Today, Congressman Tim Bishop said that as a result of cuts sustained over the past three years to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) budget: "We are now at a critical threshold where these reductions are jeopardizing the ability to sustain our infrastructure and protect our citizens."
Bishop spoke at a hearing on the President's FY2013 Budget request for the ACOE for the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, where Bishop is the top Democrat. The Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has primary oversight over the agency.
Historically, the Subcommittee has provided direct guidance to ACOE on which projects it should prioritize. Bishop said that Congress needs better information on ACOE's internal decision-making process to provide effective oversight. He added that the President's budget request proposes a further reduction in funding that could hinder the ACOE's ability to protect public safety and critical infrastructure.
"We have a tremendous investment in our countries' water, navigation, electrical grids, and irrigation systems. As we review the Corps' budget, we should keep in mind this investment and make sure we are not impulsively cutting important and vital programs without regard for the impacts and instead look to ensure the decisions we are making are focused on protecting these investments and being smart with our allocation of funding.
In an exchange with Assistant Secretary for the Army (Civil Works), Jo Ellen Darcy, Bishop pressed the Corps on the completion schedule for the Mattituck Inlet Section 111 project that would mitigate erosion along the jetties at the mouth of Mattituck Harbor. ASA Darcy committed to work with Congressman Bishop to expedite the project's review.
"I am confident that ASA Darcy will be a strong ally in my work to move the Mattituck Inlet project forward. She was very responsive to my concerns expressed on behalf of local stakeholders, and I will continue to work with her directly on this issue," said Bishop.
FINAL Statement
The Honorable Timothy H. Bishop, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Hearing on Review of the FY 2013 Budget and Priorities of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers. The past year has been challenging with the Mississippi and Missouri floods, the tropical storm impacts along the eastern seaboard, and the continual challenge to keep our inland waterways accessible and harbors deep enough.
Over the last several weeks we have held hearings focused on the failing state of our waste and drinking water systems. It is clear that we need to reinvest in our country's water infrastructure in a way that will allow our country to provide for our citizens and to protect our investments in our waterways, harbors, and dams.
Historically this Committee has provided direct guidance to the Corps of Engineers identifying specific projects that we felt should be a priority for the agency. Today, with our ability limited, we are dependent upon the Corps internal decision-making process to determine for us where the priorities are. I for one am more than a little uncomfortable with that and hope today that we can get information from our witnesses on how priorities in work load are made.
Our subcommittee has a fiduciary and administrative responsibility to oversee and review the federal agencies that are under our jurisdiction. Without this oversight, the Corps priorities, focus and resulting budgets are not put through the rigor of review that the American public expects us to perform.
Our subcommittee has oversight over all or portions of 7 agencies, out of 26, that are involved in managing the water resources of America. The Army Corps of Engineers is the largest water engineering agency in the country. In that role, the agency has supported the maintenance of our coastal and inland harbors and waterways; constructed and maintained locks and levees that allow our rivers to be used for commerce and recreation; maintains coastal barrier islands to protect our coastlines and certain levees that protect our cities and farmlands; operates and maintains 693 dams, 75 of them providing renewable hydropower production; and, leads the way in providing engineering support to our troops and provide water security around the world.
We are going to hear today that once again the budget of the Army Corps of Engineers is being reduced. I, for one, am not happy about that. This Congress has continually issued the mantra "do more with less". In my estimation, we are now at a critical threshold where these reductions are jeopardizing the ability to sustain our infrastructure and protect our citizens. We are either going to have to step up and have the conversation about investing for the future or we need to de-authorize certain projects and programs, or otherwise transfer programs to project beneficiaries.
The current approach of "fix as it fails" is costing us more money and is very inefficient from an engineering perspective.
We have a tremendous investment in our countries' water, navigation, electrical grids, and irrigation systems. As we review the Corps' budget, we should keep in mind this investment and make sure we are not impulsively cutting important and vital programs without regard for the impacts and instead look to ensure the decisions we are making are focused on protecting these investments and being smart with our allocation of funding.
The President's 2013 budget concentrates funding in three primary areas -- commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and environmental programs while continuing to support the responsibility for hydropower generation, water supply services, environmental stewardship and recreation. Percentage wise, 37% is going towards navigation, 30% to flood risk reduction, and 33% to environmental, hydropower and regulatory programs.
The proposed fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil Works program is $4.73 billion, which is 5.4% below the appropriations for fiscal year 2012. This continues a disturbing trend. When we compare this budget to fiscal year 2010 we see a 13.1% reduction, and a 3.5% reduction from the fiscal year 2011 budget. This 2013 budget request will see funds reduced yet again in the investigation, construction, operations and maintenance, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and the FUSRAP[1] accounts. I apparently do not understand this concept of doing more with less. In my opinion we are clearly going in the wrong direction and doing less with less.
As we compare the Administration's budget proposals through 2017 with the proposed Rep. Ryan budget for the Natural Resources and Environment, Function 300 budget authority, we get an idea of what doing more with less looks like -- an additional 18.5 % less by 2017.
I applaud the Corps for working hard to reduce overlap and increase internal efficiencies, but I am concerned that we are risking substantial increased costs to the federal government and the public by not maintaining critical program assets including the maintenance of the human capacity in water leadership.
There are two key areas that I would like us to focus on (1) addressing the backlog of authorized projects and (2) addressing the needs of the Harbor Maintenance and Inland Waterways Trust Fund programs.
The backlog of authorized, but unconstructed, Corps' project is, rightly-or-wrongly restricting our ability to focus on new projects. It was used as a pretext to former-President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, as well as a reason for not moving forward on a new WRDA in the last Congress. The Corps calculates that prior to WRDA 2007; there was an unconstructed backlog of $60 billion worth of previously authorized projects, some of them dating back to the 1960's and earlier. This backlog needs to be meticulously reviewed and appropriate actions implemented.
In respect to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, we need to work together with industry and the administration to fix the problem of fully funding the Trust Fund and make our harbors and waterways competitive. We have to get not only the largest harbors ready for the future of shipping but also provide critical dredging to the medium and small harbors that support our local and tribal fishing communities, provide for cost effective local commerce, and support the ability of the Coast Guard and other law enforcement entities to launch and protect our coastlines and waterways.
Similarly, for projects funded out of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, I recognize the efforts of the Administration to prioritize the highest-use projects, within the constraints of available funding from the Trust Fund. However, in my view, this Subcommittee should not be complacent when the greatest limiting factor on how much can be spent on Inland Waterways projects is the available revenues from twenty-year-old user fee. Voices from both sides of the aisle have said that the current Inland Waterways model is broken. It is time for this Subcommittee to lead on renewing investment in these critical projects, while ensuring that this increased investment does not come at the expense of other Corps' mission areas.
Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has a responsibility to ask the tough question of the leaders of the agencies that we oversee. We are here to ensure that our investments are being managed properly and appropriately with an eye to the future. We do have concerns that many of the cuts being made will reduce the Corps effectiveness.
In my opinion, many of the cuts proposed are taking the nation down a path that will ultimately result in increased costs and loss of critical infrastructure capacity.
I yield back the balance of my time.