Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 16, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2934 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 16, 2000 GEORGE V. VOINOVICH SENATOR SENATE
environment & public works ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECT BACKLOG
BODY:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE CORPS BACKLOG AND MISSION HEARING MAY 16, 2000 Today's hearing is
intended to be a backdrop to our consideration of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000. Last week we had a full committee hearing on the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which will be the cornerstone of this
year's WRDA bill. On May 23 the subcommittee is scheduled to hold its initial
WRDA hearing.. However, I felt it was extremely important to have this hearing
today - prior to our first WRDA hearing - to discuss a major point of concern I
have. I surfaced this concern-at the full committee hearing on the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. As most of my colleagues know Congress passes
biennial Water Resources Development Act with billions of dollars of new
authorization for projects and programs and assumes that the money will be
available to build these projects. The stark reality is, at the cur-rent levels
of construction appropriations for the Corps water resources projects, we
already have more water resources projects authorized for construction than we
can complete in any efficient construction schedule. At the cur-rent low levels
of construction appropriations it would take 25 years to complete the active
projects in the backlog without, even considering additional project
authorizations. Currently the Corps has a backlog of over 500 active authorized
projects with a Federal cost to complete these projects of about $3 8 billion. I
want to emphasize the words active projects. These are projects that have been
recently funded, economically justified and supported by a non-Federal sponsor.
If we included the outdated and unneeded authorized projects, the backlog figure
would be almost 800 projects at cost of $46 billion. Let me make this one point
on the obsolete projects. We made an excellent start in WRDA'86 in setting up a
process to Reauthorize these projects. We need to accelerate the process. The
Administration has a proposal to speed up that Reauthorization process and it
merits our serious consideration. However, Reauthorizing inactive and outdated
projects will have relatively little impact on the backlog which is largely made
up of active projects which have positive benefit cost ratios and willing and
capable non-Federal sponsors. Chart 1, you also have a copy in front of you,
shows the general breakdown of the backlog by project purpose. You can see that
it covers the full range of the traditional Corps projects including navigation,
flood control, shore protection projects, hydropower project rehabilitation and
recreation plus projects in the major new mission area of environmental
restoration. Projects in the other new mission areas of remediation of formerly
use nuclear sites (FUSRAP) and environmental infrastructure are also in the mix.
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Investment Program Why this
backlog? There are a couple of reasons. The first and most significant is the
decreasing Federal investment in water resources infrastructure. Chart 2
dramatically illustrates what has occurred. It shows our capital investment in
water resources infrastructure since the 1930's shown in constant 1999 dollars
as measured by the Corps of Engineers Civil Works construction appropriations.
You can see the sharp decline from the peak in 1966 of a $5 billion
appropriation and appropriations through the 1970's in the $4 billion level to
the 1990's where annual Corps construction appropriations have averaged only
around $1.6 billion. Civil Works Capital Investment The second reason for the
backlog is that we are asking the Corps of Engineers to do more with less. We
have a series of charts in front of you showing the breakdown by mission area
for the Corps' construction appropriation by representative year from the
decades of the 60's, 70's, and 90's. These clearly show the mission growth of
the Corps. If we look Chart 3, you will see that in FY 65, there were three
large dominant mission areas flood control, navigation and hydropower with a low
level of spending for recreation development. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Construction Investment Program Chart found on hardcopy Switching to Chart
4 in FY 75 you see the same big three of flood control, navigation, and
hydropower but with increased recreation spending. In FY 75 shore protection
enters the picture and the first tiny wedge of environmental restoration work
emerges. When we talk about environmental restoration work we are generally
talking about habitat protection Restoration or creation particularly wetlands
and aquatic habitat. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Investment
Program FY75 Appropriation Chart found on hardcopy In Chart 5, the 90's, as
illustrated by FY 99, show a dramatic mission increase with environmental
restoration as a significant mission area, and two new mission areas of
environmental infrastructure and remediation of formerly used government nuclear
sites (FUSRAP). Environmental infrastructure, as contrasted with environmental
restoration, includes such work as construction of water plants and sewage
treatment facilities. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction
Investment Program Chart found on hardcopy What's the point of this? Well if
your recall our second chart, the Corps construction appropriations have been
falling since 1965, and it falls sharply in the 90,s. At the same time the Corps
mission has been growing. The result is today's hugetbacklog. This final chart
illustrates where we are. This shows the recent construction requests by the
Corps of Engineers and the anticipated future requests in the areas of
navigation, flood control, shore protection, hydropower, environmental
restoration, environmental infrastructure, recreation, remediation of formerly
used sites, Everglades restoration work and the anticipated future requests as
we continue to authorize projects. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Construction Investment Program FY99 Appropriation Chart found on hardcopy As
you can see the budget requests, which are constrained by Administration budget
policy and far short of historic funding levels, are in the range of about $2.5
billion and anticipated to approach $3 billion by 2010. If the 1990's are any
guide, what the Corps will actually receive in appropriations will be $1 to 2
billion below these already constrained request levels. The result will be an
even greater backlog and inefficient construction schedules. What should be
done? First I think our witnesses will tell us that the needs are not going
away. Given that reality, I think we need to significantly increase the
construction appropriation of the Corps of Engineers. I think a doubling of
current construction appropriations would be appropriate . I am a fiscal
conservative but there are certain areas where the Federal government has an
appropriate role and I think navigation, flood control and restoration of
nationally significant environmental resources like the Florida everglades are
areas where the Federal government does have a role. In this regard recently the
House passed the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) which
authorizes $2.8 billion in expenditures for land acquisition, coastal
conservation wildlife conservation and historic preservation. One wonders if
anyone ever sits down and weighs umnet legitimate Federal and non-Federal roles
versus the poll driven spending by Congress. Does the left hand know in the
Administration, or for that matter here in the Congress, what the right hand is
doing. Second, I think we need to control the mission creep of the Corps. For
example, even though I obtained a limited authority for the Corps for
environmental infrastructure in Ohio, I am not convinced that there is a Corps
role in water and sewage plant construction. That should be a State and local
responsibility with some Federal assistance through the State revolving loan
funds. We will never get control of the backlog if the mission of the Corps
continues to creep. Finally I think we need to assure that the Corps process of
planning and recommending projects is open, objective and inclusive and the
project evaluation meets the highest standards of professionalism and quality.
We must be able to continue to rely on the Corps to recommend to the Congress
for authorization and funding only projects that make maximum net contributions
to economic development and environmental quality. These are some pretty weighty
issues, and I am eager to hear what our witnesses have to say about our
responsibility to meet national water resources needs effectively and
efficiently and whether we should narrow the scope of projects being considered
for authorization by this committee.
LOAD-DATE: May 24,
2000, Wednesday