Hearing of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2008
Interview
Hearing of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2008
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JOHN BOOZMAN (R-AK): Thank you very much, Madame Chair, and I thank you and appreciate your leadership as we move forward on this very important water resources bill.
Today the subcommittee is meeting to hear testimony from members of Congress, the administration and industry stakeholders regarding the request for the Water Resources Development Act of 2008. During the first session of the 110th Congress, the subcommittee developed legislation authorizing Army Corps of Engineers projects that was enacted in November 2007. Water 2007 was essentially a catch-up legislation, since most members were only allowed to request projects that were included in previous WRDA efforts.
In 2008, members of Congress will have an opportunity to update their project requests and make new requests to the committee. This legislation reaffirms our commitment to developing the nations -- water resources by responding to the request of members of Congress related to projects in their districts and policy issues affecting the entire corps' programs.
The Water Resources Development Act provides authority for the Corps of Engineers to carry out its missions of navigation, improvement at harbors and waterways, flood damage reduction in our communities and environmental restoration at our lakes, rivers and wetlands.
These projects reduce transportation costs, save lives, homes and businesses from the ravages of floodwaters and improve the quality of life. These projects also provide jobs and stimulate the economy. Our integrated system of highways, railways, airways and waterways has efficiently moved freight in this nation, but increased trade and increased production is already leading to congestion. It slows our economy as it slows the movement of goods.
I'm not prepared to punch the panic button yet, but I do believe that we as a Congress need to address this issue if we want to remain competitive in world markets.
For instance, American farmers, like the rest of the economy, depend on modern and efficient waterways and ports to get their products to market. Recently improved transportation systems in South America have allowed South American farmers to keep their costs low enough to underbid U.S. grain farmers for customers located in this country.
Currently, 16 to 18 percent of the nation's freight tonnage moves by water with outdated locks, shallower channels and other obstacles. Congestion on our waterways is causing transportation costs to increase, and goods transported by barge may switch to other more costly modes of transportation.
If the cargo transported on inland waterways each year had to be moved by another mode, this would equal 6.3 million additional rail cars, or 25.2 million additional trucks. With today's overcrowded highways like the I-95 corridor, we should be looking to water transportation to shoulder more of the load. When done responsibly, it's the safest, most fuel-efficient and most environmentally friendly way of moving goods.
We also must update and maintain our ports, which handle 95 percent of the nation's imports and exports. For example, ocean carriers are investing heavily in megaships to meet growing demands and drive down operating costs. These vessels are capable of carrying 4,500 to 6,500 20-foot containers, compared with today's container ships that carry between 2,000 and 4,000.
Few ports are equipped to handle both the larger vessels and the increase in freight tonnage leading to more congestion. Unless the issue of congestion is addressed, the reliability and responsiveness of the entire intermodal system will slow economic growth and threaten national security.
The Army Corps of Engineers is a very different and unique agency. Since the Continental Congress ordered construction of fortifications at Bunker Hill in 1775, the Corps of Engineers has been the only multidimensional and integrated federal agency that supports economic and national security through its civilian and military functions. The current system works very well. With its integrated water resource missions, including navigation and flood control, the corps helps improve the nation's economy.
Having civil works mission, the U.S. Army also provides a ready- made team of experienced engineers, scientists and other professionals that we can call upon in times of national emergencies and threats. For example, the corps has undertaken reconstruction efforts in Iraq, the World Trade Center and elsewhere.
The most effective and efficient way to maintain this capability in a state of readiness is by keeping the corps within the Department of Defense so the functions and capabilities can contribute to both the military and civil works missions.
Today's hearing allows the administration, industry stakeholders to explain the water resources needs of the nation, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today.
I yield back, Madame Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. BOOZMAN: Thank you very much. You weren't here earlier, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Buyer was here testifying, I don't think, but he said that one of the things that he enjoyed was hearing the members talk with passion about their projects, so he would have really enjoyed hearing you talking with passion about the whole thing.
Secretary Woodley, the -- what will the impact of the new lockage fees on the inland waterway system have on the use of the system? Do you expect a drop in traffic? The inland waterway is operating below capacity now, mostly due to lack of operation maintenance, so how's a toll proposal supposed to lure shippers to use our waterways instead of other congested modes of transportation?
MR. WOODLEY: Well, Mr. Boozman, I think our view is that there would be, as with any other economic good, if you increase its cost, however slightly, you're going to have a tendency by that means to decline or to decrease its use in commerce, but the -- I think we regard it as a marginal matter and a very, very small burden, relatively speaking, and that we also consider that the significant thing that would be difficult in this context would be the delay of ongoing projects and necessary projects for the rehabilitation and new construction of facilities on the waterways. That would be a problem far in excess of many problems that would be caused by the changes to the user fee.
REP. BOOZMAN: The 2008 GAO report -- substantive review is needed to align port-related fees with the programs they support. And their concern was that, again, with the Harbor Trust Fund, that it wasn't being spent. I think Congressman Boustany made a very important point that not only is it not getting spent, but if it's not getting spent and then you have emergency situations that come up within that sphere and you're transferring money, you know, and resources into that, then theoretically you're putting more pressure on the rest of the program. Does that make sense?
MR. WOODLEY: Yes, sir. All the trust fund matters are subject to appropriation.
REP. BOOZMAN: No, I understand. I guess the second part though is would you in the administration, would you be in favor, you know, because of that, are you going to get more aggressive for asking for more?
MR. WOODLEY: I think we should ask for as much as we could economically justify, and that's been my effort over the last two or three years. And our tools that we have for doing that are improving and I hope in the future years that we will be able to make a better case for, a stronger case for more resources from that trust fund.
I think that -- we do not have a position in the administration today on the question of taking the trust fund off budget and making it not subject to appropriation, although as Mr. Boustany suggests, there are, I think, a good case to be made on that, but at the same time it would have to be carefully done so that the Congress felt that it was still fully apprised of the uses that were made with public funds.
REP. BOOZMAN: Let me ask one thing, one more thing, and then we'll move on. As we enter the 21st century, demands for water are growing and we're outstripping supplies in many areas, both in the West and the East, leading to disputes among our states. We've had hearings, you know, concerning that, over water supply allocation. How can the Corps of Engineers play a role in helping ensure an adequate water supply for the nation?
MR. WOODLEY: I think that the corps has a very important role to play in that, but one that is clearly and should remain clearly subject to the dispensation of the states. I do not want to see the Corps of Engineers transgressing and come upon the prerogatives of localities and states when it comes to water allocation. And that question, therefore, necessarily calls on our colleagues at the state and local level to step forward and where the waterways are interstate in character, to arrive at reasonable and just and fair agreements among each other as to those allocations.
Where that does not take place then the Corps of Engineers finds itself in a very unenviable position of having to make dispensations because of the necessity of merely operating a system of reservoirs on a given watershed. And it is a most uncomfortable position and not one that I want to put the Army or the corps.
REP. BOOZMAN: Thank you, Madame Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. BOOZMAN: Thank you, Madame Chair.
Mr. Weakley, I think you, you know, you heard a lot of support for your testimony today and a lot of concern about the way that the fund is being handled. Your testimony describes a substantial backlog of maintenance dredging. Can you give the subcommittee some sense of proportion as how far behind the corps is on maintenance dredging due to inadequate funding?
MR. WEAKLEY: Yes, sir. You could literally double the corps' operation and maintenance budget for several years and that's what it would take to catch up.
If I can put that into perspective on how that compares with the trust fund, from the Great Lakes perspective: $231 million behind, 6 percent. So from a Great Lakes' perspective we're asking for 6 cents to restore the Great Lakes to its authorized depth. We're not talking about improving, just maintaining.
REP. BOOZMAN: Very good.
Mr. Williams, again I want to congratulate the Nature Conservancy in my state, in the sense that, you know, you said that you used science-based facts and I think that is true. And I think along with that, as important is that the best I can tell a lot of common sense is thrown in there. You know, you get the information and then you have to use the common sense to use it.
One of the things that the subcommittee has been dealing with is the fact that because of a lot of different reasons -- the expanding population. In fact, there was an article today that by the end of the century we're talking about a billion people or something -- something just wild. But I see that as something that's really going to put a lot of pressure, you know, on our natural resources.
Can you describe a little bit in how you all are dealing with -- in that situation as far as, you know, how you're working with the states and different entities?
MR. NAT WILLIAMS: Yes, congressman.
Very briefly, I would reinforce that our approach is the same approach we talked about in our testimony here is to take a look at landscapes in a holistic manner to recognize that the ecological connections are not necessarily -- are not going to be geopolitical, they're going to be ecological. And you have to look at the landscapes in all of it -- in its entirety so that the actions that you can take to preserve certain parts of it have effect in other parts of it.
And that context just gets growing and growing; as we learn more and more from conservation biology, that context just gets growing and growing. So I think the way to deal with the growing population question is to also put it in that larger context and not try to deal with it piecemeal.
And that's the same recommendations we are making in regards to WRDA 2008. As far as corps authorities, we're concerned as well.
REP. BOOZMAN: Yeah, and I don't disagree at all. Again, I think that's something I hope that you as an entity, you know, that really is going to be a significant factor, you know, as we move on. It's already becoming that now, but I think that most people agree that perhaps that's going to be our next oil crisis in the not too distant future.
Mr. Berginnis, do you -- do states need financial incentives from the federal government to undertake levee safety programs? Some would say that that's -- means that we're basically giving financial incentives to the states to take care of, you know, their populations, their citizens.
Why do we need to provide federal incentives for states to do the right thing?
MR. BERGINNIS: Well, I think that you can look at the dam safety program as perhaps an example. As was stated many times today, our national waters are truly national resources and ASFPM has always had the perspective that flood loss reduction efforts are really a federal-state-local partnership. Certainly there are costs and -- at all levels of government if we fail to act and do those things.
So in line with that principle, incentives to help states develop levee safety programs would not only leverage state dollars but also leverage state resources to assist local communities as well as -- you know, even states have a fairly large inventory of their own levees in doing that.
But again it's based on the partnership principle -- the federal- state-local -- where we -- where we would come up with that recommendation.
REP. BOOZMAN: Very good.
One last thing, Mr. Williams, the -- what types of land use planning is required by the Corps of Engineers prior to the construction of federal flood damage reduction projects? Are the requirements adequate? Are these requirements being enforced?
MR. WARREN WILLIAMS: Saved the hard question for me did you? (Laughter.)
There are no direct land use requirements that I'm aware of other than the corps' cost-benefit ratio for any federal project has to show a positive number, and in that context the land use is considered, both the existing and the future.
REP. BOOZMAN: Okay.
MR. WARREN WILLIAMS: Did that answer your question, sir?
REP. BOOZMAN: Yes.
MR. WARREN WILLIAMS: Thank you.
REP. BOOZMAN: Thank you, Madame Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source