Imágenes de páginas

Mr. EVINS. Would it be feasible for the corps to give this committee a periodic report every couple of months or every quarter as to how they are progressing?

General GRIBBLE. Yes, sir. We could furnish the committee with a quarterly report and advise you of significant milestones as they


Mr. EVINS. What would be your capability to complete the EIS on the Cross Florida Barge Canal, or will the $150,000 complete it as the judge suggests?

General GRIBBLE. The total cost and capability for the study will be worked out in the plan of study, however, I am fairly certain the cost will exceed $150,000. We should be able to furnish the total cost and capability to you by the end of March.


Mr. EVINS. You have spoken about cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, but you didn't refer to cooperation with the Federal Energy Office. You referred to major disruptions due to fuel shortages. Are they not giving you enough gasoline and fuel oil to operate your dredges, vehicles, and cars? How do you get your gasoline?

General GRIBBLE. The major problems which were encountered by the construction industry working on Corps of Engineer projects were probably dated in the very early weeks of the energy crisis, during the formation of the Federal Energy Office. There was some confusion at that time in regional offices of the Federal Energy Office as to what procedures would be used for the allocation of fuel.

The construction industry was not identified per se in the initial regulations which were published by the Federal Energy Office, and

therefore some confusion did result.

This resulted in a requirement for us to intercede in several instances with the Federal Energy Office to make them aware of some of the problems that were existing out in the hinterlands.

Those problems have for the most part been fairly well resolved through the iterations to modifications of the regulations published by the Federal Energy Office and I am not aware as of this moment that any major project of the Corps of Engineers is being slowed as a result of the lack of availability of fuel. The corps has been allocated fuel for dredging operations based on 85 percent of the fiscal year 1973 consumption.

I am not sure how long this situation that I just described as being relatively good may continue, and neither is the construction industry. I think at the moment our concern within the corps has to do with the future more than the present, particularly if this should take the form of increasing bidding disinterest in our projects because of lack of assurance of the availability of fuels.

We have also forwarded a letter to FEO requesting an exception to the monthly mileage limitation based on our continuing requirement in the disaster relief area and energy related construction activities.


Mr. EVINS. General Gribble, last year we appropriated over $1.75 billion for the corps, including reserves, and for 1975 you request

29-844 (Pt. 1) O 748

$1,616,200,000, which is $142,838,000 less than last year. You are way under your program of last year. When we have a $30 billion larger budget we would have hoped more emphasis would have been placed on public works and the important projects of the Corps of Engineers for many reasons which I have mentioned and of which you are aware. We are having to live with a slowdown in public works at a time of energy crisis.

Breaking this down into different appropriations, for general investigations last year $61,142,000 was appropriated with a reserve of $5 million included. You had $61 million and now you ask for $59.3 million for general investigations which is $1,842,000 less in the area of general investigations.

For construction and planning, the appropriation last year was $964,088,000 and now it is recommended to be $927.500,000 or $36,588,000 less. In all three categories overall, general investigations and construction and planning, your budget is down. What is the rationale behind this program reduction?

General GRIBBLE. The Construction, General budget of $927.5 million is, of course, based upon the civil works allowance within the total budget as received in December 1973. As you indicated, the General Investigations and M.R. & T. request are also less than the fiscal year 1974 program. These, too, were based on the ceiling allowance for civil works within the total estimated Federal budget.


Mr. EVINS. General Gribble, how much did the corps request from OMB for each of your appropriations and how much was cut by OMB?

General GRIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, our overall gross request initially was $1.679 billion, based upon our assigned ceiling within the total Federal budget. We also submitted a request totaling $1.863 billion or $184 million higher, in the event the fiscal situation improved, or additional funds could be applied to the Army Corps of Engineers civil works program, with the result that certain programs could move ahead at a more optimum rate. Our final budget allowance, as you now know, was $1.620 billion.

Mr. EVINS. Submit the details for the record. [The information follows:]


[blocks in formation]

Mr. EVINS. What policy guidance were you given by OMB incident to funding projects? Did they tell you which projects and in what amounts could be included in the budget?

General GRIBBLE. Priority in allocation of funds, within the overall budget request, has been given to those projects which will provide hydroelectric power, urban flood control, and municipal and industrial water supply benefits. Projects providing commercial navigation benefits continue to receive a higher priority than those which benefit recreational boating.

On a number of projects, mostly in the early stages of construction, specific amounts equal or less than our request were prescribed by OMB. Hydropower projects in the Pacific Northwest were increased by OMB's decision to maintain power on line dates. Finally, there were a number of projects which slipped for nonfunding reasons between the time of our September submission and the OMB passback. Since we were only reduced $8.9 million from our initial "Construction, general," request, we were able to recommend increases on a number of important projects and thereby avoid or reduce delays.

Mr. EVINS. Has OMB impounded funds for any project which we included in the 1974 bill, or have they directed that you not spend funds on specific projects?

General GRIBBLE. No, sir. We do not have any of the fiscal year 1974 funds in reserve.

Any questions, Mr. Davis?

Mr. DAVIS. Not at this point, Mr. Chairman. I have several general questions I would like to ask.

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Whitten.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


I agree with the chairman. We recently had Mr. Ash, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the Treasury, as well as Dr. Burns of the Federal Reserve System. Dr. Burns naturally was concerned primarily with the monetary system which is essential to the stability of our country. But I too was greatly disturbed that we didn't see a feeling of putting first things first.

I have referred to this before, that we could leave our children all the money in the world in a wornout land and they couldn't survive, but if we in turn left the harbors developed and stopped erosion and left them a rich country, they could maintain their own financial system.

It is disturbing to see people at high levels like the Secretary of the Treasury and the Budget Director and the head of the Federal Reserve System get money mixed up with wealth. Money isn't wealth. It represents wealth.

In my opinion, foreign aid is 100 percent inflationary. We give them the money and they buy our goods. They end up with the goods and we just get our money back to add to that which we have on hand, which means everything is higher and higher in terms of cheaper and cheaper money.

I happen to be chairman of the subcommittee dealing with the Environmental Protection Agency. Only this week they agreed they are bound under that law that says they have to file environmental statements.

I can't run the country and this subcommittee can't and you can't run it, but I do think we need all the help we can get from the corps

to get this message over. When you get your foot stepped on, I think you need to fight back, not because of the agency, but because of the good of the country.

I have a lot of specific questions that I presume would be more appropriate to ask of General Morris when we get to him, but let me repeat: in our report from the Congress last year we provided 14 new positions for the Environmental Protection Agency. We gave them a directive to put them at a high level so they could meet with you at a high level and possibly obviate some of these delaying details. We further said when a project was 90 percent complete they had no right to come in and compare the cost/benefit ratio at the beginning because 90 percent is complete. So it is the remaining cost against the total benefit.


We also said it shouldn't take over 10 working days to bring those things to a head.

Is that working pretty well? Have they done their part with reasonable speed?

General GRIBBLE. Yes, sir. I can't address myself quantitatively to the 10-day period.

Mr. WHITTEN. We expressed some opinion. It seemed to us-we said 10 working days and, of course, when people are busy they can't put in 10 full days in succession, but we did think it was something that should be done in a very reasonable length of time. We didn't attempt to put a limit, but just expressed our views.

General GRIBBLE. As you know, I am relatively new to the Chief of Engineers Office, but I am told by people who have been there longer than I that there is a remarkable difference in the pattern of cooperation between the several agencies involved in the environmental business of the country this year as compared to last.

Mr. WHITTEN. Congress has given them quite a bit of encouragement, if you will read our report. When you go over to the other body-and I say this for the record-in the other body some of the folks who are very strong on all of these environmental matters, held the conference up 7 or 8 days trying to get support to knock out what the House had done and they couldn't get any support. It passed over there with no debate.

It shows there is solid support here for pulling them back in line so we will get maximum environmental protection and not just delay everything which is about the way it worked for a while.

I will say this for the record, too: It is a fairly new agency. I have yet to see much coordination between the regional offices. I have been asked to invite regional directors to Washington so they could tell their story. They couldn't go through their own agency and get anywhere. I have direct telephone calls from top people because they havn't been organized to the point where they can go from the bottom to the top.

I want to say they are making progress and I think it will help for us to call attention to these inadequacies. All of which comes back to the fact that we want to do the most we can for the environment. So long as we protect the American people and the American standard of living

and industries so essential to our well-being; some of them haven't had that qualification.

I appreciate your statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. DAVIS. You made reference to some carryovers here.

I understand there are three essential reasons why projects would be delayed. One of them is the one you discussed with the chairman. That is various court actions, mainly from an environmental standpoint.

Then I would expect there would be another category of cases where you have had physical construction hold up for one reason or another. The third would be the lack of tangible, recognizable local interests in cooperation. Do those three categories cover the ballpark as to why you have the carryover and why some projects have not proceeded on schedule?

General GRIBBLE. Yes, sir, and I would like to add a couple more if I may. We also have discussed at some length here this morning the issue of water quality storage in some of our reservoirs. There is some delay, of course, associated with the reformulation of a project, which in those cases would contribute to delays and carryovers.

In addition, even when local interests are highly in favor of a project, where that project requires a degree of cost sharing there is a time element associated with negotiating that agreement or for the local interests to obtain the financial resources before we can proceed.

On projects in the design stage, there are, upon occasion, challenges to our judgment and these have fundamentally fallen in the environmental area. If someone challenges our proposed project design and says, "We don't think that is an environmentally sound project," we hold a public hearing to explore that and that takes additional time. The reasons I have added to the ones you have cited, Mr. Davis, would represent just about the full spectrum of causes for delay. Mr. DAVIS. I presume you will have some cumulative carryover resulting from inability in 1 fiscal year to catch up on projects for which there has been a reserve setup for impoundment, your having a catchup problem in 1975 also. In 1974 and to some extent in 1975, which will account for some additional carryover.

General GRIBBLE. Yes, sir. We had, of course, fiscal year 1973 programed_carryover in addition to the funds appropriated for fiscal year 1974. However, we expect the carryover into fiscal year 1975 to be substantially less.


Mr. DAVIS. Do we have something somewhere about the 28 urban study projects?

General GRIBBLE. We could provide that.

Mr. DAVIS. It would be well to have those listed in the record here for us.

I believe you have two new items contemplated in this year's budget. Could we have those identified so we will have a list of 30 urban study projects?

Mr. EVINS. Supply those for the record if you will.
General GRIBBLE. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

« AnteriorContinuar »