dredging the Erie Harbor entrance channel. However, what is missing from the assessment is an evaluation to determine that there are no more cost-effective measures to reduce the Federal costs of dredging the entrance to Erie Harbor.

Question. When do you intend to release those funds appropriated last year for Continuation of Planning and Engineering?

Answer. A decision regarding additional funding for the Presque Isle Project will be forthcoming upon completion of our review of the District's reevaluation report including receipt of satisfactory answers to the questions which we have and assurance that a more cost-effective solution exists to the present problems of beach erosion and maintenance of the Erie Harbor entrance channel.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHILES

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA

Question. Congress has appropriated $3,885,000 for construction of the West Turning Basin Project of Port Canaveral, Florida in fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1984. I am greatly concerned, however, about the numerous delays we have encountered in the past and, now, reports of further delay. Even after a two-year study by the Jacksonville office of the Corps yielded a most favorable benefit/cost ratio which could cause an additional two-year delay in construction. These delays are despite the instructions to the Corps by Congress to commence construction without delay and to proceed under the historic cost sharing formula. Please explain the present status of the Port Canaveral West Turning Basin Project.

Answer. The project is currently in the engineering and design stage.

d. Completion date of the dredging contract.

Answer. The Jacksonville District Engineer will complete the engineering aspects of the General Design Memorandum (GDM) in March 1984. Additional economic studies are underway that are scheduled for completion in January 1986. These studies are necessary to determine whether the proj- ect has a favorable benefit to cost ratio under the Principles and Guide lines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. These studies must be completed and approved prior to circulating for public review the GDM and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The GDM and Final EIS will be complete in late summer/early fall 1986. Award of the dredging contract could follow and actual construction would take about a year.

Question. Does the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to abide by the mandate of Congress to treat this project as a continuation of construction"

Answer. The guidance expressed by the Appropriations Committees in the reports accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1984 and the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1983, will certainly be given due consideration once the economic merits of the Canaveral Harbor extension have been satisfactorily demonstrated. That promise was stated clearly in a 15 December 1983 letter which the Assistant Secreatary of the Army (CW) wrote to Mr. Charles M. Rowland, Port Director, Canaveral Port Authority. Moreover, the Army had previously promised Mr. Rowland in a 18 March 1983 letter to "review the entire matter", as soon as an up-to-date analysis of the project's benefits and costs could be completed. It is now time to allow the Jacksonville District to complete a modern analysis of the project's benefits and costs.

Question. What is the Corps justification for singling out the cruise ship industry and treating it differently than other indigenous industries throughout the country?

Answer. We recognize the importance of tourism and the cruise ship industry to the economic fabric of Florida. Although benefit computation procedures vary according to the type of project, all Corps projects must adhere to the same set of evaluation procedures. The identification of an established need and the computation of a favorable benefit to cost ratio are requisites of all Corps project recommendations. The original authorization

for Port Canaveral was based on cargo benefits. However, the situation changed and the port proposes to use the west basin primar- ily for cruise ships. Cruises are primarily for recreation and there fore, the procedures for evaluating recreation apply to the benefits received by the cruise passengers. The methods used by Jacksonville Dis- trict to compute the recreation benefits did not produce a convincing basis for establishing the project's merits, and therefore, the additional economic studies are necessary.

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, FLORIDA

Question. Last year Congress provided legislative authority

(P.L. 98-181) for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to modify water releases to Everglades National Park from the water conservation areas. This flexibility was requested by the Park Service in order to meet the water-related needs of the Park. Congress also authorized the Corps to provide flood protection for homeowners in the area who may be adversely affected by the new water release schedule and to acquire agriculturally developed lands which may be similarly affected.

What progress has been made in implementing these provisions of Public Law 98-181?

Answer. We plan to soon initiate a two-year field test of a new limited water delivery schedule from our Central and Southern Florida Project to the Everglades National Park (ENP). Flows under this schedule would be limited to avoid increasing flood damages in developed areas and to avoid significant changes to agricultural areas. We will carefully monitor this field test to determine beneficial impacts on the ENP and to project from the data obtained, whether additional flows would be beneficial to the ENP and what impacts would occur to residential and agricultural areas. At the end of the test a report will be prepared which addresses a long-term delivery schedule; identifies projected impacts on the ENP and on agricultural, residential, and other private properties. We believe the above course of action represents a logical approach to developing and determining the feasibility of an improved water delivery schedule to the ENP. The above also provides time to assess other improvements the Corps is undertaking for the ENP and time to engineer and design the flood protection measures.

Question. What is your projected timetable for constructing the necessary flood protection for the homeowners?

Answer.

The construction of flood protection measures would follow completion of our limited two-year field test and then only if determined

necessary.

Question. What land acquisition is anticipated?

Answer.

We believe further information is needed from our field test prior to undertaking major acquisition of private property.

Question. Can existing funds in the water control project be used for the purposes of flood protection and land acquisition, or is a specific appropriation necessary to accomplish this objective?

Answer. Funds allocated for FY 1984 should be sufficient to cover all activities planned for field testing this year. We are planning no land acquisition or flood protection this year.

Question. Were any funds requested for this purpose in the FY 1985

budget?

Answer. As in FY 1984, we are planning no land acquisition or flood protection. Therefore, the FY 1985 budget does not include funds for either activity.

Question. What is the status of the Shark River Slough Study?

Answer. Completion of the Shark River Slough Study is currently being held in abeyance until further information is available from the field test. Question. Are additional funds necessary to complete the Shark River Slough Study?

Answer. Until the information is available from the field test we cannot anticipate future funding requirements for the Shark River Slough Study.

KISSIMMEE RIVER, FLORIDA

Question. The State of Florida had been working with the Corps of Engineers to secure the necessary permits to initiate a demonstration project concerning the dechannelization of the Kissimmee River. Please explain how the Corps of Engineers plans to handle the State of Florida request to begin a demonstration project to restore eight miles of the Kissimmee River.

Answer. Last year the State of Florida submitted to our Jacksonville District a request for a permit for a demonstration project to restore portions of the Kissimmee River by dechannelization. Dechannelization would be inconsistent with the Congressionally authorized navigation and flood control purpose of the Kissimmee River project. Therefore, we cannot issue the permit. Congressional authorization is required for the State to proceed with dechannelization. We understand, however, that the State submitted a new proposal to the Jacksonville District Engineer, who is currently reviewing it.

Question. Will Congressional action be necessary for the State to undertake this project?

Answer. Congressional authorization is required for dechannelization. We cannot comment at this time whether the State's new proposal will require Congressional authorization.

Question. It is my understanding the Corps has told the State that the survey review/EIS process currently underway will be complete by the end of the year. Is this your projected timetable?

Answer. The Kissimmee River Study is presently scheduled for completion at the end of this year. The study may be delayed, however, to incorporate the new proposal from the State.

Question. Is fiscal year 1985 funding adequate to participate in this project? Are more funds needed in fiscal year 1984 to complete the study presently underway?

Answer. No additional FY 1984 funds are needed at this time for the Kissimmee River Study. Lacking additional authorization and, pending review of the State's new proposal, FY 1985 funding of a demonstration project cannot be recommended.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR D'AMATO

GREATER NEW YORK CITY AREA WATER SUPPLY

Question. It is obvious that the Greater New York Area consists of parts of several states. Do you consider the present water supply problems in this area to be of an interstate or regional nature, or are they discrete State or local problems?

Answer. There is a mix of both kinds of problems. However, in terms of maintaining a satisfactory balance between the quantity of water available for intake to the distribution system and the water desired by the users, a more significant question for New York City is whether intrastate or local solutions to undesirable deficits are available. The Corps of Engineers in its NEWS Study of the New York Metropolitan Area found that the Connecticut portion of the Area has completed a plan and the New Jersey portion is developing a plan to meet water requirements with intrastate projects. This study also found that most feasible way to supplement existing water supplies in southeastern New York State would be an intrastate project to divert high flows from the Hudson River.

Question. In your opinion, what are the most significant water supply needs and problems in the Greater New York Area?

A

Answer. The needs are threefold. One is to assure continued operation of existing facilities through adequate maintenance programs and construction of facilities that guarantee reliable operation. second is to meet present and future water demands at a reasonable cost. The most practical means to do this is to implement conservation measures that will reduce losses and demands on the system and, at the same time, to plan for and implement the most feasible means to increase supply so that unacceptable deficits are eliminated.

The third need is to establish rate schedules which will provide adequate operational funds and will provide the basis for financing arrangements necessary to support the capital improvement program needed for the future.

Question. Do local interests agree with your assessment of the problem?

Answer. We expect they do; however, local interests themselves are in the best position to address their commitment to the measures necessary for financing operations and improvements.

Question. The present NEWS Study authorization (PL 98-298) recognized the Federal responsibility for construction, operation and maintenance of reservoirs, conveyance facilities and purification works for water supply. This was further reflected last year when the Congress, in the Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 83 Supplemental Appropriations Bill, expressed its concern about the water supply problems of the Greater New York Area and requested the Corps of Engineers to prepare a plan of action addressing those concerns. your professional opinion, what actions are needed next?

In

Answer. Public Law 98-298 did recognize an expanded Federal role for water supply in the Northeast; however, this role was to be in connection with systems of reservoirs and exchanges between river basins. We have seen no new proposals for the New York Metropolitan Area which meet these requirements. As far as the actions needed, in

our opinion, the next actions should be taken by non-Federal agencies responsible for serving the Greater New York Area.

Question. What is the likelihood of failure in New York City Water Tunnel #1 or #2 during the interim construction period of Tunnel #3?

Answer. The engineers involved in the design, operation and maintenance of the tunnels are best qualified to answer this question.

Question. If a failure requiring total shutdown of one of the tunnels were to occur, what would be the consequences?

Answer. Certainly the consequences could be expected to be serious. Those officials of the areas served by these tunnels, and who are responsible for organizing the response to such an event are in the best position to provide details concerning consequences.

Question. What can be gained from the optimum construction schedule for Tunnel #3?

Answer. The tunnel of course would be completed sooner. Beyond that, we would defer to the officials of the areas served by these tunnels who, in our judgment, are best qualified to provide details concerning the expected benefits of optimum construction.

Question. If there is a deficit of supply to the New York City area at the present time, how long will it take to construct supply facilities to eliminate the deficit?

Answer. The Corps has estimated that if there were total agreement and the proposed solution could be initiated now, about twenty years would pass before a major supply project would become operational. This period would consist of project planning and

project design time as well as the construction time and assumes that financing would be available when needed.