[House Hearing, 105 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 ======================================================================== HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania, Chairman HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky VIC FAZIO, California JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CHET EDWARDS, Texas MIKE PARKER, Mississippi ED PASTOR, Arizona SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama JAY DICKEY, Arkansas NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. James D. Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, and Donald M. McKinnon, Staff Assistants ________ PART 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 39-581 O WASHINGTON : 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-054950-7 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California TODD TIAHRT, Kansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee TOM LATHAM, Iowa ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director (ii) ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 ---------- Tuesday, March 4, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WITNESSES H. MARTIN LANCASTER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOE N. BALLARD, CHIEF, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAJOR GENERAL RUSSELL L. FUHRMAN, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS THOMAS F. CAVER, JR., PE, CHIEF, PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS BRIGADIER GENERAL J. RICHARD CAPKA, COMMANDER AND DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION Opening Remarks Mr. McDade. The committee will come to order. Let me say, as we begin our hearings for the fiscal year that, first of all, I'm delighted to have so many great members serving on this committee. I'm sure, as my friend Martin knows, that they are quality people, and we'll get a good bill out. I'm particularly pleased to have my long-time friend, Vic Fazio, serving as my ranking minority member. He does a great job. I guess there couldn't be a more appropriate time to be having this hearing. I picked up the Washington Post this morning and read about all the disasters in these seven States, people killed, et cetera, et cetera, and I think there are four to five members of this committee directly affected by the events taking place in these States, and apparently, if they're correct about the height of the Ohio River, we're going to hear a lot more about it. [The information follows:] [Page 2--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Our colleague, Jay Dickey, who is from the State of Arkansas, is with the President as we speak, en route to Arkansas because of the terrible disaster that occurred down there. So we're delighted to have you, Martin, here. As a former colleague, we're delighted that you're running this organization. We look forward to working with you. We recommend that you put your statement into the record and proceed as you wish. And you also, General, put your statement in the record and proceed as you wish. The podium is yours, Martin. Tell us what's happening. STATEMENT OF H. MARTIN LANCASTER Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing us to appear before you. We are very pleased to be here with a new team, with you as the new chairman and Mr. Fazio as the new ranking member, and with several new members of the committee as well. But we have a new team at the Corps of Engineers, too. This is the first time that Major General Joe Ballard will be testifying as Chief of Engineers, and that--I said Major General--Lieutenant General. I've already demoted him. [Laughter.] I guess I'm not doing so well after all. [Laughter.] And Major General Russ Fuhrman, the Director of Civil Works; also, Fred Caver is new as well, who is our Programs Management Division Chief. Mr. McDade. Let me just say, Martin, that I had the pleasure of speaking with your associates as we were preparing for the hearing, as well as other members of the Corps, and we're proud of them; they're doing a great job. Mr. Lancaster. Thank you. Mr. McDade. We look forward to working with them as well. Mr. Lancaster. Thank you. It is a good team, and as you can see, arrayed behind us are our division commanders from around the country who also complete that team and provide us great support in preparation for this hearing, but, more importantly, provide great support every day in providing for the various needs of the people of this country that the Corps addresses. As you've indicated, we do have a longer statement, but for the record. If you would admit in its complete form, I will summarize at this point. Mr. McDade. Without objection, Martin. We're delighted to have your summary. Mr. Lancaster. Thank you. On February 6, the President transmitted to Congress his budget for Fiscal Year 1998, along with planning targets for the outyears. The President's five-year budget plan supports a steady funding level for the Civil Works Program over the next five years, and this is good news for us. This will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to more accurately predict funding availability and better plan for the future. The President's 1998 civil works budget includes $3.7 billion in discretionary appropriations. This amount exceeds the 1997 appropriation by about $180 million. However, due to proposed changes in financing procedures for new starts, the amount to be spent in 1998 is estimated to be about $280 million less than the 1997 spending level. The 1998 budget proposes a transition to full upfront funding of all civil works projects with two new proposals. The first proposal is to full upfront fund all of the Federal share of construction new starts and other new work, including new starts in continuing authorities programs. The second proposal involves advance appropriation during the 1998 Fiscal Year of amounts required in each year from 1999 through 2002 for 65 ongoing projects scheduled for completion during that timeframe. These proposals, full upfront funding of new starts and full funding through advance appropriations for projects nearing completion, will allow construction to proceed on a predictable and efficient schedule, resulting in savings for both the non-Federal sponsor and the Federal Government. The administration currently is reviewing the proposals of a number of agencies, including the Army Civil Works Program for Fiscal Year 1997 emergency supplemental appropriations. Those appropriations will fund repairs to eligible non- federally-operated and maintained levies and other flood and storm damage reduction facilities in the States affected by major California and Pacific Northwest floods of late 1996 and early 1997. In light of the natural disasters of the past week which you have just referred to, Mr. Chairman, the administration is now considering how to respond to the needs of those communities. Do we go forward with the supplemental that is now under consideration immediately and come back with another supplemental in a few weeks or do we hold up the submission of the supplemental until we can gather the information needed to respond to the needs of these additional States that have now been significantly impacted. That is under study at OMB now, and a decision has not yet been made. But back to California; we are continuing discussions with OMB and other Federal agencies on a possible reprogramming of 1997 funds within the general investigations account to undertake a comprehensive basin investigation of flood damage reduction and associated environmental restoration in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins in California. In addition to this study, the Corps plans to apply available 1997 funding under the Flood Plain Management Services Program to undertake a small communities investigation that specifically addresses flood damage reduction solutions for smaller communities within the flood-affected areas of these two river basins. The 1998 budget would fund a program that balances a number of high-priority interests and objectives. Investments in water resources infrastructure development are balanced with investments in watershed and other environmental restoration. Continued funding to complete ongoing projects and studies is balanced with investment in new high-priority infrastructure and environmental projects. Continued maintenance and rehabilitation of existing projects is balanced with construction of new water resources development projects to serves society's current and future needs. The 1998 budget continues the Corps' historical role as a problem-solver for the Nation. The 1998 budget includes $380 million to fully fund the Federal share of the proposed new investments, including $15 million to fully fund an unspecified number of new starts in the Continuing Authorities Program and the section 1135 Environmental Restoration Program. However, in the planning targets for the Civil Works Program for Fiscal Year 1999 through 2002, the amount of $200 million annually is set aside to fully fund the Federal share of new start construction projects, major rehabilitations, and other new work. The 1998 budget provides full upfront funding for the following new investments: ten new surveys, seven regular construction new starts, two major rehabilitation new starts, two resumptions of previously-started construction, and one dam safety assurance new start. Like the civil works budget last year, in order to reduce the budgetary impact of new preconstruction engineering and design efforts and guarantee sponsor commitment to new PEDs, all new PEDs are budgeted at 75 percent of their expected 1998 cost, based on the policy that the non-Federal sponsors will concurrently finance the remaining 25 percent. Moreover, fairness to non-Federal sponsors who agree to concurrently finance their share of budgeted PEDs requires that we consistently apply this policy to any new PED or PED-like project added to the program by Congress. The 1998 budget proposes funding for several provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, including two new starts: the American River Flood Damage Reduction Project and the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program, as well as $2 million for section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, a new program. Overall, the budget includes $120 million for the restoration of the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem, including $75 million to fully fund the newly- authorized program of critical restoration projects. The 1998 budget requests $164.3 million for Corps activities related to salmon species indigenous to the Columbia River Basin, including $127 million for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project. Throughout the year, the Army advises the Appropriations subcommittees of plans to reprogram funds among projects to more efficiently use available funding. In the current funding constrained environment, the need to give priority in reprogramming to payments owed to current contractors may limit somewhat the Corps' ability to take advantage of other opportunities to expedite work or, in extreme cases, even maintain announced schedules. The Corps' ability to reprogram funds is more critical than ever when funding is constrained. Your continued support of the Corps' current reprogramming authorities is essential to maintain this management flexibility. In conclusion, I would emphasize my commitment to work with this subcommittee, others in Congress, the broader array of interests within the administration, and the non-Federal partners of civil works projects to develop a new consensus on the priorities for the Civil Works Program to ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers continues to serve the vital interest of the Nation by providing efficient priority investments in public infrastructure and environmental restoration. Moreover, this must be achieved in a way that supports and contributes to the President's commitment to the balanced budget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This concludes my statement. [The prepared statement of Mr. Lancaster follows:] [Pages 7 - 24--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] STATEMENT OF LTG BALLARD Mr. McDade. Martin, thank you for a fine statement. We appreciate it, and there's lots we can agree with and maybe a little bit we might even disagree with, but well done, either way. Mr. Lancaster. Thank you. Mr. McDade. General Ballard, the same circumstance; we would appreciate it if you would file your full statement for the record and then proceed informally as you wish, in the interest of saving time. General Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I'm pleased to be testifying on the President's Fiscal Year 1998 budget for the Civil Works Program, and I'm honored to be appearing before you for the first time as the Chief of Engineers. Thanks to your great support, the Civil Works Program is strong, is balanced, and is highly productive. I look forward to our continued partnership in this essential program that is so beneficial to our great Nation. I plan to be an active player in this arena. I have already met with several of you, and I intend to meet with everyone when I can get on your calendar. I plan to maintain a steady dialog with you on issues and areas of mutual importance. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, as you suggested, I will now summarize my complete statement. My summarized statement covers four topics: division restructuring, the Fiscal Year 1998 Civil Works Program budget, improvement of business processes, and the Civil Works Program execution. First, I want to take a few minutes to discuss division restructuring. I know that there is a great deal of interest in that area, and I want to hit that upfront. You have each previously been provided an outline of the plan. Rather than spending time describing it, I would like to address the plan's background and its merits. I want to make several points during the discussion on restructuring. The first point is that we've been trying to restructure since 1989 without success, but, with your help, I believe that this plan can succeed. The second point is that during the intervening years the Corps has made many significant reductions in its workforce, particularly at the division and the headquarters level. Much of the large savings envisioned as a result of division office restructuring have been, of necessity, achieved through other steps. The savings are reflected in the budget request. The third point is--and I think equally important is--that many other efficiency actions are on hold pending resolution of restructuring. We can't effectively proceed without knowing the outcome. Finally, the ongoing restructuring initiative has taken its toll on our employees and their morale, since there's a great deal of uncertainty about what will happen. It is important for all of those reasons that we come to closure on this issue. The plan submitted to you by the Secretary of the Army is executable. It responds to all of the requirements of the law. It assures continued presence in key areas, allows us to drawdown in selective areas. It maintains watershed integrity and optimizes our support to the Army and Air Force, which are also major considerations. Let me discuss some key points on resourcing. The Corps has already made significant reductions in executive direction and management workforce since 1989. We achieved these reductions through downsizing and reorganization initiatives independent of formal restructuring. From 1989 to the present, we reduced the size of the Corps' headquarters by 24 percent, and as a result of this action, the Corps' headquarters now accounts for less than 2 percent of the total civil works workforce, making it one of the leanest headquarters of any agency in Washington. In October 1996, the Corps completed a major division office reorganization initiative. We divested the divisions of operating functions such as technical review, and we eliminated duplications of effort. A typical division headquarters has been reduced from 90 Civil Works Program-funded FTEs to 76. In total, the Corps has reduced its general expense workforce by 29 percent since 1989. The current plan, when implemented, will provide a framework from within which we can continue to draw down without hurting program execution. It allows us to appropriately shape the workforce consistent with program workloads. I want to thank you for your continued support in this difficult area. I strongly feel the plan we presented is the best one for the Corps and sets in place a more efficient organizational structure, permitting greater efficiency in the future, and I personally solicit your support. Turning now to the Civil Works Direct Program, I know that you've seen, and your staff has analyzed, the proposed funding level. Let me highlight a few points. The proposed funding level includes the traditional incremental funding plus categories called advance and full funding, and as the Secretary has explained, this approach is in support of the administration policy to fund upfront all Federal investments in fixed assets. New funding for Fiscal Year 1998 is larger by $104 million than the total appropriation in Fiscal Year 1997. This is caused by a funding spike of $380 million due to the full- funding initiative. Of the proposed funding, 20 percent will come from sources other than the Treasury's generalfund. All but 7 million will come from nine existing special and trust funds. The one new source is a proposed special fund based on fees for permits for commercial applicants. The overall impact of this budget is positive, given the major efforts underway to balance the budget, which is important to the Nation. It provides reasonable amounts for the Corps' traditional missions. It also provides considerable funding for new starts in each of the five years to allow us to respond to the Nation's many pressing water resource management needs. A special concern of mine is our ability to maintain our existing civil works infrastructure. The facilities are getting older and the dollars are declining. I've tasked Major General Fuhrman to make this a special focus area. The effect of full funding on construction and our relations with our partners will be positive. We will now be able to construct projects based on the optimum schedule and not prolong them, thereby driving up the cost. This will result in lower costs and earlier delivery of these projects, which means happier partners, and allow the project benefits to begin sooner. It will also provide more certainty in the process, which our sponsors will appreciate. Mr. Chairman, we have worked hard on improving our business processes. There is more detail in the full report, but I'd like to highlight three areas as indicative of our ongoing efforts. First, we have reduced the total review time for decision documents from 128 days to 110. Now that's significant, but we won't stop there. Secondly, we have reduced the time required to complete project cooperation agreements by one-half down to 60 days. Third, our alternative dispute resolution and partnering process have cut contractor claims by 70 percent over the last five years. We will actively continue to explore innovative ways to cut costs and improve service and value to customers. Next I'd like to say a few words about the Civil Works Program execution. This is a good news story. All of our execution rates are above 90 percent, and carryover is significantly lower than our historical record. And, as you know, these performance measures are critical ones for the Corps. We will keep working on this area to sustain good performance and improve where possible. In conclusion, the President's budget for the Corps of Engineers provides stable funding with balance among competing priorities. However, we must continue to find ways to reduce our costs and shift more of those remaining to direct beneficiaries of our services. Meanwhile, we will do our best to execute the Civil Works Program for maximum benefit of the Nation. The recently-implemented improvements in business processes have increased our production and customer satisfaction while simultaneously enabling us to participate significantly in ongoing efforts to downsize government. I'm confident in our ability to meet that challenge and continue to benefit our great Nation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This concludes my statement. [The prepared statement of General Ballard follows:] [Pages 28 - 48--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] NEGATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL Mr. McDade. General, thank you for your very well-delivered statement. I'm particularly appreciative, and I'm sure all the members of the committee are, in your thoughts about continuing a dialog. We view this as a cooperative process, a partnership, and we look forward to continuing that dialog with you. General Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McDade. Mr. Secretary, let me begin by saying we all knew you had a lot of great engineers in the organization, but I didn't know you had such wordsmiths. I've been around here 34 years, 32 of them on the Appropriations Committee, and this is the first time I've encountered the phrase, ``negative supplemental.'' [Laughter.] It almost sounds to me like an oxymoron, but we won't get into that so much. You propose to cancel $50 million in 1997 Construction, General funds under this negative supplemental. Is that accurate, Mr. Secretary? Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir, that is. We're part of the President's budget proposal. Mr. McDade. Tell us why the negative supplemental is being proposed. Mr. Lancaster. This is to help us achieve our funding goal for this year, and takes into account the large number of projects which are not likely to be undertaken this year, but for which funds are earmarked, and, therefore, cannot be reprogrammed for other purposes. And so this is a device that the Office of Management and Budget has come up with to enable us to identify some of these funds to help us achieve this goal of balancing the budget. Mr. McDade. As I hear you, Mr. Secretary, that request was not made by you to the OMB; it was given to you by OMB. Mr. Lancaster. It was not initially a request from our office, no, sir. Mr. McDade. Is there some reason the proposal wasn't identified as a rescission, as would be the normal course for such activities? Mr. Lancaster. I cannot answer that. We will get you an answer for the record on that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McDade. Okay. [The information follows:] Fiscal Year 1997 ``Negative Supplemental'' The proposal to cancel $50,000,000 from the Construction, General, account is part of the President's proposal for a government-wide supplemental appropriation. It is being made in the interest of more fully using funds appropriated for FY97 on programs of high priority to the President. As part of the proposal for a government-wide supplemental appropriation, the $50 million is, in effect, a proposed transfer to another agency's program, rather than a rescission. PROJECTS IMPACTED BY NEGATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL Mr. McDade. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what projects are going to be impacted by this proposal? Can you tell us what they are and where they are? Do you have a list of them? Mr. Lancaster. It is my understanding that such a list does not yet exist. It will be provided at a later date. Mr. McDade. Yes, furnish if you will, at your earliest convenience, the list, and tell us what the policy was that had those particular projects affected when you furnish the list. Mr. Lancaster. We will do so, Mr. Chairman. [The information follows:] Projects Affected by Proposal At this time, we have not determined which projects will be affected. FULL FUNDING PROPOSAL Mr. McDade. As you both mentioned, another very sharp departure in this year's budget is full funding of new construction activities. You started to explain the reasoning in terms of efficiency, et cetera. Amplify for the record exactly what you think you're accomplishing by going to full funding. Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. First of all, the Corps is one of the few Federal agencies that receives incremental funding. Most capital budget items are full funded in the other appropriations bills that the full committee approves. So we would be achieving consistency in a Federal budgeting practice if we went to full funding. But the concept is one which we believe has a positive impact on our program because it will allow us to better plan for our construction if we know that we have the full amount of funding upfront and that it will be available for us to execute the contract on the most expeditious schedule. We can use contracts that are the full project instead of in segments or in various pieces. If the contractor knows that he has the money upfront and is not going to be subject to incremental financing by Congress, which may vary from year to year, he can give a better price. The local sponsors in our communities will know upfront that their project is fully funded and will be completed by a date certain, instead of again being dependent on incremental funding. So for all these reasons, we believe that this is a positive development and one that will lead to a better executed construction program for the Corps of Engineers. Mr. McDade. Let me focus on a couple of the items that you mentioned. You said that contractors will be more comfortable, and of course I suppose they would be. Do you have any evidence that contractors inflate their bids because of incremental funding? Mr. Lancaster. I will ask my colleague, the Chief, or the Director of Civil Works if either of them has specific evidence. My guess is that it is, rather than specific evidence, simply a foregone conclusion that if you aren't certain when you're going to be able to complete your project and can't plan it through its completion, that you're going to build in some wiggle room. But do either of you want to respond further? General Ballard. Well, my comment, first of all, sir, is we have no evidence that contractors have inflated the costs, but we realize that most contractors have to borrow money also, and time is money. So the longer you stretch out a project, I think the greater the cost is to the contractor. Russ, you might want to add something to that. General Fuhrman. I have nothing further to add to that. Mr. McDade. So your testimony is that incremental funding increases the cost of a project; is that right? General Ballard. I would say that that possibility exists. Mr. McDade. Well, but I don't mean to try--I know it's hard to give specific evidence---- General Ballard. Yes, sir. Mr. McDade [continuing]. And I don't mean to be trying to pin you down because, as I said, we're going to dialog together and work together, but what does your experience tell you? I mean, you've been dealing with a lot of contractors over the years in all sorts of civil projects. What does it tell you? What does the contractor do when he bids on an incremental project? General Fuhrman. If I were a contractor looking at a project where I had all of the money on the front end, I would go at it from the aspect of laying out that project and doing it from the perspective of efficiency and what makes sense in approaching that contract from an engineering and construction perspective as versus a budget ceiling from year to year. And depending on the particular project, there would be occasions where there would be efficiencies in that and there would be other occasions where there would not be. Mr. McDade. Well, give me a typical example of where the efficiencies would occur. General Fuhrman. For instance, if you take a look at Olmstead Lock and Dam that we're constructing right now, thecontractor is moving out at a much faster rate than we have money programmed for. Mr. McDade. Does the incremental bidding cause slips in schedule? Do you find slips in schedule caused by incremental funding? General Fuhrman. I can't think of a particular project right now where I could give you a specific on it, but, clearly, if you looked at it from the perspective of am I constructing this project based on good engineering and construction principles as versus budgeting principles, you can make the case that---- Mr. McDade. Well, that's the theoretical case, but we're looking for reality, and if you have any examples of reality, give it to the committee staff and furnish it for the record, would you? General Fuhrman. Sure. Mr. McDade. We invite you to do that on all those questions, if you wish to, please. [The information follows:] Incremental Funding Impacts While it is the desire of the Corps to fund projects at the most efficient schedules, incremental funding may result in projects being funded at less than the optimum rate each year. The result of this inefficient construction scheduling is higher costs to non-Federal sponsors and the Federal government as well as difficulties in project management and scheduling. This is most notable during times of constrained budgets like we are experiencing now, when budget ceilings do not allow for all projects to proceed on schedule while supporting important new construction starts. But even in less constrained times, project schedules have been extended in some cases to accommodate the full range of projects funded. For this reason, the Administration believes that providing full upfront funding of projects will ensure that future new projects proceed at the most efficient schedules possible, providing the best service to our local sponsors. Unfortunately, current budget constraint limit both our ability to fund ongoing construction projects at the optimum levels needed and limit the number of new starts that can be funded. REPROGRAMMING AUTHORITY Mr. McDade. Is there any need to change the reprogramming authority to ensure that resources are appropriated for full or advanced funding? Do you have sufficient reprogramming authority, if the committee decided to go your route? Mr. Lancaster. We believe that we do. Our hope is that the reprogramming authority that we have will be continued and not modified---- Mr. McDade. As is? Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. OUTYEAR NEW CONSTRUCTION FUNDING Mr. McDade. In the budget, you indicated in the years after Fiscal Year 1998, $200 million will be available each year for full funding of construction activities. Won't that limitation effectively preclude you from undertaking a significant number of projects that would go forward under current procedures? Mr. Lancaster. Well, of course, each year will depend on what the priorities of Congress are in that particular year. We were pleased, though, that the outyears budget does include a level of funding for new starts, something that previously has not been included in our projections. We believe that determining what that appropriate level is is something that this committee should determine in consultation with the administration, but we believe that this sets at least a marker for the next five years that we are going to do new starts, that we will continue to be an organization that not only operates and maintains what we've built in the past, but that we're going to continue to address the needs of the country as they come up on a year-to-year basis. And this is a marker, if you would, of approximately $200 million per year for five years that would be the beginning point for our discussions in each year. In the past, we have not in outyear projections included anything for new starts. Our outyear projections have been without regard to new starts, and they have been added, then, on a year-to-year basis. And we believe that it's appropriate, as we look toward a balanced budget in the year 2002, that we plan some level of new starts, so that we don't find ourselves in a situation where we are only an organization that does operations and maintenance of existing projects, but instead is an organization that looks to new needs and new priorities for our country. Mr. McDade. You look upon it as a floor and not a cap, in other words? Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. Mr. McDade. And you don't share the fear that's been expressed to me by some of my colleagues that if you put that number in, you're going to effectively go out of the lock replacement business? Mr. Lancaster. That was not the intention in setting this figure, but, instead, was a way in which we wanted to plan for the future in a realistic way, realizing that there are new starts that we should undertake in each year, and the way that we have projected our appropriations in the past included no new starts for lock replacements or for anything else. And so this is a beginning of looking at the budget more realistically, which would include some new starts for each year. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUEST Mr. McDade. Thank you, Martin. Let me turn to the O&M budget briefly. The budget request for O&M is $79 million below the amount appropriated in 1997 and $45 million below the amount requested for Fiscal Year 1997. What was your request to the OMB? Mr. Lancaster. Unless one of my colleagues has that request figure, we would have to provide that for the record because I don't remember off the top of my head. Mr. McDade. Anybody know? Mr. Lancaster. Do we have it, Russ? General Fuhrman. One point seven five billion. Mr. McDade. One point seven five billion? Have the reductions been achieved by reducing levels of service for particular activities within the operations and maintenance program such as harbor dredging, lock operations, or operation of recreation areas? Mr. Lancaster. If I might comment very generally on thepolicy here, and then I will yield to my colleagues for more specific detail. We, of course, realize that if we are going to play a part in balancing the budget, that we must examine all areas of our program: operations and maintenance, new construction, all of our programs. And we believe that we must do our operations and maintenance smarter because every year we have new projects coming onboard which we have to maintain, and we have an inventory of very old infrastructure that becomes more and more expensive to maintain. And so we have set as our goal to reduce operations and maintenance by 15 percent in order to bring that in line on balance with the other program areas of the---- Mr. McDade. Is 15 percent your figure or OMB's figure? Mr. Lancaster. No, that is our figure. Mr. McDade. That's a figure you think you can live with? Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir, and as a---- Mr. McDade. Do you agree, General? General Ballard. Yes, sir. When we agreed upon this figure year between the Secretary and my office, in conjunction with that agreement, we formed a task force to go out and to take a look at this 15 percent reduction beginning in Fiscal Year 1998. The approach that we intend to take is to benchmark our activities, I think along the lines that you were getting at, in cost of dollars per visitor, dollars per boat locked, and, hopefully, that process will help us to identify the outlyers and start to work on them. I can tell you that we have some sites that we're paying as much as $700 a visitor because of the staffing and the through- put that we have come through some of those sites. Some locks are running about $8,000 a boat. The bottom line is the percentage of our budget that we are allotting to O&M has been increasing since 1980, and we simply have to, as the Secretary said, achieve a balance between those priorities and that of investing in---- Mr. McDade. So you're looking at a question of usage and costs? General Ballard. Yes, sir. Mr. McDade. Have you decided exactly where that's going to impact, what recreation areas, what locks, for example? General Ballard. No, sir, we have not. I am anticipating that I'll get the final report in early spring. Once we receive that report, we'll brief the Secretary and OMB and work with the committees before we take any action. Mr. McDade. Yes, we would appreciate being a partner with you, as we have said, and moving along with it and taking a look at it. General Ballard. Yes, sir. MAINTENANCE OF SHALLOW DRAFT HARBORS Mr. McDade. Mr. Secretary, in your statement you indicate that $40 million is included to maintain small boat harbors. How does this compare with the amount appropriated in Fiscal Year 1997 for maintenance of small boat harbors? Mr. Lancaster. It is less, and I'll ask one of my folks here at the table with me to come up with the exact amount. We do believe, however, that this is an appropriate level that will maintain, in particular, at the top of our priority, small boat harbors that communities depend on for their subsistence, either for receiving supplies or for putting out commercial fishing vessels, that sort of thing. What we will do is prioritize these small harbors and make certain that those that have a significant impact on the economy of the area receive the highest priority, and these priorities will go down to those harbors that are purely recreational. We hope that we will have enough money to do all of them, but we have to set up priorities. You will recall that the administration in previous years actually proposed to eliminate maintenance of these small harbors completely and to place this responsibility on States and local communities. We believe that this is a significant step forward in addressing the needs of these communities that are dependent significantly on the operations of these harbors for their economy. Mr. McDade. Furnish us that criteria, will you, Mr. Secretary---- Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir, we will. Mr. McDade [continuing]. So that we can take a look at it with you? [The information follows:] Shallow Draft Harbors--Funding Criteria Funds are included in the Fiscal Year 1998 Operation and Maintenance, General, budget to maintain shallow draft harbors, particularly where the economies of the communities are significantly or moderately dependant on commercial or related purposes. Factors considered in development of estimates for harbor maintenance include: current usage, based on the latest waterborne commerce statistics; field recommendations, based on condition surveys; type of work (dredging, breakwaters, etc.); and experienced interval, in years, when dredging is normally required. While there are some individual projects that are not in the budget, we believe there are sufficient funds in the overall O&M account to keep all of these kinds of harbors open, as well as maintain deep draft commercial harbors. Where the communities' economies are substantially dependent upon commercial fishing and related activities, funds are included in our request within the context of the Administration's goal to balance the budget by the year 2002. Within this context, funding for shallow draft harbors, along with other important maintenance projects throughout the nation, received every possible consideration. RECREATION FACILITIES Mr. McDade. You also indicate that $176 million is included in the budget request for O&M of recreation facilities at Corps projects. How does this compare with the 1997 appropriated amount for the same activities? General Fuhrman. It's less. We'll have to provide you the data for the record. I don't have it. Mr. McDade. You don't know by how much? General Fuhrman. No, I don't. Mr. McDade. Okay, get the information to us as quickly as you can. Mr. Lancaster. We will give you those. Mr. McDade. And we, again, would like to have the criteria on which you base your judgment. Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] Recreation Facilities--Funding Criteria The Fiscal Year 1998 budget request includes $176 million for operation and maintenance of recreation facilities compared to an appropriation of $201 million for this work in Fiscal Year 1997. To accommodate this savings and still provide quality service to the visiting public at Corps recreation facilities, we want to align the visitation usage with the length of the recreation season. Experience shows that the recreation season can be shortened in some instances, particularly at those sites where there are other recreation areas close by that could be used and thereby minimize impacts on the public. In addition, we are exploring the possibility that some campgrounds could be leased to the private sector and relieve the financial burden from the general taxpayer. Some cost savings can be achieved by reducing the hours of operation at Corps visitor centers, especially during those periods of time when visitation is low. RECOGNITION OF MR. FAZIO Mr. McDade. I'm pleased now to yield to my friend from California, the ranking member, Mr. Fazio. Mr. Fazio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think on behalf of all the people who have served on this committee in recent years, we want to welcome you. I want to say how pleased I was, when we got together, that you indicated you wanted to follow the great tradition that Mr. Myers and Mr. Bevill established for the last 20 years in the way this committee has functioned in a bipartisan manner. I can't think of anybody more likely to bring that about than Joe McDade. So we're all very, very pleased to have you. Mr. McDade. I look forward to working with you. Mr. Fazio. I thank you, and we look forward to that. I also want to welcome the new team from the Corps. There's no question that we have a lot of new faces in this room, and I just want to say to my dear friend Martin Lancaster how sorry I am that this isn't his fourth budget that he's presenting. [Laughter.] Because talk about OMB-driven policies, I think it's really time for the Corps to present its own ideas and initiatives, and I think we've begun to see that emerging this morning. I just want to say to you, General Ballard and General Fuhrman, I look forward to getting to know you both as well, and welcome you. I think, to be very blunt, we have some tough decisions to make. This academic discussion we've been having about full, up-front funding is just that, I think, because we can't afford it, even if it is in some ways an adjustment that perhaps is warranted by other agencies in the budgeting approach they take. This committee hasn't yet seen its allocation from the Budget Committee, but if it's anything like recent years, we'd better not be spending money on scoring reform, when we've got a lot of problems out there in the country. CALIFORNIA FLOODING And if I could ask my colleagues to give me a little bit of latitude, I've got a lot at stake in this bill this year because of what's happened out in California, which is very similar to what's happening in the Ohio River Valley as we speak, and I'm sure we'll hear from Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dickey when he gets back, and others. But I would like to just remind some of our colleagues, because it's a couple of months old now, at least in term of headlines, but we've had some terrible floods in California, and I think my actions on this committee, at least this year, are going to be heavily focused on trying to remedy some of the problems that we've already seen. Hopefully, we've seen the end of them, because if we get another so-called ``pineapple special'' moving through California, when we've got 200 percent of normal snowpack in the Sierras, we could be at the beginning and not the end of the disaster. We hope we've seen the worst of it. The worst of it means nine deaths, about $2 billion in estimated losses, $150 million in agriculture and $100 million in the forests as part of that. We at one time or another had 100,000 Californians out of their homes. We had a very serious problem and we're not out of the woods yet. We have, I think, as these photos over here would display--and the Corps normally does this kind of show-and-tell, but since I gathered you weren't going to, I thought I'd supplant you. [Laughter.] This is a levee break on the Feather River, which is an area adjacent to where Mr. Herger and I come together. You can see we've got about 20 square miles of flooding as a result of that. Two small levee breaches on the Bear River were contained, but a major break there could well have sent flood waters all the way south to the river, the American River, that separates the city of Sacramento from the Natomas area, which is undergoing tremendous development. The Sutter Bypass break shows how many of our people were actually protected by a system that's been in place for many years. The bypass itself is designed to carry water when the Sacramento River and other rivers in the area can no longer contain within their banks what is a tremendous flow. People look at this from the Bay Area and say, ``PoorSacramento, they're under water.'' Well, this is what's supposed to happen, and, frankly, we may need to build a similar system in the San Joaquin Basin to bypass the San Joaquin River. We did have a levee break, as I alluded to a minute ago, in this bypass that resulted in a good deal of flooding, and the little town of Meridian became a national symbol of a plucky willingness to fight their way through and protect their community. But, you know, it's very, very problematical as to whether many of my constituents are going to be high and dry through April, and I say that because there are many, many communities that are very much threatened by the saturated levees that continue to be a problem for us, land that remains under water, which has yet to be fully pumped out or to flow by gravity into the Delta. We have some serious problems out there and I want to take this opportunity, frankly, to express my deep appreciation to the Corps. General Capka is sitting here, and there are others who know very well what we've been through and what we're fighting to limit in the next couple of months out there. And while in an environment where a disaster occurs you can never make people happy, we do have to, I think, look at what the disaster could have been, had we not in the last couple of years made some major improvements in the Sacramento area which kept the most urban region of this flood project protected. AFTER 1986 FLOOD I would like to ask some questions, if I could, to get on the record some things that I think the Corps needs to be upfront about, and that is we had some flooding in California in 1986 which kicked off a tremendous interest in, for example, issues like Auburn Dam, which came to no resolution in the last Congress, but we have been making progress. I've alluded to some in the Sacramento area. And I'd like to ask, what have we really accomplished since the flooding of 1986? We talk about 100-year floods; they seem to be coming about every 10 years. Mr. Secretary, can you help us? Mr. Lancaster. We've even had multiple 100-year floods in a year in some cases, Mr. Fazio. Of course, following the 1986 flood, a plan was developed which was to be built in multiple phases that should not yet be completed, and will be completed by the year 2000. But we have completed the phases in sequence, according to the original plan, and while it would have been very helpful if the work to be completed by 2000 had been completed before this flood, we were on schedule, and, unfortunately, those projects were not completed. We believe that the plan will be completed on schedule, and it will provide further protection in the future. I don't know if either general would prefer to--would like to say anything further. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW Mr. Fazio. Well, I'd like to ask if it's possible--and I've begun to believe it is--if we could perhaps accelerate the completion of this fourth phase that is remaining to be done. It also seems to me that if we learned anything from the review investigation you alluded to in your comments, looking at the existing system as is, that we ought to be somehow in a position to inject those fixes, those levee repairs, whatever it may require, into our work program over the next several years. Is there any possibility for acceleration or perhaps reprioritization based on what we learn as we review the system that's just been under such stress? Mr. Lancaster. Well, I think that is our purpose in doing a comprehensive review which we have begun the process of reprogramming the funds to begin that study. Of course, at the time we put this budget together we did not know of this need, and so there are not funds to complete that study in the request. But a comprehensive look at the entire area we believe is appropriate. We can, then, make adjustments in the 1986 plan as necessary and at the same time look at new ways to address the issue of flooding in this area. There may be nonstructural alternatives that were not considered in 1986 that are now appropriate. There may be ways to set back levees that were not considered in 1986. There may be bypassing, as you have indicated, that might have the same impact in the San Joaquin that they have in the Sacramento. Of course, as you know, we visited one of those bypasses when I was in California, and it's an incredible engineering feat because for most of the year it's wonderful agricultural land, but at a time when it doesn't need to be farmed, provides a safety valve. So I think that we certainly can and should look very comprehensively at the entire area and make adjustments as necessary to the 1986 plan, as well as plan for the future. Mr. Fazio. This survey that we hope to, I guess, complete this summer, but certainly begin this summer, would cost $5 million; is that correct? I think I've seen that number somewhere. General Ballard. That's the current projection, sir. Mr. Fazio. And you have that available from existing funds with reprogramming authority; is that correct? Mr. Lancaster. We have the money available to begin the process. I don't believe it is anticipated that we can complete that this year. It will require follow-on funding with efforts into next year. Mr. Fazio. Did you want to comment on that, General Fuhrman? I saw you getting some input from the program department. [Laughter.] General Fuhrman. It would just be a recount and obviously following on with 1998 funding to continue that piece of it. Mr. Fazio. Well, I'm particularly anxious to update the survey that we did between 1986 and 1989, which has been the basis upon which we've spent a little more than half of the money that we were originally planning to spend to make those improvements, and I'd like to work with you to make sure that we do as much as we can do within our capability--that term we throw around in these discussions: what is our capability? FLOOD RECOVERY But I'm particularly also focusing on the flood recovery. We'd like to get our system up and operating at least in the shape it was in at the beginning of this winter by the time the next one comes along. Could you tell us what we're doing to make sure that we can meet that kind of a standard, which General Capka so generously agreed to--in front of a very interesting group of Californians, led by our senior Senator, Diane Feinstein, not too long ago---- Mr. Lancaster. Would you like to respond to that? General Fuhrman. We're working very closely with General Capka, and there is not a week that goes by that the two of us don't talk at least two or three times on the phone, working that effort to do everything that we can to reduce the bureaucracy and working concurrently with my staff up here and his staff out there, in conjunction with a levee restoration piece. The first priority that we have out there is to restore those levees, so that they're ready for the next flood season. At the same time we're trying to take advantage of the CALFED initiative, as you know, to roll that in and work on longer- term, more environmental-type solutions where that's appropriate. CALFED Mr. Fazio. For my colleagues, we'll be hearing a lot about CALFED in this hearing and with the Interior Department. This is an unlikely effort that we in California are making to work together in the Delta at every level of government, and from the environmental side to industry and agriculture, to try to find the cooperative approach to fixing our Delta water quality. But now I think, in light of the flooding and the need for flood protection, we have an opportunity for some win/win's with some facilities that may hold water and help us in wet winters and provide it in dry years, in the summer when the Delta may not have an adequate amount of water. So we're going to be confronted with a new administration initiative on this, but it does give us a chance to work the Corps into that process, and I'm looking forward to having the Corps be at the table on CALFED when it's reauthorized. Mr. Lancaster. Interestingly, we were not at the table when CALFED was initially put together, but we recently joined as a formal member of CALFED, and look forward to being a part of the interagency process. COST OF LEVEE RESTORATION Mr. Fazio. But could you tell me at this point, Mr. Secretary, what do you think it's going to cost to get this system back up to the level of protection we had when we entered into this very wet winter? That doesn't mean better than it has been. Obviously, we'd like it to be improved, and we need to do that. I'm hearing estimates of $350 million, with $50 million perhaps spent thus far. Does that sound to you, General Fuhrman, like something that is in the realm of reason? General Fuhrman. Yes. To date, we have spent, as you said, about $50 million in the flood fight piece of it, and as you well know, we still have high water out there on a large number of levies. So we won't know what the final number is until we can get in and take a look at some of those, but those numbers are in the ball park. Mr. Fazio. Would you say at least $350 million? Could it go higher? Or have you taken into consideration the fact that we don't have all the answers and fudged it up a little bit? [Laughter.] Which way did we fudge, is what I'm looking for. General Fuhrman. We try to be conservative, but the bottom line is until--especially down in the lower Delta, as you're well aware, sir, until the water gets off those levees and we can get in there and see what we have, any guess would be premature. Mr. Fazio. Okay. I understand, as of last Friday, this study that we're doing to determine how we're going to repair this system has been held up at OMB and at the Counsel on Environmental Quality in order to bring--the term is ``more interagency support'' and resources to it. I get nervous when I hear bureaucratic phrases like that because sometimes that support comes at great cost. I'm wondering, do you think this is going to be a long holdup, and is this going to impede--I realize we're talking Meander-belts. We've learned from the Galloway report on the Mississippi that there is more than one way to do this. I'm not opposed to making changes in how we get back to the same level of protection. What I'm concerned about is delays that make it impossible for us to meet that time schedule. You know what I'm fearful of. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Mr. Lancaster. Well, Mr. Fazio, we are anxious to move out as smartly as we can, but we also are anxious to work with other agencies to make certain that, when we do it, we do it right and with the full support of those agencies who can make life very difficult for us as we do these repairs. Mr. Fazio. In other words, if you don't get them involved upfront, there will be an impediment down the road? Mr. Lancaster. That is a possibility for which we have to plan. So we're very anxious to involve all agencies from the very beginning. We hope that it will not be unnecessary delay in the process. Mr. Fazio. Well, could you make available for the record, maybe in a very short time frame, the time table we hope to follow in order to make it possible for us to not miss that repair of the system that we all need to have as our No. 1 priority between now and, say, next September? We don't want to have any problems here in a bureaucratic sense that are going to cause the Corps to slip its own self-imposed commitment schedule. [The information follows:] [Page 61--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Fazio. Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to my colleagues for taking as much time as I have on something that's as parochial as this is, obviously, but it's exceedingly important, and I hope that as time goes on other members of the committee will appreciate the degree to which this is an ongoing crisis in our State. And I'll now yield back and wait for the second round for further questions. RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN ROGERS Mr. McDade. Thank you, Vic. We're now pleased to recognize Chairman Rogers of Kentucky. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like Mr. Fazio,let me join the chorus on this subcommittee in saying welcome as our Chairman. We think we've got the best there is and we're delighted to call you Chairman. And, Mr. Fazio, I'm shocked; that's the first time anyone has ever been parochial on this subcommittee. [Laughter.] Mr. Fazio. Mr. Rogers, you should be the last one to be shocked. [Laughter.] Mr. Rogers. I think we have to forget our local problems and look only at the national picture. [Laughter.] Mr. Secretary, it's certainly good to see you again, an old friend from the House, and we knew that one day you'd climb to great heights, and, lo, there you are, and we're delighted that you're there, and it's good to see the Generals and the officers of the Corps here, and as has been said, to see so many new faces. It's amazing how things change, and there's lots of experience out there and lots of dedication that we're all thankful for. Colonel Jansen, the Ohio River Division Commander, of course, could not be here today, because he is touring the flood areas in Kentucky, I understand, even as we speak. So far, it looks like in Kentucky--and the crests have not been reached yet on many of the rivers, including the Ohio, but in Kentucky alone about half the counties have been declared disaster areas by the governor with about a quarter of a billion dollars damage, which is really very preliminary apparently so far, with some record flooding, apparently, in some areas, maybe even in Louisville, which has some real records that they can share with you. But it is a devastating condition in the three or four States of the Ohio River Division particularly, and of course the tornadoes in Arkansas that came almost simultaneous. Interestingly enough, the new flood wall that you built in Frankfurt, the State capital, works. General Ballard. Yes. Mr. Rogers. And, apparently, all the dams are closed, and you're storing water as hard as you can, even spilling water on all the tributaries and rivers. No one, I don't guess, can say how much that may have relieved the problem, but certainly it's clear that it has to some degree. So what you're doing does count. FULL FUNDING On the fully funding suggestion, you're proposing for us to appropriate the full cost of a project in the first year, even though your capability in that first year would be a fraction of the total cost; correct? Mr. Lancaster. That is correct. Mr. Rogers. Now you're asking for 12 new starts in your request, and I think the total of those is $365 million; is that correct? Mr. Lancaster. As I recall, that's about right. Mr. Rogers. What is the capability in the first year of those 12 starts with a total cost of $365 million? General Fuhrman. It's around $45 million, sir. Mr. Rogers. So what would you do with the $320 million that we've given you for that full project while you finish them out? You can only spend $45 million in the first year. You're going to have $320 million left; right? General Fuhrman. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. So are you going to put that in the bank and draw interest on it or what? General Fuhrman. I don't believe we get interest, sir. [Laughter.] Mr. Rogers. So what are you going to do with that money? General Fuhrman. It would remain there for the remaining years, just as many of our projects that we have now with particular earmarked funds for them do. Mr. Rogers. So it would be--after a couple or three years, that could become a very big slush fund, couldn't it? General Fuhrman. It would be a considerable fund, yes, sir, but I don't know if I would use the term ``slush fund'' to describe it, but a considerable amount of money as we move through the programs. [Laughter.] Mr. Rogers. It could become a very big pile of money? General Fuhrman. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Out of which I suppose you could request that we reprogram some of that money for another purpose or project; is that right or wrong, Mr. Secretary? Mr. Lancaster. It's my understanding that reprogramming would be possible out of this to other priorities. Mr. Rogers. Do you have any idea how much--how many new starts you would be proposing the next year, the 1999 fiscal year? Does anyone have a handle on that? Mr. Lancaster. No, sir, that's something we've not even thought about yet. AVERAGE YEAR NEW STARTS Mr. Rogers. Well, the $365 million of new starts--do you consider that a small amount or an average amount or a large amount, or is it a typical amount for a year that you would anticipate? Mr. Lancaster. I think that it is less than average, but I can't give you specific figures. In an average year, I believe it's some over a billion dollars a year in new starts. General Fuhrman. If you look back since 1990, the projects that we initiated for new starts in those particular years, the total amount would be $1.4 billion per year. Mr. Rogers. Well, a billion four here and a billion four there, and--what's that phrase? Mr. Lancaster. Senator Dirksen thought that added up to big money--real money. [Laughter.] Mr. Fazio. Called real wealth. HARLAN, KENTUCKY Mr. Rogers. You're asking for 12 brand-new starts at $365 million. At the expense of sounding parochial, I want to describe to you very quickly and briefly a project that you're 78 percent complete on that happens to be in my district; it could be anybody's district that has an unfinished project. I know about this one, and you do, too, Mr. Secretary. It's the Harlan Project. You've already spent $140 million on a huge project to rechannel the river through tunnels under the mountain to avoid the town, building flood walls around the two or three towns that comprise that complex there, and you're relocating the river downstream at little places called Loyal and Rio Vista in order to achieve a three-phrase project that's an expensive, complicated, but necessary project. It's expensive. As I've said, you've spent already $140 million and you're 78 percent complete, and with just a few more dollars, those people can have flood protection that they've never had before. They wish today that you were finished--with the flooding that's going on. I don't know how, when I go into a town meeting there shortly, I can explain to them--perhaps you can help me--I don't know how I'm going to explain that the Corps wants to cut this project off cold turkey as it is and leave you in the mud and the flood, and your streets torn up and your homes flooded; they want to stop that project, although you're 78 percent finished, and start a new one, start 12 new ones somewhere else, leaving them in the lurch. Now what can I tell them, Mr. Secretary? Mr. Lancaster. I wish that I had a good answer for you, Mr. Rogers; I don't. In setting our budget priorities for the coming year, we thought that it was appropriate to include new starts which keep faith with our project sponsors that have gone through the study process and have had their projects fully authorized by Congress, and are now prepared to go forward. As you know, the 202 projects in your district and in other districts in your region are projects that have not been supported by this administration or previous administrations for funding---- Mr. Rogers. None of them ever have; I mean, it's been a 14- year, year-by-year struggle. Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. The Corps would include monies in their request to OMB, and OMB would always say no. Mr. Lancaster. We have requested the funds in our initial request to OMB to complete this project. Mr. Rogers. And I appreciate that. But there are several just like this, not just in my district, but throughout the country, where you've got something; you've signed local contracts with the local authorities who are pitching in part of the cost. You sign those agreements with those local mayors and governors saying, okay, you've put so much dollars; we've put up so many dollars; we're going to do this. We're coming to the rescue. We're going to save you from the floods. And you get about two-thirds finished and you cut and run, and you break the contracts with those mayors and local officials. You've got to pay off your contractors, I assume, who have contracts on these projects, and you're going to spend a heck of a lot of money just shutting down and doing nothing more, after having spent millions, and it's just absolutely insane. I don't know who's responsible; I assume it's the budgeteers at the OMB. I don't think the intelligence level in this room would permit that, if you had a choice, but it doesn't make any sense. I mean, in Harlan you've already invested $140 million, which would be worth nothing. Actually, it would cost a lot of money just to get them out of the mud. But how can you justify that? Not you, but how could a budgeteer justify that downtown? Anybody want to volunteer? Mr. Lancaster. No, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. Well, I could mention Williamsburg, Middlesboro, Pike County, all those projects, Martin County, Salyersville, and so on, that are zipped out. I trust the subcommittee, as they have for 14 years, will help us overcome the idiocy that sometimes infects the White House--in fact, all the time infects the White House. QUESTION FROM CONGRESSWOMAN EMERSON Now let me ask a question quickly on behalf of Joanne Emerson from Missouri, whose husband Bill, you know, had been working on a project, the St. John's Bayou, New Madrid Flood Control Project. You included $100,000 for construction in 1997. Now can you give us an update on that project? Do you foresee any problems affecting construction this year? General Fuhrman. I don't have that information. We'll have to provide that for the record, sir. Mr. Rogers. I'd appreciate that very much. Mr. Lancaster. I have met with Congresswoman Emerson recently with regard to this project and can't give you details, but can respond in general terms. Of course, we have here two parallel projects, and it is a very complex problem in dealing with the two because you have pumping stations in one project, one of which will have no benefit until you complete the second project, and so it really is a very complicated situation of how you proceed in a way that maximizes the benefit, does not build project elements that have no beneficial use until another piece is finished. It is a fairly complex question, and it would be better, I think, Mr. Rogers, if we could provide you a detailed answer for the record. Mr. Rogers. That would be fine. I would appreciate that very much, and I know Mrs. Emerson would do the same. [The information follows:] St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Flood Control Project, MO An expedited schedule is being implemented in accordance with Congressional guidance and local requests to accommodate a new construction start in Fiscal Year 1997. While there are always a number of challenges associated with such a complicated project, the most difficult in this instance is addressing environmental concerns in a timely manner. This issue is being coordinated with appropriate state and Federal agencies to try and achieve a balanced approach to these concerns acceptable to all. We have scheduled award of a construction contract in August 1997 and believe we will meet that schedule. RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN VISCLOSKY Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but I can defer to a second round. Thank you very much. Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you. I have some number of pages of questions about projects that happen to be in the State of Indiana, and with the Chairman's permission, I would like to ask that those questions be entered in the record and that they be answered. I don't simply want to belabor my colleagues' time; they are very important to me and would appreciate your response. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The information follows:] [Pages 67 - 72--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN KNOLLENBERG Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. McDade, and welcome, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment you, Mr. Chairman. We're looking forward to working with you and delighted that you're there. We'll work, obviously, with everyone on this committee, but it's nice to know that we have a comfortable gentleman in the chair. So we're comfortable with you. Thank you. Mr. McDade. I look forward to working with you. Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Secretary, good to see you and your panel of Generals and officers. I have a couple of questions, and they may be directed to you; it may be that we'll direct them to General Ballard or General Fuhrman. Sometime very recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Hade and Mr. Scott Parker from the Corps of Engineers from the Detroit District office, and you can probably begin, perhaps, to get a sense of the questioning that I am getting to. I think, General Ballard, you talked about in your remarks getting that out in the open in a hurry. So we want to come back to that point and discuss this whole matter of the 1997 Conference Report which actually cemented the number of offices. And I think that currently we have the 11 divisions, andaccording to the Conference Report of last year, the Corps must--and I've got the language of the report, and I'm sure you're very familiar with it--the Corps must implement a plan by April 1 of 1997 that will have no less than six and no more than eight divisions. Incidentally, let me preface my questions by saying that that visit with those gentlemen had nothing to do with my questions. I was prepared to ask them anyhow, and, in fact, we had a conversation last year--you may not recall--along this line. The concern that I have is there may appear to be, with the current way that you've got it styled, there appears to be redundancy perhaps because it looks to me like we have, it seems to me, still 10 division offices. Now, according to the report, there should be no more than eight, no less than six. And I cite that because, according to the restructuring map that you have been kind enough, or someone has, to present to us, that's the new look, and of course this is the old look which is somewhat different. The way I look at this, and let me just ask you a couple or three quick questions. If somebody, for example--I'm looking for maybe some duplication here, if there is any, and there is an appearance, and I want to get to the bottom of it perhaps, determining if there is anything to the appearance. But when--like the levee that my colleague, Mr. Fazio, pictured, when the integrity of that levee must be checked, and his, of course, was something that didn't check, when the call is made, where does the call go into? Does it go into the district office? Which office responds to that particular situation? Mr. Lancaster. That sort of thing is handled at the district level. The division offices are for regional interface and for oversight of the districts, but where you go to for help, where your constituents go to for help on a day-to-day basis or when an emergency arises is the district. Mr. Knollenberg. When a harbor needs to be dredged, the same question--it's the same story? Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. Mr. Knollenberg. It's the district office? Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. Mr. Knollenberg. Or general maintenance of any kind, same story? Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. Mr. Knollenberg. Okay, sir. The read that I get is that currently we have the ten offices but two of them are known as--ten division, but two seem to be known as regional offices; is that true? General Ballard. Well, first of all, without any modifications to the plan, the plan that you just showed there, we have one division office, and that's where the general officer will be located, the division commander--it may not be a general--the division commander. The plan envisions in the near term of having a deputy and a senior civilian, probably an SES, one located in Chicago and the other one in Cincinnati from the outset. I think it's very important, as you so indicated, we did nothing to the districts. The folks in the north central division, in the Chicago area, will still respond to the same district office for most of their needs--in fact, all of their needs. Their entry point will be at the district. We made no changes at that level. It is at the oversight level from the outset where we will make most of the changes, and that's in compliance with the law. I felt that it was very important that we did nothing that would jeopardize where we think we have to go. As I stated in my opening statement, we have achieved most of those savings which was the intent of Congress back in 1989 when we first started this process. A typical division office in 1989 was about 300-plus people. Today at a division office we're looking at about 104 individuals, and of that 104, only about 76 of those folks are civil works folks; most of them are support staff. The actual work that's done at the division office is really command-and-control and oversight of the districts. Mr. Knollenberg. These two regional offices? General Ballard. Yes, sir. Mr. Knollenberg. Why did you invent that structure, a regional office? General Ballard. Why did we do that? Mr. Knollenberg. Yes. I mean, from the view that I have, the Great Lakes--Ohio River Division, which is the one I want to zero-in on, is a pretty compact area. When you look at some of the others, you look at the Mississippi Valley Division, you've got over 900 miles between Vicksburg, Mississippi and Minneapolis, Minnesota. In the South Atlantic, it's over 600 miles between Atlanta and Miami and it's over 3,000 miles between--in the Pacific division--between Anchorage and Honolulu. So it's not distance, and I'm trying to figure out why do we have these two new regional offices that supplant the call of the language in the Conference Report to reduce it to no more than eight. So it seems like we still haven't gotten there to me. It appears to me that nothing has changed; we have really still ten offices, ten division offices. General Ballard. If I understood the intent of the language, the language was there to gain some efficiencies and some savings. SAVINGS FROM RESTRUCTURING PLAN Mr. Knollenberg. Let's talk about that, then, because that's interesting to me, too. What about the savings? I know you've talked briefly about that, but, for example, do you have a cost analysis of this restructuring for the future, not the present, but for the future? For example, the new restructuring program, have you done a cost analysis of that? I think that requests have been made to the Chairman or the Secretary, and maybe they were just very recent, and you haven't had time to respond to that, but I believe that our Chairman has made a request, and I believe that Chairman Livingston has also made a request, as to a cost analysis for the entire restructuring program to be submitted in writing. To my knowledge, I'm not aware of that having been received. I may be wrong, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McDade. We have sent a letter over. General Ballard. If I might, Mr. Chairman, the response was made as a result of a visit that I made to Chairman Livingston and Chairman McDade to discuss this plan. We're in the process of developing an implementation which involves the cost analysis breakout of where we intend to take efficiencies, and we have committed to come back to both Chairman Livingston and Chairman McDade sometime in late April with the breakout of that, of that plan. Mr. Knollenberg. Okay. I believe the date was the 1st of April; is that not true? Mr. Lancaster. We can't begin implementation until April 1st. Mr. Knollenberg. I see. Mr. Lancaster. So it's difficult to do the analysis until we are clear that we can proceed because, of course, there is always the possibility that congressional action will take place between now and April 1st which would render that moot. GENERAL EXPENSES BUDGET REQUEST Mr. Knollenberg. In looking at the budget, and of course the budget is for Fiscal Year 1998, it really doesn't take into consideration these things, does it? General Ballard. Yes, sir. Mr. Knollenberg. Well, if it does then--go ahead. If it does, where is it? General Ballard. The budget, I think the figure is $148 million. When we submitted the budget, at that time we had eleven divisions, as we still have now, but we submitted it with eight divisions in mind. Mr. Knollenberg. What was that number again you said? General Ballard. I think it was $148 million. General Fuhrman. A hundred and forty-eight million is in our Fiscal Year 1998 GE request. General Ballard. But it was--and that $148 million was intended to support a structure of eight division and headquarters? Mr. Knollenberg. So you intend to get there, but you're not there yet, obviously. There is an appearance as though nothing has changed. You still have ten in operation. But I guess a further questioning would have to go in the direction of finding out whether those folks are---- REGIONAL INTERFACE Mr. Lancaster. If I might comment on another important purpose of the division offices, and that's regional interface with State and local governments--in the case of North Central, what will now be the Ohio River-Great Lakes, and International interface through the IJC. It was felt that it was appropriate to maintain a focus on the Great Lakes and a focus on the Ohio River. We were given the choice--and, in fact, the last plan submitted would, in fact, have closed the Chicago office and would have had only one office in the Ohio and Great Lakes division. Because of the concerns, we believe legitimate concerns, raised by Great Lakes interests, we thought that it was appropriate to maintain a regional presence in Chicago to deal with these Great Lakes and Canadian interests. The same is true in the division that is proposed in this plan that is now the Northwest. Again, we have the Missouri River interest and the Columbia River interest, and we felt that it was appropriate to have a presence in these two important areas through a regional office. We thought that was important. Mr. Knollenberg. Are they doing things differently? Mr. Lancaster. It's the regional interface. It's not what they are doing. Mr. Knollenberg. Well let me ask this question, Mr. Secretary, because if you created this situation for the Chicago, Ohio, Illinois area, I guess that division goes by another name. It's the North Central Division. If you did that there, are we to anticipate maybe the same kind of thing happening in other regions of the country, other parts of the country, and if not, why not? Because it seems to me that there would be reasons for people to regionalize their interest and localize their interest to create this same kind of thing. What I am really driving at here, and I think it's fairly simple, is are we getting bigger? Are we duplicating? Are we doing--we're not? Mr. Lancaster. No, Mr. Knollenberg. The fact of the matter is, under the existing division structure, these regional interests are addressed in the divisions. But when we were required to reduce those division numbers, then we were faced with significant regional interests that felt that they were not going to receive the attention, say if you were in Omaha, that you would not receive the same kind of attention out of the Portland Division Office that you would out of Omaha. Now we of course could very well deal with a situation if Congress feels that it is appropriate to say the plan that you have submitted is not adequate and you should in fact close Chicago and you should close Omaha. We will deal with that. We will deal with it perhaps not as well as we believe we can with regional offices, but we will deal with it. But we're hearing from significant regional interests that felt that a division structure that came down to eight would in fact short change some regions of our country. We chose to deal with that with a regional office that will work for the division commander. We believe that over time these offices will come down to reflect the workload of those offices. But that's something that's a part of implementation. It's only after we get into it and see what this regional interface is, what the necessary oversight from these regional offices will be that we will be able to give you a dollar figure and an FTE figure for these regional offices. Mr. Knollenberg. Some of my questions I will reserve for another round relative to the future on this thing when we can begin to look at the FTEs and some of the other things, which I know General Ballard has some information on. So I accept the suggestions, comments you are making. We're just, I guess, a little antsy about looking at how you can more closely maybe mirror the language of the report, the conference report. Mr. Lancaster. I think the important thing to note is something that General Ballard has said here this morning. That is, when this process started, division offices were much larger. It has taken us so long to get this far, that we couldn't afford to wait until that point to draw down our division structure because of declining budgets. So already the division offices have been drawn down dramatically from what they were when the process started. So the savings that would have been achieved in 1989 if we had been able to move forward at that point have been achieved through another way. Mr. Knollenberg. It's the bringing on line of the regional office that I really am pointing to, it's not the district office and it's not the division office. It's the regional, which seems to be the new name on the block. General Ballard. We're not really bringing on, and I think maybe that's where the perception is. What we are doing is drawing down. Mr. Knollenberg. I guess that's the explanation we have to see. We'll get into some of that in the next round. So thank you very much. Thank you. RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, since this is my first meeting, let me say it's a privilege to be on your committee. I look forward to serving with you. So I might start out in a proper way. I might ask you a parliamentary question. Is it safe for me to assume that I do not get allocated Mr. Viscloskey's extra nine and a half minutes? [Laughter.] Mr. Edwards. Reasonable assumption. Mr. McDade. We're glad to have you with us. TRIBUTE TO CHET TAYLOR Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it would be appropriate, I think as I begin my service on this subcommittee, I would like to pay tribute to someone that I think represents the thousands of Corps of Engineers employees who work week in and week out in service of their country, year in and year out with very little public credit or attention. Mr. Chet Taylor, who was chief of the construction division of the Fort Worth District until February 21st of this year, when he died an untimely death as a result of heart surgery. Mr. Taylor served the Corps of Engineers and the country for 35 years. In the 1960s he was part of building Cape Canaveral for NASA. In the 1970s, he worked as a major manager in Saudi Arabia for important facilities. In the 1980s, he worked in Europe and Israel. I would like to extend on behalf of this committee and all its Members, our heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Taylor's family for his great service to the Corps of Engineers and to the country. Mr. McDade. Well said. Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PORT OF HOUSTON Mr. Secretary, it's a privilege to be with you today and General Ballard, General Fuhrman. I would like to begin, if I could, with several questions--I will submit others for the record--but several questions about a couple of projects in Texas, the first of which would be the Port of Houston, the Houston-Galveston navigation project. It's my concern that this project could conceivably be a victim of the full funding approach. I would want to express my gratitude for your efforts in making this a new start for fiscal year 1998. But as I understand it, the administration request of $119.1 million is only about half the $240 million required for the full project. It's my understanding that the Port of Houston is a major player in this project having approved over $100 million in bonds. They will be the major local contributor of funds, but actually can not enter into a PCA because under the project as envisioned in this budget request, the deepening and the widening of the Galveston- Houston Channel wouldn't even reach the Port of Houston. So it wouldn't even be legal for them to use their bonds in support of that project. Mr. Secretary, I guess my question would be as a representative of the administration, could you work with the Port of Houston to try to resolve that serious problem? Mr. Lancaster. We will, Mr. Edwards. In fact, we are doing so as we speak. That matter is before OMB for their review now, on whether or not a PCA that will cover the entire project can be signed with the full funding philosophy that is reflected in this budget request. We of course included this project as a new start as we did in two pieces because of the difficulty in putting such a large project into the budget as a new start with full funding. We wanted to demonstrate for the committee that under full funding this is the way we would proceed on very large projects that might otherwise fall victim to this approach. So we worked very hard to try to figure out a way to get this project started and to fund an element of it with full funding up front, but at the same time recognize that we would have to come back later for the balance of the project. We are working with the local project sponsors and with OMB trying to work out a PCA that OMB will approve and that will be acceptable to the local sponsors. Mr. Edwards. I appreciate your efforts on that. Is it my understanding if we use the standard funding process, that actually only $15 to $25 million rather than $119 million would be needed this year. Is that correct? Mr. Lancaster. I believe that is correct. General Fuhrman. The $15 million would be the number. Mr. Edwards. So under this budget plan, if we use the present procedures, you would actually free up perhaps $100 million for other important priority programs in other parts of the country. Is that correct? If the committee did take that approach? Mr. Lancaster. If that was your decision, yes, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you. One other question on that. Under traditional funding policies, could the Corps sign a PCA for the entire project? Mr. Lancaster. If it were incrementally funded, yes. WALLISVILLE LAKE Mr. Edwards. Okay. On the Wallisville Lake project, what is the Corps' fiscal year 1998 capability for completion of the project, Mr. Secretary? Mr. Lancaster. I believe General Fuhrman can respond to that. General Fuhrman. Let me take that on. Let me preface it by a disclosure statement that although project and study capabilities reflect the readiness of the work for accomplishment, they are in competition for available funds and manpower Army-wide. In this context, the capability for that particular project by itself without reference to the rest of the program is $14.4 million. However, it is emphasized that the total amount proposed for the Army Civil Works Program in the President's budget is the appropriate amount consistent with the administration's assessment of national priorities for Federal investments, and the objectives of avoiding large budget deficits, and the serious adverse effect that Government borrowing is having on the national economy. In addition, the total amount proposed for the Army Civil Works Program in the President's budget is the maximum that can be efficiently and effectively used. Therefore, we could again utilize the amount of $14.4 million, but must realize that this would be offset from requirements. Mr. Edwards. If that amount, that $14 plus million is not funded, you would have to stop the project. Could you tell me for the record, what the cost of closing that project if it's not fully funded and completed? General Fuhrman. In the neighborhood of $12 million, sir. Mr. Edwards. So it would cost, similar to Mr. Rogers' questions, it would cost almost as much if not more, because I think there are some other costs that would associated with that. It could cost more not to fund the project than to fund it and complete it. Is that correct? General Fuhrman. Yes, sir. GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY Mr. Edwards. Very good. Another project, and none of these is in my district, but I think all are important for Texas. This particular one has implications for any trade along the intercoastal waterway, which obviously has a tremendous regional and national economic impact. It's my understanding, Mr. Secretary, that you have been working to try to develop a plan to protect the endangered whooping crane, but that plan is not funded in this particular budget. Do we get into potential legal problems if that project is not funded in this fiscal year with the Endangered Species Act? Mr. Lancaster. Possibly. Mr. Edwards. So in fact, it's my understanding that there's even a possibility that you could have, through court action, the shutting down of maintenance for the intercoastal waterway. Is that a possibility? Mr. Lancaster. That is a possibility, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards. What kind of economic impact would that have, Mr. Secretary, if you were to stop maintenance and potentially stop travel on the intercoastal waterway? Do you have the exact figure? General Fuhrman. There's about 15 million tons of commerce that moves through that waterway, sir. Mr. Edwards. Okay. Great. The approved capability for fiscal year 1998 would be how many million dollars for this project? If you were given the funds, what could you use? General Fuhrman. Subject to the usual qualifications, sir, $17.6 million. Mr. Edwards. Okay. Very good. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and courtesy. RECOGNITION OF CONGRESSMAN FRELINGHUYSEN Mr. McDade. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's great to be on your committee and to be working with you directly. Secretary Lancaster, good morning. Mr. Lancaster. Good morning. Mr. Frelinghuysen. One thing that's true about this meeting, it's hot as heck in here. I have been out in the hall to some other hearing, and it's about 15 degrees cooler. I'm not sure it's a good sign, Mr. Chairman, this clock is frozen at 9:00. [Laughter.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. You may be here for quite a long time, Mr. Secretary. Mr. McDade. In at 9:00 and out at 9:00. Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Frelinghuysen, at Chapel Hill, Dean Smith always keeps the arena very hot because his players are used to playing in that environment. The visiting team isn't. I wonder if that's what you folks are doing to us. [Laughter.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Stick around, you'll find out. SHORE PROTECTION Coming from the northeastern part of the United States, I know I speak on behalf of a lot of my colleagues that represent the New York, New Jersey metropolitan area. I specifically come from northern New Jersey. I would like to focus some questions on coastal protection in the first instance, and if time permits, the whole issue of dredging of the New York, New Jersey port area, which is critical to our economy in a big way, and something which is prevalent around the Nation, but certainly true in our part of the country as well, the whole issue of flood control. Let me throw a few bouquets though. I have had a very good working relationship with General Hunter and his staff. They are absolutely great, on the ball. They have served to educate me as a relatively new Member of Congress. They have worked very closely with our governor and other members of the delegation. But they have been absolutely great. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Mr. Lancaster. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Relative to coastal protection, why are so few coastal protection projects budgeted in the fiscal year 1998 budget proposal, given the direction of Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996? Let me quote from the House Report on WRDA 96, section 228, ``This section makes it clear that one of the missions of the Army Corps of Engineers is to promote shore protection projects that encourage the protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches. Subsection (a) is a declaration of policy which amends existing law in order to make it clear that it is the intent of Congress that the Federal government shall assist in those shore protection projects that involve the replacement of sand on beaches.'' Why has the Corps decided to basically somewhat go against the will of Congress, as reflected in your budget? I am not the only Member on this committee that represents shore communities, but I would like to get your reaction to what we put in our budget last year. Mr. Lancaster. First of all, Congressman, this is not in any way a rejection of the Corps of Engineers of its traditional role in shore protection. In fact, this budget has $69 million in shore protection funds. However, these funds are not for new projects, but are for ongoing projects either that are under construction or for the periodic maintenance of the shore protection projects that is required under contracts that were entered into when the protection plans were implemented in these various communities. But it is that long-term commitment, in some cases as much as 50 years, in fact in most cases 50 years, and some as little as 35 years, that has the Office of Management and Budget and the Corps of Engineers concerned about the future of this program. In a constrained fiscal climate, and in one where we are trying to balance the budget and keep it balanced for the future, the long tail of shore protection is what creates significant problems for us in setting budget priorities when it comes to shore protection. Furthermore, it is these projects where there is the greatest likelihood that the economic benefits experienced by a community because of this Federal assistance would enable them to be a bigger player, perhaps do the whole projectthemselves or perhaps look at a different way in which to create these projects. All of our other flood control projects in the Corps of Engineers require an up front Federal expenditure and local cost share for the construction of the project. But once that flood protection is put in place, it then becomes the responsibility of the local project sponsor to maintain those structures for the future. In shore protection, which is a flood protection project, in fact, the Federal Government continues for 35 to 50 years to play a part in the maintenance of the structures. Perhaps this committee needs to wrestle with this problem and to look at it in a different way. Perhaps it is time for local communities with the revenues that are generated by these beaches, to take on the full responsibility of maintenance, just as other communities take on the full responsibility of maintaining other flood control structures. These are all issues that need to be debated. We of course hope that we can be a part of that debate. But the fact of the matter is, if we are going to balance the budget and keep the budget balanced, we have to make some hard choices. Shore protection is one of those where this year there is not a new start. Last year there were two because of the unique nature of those projects. This year there happen not to be one ready to go forward. But there is still a strong commitment to shore protection, as is reflected by the $69 million that's included in this budget for that purpose. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So you are basically saying that you are not going to do anything new, but you are going to finish up what you have been doing in the past? Mr. Lancaster. That is correct. Mr. Frelinghuysen. That's somewhat at odds with the direction we gave you, the specific direction we gave you last year. I would suspect that we would probably give you similar direction in budget language in this cycle. Mr. Lancaster. Well, we hope that as a part of the deliberations on that language we can debate how we go into the future with these plans, because as I indicated, the really difficult issue here is not the initial construction. Sometimes that is a fraction of the total life cost of these projects. When you consider that you are going to continue to put sand on a beach for a 50-year period on a periodic basis, that often times is the most significant part of the overall cost of these projects. So we hope that as we look at shore protection, we can perhaps look at new models that might take into account the benefits to the communities and the revenues that will be coming in, and look at a new way to fund these projects. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But in reality, many states, including New Jersey, do put some of our own money into shore replenishment and protection. Your testimony is replete with references to the need to recognize the negative impact of disasters on communities, the economic support and activity that's negatively affected in many cases on an annual basis. I know that you have to juggle a lot of things given a limited amount of money, but it's certainly true to communities that depend on shore protection. I can tell you for the record that we are going to be right in there, plugging, obviously, for responsible actions within those States relative to those shore situations. But in the reality, we do send our fair share of tax dollars to Washington. It is very important to tourism to our area, as well as the costs associated with the devastation that comes from coastal disasters. We're talking about $15 or $20 billion. So it's a major hit to us. I have a specific question, Mr. Secretary, which may have to go to General Hunter. In the North Atlantic Division, were there any projects or studies reduced or phases not funded in the budget submission due to the administration's policy on shore protection? And could you provide the amount, those amounts needed in fiscal year 1998 for the record? Mr. Lancaster. I don't know if General Hunter is prepared or perhaps one of the members of this panel to respond, or it might be more appropriate to do that for the record if that would be acceptable to you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. That would be fine. Mr. Lancaster. We will provide that for the record. [The information follows:] [Page 84--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. I have a number of other questions that relate to coastal protection, if I could submit those for the record. Do I have some additional time or should we move on? Mr. McDade. We would be very pleased to have you move on. [Laughter.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. All right. I want to get back on the second round if I can, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. McDade. There may not be one, so if you need to keep going. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR Mr. Frelinghuysen. I will. I'll be brief. Relative to the New York, New Jersey harbor, the dredged and material disposal crisis last year, the Vice President announced a compromise agreement for addressing dredging needs in our harbor area in New York/New Jersey. Recently it's been reported in the press that this agreement is falling apart. Namely, permits are not being granted to dredge the harbor. It's my understanding that the Gore proposal called for the speedy issuance of a number of permits, maintenance dredging for 10 top priority Federal navigation channels by the end of 1997. I would like to know where we stand relative to this much touted agreement. Is it falling by the wayside? There is $75 billion involved in this port on an annual basis, lots of jobs. Mr. Lancaster. It is not falling apart. We always knew that there would be challenges in meeting the schedule, and there have been, and continue to be. A meeting was held yesterday in New York to address these challenges. We are putting the resources necessary from the Corps' perspective to get the job done. To be honest, some of the challenges are challenges over which we have no control. One is the capacity for testing of the dredge material before it is removed so that it can be classified. The labs are not as responsive as we had hoped. We hope that we can address this in other ways, but that is a serious problem. We also of course have to deal with other State, Federal, and local agencies. We hope that they have the same commitment to making this work that we do. The meeting yesterday reaffirmed that. We will look forward to their actions to back up the words of that meeting. We believe that if we all work together, that we can meet this deadline for completing the ocean disposal by September and continuing with the plan laid out. But there will be challenges. There's no question there will be challenges. It will require the cooperation of all levels of governmentand the private sector in order to meet these deadlines. But it is certainly not falling apart. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. It's absolutely critical. I mean there is going to be a flight of these container shippers out of that area. It would be totally devastating to the New York/ New Jersey metropolitan region if we don't address that issue. But you are basically telling me that there's nothing that the Corps is doing that in any way is slowing down the process. You are working to expedite the process and get all the parties to the table. Mr. Lancaster. We are indeed. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are. For that I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have additional questions, may I enter them into the record? Mr. McDade. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Pages 87 - 100--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] RECOGNITION OF MR. PASTOR Mr. McDade. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After being gone two years, it's an honor to come back on the committee, and I look forward to working with you and my colleagues in a bipartisan manner. Mr. McDade. We're delighted that you are back. Mr. Pastor. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I just have a few questions. Though they appear parochial in nature, they have a national, in some case an international interest. So let me--I know we're getting close to lunch hour, so I'll ask my four questions. But first of all, I would like to thank Secretary Lancaster. I have to tell you that your Los Angeles District and your South Pacific Division and people from your office have been very cooperative, and I look forward to working with you and the two generals and all their staffs as we go forward with this subcommittee. So I would first of all like to thank you for all the cooperation you extended to me. I am also very happy to see that the Corps is pursuing environmental restoration projects. I think that's a new element that will have more attention, as I have learned from you and your staff. One of the projects that I have an interest in is the Rio Solado feasibility study. As you know, it is extremely important to the cities of Phoenix and Tempe that the Rio Solado project be included in the next Water Resources Development Act. Could you expedite the process to ensure that this project is included in the 1998 reauthorization of the Act? General Fuhrman. I don't have the answer to that question. I could provide it for the record or I could have General Capka answer it. Mr. Pastor. That's fine, if General Capka would like to do it. For the record, I would appreciate it. General Capka. Good morning, Mr. Pastor. Mr. Pastor. Good morning, General. General Capka. Yes. We have in fact taken a look at the Rio Solado project. It looks like right now we'll have the report ready by March of 1998, which would be in time for the WRDA 1998. We have been ready to do that with some advanced coordination at all levels through the Corps. Mr. Pastor. Thank you, General. Also, do you have a current estimate for the completion of the feasibility study? General Capka. Sir, the current estimate for the completion of the feasibility study is March of 1998. Mr. Pastor. March of 1998, okay. As you know, Congress has worked with the Corps in qualifying the section 1135 project for Tempe as part of the overall Rio Solado project. Could you give us a status of when these funds will be available? General Capka. Sir, we are looking at the 1135. I'm not sure right now whether that will be recommended since we do have a feasibility study looking at the project. As to whether or not and when those funds become available, of course they compete with other projects within the Corps. Mr. Pastor. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, we have been working well with the South Pacific Division. Another project that also is an environmental restoration project is in Tucson, Pima County. It's again innovative and, I think, an exciting project. It's the Ajo Detention Basin. My question is, will you be able to initiate and complete a project modification report in fiscal year 1997? General Capka. Yes, sir. We will. Mr. Pastor. What is your capability for completing plans and specification, initiating construction in fiscal year 1998? General Capka. Sir, I don't have those specific details with me. If I could provide those for the record. [The information follows:] Ajo Detention Basin A Project Modification Report is scheduled for initiation in March 1997 and completion in September 1997. There is an FY 1998 capability of $2,775,000 for preparing plans and specifications and initiating construction. Mr. Pastor. I would appreciate it. As you know, we have been working with the Corps in trying to construct the pedestrian bridges over the Rillito River. We have had correspondence and communication with the Corps. My question is, do you have sufficient funds to initiate and complete construction for that project? General Capka. Yes, sir. We do. Mr. Pastor. And the last one, Mr. Chairman, is the Tucson drainage area feasibility study. It's a flood control plan that's being considered as part of the overall feasibility study. It's environmentally sensitive and it's an innovative design. My question is, do you see any problems of this being included in the next Water Resources Development Act in 1998? General Capka. Sir, the feasibility study is scheduled to be finished in July of 1997. With the feasibility study done by that time, we should be able to have that ready for the WRDA 1998. Mr. Pastor. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I will have questions for the record. Thank you for your indulgence. QUESTION FROM CONGRESSMAN HORN Mr. McDade. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I was contacted during the proceedings by Representative Steve Horn. Steve represents, as you'll recall, southern California. Mr. Lancaster. Yes, sir. Mr. McDade. And he has very deep interest in the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project. I am going to submit some questions to you. We would appreciate it if you would give me your detailed attention. Mr. Lancaster. We will. Mr. McDade. So that we may advise him. We have a series of other lengthy questions for you which we are going to give you and let you answer for the record. If there are no other questions, the committee will stand adjourned until 10:00 tomorrow morning. We thank you all for your testimony. It was very helpful. Mr. Lancaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McDade. Thank you. [The information follows:] [Pages 103 - 409--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] I N D E X ---------- CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECRETARY OF THE ARMY Page 1997 Ohio River Flood............................................ 409 Advance Appropriations........................................... 354 After 1986 Flood................................................. 57 Amount Requested to OMB for Section 202 Project Elements......... 365 Annual Flood Damage Report....................................... 155 Authorized Projects.............................................. 138 Average Year New Starts.......................................... 63 Balance to Complete Report....................................... 185 Budget Levels.................................................... 352 Cal-Fed.......................................................... 59 California Flooding.............................................. 56 Changes in Fiscal Year 1998 Capabilities Compared to Amounts Requested in OMB Submission for Kentucky Section 202 Elements.. 363 Changes to Nationwide Permit 26 (NWP 26)......................... 342 Channel and Harbor Maintenance................................... 318 Channel Improvement.............................................. 264 Civilian Employment.............................................. 150 Coastal Inlets Research Program.................................. 242 Coastal Protection............................................... 87 Commerce Moving Through Navigation Projects...................... 153 Commercial Traffic Through Navigation Locks...................... 154 Competitive Bid for Hopper Dredging.............................. 137 Comprehensive Review............................................. 57 Construction New Starts.......................................... 139 Continuing Authorities Program................................ 320, 328 Continuing Authorities Program................................... 16 Continuing Authorities Program Projects Underway................. 227 Continuing Authorities Program Proposed Amounts for Fully Funded New Construction Starts........................................ 241 Continuing Construction Projects................................. 405 Cooperation with Other Agencies--Bureau of Reclamation........... 121 Corps Hopper Dredge Fleet Schedule............................... 137 Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS)........... 138 Corps' Response to '95 Floods.................................... 332 Cost of Levee Restoration........................................ 59 Criteria for Reduced Funding..................................... 110 Current Flood Situations......................................... 330 Deferred Maintenance............................................. 135 Detailed Savings................................................. 111 (i) ii Detroit vs. Chicago Regulatory Authority......................... 70 Disaster Recovery Phases......................................... 61 Division Restructuring........................................... 133 Division Restructuring........................................... 117 Dredging Data and Lock Performance Monitoring System............. 244 Dredging Operations and Environmental Research................... 243 Emergency Requirements for Natural Disasters Contingency Fund.... 21 Environmental Data Studies Program............................... 222 Environmental Issues............................................. 341 Environmental Stewardship........................................ 19 Feasibility Phase Studies Without Executed Agreements............ 291 Fiscal Year 1997 Supplemental Appropriations................... 103-104 Fiscal Year 1997 ``Negative Supplemental''....................... 356 Fiscal Year 1997 ``Negative Supplemental''....................... 105 Fiscal Year 1997 ``Negative Supplemental''....................... 49 Fiscal Year 1998 Capabilities for Selected Section 202 Elements.. 360 Food Control and Coastal Emergencies--Civil Works Program Budget. 20 Flood Damage Reduction........................................... 18 Flood Fights in California....................................... 351 Flood Recovery................................................... 58 Full Funding..................................................... 62 Full Funding of New Construction Activities...................... 106 Full Funding Proposal............................................ 50 Funding by Major Functional Area................................. 210 Funding for Hydropower Maintenance and Rehabilitation............ 152 Funding Shortfalls............................................... 136 FY 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.......... 215 General Expenses................................................. 247 General Expenses Budget Request.................................. 75 General Investigations......................... 216, 221, 222, 224, 226 Government Performance and Results Act of 1993................ 123, 130 Gulf of Mexico Program........................................... 218 Harbor Maintenance Projects...................................... 254 Harbor Maintenance Tax Constitutionality......................... 211 Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.................................... 213 Hopper Dredge McFarland........................................ 99, 137 Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Policy...................... 17 Hydropower....................................................... 18 Incremental Funding Impacts...................................... 51 Inland Waterways Trust Fund...................................... 212 Inland Waterways Users Board Investment Program.................. 405 Interagency and International Support Program.................... 222 Joint Study of the Cumberland and the Tennessee Rivers........... 119 Keeping Congress Informed........................................ 135 Levees........................................................... 339 Lock and Dam Projects............................................ 405 Lock Operations and Management of Recreation Facilities.......... 286 Long-Term Flood Control System Requirements...................... 337 Maintenance Dredging of Boston Harbor............................ 328 Maintenance of Adequate Depths................................... 135 Maintenance of Shallow Draft Harbors............................. 54 Major Rehabilitation............................................. 405 Minimum Dredge Fleet Study....................................... 100 Mississippi River and Tributaries Funding........................ 385 Missouri River Basin Collaborative Effort........................ 326 iii Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review and Update..... 325 NAD Studies or Projects Impacted by the Administration's Shore Protection Policy.............................................. 84 National Recreation Reservation Service.......................... 244 Nationwide Permit 26 (NWP 26)................................. 374, 377 Navigation....................................................... 18 Navigation Lock Operations....................................... 308 Negative Supplemental............................................ 49 New Feasibility Studies Included in Budget....................... 142 New Preconstruction Engineering and Design Activities............ 114 New Reconnaissance Studies....................................... 139 New Start Construction........................................... 388 New Starts....................................................... 356 Operation and Maintenance Funding................................ 109 Operation and Maintenance Request................................ 53 Operation of the Assets on Both River Systems.................... 119 Outyear New Construction Funding................................. 52 Pacific Northwest Forest Case Study.............................. 220 Percentages Complete for Kentucky Section 202 Project Elements... 364 Permit Fees...................................................... 353 Permit Issues.................................................... 70 Personnel Costs by Account....................................... 122 Planning Process................................................. 112 Policy Impacts on Coastal Projects............................... 88 Preconstruction Engineering and Design and Construction Projects scheduled to Be Complete in FY 1997............................ 148 Private Industry Hopper Dredging................................. 99 Programs or Projects Not Included in the Budget.................. 396 Programs or Projects with Earmarked Funds........................ 396 Projects Affected by Proposal.................................... 50 Projects Impacted by Negative Supplemental....................... 49 Projects in Litigation........................................... 178 Projects Receiving First Year Funding for Preconstruction Engineering and Design in FY 1998.............................. 147 Public Law 84-99................................................. 350 Question from Congressman Horn................................... 102 Question from Congresswoman Emerson.............................. 65 Recognition of Congressman Edwards............................... 77 Recognition of Congressman Frelinghuysen......................... 80 Recognition of Congressman Knollenberg........................... 73 Recognition of Congressman Rogers................................ 62 Recognition of Congressman Visclosky............................. 66 Recognition of Mr. Fazio......................................... 55 Recognition of Mr. Pastor........................................ 101 Rconnaissance Studies............................................ 351 Reconnaissance Study Completion Schedules........................ 287 Recreation....................................................... 18 Recreation....................................................... 276 Recreation Area Management....................................... 309 Recreation Facilties............................................. 111 Recreation Facilities............................................ 55 Recreation Facilities--Funding Criteria.......................... 55 Recreation Operations......................................... 295, 300 Reduced Levels of Service........................................ 109 Reduced Operation and Maintenance requirement for Fiscal Year 1998........................................................... 325 iv Reductions in Force.............................................. 135 Regional Interface............................................... 76 Regulatory Program............................................... 245 Regulatory Program--Funding Level................................ 20 Regulatory Program--User Fees.................................... 20 Remaining Items.................................................. 357 Reprogramming in a Funding Constrained Environment............... 17 Reports Language................................................. 215 Reprogramming Authority.......................................... 52 Savings From Restructioning Plan................................. 75 Section 1135 Environmental Modifications......................... 17 Section 202 Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request...................... 359 Section 204 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.................. 17 Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration....................... 241 Shallow Draft Harbors............................................ 111 Shallow Draft Harbors--Funding Criteria.......................... 54 Shore Protection................................................. 80 Shore Protection Projects........................................ 115 Small Harbor Dredging............................................ 392 Special Investigations Activity.................................. 217 Statement of Honorable H. Martin Lancaster....................... 1-24 Balance Among High Priority Interests and Objectives......... 12 Balance of Priorities in the FY 1998 Budget.............. 12 Budget Allocations for Future New Investments............ 12 Conclusion................................................... 21 Contents..................................................... 8 Government-Wide Fixed Asses Initiative....................... 11 Full Up-Front Funding of New Starts...................... 11 Advance Appropriations for Ongoing Projects with Near- Term Completions....................................... 12 Incremental Budgeting for the Other Projects Under Construction........................................... 12 Introduction................................................. 9 Opening Remarks.............................................. 1 Overview of the Army Civil Works Budget.......................... 10 FY 1998 Civil Works Budget............................... 10 Emergency Operations for Flood Fighting and Flood Recovery............................................... 10 Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study.................................................. 10 Joint Study of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers....... 11 Summary of the FY 1998 Civil Works Program................... 13 New Civil Works Investments.............................. 13 New Starts and Other New Work............................ 13 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996........... 13 Continuing Program Highlights............................ 14 General Investigations................................... 14 Construction, General.................................... 15 Operation and Maintenance (O&M), General................. 18 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T).. 19 Regulatory Program....................................... 20 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.................... 20 Improving Government Efficiency and Effectiveness........ 21 Statement of LTG Ballard......................................... 25-48 Conclusion................................................... 46 Corps of Engineers Financial Management System............... 39 Corps Vision and Strategic Plan.............................. 45 Decision Document Review/Approval............................ 35 v Direct Program............................................... 32 FY98 Civil Works Program Budget.............................. 31 Government Performance and Results Act of 1993............... 38 Headquarters Responsiveness to Field Offices................. 36 Improvement in Business Processes............................ 35 Introduction................................................. 29 Partnering................................................... 37 Program Execution and Outlook................................ 40 Balancing New Construction and O&M....................... 45 Construction, General.................................... 40 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.................... 44 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries......... 42 General Expenses......................................... 44 General Investigations................................... 40 Operation and Maintenance, General....................... 42 Regulatory Program....................................... 43 Project Cooperation Agreements............................... 37 Reimbursed Program........................................... 34 Restructuring................................................ 31 Staffing..................................................... 35 Status of Kentucky Section 202 Elements That are Under Construction................................................... 360 Study Status..................................................... 397 Support for Others............................................... 208 Topographic and Bathymetric Nearshore............................ 222 Tribute to Chet Taylor........................................... 77 TVA.............................................................. 355 Unobligated Balances............................................. 149 PROJECTS AND STUDIES Acequias Irrigation System, NM................................... 275 Addison, NY...................................................... 143 Ajo Detention Basin........................................... 102, 383 Alenaio Stream Flood Control Project, Hawaii, HI................. 148 Alexander and Pulaski Counties, IL............................... 256 Alpena Harbor, MI................................................ 317 Alpine, TX....................................................... 144 Alton to Gale Organized Levee District, IL & MO (Resumption).. 139, 258 American River Levees, CA........................................ 345 American River Watershed, CA..................................... 139 Amite River--Darlington Reservoir, LA............................ 143 Anacostia River and Tributaries, MD & DC...................... 143, 248 Anacostia River Federal Facilities Impact Assessment, MD & DC.... 250 Anacostia River Federal Watershed Impact Assessment, MD.......... 143 Anacostia River and Tributaries, MD & DC......................... 139 Anchor Point Harbor, AK.......................................... 142 Aniak, AK........................................................ 142 Appomattox River, VA............................................. 254 Area South of Carolina Beach, NC................................. 284 Arkansas River Levees............................................ 390 Arkansas River Levees, Plum Bayou, AR............................ 389 Arkansas River Levees, Tucker Creek, AR.......................... 389 Arroyo Pasajero, CA.............................................. 147 Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook, Marine Terminal, NY & NJ...... 95 Arthur Kill, NY & NJ............................................. 91 vi Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, LA............................ 265 Atchafalaya Basin, LA............................................ 265 Atlantic Coast of Maryland, MD................................... 251 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Great Bridge, VA............... 148 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, VA.......................................................... 144, 248 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Highway Bridge at Great Bridge, VA 140 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC............................ 144, 278 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, VA............................... 255 Baltimore Harbor and Channel, MD................................. 253 Barbers Point Harbor Modification, HI............................ 320 Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, HI................................... 321 Barbourville, KY................................................. 359 Barnegat Bay, NJ................................................. 143 Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, NJ.......................... 84, 89 Bayou La Batre, AL............................................... 148 Bayou Tigre, Erath, LA........................................ 143, 256 Beach City Lake Dam Safety Assurance, Muskingum River Lakes, OH.. 307 Beals Creek, Big Spring, TX...................................... 148 Bethel Bank Stabilization, AK.................................... 148 Biscayne Bay, FL................................................. 278 Black Bayou Diversion, LA........................................ 145 Blackstone River Watershed Restoration, MA & RI.................. 143 Blair Waterway Navigation Study, Tacoma Harbor, WA............... 144 Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration, CA......................... 142 Bonneville Powerhouse Major Rehabilitation, Phase I, OR & WA..... 148 Bonneville Second Powerhouse, OR & WA............................ 148 Boston Harbor, MA............................................. 148, 327 Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet Absecon Island, NJ... 84, 89 Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, NJ................... 249 Brunswick County Beaches, NC..................................... 279 Brunswick Harbor, GA............................................. 147 Buford Powerhouse, GA (Major Rehab).............................. 139 Burns Harbor, Major Rehabilitation, IN........................... 67 Cahaba River Watershed, AL....................................... 142 Canaveral Harbor, FL.......................................... 182, 281 Cape Cod Railroad Bridge......................................... 329 Casino Beach, IL................................................. 70 Catskill Creek, NY............................................... 254 Central and Southern Florida, FL................................. 285 Channel to Victoria, TX.......................................... 273 Charleston Estuary, SC........................................ 139, 277 Chaska, MN....................................................... 148 Cheat River Basin Ecosystem Restoration, WV...................... 144 Chemung River Basin Environmental Restoration, NY................ 143 Chena River Watershed, AK........................................ 142 Chesapeake and Delaware Canal St. Georges Bridge Replacement, MD. 253 Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, VA........................... 84, 89 Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Poquoson, VA.......................... 84, 89 Chester River, MD................................................ 254 Chesterfield, MO................................................. 145 Chesterfield, MO, and Festus and Crystal City, MO................ 257 Chicago Shoreline, IL............................................ 315 Chicopit Bay, FL................................................. 143 Chief Joseph Dam Pool Raise, WA.................................. 298 Chignik Harbor, AK............................................... 148 vii Clear Creek, TX.................................................. 275 Coastal Connecticut Ecosystem Restoration, CT................. 139, 327 Coastal Studies Navigation Improvement, AK....................... 142 Colonias Along the Texas-Mexico Border........................... 380 Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers, OR & WA.................... 300 Columia River Fish Mitigation, ID, OR & WA....................... 299 Columbia Slough Ecosystem Restoration, OR........................ 143 Columbia/Snake River Basin Projects, ID & OR..................... 177 Compton Creek, CA................................................ 344 Condition and Operations Studies................................. 285 Conemaugh River Basin, Nanty Glo Environmental Restoration, PA... 147 Cook Inlet, AK................................................... 298 Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, SC (Resumption)......... 140, 279, 285 Coralville Lake, IA........................................... 143, 313 Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX............................... 144, 267 Coyote Valley Dam and Dry Creek (Warm Springs)................... 295 Crescent City Harbor, CA...................................... 148, 394 Cypress Creek, Houston, TX....................................... 272 Cypress Valley Watershed, TX.................................. 144, 270 Dade County Beach Restoration Project, FL........................ 178 Dade County, FL.................................................. 282 Dallas Floodway Extension, Trinity River, TX.................. 272, 381 Dardanelle Lock and Dam, Powerhouse, AR.......................... 391 Delaware Bay Coastline, Broadkill Beach, DE..................... 84, 89 Delaware Bay Coastline, Port Mahon, NJ.......................... 84, 89 Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet and Lewes Beach, DE..... 84, 89 Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas, NJ.............................. 84, 89 Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas, NJ............................... 84 Delaware Coast Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehoboth Beach to Dewey Beach, DE............................................... 84, 89 Delaware River at Camden, NJ..................................... 254 Delaware River Main Channel Deepening, DE, NJ, & PA.............. 148 Des Plaines River, IL............................................ 314 Dewey Lake, KY................................................... 367 Dog River, AL.................................................... 142 Duluth-superior Harbor, Minnesota, WI............................ 318 Dutch Harbor, AK.............................................. 145, 298 Duval County and Manatee County, FL.............................. 282 Duwamish and Green Rivers, WA.................................... 146 East Ridge, Hamilton County, TN.................................. 304 East River, South Brother Island, NY............................. 91 Eastern Arkansas Region (Comprehensive Study), AR................ 148 Elizabeth River Basin Environmental Restoration, Hampton Roads, VA............................................................. 144 Elk Creek Dam, and Lake, OR...................................... 178 Elk Creek Lake, OR............................................... 299 Emergency Operations for Flood Fighting and Flood Recovery....... 10 Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL........ 139, 280 Everglades National Park, FL..................................... 181 Festus and Crystal City, MO...................................... 145 Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, NY............................. 252 Flint River Basin, GA............................................ 143 Flushing Bay and Creek, NY....................................... 91 Folsom Dam Reoperation........................................... 347 Fort Pierce Harbor, FL........................................... 143 Fort Worth Sumps, 14 & 15, Upper Trinity River Basin, TX...... 147, 271 viii Frankfort Harbor, MI............................................. 317 Freeport Harbor, TX.............................................. 378 Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, ND.............................. 181 Garrison Dam and Powerplant, ND.................................. 324 Georgetown Harbor, SC............................................ 277 Gila River, North Scotsdale Drainage Area, AZ.................... 145 Gila River, Santa Cruz River Basin............................... 289 Gila River, Santa Cruz Basin, AZ.............................. 145, 289 GIWW--Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, TX.................... 271, 372 GIWW--Brazos River to Port O'Connor, TX.......................... 270 GIWW--Port O'Connor to Corpus Christi Bay, TX.................... 270 GIWW--Sargent Beach, TX.......................................... 274 Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District................................. 342 Grand Forks, ND.................................................. 147 Grand (Neosho) River, KS......................................... 269 Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, PA................ 305 Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ........................ 251 Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, NJ................... 84, 89 Great Miami River, Oxbow Area, OH & IN........................ 139, 302 Green and Barren Rivers Navigation Disposition Study, KY...... 143, 303 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway....................................... 80 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway--Brazos River to Port O'Connor, TX.... 144 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway--Port O'Connor to Corpus Christi Bay, TX............................................................. 144 Harlan, KY..................................................... 64, 359 Helena and Vicinity, AR.......................................... 263 Hillsboro Inlet, FL.............................................. 278 Homme Dam, ND.................................................... 316 Honolulu Harbor Modification, Oahu, HI........................... 139 Hopper Dredge McFarland.......................................... 99 Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX........... 140, 148, 272, 370 Howard Hanson Dam, WA......................................... 147, 148 Hudson River Channel, NY Side.................................... 91 Humboldt Harbor.................................................. 396 Iao Stream, HI................................................... 321 Imperial County Watershed, CA.................................... 145 Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Beach Nourishment............... 68 Indiana Harbor and Canal, IN (Dredging and Disposal)............. 68 Indiana Shoreline Erosion, IN.................................... 316 Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN.............................. 71 Indianapolis, White River (North), IN.......................... 71, 304 IWW, Palm Beach County, FL....................................... 278 Jacksonville Harbor, FL.......................................... 147 Jackson, KY...................................................... 366 Jamaica Bay, NY.................................................. 254 James Canyon Dam, NM............................................. 182 Jefferson County, KY............................................. 407 Jennings Randolph Lake Reallocation, MD & WV..................... 250 Joint Study of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers............... 11 Joseph G. Minish Waterfront Park and Historic Area, NJ........... 98 Kanapolis Lake, KS............................................... 323 Kankakee River Basin, IL & IN.................................... 143 Kansas Citys, MO & KS......................................... 139, 322 Kawaihae Small Boat Harbor, HI................................... 321 Kenai River Navigation, AK....................................... 142 Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ................. 95, 250 ix Kill Van Kull, NY & NJ........................................... 91 Kimmswick, MO.................................................... 146 Kissimmee River, FL.............................................. 285 Klamath River.................................................... 398 Kuskokwim River, AK.............................................. 142 Lake George, IN Fish and Wildlife Restoration.................... 69 Lake Michigan Diversion, IL...................................... 317 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, LA.............................. 260 Lake Shore Drive/Airport Bridge, Waco, TX........................ 381 Lake Washington Ship Canal, WA................................... 144 Lakes Earl and Talawa............................................ 395 Las Cruces, NM................................................ 139, 148 Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, WV, VA, & KY......................................... 307, 359 Lexington, Fayette County, KY.................................... 143 Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, IN................. 69 Little Calumet River, IL & IN.................................... 67 Lock and Dam No. 3 Rehab, Mississippi River, MN (Major Rehab).... 139 Lock and Dam Replacement, William Bacon Oliver Lock and Dam, AL.. 183 Long Beach Island, NY...................................... 84, 89, 148 Los Angeles County Drainage Area.............................. 293, 393 Los Angeles Harbor Pier 400 Deep Draft Navigation Project........ 343 Loves Park, IL................................................... 315 Low Commercial Use Harbors....................................... 394 Lower Brazos River, TX........................................... 378 Lower Cape May Meadows-Cape May Point, NJ....................... 84, 89 Lower Eel and Mad Rivers......................................... 396 Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV................................ 143 Lower Mississippi Valley Division Reservoirs..................... 263 Lower Platte River and Tributaries, NE........................... 146 Lower Potomac Estuary Watershed, VA & MD......................... 144 Lower River Des Peres, MO..................................... 146, 257 Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction....................... 293 Lower Thorofare, Deal Island, MD................................. 254 Lower Truckee River, Pyramid Lake, Paiute Reservation, NV..... 146, 147 Lower Truckee River, Washoe County, NV........................ 146, 147 Lower West Branch Susquehanna River Basin Environmental Restoration, PA................................................ 144 Maintenance Dredging of Boston Harbor............................ 328 Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, NJ........................... 84, 89 Manatee Harbor, FL............................................... 281 Manistee Harbor, MI.............................................. 317 Marina Del Rey and Ballona Creek, CA.......................... 145, 287 Marquette Harbor, MI............................................. 318 Maui Second Harbor, HI........................................... 320 Maumee River, OH................................................. 139 May Branch, Forth Smith, AR...................................... 145 McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, AK........... 276, 390 McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, L&D, AR & OK.... 274 McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL............................... 315 McKinney Bayou, AR............................................... 257 Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS...................................... 144 Memphis Metropolitan Area, TN & MS............................... 263 Metro Atlanta Watershed, GA...................................... 143 Metro Center Levee, Davidson co, TN.............................. 147 x Metropolitan Cincinnati, Northern Kentucky, KY................... 303 Metropolitan Louisville, Miss Creek Basin, KY.................... 143 Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, KY........................... 145 Miami Harbor, FL................................................. 282 Middle Brazos River, TX....................................... 373, 377 Middle Rio Grande Flood Protection, Bernalillo to Belen, NM...... 274 Middlesborough, KY............................................... 361 Mill Creek, Local Protection Project, OH......................... 306 Milton, PA....................................................... 144 Mispillion River, DE............................................. 254 Mississippi River at Quincy, IL.................................. 143 Mississippi River Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, MO & IL.. 259 Mississippi River Levees......................................... 264 Mississippi River Mainline Levee Enlargement and Berm Construction Project, AR, LA, & MS............................. 177 Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.......... 259 Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, LA................................ 258 Mississippi-Louisiana Estuarine Areas, LA & MS................... 266 Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS, & MO.................... 324 Missouri River Levee System, Units L455 and R460-471, MO & KS.... 323 Missouri River Main Stem Projects, MT, SD, ND, NE KS, IA & MO.... 180 Mojaje River Dam, CA............................................. 142 Montauk Point, NY............................................... 84, 89 Montgomery Point, Lock and Dam, AR............................. 16, 387 Morganza, LA, to Gulf of Mexico.................................. 263 Moriches Inlet and Shinnecock Inlet, Long Island, NY............. 184 MRLS Units L455 and R460-471, MO & KS............................ 146 Myrtle Beach, SC................................................. 284 Nansemond River Basin, VA........................................ 144 Napa River Flood Control Project................................. 394 Napa River, Salt Marsh Restoration, CA........................... 142 Natomas.......................................................... 348 Neches River and Tributaries, Saltwater Barrier, TX........... 271, 379 New Jersey Coastal Feasibility Studies........................... 250 New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Environmental Restoration, NJ.. 143 New York-New Jersey Harbor....................................... 85 New York-New Jersey Harbor Disposal Crisis....................... 90 New York-New Jersey Harbor Mud Dump.............................. 93 New York-New Jersey Harbor (Decontamination Technologies)........ 94 New York-New Jersey Harbor (Dredged Material Management Plan).... 93 New York and New Jersey Harbor, NY & NJ........................ 96, 146 New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, NY & NJ................... 96 Newark Bay Channels, Newark Bay, Hackensack & Passaic Rivers, NJ. 91 Newport Bay Harbor............................................... 290 Nome Harbor Improvements, AK..................................... 145 North Branch Potomac River Environmental Restoration, WV, MD, & PA............................................................. 144 North Las Vegas, Channel ``A'', NV............................... 143 North Shore of Long Island, NY.................................. 84, 89 Northern California Streams, Cache Creek Environmental Resotration, CA................................................ 145 Northern California Streams, Colusa Basin, CA.................... 142 Northern California Streams, Dry Creek, Middletown, CA........... 142 Northern California Streams, Fairfield Streams and Cordelia Marsh, CA...................................................... 142 Northern California Streams, Middle Creek, CA.................... 145 Northern California Streams, Vacaville, Dison, and Vicinity, CA.. 142 Northern California Streams, Watershed Management Plan, CA....... 142 xi Northern California Streams, Yuba River Basin, CA................ 147 Northwest El Paso, TX............................................ 144 Noyo Harbor...................................................... 397 Noyo Harbor Breakwater........................................... 395 Ocean City Harbor, MD............................................ 254 Ocean City, MD and Vicinity...................................... 89 Ocean City, MD and Vicinity Water Resources, MD.................. 248 O'Hare Reservoir, IL............................................. 148 Ohio River Main Stems Systems Study.............................. 302 Onondaga Lake, NY................................................ 311 Ouachita and Black Rivers, LA.................................... 262 Pacific Northwest Salmon Program................................. 16 Palm Beach County, FL............................................ 283 Passaic River Preservation of Natural Storage, NJ................ 98 Passaic River, NJ................................................ 98 Patuxent River Water Resources, MD............................... 143 Pearl River Watershed, MS........................................ 258 Pedestrian Bridges for Rillito River............................. 384 Petersbury, WV................................................... 148 Pike County, KY.................................................. 361 Pillar Point Harbor, CA.......................................... 145 Pinellas County, FL.............................................. 284 Plainview, Brazos River Basin, TX............................. 146, 270 Ponce de Leon Intel, FL....................................... 147, 278 Poplar Island, MD................................................ 252 Port Everglades Harbor, FL.................................... 145, 277 Port Fourchon, LA................................................ 257 Port Hueneme, CA................................................. 147 Port of Houston.................................................. 78 Port Washington Harbor, WI....................................... 318 Port Wing Harbor, WI............................................. 318 Powerhouse Rehabilitation, AR.................................... 390 Prado Basin Water Supply, CA..................................... 145 Prado Dam, Santa Ana River Mainstem Project...................... 295 Prevention of Obstructive and Injurious Deposits and Collection and Removal of Drift........................................... 255 Provo and Vicinity, UT........................................... 146 Puget Sound Confined Disposal Sites, WA....................... 146, 298 Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, NJ............. 84, 89 Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, NJ............................ 143, 249 Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, NJ--Union Beach, NJ.............. 146 Raritan Bay Beach, NY & NJ Channels.............................. 91 Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ................. 97, 148 Ray Roberts Lake, TX............................................. 148 Raymondville Drain, TX........................................... 379 Red Hook Flats Anchorage, New York Harbor........................ 91 Red River Basin Chloride Control Project, TX & OK............. 275, 380 Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA....... 259, 262 Rhode Island South Coast......................................... 327 Rhode Island South Coast Habitat Restoration and Storm Damage Reduction, RI.................................................. 144 Richard Russell Dam and Lake, SC & GA............................ 179 Richmond Harbor.................................................. 293 Rillito River, AZ................................................ 148 Rio Chama, Abiquiu Dam to Espanola, NM........................... 269 xii Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, AZ....................................... 145 Rio Grande Ecosystem Restoration, CO & NM........................ 267 Rio Salado....................................................... 383 Rio de La Plata, PR.............................................. 285 Rio Grande Ecosystem Restoration, CO & NM........................ 139 Roughans Point, Revere, MA....................................... 327 Russia River, Ecosystem Restoration, CA.......................... 142 Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study...... 10 Sacramento River Bank Protection, CA............................. 348 Sacramento River Flood Control Project........................... 333 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Little Holland Tract............... 290 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Western Delta Islands, CA....... 145, 291 Salina, KS....................................................... 143 Salyversville, KY................................................ 366 Sam Rayburn Dam and Reservoir (Dam Safety), TX................... 148 San Antonio Creek, CA......................................... 145, 289 San Diego Harbor (Deepening), CA................................. 142 San Francisco Bay Bar Channel, CA................................ 142 San Joaquin River Basin, Arroyo Pasajero......................... 290 San Joaquin River Basin, South Sacramento County Streams, CA..... 147 San Joaquin River Basin, Stockton Metropolitan Area, CA.......... 145 San Joaquin River Basin, Tule River.............................. 290 San Joaquin River Basin, West Stanislaus County, CA.............. 142 San Juan and Aliso Creeks Watershed Management, CA............... 145 San Juan Harbor, PR.............................................. 148 San Lorenzo River................................................ 294 San Timoteo Creek................................................ 294 Sand Point Harbor, AK............................................ 147 Sandbridge, Virginia Beach, VA............................. 84, 89, 148 Sandy Hook Channel, New York Harbor.............................. 91 Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ................................. 251 Santa Barbara County Streams, Lower Mission Creek, CA............ 145 Santa Margarita River and Tributaries, CA........................ 142 Santee, Cooper, Congaree Rivers, SC.............................. 144 Sarasota County, FL.............................................. 284 Saugerties Harbor, NY............................................ 254 Savannah Harbor Expansion, GA................................. 145, 277 Savannah/Chatham County Regional Flood Control, GA............... 143 Schuylkill River Basin, Schuylkill Haven Area, PA................ 249 Sedona, AZ....................................................... 384 Seward Harbor, AK................................................ 298 Sheyenne River, ND............................................... 316 Sitka Cruise Ship passenger Transfer Facility, AK................ 142 Skagit River, WA................................................. 146 Smith Island Environmental Restoration, MD....................... 143 Souris River, ND................................................. 148 South Florida Eocsystem Restoration.............................. 16 South Sacramento Streams, CA..................................... 349 South Shore of Long Island, NY................................... 143 South Shore of Staten Island, NY................................ 84, 89 Southeast Louisiana, LA........................................ 16, 261 Special Area Management Plans.................................... 344 Stillaguamish River, WA.......................................... 144 St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Flood Control Project, MO............ 65 St. Louis Flood Protection, MO................................... 139 xiii St. Lucie Inlet, FL.............................................. 279 St. Tammany Parish, LA........................................... 256 Susquehanna River Basin Water Management, NY, PA, & MD........ 144, 249 Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, MO................... 144, 322 Table Rock Lake, MO, Dam Safety.................................. 274 Tahoe Basin, CA & NV............................................. 143 Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation, AL & MS........ 281 Tennessee-Tombigbee Water (TTW), MS.............................. 183 Tensas Basin, AR & LA............................................ 265 Terminus Dam..................................................... 296 Tioga River Watershed, PA & NY................................... 144 Toldeo Harbor, OH Long Term Management Strategy.................. 319 Topeka, KS....................................................... 143 Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ...................... 84, 89, 249 Tres Rios, AZ.................................................... 145 Truckee Meadows, Reno, NV........................................ 143 Tuckerton Creek, NJ.............................................. 99 Tucson Drainage Area Feasibility Study........................... 384 Trukey Creek Basin, KS & MO...................................... 322 Tygart Lake, (Dam Safety), WV................................. 140, 304 Tygart River Basin, Three Watershed Ecosystem Restoration, WV.... 144 Tygart Valley River Basin, Grassy Run Environmental Restoration, WV.......................................................... 146, 304 Ueda Parkway..................................................... 347 Upper Delaware River Watershed, NY............................... 143 Upper Guadalupe River, CA........................................ 147 Upper Jordan River Restoration, UT............................... 144 Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River Navigation Study...... 312 Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 9'' Channel Projects, IL, IA, & MO......................................... 183 Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program......... 314 Upper Mississippi River System Flood Profile Study, IL, IA, MO, MN, & WI....................................................... 143 Upper Mississippi River System Profile Study..................... 310 Upper Penitencia Creek........................................... 290 Upper Penitencia Creek, CA....................................... 145 Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction....................... 294 Upper Susquehanna River Basin Environmental Restoration, NY & PA. 143 Upper Thorofare, Deal Island, MD................................. 254 Upper Trinity River Basin, TX................................. 268, 381 Ventura Harbor Sand Bypass, CA................................... 143 Vernal Pools..................................................... 395 Vichy Springs.................................................... 398 Village Creek, Jefferson County (Birmingham Watershed), AL....... 142 Virginia Beach (Reimbursement), VA............................... 148 Virginia Beach, VA............................................. 89, 253 Waco Lake, TX.................................................... 382 Walker River Basin, NV........................................ 141, 293 Walla Walla River Watershed, OR & WA............................. 144 Wallisville Lake, TX............................................. 79 Wards Point Bend, NY & NJ Channels............................... 91 Washington Harbor, DC............................................ 254 West Bank--East of Harvey Canal, LA........................... 148, 262 West Bank Hurricane Protection Project, LA.................... 182, 183 West Des Moines, Des Moines, IA.................................. 148 xiv West Pearl River Navigation Project, LA.......................... 179 West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, LA............................... 143 West Tennessee Tributaries, TN................................... 266 Willamette River Floodplain Restoration, OR................... 139, 297 Willamette River Temperature Control, OR......................... 299 Williamsburg, KY................................................. 361 Willoughby Spit and Vicinity, Norfolk, VA....................... 84, 89 Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening, NC........................... 139 Wilmington Harbor, Northeast Cape Fear River, NC................. 279 Wilson Lake, KS............................................... 143, 323 Wolf River, Memphis, TN....................................... 144, 263 Wood River Drainage & Levee District, Madison County, IL......... 147 Wrangell Harbor, AK.............................................. 145 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Watershed, SC............................... 144 Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, MS................... 266 Youghiogheny Lake Storage Reallocation, PA & MD.................. 303 Youghiogheny River Lake, Storage Reallocation, PA & MD........... 144