Mr. EVINS. Here is a summary of what General Koisch has been testifying. Total number of general investigations authorized by Congress is 1,153. That is all that is on the shelf. The committee is very active. People say the Congress doesn't do anything. The Congress does a lot. Some of the bureaus don't move fast enough. Navigation, flood control, and beach erosion studies total 1,089. Comprehensive investigations are 51. I remember we talked about that in 1960. These are the comprehensive studies authorized by Congress, is that right? General KoISCH. Yes, sir. Mr. EVINS. How many of these 51 have been completed? Only one, the Ohio River? Mr. REISLER. Actually, Mr. Chairman, in the framework type studies, which are the broad regional looks, only one has been completed and submitted to the Congress, and that is the Ohio. For the type II's, which are the more detailed subbasin reports there have been three submitted to Congress, and Congress has acted on an authorization report on the Sabine. Mr. EVINS. Of the comprehensive surveys authorized, how many have been completed and submitted to Congress. Mr. REISLER. Actually four have been completed and submitted to Congress. These are the Ohio, Sabine, White and Pascagoula. Mr. EVINS. Of the special studies, 13 have been authorized, and one report has come to Congress. Mr. REISLER. Is it 13? Mr. EVINS. It says 13 in the right-hand column at the top, under reports to Congress. Mr. REISLER. Yes, sir; the one is the Arkansas-Red pollution control study, and that went to Congress. STUDY COSTS Mr. EVINS. Estimated cost of all the 1,153 would be $337 million and the appropriation through 1970 is $142 million. Appropriated in 1971 is $23 million. Required to complete is $171,845,000. Requested in 1972, $28,959,000. That is what you are requesting in all total survey investigation costs. General KoISCH. Yes, sir. Mr. EvINS. It does not include $915,000 for coordinated studies you are going to make for other agencies. Will they reimburse you for those? Mr. REISLER. No, sir; these are for our review of the Department of Agriculture studies of small watersheds, for review of Bureau of Reclamation studies, and similar studies. Mr. EVINS. Why don't you make the Department reimburse you? Mr. REISLER. This is a procedure that has been going on for many years. General KOISCH. They do the same for us on our studies. Mr. EVINS. They make studies for you on a reciprocal basis? Mr. EVINS. That is good. Mr. RHODES. It might be well to discover here if the figure of $337 million includes any expenses by other agencies of the Government in accomplishing any of these surveys which are joint surveys. You do have some I think you are performing with other agencies. Mr. REISLER. Yes, sir; for fish and wildlife studies, for example, we actually budget for them in a lump-sum under the general investigations appropriation. Mr. RHODES. I am thinking of the Colorado Basin. Aren't you working on that with the Bureau of Reclamation? Mr. REISLER. Yes, sir; but each agency funds their own on the comprehensive studies and they are coordinated through the Water Resources Council. Mr. RHODES. So this figure is only the Corps of Engineers' expenditure without regard to the total expenditure of these studies, including money expended by other agencies. Mr. REISLER. That is right. General KOISCH. We have had some in which the first-year costs of the study have been funded through these committees and then the second year funding has been by each agency. FUNDING OF STUDIES Mr. EVINS. Is the corps interested in doing a multiplicity of little studies, or are they interested in making the major comprehensive studies? General KOISCH. I think, sir, we are interested in both. We are finding more and more that the truly major works, if I might put it that way, are much more difficult to bring to fruition than many of the small things that communities need. We are talking of the continuing authorities of the Chief with regard to flood control, beach erosion, navigation. The smaller communities need these relatively small projects. A million dollars is still a lot of money but by comparison with big projects, these come out as a minor amount. We are seeing more and more of the smaller projects coming forth. Mr. EVINS. Do you have too many of these smaller projects that consume the time of your staff? General KOISCH. No, sir; I would put that in a different context. The problem is insufficient moneys to accomplish as many as we would like to. Mr. EVINS. Are you trying to do too many at once? General KOISCH. No, sir; the appropriations for our studies are such that we are doing too few. Mr. REISLER. I think the funding levels on some of them are too low so that we cannot get full productivity on our studies. Mr. EVINS. You are funding many at only $10,000 a year or $15,000? Mr. REISLER. Yes, sir; those are the types I was referring to. Mr. EVINS. You have not had the problem with this committee that you have had with the Bureau of the Budget in letting you have the money. Mr. REISLER. No, sir. Mr. RHODES. We might ask, at this point, if you have any capability beyond the amount which is in the budget. General KOISCH. We will supply that for the record. (The information follows:) It is estimated that the capability above the budget estimate would be about $6 million. General KOISCH. I might note at this point, with regard to the study area in general, the committees have been generous. Mr. EVINS. Reports of the Congress in 1970 were 49, authorizations responded to in 1970 were 80. New authorizations in 1970 were 76. Studies with fiscal 1971 funds, 383. Studies budgeted for 1972, 366. Will you elaborate on those two figures a little more? What do you plan to do and what are you doing? Mr. REISLER. During fiscal year 1971 we had funding for 383 studies. This resulted in some cases that we had completed reports and submitted them to Congress. Others are in their final stages. The 1972 budget has a lesser amount of studies. It is 366. That includes 21 new starts. So, in effect, what we have here is continuing, existing studies that have been going on, plus 21 new ones which we would start in 1972. Mr. EvINS. Your level of activity is about the same as last year. General KOISCH. Yes, sir. Mr. EVINS. Except you emphasize in your testimony the new objects to be evaluated. Mr. REISLER. That is right. Mr. EVINS. Studies not initiated, 385, on the shelf. Mr. REISLER. That is right. Mr. EVINS. Are they inactive? How good are these? How do you evaluate these 385? Mr. REISLER. These are studies that should be active, sir, and there are needs for them. We have some additional studies, about 150 of them, that have been going on for some years and are sort of hanging in limbo there, because there has been a loss of local interest, or projects lack justification or they had some major problems. I would say the 385 that are referred to here are studies that need to proceed. It is just a matter of funding them. Mr. EVINS. Is this the Corps' precise figure as to the total cost of completion of all these studies authorized by Congress? Mr. REISLER. The $54 million is the cost of these that have not started yet, sir. Mr. EVINS. This is the backlog. Mr. REISLER. That is right. Mr. EVINS. Your $337 million is the total estimated cost of all the authorized studies? Mr. REISLER. Yes, sir; and that includes the $54 million. FISCAL YEAR 1972 REQUEST Mr. EVINS. Very good. For 1972 you are asking for $28,959,000 for studies; $17,860,000 for navigation and flood control, and $2,649,000 for comprehensive, and $8,450,000 for special studies. You have a foot note, includes 34 studies on which relatively insignificant amounts totaling $57,900 have been expended in previous years. Did you request additional funds of the Office of Management and Budget? Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir; we did. Mr. EVINS. How much were you cut back? Mr. COHEN. We were cut back approximately 25 percent. We initially asked for about $20 million and we were cut back to about $15 million. Mr. EVINS. You are budgeted for $28,959,000. Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. Mr. EVINS. How much was the total amount you requested? Mr. COHEN. I was talking about the first line there, the general surveys, navigation, flood control, and beach erosion studies. Mr. EVINS. I was talking about the overall first. Mr. COHEN. Total overall we asked for $37 million for all surveys. Mr. EVINS. You got $28,959,000. How much cut is that, Mr. Cohen, not in percentage but in dollars? Mr. COHEN. About $8 million. PORTION OF WORK PERFORMED BY CORPS PERSONNEL Mr. EVINS. To what extent are the studies conducted by corps personnel and to what extent are they performed by contract? General KOISCH. Our principal study efforts are largely accomplished by corps personnel but certain elements of work such as economic base studies, geology, traffic analyses, special environmental studies, preliminary designs, and so forth, may be accomplished under a consultant's contract when the workload in our field offices indicates such action is desirable and the needed expertise is available through such sources. During recent years, contractual services represented about 10 percent of our general investigations expenditures. Mr. EVINS. How are these contracts let, and how does the cost compare to studies that are undertaken by corps personnel? General KOISCH. We maintain files of competent architect-engineer firms and consultants from whom we solicit their interest in performing a specific element of work. We then negotiate with them individually to attempt to reach agreement on the details of work performance and the cost. These are then reviewed by a selection board composed of senior corps officials who have available for comparison a Government estimate for the work involved. Both contractor compliance and price are considered in making the selection. As a general rule contract costs for work of this nature may be expected to be somewhat higher than if accomplished by corps personnel-perhaps 15 to 20 percent higher. Mr. EVINS. Mr. Rhodes, are there any questions on this subject? Mr. EVINS. Mr. Slack? Mr. SLACK. No questions. Mr. EVINS. Mr. Robison, do you have any questions for General Koisch? Mr. ROBISON. On general investigations? Mr. EVINS. Yes. CORPS PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. ROBISON. Yes, I do. General Koisch, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment, continued on page 2 of your prepared statement, that there is a need for greater public involvement in the planning process. I missed a bit of the colloquy you had with the chairman, as I was coming into the room earlier, relative to public hearings. Could you review all that with me a bit? General KOISCH. Our general procedures now during the study phases of the project is that we hold a public hearing immediately after the initial receipt of funds to solve a problem. The first public hearing in effect asks the local people what is the problem, how great is it, what are the details of it, and do you have any recommended solutions for the problem. We then go through the study phases and we attempt to evaluate alternatives. We hold another public hearing in which we show the people the alternatives we have considered and ask for their comments. We finally select a recommended solution to the problem and hold a final public hearing in which we tell them the solution that is going to be recommended to the Congress. Mr. ROBISON. In addition to that, in almost every instance—perhaps in every instance-you do have to obtain approval, do you not, of the project by some municipal entity? General KOISCH. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBISON. So, in a sense, the public gets involved through that process, indirectly at least, because they have some control or influence over the public officials who have to make a decision whether or not to go along with the Corps in building a project or in considering alternative methods for building it. General KOISCH. If I might make a comment at this time which I have made many times before: We have a great deal of trouble in attempting to define just exactly who is the public, if I might put it that way. Mr. ROBISON. We have trouble defining that here sometimes, too. General KOISCH. We have proceeded through the years on the basis that the elected and appointed officials are the representatives of the public regardless of which level you may find them, whether municipal, State, congressional or whatever. We find that in these days of environmental emphasis that the people who are conservation oriented do not really trust the appointed and elected officials to speak for them. This has been one of the surprising things of this involvement in the environment, and we therefore are moving more and more toward being certain that the conservation interests, be they preservationist types or truly oriented conservationists, are involved in this process. They tend to use the judicial route rather than the legislative route to accomplish their ends. Mr. ROBISON. But let us make this clear: The Corps does not object to the new interest on the part of the public-however that word is defined-in the environment, or to the public's concern over the possible environmental effects of whatever project the Corps is considering. In fact, you share those concerns? |