Let me say at the outset that I am an admirer of the Corps of Engineers. I say this knowing full well that CSO and individual states have often disagreed with the Corps.
The task of coastal management is complex but the objective is simple, to protect and improve the quality of life for the people who live near and visit the coast. One of the primary means of meeting this objective is the protection of the resources and livelihoods which attract people to the coast. This requires a shared commitment by the federal government working with the states and other local project sponsors and communities.
The federal responsibility in meeting this objective is clear. The federal government has a constitutional duty to administer navigable waters. The Corps of Engineers serves a critical national function as the lead agency with the authority and expertise to meet this responsibility. In addition, among federal agencies, the Corps of Engineers is charged with some of the most challenging tasks -- Maintaining 25,000 miles of federal navigation channels which serve as the highways and gateways to the more than 300 ports in the nation, and are essential to maintaining the competitiveness of the United States and meeting our energy and defense needs;
-- Providing shore protection to protect coastal communities against loss of life, property and damage to natural resources resulting from coastal storms;
-- Ensuring the protection of thousands of lives and billions of dollars of public and private investment from flooding and erosion;
-- Environmental protection and restoration of wetlands and other coastal habitat, and
-- Correcting the mistakes of the past when the adverse environmental effects of activities and projects were unappreciated.
Over its nearly 200-year history, the missions of the Corps have evolved and continue to evolve. With its multiple missions and the increasing complexity of public policy, the challenges facing the Corps are increasing
-- Population in coastal areas, already the most densely populated area in the country, is increasing rapidly;
-- The total volume of domestic and international marine trade is expected to more than double over the next 20 years. Much of the cargo delivered to our ports will be delivered on larger vessels which require deeper waterways;
-- More than 44 percent of the inland waterway locks and dams are at least 50 years old. Many locks are undersized for modern commercial barge movements;
-- Coastal storms are on the rise and resulting damages are increasing;
-- The active project backlog for the Corps estimated to be $37.9 billion;
-- Funding for the Corps has been stagnant. Downsizing of the Corps is threatening its ability to provide critical services.
Questions have been raised about the projects which the Corps undertakes, but it needs to be pointed out that the Corps does not just decide on its own initiative to go out and do a project. Projects are demand driven with input from local project sponsors, states, and support from Congress.
The Corps has also been much criticized for the way it conducts its studies and analyses. It should be remembered that the project recommendations are driven more by the specific mandates under which the Corps operates, than by the arbitrary discretion of the Corps. Despite the faults of the Corps studies and analyses, they are based upon comprehensive cost-benefit and project assessment tools developed to address both public policy and economic considerations.
How do we address the current backlog?
There are three simple answers, although hard choices, to meeting the over $30 billion backlog of authorized projects.
(1) Increase funding for the Corps;
(2) Find and establish greater efficiencies in planning, designing, constructing and maintaining projects; and
(3) Carefully work with local project sponsors to review the backlog to assess the current need for projects as authorized.
Recommendation #1 Increase Funding for the Corps. CSO strongly supports increased funding for the Corps of Engineers. Corps projects comprise vital components of our nation's infrastructure, and are essential to our well-being. Few question the need for investment and maintenance in our road, rail and air traffic systems. There should be little question of the need to maintain our marine and inland waterway transportation system as well. Likewise, the investments in storm protection, flood and erosion control have prevented the loss of untold billions of dollars.
There is a mis-impression among some of the public that the Civil Works Program is a pork barrel. The vast majority of projects address very real needs. This is especially true along the coast. Coastal erosion, such as along the bluffs of Lake Erie or the beaches of Virginia, Long Island, or Florida, is threatening property and public infrastructure. In addition, it is destroying wetlands and other habitat. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 specifically recognized shore protection as a function of the Corps, yet the Administration has refused to fund authorized projects for shore protection through beach renourishment even though Congress increased the local cost share for the long-term maintenance of these projects in WRDA 99. While the Administration turns a blind eye on the need to maintain our nation's beaches, the problems resulting from erosion and threats of coastal storms only worsens.
Without federal assistance and the planning and design expertise of the Corps of Engineers, the pressures within coastal communities to resolve the problem of erosion can frequently lead to more costly and more environmentally damaging solutions, i.e., the construction of seawalls. The damaging effects that these structures have on beaches, the biological communities that depend on the intertidal zone, and the economic revenues and tax bases of communities are the reasons why beach renourishment has been utilized as an advanced alternative to shoreline hardening. Furthermore, I note that this is a glaring inconsistency in the Administration's policy in regards to its much touted commitment to environmentally beneficial nonstructural approaches to flood damage reduction. In WRDA 99, Congress authorized the Adminstration's proposed Challenge 21 program which is intended to restore the flood plain environment with the use of nonstructural approaches. Yet, in regards to preserving the beaches and their role in the coastal ecosystem, the Administration policy would abandon communities to fend for themselves using seawalls and groins which compound the problems resulting from shoreline change.
Recommendation #2 Increase the Efficiency of the Corps. Reduced time of project completion, reduced conflict, more comprehensive approaches to management, and greater coordination with federal agencies and states can result in greater efficiencies in planning, designing, constructing and maintaining projects.
Reduce the Time of Project Completion One of the greatest factors in the escalation of project costs is the increase in the time it takes to complete a project. Time wasted is money spent. Many, if not most, projects are not completed in the shortest available time. This is due in part to the need of the Corps to keep as many Congressional and local project sponsors as happy as it can at any given moment. By spreading around funding to as many projects as possible, project completion is lengthened and costs increased. A good answer to this dilemma is found in CSO's first recommendation: provide more funding for the timely completion of projects. The Corps should also look for opportunities to work more creatively with the local project sponsors and private sector to implement projects through project grants and expedite construction scheduled. In some cases, many different Corps "projects" may be combined into comprehensive and restore management schemes. For example, navigation and restoration in San Francisco Bay, sediment reduction, beneficial reuse of dredged material and harbor dredging in Toledo.
Reduce Conflicts which Contribute to Delays Another source of project delays results from controversies which result when project objectives may be inconsistent with state policies. Among coastal states, there have been numerous conflicts with the Corps of Engineers over how dredging is conducted and dredged material disposed. Working with the National Dredging Team, CSO cosponsored a Workshop last year for Corps District personnel, state coastal managers, and port representatives to stimulate discussion of ways to avoid and resolve the conflicts being experienced by the Corps Districts and states. Along with my testimony, I am providing Committee Members with the proceedings of the Workshop prepared by the National Academy of Public Administration. Within the proceedings are several key recommendations:
-- Improved clarity about goals and greater transparency in the decision-making process can reduce conflicts between the Corps and state and local organizations;
-- The planning process and procedures for state and federal coordination can be improved with earlier project planning, regular meetings between state and federal agency representatives, broader public participation;
-- Longer-range planning will contribute to better project implementation and funding; and
-- Better scientific understanding and greater public education are necessary to make better decisions and to garner support for further expansion of these programs.
Provide for a More Comprehensive Approach to Management Much of the conflict between the Corps and states has centered on how to meet state requirements for the beneficial reuse of sand and other dredged materials. This issue highlights, another avenue for improving the efficiency of the Corps of Engineers the need for greater project integration. WRDA 99 signaled a movement in this direction with the authorization of the National Shoreline Study. CSO holds out much hope for the findings and recommendations of this study, one of which is the feasibility of a systems-based approach to shoreline management.
The project-by-project approach of the Corps to respond to shoreline change is costly, inefficient and sometimes inconsistent. We long ago realized that in order to manage rivers effectively, we need to take into consideration the entirety of the river and its surrounding watershed. We need to do the same in managing the nation's shoreline. The change needed in our approach is the difference between responding to shoreline change and managing for shoreline change. Shoreline management requires an understanding of the littoral processes and systems occurring along the shore, sediment sources and their movement within the system, and agreement on the primary objectives in managing segments of the shoreline. CSO supports a sediment management policy that recognizes the importance of conserving sand resources and, wherever possible, prevents the removal of sand and sediment resources from the littoral system along the nation's coast or promotes beneficial reuse of that sand to restore beaches and shoreline habitat.
The National Shoreline Study will
-- Advance our understanding of the dynamic processes, both natural and anthropogenic, which change the coastlines and sea floor along coastal margins;
-- Provide information critical to planning for the future environmental and economic health of the nation's coastal areas;
-- Provide a geologic framework for policy decisions; and
-- Provide a foundation for a reassessment of national policy.
The Office of Management and Budget, the Under Secretary of the Army for Civil Works as well as the Coastal States Organization, the American Coastal Coalition and the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association all support the National Shoreline Study. The President's FY2001 budget requests funding for the Study, and we are especially pleased that Sen. Lautenberg has provided his support for funding the study.
Promote Interagency Cooperation The benefits of the aforementioned National Shoreline Study go beyond the study itself. The National Shoreline Study is intended to be a multi-agency cooperative effort which utilizes and integrates the data, expertise and resources across federal, state and local agencies. It is our hope that this effort will be an exemplary demonstration of how improved efficiencies can be obtained by the Corps working with its federal and state partners.
This type of interagency cooperation envisioned for the National Shoreline Study can and should be applied to many other areas. For example, legislation of the Corps mission before this Congress, S. 835, the Estuarine Habitat Restoration Partnership Act (sponsored by the late Sen. John Chafee), would require the Corps working with its federal counterparts also charged with estuarine restoration responsibilities to develop a joint strategy to restore one million acres of estuarine habitat over the next ten years. The integration and coordination of federal agency projects pursuant to the strategy will provide greater leverage of the funds provided under the Act. CSO is very pleased that the Senate has passed S. 835, and we are strongly encouraging the House to bring its companion, H.R. 1775 (Gilchrest, R-MD), to the floor for approval.
Recommendation #3 Review the Project Backlog to Reassess Project Needs. With a $37.9 billion backlog, there needs to be an independent review in partnership with the local project sponsor and reassessment of authorized projects. While I do not believe that such a reassessment should be binding on the Congress, it would at least provide a framework to begin to establish a plan to reduce the backlog of Corps projects.
Conclusion The specific recommendations provided to the Subcommittee today on improving efficiencies in the Civil Works Program reflect CSO's perspective and experience. The general recommendations provided in our testimony - reducing the time of project completion, reducing conflicts, taking a more comprehensive approach for project integration, and promoting interagency cooperation, can be applied to a much greater range of Corps activities. Over the years, there have been numerous studies and recommendations on improving the Corps. CSO recommends that Congress request a study by an independent entity, summarizing these strategies and providing recommendations on improving efficiency and needed changes to Corps authorities.
The Corps has a difficult job to do. We need to help them to do it better. We hope that the attention from the current controversies involving the Corps will be utilized to undertake a review of the Corps which will result in constructive improvements to the Civil Works Program and the federal policies that guide it.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you. I am pleased to answer any questions.