Images de page
PDF
ePub

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD

Senator JOHNSTON: An appropriation of $280,000 is requested for the first time to support the Inland Waterways Users Board which was created by the Water Resources Development Act, Public Law 99-662. How have the Board's expenses to date been paid and under what authority? General HEIBERG: The Board's expenses have been paid by the Corps of Engineers. The Board's activities and support are governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, and the implementing regulations of the Department of Ariny and the Corps of Engineers, which are AR 15-1 and ER 15-1-1, respectively. The law and regulations require a committee charter which specifies the agency that provides support as the committee ponsor. The Corps of Engineers has been so designated as the sponsor for the Inland Waterways Users Board. Section 12(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act specifies that. "Each agency shall be responsible for providing support services for each advisory Committee established by or reporting to it unless the establishing authority provides otherwise." The Act creating the Users Board made no other provision for its expenses; therefore, the authority to pay Board expenses is based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Senator JOHNSTON: Where did the funds to cover the Board's expenses to date come from (be specific by program, project, and activity)? General HEIBERG: A specific account was set up to pay the direct expenses allowed by law for holding Board meetings including travel and related costs of attendance by Board members. This account was funded by reprogramming funds in the Construction, General account. Senator JOHNSTON: Why is this budget under Remaining Items and not under General Administrative Expenses? General HEIBERG: The duties of the Board are to provide advice to the Secretary of Army and to Congress on priorities for funding waterway system improvements. Because the Board provides independent oversight of Corps construction expenditures, it was not appropriate to include its expenses in the category that covers general direction and management of the Corps. Senator JOHNSTON: could more detailed documentation be supplied regarding the Board's actual expenses, including vouchers and receipts supporting expenses of the board members? General HEIBERG: Yes. The expenses charged to the special account for Board expenses are all documented. Travel expenses to Board meetings by its members are reimbursed based on the same requirements that apply to government employees. The other expenses charged to the account are for a public meeting room, recordings of meeting proceedings, and Board stationery. Senator JOHNSTON: How many times is the Board expected to meet this year? General HEIBERG: The organic legislation requires two meetings a year. The

No Board met on March 2, 1988 and is scheduled to meet on June 1, 1988. additional meetings have been set, but the need for a third meeting to produce the Board's 1988 annual report and recommendations was raised as a question at the March 2 meeting. Senator JOHNSTON: What is the most meetings that could be expected in a year? General HEIBERG: The law sets no maximum number for meetings in a year. The charter specifies an annual cost for the Board of $80,000, and that number was predicated on three or four meetings per year. Senator JOHNSTON: What is the basis for the $280,000 funding request for fiscal year 1989? General HEIBERG: The $280,000 consists of $80,000 for direct expense for Board meetings, as described, and $200,000 for Corps expenses incurred in Board support. The latter is principally for preparation of voluminous briefing materials provided to Board members prior to meetings.

Senator JOHNSTON: Provide for the record a detailed breakout of the budget request by object classification and category for both the Board's and corps' expenses.

General HEIBERG: The amount requested for Board expense is based on the $80,000 specified in the committee charter. Actual estimated expenses are $5,000 per meeting for reimbursement of member's travel expenses, and $1,500 per meeting for room rental and recordings. The total for three meetings per year would be $19,500. Additional direct expense is estimated at $500 to cover stationery and miscellaneous expenses. At present, the time of Corps employees dedicated to Board support as staff coordinator and recording secretary is in addition to regularly assigned duties. The annual expense for this time is estimated to be $51,000, and would be charged to Board expense. The annual total of the above is $71,000.

The amount requested for Board support is $200,000. Virtually all of this would be for staff time spent in the preparation of briefing materials and analyses for the Board. It includes an estimated $175,000 for personnel, $2,400 for printing and postage and $6,050 per meeting for staff to Board meetings not held in Washington. Based on ane Board meeting away from Washington, the annual total of the above is $183,450.

Senator JOHNSTON: What do you expect the annual funding requirements to be over the next five years?

General HEIBERG:

$280,000 per year.

DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE PROGRAM

Senator JOHNSTON. Leist yea, the Committee had testimony which indicated that the annual budget pequest for the Dom Saiety Assurance program would be around $25 $30 million for the next several years. Why is there no budget request for this program for fiscal 1989. Are projects moving lower tha expected; if so, why?

MR. PAGE.

The Conterence Report which accompanied the

Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1988, included

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Funds in the amount of $4 million and $21 million or

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

of newly developed analyses to determine whether

upgrading

modifications designed to meet current standards and knowledge

in the interest of dam safety are effective risk reduction

measures.

However, a greater impact is due to the fact that

many studies show that the dams in question to not warrant

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

to continue five dam safety assurance projects for which studies

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Selator JOENS! 01.

last year
the C2 ttme

+ concerned with that or usarices in programi funding tron yula:

what do you expect the fund profile to be for ne program OVER the next five yea**57

[ocr errors]

PAGE.

Since can 5tety

1 ve

factors, it is dificult to predict

Funding profile for

year period.

However, based or

Our tintinnequests f!

from FY

1785 throat -Y 1699, OU

specificaiiy budgeted pro ects

[ocr errors][merged small]

Senator JOINS I ON. What is the basis 0+ the $1,000,000 funding level For Cost Sharing for Disposal of Material Deaches?

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

tha

We state that the $1,000,000 €9lostuo

22501able enout

020-Federal

Sp0sur s S2321€ to tiliz tipogram to piace dredged sand on

beaches dependin4 07?

the tistance between the area being dredged

10 tietoaciOi! Wici: * Sand will be placed.

ICT enarika!

costs of #5 por cubic Yard to place

beach

as opposed

to depositing it

Ocean disposal Site

are not windly.

Therefore the $1,00, VOT requested

the AY

:737 budget would

LIOU. Cubic Videot

"cunstances based on 50 percent Federalno!. -ficceral Cost

llic O.

COSTO

Senator JOE 145 TON. whak projects have been identitled for tunc dem tiiis pogrbeit,

Wint Is the ( US

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

the Cost

to deposit

the Dam NECL Dit shc, e di sposal

2

about $5,221,000 01

$1.42 per cubic Yard.

THE CCP pales

favorably wit the cost of

*5.55 per cubic Vard to crown in

Virgine beach project

1986 in CCCr dance

Nitti 0.1

specifically budgered construction

project wrider

which this wor!

was undertaler.

DREDGING RESEARCH PROGRAM

Senator JOHNSTON. The appropriation for the Dredging Research Program was $3,000,000 to initiate this program in fiscal 1988. Now, the 1989 budget Includes $7,000,000 an increase of 133%, to continue this activity. Explain the basis for such a large increase over the 1988 funding level.

Mr. PAGE. The increase represents a usual buildup from a relatively low initial or ramp-up year to a normal program activity level by the second year. Generally, in a program as large as the Dredging Research Program, considerable time is consumed the first year in preparatory activities such as conducting comprehensive literature research; planning, designing, and constructing testing apparatus; acquiring and installing instrumentation; selecting field sites and planning field measurements and tests; and preparing scopes of work and contractural documents for the procurement of university and private sector services and/or equipment. Though the preparatory activities are usually less cost-intensive than the conduct of the related work, they are crucial to an efficient performance of the research that follows. We have found this basic approach to be highly successful in the past. This basic pattern of a steep ramping-up from first to second year funding, reaching a peak in about the third year, and progressively declining in funding thereafter has been found to be the most efficient general way to conduct our large research programs.

Senator JOHNSTON. How do you expect these program costs to change over the next 5 years? Provide a funding profile for the record.

Mr. PAGE. As you know we are requesting $7.4 million in FY 89. Beyond that point, we anticipate reaching our maximum or peak budget request in FY 90 in the amount of $8.3 million. After that the planned budget requests progressively diminish. A funding profile for the Dredging Research Program is provided as follows:

DREDGING RESEARCH PROGRAM FUNDING PROFILE

($1000)

FY 88

FY 89

FY 90

FY 91

FY 92

FY 93

TOTAL

3000

7400

8300

7500

5500

3300

35,000

« PrécédentContinuer »