilians and about 190 military officers are responsible for this nationwide mission.
From our hundreds of rivers, lakes and wetlands to our thousands of miles of coastal shoreline, we are fortunate in America to enjoy an abundance of water resources. As a Nation, we value these resources for their natural beauty; for the many ways they help meet human needs; and for the fact that they provide habitat for thousands of species of plants, fish and wildlife.
The Congress has given the Corps of Engineers the responsibility of helping to care for these important aquatic resources.
Through its Civil Works program the Corps carries out a wide array of projects that provide:
--Coastal storm damage reduction
--Disaster preparedness and response
--Environmental protection and restoration
--Flood damage reduction
--Hydropower
--Navigable waters
--Recreational opportunities
--Regulatory oversight
--Water supply
One of the biggest challenges the Corps and other Government agencies face is finding the right balance among the often conflicting concerns our society has related to our water resources. Society wants these resources to help fuel economic growth (navigation, hydropower). Society wants them to provide social benefits (recreation). And finally society wants to be sure that they are available for future generations (environmental protection and restoration).
The Corps is charged with seeking to achieve the best possible balance among these competing demands through an integrated approach to water resources management that focuses on regional solutions, involving an array of stakeholders (that is other Government agencies, environmental groups, businesses and private organizations). In recent years, the Corps has implemented this approach largely by concentrating on watersheds.
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Corps of Engineers is composed of $4,741,000,000 in new budget authority. This is a decrease of $130,000,000 from the fiscal year 2008 request. The President's overall budget priorities are stated to be to (1) continue long-term economic growth, (2) win the global war on terror, and (3) secure the homeland. The Committee fails to understand how this budget proposal for the Corps complies with either goal 1 or goal 3. How can one be taken seriously about providing for long term economic growth when one is proposing less funding for national infrastructure that contributes to economic growth than had been proposed in the previous year. It is certainly not because a large number of projects were completed in fiscal year 2008 or that a considerable amount of backlogged maintenance work was done. It appears to once again be a short-sighted budgetary decision. The Committee finds it remarkable that the administration can request and receive billions of dollars for infrastructure improvements in other countries and yet continues to shortchange our own. This budget request is more than $846,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget for the Corps. The fiscal year 2008 enacted amount was contained in a bill the President signed that comported to his top-line budget numbers. However, once again, it appears that the baseline for the Corps budget is not the enacted amount but the amount the President proposes. If the administration would accept the reality of the Nation's infrastructure needs and budget accordingly, the gulf between the budget request and the enacted amount might not be as large. At a time when this existing infrastructure, the foundation of our economic security and quality of life, is depreciating much faster than it is being recapitalized, when our increasing population is placing much greater stress on the Nation's vital water resources, when shifts in population centers mean new and different problems and when a growing environmental awareness requires new solutions to persistent problems, this underfunding is unacceptable and threatens our continued well-being.
The Nation has been struck by a number of natural disasters over the last several years ranging from hurricanes, tornados, nor'easters and river flooding. This Committee has appropriated more than $14,000,000,000 to the Corps of Engineers to cope with the effects of these disasters on Federal facilities or facilities that are part of the Federal protection systems. This is more than six times the annual construction budget of the Corps. Some of these damages may not have been incurred had more robust infrastructure budgets been proposed by this and prior administrations. Yet no lesson seems to be learned from these disasters. The current flooding in the Midwest is in many ways a predictable repeat of the 1993 flood. Few of the recommendations made after that event were implemented. If they had, much of the damage and suffering currently occurring might have been avoided. Congress has successfully increased investments in our Nation's infrastructure over the last 8 years however these increases have most often been accomplished without the active support of the administration.
The administration budget continues the trend of underfunding the General Investigations [GI] account thereby depriving us of the Nation's primary tool to identify future challenges and develop innovative solutions to water resources challenges and needs. The fiscal year 2002 GI request was $130,000,000. This has declined to $91,000,000 in fiscal year 2009. Compare this to the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount of $167,000,000. This decline is not due to a reduction in water resources needs, rather, it appears to be a deliberate attempt to choke off the Corps planning program. Of the $91,000,000 recommended in the budget request less than 50 percent is for actual studies that might eventually become projects. Nearly half of these study funds are dedicated to a single study. Therefore, the rest of the Nation has to share a little over $21,000,000 for all of the rest of the studies in the Nation. This budget request greatly inhibits the Corps ability to do proper planning or to address workforce considerations. Budgets such as these, if enacted, will erode the Corps technical competency in the planning area.
Planning in the Corps is a specialized skillset and once that ability is lost, it is difficult to reestablish. Most of the criticisms of the Corps project development process in recent years have centered on the planning process. The administration is providing funding for some improvements to the Planning program such as funding the Planning Associates Program and Planning Centers of Expertise. However, planning studies have to be undertaken to utilize these improvements. The Committee believes that the Corps should have a robust planning program to not only address new water resource needs but to evaluate changes throughout the project development process. Continued budgets like this will lead to a complete loss of this vital Corps of Engineers' competency. The administration should seriously revise their priorities for this account in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
The Construction, General [CG] and Operation and Maintenance [O&M] accounts have to be discussed jointly due to the way the budget request blurs the line between the traditional project split between the two accounts.
Priorities for the CG account are based on six criteria for fiscal year 2009. The primary criterion again is the project's benefit to cost ratio [BCR]. Projects with high risk to human safety and a BCR greater than 1.5 or are significant or cost effective aquatic ecosystem restoration projects are given funding for current contract needs. No new construction starts met the administration's new start criteria for fiscal year 2009. Projects complying with treaties and biological opinions and/or meeting mitigation requirements as well as dam safety, seepage control and static instability correction were given the maximum funding for efficient and effective execution.
Once again, the O&M account appears to have been increased by more than $231,000,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. However the administration has again proposed shifting major project rehabilitations and environmental compliance activities associated with completed projects from CG to O&M. Also shifted to O&M are dredged material disposal projects, beach erosion restoration due to completed navigation projects and initial nourishment of beach projects. This shifting of projects was allegedly done in the name of budget transparency--trying to show the true costs of project operations. This seems to be a very weak justification in that the Bureau of Reclamation which has similar projects in their construction accounts still has not received similar guidance in their budget preparation. By shifting some of these projects such as major rehabs and beach nourishments to O&M the administration was able to circumvent their own new start criteria. Further, by funding environmental compliance activities in the individual O&M projects seems to make the budget process less transparent by hiding how much these activities are costing the Nation by distributing these costs across multiple projects as opposed to a single line item in previous budgets. Finally, the administration's budget proposal limits coastal storm damage reduction projects that require periodic sand renourishments to those where the erosion is due to navigation projects. It also proposes to limit Federal participation to initial beach nourishment.
Shifting of projects from the two accounts totals almost $265,000,000. This corresponds to a similar decrease in CG funding for fiscal year 2009. If the projects are shifted back to their traditional accounts, the O&M budget is $2,210,225,000. That is over $33,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. Further the administration proposed spreading the O&M funding over 28 additional individual projects than what they had proposed in fiscal year 2008. This is the ultimate example of doing more with less. Prices for labor, fuel and materials have all increased over the previous year, not decreased and yet the Corps is expected to do more with less. The Committee notes that the Corps maintenance backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases by about $100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects ages.
After criticism from this Committee concerning the presentation of O&M as 21 separate regions based on watersheds, the administration modified their proposal for fiscal year 2009. The O&M budget is now proposed as 54 separate regions based on sub watersheds as opposed to discrete projects. The discrete projects are still listed for each region, it is just that the administration has not attached any funding levels to any of the projects so this Committee nor any one else would know how much funding might be provided for individual projects. The lack of specificity and detail in a nearly $2,500,000,000 request is appalling and will be discussed in more detail later. The Committee continues to believe this so called `regional budget' is no more than an aggregation of the projects within a specific watershed not the development of a regional budget. The Committee believes that the Corps should budget regionally and take advantage of whatever efficiencies can be gained by budgeting in this manner. However, it should also be noted that projects are individually analyzed and authorized. Estimates of O&M costs are established as a part of the project development process. If individual O&M estimates are not displayed, there is no way to know if the projects are costing more or less than was anticipated and no way to learn from past errors in developing O&M costs or procedures.
The regulatory budget is $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009. This is the same as in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] was cut by $10,000,000 from the fiscal year 2008 amount of $140,000,000. This program was transferred to the Corps from the Department of Energy, because the Committee was concerned with management and cost issues of the program within the Energy Department. This is a program that is being well managed by the Corps and should have stable, adequate budget resources to continue these radiological clean-up activities.
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is funded at $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2009. The Committee supports this funding for disaster readiness and preparedness activities of the Corps of Engineers.
The budget request separates the budget request for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) from the General Expenses [GE] account. The Committee continues to believe that the Assistant Secretary's office should be funded in the Defense Appropriations bill. However, until such time as that can be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee is grateful to see that the budget request proposes it as a separate account. The Assistant Secretary's duties encompass much more than the civil works functions of the Corps of Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be addressed separately.
The Committee is pleased to see an increase in the GE budget for fiscal year 2009. With the increases in responsibilities for the headquarters of the Corps in overseeing larger budgets as well as the massive rebuilding of the flood and storm damage reduction measures in the New Orleans area, it is appropriate that this account should be increased. The Committee notes that the Corps operates one of the most efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital region. Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at their headquarters level as opposed to 10 percent or more for comparable agencies in the National Capital region.
The administration has proposed legislation and funding to complete the 100-year protection for the greater New Orleans Hurricane Protection System as a part of the fiscal year 2009 budget request. The administration has proposed to authorize a single hurricane protection project to encompass the Lake Ponchartrain and Vicinity and the West Bank and Vicinity projects along with the other improvements that were authorized and funded in Public Law 109-148 and Public Law 109-234. The Southeast Louisiana projects that provide interior drainage to this system are also proposed to be included. The Budget proposes $5,671,000,000 in emergency funding as a part of the fiscal year 2009 request. The budget proposal also provides legislation to modify the cost sharing for the remaining uncompleted cost shared project features to 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. This change results in an increase to the non-Federal interests of $213,000,000 for a total non-Federal share that exceeds $1,500,000,000. The administration says that the Federal funds are needed no later than October 1, 2008 in order to have all of this work completed by the beginning of hurricane season in June 2011.
The Congress provided these emergency funds in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, (Public Law 110-252) signed by the President on June 30, 2008.
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING
The Committee has watched with interest over the last 5 years as the Corps has moved to a `performance based budget' model. Unfortunately, the Committee does not see improvement in the budgeting of the Nation's Civil Works infrastructure program as a result of this new model. In fact, the Committee believes quite the opposite is true. Rather than an integrated program, the budget for the Civil Works program seems to continue to degenerate toward a yearly collection of interchangeable projects dependent only on the budgetary whims and criteria in use in that particular year. The current method of performance based budgeting utilized in this budget preparation turns the Nation away from infrastructure investments that return two and even three times their cost.
In fiscal year 2005, more than 130 projects were budgeted by the administration for construction; this year there are only about 82. However, Congress funded more than 300 projects in fiscal year 2008 and has averaged about 315 annually since fiscal year 2000. Unfortunately, the budget request pretends that these on-going projects which have been funded annually for many years in enacted legislation do not exist. Further the budget assumes it costs nothing to ignore these projects. If Congress funded only the budget request for Construction, General, the administration would quickly discover that termination costs for unfunded ongoing projects could easily exceed the request. This is irresponsible budgeting on the part of the administration.
From the Committee's perspective, the Corps' budget seems to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should be. It appears that overall spending targets are set by the administration and then their priority projects are inserted within these targets. Criteria are then established to justify funding the lower priority projects within the remaining funding targets. The problem with budgeting in this manner is evident in the construction account for fiscal year 2009. Six priority projects consume 32 percent of the requested dollars in this account. Another 11 projects related to dam safety consume another 27 percent. That means that some 65 projects have to split the remaining 41 percent of the budgeted construction dollars.
The logic behind this budgeting rational appears to be that concentrating scarce resources on finishing a few higher performing projects will allow the Nation to reap the benefits of these projects sooner. The trouble with this is that these are long-term projects that take many years to complete. At the rate the budget is headed, we will only be funding the administration's six priority projects and the dam safety repairs in another couple of years with little else in the pipeline. The Committee questions this rationale when benefits of flood control projects can be accrued incrementally as project elements are completed. Even navigation projects can accrue benefits for a partially completed project. For instance, the administration claims to be providing completion funds for the Columbia River Channel Deepening project. However, the Committee understands that there is a 1 mile segment where additional work will be required once the dredging work is completed to provide full project depth and dimension. The cost of this 1 mile reach has not yet been determined. However, ports and terminals downstream of this reach will benefit from the deeper channel and those national benefits will accrue to the economy. Even the Port of Portland, which is above this reach, believes that with proper tidal conditions, they can reap some benefit from the deeper project until this remaining reach is completed. These are net positive benefits to the national economy compared to the value of the benefits that are deferred by suspending or terminating these other projects in order to concentrate resources on such a few projects.
In some cases these deferred benefits may never be realized due to these terminations. Local sponsors who share in these projects' cost may lose their ability to share these costs or may lose public support for finishing these projects. Once these priority projects are completed, one has to wonder whether there will be any projects or sponsors interested in resuming construction in an infrastructure program that suspends projects based on changeable annual criteria.
In the past, Corps budgets were developed from the bottom up, District to Division to Headquarters to ASA to OMB. District commanders were responsible for developing and managing a program within their geographic area. Division Commanders were responsible for integrating the District office programs into a single Division-wide program. The Headquarters office integrated the Division Programs into a single national program. The OASA assured that the program complied with administration policy and budgetary guidance and OMB developed the budgetary guidance and provided funding levels. Decisions for budgeting were made within the framework of administration policy by those who knew the projects and programs best, not Washington level bureaucrats.
Another benefit of budgeting in this manner is that it allows the Corps to undertake workforce planning to distribute their work across the Nation. When one chooses to concentrate nearly 60 percent of the construction budget in a handful of projects, there is no way the workload can be balanced across the remainder of the Nation with what is left. Unlike other Federal agencies that have a salaries and expense component to their budget, the Corps does not, at least not at the District office level. Virtually all costs at District offices (rent, utilities, labor, materials, et cetera) are charged to projects and studies as directed by Congress. This enables the public to be informed of the true cost of all projects. Accordingly, it is necessary that the budget process be consistent with the accounting practice. When dealing with such large differences in workload from fiscal year to fiscal year it is clear that the administration gave little thought to how this budget would impact the Corps' organizational structure or ability to maintain a technically competent workforce. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it desires to keep the structure of the Corps of Engineers as it is currently configured. Yet, if the budget were enacted, there would be no way to maintain this workforce, due to how budgetary criteria skewed the projects to certain areas of the country. Neither a pure `bottom up' budget process, nor a performance-based budget process is perfect. Experienced decision makers are expected to exercise informed judgment to achieve a balanced program considering all factors. Once more, the administration appears to have submitted a very unbalanced program using oversimplified decision metrics to consider only a few objectives (for example BCR and efficient completion of a few projects) that do not take into account the long-term needs of the Nation or the organization expected to manage the program.
The recently enacted WRDA bill made numerous reforms to Corps of Engineers procedures. However, one change that Congress did not include was changing the BCR necessary for a project to be authorized for construction from the current 1.0 to 1. The budgetary criterion mentioned above requires a BCR to be 3.0 to 1 for full budgeting or a 1.5 to 1 for partial budgeting. This performance based budgeting criteria furthers the divide between what is required for authorization and what is required to be budgeted.
These criteria used to be one and the same. Many of the projects in the recently enacted water resources development act do not meet this criteria, increasing the backlog of authorized but unconstructed projects. These new projects, along with the ongoing projects not funded in the budget and the increasing number of major rehabilitations needed for aging infrastructure, are affecting and will continue to affect the national economy. Existing water resources infrastructure is wearing out. The Nation needs to recapitalize if we are to remain competitive in a global marketplace. Infrastructure budgets, starting from the administration level, have got to be increased. If not, the Nation will continue to face unscheduled outages, damaged incomplete infrastructure and other emergency situations that must be dealt with through ever increasing emergency appropriations.
FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET INITIATIVES
The administration has proposed the same changes to how the civil works program is appropriated for fiscal year 2009 that have been proposed in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2007. These include the regionalization of operations and maintenance funding and migrating four categories of projects from the Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance account. The Committee has rejected all of these initiatives.
Regionalized operations and maintenance funding segregates funding for projects into 54 watershed regions around the country as opposed to displaying operations and maintenance costs by project as has been the tradition. As projects, not regions, are authorized and funded by Congress, the Committee must reject this proposal. Operation and Maintenance budgets are developed on a project by project basis. For large river basins such as the Ohio or the Missouri, budgeting for the individual projects, as authorized, involve multiple Districts and Divisions. As the proposals in the budget are not developed as a systemized budget, aggregating them in the fashion proposed does not lead to the `true costs' of operating the system, it just adds up the various parts. The Committee does not believe that this proposal advances the budgeting for operations and maintenance.
The Committee is not opposed to a systemized budget for projects. In fact, in the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water joint explanatory statement the Congress directed the Corps to prepare systemized, integrated budgets for four regions of the country to demonstrate the value of this approach to the Committee. The budget request did not include these regional budgets. Until the value of a regional budget is demonstrated to the Committee, regional budgeting will not be considered.
The Committee rejects the initiative to move Endangered Species Act [ESA] compliance activities from Construction, General to Operations and Maintenance. The stated reason for this change was budget transparency or to more appropriately show the true costs of operating these projects. The Committee has two issues with this logic. Budget transparency fades when the costs are rolled into the regionalized budgets. However, even if they were budgeted on a project by project basis, the casual observer would have no notion of how much of the operational costs of these projects is related to ESA compliance. Second, these are only being considered as operational costs because mitigation for these projects was not undertaken when the projects were constructed as is now required by subsequent laws. Were these projects constructed today, formulation of the projects would have required avoidance and minimization measures for the endangered species as project construction costs.
If one wanted to take this argument to the extreme, all of the Everglades Restoration should be budgeted under the Central and South Florida O&M project since construction of this project resulted in the environmental restorations that are now being implemented. However, the costs for this work would not be transparent in the budget. By retaining the ESA compliance measures as separate line items in the CG account, it is much more transparent as to how much is being funded for these activities.
The budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation for locks and dams from the Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance account. Corresponding to this is a legislative proposal to allow the proceeds from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund to be utilized in the Operations and Maintenance account. Current law only allows these funds to be utilized in the Construction, General account. The Congress moved major rehabilitation from the Construction, General account to the Operation and Maintenance account in fiscal year 1985. Subsequently as the backlog increased, it was returned to the Construction, General account in the fiscal year 1993 budget. The stipulations involved in moving it back to the Construction account included that these major rehabilitations would involve more than a simple restoration of project function. Operational improvements were considered as a part of the rehab. As such, the rehabilitated, or recapitalized, projects were considered new investment opportunities for the country, the same as other new projects, and had to compete as new starts in the Construction, General program. This is entirely appropriate as these recapitalized projects provide increased levels of service and performance not envisioned in their original construction. If they didn't, under existing administration policy, the repairs would be considered major maintenance and would be funded under the Operation and Maintenance account. To help fund these major rehabs, legislation allowed half the costs of the major rehab to be borne by the Inland Waterway Trust Fund with the other half to come from the General Treasury. The Committee does not believe moving these projects back to the Operations and Maintenance account will solve the backlog of major rehabs and rejects this proposal. The Committee believes that the real intent of this proposal is to skirt the new start issue in the CG account. The Corps has proposed initiating a major rehab report for the Lower Monumental Lock and Dam. By including this in O&M they don't have to consider this as a new start under their own budgeting criterion.
The Committee is disappointed that the administration has recycled their beach policy from the fiscal year 2008 budget. This proposal was rejected by the Congress. The authorizing committees that prepared the recently enacted Water Resources Development Act chose to reject this policy as well. The Committee rejects the policy again this year. The Committee notes that beaches are the leading tourist destination in the United States and that about 50 percent of our population lives near our Nation's coasts. Typically shore protection projects are justified on storm damages prevented alone, and the recreation benefits only enhance the benefit to cost ratio. Shore protection projects should be viewed in the same manner as levees along our rivers. These projects mitigate storm damage in the same fashion that levees mitigate riverine flooding.
The maximum Federal Government contribution to Federal shore protection projects is 65 percent of the total project cost but the Government receives all the benefits in reducing Federal disaster assistance payments. Like much of our other infrastructure, by paying for Federal shore protection projects now, we can avoid many of the catastrophic losses and disaster assistance payments associated with hurricanes and coastal storms. Simply stated, the Nation can pay now to avoid losses or pay more later to recover from severe impacts. It truly makes sense to be proactive and not reactive in this environment.
The Committee believes that this budget proposal is no way to run a robust national infrastructure program. The Committee recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the project prioritization process and commends the administration for having done so for the fiscal year 2009 budget request. However, the net result is that the mix of projects is substantially unchanged. The Committee does not believe that this prioritization method can be salvaged into a useable system. Further, the Committee has seen no evidence that it has improved the budget process.
Rather than trying new budget models and new prioritization criteria, the country needs to invest more heavily in its water resources. Water resource projects are some of the only Federal expenditures that go through a rigorous benefit to cost process to determine benefits to the national economy. The standard of living that we currently enjoy is due to the excess capacity that was built into our water resources infrastructure by previous generations. By failing to make new investments and recapitalizing aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only falling behind our competition around the world, but is jeopardizing our future economic growth.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
The Committee commends the Corps for the layout of the budget justifications for fiscal year 2009. Grouping projects by the Division office rather than according to business lines makes the justifications much more useful to the Committee and provides more easily accessible information to the public. The Committee expects that this method of displaying the budget justifications will be continued for the fiscal year 2010 budget.
The Committee finds the justifications for O&M projects to be totally inadequate. Inadequate is an understatement, there were no justifications provided for O&M. The only information provided was the business line totals for each region. How the information was established to justify these totals is a mystery in the justification statements. When the Committee staff initially inquired about information for the individual projects that made up the funded regions, they were told that OMB had directed that information concerning individual projects was not to be released. Fortunately OMB relented on this point and allowed the Corps to provide this information. For a $2,500,000,000 account this is an unacceptable manner to justify a budget. More information was provided for the $40,000,000 in studies in the GI account than was provided for all of O&M.
The Committee is also disappointed in the justifications for the Continuing Authorities Program and the Dam Safety/Seepage Stability Correction Program. The justifications for these items showed a total dollar value and listed projects, but give the Committee no idea how the program totals were arrived at. There is no way to know whether the administration proposal underfunds or overfunds these programs.
The Committee believes that budget justifications serve to justify the administration's request. The budget justifications could be improved by providing more relevant budget and project information. For fiscal year 2010 the Corps is directed to provide, at a minimum, detailed project information for each O&M project justifying the needs for each project. If the administration chooses to continue to provide the business line information, it may be provided as a separate appendix to the justifications.
INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND
When the fiscal year 2008 budget was presented to Congress, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) notified the committee of a looming deficit in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund [IWTF] due to the amount of work that was being funded on the inland waterway system. He stated that legislation would be forthcoming from the administration to address this expected shortfall. The Congress never received a proposal in calendar year 2007. Even though the Environment and Public Works Committee was working on a WRDA bill, and the WRDA could have been the appropriate vehicle for the legislation, no legislation was forthcoming.
When the fiscal year 2009 budget was presented to Congress, the budget announced a proposal to phase out the existing fuel tax that funds the IWTF and phase in a lockage fee. It also announced that a legislative proposal would be forthcoming. The legislative proposal was finally submitted to Congress on April 4, 2008. Six months before the beginning of the new fiscal year. The administration's budget for fiscal year 2009 was predicated on this significant change in law being enacted by October 1, 2008. More funding was proposed to be utilized from the IWTF than was estimated to be available utilizing the current revenue source. The only way to fund the administration's budget request for IWTF projects, as they had been cost shared, was through a change in law.
The Committee has supported and continues to support sharing the cost of construction and major rehabilitations between the IWTF and the General Treasury in the Construction, General account. The Committee believes that this arrangement makes the users active partners in the overall inland waterway system and provides for a better more efficient system. As the Congress already pays 100 percent of the O&M costs of the inland waterway system, the Committee would not support a change in cost sharing for the IWTF. Even if it did support a cost share change, this would only prolong the inevitable bankrupting of the IWTF.
The current fuel tax generates about $90,000,000 annually. Currently awarded continuing contracts for IWTF projects will require approximately $60,000,000 of this amount for the next 4 years. The administration has proposed and the Committee has been appropriating considerably more than that amount from the fund over the last several years. Therefore, the Committee believes that the only way to solve the problem is to generate additional revenues in the fund. The current fuel tax is spread relatively equitably across all commercial users of the inland waterway system. However, the fuel tax has remained at $0.20 per gallon of diesel fuel since 1996. Inflation and increased efficiency in tow boats has eroded the value of the fuel tax. One potential solution is to index the fuel tax to inflation. Another solution would be to keep the current fuel tax in place but to add a lock user fee to the revenue stream. This way, all users would pay something and those that use the locks would pay more. A wholesale change from a fuel tax to a user fee as proposed by the administration appears to be unacceptable to Congress or the inland waterway industry. However, the Committee only proffers these as discussion topics. The one problem the Committee sees with a user fee is that it could deter use of waterways. As waterways are the most efficient mode of transport any solution to the funding shortfall should not provide disincentives for using the inland waterways.
To fund the administration request for fiscal year 2009 would require approximately $117,000,000 in IWTF revenues. The Corps has informed the Committee that there will not be that much available in fiscal year 2009. The Corps has also informed the Committee that in order to keep from exceeding available revenues that they have not awarded a planned contract in fiscal year 2008 that would have requirements in fiscal year 2009 for the Lock and Dams 2, 3, and 4 on the Monongahela River. To address the funding shortfall in the IWTF the Committee is taking the unusual step of directing in legislative text that only nine inland waterway projects will have access to IWTF revenues in fiscal year 2009 in order to assure that planned work does not exceed revenues. The Corps is directed in fiscal year 2009 to utilize the general fund of the U.S. Treasury to fund inland waterway projects without specific statutory requirements to be funded from the IWTF. The Committee intends this to be a single year change. Fiscal year 2009 inland waterway projects funded entirely with General Fund revenues should be brought to a logical stopping point and deferred until such time as the IWTF revenue stream is enhanced and these projects can again be cost shared with the IWTF.
Legislative text is also being included to prohibit the Corps from entering into any new continuing contracts for any inland waterway project until the revenue stream for the IWTF is enhanced. The administration should submit the fiscal year 2010 budget based on expected revenues in the IWTF not based on projections based on legislation that may or may not happen. If the budget is submitted utilizing the same assumptions on the IWTF that the administration made this year, the Committee will have no choice but to curtail spending on all inland waterway projects in fiscal year 2010 to a level that fits within the IWTF estimated revenues.
No change in law has been made nor will this Committee propose any to alleviate the funding problem that will occur in fiscal year 2009. That means the Committee cannot fund the administration's request as proposed.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
The budget for the Corps of Engineers consists of individual line items of projects. As presented by the President, the budget contains 151 specific line item requests for funding. As was previously discussed the O&M request proposed expending funds in an additional 54 line items listed as watershed basins or subbasins. However, once the detail was received from the administration concerning O&M, the O&M funding was spread across 820 specific line items. This totals 971 specific line item requests for directed spending by the administration. Additional funding is requested by the administration for nationwide line items. The administration does not consider anything that the administration requests as an earmark. Yet all of these line items were specific requests by the administration of the Congress to be funded in fiscal year 2009. They did not request these funds programmatically, they requested them for a specific project in a specific location for a specific purpose.
The President published an Executive Order [EO] on January 29, 2008, that directs his agency heads to ignore congressionally directed spending items that are contained in the explanatory reports that accompany legislative text and states that an `earmark' is any funding requested by Congress that circumvents a merit based or competitive allocation process. The EO does not define what a merit based or competitive allocation process is, but one can assume that it will be how the administration chooses to define it and projects added by Congress will not be considered.
The Committee has traditionally included funding for the Corps of Engineers by account in legislative text and provided the details for each account within the report that accompanies the legislation. This was primarily done to provide the agency some flexibility in how funds were expended and to allow the Corps to effectively manage their program while honoring the intent of Congress. The primary intent of Congress has always been that once the Congress funded a study, it intended for the study phase to be completed to determine if Federal investment is warranted. By the same token, once the Congress committed to initiation of construction of a project, it intended for the project to be completed and the national economy to accrue the project benefits. With this Executive Order in place, the Committee is concerned that this intent might not be followed. There appears to be little desire for discussion of what exactly is meant in this Executive Order, so the Committee has executed its constitutional prerogatives by including statutory language to incorporate by reference all of the details of each account from the report that accompanies the legislative text, into the actual legislative text. This will ensure that the intent of Congress is fully complied with.
CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING
The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control may dictate the progress of any given project or study. Because the individual projects are being incorporated into the legislative text the Corps is cautioned that while the Committee is firmly in favor of utilizing continuing contracts for the Civil Works program, it may be difficult to award this type of contract under these constraints.
Because of the Committee's concern that congressional intent be followed, reprogramming authority has been withdrawn from all but the O&M account and the O&M portion of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.
Reprogramming authority is as follows:
Operations and Maintenance- Unlimited reprogramming authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to respond to emergency situations. The Chief of Engineers must notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of these emergency actions as soon thereafter as practicable. For all other situations, for a base less than $1,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $150,000. For a base over $1,000,000, 15 percent up to a limit of $5,000,000 per project or activity. Amounts over this limit require approval of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The Committee does not object reprogramming up to $150,000 to any continuing project or program that did not receive an appropriation in the current year.
Mississippi River and Tributaries- The Corps should follow the same reprogramming guidelines for the Operation and Maintenance portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries account as listed above.
5-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET PLANNING
While the Committee appreciates the Corps' attempts to provide a meaningful 5-year budget plan, it recognizes the inherent difficulties between the legislative and executive branches in preparing a useful plan. The executive branch is unwilling to project a 5-year horizon for projects for which they do not budget leaving a sizeable percentage of the Corps annual appropriations with a year to year event horizon for planning purposes. The fact that a sizeable portion of the annual appropriations are dedicated to congressional priorities is not a new phenomenon. Many major public works projects over the last two centuries have been funded on an annual basis without a clear budget strategy. The Committee would welcome the ideas and the opportunity to work with the executive branch to determine a mutually agreeable way to develop an integrated 5-year comprehensive budget that displays true funding needs for congressional as well as administration priorities. Anything less will only give a partial view of the investments needed in water resources infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes a total of $5,300,000,000. This is $559,000,000 over the administration's budget request and $287,087,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. This table excludes the request for emergency appropriations for the New Orleans hurricane protection system as requested in the budget since it has been funded through an emergency supplemental appropriations act. Funding is displayed in the following tables in the accounts where projects have been traditionally located and comparisons to the budget request are made as if the request was presented in the traditional manner. Funding by account is as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2009request Commetteerecommendation Request vs.recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigations $91,000 $166,000 +$75,000
Construction, General 1,666,775 2,004,500 +337,225
Mississippi River and Tributaries 240,000 365,000 +125,000
Operation and Maintenance 2,210,225 2,220,000 +9,775
Regulatory 180,000 183,000 +3,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 40,000 40,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 130,000 140,000 +10,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works) 6,000 4,500 -1,500
General Expenses 177,000 177,000
Total 4,741,000 5,300,000 +559,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW STARTS
The passage of the WRDA bill in 2007 presented the Committee with the challenge of 7 years of pent up demand for new studies and projects. The Committee had to balance the funding needs of ongoing work with the future ability to fund potential new start studies and projects. Ultimately the Committee decided to fund a very limited number of new studies and projects. The Committee's essential criterion for deciding new starts was to ensure that the projects or studies were only for traditional Corps missions. Therefore the Committee excluded from consideration:
(1) New environmental infrastructure authorizations;
(2) Non traditional project authorizations;
(3) Authorizations that have not been through the traditional two phase planning process;
(4) New projects under section 206 and section 1135 of the Continuing Authorities Program as these program sections are oversubscribed;
(5) Projects that included demonstration features;
(6) New projects that would require funds from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund because of lack of funding in the IWTF.
DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
The Committee received more than 3,000 requests for projects, programs, studies or activities for the Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2009. These requests included the budget request as well as requests by Members. The Committee obviously was unable to accommodate all of these requests.
In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made in the report accompanying the bill.
All of the projects funded in this report have gone through the same rigorous public review and approval process as those proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to decide what not to fund.
For those programs, projects, or studies that were included in the budgetary documents provided in the budget request, the words `The President' has been added to denote this administration request. The level of funding provided for each of these programs, projects or studies should not be construed as what was requested. Rather, the only intent is to disclose the requestor.
It should be noted that many line items only have the President listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the affected Members are not interested in these projects studies or activities. Rather this is due to Committee direction that it is unnecessary to request the President's budget as the individual administration requests are the basis of the Senate bill.
The purposes for the funding provided in the various accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are denoted in the account tables.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
| Appropriations, 2008 | $167,261,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 91,000,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 166,000,000 |
This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource problems; and for preconstruction engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency coordination and research activities.
The planning program is the entry point for Federal involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations [GI] account is eviscerated in the budget request. Nationwide studies and programs consume over half of the administration's GI request. This budget is saying that the Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies or allowing new starts. The Committee continues to believe this argument is remarkably shortsighted. It assumes that the country will stop growing and that new investment opportunities will not be present.
In truth, as the country grows, new investment opportunities will be presented and some previously authorized projects may no longer make sense or may be less competitive. The Corps should keep presenting the administration and Congress with new investment opportunities in order for the Nation to remain competitive in a global economy. The only conclusion one can draw from the administration's GI proposal is that they are determined to redirect the Corps toward construction, operation and maintenance by strangling their ability to evaluate water resource problems and needs.
The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced planning program for fiscal year 2009. The Committee has used the traditional view within the Corps planning program that only considers new starts as those that have never received GI funds before. The Committee believes that to maintain a robust planning program, a mix of new reconnaissance studies must be included with the existing feasibility and PED studies. As such the Committee has included a few new reconnaissance studies in this account. To provide additional transparency in the budget process, the Committee has segregated the budget into three columns in the following table.
The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the planning process. These studies determine if there is a Federal interest in a water resource problem or need and if there is a cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with the study. The next column represents the feasibility phase of the study. These detailed cost shared studies determine the selected alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction. The third column represents the Preconstruction engineering and design phase. These detailed cost shared designs are prepared while the project recommended to Congress is awaiting authorization for construction.
The Committee believes that by segregating the table in this manner that more attention will be focused on the various study phases, and a more balanced planning program will be developed by the administration. As the last two columns are generally cost shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost sharing sponsors to be a part of the Federal planning process. By the same token, it also shows the level of commitment of the Federal Government to these cost sharing sponsors. The Committee directs that the fiscal year 2010 planning budget be presented to the Committee in this fashion.
The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK 100 100 400
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK 400 400
HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK 400
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK 500
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK 400
VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK 150
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK 700 700
ARIZONA
AGUA FRIA RIVER TRILBY WASH, AZ 250
LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED, AZ 250
PIMA COUNTY, AZ 275 275
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION, AZ 658 658
ARKANSAS
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE STUDY, AR 254
MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR 250
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR 500
SOUTHWEST, ARKANSAS, AR 327
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR & MO 500
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO BATESVILLE, AR 325
CALIFORNIA
BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA 350
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA 900 900
CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY 443
COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA 950 950
COYOTE DAM, CA 250
GOLETA BEACH, CA 150
HAMILTON CITY, CA 500
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS, CA 500
HUMBOLDT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MGMT, CA 200
LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, WOODLAND AND VICINITY 200
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA 590
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA 400
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA 150
MATILIJA DAM, CA 1,000
MIDDLE CREEK, CA 500
PAJARO RIVER, CA 1,000
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA 300
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA 200
ROCK CREEK, KEEFER SLOUGH, CA 200
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN COMP, CA 1,000
SAC--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA 468 2,000
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA 250
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA 200
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), FRAZIER CREEK/STRATHMO 200
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS, ORESTIMBA CR 400
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, LOWER SAN JAOQUIN RIVER, CA 600
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), WHITE RIVER/DRY CREEK 125
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA 250
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA 171 171
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA 1,400
SUTTER COUNTY, CA 339 339
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, CA AND NV 125
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA 191 191
COLORADO
BASALT, CO 50
CACHE LA POUDRE, CO 5 125
CHATFIELD, CHERRY AND BEAR CREEK, RESERVOIRS, CO 200
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO 2 250
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CT, MA, NH & VT 450
DELAWARE
RED CLAY CREEK, CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, DE 300
FLORIDA
FLAGER COUNTY, FL 250
LAKE WORTH INLET, FL 200
MILE POINT, FL 50 50
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL 550 550
SARASOTA, LIDO KEY, FL 158
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL 250
WALTON COUNTY, FL 591
GEORGIA
AUGUSTA, GA 278 278
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA 150 150
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA 700 700
TYBEE ISLAND, GA 250 250
GUAM
HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, GUAM 350 350
HAWAII
ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI 300 300
HILO HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HI 100
HYDROELECTRIC POWER ASSESSMENT, HI 300
KAHUKU, HI 344
KALAELOA BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, HI 350
MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI 200 200
WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI 300
ILLINOIS
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) 500 500
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL 400 400
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES--MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQ NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH, WI 300
KEITH CREEK, ROCKFORD, IL 548
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL 50
PRAIRIE DUPONT LEVEE, IL 200
S. FORK, SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, (BUBBLY CREEK) 400
UPPER MISS--ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI 10,000
UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN & WI 220
INDIANA
INDIANA HARBOR, IN 300 300
IOWA
CEDAR RIVER TIME CHECK AREA, IA 300
HUMBOLT, IA 2 150
KANSAS
MANHATTAN, KS 300
TOPEKA, KS 100 100
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS 150
LOUISIANA
AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA 250
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA 1,599 1,599
BOSSIER PARISH, LA 200
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA 53 600
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA 162
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA 67 67
CROSS LAKE, LA 250
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM REST, LA (SCIENCE PRO 10,000
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA 10,000 10,000
PORT OF IBERIA, LA 1,000
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA 500 500
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA 250
SOUTHWEST COASTAL LOUISIANA HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA 1,500
WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA 900
MAINE
SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME 157
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES COMP PLAN, MD 400
BALTIMORE METRO WATER RESOURCES--PATAPSCO URBAN RIVER 250
CHESAPEAKE BAY MARSHLANDS, MD 1,000
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND COASTAL MANAGEMENT 200
CHESAPEAKE BAY SUSQUEHANNA RESERVOIR SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT 100 100
EASTERN SHORE, MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD 983
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST. MARY'S, MD 150
MIDDLE POTOMAC COMP PLAN, MD, VA, PA, WV, DC 175
MIDDLE POTOMAC WATERSHED, GREAT SENECA CREEK, AND MUDDY 300
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN LOW FLOW MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRO 300
MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA 2,300 2,300
PILGRIM LAKE, TRURO & PROVINCETOWN, MA 96 96
MICHIGAN
GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA 200 200
GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS (RAP), MI 1,000
LANSING, GRAND RIVER WATERFRONT RESTORATION, MI 50
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI 200
MINNESOTA
MARSH LAKE, MN (MN RIVER AUTHORITY) 227
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, MN 350
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN & SD 350
WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN 271 271
MISSISSIPPI
PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS 250
MISSOURI
BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS & MO 274
KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS 262 315
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO 88 588
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L45 & R460-471, MO 300
RIVER DES PERES, MO 150
SWOPE PARK, KANSAS CITY, MO 138
MONTANA
YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT 200 500
NEBRASKA
LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE 177
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & MA 200 200
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, HN & ME 82
NEW JERSEY
DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ 290 290
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ 204 204
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ 200 500
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ 375
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLET 4 150
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT 150
PASSAIC RIVER MAIN STEM, NJ 250
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ 297
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ 375
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ 300
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ 300
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ 100
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ 100
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 250
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ 375
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ 250
NEW MEXICO
ESPANOLA VALLEY RIO GRANDE AND TRIBS, NM 400
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX 500
SANTA FE, NM 28
NEW YORK
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY 100 100
FORGE RIVER WATERSHED, LONG ISLAND, NY 125
HASHAMOMUCK COVE, SOUTHOLD, NY 125
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ 200 200
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY 250
MONTAUK POINT, NY 375
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY 150
NORTH SHORE LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY 175
SAW MILL RIVER WATERSHED, NY 250
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY 200
TEN MILE RIVER WATERSHED, DUTCHESS CTY, NY & LITCHFIEL 125
WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, NY 175
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY 300
NEVADA
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV 5,000
NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS, NC 132
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC 150 150
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC 200 200
NORTH CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL PORT, NC 100
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC 386
NORTH DAKOTA
MISSOURI RIVER, ND, MT, SD, NE, IA, KS, MO 3,000
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD & MANITOBA, CANADA 500
OHIO
BELPRE, OH 150
CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH 126
HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OH 300
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH 500
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, BLANCHARD RIVER WATERSHED, OH 250
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN, & MI 250
OKLAHOMA
GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN WATERSHED, OK, MO, KS & AR 60
GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE, OK 250
SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK 500
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK 250
OREGON
AMAZON CREEK, OR 350
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA 500
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR 240 240
PENNSYLVANIA
BLOOMSBURG, PA 700
DELAWARE RIVER DREDGED MATERIAL UTILIZATION, PA, DE, & 125
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA 4,200
SOUTH CAROLINA
EDISTO ISLAND, SC 218 218
SOUTH DAKOTA
JAMES RIVER, SD & ND 350
WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD 450
TENNESSE
MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN 100 100
TEXAS
ABILENE, TX 150
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX 400 400
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX 150
DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX 207 1,000
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX 400 400
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS, TX 200 200
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX 150 150
GIWW, PORT OCONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX 350 350
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX 223 223
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX 425 425
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX 250 650
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX 350
RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX 100 100
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX 500
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX 400
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX 150
VERMONT
MONTPELIER, VT 750
VIRGINIA
AIWW BRIDGE AT DEEP CREEK, VA 500
CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED, VA 150
DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA 262
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA 97 97
FOUR MILE RUN, VA 300
JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (SECTION 216) 300 300
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA 175 175
NEW RIVER, CLAYTOR LAKE, VA 150
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, VA (PHASE II) 200
VICINITY AND WILLOUGHBY SPIT, VA 200
WASHINGTON
CENTRALIA, WA 1,200
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA 1,000
ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, WA 750
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA & OR 100 100
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA 400 1,500
PUYALLUP RIVER, WA 57
SKAGIT RIVER, WA 505
SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA 375
WEST VIRGINIA
CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV 150
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV 300
OHIO RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, WV, KY, OH, PA 600
WISCONSIN
WAUWATOSA, WI 200
SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS 33,356 7,727 1,760 83,207 30,306
NATIONAL PROGRAMS
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-CADD 350 350
ACTIONS FOR CHANGE TO IMPROVE INVESTIGATIONS 2,000
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION 1,400 5,600
Coastal Data Information Program (1,000)
Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment, HI (1,000)
Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies, HI (1,200)
Wave Data Study (1,000)
COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 100 100
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES 75 75
FEMA/MAP MOD COORDINATION 1,500 1,500
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA 220 220
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES 8,000 11,000
White Clay Creek, New Castle, Delaware (200)
Hurricane Evacuation Studies, Hawaii (1,000)
Kekaha Flood Study, HI (100)
Iowa Multi-State Dam Safety Analyses, Iowa (37)
Little Sioux Watershed, IA (30)
Mon--Maq Dam Removal Study & Local Floodplain Mas (100)
City of Gretna GIS, Louisiana (254)
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA [GIS] (400)
Livingston Parish, LA (GIS) (735)
Papillion Creek Watershed, Flood Plain Mapping, (500)
Southeastern, PA (300)
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES 250 250
INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW 1,000 1,000
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES 200 200
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY 375 375
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS 4,080 4,580
Lake Tahoe Coordination (500)
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES 7,000 8,750
Delaware Estuary Salinity Monitoring Study, Dela- ware (200)
Bacon Creek, Sioux City, IA (50)
Boyer River, Missouri Valley, IA (13)
Little Sioux Watershed, IA (30)
Kansas River Basin Technical Assistance, Kansas (400)
Fife Lake Aquatic Weed Control, MI (300)
Choctaw County Reservoir, MS (100)
Jones County Water Supply, MS (50)
Mississippi Band of Choctaws, MS (50)
Assessment of Bridges and Impacts on Flows and F (150)
Asheville, NC (50)
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM 2,100 3,100
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE) 225 225
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT 150 150
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 16,892 28,000
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Maryland (1,000)
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS 50 50
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) 600 600
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 350 350
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 1,000 1,000
WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY 2,000
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL PROGRAMS 49,917 67,375
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE -16,648
TOTAL 83,273 7,727 1,760 133,934 30,306
GRAND TOTAL 91,000 91,000 166,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage Harbor Deepening, Alaska- The Committee recommended $500,000 to complete the feasibility study and to initiate preconstruction engineering and design. Anchorage harbor provides services to approximately 90 percent of the total population of Alaska, including two military bases.
Valdez Harbor Expansion, Alaska- The Committee recommends $150,000 to complete the feasibility phase of the study. The demand for moorage space in the harbor far exceeds the existing capacity of 510 vessels. Rafting during the commercial fishing season has been reported up to eight boats deep on a regular basis.
May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas- $500,000 is recommended to continue preconstruction engineering and design for this flood control project.
Bolinas Lagoon, California- The Committee recommends $350,000 to continue feasibility studies of providing solutions that would restore and maintain a natural tidal prism configuration and tidal circulation in the lagoon.
Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration, California- $590,000 is recommended to continue the feasibility studies for environmental and historic riparian habitat restoration. Potential projects may provide opportunities to restore environmental conditions, improve water quality, public access, open space and recreation. The potential projects will maintain or improve the current level of flood damage reduction benefits.
Malibu Creek Watershed, California- The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to complete the draft feasibility report of methods to manage the sediment to facilitate ongoing efforts to improve the ecosystem in Malibu Creek and lagoon.
Rock Creek and Keefer Slough, California- $200,000 is recommended to continue the feasibility phase of the study. The primary project purposes include flood control with the use of setback levees and floodwalls, and ecosystem restoration and minimum maintenance. The flood control facilities are to be designed with additional capacity to allow for the natural development of habitat.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Comprehensive Study, California- The Committee recommended $1,000,000 for the feasibility study. The study provides a long-range management program for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins with the objective of improving the flood carrying capacity of the system while restoring and protecting environmental features including wetlands as well as fish and wildlife habitat.
Chatfield, Cheery Creek and Bear Creek, Reservoirs- The recommendation includes $200,000 for feasibility studies to convert flood control storage to water supply storage.
Basalt, Colorado- The Committee recommended $50,000 to review planning studies that were initiated under section 206 of the Continuing Authorities Program to determine if there is a Federal interest in this ecosystem restoration project.
Flagler County, Florida- $250,000 is recommended to continue feasibility studies for shore damage reduction. The Committee notes that recent storms have begun to threaten the county's major evacuation route to State Road A1A.
Walton County, Florida- $591,000 is recommended to continue the preconstruction, engineering and design phase. This study is a test bed for the Institute of Water Resources Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction model.
Hilo Harbor Modifications, Hawaii- The Committee recommends $100,000 to initiate the reconnaissance study to address the Federal interest in modifying the 1930s era designed harbor to accommodate large modern cargo vessels and improve safety in the harbor.
Interbasin Control of Great Lakes--Mississippi Aquatic Nuisance Species, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin- The Committee recommends $300,000 to initiate studies of the range of options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great lakes and the Mississippi River Basins through various aquatic pathways.
Upper Mississippi River--Illinois Waterway Navigation System, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin- The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for continuation of preconstruction engineering and design studies. The Committee recognizes the need to modernize this more than 60-year-old navigation system and has provided continued funding for both structural design and environmental restoration work.
Humbolt, Iowa- The Committee recommends $152,000 to initiate a cost-shared feasibility study that would investigate ecosystem restoration on the West Fork of the Des Moines River (fish passage, dam removal, dredging, tributary and floodplain restoration) and ancillary recreational features.
Cross Lake, Louisiana- $250,000 is recommended for investigations of improvements to Cross Lake and alternative sources of fresh water for Shreveport and Caddo Parish.
<